Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong with his statistics. More than 445,000 green deal assessments have taken place, and our evidence shows that over 70%—[Interruption]—over 70% of those people having assessments go on to install measures or intend to install measures. That is far more than the hon. Gentleman talks about. For the benefit of the House, let me clarify that the figures he used relate to people who have gone through the system and used green deal finance—only one part of the green deal. Green deal assessment is a key part: it has been working and it has played forward to enable us to meet our target for insulating 1 million homes four months ahead of schedule.

[Joan Walley]

I ask the Secretary of State to revisit the figures. He is making great play of them, but 80% fewer people had energy efficiency schemes last year in comparison with 2011-12. Rather than just trade figures, is it not time that the Secretary of State really looked at putting energy efficiency at the heart of his energy investment infrastructure policy?

[Mr Davey]

Let me reassure the hon. Lady that energy efficiency is at the heart of our policies. That is why we have managed to achieve our 1 million target early, and why I have put forward legislation for the private rented sector, which I hoped the hon. Lady would welcome. She might be interested to know that today John Alker, acting chief executive officer of the UK Green Building Council said:

“This could be the single most significant piece of legislation to affect our existing building stock in a generation”.

I am proud that this Government have introduced that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to increase the UK’s energy security.

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

We have taken a number of measures to ensure the security of the UK’s energy supply, including introducing new electricity system balancing measures. Our recent national gas risk assessment demonstrated that our gas infrastructure is resilient. In the autumn, I will publish the statutory security of supply report for 2014, which will provide a further assessment of our energy security, and set out my response to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets’ recent electricity capacity report. We have also engaged closely with EU and G7 partners on measures to increase the EU’s energy security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The UK imports very little gas from Russia. We have the most liquid and resilient gas markets in the whole of the European Union, but of course we are not complacent. We have been working at the EU to ensure not only that we check resilience of our gas supplies but that our EU colleagues are able to ensure their energy security. This is an EU measure which is very important for the whole of the European Union.

[Joan Walley]

One of the best things that the Secretary of State can do for continued investment is to bring forward the 2030 decarbonisation target to give long-term certainty to investors.

There is a particular issue with regard to gas and gas storage, which is impacting on ceramic manufacturers. Now that we have a new Minister, who is at the Department of Energy and Climate Change and at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and National Grid has announced that it has brought forward the supplemental balancing reserve tender, which will put even greater pressure on energy suppliers and security this winter, it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State reconsiders his Department’s stance on gas storage. We urgently need a change of policy on extra gas storage.

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady knows that we legislated to introduce a decarbonisation target for 2030 in the Energy Act 2013. She also knows that my party strongly supported that.

We looked at gas storage in huge detail to see whether there was a case for Government intervention, but we found that an awful lot of gas storage was being built with more modern technology, which means that the gas can be produced and brought into the pipeline network much more quickly. We have looked at that matter in detail and we do not intend to review it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am interested to hear about the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. If he writes to me giving the details, we shall be able to look into the issue. He may also wish to send those details to the independent authorities which are conducting the competition assessment. We have deregulated the energy markets to reduce barriers to entry to the market, but we want to do more.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the launch today of the fourth GLOBE international climate legislation study, which shows how many more national Governments are taking urgent action to deal with climate change? Given the importance of the climate change debate, will he return to the issue of the review of the fourth carbon budget? Will he recognise that if the United Kingdom and Europe want to continue to take a leading role in climate change negotiations, it makes no sense to have that review now?

[Mr Davey]

I do welcome the publication of the climate legislation study. The United Kingdom, including many parliamentarians throughout the House, has played a leading role in encouraging other countries to enact climate change legislation, and it is encouraging to see how many have responded. I pay tribute to the Members involved, particularly the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

I cannot add anything to the answer I gave earlier about the fourth carbon budget review, which is currently under way. When we published the fourth carbon budget, it was decided that a review would take place at this time, and I cannot prejudice its outcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I agree that there should be a power sector decarbonisation target for 2030. That is why the Government are legislating so that a decarbonisation target range can be set in 2016, once the fifth carbon budget has been set. When that target has been set, we believe it will be the world’s first such legally binding decarbonisation target.

