Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. Later I will quote from a speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) made on 22 February, in which he made exactly that point. We must remember why people become refugees and travel here. I thank the right hon. Lady for her support, along with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who I think is a distant cousin—I do not want to land him in any more trouble.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Bill, which follows the Bill introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee. If the Government tell us today that the Bill would provide a pull factor, we should vote against them for that reason alone, because the reality, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, is that people become refugees because of the push factor. We have to support these people, who are fleeing appalling conditions.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have seen a blog post from the Government, under the headline “Bill to reunite refugees with families will make their lives harder”, which is Orwellian doublespeak of the worst kind. Hopefully the Government will think again about the words they have chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made that point well when she talked about the photograph.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Absolutely. Everybody will be a winner if the unnecessary bureaucracy that has been created around this issue is removed, or at least redesigned to help people rather than hinder them. The hon. Lady makes a good point.

I hope that the Government can at least support the provisions on dependent children, because bringing such young people firmly within the rules would have a number of benefits. First, it would give those families that apply to be reunited more certainty that they are eligible. There is no separate family reunion application to be reunited outside of the rules, only the main refugee family application form. The family then has to rely on caseworkers seeing that there are exceptional circumstances and applying their discretion.

For those families who are able to reunite under the discretionary element of the rules, there are further problems when the family member arrives in the UK. Under the main family reunion rules, family members who come to the UK get the same type of leave as the relative they are joining. That means that they are granted five years’ leave to stay in the UK and are then able to access support to help the family to rebuild their lives together, including to ensure that they have suitable housing and enough financial assistance to help them to integrate into their new homes.

Family members reunited outside the rules do not get the same type of leave. They will usually be granted 33 months’ leave to stay and may be subject to restrictions to which someone with refugee status is not, including their not having recourse to public funds.

They face a longer path to resettlement than the family members they are joining. Without support, they can find themselves living in overcrowded accommodation or experiencing homelessness. Therefore, after having quite a traumatic back story, they can find that their current story can be quite difficult as well.

The Bill would allow refugee children to sponsor their closest family members to join them. The UK is one of only two countries in the EU that does not allow children who have been recognised as refugees to have any family reunion rights. That is the crux of the matter, and it is something that we have to change. That is a small piece of what the Bill does. As I said earlier, no, we are not doing enough, but at least we are doing that.

While most countries in the EU are signed up to the family reunion directive, which expressly grants separated children family reunion rights, the UK, along with Denmark and Ireland, did not opt into that directive. However, Ireland amended domestic legislation to allow children to be reunited with their parents and siblings; the UK did not. As a result, the children whom the UK Government recognise as being in need of international protection, accepting that it is unsafe for them to return home, are kept apart from their parents. Young boys and girls, many of whom will have faced untold horrors after fleeing their homes, are left without those who are best placed to support them.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about how other European countries regard this problem. I think that he is saying that every other European country bar Denmark believes that a child refugee should have the right to have their family come and join them in that country. Any argument that the Government make today is an argument that is not accepted in Germany, in France, in Spain, in Italy and in every other European country. Why should the argument be different for the UK?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Some people feel—it is an excuse, actually—that the Bill, if passed, would encourage people to send their children first. I will deal with that point later, but if that was true, it would be happening in all those other countries. Therefore, it is not true at all. Some also throw up the legal aid argument. Legal aid is available in Scotland, so if legal aid was the point, all the refugees of England and Wales would be going to Scotland. People settle in a place for a whole variety of personal or community reasons. Therefore, these things are not primary pushers, but would help refugees in places where they settle, and help all those around them as well.

Energy Prices

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

We have indeed looked at this issue, as my hon. Friend says, and tried to make sure that any differences relate only to the costs associated with the payment method, and that there is no exploitation.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davey]

No, I want to make some progress; I will give way later.

Secondly, I will demonstrate that the Opposition’s proposed new regulations would be bad regulations, resulting in higher prices for consumers, not lower. I am not against regulations where they work better than competition, but Labour’s proposed regulations, involving wholesale-retail price links, would produce yo-yo pricing and higher pricing, and consumers do not want either.

