Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, which was published earlier this year, emphasised the fact that no one measure will tackle the problem. We need to pursue a range of measures, and that is why we are constantly improving our cattle movement controls and why we are spending £4 million a year investing in research into vaccines. It is also why we are continuing to develop effective cull methods.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

17. The new Secretary of State is not answering this question personally, but perhaps she might do so later. The science clearly criticises the Government’s culling policy and this House has voted twice to end it. When will the Government change their mind? Do we not now have an opportunity, with the new broom, to do so?

[George Eustice]

I disagree with the hon. Lady. The evidence is very clear that no country has ever eradicated TB without also tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. The randomised badger culling trial showed very clearly that in the four years after it concluded there was a significant reduction in the incidence of TB. I meet farmers, some of whom have closed herds but have repeated breakdowns and some of whom have been under restriction for 12 years, and although they are not bringing cattle on or off their farm, they have a reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case in his constituency.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Over several months—indeed, nearly two years now—I have frequently raised the issue of the health effects on certain individuals of low-energy lighting. Has the Department made any progress in its negotiations with Europe on this issue?

[Dan Rogerson]

That is not an area I have discussed in recent weeks, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady about any progress we have made on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

That is a very interesting point, because one of the main principles underlying our negotiation for common agricultural policy reform has been that whatever comes out has to be simple and deliverable. One of the mistakes made back in 2005 was that we had an over-complicated system and a lack of resource to deliver it, and as a result we had a shambles in the Rural Payments Agency.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In answer to previous questions from me about how we can protect people from the adverse effects of low-energy lighting, Ministers indicated that they would need to get support from other European partners. What steps have they been taking in the past six months to do that?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

This matter is dealt with by Lord de Mauley, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a detailed analysis of what we have been up to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am well aware of the importance of Plynlimon to the whole Severn estuary, and to houses and property on both sides of the border. We have to take an holistic view in flood management when cross-border issues need to be ironed out, and we are working to ensure that the new Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Environment Agency are working closely on this issue.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

9. What progress he has made in negotiations with the EU on a derogation from the ban on the import or manufacture of incandescent bulbs for those who suffer ill health as a result of exposure to low-energy lighting ahead of the review of legislation in 2014; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call a Minister to answer the question.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. I blame the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for distracting me. Why not?

There are no provisions allowing the European Commission or individual member states to create exemptions from regulation 244/2009, which phases out incandescent bulbs. However, we are pressing to ensure that EU policy and legislation take full account of the potential health implications of artificial lighting. We have successfully ensured that provisions for people with light-sensitive health conditions were included in a new eco-design regulation that sets minimum standards for directional lighting and light-emitting diodes.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My constituents are pleased that the draft regulations for directional lighting acknowledge that there is a problem with health. The other regulations are due for review in 2014. Will the Minister confirm that he, along with other parts of the EU, will seek to achieve a change in 2014, so that the problem can be resolved?

[Mr Heath]

My Department and the Department of Health are working closely with the lighting industry, the Health Protection Agency, charities and patient groups such as the Spectrum Alliance—I understand that the hon. Lady has a connection with the Spectrum Alliance—on how to make information on appropriate lighting solutions available. We have had productive discussions with the Department of Health and the lighting industry to identify health care professionals who can assist us. We will ensure that we have a plan of action by early next year, ready for next September when the new eco-design regulations come into force.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and, in particular, to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). For Jenny-come-latelies like me, it is particularly valuable to hear about the journey the Bill has travelled before bringing us here today.

It is also not only a pleasurable experience but a unique one for me, as this is the first time my constituents have urged me to speak up in the Chamber in favour of something the Government are doing. I do not know whether that says more about my constituents or the Government. I hope that we are seeing a coming of age moment for this Government. Let me take my first opportunity to welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), to her position. I hope that this is a coming of age moment when the Government realise that the market when left to its own devices does not always work in a way that allows them to sit back and turn a blind eye.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) spoke about just how dysfunctional the relationship has become among the major supermarkets, the food producers and consumers, which means that it is time for the Government to act and intervene. The balance of power is so out of kilter that it is legitimate even for this Government to intervene to regulate. I hope that the new Minister—well, the relatively new Minister—will keep that feeling in her heart and consider it when it comes to the big energy suppliers and the payday loan companies. There is always a point at which her Government can say that enough is enough and that it is time for them to intervene.



