I secured an  Adjournment Debate on the Future of Shipbuilding, following recent announcement by the Coalition Government and fears of the local trade unions. It took place just before 10pm and expect not many people were tuned in to watch it, however, I’ve published the transcript of the debate below and for those who could not watch at the time here it is below:

19 Mar 2012 : Column 615

Shipbuilding

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

9.59 pm

John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): My speech tonight might be about shipbuilding, but it is fundamentally about commitment—to a tradition, to an industry and to the people who rely on it. I am glad to have secured this debate and hope to catch the Chancellor’s ear when he makes his future plans. I hope it is not too late, but I doubt it.

I must begin by mentioning how disappointed I was at last month’s decision to award a £452 million contract for support tankers to the South Korean ship company, Daewoo, at the expense of the UK sector. Not only was this sneaked out in a written statement, but a Westminster journalist reported that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) said, “It’s okay, we’ve got away with it. It’s only on the BBC website”. I hope that the Minister will put the record straight today about these reported comments and about why the decision was made.

The four military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—tankers, from which military helicopters will be able operate, are due to enter service from 2016. Owing to the timing and nature of the contract, it is especially tough on the UK sector. For example, there will be gaps in order books after the carriers and Type 45 destroyers are finished. Placing orders for those four ships in UK yards was essential to retaining those skills and capabilities in the UK. I remind the Minister that retaining that capability is also a strategic issue, so the Ministry of Defence is risking UK defence capability by placing this order in South Korea, as well as undermining the UK shipbuilding industry.

There have been suggestions in the past that South Korea has won orders at prices below production cost, and the EU has reported South Korea to the World Trade Organisation for its behaviour.

Speaking as a local MP, I would say that given that there are at least three years before the steel work on the carriers being built in the shipyards in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)is finished, these contracts mean that there would have been enough time to find work to keep other highly skilled workers busy until the Type 26 frigates came along at these shipyards. Instead, however, as a result of losing out on this contract, the shortfall will lead to the loss of 1,000 jobs. Given that unemployment in my constituency is up 66% since February 2008 and in Glasgow city by 80% since summer 2007, we can see that this is of major concern not only to me but to the people of the city of Glasgow. That will be mirrored in other areas of the country.

What really annoys me, however, is that these four MARS tankers for the Royal Navy were deemed to be “warlike” ships. As a result, under the previous Government’s procurement rules, they would have been built in the UK. I secured that commitment from the previous Government in 2003 at a meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, when they guaranteed that all “grey ships” or “warlike ships” would be built in the UK.

19 Mar 2012 : Column 616

My local GMB shipbuilders’ trade union certainly considers these tankers for the Royal Navy to be “warlike”, so like the Type 45 destroyers, the aircraft carriers and the future surface combatant ships, the Type 26 frigates, they should be built in the UK too. The reason is that they could be put into a war zone to refuel warships and to provide support for amphibious and land forces close to the shore. They need to be equipped with proper defences to protect the Royal Navy personnel on board, the helicopters that operate from them and, of course, the ships themselves—let us not forget them and the men in them. For that reason alone they should be built in the UK.

I fear, however, that the commitment that I secured from the previous Government is being broken and that the current Government are sending out signals that they will continue to break it. In fact, I believe that it is the Government’s policy to break it. This fear is supported by the equipment, support and technology Green Paper published on December 2010. It stated that the Government intended to buy more defence equipment off the shelf. As defence companies in the UK cannot afford the costs or accept the risks of developing major pieces of defence equipment without Government support, the clear implication of the Green Paper is that the Government mean to buy more equipment from foreign suppliers. Moreover, there is no mention of arrangements for licensed production, suggesting that the Ministry of Defence envisages buying more from the company’s own production line—another potential blow for UK manufacturing.

At the end of August 2011, the Government announced an order of 14 Chinook helicopters from Boeing, at a cost of £1 billion, which was fully in line with the approach I have outlined. At the beginning of October, AgustaWestland announced that it would make 375 staff redundant, owing to a shortage of work. That means that the Government are setting a dangerous precedent, which may have changed the commitment that I received from the previous Government on “grey ships”. With fewer than 10,000 highly skilled workers in the shipbuilding industry, any further loss of commitment to support the yards will result in the total collapse of UK shipbuilding and the loss of a highly skilled and motivated work force. Investment over the last few years has created a fantastic opportunity for UK shipbuilding to be recognised as it was a number of years ago—highly respected for quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Many navies in the world are looking at our Type 45 destroyers with envy. They are without doubt the best ships of their class and type anywhere in the world.

The Government say that no UK yard made a bid for the MARS ships. However, I am the chair of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group, and a meeting was held last week. I have approached companies that should have bid, but did not do so, for which there were two good reasons. First, they were discouraged from doing so; and secondly, the decision had already been made on cost. Will the Minister comment on that, verify whether those are the facts, and if so, say what he will do to rectify the situation?

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): In view of my hon. Friend’s discussions with the all-party group, will he tell the House why those companies appear to have been discouraged?

19 Mar 2012 : Column 617

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the companies do not want to be named, for obvious reasons—their orders might be looked at in future—but the fact of the matter is that they seem to have been pretty well warned off, being told that it would be a waste of time, energy and money for them to tender for the ships. I find that despicable to say the least, and it is also a slight on our great work force, who work in the shipyards in my constituency and many others.

The previous Labour Government deserve to be congratulated on saving shipbuilding on the Clyde, as the Conservative Government from whom they took over did their best to ensure that those yards closed. The present carrier project, initiated by the last Government, is not only boosting the shipbuilding sector’s profile, but having a knock-on effect in the manufacturing sector as a whole. At a time of high unemployment, we should remember that the industry cannot afford to lose skilled workers, because as we have seen, once gone, they do not return to the industry. The industry needs skilled workers over the next 10 years. The young people entering the industry need to be trained, but it is not easy with people leaving the industry owing to lack of work or retirement. The shipbuilding work force are ageing and need new blood now. With youth unemployment at an all-time high—I might add that it is above the national average in my constituency—what better time than this to employ more young people? I congratulate BAE Systems in my constituency on its apprenticeship policy and on doing a great job to keep apprenticeships going in the last 10 years, but let us face it: the industry on the Clyde can ill afford any redundancies.

All this raises the question of where the ships should be built. We could, of course, build them abroad, as the Government appear to want to do. After all, it might work out cheaper to do so. However, we are not talking about a simple commercial ship that can be built more cheaply in a low-wage economy; in this case, we are talking about complex, highly integrated systems that happen to be housed in ships. We have the necessary skills here in the UK, and we cannot run the risk of losing crucial shipbuilding skills to other countries, let alone the cost of unemployment. Ultimately, the Government could find that they have nowhere at home to turn to for their systems requirements, if they continue to act as they currently are: penny wise but pound foolish.

The Minister will be aware of a recent report by the Royal United Services Institute which looked into defence procurement. The report found that the tax revenue implications of a given choice are frequently overlooked. Given that the Government, including the Ministry of Defence, are committed to reducing the budget deficit—a function of spending and revenue—this issue is highly pertinent. Using an actual contract and an explicit accounting method, the RUSI report found that the tax revenues are significant; they can yield to the Exchequer over a third of the value of the contract.

The same study found that the Government could get back more than 28% in income tax and national insurance payments alone by buying British in defence procurement. That figure is of obvious procurement policy significance at a time when there is such concern over the Government’s budget deficit, and this is something that the Chancellor should consider this week. The thousands of people in the shipbuilding industry could not care less about the

19 Mar 2012 : Column 618

50p tax rate; they just want a job that allows them to be able to pay tax. The report also suggested that if the UK were to spend a third of its defence budget on off-the-shelf foreign systems, as outlined in the Green Paper on equipment, support and technology, the Treasury would lose about £1 billion in revenue. That could have a negative effect on Government revenues and thus on the public sector deficit. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered the RUSI report?

There is also a human aspect to all this that we miss in the faceless statistics and figures that are quoted. How can families in my constituency, and constituencies like it, plan for their own future when they could see their jobs go? How can we expect them to cope with such insecurity, especially when they are working in an industry of national importance? We are talking about generations of families who have worked in the industry, and about the traditions that go along with that. If the Government cut first and think later, it is those people and many others like them who will ultimately pick up the tab. So I call on the Minister and the Government to honour the commitment of the previous Government to the proud people in the shipbuilding industry of this country, and to ensure that all “grey ships” continue to be made in Britain.