The first part of my argument is that consumers benefit most from increasing competition in energy markets, and not from introducing bad regulation. It is interesting to note that Labour used to agree with competitive energy markets. Back in 2002, under Labour, all gas and electricity price controls were abolished. The argument supported by the Labour Government at the time was that the gas and electricity markets had become more competitive and that regulation was no longer needed. When the present Leader of the Opposition became Energy Secretary of State in 2008, he continued to back a policy of no additional price regulation, even though it was already becoming clear that the big six energy firms created under Labour were not producing the competitive outcomes that Labour had said it wanted. So clear were the problems in the market that there were calls for an investigation of that market by the independent competition authorities. Those calls for an inquiry were rejected by Labour—specifically by the present Leader of the Opposition. Worse still, not only did he reject a competition inquiry, but he took no significant action to improve competition for consumers. Interestingly, he also took no action to reintroduce price regulation. He just did nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about problems in the market. May I draw to his attention a problem that I have already raised with his Department, when the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) was a Minister there? In the islands of Scotland, we pay a higher price per unit of electricity than people on the mainland and in London. We are also penalised by the locational charging for renewable energy. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks was going to look into whether renewable energy produced in the islands could be considered as consumption in the local domestic market, and into the possibility of reducing the charging either way.

[Mr Davey]

I am aware of some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He knows that the rest of Great Britain helps with some of those prices, through subsidy schemes paid for by every consumer in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have helped to support those schemes. He might be interested to know that I am going to Edinburgh tomorrow to talk about how we can help with wind power on the islands. We have to get the power there first, before we can take up the policy that he is proposing.

As I was saying, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was doing my job, he did nothing. That is in sharp contrast with what has happened since the coalition came to power. We have been hyperactive in reforming our retail energy markets with a whole host of initiatives from deregulation to Ofgem’s retail review, from making energy bills simpler to making switching faster, from the MyData initiative to regulating for quick response codes on bills, and from collective switching to the Big Energy Saving Network. The result of our reforming actions is that competition has improved. Indeed, it has increased quite dramatically and I shall give the House the figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

Indeed. I was going on to respond to the right hon. Lady’s third question, because a host of deals are available across the country. I would have thought Labour Front Benchers wanted to support these deals and tell people about them and how people can switch and save money—if they really cared. For example, a year ago in London there was not a single deal in the market where the average household could get its annual supply of electricity and gas for less than £1,000, whereas today, because prices have been coming down, 13 deals offer the average household an annual dual fuel bill of less than £1,000.

I still want to do more. I am going to continue to fight for consumers every day that I hold this office, in stark contrast to the record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Energy and Climate Change Secretary. The exciting news is that our competition from the smaller suppliers, which is taking huge numbers of customers from the big six, is now forcing the big six to act, too. Last autumn, the time when energy prices are normally put up, the big six froze them—without any regulation and without Labour’s price freeze. Yesterday, E.ON went further, cutting its variable gas tariff by 3.5%. Some have dismissed that cut as being only 3.5%, noting that gas wholesale prices fell by nearly 18% across 2014 and saying that the cut is too small. Let us look at what E.ON said. First, it notes that wholesale costs are 46% of the bill, so of course retail costs will not go down as fast as wholesale costs in any case, unless all costs, such as network and administration costs also fell by the same as wholesale costs—this observation is called arithmetic. Secondly, Tony Cocker, E.ON’s chief executive officer, has said:

“Given the possibility of a price freeze, we are undoubtedly taking a risk today”.

So we have to ask: if E.ON did not face the risk of Labour’s price freeze, would it have cut its prices even more?

Perhaps the Labour party does not want to listen to industry leaders, even the ones who are cutting prices, but the same point is being made by consumer champions. For example, Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com has warned that energy firms are not cutting their prices, even though they would like to, because they fear being locked in by a Labour price freeze that would make them suffer losses. Consumer champion—[Interruption.] Not a vested interest. Consumer champion Ann Robinson of uSwitch has speculated that the prospect of Labour’s price freeze could be to blame for the big six delaying cuts in standard prices.