[Joan Walley]

I am interested to hear that the Secretary of State agrees with me. We have all-party support for the Climate Change Act 2008, a recommendation from the Committee on Climate Change that the target for clean power should be set now, rather than later, and a Bill going through Parliament that could get rid of all the uncertainty. By delaying this decision until 2016, is he not simply creating greater investor uncertainty, risking green jobs and kowtowing to the Chancellor?

[Mr Davey]

I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Lady, now that she has told people that she will not be standing at the next election. She has been a doughty champion of green issues in the House. However, I do not believe that this short delay of two years will have the impact that she describes. She should remember that we have the EU 2020 targets for energy efficiency, renewables and emissions; the Climate Change Act, with the carbon budgets running up to 2027; and the Energy Bill which provides the most secure framework, the levy control framework going up to 2020, and industrial strategies. This country is arguing for the most ambitious 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target of any EU member state. It is just not true that investors think that this Government are not committed to this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

At 9 o’clock this morning, npower announced that 1,460 jobs are to be outsourced to India, and in addition that there will be 550 job losses in Stoke-on-Trent. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the last straw, given the totally irresponsible behaviour of the energy companies? What will he and his colleagues consider doing in order to provide jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, which the Government have so far failed to do? We do not have a local enterprise zone. We need a joined-up approach from this Government.

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. The announcement is obviously very worrying for all the people involved, not just in her constituency, but in other parts of the country. We will work across the Government to see what we can do to help the people affected.

UK Nuclear Energy Programme

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I was agreeing with a lot of what my hon. Friend said. I say to her and to all right hon. and hon. Members that we need a diverse energy mix. If we go for one form of electricity generation, that is far too risky. We need nuclear; we need renewables in all their shapes, forms and sizes; we need carbon capture and storage; and we need energy efficiency. The electricity security challenge is massive, and we need every aspect. The low-carbon challenge is massive, and we need everything to be low-carbon. Onshore wind has a role to play along with nuclear.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given that the Government have stated that the two really important conditions are value for money and no public subsidy, will the Secretary of State set out how all the details of the negotiations will now be made available to the National Audit Office so that Parliament can scrutinise them? If there is an overrun in construction or time delays, how will the £10 billion loan guarantee work? Will it be a taxpayer grant or a grant for Chinese and other companies?

[Mr Davey]

I have already made it clear to the House that this is going to be the most transparent deal ever. When my ministerial colleagues discussed the issue with Labour Front Benchers during the proceedings on the Energy Bill, we did not undertake to do what we are doing today. We are being more transparent than we promised. We have said that when the final investment contract is signed, we will publish it, and we have committed to that in the Bill. There will be very evident transparency not only on value for money and no public subsidy but an awful lot more. Of course, because we have not concluded the commercial negotiation, there are one or two commercial issues that we will not be publishing at this point, but there will be an awful lot more to see when we come to signing the final investment contract. As for cost overruns, I have made it clear to the House that by negotiating a tough deal, we have ensured that the consumer is protected from those. That did not happen in the past. We have seen cost overruns in nuclear projects time and again, and I was determined that that would not happen this time.

Hinkley Point

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given that the announcement today is about planning, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the European Commission on whether the proposed financing will contravene state aid rules? It comes down to whether or not it is public subsidy.

[Mr Davey]

We have had some preliminary discussions with the European Commission, but given that we have not completed final negotiations with EDF, there is nothing for us to allow the Commission to analyse for state aid purposes. However, we will do so in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a disproportionate number of people in fuel poverty and a high reliance on intensive energy use, on which a great number of jobs depend. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the city deal bid that is being made by Stoke-on-Trent and the local enterprise partnership for investment based on energy will be the subject of an urgent ministerial meeting to ensure that the proposals are not stalled?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Officials are working closely on the bid, although obviously I cannot prejudge the decision.