Filed under: News, Parliament, recentnews, speeches Tags: scotstoun, shipbuilding
No Comments »

I took part in the Energy Prices Debate that the Labour party called for today, sadly it was quite a popular debate and I couldn’t give all my speech by this is a section of what I planned to say. It took place just after 4pm. I hope anyone tuning in was able to see some of the debate. I’ve published the transcript of the debate below for those who could not watch:

11 Jan 2012 : Column 271

5.56 pm

John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): I shall try to talk to the subject that we are here to discuss, unlike the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).

Last year, the average household saw energy costs rise by about £300 and Ofgem announced last October that the profit for energy companies had risen to £125 per customer per year, from £15 in June. My contention is not that the cost of energy is rising, but that the big six do not have a great track record of passing on wholesale decreases as quickly as increases.

Today’s wholesale energy prices are lower than they were a few years ago—and lower than they were only a few months ago. According to Bloomberg, the wholesale price for gas in autumn 2008 hit over 70p a therm. If we compare that with 59p per therm last October, we see that wholesale gas prices have actually dropped 15% since then. Similarly, prices in the wholesale electricity market reached £120 per megawatt-hour in autumn 2008. Today, they are just over £50 per megawatt-hour—less than half the price back then. But gas prices have dropped by only 15% and electricity prices by only 11% since last May’s peak. According to Bloomberg, in December natural gas futures declined by 30% compared with 2011. Today, energy companies can buy their gas for 53p per therm, some 9% cheaper than even last October.

The reason for this is sadly apparent. European demand is going down as the continent is moving towards a downturn and productivity is declining. This may be why EDF announced today a 5% cut, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) pointed out—the company raised its gas prices last year by 15.4% while future gas derivative prices were falling, and while current market prices are down on previous years.

As a result, there is great suspicion among many, including Ofgem, that the big six have not been passing on wholesale market price reductions, not only last year but this year. These are clear acts of anti-competiveness in themselves, especially towards smaller energy companies, let alone customers and small businesses. For example, section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position in a market by one or more undertakings which may affect trade within the UK. I will quote competition law guidelines again as it seems that the Secretary of State did not hear me the last time I did so. They state:

“Conduct may be abusive when, through the effects of conduct on the competitive process, it adversely affects consumers directly (for example, through the prices charged) or indirectly (for example, conduct which reduces the intensity of existing competition or potential competition). A dominant undertaking is under a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair undistorted competition.”

I strongly suspect that one reason behind the price rises is probably that the companies have grossly failed to stockpile their energy reserves to hedge adequately against future prices. That could explain why, when future prices have fallen by almost a third, the companies are not passing on the reduction. There may be numerous reasons for that—one reason is probably ineptitude—but I feel that the main answer lies more in the lack of any incentive to pass on substantial price rises.

David Mowat: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

11 Jan 2012 : Column 272

John Robertson: I will not give way. There are a lot of people wanting to speak.

My constituents are grossly disadvantaged. The Secretary of State talked about going on the internet, but the low internet uptake in Glasgow—we have one of the lowest uptakes—will not allow that to happen for my constituents. However, I was pleased to hear that he has taken on board the point about severe housing, which is what we have. Efficiency savings cannot be made in concrete housing blocks. In fact, all my constituents seem to do is pay to heat up the concrete blocks in the winter and cool them down in the summer. I therefore look forward to hearing more from the Minister. I hope he will look at the prices, go back to the companies, give Ofgem the teeth that it needs and ensure that the fines that should be imposed on the companies in question are indeed imposed.

6.1 pm

Filed under: News, Parliament, recentnews, speeches Tags: Energy Prices, fuel poverty
No Comments »

You may have seen the Glasgow Evening Times covered the  Adjournment Debate I managed to secure an on Fuel Poverty.

I gave a speech in the Chamber of the Houses of Parliament, with the Tory Minister in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, Gregory Barker MP, answering. It took place just after 7pm. I hope anyone tuning in was able to see some of the debate. I’ve published the transcript of the debate below for those who could not watch:

Fuel Poverty

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

7.4 pm

John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): I am delighted to have secured this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the wider issues that I shall raise.

First, let me set out the current state of fuel poverty in Scotland. Fuel poverty afflicts a cross-section of society. It is determined by the percentage of one’s income that is spent on energy bills: to be exact, when a household spends more than 10% per cent of its income on gas and electricity, it is deemed to be in fuel poverty. One third of Scottish households live in fuel poverty. The Scottish Government believe that, after recent energy price rises more than 900,000 Scottish households will be living in fuel poverty. I fear that we are on the edge of a fuel poverty crisis and that in the coming years that figure will reach the 1 million mark in Scotland alone.

Colder winters in the rest of the UK have not stopped the Scottish National party Administration in Edinburgh cutting the fuel poverty budget by a third, and aided by what the Tory-led Government are doing, the poor and needy are set to suffer even more in the years to come. In constituencies such as mine, as well as others, fuel poverty relates predominantly, although not exclusively, to pensioner poverty; however, many who are not pensioners —people with severe disabilities, single parents and the unemployed, to name but a few—are also in fuel poverty.

My home city of Glasgow is fairly youthful compared with other cities in Scotland, but there is a large elderly population. Among those of pensionable age, there are large pockets of severe pensioner poverty, to which my constituency is sadly not an exception and from which it suffers more than most. When I was elected to Parliament in November 2000, 80% of single pensioner households in Scotland lived on an annual income of £15,000 or less. Today that figure is 60%—admittedly less than in 2000, but still unacceptable. With 13,500 pensioner households in my constituency alone—one of the highest concentrations of pensioners in Europe—hon. Members will understand why this issue is of grave importance to me as a local MP and why I am raising it today. About 6,500 people are claiming pension credit in my constituency, which is consistently ranked 7th out of all Scottish parliamentary constituencies in that respect. My constituency has the highest proportion of single women pensioners in the entire country, and according to official figures their number will continue to rise, with over two thirds of women over 85 in Scotland projected to live alone by 2033. Glasgow North West is fast becoming—sadly for me—like the name of a recent film, “No Country for Old Men”.

Because 65% of single pensioner households and about half of smaller pensioner households in Scotland were classified as fuel poor in 2009, according to official figures, making them more likely than any other type of household to be experiencing fuel poverty, my constituency casework, as hon. Members can imagine, is dominated by the issue—and rightly so. According to Scottish Government figures, almost a quarter of single pensioner households and a fifth of smaller pensioner households in Scotland are deemed to be in extreme fuel poverty, whereby they spend more than 20% of their disposable

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1148

income on heating their home. In addition, 8% of pensioners in Scotland live in absolute poverty and one in 10 over-65s are classed as “materially deprived”. Although Scotland is one of the worst affected areas in the UK, many inner-city and rural areas elsewhere have the same severe fuel poverty status. Hon. Members will understand why I believe we are on the verge of a fuel poverty crisis.

What causes fuel poverty? To put it simply, it has three root causes: low incomes, poor housing and high energy prices. Eradicating fuel poverty will involve tackling these three problems. Improving the quality of housing stock is of paramount importance. Although big strides were taken under the previous Government through the decent homes standard, the Warm Front programme and the energy efficiency commitment to improve energy efficiency and install cost-effective heating systems in homes, more has to be done. In Scotland between 2008 and 2010, new housing supply decreased by 16%, house building decreased by 17% and public sector housing provision fell by 1%. I would like to blame the current Government for those things, but unfortunately they were not in power. In 2009, according to Scottish Government figures, new-build housing completions were at their lowest level since 1982, meaning that fewer modern, properly insulated homes are being built. In addition, people living in private sector housing in Scotland are twice as likely as those in social housing to experience extreme fuel poverty. More than a third of pensioners live in housing that is poorly insulated or reliant on expensive heating.

Housing is a devolved matter, however. In this speech, I will focus mainly on areas where the Government potentially have a direct influence. Although I will use Scotland and my constituency as examples, colleagues tell me that the situation is just as bad in many other areas of the UK. I have had to apologise to a number of Members who asked to intervene, because I would have needed hours of extra time to have a proper debate and allow them the time that they so richly deserve.