Of course, there may be other explanations for the delay in the big six passing on the costs. When the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job, he explained that it was about energy companies buying their electricity and gas forward—hedging—to protect consumers. After a summit with energy firms—he was very good at having summits, after which no policy changes were announced—he said:

“We have recently seen big falls in wholesale gas and electricity prices, but I understand that because energy companies tend to buy in advance they won't be passed on immediately.”

One is tempted to ask: what has changed? Why did he do nothing when he could but now, months before an election, claim he has found an answer?

Whatever the cause, I welcome the fact that E.ON has not only cut its standard variable gas tariff, but is offering a fixed-price deal at just £923 for the average household. I want the other big energy firms to follow suit, but we will not need a regulation for that to happen. I confidently predict that competition will force the other large energy firms to cut prices, or they will continue to lose customers in droves to competitors—that is competition. Indeed, I am very confident that we will soon see more energy firms cutting their prices and offering even better deals.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being very generous. He has talked about fighting for consumers. What will he do for consumers in rural and island areas, who are paying more per unit of electricity than those in big cities and doing so in areas that also have higher fuel poverty? He is in power at the moment, so what can he do?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is clear that there is a lot more fuel poverty in rural areas than was previously known about. When we redid the way we analyse fuel poverty figures, because the measures we inherited from the previous Government were not measuring fuel poverty very well—the Queen was in fuel poverty under their approach—we discovered that those in rural areas were suffering some of the worst fuel poverty. That is why we are changing some of our policies. I have some good news for him, because the falling oil prices have meant heating oil prices have dropped, too. That is good news for some people in rural areas who depend on heating oil, as it is at prices last seen in 2009. I know that that is not the full answer, but I hope it at least shows some welcome signs.

Let us just examine why our extra competition appears to be resulting in better deals and lower prices from the new entrants. There is now greater diversity in how firms buy forward, and with many different firms we are seeing different hedging strategies, new business models, new purchasing strategies and innovation. It looks like that is enabling many people to benefit from lower wholesale prices now. But despite that progress, the Opposition have turned their back on successful competition.

Energy Markets Competition Assessment

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am pleased that the competition assessment is focusing on vertical integration, because I think that it needs to be looked at. Ofgem proposed the introduction of a market making obligation because it wanted to tackle some of its concerns about vertical integration. However, the consultation document states:

“We recognise that there are benefits to vertical integration in terms of cost efficiency…and in terms of supporting investment to maintain security of supply. However there are also costs in terms of barriers to entry.”

The report is balanced, and, unlike the Labour party, has not rushed into making a judgment. Everything cannot be the fault of vertical integration. The gas market is not vertically integrated, but I believe that there are serious problems related to competition in the domestic gas supply market.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Any review of the energy market is welcome, but yesterday, referring to nuclear power, Scottish and Southern Energy said

“the deal which the UK government has reached with EDF”

—the French energy giant—

“over the construction of two reactors at Hinkley Point…will add considerable costs to consumer energy bills for 35 years.”

Will the “full market investigation” cover the cost of nuclear power and its effect on comprehensive spending review bills, and if not, why not?

[Mr Davey]

The investigation will not deal with that, because it involves policy on the generation mix. A mixed, diverse source of low-carbon energy is the best way in which to protect the consumer. There are Members of Parliament and, no doubt, many people outside who know the future—who have a crystal ball and know what the various technology costs will be in the 2020s. Perhaps SSE has a crystal ball; perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a crystal ball, but I do not. I have created a framework in which there is competition between technologies, and I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed.

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Our policies will work. We know that because they are working. We are getting the supplies and switching.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

Grangemouth Refinery

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

The Government have looked at all aspects of critical national infrastructure—not just in the petrochemical sector, but across the piece—to make sure that, in the face of a whole series of potential disruptions to critical national infrastructure, whether industrial action or natural causes, critical national infrastructure is available for our country, economy and people.

