Dave Doogan MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Before the election, this Prime Minister said he would lower energy bills by £300. Since he took office, they have gone up by £149. He said he would protect the winter fuel payment, but now he is in power he has stripped it off our pensioners. And he lined up for many photos with WASPI women, saying he would have their backs, and he has just betrayed them in the most scandalous way possible. This is now the defining characteristic of this one-trick phony Prime Minister who says one thing and does another. In Scotland, the SNP is 16 points ahead in the polls. Does he understand why the people of these islands, especially those of us in Scotland, treat him with such contempt?

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister gets ahead of himself. He says the Government have moved at pace to resolve the situation; the situation is not resolved. He criticises the last Government for not securing a deal; his deal is not secured either. The last time we talked about this, we talked about the President-elect not being keen on the deal and the Chagossians not being properly consulted on it. When will he come back to the House on this situation and tell us something positive about this cack-handed deal?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman talks about the expansion of early years childcare, but that will not be of much use if nurseries shut down because they cannot pay their national insurance. Does he understand that dynamic?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a tremendously informed speech and demonstrating a level of understanding of primary care and the care sector that we could only dream of from the Government. Is it her concern that many charities, voluntary sector organisations and GP surgeries are already operating on the thinnest margins of financial sustainability and that this measure will torpedo the very organisations that protect our communities from absolute chaos? Secondary care cannot do it alone; it is upheld by primary care and the care sector. Is she as concerned as many other hon. Members that this will cause absolute chaos?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is very kind to give way. Twice in the past couple of minutes, he has used the word “ultimately”—“Ultimately we will have to do this, and ultimately we will have to do that.” It is “actually” that he should be saying. You actually have to make sure that there is funding, not ultimately—that can wait for another day. Actually is what will happen as soon as this legislation comes to pass—you will be in an absolute quagmire.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a compelling case of logic as it applies to early years provision, and I do not think anybody in this place could argue with the logic she advances. Is it not so robust, however, that it also applies to primary care, hospices and charities, if it applies to nurseries?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I refer him to Hansard from the previous Parliament. The comments I have just made are entirely consistent with the comments I made in the last parliamentary term. With each day that passes, we learn more about the damage Labour’s Budget will inflict on household bills, businesses and charities, yet despite those warnings the Labour Government are determined not to listen and are ploughing ahead with this devastating proposal. The SNP will always stand up and protect Scottish jobs, Scottish services and Scotland’s people. That is reflected in John Swinney’s budget—a balanced budget in the interests of the people of Scotland and the businesses of Scotland. That is the SNP way. We have done it this year and we have done it in every one of the 17 previous years we have been in the Scottish Government. Do the UK Government understand how commissioned services work? We have heard that quite a lot this afternoon and it is becoming increasingly clear that, at best, they have a sketchy understanding of why vital services are provided by non-statutory service providers. What is going to happen when this measure unwinds into the real economy is that charities, GP surgeries, hospices and other vital elements of healthcare provision will not have reserves. They are already operating at the very margins of financial sustainability, so when the sums do not add up, they will have two choices. They will approach the commissioning authority that has commissioned their services to ask for an uplift in their fees. The answer will be no, because the money is not there. Alternatively, they will withdraw their services or draw down their services. Either way, it will be enormously challenging and extremely damaging for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the hon. Member. There is no road back from that. The difficulty that I implore the Government to pay attention to is that when the damage that will be inflicted by this measure is inflicted by this measure, they cannot just say, “Oops, we got that wrong. If you wouldn’t mind all coming back and start delivering these commissioned services, we’ll admit we got it wrong.” When it’s gone, it’s gone. It is not acceptable that the Government are playing fast and loose with the safety net that exists in our communities and our society to catch the most vulnerable people and prevent absolute chaos. That is exactly what the Government are doing. However, the Government should not take the hon. Lady’s word for it, or mine. We can listen to people who are at the coalface. This is primary evidence from the Scottish Huntington’s Association: “The entire charity sector is increasingly burdened by climbing costs, funding issues, recruitment and retention challenges and an increased demand for services. All too many have had to close their doors, with more expected to follow. Additional burdens being imposed by government at this juncture”, the association says, are deeply unhelpful. “Coming just weeks after the prime minister announced a ‘new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential’ this must surely be an unfortunate oversight, and one that simply cannot be allowed to stand given the scale of its implications for the not-for-profit sector and the many thousands of people who depend upon it in the absence of alternative statutory services.” It is not just the association that takes that view. Turning Point Scotland has advised that this measure alone will add £1.1 million to its costs overnight, and it comes at a time of a pressured environment, when many of its services are already running at a deficit. That is true of the voluntary sector, but also of the nursery and college sectors. On healthcare, I wonder whether the Government understand the concept of whole-system costs. As I and many Members have said, when charities fold, as many of them will, the services that they were providing will no longer be there. Who will then provide that care? It will be the provider of last resort, secondary care. People will present themselves at hospitals, where there will be no room. It will be chaotic, but in a purely Treasury and fiscal sense, it will be an extremely expensive form of chaos, for which the