In incomes policy, I hope that the Chancellor and the Government will focus more on the vital role of the tax and benefit system in raising the incomes of the needy. I am sure that the Minister knows that benefit entitlement checks can help to ensure that vulnerable customers are getting their fair share of the millions of pounds of unclaimed benefits. Sadly, the many inches of newsprint about the £1.5 billion-worth of benefit fraud outweigh the coverage given to unclaimed benefits. Do not get me wrong, fraud of any kind should be sought out and punished as it is the poorest who always suffer as a result, but little recognition has been given to the fact that up to £5 billion of means-tested benefits that should go to older people in the United Kingdom are unclaimed each year. I wish that the Government would apply the same gusto to chasing up the pensioners who need that money as they give to those who defraud the welfare system.

I could not discuss fuel poverty without mentioning winter fuel payments. I know that the Conservatives were latecomers to supporting winter fuel payments. I remember the Foreign Secretary, when he was leader of his party, saying that such payments were a gimmick, and I am glad that the Conservatives have now publicly declared their support for them. However, the Chancellor’s decision to cut winter fuel payments to the poorest

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1149

pensioners by £100 seems a cynical and short-sighted decision in the current economic climate, with incomes falling and energy prices rising.

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am sure that he was in the Chamber for Scotland questions earlier today, where the figures for Glasgow were given: 100,000 pensioners face cuts to their winter fuel allowance this year, totalling £4 million, at the same time as their energy bills are rising by up to 20%. Does he share my concern that, sadly, too many pensioners in the UK will have to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table?

John Robertson: My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a very good point. I know that the Minister will say that the Government are not cutting winter fuel payments, but maintaining the level that the Labour party set in government. The fact is that each time the Labour party increased the payments because of the weather, it consolidated them the next year. Had Labour won the election, we would have expected the Government to consolidate the money given last time. That is why I feel that this Government should consolidate that money, particularly at a time when energy prices are rising and when poor people—particularly the elderly—who need the money the most will suffer the most. It is a fact that those who receive the winter fuel allowance will receive less this year than last year. The Labour Government did not do that; the Conservative Government did. They had their opportunity to consolidate the payments, but instead used them as another attack on the poor.

Energy is a major cost to everybody, but especially to people who fall into the trap of fuel poverty. Energy companies constantly remind us of increases in the wholesale costs of oil and gas and increased demand, and add that they are required to invest in modernising their industry to keep climate change commitments; they remind us less often of the Government subsidies that they get to invest in renewables, and still less often of the huge profits that they make, and of the huge profits that they made in the days of cheap oil and gas, none of which have ever been repaid to customers. After all, the profits of the big six energy companies have gone up almost a third since 2008, and payouts to shareholders increased across the board, up an incredible sixfold since 1999 in the case of Centrica, which owns British Gas.

I support renewable energy, but the delivery of clean energy has not matched the price paid by the Government. It is time that we saw a return for our taxpayers’ money. The production—or lack of it—of clean energy is being used to rip off the British people, thus adding to the costs of those who can least afford them. I can compare the scale on which private energy companies have managed to privatise profits but nationalise losses only with the recent bank crisis. The energy customer in the UK—if we were totally honest, we could just call them the British taxpayer, because they are one and the same—is picking up the tab for the excesses, irresponsibility, recklessness and lack of long-term vision of the big six energy companies. Those companies—the energy barons—have managed to turn us into their 21st century serfs. The cheek of some of them knows no bounds. As I pointed out in June, ScottishPower is milking the British consumer: having recently increased energy bills in this

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1150

country to record levels, it lent £800 million to its foreign sister company, which is based in the US, to keep US energy prices down. That money could have been invested in the UK, or it could have helped to keep UK prices down.

That was not even the first time that that happened. Back in 2008, ScottishPower lent £750 million directly to its Spanish parent, Iberdrola. One can assume only that that was to the benefit of Spanish energy customers. That is not the truly sickening aspect of this problem. This is the first year since 1990 when Iberdrola’s US gas and electricity supply companies have raised their customers’ bills. They have seen increases of 2% and 8%, but the British customer is getting hit by near-20% increases this year, and has been hit by 40% increases since 2007. That same supplier is lending money to the American company.

I believe that that is why the energy companies do not want to be fully transparent. Although extra wholesale market costs increase prices, with full transparency we might discover that market costs are not increasing prices to the extent that the price hikes would suggest. According to Bloomberg, the wholesale price for gas in autumn 2008 went above 70p per therm, compared with 59p per therm today. That shows that wholesale gas prices have actually dropped 15%. Similarly, prices in the wholesale electricity market reached £120 per MWh in autumn 2008; today, they are £51.20 per MWh—less than half the price back then.

This is not a case of energy companies being backed into a corner by market forces; it is an act of collective incompetence and ineptitude, leading to a cartel of companies backing consumers into a corner by raising prices in tandem. I therefore suggest that we break up the big six’s monopoly and allow other providers to enter the energy market. I would like to see a major co-operative energy supplier and/or a big supermarket chain, such as Tesco, giving the big six some competition.

Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree not only that it would be useful if other players entered the market, but that it is important that people can understand the various tariffs? Many people on the lowest incomes find it extremely difficult to work out what is best for them. The energy companies could do more. I hope that new players would operate differently.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and believe me, if I had more time I would go into it. I certainly did so in the Energy and Climate Change Committee, when we talked about tariffs and the fact that there are more than 400 of them. It is a disgrace. How is anyone supposed to understand them all?

It is odd that in 2011, I, a Labour MP, am calling upon a Tory Government to create greater competition in the marketplace, but with more companies and greater competition, I believe that costs would fall, employment would be maintained or increased and the same profits would lead to greater efficiency in the old and new companies. If we do nothing, however, just like the big banks, which were too big to fail, so too, owing to the cartel-like nature of our energy market, will these huge companies feel that there is no sanction for reckless price rises, and only disaster and a big bill will await the taxpayer. I strongly suspect that the true reason for the

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1151

price rises is the gross failure of the companies to stockpile their energy reserves to hedge adequately against future price rises. Their error is our loss. There might be numerous reasons for the current situation, including ineptitude, but although that is likely, I feel that the answer lies more in the fact that neither the Government nor Ofgem have given them any incentive.

I realise that it is not all the energy companies’ fault. I believe that the regulator, Ofgem, has not helped matters by being idle. I recently publicised the £200,000-a-year salary of Lord Mogg, its chairman. I hope that the Government, who claim to want to crack down on quangos, will have an urgent word with that gentleman, who is paid more than the Prime Minister for a three-day week. He is on footballer-like wages and needs to be reminded to justify his salary. His organisation should be acting to protect hard-pressed British consumers, who on his watch are not getting a fair deal.

I know that I have quoted many facts and figures—I hope that I have not bored too many people, including the Minister—but they are not nameless and faceless to me; they represent individuals whom I have known for many years, not just as their MP, but as their neighbour and friend. That is why I have such passion for this issue. In the nature of cross-party good will, I have a few questions that I would be grateful if the Minister answered.

What does the Minister believe can be done to encourage uptake of means-tested benefits among those in our elderly population who can rightly claim them? Will he consider enforcing transparency upon the big six energy companies or asking the Competition Commission to hold an inquiry into the energy market? What does the Minister think of my suggestion of breaking up the energy companies to stop them acting like a cartel and to allow other providers into the market? What does he believe can be done to tackle fuel poverty, and what measures does he propose to alleviate its harshness this winter? What plans are in place to increase awareness among pensioners and others of the help provided this winter? Would he be interested in a cross-party energy summit, held in Westminster, bringing together energy companies and politicians? Will he ask the Chancellor to revisit the winter fuel allowance and consolidate the £100 reduction?

I thank the many groups, non-governmental organisations and colleagues who have contacted me with help and advice. To mention them all would have taken hours. Let us have the debate we need. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

7.24 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on his success in securing an Adjournment debate, particularly on the important subject of fuel poverty. He spoke at length and with great passion. Unfortunately, he has left me about nine minutes to respond to the many important points that he raised. I shall have to make a slightly shorter speech than I had intended, but if I do not cover all the salient points, I will write to the hon. Gentleman after the debate.