We have had the most comprehensive review of policy to ensure that CNI is available. I apologise, but I am not sure what the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who is leading that, has published on it. However, he is leading that work and it is extremely thorough.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Is what has happened not a puzzling action to take about what many feel is in reality a money-making petrochemical plant? Does the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, that the Grangemouth site has a positive future?

[Mr Davey]

I certainly believe that it can have a positive future. We need the investment to go in; the Scottish Government will offer the maximum they are able to, £9 million, as part of regional assistance support if investment does go in. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the plant has a positive future.

Petrol Prices

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s questions, and I pay tribute to the way he has campaigned on this issue. He has made a big impact in the House and we have reacted to his campaigns with respect to fuel duty—something the Labour party never did. The OFT is a strong, independent body. It has powers and carried out its investigation. It received a call for information and it is responding to that. It made some warnings. As my hon. Friend knows, it was concerned about a number of areas, not least the transparency of petrol and diesel prices at motorway service stations, which I referred to in my statement. I know that as a result of that, my hon. Friend—indeed, the whole House—will be concerned to ensure that any evidence is put before the European Commission and the UK competition authorities. If any Members of the House or members of the public have such information, I call on them to pass it to the competition authorities.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

My constituents in the Hebrides have felt ripped off by the highest fuel prices in the UK for years, and shockingly we now hear of raids associated with suspected price fixing on huge oil companies—household names. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there are any fines, they are passed on to hard-pressed motorists who might have been ripped off, so that my constituents in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Barra, and everybody else’s constituents, can feel the benefits of any justice? Do these events not call for a review of the OFT’s methodology?

[Mr Davey]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman, and all right hon. and hon. Members, to realise that these are very early days in the investigation. These are allegations only and we should not jump the gun. As he knows, because the allegations are so serious, both UK and European law allows competition authorities to levy serious fines—dependent, obviously, on the particular transgression—should a company be found guilty. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, but he can be reassured that there are powers to levy heavy fines.

Energy Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We need to pass this Energy Bill if Britain is to have a credible and ambitious energy and climate change policy. The Bill represents both a practical and a radical approach to reforming our electricity market. It is essential if we are to deliver on our three objectives for energy and climate change policy—namely, secure energy that is affordable and clean—yet I believe the Bill offers the country much more than a better energy policy. With our current economic difficulties, as we along with many other nations strive to ignite sustainable growth, this Bill offers a significant opportunity to stimulate the sort of infrastructure investment that our country desperately needs, for both the short and long term. We estimate that an enormous £110 billion of energy infrastructure investment is needed between now and the end of the decade in low-carbon energy generation and the grid network.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

What hope, assurances or promise can the Secretary of State give to those wishing to engage in renewable energy generation in the Hebrides that the infrastructure will reach the Hebrides? Will the interconnector come?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I set up a group to look at this issue, which has got together with the councils from the various islands, officials from my Department and others. We must await its work. I know he welcomed it at the time and I am sure that he, too, will await its work with patience.

This is not just an energy Bill; it is a growth Bill. I believe it can lead to new jobs in every region and nation of our country. If right hon. and hon. Members vote for this Energy Bill, they will be voting to give the British economy the long-term boost it needs.

Cost of Living

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I have been looking at the financial arrangements of the green deal. When we are able to announce even more details than we have already, I believe that people will see that it is a very attractive offer. I also believe that there are many low-income households that will actually welcome the rate of credit that will be asked through the green deal, compared with some of the rates of credit that they have to pay other lenders.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I will not give way, because I want to make some progress and address the Queen’s Speech.

We need to make dramatic changes to our energy policies in the longer term. The right hon. Member for Don Valley said, in a rather bizarre passage towards the end of her speech, that we were not really reforming the electricity market—but we are making the biggest reform of the electricity market since privatisation. It is the sort of reform that Labour Members failed to get their head around and failed to deliver, despite 13 years in power.