East Lothian has some of the most beautiful and fertile agricultural land in the whole of this nation. The farmers in my constituency are facing a particularly difficult time after the bad summer that we had. Many of the crops will not yield what farmers had hoped for, and I hope for them that the Bill will offer some hope. We will judge the Bill on how it delivers for many of the hopes that we have. As well as a better future for farmers, I hope it will give them the opportunity to innovate, and that they will have the confidence to do that, now that they know there will be fairness in the supply chain.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan spoke about the importance for her farmers of having pillar 1 funding from the common agricultural policy. I hope farmers, especially smaller food producers, will see the Bill as an opportunity to plant for the future with some certainty. As farming is a major employer in my constituency, I hope this will lead to the creation of more jobs and improve the working conditions and pay of many of those who work in the agricultural sector and who, with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Boards, have lost the security that they have enjoyed for decades as a result of the intervention of a previous Labour Government.

I pay tribute to the many Members who, over the years, have succeeded in building a consensus across the House. There is a very different feeling in the Chamber tonight. I was impressed, as I often am, by the words of the shadow Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), when he said that we have an opportunity to make a good Bill a better Bill. I very much hope that the Government will take that opportunity in Committee and that they will be open to opportunities to improve and strengthen the Bill. I stress to my hon. Friend that this is not a pitch to join him on the Public Bill Committee. One can have too much of a good thing. I previously sat with him on the Committee that considered the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, where the many valuable contributions that he brought to the debate in that forum were unfortunately spurned by the Government.

We have already seen attempts to improve the Bill, some of which the Government have responded to positively. I hope we continue to see that spirit. I spoke about how we are to judge the Bill. I wish that on Report in the Lords, the Government had accepted an amendment that would have built into the Bill a point at which the Government will review progress. I hope both Ministers were listening to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), when she said that her Committee believed that that would strengthen the Bill.

We have heard from various Select Committees and many organisations. I particularly thank ActionAid and Oxfam for the briefings that they have provided on the general debate about food security. I hope Ministers will realise that not just in this place, but out there in a variety of organisations, there is concern about the need to review the Bill and consider further powers for the groceries adjudicator.

I came this evening not to bury the big four supermarkets, but more to praise them. There have been real tensions in communities in my constituency. We are a constituency of small communities and the arrival of out-of-town supermarkets has threatened the future of the town high street and the marketplace. The community has responded positively by innovating, but it will be another test of the Bill if it brings further benefits to high streets that are struggling to compete with the big supermarkets. We have some wonderful specialty shops in East Lothian, in places such as Haddington, North Berwick and Dunbar—some up-market delicatessens where it is a pleasure to browse and shop. It is one of the strengths of East Lothian and why people visit it.

However, there is also a place for the supermarkets and I want to put on record my support for them. Many of my constituents need somewhere on their doorstep where they can buy a cheap school uniform and get the basic range of food and provisions. I do not deny that there is a role for supermarkets, but I want to see the balance maintained in my constituency. Many others in the House no doubt have a similar situation and want to see our town centres grow, thrive, innovate, contribute to the local economy and create jobs.

I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and listened to the concerns about third-party evidence. Will the Minister give us a little more detail? Many producers fear for their future if word gets round. We see blacklisting in other professions. What is the meat of the Bill that will protect those food producers? A little more detail on that would be useful, as would any plans the Government have for improving clause 18.

We have talked about trade associations and trade unions being able to provide evidence, but we have not yet heard whether campaigning bodies will be able to do so. It is very reassuring and I welcome all that, so I wonder why the Government bothered to include in the Bill the power to rescind that, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—I hope I have pronounced the name of her constituency correctly; the guttural Scots tongue comes in useful at times. The Government can send some important messages by setting out certain provisions in the Bill. What message do they send the big retailers if the Government are not sure whether or not to include that power? It is a bit of a hokey-cokey clause.

I also have concerns that I am sure Ministers will recognise. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House and from all parties about the effectiveness of naming and shaming. The Minister tried to press Opposition Front Benchers on the size of proposed fines, so I will now press for some detail on what form the naming and shaming will take. She spoke about the possibility of retailers having to place notices in the national press. Will the adjudicator be able to specify the size of those notices and what newspapers they should appear in? Will it just be national newspapers, or will it include local newspapers, which are struggling to raise revenue in the current economic climate? Also, local people often trust more what they read in their local press. It would be good to hear a little more detail about where the retailers will be named and shamed.