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1152

At a time when fuel bills are rising and we are approaching the cold months of the year, it is right to start by reaffirming the coalition’s absolute commitment to helping those households in or at risk of fuel poverty. We recognise the need to help more of the most vulnerable keep their homes warm at an affordable cost. However, the state of fuel poverty in this country, which is totally unacceptable, has not occurred overnight. Fuel poverty has been rising year on year for much of the past decade, during which the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government. Despite legislation designed to reverse the trend, between 2005 and 2009 the number of fuel-poor households across the UK more than doubled from 2.5 million to 5.5 million.

In England, we have seen the number rise from 1.2 million in 2004 to 4 million in 2009 and, of these, 3.2 million were vulnerable, so the elderly, families with young children and the long-term sick and disabled are among those most affected by fuel poverty. Of Scotland’s 2.3 million households, in 2009 there were 770,000 households in fuel poverty, compared to 543,000 in 2005. This means that, as the hon. Gentleman said, a third of households in Scotland were in fuel poverty in 2009. In Glasgow city, which encompasses his constituency, there were 69,000 households in fuel poverty in 2009.

If we are to reverse this trend and the iniquitous and ever-increasing number of those in fuel poverty, it is clear that something big has to change. I do not doubt that the previous Government were well intentioned and had hoped to be more effective than they were, but the numbers speak for themselves. The attempts of the previous Administration were singularly unsuccessful for a number of reasons, some of which were within their control and some not. We need to completely rethink, redesign and re-engineer our policies to meet the challenge of turning around this juggernaut.

Before leaping forward with new answers, we must first make sure that we are asking ourselves the right questions. That is why we invited Professor John Hills to undertake an independent review of the fuel poverty target and definition. He has been asked to look at fuel poverty from first principles—what causes it, its effects and how best to measure it. The review is looking to ensure that in these difficult times available resources are focused where they will be most effective in tackling fuel poverty, targeting support to those who need it the most. As I said, this is an independent review so I cannot predict what will be said, but I am aware that Professor Hills is engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and we look forward to receiving his interim findings this autumn.

In the meantime, the coalition Government need to act. We have introduced the warm home discount, a scheme that spans Great Britain. This is the first year of the scheme and we will assist around 2 million households. The majority of these will be low-income pensioner households in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit only. We expect to find more than 600,000 of them and provide them with a £120 rebate on their bill. Most of these will receive a rebate without having to claim, as a result of the Department for Work and Pensions and the energy suppliers sharing their data to help to find these customers. The rebate will be a major benefit to these vulnerable people who may struggle to claim. This is part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about how we start identifying such people and encouraging

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1153

them to take up the benefits to which they are entitled. The discount will increase across the four years of the scheme, rising to £140 by the fourth year. To ensure that those off the gas grid can also benefit from the scheme, the discount will be applied to household electricity bills. Other groups, such as low-income families and those with long-term illnesses or disabilities, may also receive the discount.

Tackling fuel poverty will be a huge challenge. A key part of the solution is undoubtedly to address the thermal efficiency of our housing stock. Britain has some of the oldest building stock in Europe. As consumers, we pay a high price for inefficient, leaky buildings. It is widely known that it costs more on average to heat a home in southern England than it does to heat a home in Norway. That is obviously not because it is colder here, but because our buildings are significantly leakier and draughtier. Both the carbon emissions reduction target and Warm Front continue, installing measures in the homes of some of those most at risk from cold. However, the coalition has extended the CERT programme to 2012, which will bridge the gap before the introduction of the real game changer in autumn 2012, the green deal.

Warm Front has helped more than 2.2 million households in England with a range of heating measures. However, we recognised early on that Warm Front was a totally inadequate response to the scale of fuel poverty. It has helped hundreds of thousands of people when the challenge is to help millions. If we had to rely on Warm Front alone, at the previous high rate of spending under the last Labour Government it would take more than 80 years to get close to achieving our aim. The Government’s green deal, which we debated this afternoon, will be the flagship programme for addressing energy efficiency. We hope that it will be the game changer that finally deploys resources from the private sector to achieve the ambitious scale of change and investment that we need.

The domestic green deal is an opportunity for householders to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and will come at no up-front cost. It will help to protect people against price rises through greater energy efficiency, saving them money now, but also protecting

14 Sep 2011 : Column 1154

them against future rises. In developing the green deal and the energy company obligation—the subsidy that will target hard-to-heat homes and the fuel-poor—we are removing the barriers to take-up, raising awareness and showcasing the benefits to make energy efficiency a no-brainer. We are also working closely with the devolved Administrations, particularly in Scotland, to ensure that the green deal can be rolled out right across the country.

The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the big six. Let me remind him that after privatisation in the early 1990s there were dozens of energy companies. I agree with him that the market was surely much healthier then. I have great sympathy for his wish to see far greater competition in the energy sector, although the consolidation of the energy companies into the mighty big six occurred primarily at the end of the ’90s, under the last Labour Government. However, we will not overcome the problem by simply squeezing or over-regulating them evermore. Regulation is important, but we must be careful not to create new barriers to entry. Like him, I want to see new players entering the market and more disruptive technologies. We want to see a more decentralised energy system challenging the monopoly of the old-style, old-fashioned provider. We want to see more energy service companies that make their money not from selling energy, but from helping people to save energy by using less to keep their houses warm.

The Government are taking a range of measures, including our exciting proposals for electricity market reform, to create new incentives to bring new players into the market, because ultimately it is competition—new entrants, new players, new investment—that will create the choice and best value for consumers that the hon. Gentleman and I both want. Indeed, he is absolutely right about that and I am glad that we have found that point of agreement. I am also glad that we have had this opportunity to debate the issue. He is absolutely right—

7.34 pm

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Filed under: News, Parliament, recentnews, speeches Tags: energy bills, Energy Prices, fuel poverty
No Comments »

Some of you may be aware that I have been a long supporter of the Education Maintenance Allowances (EMA) and the Save EMA campaign, ever since I realised it could be under threat in Scotland when the SNP administration at Holyrood decided to cut the EMA budget by 20 per cent and axe the £10 and £20 payments.

I asked the Prime Minister in PMQs back in October following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) why he broke his promise at a Cameron Direct event in January last year before the election to the Save EMA campaign that he supported the  Education Maintenance Allowances.

I also secured an Adjournment Debate that week on the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), the week it was abolished in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). There are over 600,000 teenagers on EMA in England alone who will see this allowance withdrawn and 80% of those will be the poorest teenagers in our country from families with household income below £20,810.

Now, although I am a Scottish MP I still fi ght for young people’s rights as a UK MP, and Scotland is where EMA was fi rst attacked by the “Tartan-Tories” – the SNP. Last year they cut the EMA budget by 20% and axed the £10 and £20 payments. You could say I saw the writing on the wall and didn’t want EMA to suffer the same fate in England as it had in Scotland.

This is a scheme close to my heart because it is based on providing a platform to poor families, which means that economic barriers will no longer stand in their way to getting an education and getting on in life.

I have spoken on this subject before, when I secured an adjournment debate in the previous parliament on 2nd February this year and if you want a good example of the difference between the previous government and the new one today then it will be this policy. For example, the last time I spoke on this issue the then Minster, Iain Wright MP, committed the then Labour government to maintaining EMA in its current form up to 2011 and beyond.

Many of the young people who contacted me following that debate, sending me their support and thanks, will now feel disappointed by politics after having their fears and hopes raised and then crushed in a matter of months by this Tory-led Government.

But I hope they can continue their fight as I will continue my support!

Filed under: News, campaigns, speeches
No Comments »

Dear Mr Speaker,

Ordered, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected puposes.

This is the fifth time I have raised this subject in a ten minute rule bill and if God loves a trier as they say then he must adore me. I hesitate to add that I have seen off three Labour Secretaries of State, but I hope that on this subject my first Conservative Secretary of State will not only be my first but also my last.

Throughout my years of toil what has become clear to me is that there has been firm consensus across this House that support should be provided to ensure that someone who develops an impairment or becomes disabled can remain in work.