There are huge challenges for our electricity market, with 20% of our power plants coming offline during the next decade. There is an energy security issue. We will have to ensure that the infrastructure is brought forward in the most competitive way, otherwise there will be a big impact on bills. We will have to attract more than £110 billion of investment in a way that ensures that low-carbon technology can be introduced, so that we can meet our carbon budgets. That is a heck of a challenge, and this Government have developed the policies to meet it.

If we do not act now, we estimate that by the mid-2020s up to 2.5 million households will be affected by blackouts, costing the economy more than £100 million a year. Even without interruptions to supply, our consumers would be exposed to volatile global energy markets if we did not do anything. Wholesale energy costs already make up half of the average consumer bill. Last year, the winter gas price was 40% higher than the year before. That is the real reason why bills have been going up so dramatically. We have to act and make the strategic changes to tackle that issue.

[Mr MacNeil]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) about road fuel, what stage are the Government at in introducing a fair fuel regulator, which was much talked about while the two coalition parties were in opposition?

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). May I, laser beam-like and briefly, focus on the amendments?

Amendment 3 talks about the independent oversight group. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seemed to misunderstand what the group is about. It is about providing the appropriate challenge to the evidence and methodologies to ensure that they are robust. Amendment 3, which would dispense with the independent oversight group entirely, would be a retrograde step. The Committee welcomed the way in which we had approached the issue of the oversight group.

The amendments that seek to change the membership of the group misunderstand the role of the group. They seek to suggest that it is about representation, when it is not. Trying to confine it to academics only would be a mistake. There might be an appropriate expert who might not be described as an academic. I hope the House will understand that the oversight group is formed in the right way with the right terms of reference. I am surprised that Members want to amend the terms of reference to make them more prescriptive, because that could narrow them down.

Members have talked about the faith impact. Amendment 95 is not needed, because it is clear that this is one of the qualitative potential effects that the report would look at. To reassure hon. Members further, I can say that specific legal provision requiring that the impact on faith communities be considered is unnecessary because the Secretary of Sate is subject to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. So, in preparing the report and taking a view on whether to exercise the powers for a trial, the Secretary of Sate would be required under that duty to take into account the impact that a change might have on people of a particular faith and, indeed, on other people with protected characteristics.

[Mr MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to speak so quickly that it is hard for him to be understood?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister how quickly he speaks. We do not place a limit on how fast or how slowly Ministers speak, and thank goodness for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I admire the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s headlong enthusiasm, but we must reflect before plunging ourselves into 15 months of misery. It can be seriously argued that the change in the late ’60s and early ’70s cost lives, because the rate of road accident deaths did not go down as quickly during that period as it did in subsequent years. If I have to repeat myself again and again before that is understood, I will do so. If we disregard such a serious fact and run to a trial, surely we are putting people in danger.

[Mr Davey]

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman make the point several times about road safety in Scotland. Is he aware that the road safety officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in Scotland has stated on the record that it would welcome such a study?

[Mr MacNeil]

Many people would welcome the study for a number of reasons, and that organisation would welcome it because it would enable it to get the data. I am just saying that it looks as if the period for getting the data would itself be dangerous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is a danger that we will be distracted from the more important road safety issues if we imagine that the extra hour is a panacea. The measures that he mentions are probably far more important than the light at a particular hour, which is distracting far too many people when there are safety measures that need to be used.

I am struck by the fact that road deaths fell by 300 between the winter of 2009 and the winter of 2010-11. Had the moves in the previous Parliament to have lighter evenings during the winter succeeded, a causal link would have been drawn between the lighter evenings and the drop in deaths. As we now know, that reduction in deaths happened anyway, with darker evenings. It is dangerous to make assumptions and links between lighter evenings and deaths on the roads, particularly as the rate of deaths decreased immediately after the study of the late 1960s and the ’70s. Perhaps that study delayed the rate of the decrease.

I move back to energy. The data used to support the changes seem to have a serious flaw. The campaign’s main source of data is 24 studies on the effect of lighter evenings. Of those 24, only six were empirical studies and the rest were simulations. The paper examining them found that 15 studies concluded that there were energy savings. Of those 15, approximately two were empirical studies and 10 were simulations. The odd thing about the simulations is that they showed savings of 0.2% and 2%, and another study showed a saving of 0%. Surely a 0% saving could also be called a 0% loss. The information that we have from Indiana, Portugal and elsewhere shows that energy would be lost, not saved, if the change was made, and there would not be safety gains.