Fuel Poverty and Energy Efficiency

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am coming to the Warm Front scheme, because the right hon. Member for Don Valley made much of the fact that we are closing it down. Under the previous Government, the Warm Front scheme was the vehicle by which some vulnerable households were helped, but we consider the scale of the fuel poverty challenge to be much greater, and, as she has admitted, there were problems with the scheme. We are far more ambitious, because fuel poverty must be tackled and Britain has some of the oldest and, therefore, draughtiest, housing stock in Europe. If we are serious about climate change and tackling high energy bills, we should not help just those who are at risk of fuel poverty, although they should of course be a priority. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to green-proof their house and achieve lower energy bills in the process.

Warm Front will be closing, as announced more than two years ago, but applications will continue to be accepted up to 19 January, and the work will be followed through, for all who apply up to 19 January. I have set out to the House today in a written statement how that transition will work. Even before 19 January, we brought in Warm Front’s successor—the affordable warmth scheme, which the right hon. Lady did not mention, and which is part of our new energy company obligation. Affordable warmth is up and operating, and low-income households who previously could get Warm Front can now get affordable warmth. It and the energy company obligation, which are both now in operation, will support our most ambitious policy of all—the green deal.

This is a transformative moment. We shall see the full launch of the green deal this month. From 28 January, all households will be eligible for it. They will be able to make energy-saving improvements that will be paid for, over time, through their energy bills and the savings that they make. This is an affordable way of retrofitting millions of homes, making them cheaper to heat and lowering carbon emissions at the same time.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley rightly wanted to talk about Warm Front and the details of its budget. I shall deal with that now, although she herself admitted that there will problems with Warm Front. As she said, we have spent £38.4 million of the £100 million budget, and £15.5 is committed. We expect to spend about £70 million by the end of the year. We will not return the remaining £30 million to the Treasury, as the right hon. Lady implied, because we want to do all that we can to address fuel poverty, and we have worked hard to ensure that the money is spent on tackling it, organising a local authority competition for cash from a special fuel poverty fund. I told the House yesterday that about £30 million was being provided for local authorities across the country to spend on local energy efficiency projects for low-income and vulnerable households. There will be no waste. As it comes to the end of its life, Warm Front is being recycled, and what is replacing it is infinitely better.

Opposition Members seem to think that Warm Front was a fantastic scheme, but people had to apply for it, whereas under affordable warmth the energy companies will have to go out and find people in order to help them. I should have expected Opposition Members to support that.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The Government announced yesterday that extra money would be available under the affordable warmth scheme. In Stoke-on-Trent, it will amount to £290,000, which could help 200 homes. However, when a quarter of the population are in fuel poverty, that is a drop in the ocean.

[Mr Davey]

Opposition Front Benchers criticised me for not spending the money. I have just told the House that we are spending the money, and now I am being criticised again. I am afraid that sometimes one cannot win.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

Since our last Question Time, we have published Britain’s first comprehensive energy efficiency strategy and a consultation on electricity demand reduction; we have announced a landmark agreement across the coalition Government on energy policy, including a tripling of support for low-carbon generation by 2020; and I have attended the UN climate change talks in Doha, where we were able to make steady progress on the Durban platform towards a legally binding global deal on greenhouse gas emissions in 2015. We have also introduced the Energy Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week. It will reform the electricity market, provide long-term certainty to investors and ensure that British households and businesses enjoy affordable, secure and clean electricity supplies.

[Joan Walley]

Despite all those measures, in Stoke-on-Trent North alone fuel poverty is among the highest in the country at 25%—10,120 households out of a total of 40,000—and Warm Front has been cut. Given the delay to the green deal—the computer software could not be sorted out—and given that we still do not know about the loans from the green investment bank, what emergency measures will the Secretary of State take to help insulate homes and get in place energy efficiency in places such as Stoke-on-Trent North?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the green deal is delayed. It is not delayed—it is on track. She also missed out a whole range of policies that the Government are taking, such as the energy company obligation, which includes affordable warmth, which will be targeted on fuel poverty. It is a very important measure and I think that people should focus on it. We are not complacent. We know that fuel poverty is a real concern, and that is one of the reasons why we have had so many initiatives, whether they be the reform of tariffs or collective switching. We are delighted that 115 applications have been received by our “Cheaper Energy Together” competition. That shows commitment across the country to help on fuel poverty, which is central to that competition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: our energy infrastructure and climate change policies are very much part of our growth strategy, and are bringing forward serious investment. He is also right that SMEs play a critical role in this regard, particularly in respect of innovation and the supply chain that is developing in many of the new and existing markets that we are developing.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

How is the Secretary of State following up representations from ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent, who are intensive users of energy and who have an agenda for innovation and investment, and who very much want to have the support of the green investment bank for the work they do?