The widespread support I have always received with this Bill is testament to the fact that the matter is not confined to the margins of society. Every quarter around 600,000 people become sick or develop an impairment as defined by the late Disability Discrimination Act – and within one year 13%, that’s 78,000 people, have left work. From these, each year around 25,000 people permanently leave employment due to illness or disability, never returning – that works out at over a quarter of a million people since 1997. This more than cancels out the creditable achievement of the previous Government of helping 200,000 disabled people into work over the last decade and will no doubt hinder the current Coalition.

We know that as a result of this and other barriers a disabled person is nearly five times more likely to be out of work and claiming benefits than a non-disabled person and, crucially, we know that once out of work they are far less likely to move back into employment.

Behind these statistics lie people’s lives, often suddenly unrecognisable, as they simultaneously have to come to terms with a permanent life-changing impairment whilst facing the prospect of losing their employment, their source of income and, in some cases, even their home.

I have said this before and will continue to say it until governments address the problem

Last week saw the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outline his Universal Credit reform of the welfare system, to move more people from benefits into employment. Today, I find myself once again making the point that we need to focus on retention, to stop people from falling into the welfare system trap in the first place. I welcome some of the welfare reforms the Secretary of State puts forward, and if the right honourable gentleman truly intends to make a constructive effort to seeing more people in employment then I hope he will see me and my Bill as a help and not a hindrance.

For example, I support the underlying principle of simplifying the benefits system and providing real incentives to work by the creation of a Universal Credit but the universal lesson which must be taken on board by the government is that you will not get more people off benefits and into work without there being work for them to go into.

I also agree that there should be real obligations backed by sanctions for people receiving out of work benefits but these should be matched by rights and guarantees to work. Too much stick and not enough carrot will not work.

However there are areas in which I am at odds with this government. That is why I must briefly mention my abhorrence to the government’s plans of Cutting Housing Benefit by 10% for people out of work for 12 months even if they have done everything possible to find a job is the wrong approach. Without going into more detail I believe this is completely wrong not just on moral grounds and I believe will only mean we are adding to the burdens of someone already heavily laden with a disability or in rehabilitation and will make our job in finding him or her a job twice as hard.

Another area in this same subject is the cut of Local Housing Allowance which would mean that nearly all of the claimants in my constituency in private rentals would see a loss of £43 a month. This may not seem huge to some but too many of my constituents or those hit by a debilitating injury or degenerative illness or ailment this could mean that a massive chunk of their rent which they must find somewhere else. And therefore adds a further economic hurdle to such people who want to remain in work.

—HALFWAY—

The other obvious area of contention is in regards to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support. The government plans to reduce the length of time that a recipient can receive ESA, which some would view as a measure with the sole interest of reducing the welfare bill rather than making sure that the recipient returns to work.

We know from the previous government’s initiative in this area, Pathways to Work, that many unemployed people with disabilities take longer than 12 months to secure employment. This is not just my view, The Shaw Trust, one of the largest charities which works with employers, social services and the disabled to help people with disabilities find employment, has also stated that out of all their clients they have placed into work so far this year 20 percent had been supported for over 12 months before moving into work

And out of that around a third had taken about 18months. They also state that 63% of all their clients on incapacity Benefit included with these figures have taken more than 12 months. Furthermore, under the Work Programme proposals, the government estimate that around 58 percent of the 1.5million incapacity benefit claimants will be moved on to ESA Work Related Activity Group. This would mean a large number of people being rushed through the Work Programme for them only to potentially leave that job because they can’t cope or have not adapted to their new disability. Or are just not suitable – thus bringing us back to square one. In fact it could make it worse as those with a new disability could be cut off long before a resumption of work or rehabilitation is completed.

Although the government needs to elaborate on this area more, they haven’t ruled out sanctions being imposed if ESA recipients have not secured a job, in any case they would face a reduction in income which would in turn place homes and family members at great risk. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on why taking people out of a support structure like that of the Work Programme even if they were making progress with no reason for this being given by the Government. And if a further look at those with disabilities could be done quickly, perhaps the Minister could write to me?

I have mentioned that this Bill receives widespread support in this House and this is shared outside this chamber. On this and previous occasions when I have brought this Bill before parliament I have found support from a wide range of stakeholders from the Trade Union Congress, disability charities such as the RNIB, the Disability Rights Commission and even the CBI.

The effect on the individual‘s long-term, well being by being made unemployed through ill health, will also have an impact on the economy as many disabled people never return to work. The result is a strain on the state, a burden on pension funds, benefit payments and even additional recruitment costs for employers to replace and train staff.

—ONE MINUTE—

I believe that through this Bill, the Government, at relatively little cost, would be able to ensure that any regulatory burden on employers is kept to a minimum.  It would be an investment in the short term that would reap the benefits for employers and employees but in the long term for Government through benefits savings and tax collected. As the honourable gentlemen will be aware, for every 100,000 people who go on the dole the cost to the taxpayer is £500million and if we can reduce spending by one percent and raise revenues by one percent then we can reduce the deficit by £12billion, in this Bill I offer the kind of thinking which will help us towards such goals.

So in conclusion, I mentioned throughout that there was broad consensus in this House of the need to ensure support for people who become disabled whilst in employment. While Honourable and Right Honourable Members’ support is gratefully received, what is more pressing than this, and will, I hope, cause everyone in the Coalition Government to get behind this Bill, is the fact that there will be 25,000 people this year alone who will be in need of these changes. And 125,000 people since I first raised this issue.

All I ask the government is it supports this Bill and proves it wants to keep people in work and to work with all parties to achieve it.

4^th February 2011 is the Second Reading

Filed under: speeches
No Comments »

Mr Speaker,

I am delighted to have secured this debate and to have the opportunity to exchange views with my honourable friend the Minister.  I look forward to hearing my Hon. Friend’s comments on the wider issues that I shall raise in this debate.

But to begin I would like to discuss the current state of Child and Adult Online Protection in social media and what can be done to improve matters.

I was brought to this subject today following on from events of recent weeks, where we have seen the sad deaths of Ashleigh Hall and Camille Mathurasingh.

Ms. Mathurasingh was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend following him viewing pictures of her with another man on her social media account. Her’s is a case that although it reached mass media attention, I am aware it is an impossible area to legislate against.

However the case of Ashleigh Hall is more worrying; she was stalked by a 33 year old paedophile posing as someone half his age. He met up with Ms. Hall and then abducted, raped and murdered her.

Although the circumstances of both cases differ, they do signify the problems that face us in protecting ourselves in the virtual world from danger in the real world.

Social media websites such as facebook have inextricably changed the level of interaction in our society in the last few years. The concept of friendship has been downgraded more than previously before, we show pictures and intimate details with hundreds or thousands of so called facebook friends, many of whom we may never have even met. I talk on experience on this matter, as I have 500 new friends on facebook I never knew I had. But on a serious note, this downgrading of the personal bonds of friendship online has hidden consequences.  Online relationships spring up without any face to face contact ever being made, and children can be communicating with people that their parents are never aware of.

Social Networking websites are at the forefront clearly of this new level of communications. According to a recent Ofcom report UK internet users spend more time on networking websites than any other country in Europe with 39 percent of UK adults using social networking websites on a regular basis. Facebook is particularily primed for the UK market with Facebook making up 45 percent of the UK social networking market double that of Bebo and more than three times that of Myspace. Rather impressive when one considers that the total global social networking website market is taken up by Myspace with 71.92 percent of the market and Facebook only holding 16.91 percent of the market. The reasons for this success in the UK compared to the US is owed to the fact that Facebook UK has managed to spread beyond university students and has socially stratified down to all other levels of society. This is not the case in the US, where Facebook and Myspace are divided on ethnic and class lines, where Afro-Caribbean and Latino school-levers favour the popular social networking website MySpace and university students favour Facebook.

Recent research, commissioned by The National Year of Reading 2008 on the White Working Class boys (C2DE) aged 11-15, found that 80 percent had access to the internet through computers in the home.

I mention these facts to highlight that this is an issue that affects everyone in our society, even those who may not be online but whose family members might be. It is understandable that problems of security will arise in such a diluted online community.

For example, some experts have linked the rise in teenage rape, up 23 percent on last year, to a growing sexualisation of young teenage girls on social networking sites. Personally I don’t believe this is the only reason for the rise, but it may well be a influencing factor. Either way this again reiterates the fear that fear we have on this matter.