As for tourism, my amendment suggesting that the studies be carried out in November would ensure that it could not benefit from another month of “lighter later”. That would be a perfect compromise for many of us who need to find consensus, extend an olive branch and find middle ground. I fear that an all-or-nothing campaign would yield exactly nothing.

[Mr Davey]

These amendments address the role of the devolved Administrations, and I therefore think it would assist the debate if I explained how the Bill’s provisions would affect the devolution settlements.

The subject of time zones is devolved in respect of Northern Ireland but reserved in respect of Scotland and Wales. However, as I have said before, the Government believe that the issue requires UK-wide consensus. The Government will consult the Welsh and Scottish Governments fully on any proposed trial or any proposal to make a trial permanent. The Government would not expect to proceed with a trial if, following those consultations, there was clear opposition from any part of the country.

While we are on the subject of devolution I will say that I believe there may have been some confusion in Committee about the position regarding legislative consent motions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Such a motion is required in respect of this Bill, not in respect of a daylight saving order. The motion is required before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. We approached the Northern Ireland Administration about taking the matter forward, and the Government’s continued support for the Bill depends upon the legislative consent motion being passed in due course. That will have no effect on the Bill’s provision requiring the agreement of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, which reflects the point that time is devolved in respect of Northern Ireland.

As I said, the position of the Bill reflects the devolution settlement. Consultation with the devolved Executives is common, and it is appropriate in this instance. It would allow for discussion to take place on the issues involved and on any concerns. Moreover, the devolved Governments are accountable to their legislatures.

[Mr MacNeil]

The Minister and I discussed this matter back and forward at some length in Committee. Given the measures that he is outlining, would it be possible for the Government here in Westminster to override the wishes of the Scottish Government?

[Mr Davey]

We have made it clear that that is not our intention, and that we will listen to all parts of the United Kingdom. We would not expect to proceed if there were clear opposition from other parts of the UK. The devolved Governments may wish to put the matter before their Parliament or Assembly, but that would be a matter for them. For that reason, we think that amendment 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), is inappropriate. We consider it a matter for the devolved Administrations.

On amendments 16 and 17, my hon. Friend talked about changing the dates of summer time, but I have dealt with those issues in previous debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

No.

The Bill also provides for the devolved Executives to be consulted about any proposals to increase the trial period, and their views will be fully taken into account. The power to lengthen the trial will be available from the date of the report, and if the report indicated that a longer trial was necessary, that power could be exercised to lengthen the trial before the devolved Executives gave their view on whether to have a trial. That means that they would know then about the trial’s expected length, so the amendment that suggests otherwise misses the point.

Asking for reports from the First Ministers, as proposed in amendment 38, is neither necessary nor appropriate. The Secretary of State will monitor the effects of the order for the whole country, and is the person best placed to do so, but the First Ministers would, of course, be welcome to submit anything that they might wish for the Secretary of State to consider. It would not be appropriate for the House, through this Bill, to require any report from the First Ministers or to impose any costs on them. After all, they are devolved Administrations.

[Mr MacNeil]

Would the devolved Administrations have full access to the data on which the report was based? Furthermore, we are getting Government policy from the Minister but I would be much more comfortable if it was written into the Bill.

[Mr Davey]

Of course, the devolved Administrations will have access to the report and the data on which it was based. That is how the Government have approached the whole issue. We have worked hard to get consensus at this stage, because we want consensus at all stages. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that assurance. I have checked the record of the Committee stage, and it appears that I made it clear on no fewer than 13 separate occasions that the Government would not expect to carry out a trial or make any change if there was clear opposition from any part of the country. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and other right hon. and hon. Members. It is clear that we want consensus.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), because in my many discussions with her during the past few weeks she has shown a huge amount of knowledge and passion about this issue, and enthusiasm for it, and she displayed that again when she opened this Second Reading debate.

