| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Biofuels
12. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): If he will make further changes to duty rates to facilitate the development of biodiesel fuel. [124653]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): Biodiesel already benefits from a duty incentive of 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel. As my hon. Friend is aware, duty rates are kept under review as part of the Budget process.
Mr. Blizzard : I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that nearly all the biodiesel produced in this country is made from used cooking oil and tallow, but that it could be produced in large quantities from rapeseed if it were economic to do so? The industry estimates that a further duty reduction of some 8p to 10p
a litre is necessary for the economics to be right. Will he look again at the figures with the industry? Would not the reward be not only a new, environmentally sustainable fuel from a new type of oil field in places such as East Anglia, but new jobs in a new biodiesel production industry and a new market for farmers, who definitely need new markets?
John Healey: I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes; he is the very effective Chairman of the all-party group on the offshore oil and gas industry, so he has not only a constituency interest but industry expertise. I have looked at those arguments very carefully, met industry representatives and gone through their figures and arguments. Our principal consideration in assessing appropriate rates of fuel duty to support cleaner fuels is the environmental benefits that they can bring. We have looked at the figures from the sources that he cites and from others, at the environmental benefits and at the cost of production. However, as yet, we are not convinced that a bigger duty incentive for biodiesel is justified.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a further reduction in biodiesel rates may come too late for the ARBRE project that took willow coppice from the Vale of York to be treated at its plant near Selby, and which regrettably has gone into receivership? What discussions has he had with his counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the benefits not just of lowering duty on biodiesel production, but of the helpful grants that DEFRA gives?
John Healey: I am aware of the ARBRE project, as the hon. Lady would expect—it was undertaken in the region in which we both represent constituencies—and I was sad to see its collapse and closure. What she is really directing my attention to is the greater environmental gains that may be achieved from biofuels when they are made from woody, ligno-cellulosic feedstocks. We are in close discussion with DEFRA because we want to consider effective ways in which we can support the development of these new technologies. They are currently in the pre-production stages, but they offer much more potential for the future.
Equity Release Schemes
13. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North): If he will make a statement on the regulation of equity release schemes. [124654]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): All mortgage-based equity release schemes will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority with effect from 31 October 2004. I announced on 5 June
that an open consultation would take place in the autumn on whether home reversion plans should also be regulated by the FSA.
Ms Keeble : I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that these schemes are so important for pensioners—many of them are asset-rich but cash-poor—is the Treasury prepared to look at some options to provide further support or relief for equity release schemes where essential building repairs are required?
Mr. Boateng: I shall treat that—as, no doubt, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—as an early Budget submission and it will be given careful consideration, as all such submissions are. On the wider point of consumer protection of the elderly, lessons have been learned from the failures of the '80s in relation to home income plans. In the light of the consultation on home reversion plans, I commend the work done by Age Concern with responsible members of the industry in setting up a code of practice under the safe home income plan scheme. That gives my hon. Friend's constituents and many others the sense of security and certainty to which they are entitled in their old age.
Working Tax Credit
14. Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South): If he will make a statement on the introduction of the working tax credit. [124655]
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The working and child tax credits were introduced in April and will provide an extra £2.7 billion support for families with children and low-income working households. The working tax credit continues to provide in-work support for families with children and disabled workers, and extends support to low-income working households without dependent children or a disability.
Miss Begg : When the working families tax credit was introduced, one of my constituents was concerned that it did nothing for single people, particularly those on low wages. It remained a possibility, as in his case, that someone could be worse off in work than on benefit. That changed with the introduction of the working tax credit. My fear is that all the emphasis has been on support for children, while there has not been enough publicity for the benefits for single people. The working tax credit could make a huge difference to their lives. Will my right hon. Friend do more to publicise the difference that the working tax credit can make to single people in work?
Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is correct that single people aged 25 or over are entitled to receive the working tax credit, as are couples without children. The publicity focused both on the child tax credit and on the working tax credit, but I agree that in the next phase of publicity it will be important to highlight the benefits of the working tax credit to single working people, and I would be happy to involve her in the consultation as we develop the strategies.
Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 14 July—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Communications Bill.
Tuesday 15 July—Second Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 16 July—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 17 July—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment followed, if necessary, by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to any Act.
The provisional business for Monday 8 September will be:
Monday 8 September—Second Reading of the Water Bill [Lords].
I should like to remind the House that we will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 17 July and return for the September sitting on Monday 8 September.
The House will rise again for the conference recess on Thursday 18 September and return for the spillover on Tuesday 14 October.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of the summer will be:
Thursday 17 July—A cross-cutting question session on domestic violence. Followed by a debate on financing development.
Thursday 11 September—A debate on the United Nations.
Thursday 18 September—A debate on the report from the Education and Skills Committee on the future of higher education.
Mr. Cameron: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, but does he agree that, with just a week before the start of the recess, there are some important issues that remain to be discussed? First, when can we expect the Green Paper on children at risk to be published? It is referred to in early-day motion 1548,
[That this House is concerned that the inability of the honourable Member for Barking to carry out the duties of Minister for Children is impeding the Government's progress in presenting to the House the Green Paper on Children at Risk, as a result of which local councils are unable to implement changes which would improve the coordination of organisations and agencies involved in delivering children's services and improve accountability arrangements in response to Lord Laming's Report on the Enquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié; and calls upon the Government to publish the Green Paper forthwith.]
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that it would be published before the recess, so where is it? The rumour is that the delay is due either to the Minister for Children feeling besieged or to the Prime Minister's desire to be present for the launch. Does the Leader of the House agree that neither reason is an acceptable excuse to delay such an important document?
Will there be a further statement before the end of next week on the security and humanitarian position in Iraq? This morning, the BBC reported Whitehall sources—that is sources plural, on this occasion—saying that Downing street now accepts that weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq. That underlines the need for a statement to the whole House.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to clear up once and for all the controversy about the dodgy dossiers, which surfaced yet again at Prime Minister's questions. The Prime Minister claimed that the material in the February dossier—the dodgy one—
- "was shared with the Leader of the Opposition at briefings"—[Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 1151.]
May we have an urgent debate on the role of the parliamentary ombudsman? There is an article in The Guardian this morning—I have to declare an interest, as I write a column for the Guardian website—[Interruption.] I cannot repeat that comment from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I like to think of my column as a beacon of right thinking in a sea of muddle-headedness. The parliamentary ombudsman, Ann Abraham, writes in her annual report:
- "I cannot be expected to carry out my responsibilities properly with one hand tied behind my back."
- "He did not believe that disclosing the information would do any harm."
- "be prejudicial to the safety of the state."
In the context of the Modernisation Committee, will the Leader of the House look again at the completely unacceptable way in which programme motions are used to limit effective scrutiny of Bills? In consideration of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, 60 clauses were not even considered in
Committee. Will the Leader of the House publish, and place in the Library, a list of clauses and schedules for all Bills that are not debated either in Committee or on Report? That list might well turn out to be a roll of shame, but people should know if this place is not allowed to do its job properly.The Leader of the House will be aware that at the end of a parliamentary term there has been a tendency to sneak out—to use the words of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—awkward and embarrassing written statements, answers, confessions, corrections and suchlike. In internet terms, it is like lastminute.con. Can we have a guarantee that that will not happen on this occasion?
Now that the Convention on the Future of Europe is over, the Leader of the House has given up one of his three jobs, so I hope that he will find time to launch his great debate—I think that the words he used were "open and honest debate"—on taxation. We are all looking forward to that. After 60 tax increases and a national insurance rise that broke an election promise, people have a right to know what they are in for next. When is he going to tell us?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |