Government moves to reassure solar sector
The NFU has welcomed a written ministerial statement from the Department for Energy and Climate Change, which removes some of the short-term uncertainty about solar PV tariffs
Following the High Court decision on December 21 which ruled that the government’s consultation timetable was ‘legally flawed’, there has been no clear position on the level of solar PV tariffs available – either currently or after April 1, when proposed changes would have taken effect.
A technical but Pyrrhic victory was won by Friends of the Earth and two solar installers, but there was consternation among solar installers who found themselves unable to tell their customers what tariffs to expect and faced dramatic reductions in sales.
The DECC lodged grounds of appeal, but the Appeal Court failed to reach a decision on 13th January, merely “reserving judgement” and raising the possibility of a legal stalemate extending into February.
However, the government has now offered a compromise in the form of a Ministerial Statement, laying before Parliament certain draft licence modifications.
These mean that the reduced tariffs will only apply from an ‘eligibility date’ of March 3 2012, unless the government wins its appeal, in which case the eligibility date will be 12th December as originally proposed.
The next phase of the comprehensive review of the FITs scheme (affecting tariffs for AD, hydro and wind power) will be the subject of a further consultation, presently expected around February 9.
Government must do more to tackle the obesity crisis, says Which?
The government is failing to adequately tackle barriers to healthy eating, Which? has found.On the first anniversary of the Public Health Responsibility Deal, Which? has assessed the Government’s approach to tackling barriers to healthy eating and has found it lacking
Despite major food companies being asked to sign up to the Responsibility Deal and promising to displaying calorie information, reduce salt in foods and remove trans fats, there has not been enough action.
And a new Which? survey shows that although 91% of UK adults actively try to eat a healthy diet, 28% are not satisfied the government is doing enough to help them.
Given the scale of the diet-related health problem – which costs the National Health Service more than £5billion every year – Which? believes a radical change of approach is needed.
Are food companies acting responsibly?
Looking at areas where more could be done, Which? has found that:
- only two of the top ten restaurants and pub groups (Harvester and Wetherspoon) have agreed to provide calorie information. Other big brands, such as Ask, Beefeater, Café Rouge, Garfunkels, Pizza Express, Prezzo and Strada have failed to sign up
- of the top five coffee shops, just Starbucks and Marks and Spencer’s The Café have said they will display calories. Costa Coffee, the largest chain with over a thousand outlets, is still failing to commit to providing this information, as are its competitors Caffe Nero and Caffe Ritazza
- some good progress has been made on companies committing to reduce salt in their food, but many big name brands like Iceland, Findus, Princes and Birds Eye have yet to pledge
- while most major companies have removed trans fats from their products, there are still smaller takeaways and other caterers that aren’t signed up to the pledge.
More Government action needed
Speaking about the Responsibility Deal, Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd, said: ‘We have the worst obesity rates in Europe and diet-related diseases, like heart disease and stroke, are blighting the public’s health.
‘Our audit of progress made under the Government’s Responsibility Deal has shown the current approach is overly reliant on vague voluntary promises by the food industry. This has so far failed to bring about change on anything like the scale that’s needed.
‘The Government relies too much on voluntary deals with industry rather than showing real leadership. If food companies don’t agree to help people eat more healthily, then we must see legislation to force them to do so for the sake of the health of the nation.’