This has been a well-argued, serious and good-natured debate. We have heard different voices from different parts of the United Kingdom; we heard from representatives of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Cornwall, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Castle Point because until I knew that I had to deal with her Bill I had not realised that I was a Minister of time—perhaps I should have done, given that the former Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, was known as the “prince of darkness.” Obviously, I have had to get to grips with these issues.

Concerns have been raised in the media about this change. Reference has been made to a certain Peter Hitchens during our debate, as has the idea that somehow we would be adopting Berlin time. So I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who have rechristened the idea “Churchill time”. That is not only a positive reference to the wartime coalition, but a reference to the great man’s membership of both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

As the hon. Member for Castle Point said, the subject of this Bill is a perennial issue, which has been debated and discussed often in this House and elsewhere. However, it seems that this time those who wish to effect this change have done some excellent research and have mobilised their arguments very effectively. I shall begin by briefly summarising the Government’s position. I agree with the hon. Lady that some of the arguments put forward for lighter evenings are compelling. Evidence would indeed appear to suggest that there could be an overall reduction in the number of road accidents and fatalities, and there could be benefits for some business sectors, particularly those most reliant on trade with other parts of the European Union. In addition, recent studies suggest a possible positive impact on energy usage and, as a result, carbon emissions.

However, we entirely appreciate that the arguments do not all point in the same direction. There are concerns about the longer, darker winter mornings that would result: much is said about the impacts in northern parts of the UK, but a change would mean delaying dawn in mid-winter even in London until after 9 o’clock, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has pointed out.

[Mr MacNeil]

I want to challenge the argument that there would be a carbon saving, because empirical studies show the exact opposite: more electricity would be used on the darker mornings and power consumption would increase by between 1% and 4%.

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I shall assess that issue and put both sides of the argument because we must have a balanced approach to this important debate.

I have also heard arguments about the disadvantages of very late light evenings in summer. Experience of a similar change in Portugal suggested problems with children’s sleep patterns and some have suggested there could be implications for antisocial behaviour. In other areas, the case remains unproven. I think that the hon. Member for Castle Point would accept that it is unclear whether there would be a positive impact on crime rates and general public health. Some of the claims about the extremely positive impact for specific sectors would no doubt benefit from closer scrutiny.

Against that background, it is not surprising that opinion remains divided. People’s views depend significantly on where they live, what they do for a living and whether they enjoy outdoor pursuits. Also relevant are personal preferences such as whether one is a morning person or not. I am not sure whether you are a morning person, Mr Deputy Speaker—you are shaking your head. One thing we remain convinced about, which must lead us to oppose the Bill, is that we cannot make this change unless we have consensus throughout the United Kingdom. That has recently been made clear by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion.

We must acknowledge that the change would have widely differing impacts on day-to-day life in different parts of the UK. They would be particularly acute in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where it would not get light in mid-winter until nearly 10 am in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast; in Lerwick in the Shetland islands, it would not get light until 10.8 am on new year’s eve. Although hon. Members have spoken of changes in public opinion in Scotland, it is clear that much opinion understandably remains against the proposal.

The case is particularly difficult in Northern Ireland and I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who approached the debate in a considered and objective way. As she said, unless the Republic of Ireland also made the change, there would be additional cross-border complications. These issues would need further consideration and careful prior consultation with the Irish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I should say that I do not intend to speak for too long, if that encourages my hon. Friend to retake his seat.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Davey]

On getting home before it gets dark?

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not the intervention of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) an example of such a speedy, kamikaze, headlong and blinkered rush into an inevitable period of repentance? I urge the Minister to inform the House as he is doing, of matters regarding Portugal, which I certainly did not know about, and please to continue.

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for that, but my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) always goes about things in a calm, balanced and measured way.