In the case of Asheilgh Hall that I mentioned more could have been done by the social networking website Facebook to protect her by adding a report button.

This report button is something which I have some knowledge on from my work as chair of the All-Party-Parliamentray Group on Communication.

The report button was created by the Home Office’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) and is free for any social media website to use with no charge for take up. The Ceop has stated that since its creation the button receives thousands of clicks a month. Now Facebook has had access to this button since 2006 and has not yet put it on its user sites, Despite from what I have read in the papers that internet security consultants in the USA found 8,000 paedophiles on their website. It is well documented that, MySpace removed 90,000 paedophiles from their website. But inspite of this fact neither websites have fitted the Report Button.

Well, the problem is that there is no industry code requiring social media websites to fit these buttons to their websites.

If you believe as I do that the market can not regulate itself, because it does not regulate itself, and very often the commercial entities that come into these environments are venture capital driven, they are trying to do as much as possible for as little as possible, until they are bought over.

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with the business model, but when we are talking about child safety, you let people operate in an enterprise zone with special terms and conditions, perhaps around business rates and other incentives, but you do not let them operate in blatant and flagrant abuse of construction use or child safety regulations.  It should be no different in the online environment; a panic button should be present; it is free after all.

Therefore I feel Government should be asking questions of those sites that do not have it.

Through my role of chair of the Communications group I have come into contact with many leading figures in the online sector. Last summer the All-Party-Parliamentary Group on Communications held an inquiry into internet traffic taking evidence from Jim Gamble of the CEOP.

He informed our group last year that if you click on the CEOP report button, what he said it does is three things. One it reassures parents where that button is present that there is a route to access law enforcement other than the police. Two, it deters the offender in the same way a burglar alarm on the front of a house will move a burglar to the next house. And three it reassures the child who has had lessons in school, 4.3 million and growing, educating them that there is someone there they can go to who can make a positive difference for them.

Many questions should be asked of these social networking websites who do not have this button; because the online infrastructure is in place for these social media websites to use.  So why would every site not want to have that type of reassuring access and mechanism inherently built within it for the protection of their users?

No one wants to distract from the fact that Asheligh Halls’ murderer was a depraved and sick individual, but the responsibility that social media websites such as Facebook and others – let be clear although Facebook are in the news at the moment they are not the only one, Bebo and Myspace other industry leaders are equally cuppable – These social media networks have to their bit to ensure the safety of their users, especially their younger users.

Every site that is a public place online, be it a social networking site or one of the other self-generating sites through Web 2.0, should have, for example in the UK, the CEOP report button.

As someone who supports the government’s policy on ID cards, for the same reason we are here today, that in a world where we give out our personal details to social media websites based in California, there is a need for the individual to secure their identity. I feel that more has to be done to secure our online identity, and I welcomed the government’s moves in this area.

Search engines such as google, due to their close connections with Facebook and other social media platforms put all our identities online and accessible to anyone and everyone. Their caveat is that there are privacy options provided but as anyone with young children will know; most young people never consider the ramifications of not securing their identity and personal details. In an online world where the social networking websites in essence have a responsibility towards young people they should provide an area of safety for the young in our society.

In a technological world where the internet is now accessible on mobile phones this draws another area of concern on this issue. I believe that that network operators and retailers should work together on putting eSafety on mobile phones. Ofcom should insist that all mobile access devices are fitted with child protection filters that protect the identity of the child. I would be interested to hear the Ministers views in this area?

I don’t want to paint a completely dark picture as there are certain ISP providers who are doing something, for example BT estimated last year that 42% of its broadband customers with children between five and 15-years-old had set up ‘BT Yahoo!’ content filtering control settings. But I feel this is still a small proportion and that there is a lack of public knowledge on this matter and I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on this matter also?

In conclusion, I know there is no panacea to this issue but there are small steps that can be taken to increase protection online – I recognise that the Government and my Honourable Friend have done a considerable amount on this matter and I feel there is a much common ground here today:

• As my HF will be aware, Paedophiles here must register all their email address and if found to using alternative one can expect a 5 year jail sentence. I would be interested to know what the Minister thought of expanding it to social media accounts as well?
  • What does my HF believe can be done to encourage uptake of the CEOP’s report button by social networking websites?
  • Would my HF consider enforcing all mobile phone internet providers to provide child protection filters with every contract to under eighteens?
  • Could my HF please inform me what he thinks of my suggestion for everyone in this country to have their own personal email account on a website such as direct gov website? As this would help increase people’s greater knowledge of online provision.
  • What does my HF believe can be done to improve online child protection on social media sites?
  • What plans are there in place to increase awareness amongst parents and children to child protection filters available from ISPs?
  • Will my HF look at increasing for the CEOP?

I look forward to hearing from my Honourable Friend the Minister.

Filed under: speeches
No Comments »

Good evening and thank you for all attending,

Tonight the NUS in collaboration with the Save EMA campaign will launch the EMA Satisfaction Survey 2010, which highlights the importance of Education Maintenance Allowances to those teenagers who rely on them. For those unaware of this issue; EMAs are means-tested allowances of between £10 and £30 paid to 16-to-19 year olds who stay in education and come from families where annual household income is below £30,000. These payments may seem insignificant to some but as the previous EMA Satisfaction Survey found: 65% of participants on the highest EMA rate of £30 stated that they could not continue to study without EMA. The maintenance allowance removes some of the barriers to participation in education, and the £10 and £20 brackets are useful in this case, particularly in covering costs towards transport.

The Rt Hon Iain Wright MP, the Minister responsible for EMA will tonight make the Government’s position clear; that they will guarantee not to cut EMA weekly payments up to 2015. However, the Conservative party’s position on EMA is quite confusing. The Save EMA campaign has managed to get David Cameron on record to say he will not axe the EMA scheme, but when the question is turned on to whether they will cut EMA they become rather evasive. David Willets told Shane Chowen of the NUS only last month, when asked if he planned to cut EMA funding, that it was “difficult to commit in the current climate” to the scheme.

The Conservatives so far refuse to commit to the Government’s spending plans for 14-19 year olds, which cover EMA. The reasons for this stems from the Conservative’s education policy of “Free Schools” that has left them with a £2.5bn black hole. Furthermore, in the event of a hung parliament where the Conservatives hold the highest number of seats, they will be reliant on fringe parties to get their policies through parliament and support any cuts in education they want to make to free up funds.

One party at Westminster that they could rely on to support any plans to cut EMA funding would be the SNP, who over the last year have cut EMA in Scotland by 20 per cent and made regressive changes to the scheme’s eligibility criteria. By lowering the threshold for the £30 payment and axing the £10 and £20 payments NUS Scotland believes that these cuts lead to almost 8,000 pupils dropping out of further education this year alone. This fear is supported by figures released by the Scottish Government only last month, which showed 39,110 college students and school pupils from low-income families were taking up the allowance in 2007-8, meaning they were up from 38,760 in 2006-07. The figures also showed that the allowance proved to help school pupils from low-income families stay on in education with 77% of school pupils on the EMA scheme for the full year completing the attendance rates and learning expectations set out for them compared to 70% in 2006-7. In addition, the percentage of those on the EMA for a full year, receiving £10 and £20 payments, completing the scheme increased to 82% (the figures for 2006-7 were 74% for those on £10 payments and £73% for those on £20 payments).

The policy towards EMA in Scotland is a unfortunate, but it also sets an example of what happens when you cut front line services for the poorest in our society at the current time. Therefore, as the election draws nearer and nearer the dividing line on this issue will be about each party’s commitment to funding EMA. One party has now made their position clear; it is time the others do the same.

Filed under: speeches
No Comments »

I thank you for inviting me here today to address you on what marks a very special day in your country’s history.

UK-Sri Lankan relations are important today in these tough economic times as they ever have been. UK exports to Sri Lanka are worth around $241m, and the UK is the ninth largest exporter to the country. Sri Lanka’s principal exports to the UK are textiles and garments and tea.

The latter is something which ties where we are today, Glasgow and Sri Lanka very closely. It was the tea-pickers of Sri Lanka and pioneering Scotsmen as much as the tea-merchants of Surrey who established the traditional cup of tea.