Furthermore, what evidence do the Government have that naming and shaming actually works, because we seem to see the opposite? One example is this House. We have come through the expenses scandal—I hope—although it does not always feel that way, but when we ask people on the street which party is worse when it comes to the abuse of MPs’ expenses, the reaction is pretty much this: “You’re all the same and all as bad as each other.” I wonder whether that could be consumers’ approach to the retailers. They might not distinguish between the supermarkets, all the information would simply be lost in a blur and there would be an overall perception that there is something rather fishy going on. I really do not think that consumers will use that power and information to hurt an individual major retailer where it hurts—in the pocket. If there is evidence to the contrary, it would be good to hear it.

The Minister spoke about where we have seen consumer power, but that has often been in relation to a single product range or an unethical issue. In the meantime, supermarkets have continued to enjoy large profits. In my constituency the choice is between only two major retailers. Because of the distance between the Asda store in Dunbar and the Tesco store in Haddington, consumers have to travel quite a journey to exercise that right. I will say at this point that Sainsbury’s is coming to Haddington. I am not plugging them so that they sponsor my Christmas card, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, but perhaps that is a negotiation I might enter into after the debate. Sainsbury’s has shown good practice in working locally to build a vision for Haddington town centre, so that conflicting concerns can be balanced and the livelihood and sustainability of a town centre can be preserved while the out-of-town option is there.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given the clear balance in the speeches that have been made today across the House, would not it be good if Ministers, rather than just waiting for the Bill to go to Committee, said now that they would table the kinds of amendments that everyone seems to be asking for—for example to introduce fines at an early stage?

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comment, and during this time we will of course press on many fronts. We have a number of tools in the box, and we are using those that are currently available. As I have touched on, there are new ones coming down the track—PCR, the DIVA test, gamma interferon and others that I would like to investigate with real speed. We cannot just use the current tools, because we are not getting on top of the disease. It is getting worse.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s Department seems to have a bit of a track record of backing off when the pressure gets high. We previously had the experience of the circus animals debate, which was going to be whipped, but suddenly his Department backed off. Many of my constituents will be pleased to see that there is now to be a pause, but will he reassure us that he will look very seriously at the whole issue again, and that he is not just backing off because he does not want the embarrassment of a debate and a vote?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady has rather missed the tone of our discussion over the past hour. Having received these higher figures, and after agonising, the National Farmers Union has—I think very responsibly and despite huge pressure from its grass roots—made a decision. I was in Tewkesbury on Wednesday, and there is enormous pressure from those parts of the country where the cattle industry is being devastated by this disease. Despite that pressure, I must respect the NFU which said clearly to me in a final decision that it could not achieve the 70% required. We are all determined to work together within the science, and no one is backing off at all. The NFU has made a rational decision in the light of the new figures and given its current resources and the time available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

We have cut administrative spend by £140 million since May 2010, which is an 11% reduction in cash terms.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T7. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say last weekend that people should heed the flood warnings. If she had been in the north-east on Thursday, she would have known that there were none. However, there is apparently an underspend in Departments. Has the Secretary of State made a bid to the Chancellor for additional money for flood defences?

[Mrs Spelman]

I should underline the importance of this matter. Tragically, a gentleman in my part of the country, the west midlands, lost his life when he stepped into fast-flowing floodwaters. It is important, therefore, to reinforce the point to all our constituents not to walk or drive into floodwaters. We have secured £2.17 billion to spend on flood defences. I remind the hon. Lady that her party said it would cut capital by 50%.

Incandescent Light Bulbs

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. This debate will not be a complaint about poor light quality, which some people have mentioned in the past, or about the ugliness of some of the light bulbs in question when they appear under a beautiful lampshade. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are raising their eyes towards the ceiling as I speak. Finally, I do not seek to become part of a crusade by the Daily Express against the European Union, as happened when I tabled an early-day motion on this subject.

This debate is about a serious issue for people, perhaps relatively small in number, who could not sit in this Chamber, as I and other hon. Members are doing, underneath these lights. Those people could not stay in this Chamber to take part in this discussion, even if they were able to, because of the effect that these light bulbs would have on them.