Government, through the whole-system paradigm, will need to pick up the costs. I am not certain that the Minister has been properly briefed by his Treasury officials on what the risk assessment actually says about the human and financial costs of the change when this heads south. This is what happens when the Chancellor treats the real economy as her own personal political piggy-bank. It will not be possible to fix this once it has been broken. I have some sympathy for the Minister in one respect. We have heard, and I will not repeat, the headline figure—the gross quantum that the Government expect to generate by lowering the threshold and increasing the rates of employer national insurance. By the time everyone who is in a position to adjust their business and employment characteristics to accommodate it has done so, by the time the Government have compensated elements of the public sector and by the time the economy has contracted to accommodate that, we are already down from £25-something billion to £10 billion-odd. That is a lot of pain to accept to gain £10 billion. If the Government were to exclude or make provision for hospices, nurseries, the voluntary sector more generally and universities, that £10 billion would be reduced to an embarrassingly small figure, so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I nevertheless encourage them to have the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the people of these islands first, rather than the political expediency of careering headlong towards a cliff edge that is as plain as the nose on the end of your face and jumping over it anyway in order to save face—because the Government will not save face. There is no escape from the corner they have painted themselves into. They can either U-turn and incur the political costs, which I would recommend, given that they have just come through the door—they should be at the height of their political powers, but if this is the height of their political powers, goodness me!—or they can carry on regardless, and pick up the pieces of all the chaos that will be wreaked across the sector. This incompetence, for it is incompetence, did not start when the Government walked through the doors of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It started back in the election campaign, when they proscribed the use of the single biggest lever in the Treasury’s toolkit to get additional funding. They said that they would not increase income tax on ordinary working people, although with these measures they will take away financial opportunities and, actually, people’s money through payroll changes anyway. It is smoke and mirrors. However, by painting themselves into that corner on income tax, they have created a situation in which they have to make the most damaging tax intervention possible, which is entirely contrary to their stated ambition of generating growth. Quite a lot of Labour Members have said, “It’s all very well listening to the Opposition, but what would you do?” I will give them two really easy things that the Government could have done. If they had mirrored the income tax thresholds that the Scottish Government have introduced, they would have generated £19 billion. That would not have had a single impediment on the real economy, would not have choked off growth and would not have put primary care on the precipice. They could have done that. Or, if they had thought that they could get by on less than £19 billion—they will have to, because they will raise less than £10 billion from this measure—they could have just reversed the previous Government’s two cuts to employee’s national insurance. Judging by the arithmetic in this place, the Conservatives did not exactly get a brilliant political return on cutting employee’s national insurance twice in two quarters of one financial year. The Government could have reversed those cuts, which would have netted £10 billion—roughly where they are now, on aggregate—but no, they did not want to do that and they refuse to do so.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to defend Scotland’s NHS, including our GPs, hospices, care homes and nurseries, from this Labour Government’s national insurance tax hike, as well as to protect the charity and higher education sectors. I am proud of the amendments the SNP has tabled to the Bill to protect these vital services from the increase in national insurance contributions put forward by the Government. The fears are genuine and escalating over the job cuts and service reductions that will be the inevitable and plain and simple consequence of this fiscal madness. We in the SNP have consistently highlighted the brutal impact that Labour’s tax rises will have on GPs, charities, care homes and other sectors, with organisations warning that deep cuts will be made to the services they provide—vital services that are no less essential to communities and individuals than secondary care services just because they are received in the community or from a charity. That is why we have tabled amendments 4, 5, 6 and 26 in my name and the names of SNP colleagues. On higher education, the University of Edinburgh was last month reported to have opened a redundancy process for staff as a result of Labour’s tax hike, and Universities Scotland is warning of a potential £45 million tax burden for Scottish universities. Yet again, we see key sectors of the Scottish economy hammered by a London Treasury out of touch, out of ideas and, if this goes through, demonstrably out of control. Higher education, agriculture, and oil and gas are all demonstrably larger elements of the Scottish economy than they are of the English or UK economy. This Government, with NICs and other specific tax increases or allowance removals, are hammering particularly important elements of the Scottish economy. As usual, what England wants Scotland gets. The Labour Government’s national insurance increase will be a disaster for Scotland’s healthcare providers, voluntary organisations, nurseries, universities and colleges, but who on the Labour Benches has come along to speak up for those organisations in Scotland? Nobody. Not one Labour Scottish MP made a speech to protect Scotland’s interests. But Labour MPs from Scotland were there to nod through and vote through the cut to the winter fuel payment, freezing Scotland’s pensioners; Labour’s bedroom tax, entrenching poverty in Scotland; Labour’s two-child limit, punishing the poorest in Scotland; taxing Scotland’s oil and gas sector to the brink of extinction; attacking Scottish agriculture; and gouging Scotch whisky. They were all here to make sure that that happened and to speak to that, so I will leave the people of Scotland to draw their own conclusions about this particular lack of activity from Scottish Labour MPs.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that, as a tactical manoeuvre by the state of Israel, the destruction that has been wrought on Gaza and its people is catastrophically counterproductive? These punitive measures against Palestinians will not be a harbinger of peace for Israel. If the UK is a friend of Israel, we must, as a good friend would, say, “This far and no further. You must recant.”