UK-Sri Lankan ties go back many years, but less known is the Sri Lankan connection to Scotland and Glasgow in particular. Scottish links to Sri Lanka go back at least 200 years, when it was known as Ceylon.

Scotsman, James Taylor, set up the first tea factory in 1872 on the island. From this point on, Ceylon tea began to arrive regularly in the UK, the success of which led to the opening of an auction market in the capital Colombo in 1883, and to the founding of a Colombo tea dealers association in 1894.

James Taylor’s dedication and determination was largely responsible for the early success of the tea crop in Ceylon and he became known as “the father of Ceylon tea”.

After Taylor, Ceylon tea was taken from infancy to maturity by another intrepid Scotsman, and Glaswegian, called Tommy Lipton. Born on 10 May 1850 in the Gorbals of Glasgow.

Tea drinking had become a popular habit in Britain in the late 19^th century, but it was expensive. Lipton wanted to make tea accessible to all at low prices but with guaranteed quality.

Lipton achieved this by setting up his own tea plantations in Sri Lanka and importing direct from there to Glasgow, cutting out the middle man and lowering the price.

Thanks to Scotsmen like Taylor and Lipton, by the end of the 19th Century the word “tea” was no longer synonymous with China, but with Ceylon. And their legacy lingers – modern day Sri Lanka is second only to India in the production of tea worldwide.

But Scotland’s links with Sri Lanka don’t begin and end with tea – they continue to the present day.

One of the few sports that we Scots can claim to be world champions in is Elephant Polo, where Sri Lanka is one of the key figures in the sport. To be fair we did invent the sport, as it is the brainchild of Scottish adventurer and former British Olympic bobsleigh team member James Manclark.

In February 2007 near the World Heritage Forte of Galle, the 6th Annual International Elephant Polo Tournament, were Scotland defended their title. The current world champions are England, but we will ignore that as Scotland has more titles.

On a more sombre note; Galle, where the competition was held, was also one of the worst hit places in Sri Lanka by the tsunami on 26 December 2004. After Indonesia, Sri Lanka suffered more physical damage and human loss than anywhere else.

I remember the event clearly and the efforts in my constituency of Glasgow North West to raise money for the many thousands who were effected. As some of you will be aware, many Scottish charities were at the vanguard of this aid raising 3.5mil in the first 48 hrs. This helped to provide money for fishing boats, fund the establishment of farms, subsidize farmers to enable them to plant rice, kick-start various small businesses, provide water pumps and general provisions for thousands of displaced families and purchase medical equipment for hospitals.

Furthermore, a Glaswegian church established more than a century ago by Scots tea plantation owners is giving women in Sri Lanka the opportunity to start afresh in life. St Andrews Kirk in the Sri Lankan capital Colombo maintains links with Netherlee Parish Church in Glasgow. Netherlee raised enough money to buy a house in the suburbs of Colombo, which will give many unfortunate women a new home.

I am, some maybe surprised to hear, a very keen cricket fan and former cricketer. Scotland does have a cricket team, although not as well known or competitive as England’s, but like a lot of Scots I follow the England Cricket team.

Scotland has never played Sri Lanka in cricket but I did enjoy the last England v Sri Lanka match, probably more than most in this room (as England won).

Back to why we are here today; the post war Labour government of Clement Attlee is remembered for many things in this country, such as the NHS and the foundation of a welfare state, but another of its many achievements was decolonization.

Sri Lanka’s separation from the British Empire in 1948 and its assumption as a member of the Commonwealth was an example of a bloodless birth of a nation, which unfortunately was not so common at the time.

So we should remember the Independence of Sri Lanka today but also the manner in which it was achieved as a guide for the start of a new decade for both our country’s.

Filed under: speeches
No Comments »

Mr Speaker,

I am delighted to have secured this debate and to have the opportunity to exchange views with my honourable friend the Minister.  I look forward to hearing my Rt Hon. Friend’s comments on the wider issues that I shall raise in this debate.

I would like to discuss the future of the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme and the effects cuts would cause to those young people who rely on it;

I will mention the fears of Charities and other NGOs who represent Further Education students and then tell you my experience of what happens to cuts made to EMA north of the border as an example to keep in mind of what could happen.

This Government has a record second to none in regards to funding of Further Education.

But firstly for those unaware let me give a brief explanation to those listening today who maybe unaware of what EMAs are and why they are such an essential part of further educational support.

EMAs are means-tested allowances of £10, £20 and £30 paid to 16-to-19 year olds who stay in education and come from families where annual household income is below £30,000.

This payment is conditional on attendance.

The policy intent of the EMA is to broaden participation and to improve the retention and attainment of young people of 16 to19 in post compulsory education.

EMAs were introduced nationally in September 2004 in order to reduce this country’s post-16 drop-out rate which was one of the worst in the developed world at the time.

Why we should support EMA and not cut it:

So what has been the success of the EMA scheme since 2004?

Well, research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that attainment at GCSE and A-level by recipients of EMA has risen by 40 % since its introduction, and by even more for those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

In addition, RCU Market Research Services carried out research on the national scheme and published a report called Evaluation of the EMA National Roll-out 2007, which concluded:

“that EMA has had a positive impact on the retention, achievement and success of certain groups of learners traditionally associated with lower levels of achievement such as: male learners; learners from minority ethnic groups; those with backgrounds of high deprivation and learners on lower level and vocational courses.”

Ipsos MORI published a report in 2008 called Evaluation of Extension of Education Maintenance Allowance to Entry-to-Employment and Programme Led Apprenticeships. This report reached similar conclusions to the RCU research, stating that:

“EMA is reducing NEET (those Not in Employment Education or Training) and also motivating learners to work harder.”

So as you can see the scheme has been widely recognised by independent authorities as being a success and the arguments by those opposite who oppose this scheme are easily silenced.

Bonuses/NGO fears:

So it was with mixed emotions that I commend last week’s statement by the Secretary Of State announcing plans to spend £580 million on EMA in order to fund a further 80,000 places. However, he also mentioned that from 2011, poorer pupils who qualify for the EMA – a payment of between £10-£30 each week – will no longer receive an extra £100 for every six months they stay in education.

Charities and organization which represent young people recieving EMA are extremely concerned about recent announcements to scrap the EMA bonuses of £100. Especially when the evaluation evidence for the EMA bonus scheme found that around two-thirds of EMA recipients questioned agreed that the EMA bonus system made them work harder and the same proportion said they attended more lessons because of the EMA attendance bonus rule.

Furthermore, those who work closely with students on EMA inform me that EMA payments and bonuses are an important part of what allows them to continue in further education.

I would be interested to hear the Ministers views on this matter?

Unfortunately this is not the only fear regarding EMAs. There is a growing fear amongst all those interested in EMAs that when the school leaving age is raised to 18 in 2015 then the need for an incentive will become redundant. Could the Minister comment on this?

Could it be it is to do with the problem that they have been classed as an incentive rather than a welfare payment?

As receipt of an EMA does not affect other family benefits.

I believe that we the Government should consider the reclassification of EMAs as payments which are intended as ‘supportive’ rather than soley an ‘incentive’ in the same way JSA is viewed. Otherwise come 2015 when the school leaving age is raised to 18 they will become defunct as an incentive.

My Right Honourable Friend should take for example, those who are living independently at an early age who may need particular support.  Access to financial support may be one of the main barriers to participation in education. In general, some of the key barriers include:

• Course fees
• Travel expenses
• The cost of food and other essential items
• Costs associated with their course or placement, such as equipment
• A lack of comprehensive advice and guidance for young people on their entitlement to benefits

For those living with families on low income the overall impact on family finances should be considered. In some instances young people have been discouraged from taking part in education.

This is why I believe that the EMA should be gauranteed beyond 2011.

Scottish Example:

I am aware that we live in a time when finances are very tight and budgets must be pruned. But I believe there is good example for why this should not be done in regards to EMAs.

As my Right Honourable Friend will be aware the EMA system is devolved and each administration has its own policy responsibility for EMA. But not all Administrations have been as considerate as this one in protecting students from low income families during the recession.

For example, this academic year has seen EMA from my own constituency in Glasgow North West, cut by 20%. My MSP colleague Bill Butler has informed me of the upsurge in constituents who are worse off due to the SNP led Administration’s 20% cut to the EMA budget and changes to the scheme’s eligibility criteria. These changes in criteria to the EMA in Scotland lowered the threshold for the £30 payment and axed the £10 and £20 payments.