My interest in this matter was stimulated by a constituent, Catherine Hessett, who contacted me shortly after my election in 2010. She is the co-ordinator of Spectrum Alliance, a group that campaigns on behalf of individuals who have suffered negative effects from low-energy lighting. Those people have suffered ever since the roll-out of low-energy lighting, and they need to use what are considered to be the old-fashioned, high-energy, incandescent bulbs in their homes. At the moment, they can do that because they are still able to source those bulbs, but that is coming under serious threat from the regulations that are set to remove incandescent light bulbs from the market by September this year.

Until my constituent contacted me I was unaware of such concerns, and I imagine that that is widely true elsewhere. After some investigation, however, I concluded that the views of the Spectrum Alliance needed to be raised in Parliament, and that the Government need to do something to prevent people such as my constituent from being forced to live in the dark for the rest of their lives.

I will go on to talk about the legislation, but first I will give a little more detail about the impact of this problem on certain individuals. The Spectrum Alliance has evidence to suggest that low-energy lightning—for example, compact fluorescent lamps such as those above us—aggravate a range of pre-existing medical conditions that include lupus, migraines, autism and ME.

The first example I will cite is that of a woman who suffers from lupus, a systemic auto-immune disease in which the immune system attacks the body’s cells and tissues. She develops a visible burning skin reaction, sore red eyes and a headache within minutes of exposure to fluorescent lights. In the past, doctors have suggested the use of bulbs that screen out ultraviolet light, but that makes no difference. Other lupus sufferers have reported similar experiences. It is important to stress, however, that although some individuals do not have recognised pre-existing conditions such as lupus, they nevertheless find that these bulbs impact on their health.

My second example is of a lady who has no pre-existing medical condition. She worked for an employer for several years, was happy in her job and had good prospects. However, when her employer moved into a newly-built office, she developed disabling headaches from the first day as a result of the low-energy lighting in the workplace. She had to take time of work because of the problem, and is likely to lose her job.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. To add some context, I should say that a close relative of mine suffers, although not as seriously as the people in the cases mentioned by the hon. Lady, from migraines brought on by a pre-existing condition that is worsened by long-term exposure to this sort of bulb. Although there are extreme examples, there is also a whole spectrum of ways in which these bulbs can have a negative impact on the lives of our constituents.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. In the two examples that I mentioned, the reaction to exposure to the bulbs was extreme and rapid. Many people suffer in a lesser way, but it is nevertheless an issue for them and something that we could, and should, avoid. However committed we may be to our energy obligations—and we should be—it is important not to ignore the adverse effects on some of our population.

The scale of the problem is not insignificant. In answer to a written parliamentary question on 1 February 201l, the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton) referred to figures that estimated that 250,000 people in the EU are at risk from increased levels of ultraviolet radiation or blue light generated by compact fluorescent lamps.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Business, Innovation and Skills, and for Energy and Climate Change should work in a cross-departmental way to see what further research could be done in the European Union to look at the long-term effects of new technologies on people who have a pre-existing condition? We must start looking at what long-term changes might be needed, while also having regard to those who are suffering now, and we must see whether there is a way of obtaining a dispensation so that such people are not exposed to those causes of ill health, as appears to be the case at the moment.

[Sheila Gilmore]

As chair of the all-party lighting group, my hon. Friend has extensive knowledge of that subject and the issues that should be raised. Although long-term research is always helpful, we must also focus on the impact on individuals. As the Health Minister indicated, the figures she gave could equate to 30,000 or 40,000 people in the UK being affected by this problem. Those, however, are people who are known to have a pre-existing condition, and the Spectrum Alliance estimates that the true number of people affected in the UK—with, as has been said, varying levels of impact—could be as many as 2 million, many of whom are already suffering from conditions such as migraines or autism.

The science behind this issue may not yet be entirely resolved, and although the light bulbs in question have a clear impact on people, we must do some research into the matter. Low-energy lighting operates differently from incandescent bulbs in terms of levels of ultraviolet radiation, electric fields, flicker and peaks in light wavelength, especially with blue light. As yet, research has not been sufficiently in-depth to enable us to say which features of fluorescent bulbs have an effect on health, because they differ from incandescent bulbs in multiple ways. We do know, however, that people’s health is not affected in the same way when they use incandescent bulbs.