[Mr Davey]

As the hon. Lady will know, a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department of Energy and Climate Change consultation that has now closed looked at policies to help such energy-intensive industries. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will introduce some of the proposals, and we hope they will cover a range of industries.

Country of Origin Marking

Debate between Ed Davey and Joan Walley

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

There is absolutely nothing wrong, as I have said, with British manufacturers being able to describe and label their products as “Made in Britain”. The question is whether or not they wish to do that; it is totally voluntary and there is nothing to stop them doing so.

[Joan Walley]

The Minister referred to the 2008 regulations, and I was very much involved in trying to get them on to the statute book. The point about having transparency and ensuring a level playing field is important. The real issue is that goods are being sold in a confused way, and consumers are buying products without realising that they are not manufactured, designed, decorated and so forth in the UK. They are paying large amounts of money, without knowing that the goods are being manufactured overseas. If our manufactured goods, when exported, have to have the country of origin indelibly marked on the underside of the wares or on the packaging, why can we not have the same rule applying in this country, which would not be inconsistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade?

[Mr Davey]

As I said, the hon. Lady knows that British manufacturers are completely free to put country-of-origin markings on their products. Many of them, particularly in the ceramics industry, believe that so doing gives them a marketing edge. I will come on to deal with the European Commission proposal, which both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to do so because that is part of the policy debate on which we are focused.

As currently drafted, the EC proposal would require the compulsory country of origin marking of certain imported, mainly consumer products. It might well be to this matter that my hon. Friend is directing his remarks. Let us be clear about what these products are. They include crushed and finished leather, including footwear components, saddlery and travel goods; textiles, clothing and footwear; ceramic products, glassware, jewellery, furniture and brooms and brushes. Those items are all defined by customs code classification. In the case of ceramics, the Commission proposal covers floor and wall tiles, tableware, kitchenware and giftware.

The European Parliament, voting on the draft regulation last autumn, proposed that the scope should be narrowed to cover only end-consumer products. This would limit it to products subject to further processing or assembly in the EU, although some flexibility was proposed for certain textile and footwear components. At the same time, the European Parliament proposed adding to the list of products covered by the regulation: tyres for agricultural vehicles, tyres for forestry vehicles; certain inner tubes; metal fasteners such as screws, nuts and bolts; non-electric hand tools; furniture casters; and taps, cocks and valves.

The House will perhaps understand from that list one of the reservations held by the UK about this proposal. It is the absence of any objective criteria for determining why a particular product is or is not within the scope of the proposed regulation. In our view, it is not enough that a particular EU industry believes that its imported competition should be origin-labelled. At the moment, the best the Commission have offered as “criteria” is where its consultation has shown that there was “value-added” by requiring origin marking. Even the Commission admits that this is a pretty loose criterion. The European Parliament has not even addressed the issue, so I invite suggestions from my hon. Friend—perhaps he is about to make one—and others, on what might constitute meaningful and objective criteria in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I think that my speech will deal with many of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I am afraid that he is in danger of supporting the Brussels-based regulation while the Government support a British deregulatory approach, but I hope that as I continue my speech I may be able to win him round to our approach.

As I have said, we have strong reservations about the proposal, but, unlike some member states, the UK does not oppose it outright. The Government have been ready to engage directly with the Commission and supporters of the proposal, notably Italy, and to explore ways forward. My Department consulted widely when the proposal was first issued. We consulted UK business and other interests, including other interests within Government, and that consultation has been repeated on a number of occasions to ensure that we remain abreast of the latest developments.

A clear majority of UK interests were, and remain, opposed to the Commission’s proposal. They include the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the hallmarking association, and a number of sector as well as consumer interests. Within Government, the UK Intellectual Property Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have also consistently opposed the proposal.

[Joan Walley]

The objections largely come from retailers, who have a vested interest in being able to import without making the full information available, so there is not transparency at the point of purchase. Why will the Minister not listen to manufacturers such as Steelite in my constituency, which does everything the Government are asking yet cannot compete fairly?

[Mr Davey]

First, the views of British retailers and consumers are not to be discounted. Both this Government and the previous one have paid a lot of attention to getting a good deal for consumers in respect of competition policy and consumer policy. However, the list of business interests I set out a few moments ago included the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, who do not represent retail interests alone.

The Commission’s proposal, while never formally withdrawn, is now actively back on the Brussels table. The European Parliament is pushing the proposal hard, deploying its new powers under the Lisbon treaty in the trade policy area. Last autumn, it gave its formal support to the proposal and proposed a series of amendments. The proposal is now back with the Council to consider, but there remain deep divisions between member states, close to a 50:50 split. Nevertheless, technical level discussions began in February and are ongoing in the commercial questions council working group. These involve trade policy and customs officials from the 27 member states. The UK is participating fully and constructively in these discussions. However, there has been resistance from the Commission to recognising that the trade policy landscape has changed since 2005. It has refused a request from many member states for an updated impact assessment, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire agrees that regulations should have an impact assessment.

A number of free-trade agreements have been negotiated by the EU over the last five years, all of which contain a provision explicitly prohibiting discrimination between EU-produced and imported products. Only recently, World Trade Organisation members raised concerns in Geneva about the compatibility of this proposal with WTO rules. While it is true that some other WTO members have country of origin requirements—in the case of the US, these are both long-standing and comprehensive—our research has not shown, as many claim, widespread comparable requirements in most other countries.

The UK retains its position of having strong reservations, but however strong they might be, reservations are capable of being overcome. So far however, neither the Commission’s explanations nor the European Parliament’s amendments have allayed our concerns. Our main concerns in addition to those arising from our overall approach to new regulation and the absence of objective product coverage criteria, to which I have already referred, relate to the need for this regulation and the costs imposed on business and on public authorities. There are genuine issues in relation to trade mark and design breaches and mislabelling of imported goods from some sources, but the Commission has yet to demonstrate that this proposal adds anything other than an additional administrative and cost burden to existing EU legislation, which includes the EU intellectual property rights regulation and the unfair commercial practices directive. The latter makes it an offence across the EU for products to be labelled in such a way as to mislead consumers. This includes information about the country of origin of products.

The proposal is also likely to impose increased costs on producers, distributors and consumers. We estimate the proposal could prove more costly than the Commission has claimed—experience in the North American Free Trade Agreement area suggests up to 2% of the sale price, which is twice the Commission’s estimate.

There is a further important cost dimension in this time of public expenditure constraints. The enforcement regime would, despite Commission claims to the contrary, impose additional burdens on national customs authorities. The proposal envisages additional physical control at the border. This detracts from efforts to strike a balance between effective control and facilitating free movement of legitimate trade across borders. The increased resources needed to implement this regulation, for example, those relating to the need to make verification inquiries, to which not all countries are legally obliged to respond, could have a negative impact on the priorities of UK and other customs authorities in respect of tackling illegal drugs and dealing with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

Finally, I wish to address the issue of consumer information. UK consumer interests have been opposed to the Commission proposal from the outset, partly because they consider existing provisions to be adequate but primarily because they saw it as a protectionist measure. Similarly, the Commission’s own consumer consultative group came out against the proposal. The proposal is still being considered by the Committees that scrutinise European legislation in this House and in another place. The Government have undertaken to keep them abreast of developments in Brussels, and I wrote to them last on 12 February with an update. I am sure that those Committees will also take note of tonight’s debate, particularly the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire introduced it. May I end by congratulating him on his remarks, on securing this debate and on ensuring that this House had a full chance to hear the arguments on both sides?

Question put and agreed to.