These £20 and £10 payments may seem insignificant to some in this House but as a survey carried out by the NUS in 2008 found: 65% of participants on the highest EMA rate of £30 stated that they could not continue to study without EMA. As already stated this maintenance allowance removes some of the barriers to participation in education, and the £10 and £20 brackets are useful in this case, particularly in covering costs towards transport, food, etc.

Furthermore, there is unfortunately fears that progress made will be undone by the SNP administration enforced changes to the eligibility criteria cutting support for those receiving £10 and £20 and cutting the allowance to families with an income of between £20, 351 and £22, 403 with a child, who currently receive the maximum £30.

Figures released by the Scottish Government only last Wednesday on Education Maintenance Allowances show that the old system developed under Labour was successful. The figures showed 39,110 college students and school pupils from low-income families were taking up the allowance in 2007-8, meaning they were up from 38,760 in 2006-07.

The figures also showed that the allowance proved to help school pupils from low-income families stay on in education with 77% of school pupils on the EMA scheme for the full year completing the attendance rates and learning expectations set out for them compared to 70% in 2006-7. The percentage of those on the EMA for a full year, receiving £10 and £20 payments, completing the scheme increased to 82% (the figures for 2006-7 were 74% for those on £10 payments and £73% for those on £20 payments).

I know the Minister has no responsibility for the administration of EMA in Scotland, but I use this as an example of what could happen if support is removed from students on EMA. This view is supported by the National Union of Students for Scotland who believe that these cuts by the SNP administration to the EMA scheme will lead to almost 8,000 students dropping out this year.

Other party’s views:

As for the views of other parties in this House regarding EMA, we know where the SNP stand on EMAs, and their Westminster friends, the Conservatives, have views which are not too dissimilar.

The Leader of the Opposition has previously refused to give a “straight answer” on EMAs in an interview with Sky in 2007.

However, things looked briefly hopeful when two weeks ago he was pushed to answer whether he was committed to EMAs he responded “Yes”.

Yet it didn’t last long, only last week I am informed that when asked by the NUS’s Shane Chowen at an event on Further Education, the Rt. Hon Member for Havant, the Shadow Minister on this issue, responded its: “difficult to commit to it in the current climate”.

I guess this is not a surprise as previously the Conservative party and those on the right have held a highly negative opinion of EMAs.

Only last year the Shadow Minister for Schools, the Rt Hon Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, described EMAs in this House as a “fiasco”.

Shadow Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Member for Epsom and Ewell, has described them as doing “absolutely nothing to help solve this country’s chronic skills shortage.”

Furthermore, the Rt. Hon Member for Surrey Heath, the Shadow Children’s Secretary, has even called the EMA a “flop.”

They clearly haven’t done their homework or they would know the success that EMAs have been.

I feel it is also important to add the views of those who influence the policy of parties of the opposition.

Rightwing think-tanks have been even more disparaging about the EMA in the last year. Policy Exchange, a favorite think tank of the Leader of the Opposition, called for it to be axed in their publication ‘School Funding and Social Justice‘.

Not much justice for poor students here!

Reform, another favorite of the Tory front bench, advocate scrapping the scheme telling the Guardian last October that “this is not an effective way of spending over half a billion pounds of the education budget.”

Perhaps if they asked the students who receive EMAs, and their parents, then a different answer would be got?

Other influential sections of the right such as the Institute of Directors and TaxPayers’ Alliance called for the EMA to be axed late last year in their joint publication ‘How to Save £50 Billion‘.

But if we wanted a better barometer of the feelings of the parties of the opposition then it can be seen from the lack of support on that side of the House for my EDM on the issue.

Out of the over 80 signatories currently signed up, I have only 1 Conservative and 3 Liberal Democrats who have signed EDM 422.

I wonder which party really cares about the education of our young people?

In conclusion, I have to ask the following questions of all connected with the EMA – I know my Right Honourable Friend cannot answer for the opposition parties but when they read this they can write to me:

• Why would opposition parties want to stop people from low income families staying on in Education?
• What are their real motives and plans for EMA?
• Why can they not commit to the EMA scheme, no ifs no buts?
• What is the minister going to do to take in consideration the concerns of those student leaders concerned about the financial loss incurred by the removal of the bonuses in 2011?
• Does he agree with me that because of the importance of EMA to students from low income families, it should be supported beyond 2011?

I look forward to hearing from my Honourable Friend the Minister and correspondence from all opposition leaders.

Filed under: speeches
1 Comment »

Mr Speaker

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate, I feel privileged to be able to voice my support for this bill and believe it is another piece of the jigsaw which will assist us in the development of a secure, safe and low carbon generation of electricity, and at the same time allow us to tackle the other main issues of Climate Change.

There is no doubt that the two major challenges we face not only within the UK but internationally are security of supply and climate change. Over the last few years considerable time and debate within this house and the other place has highlighted the need to tackle these issues, we have used the building block approach and we are steadily putting in place the tools to deliver both our objectives.

The tens of thousands of people who participated in the WAVE demonstrations on Saturday would all welcome the opportunity I enjoy today. Their participation in the demonstrations shows how serious and committed they feel on the need for a successful conclusion to the Copenhagen Summit, and it is essential that the international community deliver such a conclusion for the benefit of all those in this House and beyond.

The attendance of President Obama at the summit is not essential but necessary, as only with the agreement of the USA to seriously participate and tackle their pollution can a binding and effective agreement truly be found.

As the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Nuclear energy Group I obviously declare an interest in this Bill. I have long campaigned for a balanced energy policy which includes a nuclear component. I support the development of renewable energy, as considerable investment has delivered many onshore wind farms. The changes therefore to the renewable obligation will I sincerely hope ensure we continue to develop other forms of renewable energy. However, we still need a core source of generation, at present that core source can only come from gas, coal or nuclear. It is unfortunate, but absolutely true that at present wind farms can not be regarded as a core source of generation because of their intermittency.

To maintain our electricity supply in the near future it is estimated that we will need to import by 2020 some 70% of our gas supply. Until, recently we were self sufficient in gas and oil, but now we are a net importer with the uncertainty and danger that this brings. We only need to look at recent experiences to see how frightening this could be; the Ukraine is and was a wakeup call, depending on imported gas is not acceptable.

Nuclear energy is a low carbon Safe and important core source of generation, to dismiss the contribution nuclear has made to the UK is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. That is why I welcome the investment the nuclear industry will make to fund four new nuclear plants within the UK. It is unfortunate that Scotland will miss out because of the SNP administration’s stance on new build, whereas new build in England and Wales will see huge opportunities in terms of employment and economic benefits to the surrounding communities.

Electricity generation is vital to our way of life, our technological age is totally dependent on our power supply. Secure supply is much too important to become a political football we need only lose our supply for a short period of time and the population of this country would realise the importance of the legislation we are now discussing.

We, as a developed economy have long enjoyed the benefits that emanate from a secure and reasonable cheap energy supply. But, we now face the challenge that under developed countries want to have the security of supply with the consequential benefits, such as electrical generation that this brings – which for a large extent has been taken for granted in this country. This is why other developing nations such as China and India are moving forward at such an astonishing rate. However, as demand increases and new power plants are being built in these developing countries, with many of these new power plants being built being coal fired, the knock on effect will be an increase in greenhouse gases that they emit.

That is why I support this bill, although some environmentalists are against developing this technology, I believe it will make tremendous impact not only here but internationally, if we are successful. We must therefore support this bill as success will assist our two main objectives not only here but internationally as well. What a difference CCS would make in our fight against Climate Change? What business opportunities could there be in terms of exporting CCS as a viable commercial technology? We could lead the world if we are successful!

I do have some concerns however, as if we don’t grasp this opportunity we could fail to deliver on our targets on reducing emissions. In a previous white paper we have indicated we would want to prevent us reaching pollution levels of 450 parts per million. Because as Professor James Lovelock, a respected scientist and leading environmentalist, has argued that we are approaching the point of no return. He believes that about 390 parts per million was the point when climate change would become self perpetuating, I hope for our sake he is wrong!!

Filed under: speeches
No Comments »