Let me be clear: I do not seek to discourage the use of low-energy light bulbs and lighting where that is useful and helpful. I acknowledge that climate change is one of the most significant challenges that we face as a country and I welcome the positive contribution that lighting can make in reducing our energy consumption. However, I do not believe that it would be right to implement the ban on incandescent light bulbs so dogmatically that people suffered. That is the crux of what I am saying.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I am sure that many hon. Members agree with the point that she is making. This is not about being against low-energy light bulbs as a generality, but about recognising that some individuals have a particular problem with that lighting. There is a danger in just dismissing their concerns, which need to be taken seriously. That is all we are asking for, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively at the end of the debate.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; that is indeed the outcome for which I am hoping.

The key legislation in this area started with the ecodesign of energy-using products directive in 2005. That was updated and recast four years later by the ecodesign directive of 2009. Those directives set down rules on the environmental performance of products that used energy, such as light bulbs, and those that related to energy use, such as windows. They set the framework for further implementing measures, and the relevant Commission regulation of 2009 set out a timetable for the phasing out of the manufacture and import of incandescent bulbs. The position is that 100 W bulbs were banned in 2009, 75 W bulbs in 2010 and 60 W bulbs in 2011. The remaining 40 W and 25 W bulbs will be banned as of 1 September 2012. That regulation was not voted on by the European Parliament—it went through without debate—and it is directly applicable. That is why there is no transposing legislation at our level.

Concerns about health impacts have been acknowledged at EU level, although that has not yet been reflected in better policy. In 2008, the European Commission scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks—commonly referred to as SCENIHR—produced a report that concluded that although single-envelope CFLs could induce skin problems among some people, that might be alleviated by the use of double-envelope CFLs. However, Spectrum Alliance is clear that its members have tried those double-envelope bulbs and that, although they are an improvement for some people, they still induce similar symptoms in most of those affected.

The concerns were acknowledged when the European Commission asked SCENIHR to produce an updated report in March 2012. That was published in draft form in July 2011 and in full in March this year. It, too, referred to the possible health impacts of low-energy lighting, but SCENIHR itself does not carry out first-hand research; it simply reports on research that has been carried out. It concluded that because of the considerable variability of the components for lighting technologies, no general advice could be given to individuals about how they could avoid those health impacts.

It is possible that some people will be able to find means of lighting other than incandescent bulbs. It has been suggested that they could try light-emitting diodes—LEDs—or the double-envelope CFLs, but again the Spectrum Alliance campaigners are clear that neither of those technologies has yet succeeded in overcoming the problems that people are suffering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) chaired a meeting of the all-party lighting group last October. Present were representatives from Spectrum Alliance, the lighting industry and the relevant Departments: BIS, DEFRA and the Department of Health. We discussed a number of options. It was made clear that the Government would not wish to defy the regulation, that they did not simply not implement things that they did not agree with and that they could be fined under the infraction proceedings if they sought to do so.

We then discussed the possibility of an exemption for people with medical needs. There is a precedent: rough-service lamps are already exempt under the regulation. Rough-service lamps are incandescent bulbs that are used for industrial purposes where a low-energy alternative would not work properly. There is, therefore, a precedent for having an exemption for industry. We argue that an exemption should also be made for people with specific health needs.

Earlier this year, my hon. Friend and I met Lord Taylor of Holbeach, the Minister with responsibility for this area. On hearing the arguments, he expressed some concern that people might seek to take advantage of any exemption, but I would have thought that it was possible to configure a system to prevent, or at least to minimise, that risk. For example, incandescent bulbs could be dispensed by prescription at pharmacies.

The Minister also expressed the strong hope that emerging technologies would resolve the problem for us. That may be the case in the future. There may be—I sincerely hope that there is—a lighting technology around the corner that will resolve the problem. It would meet the low-energy requirements but without the health effects that I have described, but at the moment it does not exist. That is a serious practical problem.

Lord Taylor also indicated that he would be keen for further research to be carried out, and I certainly would not in any way say that there should not be further research. However, although I support further research, I want to suggest that both the Government and the European Commission are coming at this issue from the wrong direction. It makes sense to resolve any uncertainty about the safety of products before we force people to use them—rather than afterwards, when the alternatives have been withdrawn. In this case, consumers are being expected to prove that certain products are unsafe, rather than the Commission and the Government having ensured that they were safe in the first place.