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that. Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK. The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million. CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding: “There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.” Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill. The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Chair. The last but one speaker, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), called me out regarding my perfectly legitimate comment that there was not a single Scottish Labour MP in here. I chose my words carefully, taking part in this debate. I appreciate that there is a Labour Member here who, unless I am very much mistaken, is fulfilling the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore will not be taking part in the debate. I ask your guidance, Madam Chair, on whether it is legitimate to call somebody out in a debate and not give them an opportunity to respond. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley to correct the record, but she refused to give way. How can we correct the record to underline the fact that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in here taking part in this debate on Scotland’s energy?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it. The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk. The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition. The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count. Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that. The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What is her understanding of what will happen to domestic consumption of oil and gas products in the United Kingdom if the domestic industry atrophies but domestic demand still exists? What will happen in that scenario? Where will the oil and gas come from, or will we just give it up overnight?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  It sounds like the shadow Chancellor is unconvinced by the shrill chants of Labour Members that the Government will fix the foundations of the economy, and he has good reason for being suspicious. In October, when the Government had scarcely been in office for three months, they had more in-month borrowing than any UK Government since 1993, with the exception of one month during covid. Does that look like fixing the foundations to the shadow Chancellor?

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that Northern Ireland is a different energy market from Great Britain, but there will be, without question, electric-only customers in the larger settlements of Northern Ireland. I know that Northern Ireland is a heavy user of heating oil, but the same scenario will exist in Northern Ireland. Although it is a different energy market, the same Department has to have oversight of the equity and effectiveness of whatever solution is found for that part of the United Kingdom. Constituents have contacted me with concerns that they are being asked to switch to a smart meter without a guarantee that the smart meter will work properly. Some customers with poor reception who have switched to a smart meter are being asked by their supplier to submit manual readings. It is not clear whether manual readings are compatible with alternative economy tariffs, as these are based not only on how much energy is used, but on when that energy is used. The Data Communications Company manages smart meter networks, which can reach 99.3% of properties, and more than half of homes in GB are already connected. Information is transmitted over a wide area network using mobile phone or radio signals sent from each property’s communications hub, but the method of transmission differs. In central and southern GB, smart meter data is transmitted using cellular and wireless mesh technology provided by Virgin Media O2, whereas in the north of England and all of Scotland it is transmitted over long-range radio signals provided by Arqiva. It would be safe to say that there remains substantial concern about the ability to have two-way communication between supplier and customer over this system. This is no small part of the reason for the hesitancy common among “total heating with total control” customers to rush towards the need to switch.

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The operative word of my hon. Friend’s intervention was “fair”, and I will come on to exactly who owns the risk.

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that there needs to be a change of tone and language? It is all very well for the Government, the regulator or the companies to feel the urgency, but if customers do not sense that, we will not get the pace that is required. She talks about how it is a big job, and we can all agree on that. It is a big job that needs to be completed in very little time, so it is not just about the scale but about the pace. If we cannot get customers energised and exercised about the need to get that done, that pace will not happen.

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has raised a couple of points. One is really important, and that is whether or not customers have an option. They actually do not have a realistic option. The radio teleswitch service is coming to an end at the end of June next year, and they will not want to be in the position where they do not have a smart meter that can toggle between a reduced-rate tariff and a full-price tariff. That would be ruinously expensive. My hon. Friend also touched on the communication, and the quality thereof, that supply companies are having with their customers. One of the reasons that the uptake is so slow is that people do not have confidence in smart meters—and why would they? There were plenty of problems with the smart meter roll-out just for regular electricity customers who want to know how much electricity they are using. The stakes are far higher for electric-only customers who heat their homes with electricity. They need confidence that their smart meter will actually work. I will come on to that point in a second.

