Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point. It did in fact come up during the pre-legislative scrutiny, which I am keen to come on to. The decision was taken that this should be a parliamentary project, and what the Government are seeking to do in bringing forward the Bill is merely to facilitate the will of Parliament. We are setting up a Sponsor Body, which will be made up of seven parliamentarians and five external members, so that it can establish a Delivery Authority. Those bodies—the Sponsor Body in consultation with parliamentarians, and the Delivery Authority in consultation with many external stakeholders—will be able to decide the best way to proceed. It was felt that putting restrictions and specific requirements in the Bill might tie the hands of the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority, and we were unwilling to do that. We want them to have the maximum ability to take things forward in the appropriate way, in consultation with all parliamentarians.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for extending the scope of the Bill to include the road network outside so that all works can be properly co-ordinated and we can avoid the situation we have now, with the road closed for non-essential roadworks when both Houses are sitting?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think my right hon. Friend will garner a lot of sympathy across the House for his view. Again, we are trying to keep the scope of the Bill very narrow. It is merely to facilitate the establishment of the Delivery Authority for the purpose of restoring the Palace. However, he may be aware that consideration is going on of how, from a security point of view as well as from that of facilitating parliamentary business, we can ensure that the roads outside and the arrangements going on in Westminster also support Members in going about their business.

Proxy Voting

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

What I can say to the hon. Lady is that I absolutely believe her—I do not think anyone would doubt her for a moment. Anyone who is even considering objecting should beware.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I welcome this statement. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is right that the absent Member should choose the name of their proxy, rather than the Whips, and that they should have an absolute right to change that name upon giving written notice that they wish to do so?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that is indeed the intention.

Business of the House

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I am really sorry to hear about the experience that the hon. Lady had; that is not acceptable and I am happy to meet her to discuss what more we might be able to do. I do not think it necessarily means changing procedures, but there certainly could be other ways to facilitate her particular situation.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on reducing waiting times? Is the Leader of the House aware that during a lifetime the average motorist will spend approximately six months waiting at red traffic lights? May we have a national audit of our use of traffic lights in this country to see how many of them can be safely turned off?

[Andrea Leadsom]

That could be a very popular debate indeed, and my right hon. Friend raises an important issue. Traffic is not only frustrating for motorists, but harmful to our economic prosperity. I can tell him that we have seen more than a quarter of a trillion pounds of infrastructure investment, public and private, since 2010. A huge amount of money is going into new road building, and trying to re-work towns and cities so that the traffic keeps flowing better. There is a long way to go. He might well want to seek a Backbench Business Committee debate on this subject.

Business of the House

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman quoting from the fabulous Monty Python. It is lovely to hear it. There is a good opportunity over Easter to catch up on some Monty Python films.

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point about Catalan independence and the extradition warrant applied for against a Member of the Catalan Parliament. Spain is a key ally of the United Kingdom, and of course we support its right to uphold its constitution. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and we always urge every one of our allies to look carefully at the backdrop to these cases.

The hon. Gentleman also talks about the Prime Minister going to Wales. I think we would all encourage her to take a break, put work behind her and think only of the beautiful countryside and fabulous Welsh food. Can I be any clearer than that?

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

As the House of Commons is not sitting on 1 April, will the Leader of the House pay tribute today to the Royal Air Force, which celebrates its centenary on Sunday, and will she join me in paying homage to all those who have given their lives to protect our freedom?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, I am of course delighted to join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the RAF—as he says, on 1 April it will have been protecting our nation for 100 years—and to the so many who have given their lives to the service or made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Business of the House

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly join the hon. Lady in thanking all those who worked so hard during the period of really difficult and challenging weather, as well as those who had to bear the brunt of it when they were sitting on trains that could not move because of the weather. Everyone should be congratulated on their efforts and community spirit.

The hon. Lady raised a number of legislative issues. I am glad that she did so, because she often asks about policy issues, which are not technically a matter for business questions. She asked about legislation on restoration and renewal. As she knows, because she is on the House of Commons Commission, which I updated only last week, we will be introducing legislation on the establishment of a delivery authority and a sponsor body as soon as possible.

On the Trade Bill, we discussed last week the fact that several amendments have been tabled. The Government are considering them carefully, as it is right to do. As I have always said in this Chamber, we will always consider amendments that are tabled to try to improve legislation as we enter into the important decision to leave the European Union and take steps to prepare ourselves in the best possible way. I am glad that the hon. Lady is happy about the statutory instrument debates. We will be having them next week, as she requested last week.

The hon. Lady asked about nursing training places. She will be aware that there will be an increase of 25%—the biggest increase ever. She also raises the question of plastics and what we are doing about them. I hope that she has signed up, as I have done, to plastic-free Lent. That is an attempt to minimise the use of single-use plastics during the Lent period and an opportunity for us to highlight the importance of reducing our use of plastics. Of course, the Government’s record on that is very good, with the determination in our 25-year environment plan to be the first generation that leaves our environment in a better state than we found it in.