I ask the Minister this central question: if nothing is done, what are my constituent and many more like her to do? Are the Government comfortable with forcing people to live in the dark for the foreseeable future? I am sure that the Minister finds that situation no more acceptable than I do. I understand that limited options are available, but I ask him to do whatever he can to allow people who suffer negative health impacts from low-energy bulbs to continue to purchase incandescent bulbs when the ban comes into full effect in September.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate and on representing her constituents—indeed, all our constituents—who are suffering in the way that she describes. There can be an extensive discussion about the extent to which the problem exists, but I think that we all recognise that it is a problem and that she was right to bring it to the House today.

It is important to place on the record the context in which the current changes are being made. Then I shall talk about the health issues that the hon. Lady raised so forcefully. The Government recognise, as I think the hon. Lady does and as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) certainly does in her role as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, that climate change is one of the gravest challenges that we face and that urgent action is required to tackle it. Failure to transform how we produce and consume in the UK will expose the economy to many risks—from the damage wreaked by the effects of climate change to constraints on future growth from unsustainable depletion of our natural capital. The Government have set out clearly how they want to be the “greenest Government ever” and that that must be based on action, not words. Ensuring the sustainability of products is one way in which we can act now.

The amount of energy consumed by household electrical goods is staggering. Products targeted by the European eco-design and energy labelling directives account for an astonishing 50% of the European Union’s energy consumption. We need to promote the most efficient products to consumers, which in turn rewards the businesses developing and selling them. Energy labels are an effective way of doing that. The EU’s A to G energy labels enable consumers to choose efficient appliances. Labelling also enables manufacturers to compete against one another on the environmental performance of their products.

There are, none the less, occasions on which policies such as labelling and consumer awareness fail to produce the necessary switch to more sustainable products. In those cases, choice editing by removing the least efficient products from the market remains one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing energy consumption, while at the same time benefiting consumers and businesses by reducing their energy bills. As a member of the European single market, the UK cannot by itself introduce mandatory minimum energy performance standards for appliances because it would inhibit free trade. The EU eco-design for energy related products framework directive is a single market directive under article 95 of the EU treaty and provides the legal framework within which implementing measures set standards for the environmental performance of products or product groups. Those measures can take the form of regulations or voluntary initiatives.

To date, 12 regulations have been agreed under the eco-design directive and two voluntary initiatives are close to agreement. The regulations are expected to save the UK almost 7 million tonnes of CO₂ a year by 2020. They are expected to generate just over £850 million a year in net benefits for British consumers and businesses through reduced energy bills. I recognise that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East is keen for me to move on to the health issues, but it is important to put these points on record. Lighting is a major contributor to global energy consumption. The International Energy Agency estimates that electricity consumption for lighting represents almost 19% of global electricity use and is responsible for approximately 8% of world greenhouse gas emissions.

The regulation of 2009 became directly applicable in all EU member states after agreement by the European Parliament and Council in spring of that year. It sets minimum standards for non-directional household lamps—in other words, bulbs that provide a spread of light, such as those under which we are sitting, as opposed to, say, spot lamps. Incandescent light bulbs waste 95% of their energy as heat. They are therefore too inefficient to meet the standards, so are being in effect phased out in the EU. Other countries phasing out or planning to phase out incandescent light bulbs include Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. The regulation is predicted to save 39 TWh across the EU annually by 2020. Within the UK, it will mean net savings each year of 0.65 MtCO₂e and 0.3 TWh by 2020. The average annual net benefit to the UK between 2010 and 2020 is predicted to be £108 million.

CFLs use 20% to 25% of the energy an incandescent light bulb uses. Halogen light bulbs offer anything between 20% to 45% energy savings on incandescent bulbs. The Government are working to encourage the development and use of ultra-efficient lighting, which could produce even greater savings. For example, DEFRA and the Technology Strategy Board ran a successful £1.2 million challenge to develop LED lighting to replace conventional incandescent lamps. The initiative successfully supported two small and medium-sized enterprises—Juice Technology and Zeta Controls—to prototype stage. That is an excellent example of how minimum standards are driving innovation and transforming the market.

Problems, such as slow warm-up times and poor quality light, were reported with some early CFLs. However, the industry has responded well to the challenge to produce new quality products. Regulation 244/2009 assisted by putting in place minimum standards for the performance of CFLs, which protects consumers from substandard products and the manufacturers of quality products from unfair competition. The hon. Lady mentioned flickering, which did cause problems in older light bulbs, and it was believed that that contributed to considerable difficulties for migraine sufferers, but it has been improved, although not to the satisfaction of all. I will come on to those issues now, but both the performance and the choice of CFLs has improved a great deal.