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to raise the issue of the radio teleswitch service decommissioning in the House this evening. This is a pressured and important matter for 4,665 households in my constituency, a further 80,000 households across the north of Scotland and fully 800,000 households across Great Britain. The ending of the radio teleswitch service, or RTS, which controls “total heating with total control” meters, is of vital importance to electric-only customers and yet remains a troubled landscape to some extent. RTS is a radio signal that tells “total heating with total control” meters when to switch between peak and off-peak rates, and this obsolete system will come to an end on 30 June 2025. It was originally going to cease on 31 March 2024, but that had to be pushed back because the system was not ready. That should have been when alarm bells started to ring. Customers are being asked to switch to smart meters, and Energy UK, the trade body for energy suppliers, has advised customers what could happen if they do not: “You may find that your heating and/or hot water is continually left on or off, or the charging-up happens at the wrong time of day. Your electricity supplier won’t be able to confirm how much electricity you have used during peak or off-peak times, which means your electricity costs could be much higher than before.” However accurate that message might be, it could easily be a source of alarm for customers. Any of us who have had the misfortune to have electric-only heating will realise that even with the discounted rates, it is still ferociously expensive, so the idea that anyone could have it without the discounted rates is simply not realistic.

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman will have no small number of these customers in his constituency, and he touches on the important point of the vagueness around this. Customers are being told that they must do this, and when they ask for any detail about that which they must do, it is scant, vague and conflicting. We only have to look at the forums on the energy company websites and on Facebook to see that peer-to-peer support is answering people’s questions on this issue, rather than there being a cohesive and comprehensive programme of information from the Government, the Department, the regulator and the energy companies, working in concert in a professional and coherent way to let customers know exactly what is going to happen. On the speed of the roll-out, the energy suppliers, the UK Government and consumer groups have committed to co-operating to replace RTS meters prior to the shutdown, which is a pretty minimal commitment. The 10 energy companies that have pledged their participation are: British Gas, EDF, E.ON, Octopus, Ovo, Scottish Power, So Energy, SSE, Total Energies, Utilita and Utility Warehouse. Through its call to action, the industry has committed to several measures, including zeroing in on regional hot spots with the highest number of RTS customers. That is good but it is late. The industry has a catch-up job in public relations and customer confidence, which it needs to accept and resource. The industry has committed to expediting meter upgrades for RTS customers, giving prioritisation to vulnerable customers for upgrades, co-operating to solve technical issues, and pooling knowledge and expertise across companies. This should not be a competitive commercial endeavour; it should be a call to action across energy companies. Different houses are wired up in different ways to accommodate “total heating, total control.” They will interact differently with smart meters when they are fitted, which needs to be reconciled. The industry has committed to issuing monthly reports on meter replacement. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to focus on those monthly updates, because the problem we have is that if we continue to replace RTS meters at the current rate, that will take until 2028, when we only have until June 2025. That is why my constituents and I are so concerned. To be fair, the industry is also concerned. It wants the transition to work because it wants its customers to be supplied and to be paid for that supply. The industry is not trying to make this not happen—quite the opposite—but we need to change gear and pace. Industry is confident that it has the capacity to deliver for every home, but not if all those homes come forward in April, May and June. That will not work, which is why we need a call to action now. We are into December and nothing will happen before the new year, so we need to ensure that we hit the ground running in January with this matter as a priority. I made sure the Minister had advance sight of my questions, so she could respond at the end of the debate. Is she confident that all properties will have a smart meter installed by the deadline? What options are available to RTS customers with poor or no mobile signal, or no ability to receive the radio signal at their property? Will there be an option in extremis, when it is demonstrated that the signal cannot be received at the property, for the customer to have some type of timer solution, with or without a smart meter? Will a standard tariff be ruled out as an option, given that it would be ruinously expensive for any customer? What action has been taken with industry to ensure that customers receive a tariff at the same rate or better than that which they had on their “total heating, total control” rate? That is a key concern for my constituents. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the electrical system, and the statutory and commercial entities that control that electrical system, will carry the risk for inflated bills as a result of the changes? Consumers have no responsibility whatsoever for the functioning of the electricity system so, by any measure of justice, they should not be exposed to the financial risk of a system that no longer works and is being replaced by one that is more expensive. That should not happen.