The hon. Lady asks about the talk coming out of the United States on tariffs on steel and aluminium. We are very concerned about that. As she will be aware, we in the UK have made social and economic factors part of the consideration for public sector procurement of steel. We have commissioned research to identify high-value opportunities for UK steel worth up to nearly £4 billion a year by 2030, and we have taken great steps since 2013 to support our steel sector with the costs of renewables and climate change policies. The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about US policy in this area, and the Prime Minister spoke with President Trump recently and raised our deep concern about his forthcoming announcement on steel and aluminium tariffs. The Prime Minister has noted that multilateral action is the only way to resolve the problem of global overcapacity in all parties’ interests.

The hon. Lady asked again about ministerial responsibilities. I can tell her that the list will be forthcoming as soon as possible, once the positions have been confirmed and clarified with all Departments.

The hon. Lady asked about the debates on the European Union, and I think she is happy that we are having them. They are, of course, in response to the request from many right hon. and hon. Members to be able to talk in general terms about their ideas and proposals for how we should leave the European Union. We had a very important speech from the Prime Minister last week, and the EU Council, where we hope to secure an implementation period, is coming up soon. Now is a very good time for all hon. and right hon. Members to put forward their thoughts and views.

Finally, the hon. Lady asks for representations about Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe. She is absolutely right to raise that case, which we are very concerned about. She will know that the Foreign Secretary raised it with the Foreign Minister of Iran when he had the opportunity to do so, and the Foreign Office continues to do that at every opportunity.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I associate myself with the birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whom I regard as an hon. Friend.

On 2 February this year, my private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, received its Second Reading thanks to support from the Government, the official Opposition and the Scottish National party, for which I am obliged. However, the Bill cannot proceed any further until a ways and means motion is tabled. Will the Leader of the House speak to our mutual friend the Patronage Secretary—the Chief Whip—and hopefully agree with him that it should be tabled sooner rather than later?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. The Government have expressed support for a number of private Members’ Bills so far this Session, and we continue to work with the Members in charge. That will include bringing forward money resolutions on a case-by-case basis in the usual way.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

In truth, work is going on the whole time, whether we are sitting or not, to manage essential repairs. Of course, the engineers are able to get on with more work when we are not here, but the reality is that we have to take a serious decision today about the future for generations to come, as opposed to the patch and mend that has been going on not just for a couple of years, but for 40 years and more.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every Member of the House will have a free vote on this matter and that Ministers will not be subject to a payroll Whip?

[Andrea Leadsom]

On the Government side of the House, there will be a free vote for all Members, and for Ministers.

Business of the House

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

No, 12 to 18 months. The authority can assess the costs in a short space of time to properly bottom out the costs.

This is not a blank cheque. We must get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money in restoring this Parliament for future generations, and Members right across this House should support that. It is right that both Houses take a decision on whether to establish this independent authority that will look at the full costs and then make a recommendation for a further vote by both Houses. It is also right that the sponsor board that oversees the work of that delivery authority has strong parliamentary representation.

The hon. Lady asked what the universities’ response should be to a question about their courses. Right across this House we support free speech. Our universities are total bastions of free speech, too, and they should welcome exploration of all sides of an argument. I will leave that point there.

The hon. Lady asks about refunds to claimants following the judicial review. I understand that that was fully discussed at the Justice Committee earlier this week, so I urge her to look at the record. I can write to her separately with information about that discussion.

The hon. Lady then asked about Brexit. I say again that the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech a very generous and collegiate offer to the European Union. I am delighted that, following the European Council, there has been a warm and improving tone from European leaders about the prospects of moving on to discuss trade and co-operation across all areas. The Government remain committed to getting an excellent deal for the United Kingdom and for our EU friends and neighbours, and we believe that that will perfectly possible to achieve before March 2019.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on making better use of natural resources? Is the Leader of the House aware that in a few days’ time we are going to go through the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back an hour, thereby plunging the nation into darkness and misery by mid-afternoon? Can we look again at the possibility of moving our clocks forward an hour? That would boost tourism and could reduce the number of road accidents.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am aware that this is a long-standing issue and that there are strong views on both sides of the argument. At this time of year, perhaps my right hon. Friend might want to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate. There are views on traffic accidents versus views on agriculture, and it is important that all those views are taken into account when making a balanced decision on this issue.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is simply not true, and I will come on to that if the hon. Gentleman will give me the chance.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend should take no lectures from the Labour party, which, when in government, reduced Prime Minister’s Question Time from twice a week to once a week and introduced the regular guillotining of Bills, thereby reducing debating time.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right to make those points. I want to be very positive and to talk about what we are doing.

We have been mindful of Back Benchers. As requested by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, we have rescheduled some of the debates that were agreed before dissolution. I am pleased that we have already found time for some of those debates, including on the ongoing challenge of seeking peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians.

Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 1st March 2016 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance. This instrument amends regulations concerning the contracts for difference scheme and the capacity market. As a reminder to hon. Members, these two schemes were key elements of the electricity market reform programme that was introduced in the previous Parliament. Both the CfD scheme and the capacity market are designed to incentivise the significant investment required in our electricity infrastructure to keep costs affordable for consumers and to help meet our decarbonisation targets, while keeping our energy supply secure.

Contracts for difference, or CfDs, provide long-term price stabilisation to low carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore, at a lower cost to consumers. The capacity market provides regular payments to reliable forms of generation in return for such capacity being available when needed, thus ensuring that enough capacity is always in place to maintain security of supply. In both schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures that costs to consumers are minimised.

As hon. Members will be aware, the first CfD allocation round was held in October 2014, delivering 25 large-scale renewable generation projects at a significantly lower cost than the renewables obligation scheme, which is being phased out. The first capacity market auction was held in December 2014, with a second auction held last December, securing 46 GW of capacity at a price of £18 per kilowatt per year, along with a recent transitional auction for demand-side response held earlier this year.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Government today announced a number of changes to the capacity market framework to ensure that it remains fit for purpose to meet our security-of-supply needs, including bringing forward delivery by holding a new early auction for delivery in winter 2017-18. A consultation on those changes has been launched and we will make final decisions in due course.

However, the regulations that we are considering today have a different purpose. The Government are simply seeking to make a number of technical amendments relating to how money is collected from electricity suppliers in Great Britain in order to fund the schemes. Specifically, the proposed amendments would improve the efficiency with which CfD costs are recovered from electricity suppliers, which will ultimately reduce costs to consumers, and set the rates for the operational levies relating to both schemes.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The Minister has indicated that the amendments are largely technical. Will she tell the Committee whether her Department has received any objections to what is proposed, and if so, the nature of such objections?

[Andrea Leadsom]

There has been consultation with industry and respondents have been largely supportive of the proposals. They are technical in nature and are not controversial.

The instrument under consideration builds on the instrument that established the CfD supplier obligation mechanism. The CfD supplier obligation is levied on all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to meet the costs of the support received by generators that hold a CfD. That levy on electricity suppliers in Great Britain is set on a quarterly basis by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, which is a Government-owned company that acts as the counterparty to CfD contracts. The Low Carbon Contracts Company sets the levy and a reserve amount based on forecasts of payments to CfD generators, which are then reconciled against actual payments in arrears.

This instrument makes a number of minor and technical amendments to improve the efficiency and transparency of the supplier obligation to minimise costs to suppliers, and ultimately, to consumers. The most significant aspects of the amendments are as follows. First, the regulations amend the calculation of the levy that is paid by electricity suppliers on each unit of supply, so that it is a better reflection of suppliers’ likely actual liabilities. Secondly, they allow the levy to be reduced without notice when the Low Carbon Contracts Company anticipates collecting significantly more than required, in order to reduce the likelihood of electricity suppliers paying more than they need to pay. Thirdly, they require the Low Carbon Contracts Company to forecast CfD costs for at least the next 12 months and to publish the date from which each generator is expected to begin receiving CfD payments. That is to provide greater transparency on the costs that electricity suppliers and consumers will face in future.

All the proposals implemented by the instrument were consulted on publicly, and received a largely favourable response. We estimate that the changes, in addition to further regulations which we plan to lay in due course, will reduce the costs to consumers of CfDs by approximately £38 million over the period 2016-20. This instrument also sets the annual operational cost levy for the Low Carbon Contracts Company, as well as setting the settlement costs levy that funds the annual budget of the Electricity Settlements Company, which is responsible for collecting and making payments to capacity providers under the capacity market. The amendments revise the levies for 2015-16 to reflect the operational requirements and objectives of the companies in 2016-17. Both levies were subject to public consultation, giving stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, ensure that they represent value for money.

Subject to the will of Parliament, the changes to the CfD supplier obligation, the operational costs levy for the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the settlement costs levy for the Electricity Settlements Company are due to come into force by 1 April 2016. Finally, I would like to assure all hon. Members that the Government will continue to evaluate and monitor the reforms following implementation, ensuring that the measures put in place remain effective and continue to represent value for money for the consumer.

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Greg Knight and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Will the provision affect third-party cover under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the level of insurance premiums taken out for motor insurance? May I also ask the Minister, en passant, to pay tribute to the Law Commission, on whose work this Bill is based?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this part of the Bill is designed to assist those who have insurance claims against parties that are now defunct, where insurance was originally in place to cover such claims. In theory, that could cover a motor insurance claim, but it is certainly not designed specifically to that end. Likewise, the cost of motor insurance will be determined by claims by the insurance companies themselves, so it is not envisaged that this will affect the cost of motor insurance.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Law Commission has done an excellent job. Essentially, the Bill makes the insurance market more effective and fairer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Provision consequential on Part 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.