Although energy efficient lighting produces significant environmental and financial benefits, we need to ensure that lighting solutions remain available for people with light-sensitive health conditions. CFLs can generate higher levels of UV and blue light than incandescent lamps. Those levels are much lower than a typical summer’s day, but present a potentially greater risk to a number of people with light-sensitive skin disorders. The European Commission’s scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks—I, like the hon. Lady, will call it SCENIHR—estimates that up to 30,000 people in the UK are potentially at risk, but I accept that the figure is disputed and could be higher.

DEFRA and the Department of Health have been closely engaged with patients’ support groups and charities, the lighting industry and the Health Protection Agency. In fact, as the lead DEFRA Minister, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, whom the hon. Lady met, will shortly meet one such group—Spectrum, to which she referred—and I hope that the meeting will include the constituent she mentioned. The Department of Health and Health Protection Agency have fed evidence into SCENIHR’s opinion on the health effects of artificial lighting, published in 2008, and its updated opinion, published in March this year. SCENIHR concluded that the use of double-envelope CFLs, which look like a traditional light lamp, can mitigate the risk of aggravating the symptoms of light-sensitive individuals. The hon. Lady has reported that there is some scepticism on that, and we have more work to do.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that halogens might be an adequate alternative in some cases. Most LEDs for general lighting emit little or no UV radiation. They therefore potentially offer an even better alternative. Nevertheless, the updated opinion recommended further research on the relationship between artificial lighting and various health conditions.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I will give way very quickly, but I am coming to the key point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister clarify whether, while waiting for all the research to come to fruition, he is prepared to support an exemption that would enable people to get the lamps?

[Richard Benyon]

We are lobbying the Commission to bring the research forward before 2014. That is a key point that we want to get across. I will discuss the matter with my colleague, Lord Taylor, and he in turn will talk to Health Ministers to see if there is any wriggle room that will allow some form of exemption, such as the one that the hon. Lady described. I liked her suggestion about the possibility of using pharmacies. We are open-minded. What we do must be legal and recognise that there is a problem that we want to resolve.

The regulation includes a requirement for it to be reviewed before 2014, but we think that that should be done sooner. We will work with our European partners to ensure that the review takes full account of the best available scientific evidence on the health effects of artificial light. We are therefore pressing the Commission to ensure that the research is completed much earlier in order to feed into the review.

Energy efficient lighting, with other energy efficient products, can produce significant energy savings.

Bovine TB

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Sadly, there is no satisfactory test for TB in camelids, which includes alpacas, and that is a source of considerable concern. We will continue to work on that. Alpacas are included in our programme of trying to manage and control this disease.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

No one is suggesting that bovine TB is not a problem. However, why does the Secretary of State believe that what she proposes will work given the scientific conclusions of a 10-year pilot by the previous Government?

[Mrs Spelman]

When a programme of badger control was part of the original randomised badger culling trial, the science showed a clear reduction within the controlled area, and an impact on the edge of the area. We have proposed to build on that science base and grant licences to areas with more firmly controlled boundaries to reduce the perturbation effect. It is indisputable that the original trial saw, on average, a 16% reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle herds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Much has now been explained. We are very grateful to the Minister.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the introduction of mandatory reporting of carbon emissions by businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I have had recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on the issue and I know that there is a lot of interest in it. There is an appetite in Government for it but, as the House will be aware, any policy has to undergo an impact assessment, which we are in the process of clearing.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There are only four months until the Government are obliged either to introduce carbon reporting or to explain why they have not. When the Members who previously sat on the Opposition Front Bench supported the proposal, they said that it would help economic growth. Why, in the present economic crisis, is it not being pursued more vigorously?

[Mrs Spelman]

Two things have emerged. We had more than 2,000 replies to the consultation, which showed that carbon is reported in very different ways. One challenge is to find a way in which it can be reported meaningfully so that investors know which company to invest in, because they understand the information they receive. Secondly, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting on the content of company accounts—narrative reporting, as it is known. We need to synchronise the issue because carbon reporting would be in a set of company accounts. I perfectly understand the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008 in that regard.