There was also evidence, gathered by the Portuguese Government at the time, that people’s mental health suffered, and there was an increase in the sales of tranquilisers and sleeping tablets as many people, like their children, were unable to get enough sleep. Information from insurance companies indicated that there was a rise in road traffic claims, rather than the reverse, and the Portuguese Government decided that the disadvantages outweighed the benefits, so they went back to Greenwich mean time. Their view was that there was nothing to prevent any business that traded internationally or throughout Europe from starting their operations earlier if they wanted to, but that there was no need to inconvenience the whole population on their behalf.

So, we have had two experiments in different countries which were both abandoned not necessarily for the same reasons, but because on the whole more of the population found that the change affected their lives for the worse, rather than for the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I am not going to give way. I want to make some progress, and then I shall take some interventions.

Of course, much of the reason for the vote against the change was that the residents did not wish to be in a different time zone from the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has to be said that farmers in Jersey were among the most vociferous opponents of a move to central European time.

Let us consider the detailed arguments that have been put forward today, starting with the arguments on energy saving and climate change. Apart from the general attractiveness of lighter evenings, one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of moving the clocks forward is to save energy. One reason why I came into politics was to push forward the green agenda, and like most people I think that any change that might contribute to saving energy and reducing our carbon output needs to be considered carefully.

I have looked particularly closely at the evidence on that issue, because it is not totally one-sided. The report for the 10:10 Lighter Later campaign quoted studies by Cambridge university that suggested that darker evenings produce a 2.2% increase in demand for electricity in the late afternoon and early evening, which requires the use of the most expensive supply source provided by inefficient power stations that have to be brought on line to cope with the demand. The studies also suggested that a reduction in CO₂ emissions of 1.2 million tonnes could be achieved during the six winter months, which is the equivalent of removing 20,000 cars from our roads over the same period.

However, a recent response from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to the Energy and Climate Change Committee pointed out that energy saving benefits are far from clear-cut. It concluded that although we might expect overall energy use to be reduced by extending British summer time, the effects are likely to be small. The most significant effect would be the switch of lighting demand from the evening to the morning. Although, on the one hand, the working day would be more aligned with natural daylight, leading to a reduction in demand, there are other factors, not least that households may be more likely to turn lights on when it is dark than off when it is light. Energy use might therefore increase due to people leaving lights on after switching them on because of the darker mornings. Although evening peak electricity may flatten or reduce, evening peaks between Britain and France may become more aligned, which would have implications for prices and security of supply in situations of low generation capacity margin.

Finally on this issue, a study in 1990 by Paul Littlefair, the project leader for the Building Research Establishment’s programme of daylight research, concluded that the introduction of single/double summer time would lead to extra lighting energy costs, probably to the tune of £10 million a year. We should remember that Portugal ended its experiment with central European time because the small energy savings could not justify the inconvenience that the change created.

In this area, as in others, the evidence is not clear-cut. However, the importance of the climate change agenda means that even relatively small savings are worth while. As I am a firm believer in that agenda, I believe that we should consider this matter seriously.

I shall turn to the arguments regarding business and trade. One of the major arguments for the 1960s experiment of moving to British standard time was that it would be far easier to do business with our European neighbours, which would have positive impacts on our economy and prosperity. The European Union remains our largest trading partner, but since 1970 the world has changed and is now almost unrecognisable. We now have a Union of 27 member states over three time zones, whereas previously the UK was trying to join a common market of six countries all in the same time zone. At that time, the population and the Government were interested in tapping into the prosperity that access to that market could bring.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I want to make some progress, because I have an important announcement to make to the House.

The Republic of Ireland is one of our most important EU trading partners—we trade more with southern Ireland than with Brazil, Russia, India and China. That is partly for historical reasons and partly because many multinational companies have their headquarters there. Sadly, it has taken the recent banking crisis in Ireland for us to remember how important our trade with Ireland is. There would be concerns in that regard if we harmonised our time with the European mainland, because we would be unharmonising it from the Republic of Ireland.

What of the large proportion of our business that is not conducted with the EU? Who would benefit and who would be the losers? Companies trading with the far east might benefit, while those trading with the USA might not. Once again, we realise that there is no right answer and that compromises must be made.