Climate Change
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The UK has a lot to be proud of in our record on climate change, such as halving our greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, being the first EU nation to phase out coal, and massively scaling up renewable energy. It is no coincidence that many of these accomplishments came against a background of cross-party consensus on the need to reach net zero.
The parties used to compete to have the most ambitious environmental programme, but since the last election the Conservatives have abandoned our ambitious climate commitments. Instead, they have kowtowed to the politics of fear, and seized on net zero in a culture war of trying to out-Reform Reform—and where are the Reform Members? Even while still in government, the Conservatives squandered some of the huge economic, social and environmental opportunities of net zero, and now they are falling even further behind the curve. Their recent decision to call for the Climate Change Act to be scrapped would critically endanger future generations, who deserve a safer planet, energy security and a stronger economy. The Climate Change Committee frequently warned that the last Government were not moving fast enough. Let us not forget that they were defeated twice in the High Court due to their inadequate climate plans.
We Liberal Democrats recognise the urgent need to go further and faster on climate change. This generation should be the first to leave the country and the world in a better condition than we found them in. We also recognise the huge opportunities that new renewable energy brings to support skilled jobs and economic growth. Previous failure to invest sufficiently in renewable energy and insulate our homes has led directly to the energy crisis, pushing up energy bills for everyone and squeezing family finances. The situation in Iran has laid bare the state of UK energy security as prices have shot up because we are so reliant on oil and gas. Home-grown, renewable energy does not have to pass through the strait of Hormuz, and its price is not set on the rollercoaster of international markets.
Conservative and Reform Members have their heads in the sand in adopting anti-renewable, anti-environmental policies that would leave us vulnerable to more energy crises in the future. The Climate Change Committee has found that the cost of net zero by 2050 is less than the impact of one fuel crisis. Conservative and Reform Members would have us believe that we cannot afford net zero. In reality, the truth is that we cannot afford not to get to net zero.
We cannot escape the fact that our electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, but that is not inevitable; it is the result of a pricing imbalance. Right now, the cost of electricity is set by the price of gas 97% of the time, even though half of our electricity comes from renewables, which are much cheaper. That disconnect is driving up bills unnecessarily, and we must break that link. We Liberal Democrats propose the practical solution of moving older renewable projects off expensive renewable obligation certificates and on to cheaper contracts for difference. The UK Energy Research Centre estimates that that change alone would save a typical household about £200 a year.
At the same time, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s inquiry into the cost of energy has uncovered serious concerns about transparency. We have heard evidence that profits can be obscured within network charges on energy bills. Energy companies must be transparent, so consumers can clearly see what they are paying for and where profits are being made. Our constituents deserve energy bills to be fair, affordable and easy to understand.
In Bath, the majority of my constituents are firmly behind climate action, and so is my Liberal Democrat council. I was delighted to hold a pop-up surgery at Bath climate hub last week. The hub supports people to reduce their carbon footprint through diet, energy use or transportation changes. It also facilitates the meaningful conversation that we must keep having on climate issues. From action to rewild nature-depleted land to community owned energy initiatives, local areas in Bath are making changes that together make a big difference.
In Bath, like the rest of the country, retrofitting our homes through a national insulation programme is crucial to lowering carbon emissions and reducing bills. The Government’s warm homes plan unfortunately falls short of the scale, ambition and long-term certainty we need. An emergency home upgrade programme should have been implemented in the first 100 days of this Government. We Liberal Democrats would upgrade our homes, making them cheaper to heat with a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for those on low incomes and ensuring that all new homes are zero-carbon. We would also provide further incentives for installing heat pumps that cover the real cost. That would reduce emissions and bills, combating both climate change and fuel poverty.
Climate change is, after all, a global issue. We must bring others with us. The UK and European partners must lead the global effort to tackle climate change together, even more so given that the US has abandoned the multilateral approach to international climate policy. One choice the Government could take immediately to help global efforts towards net zero would be to reverse the cut to the aid budget and set out a road map for restoring official development assistance to 0.7% of gross national income. UK aid provides vital support for the most vulnerable people in the world and is a key tool in meeting our climate commitments.
We Liberal Democrats have also pushed for a long time for stronger marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically. We welcome the Government’s decision to ratify the global oceans treaty through legislation. However, much more needs to be done to work with our coastal and fishing communities to ensure a sustainable future for fishing and our marine environment.
Public support for climate action remains strong across the UK, but we cannot take it for granted. We must continue to bring the public with us throughout the energy transition. A part of that is ensuring that misinformation and disinformation is effectively challenged. That means tackling myths about renewable energy head-on, and making sure that households right across the country actually feel the benefits through lower bills, warmer homes and secure jobs in their communities.
The Conservatives and Reform are all too often happy to talk down Britain’s renewable industries. They would have us scraping the bottom of the North sea oil barrel. In doing so, they overlook the remarkable innovation happening right here in the UK: home-grown green technology companies driving growth, creating skilled jobs and shaping a more sustainable future. Even if more oil was extracted from the North sea, it would be sold on the international market at international prices. That would not lower energy bills. The Conservatives know that, so it is particularly callous to ask for something that would leave our constituents less safe and secure economically.
Our constituents want to tackle climate change. They want lower fuel bills. They want their wildlife and landscapes to be protected. They want a strong economy that supports British jobs. That is what the energy transition must give them. We Liberal Democrats will keep making the case for the urgent transition away from fossil fuels.
Harriet Cross
I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes.
As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the shadow Minister saying that because we cannot make a big enough impact globally, we should scrap our impact altogether?
Harriet Cross
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow?
We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.
Harriet Cross
The hon. Gentleman is obviously keen to hear from me, which is great, but as he says, I am four minutes in and have taken three interventions; I think I still have a couple of minutes to form my argument.
I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also some of the most expensive, and that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option. Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and the electrification of home heating, and it will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country. That is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone—for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, which is a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity.
But of course, as Members know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas—at over 70% of that mix—remain central to our energy needs, and will for a long time. The Climate Change Committee’s projections include oil and gas in its 2050 net zero scenario. So why are the Government banning new licences for the North sea? Why are they taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern, and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered. Why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, which are four times more carbon-intensive than what is produced in the North sea? LNG imports have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped and re-gasified, rather than just being piped from the North sea directly into our gas grid.
Permitting Rosebank, Jackdaw and, down the line, Cambo will mean that the UK’s emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower—lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and instead we use more carbon-intensive imports. Based on science, emissions and the fact that oil and gas will still be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not—not for jobs, investment, growth, energy security or emissions.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that all that might make it cheaper for the oil and gas industry, but it will not make it cheaper for our constituents? Their bills will be the same wherever the gas is extracted; it is the oil and gas industry that might profit from it being extracted elsewhere.
Harriet Cross
I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts.
Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.
Energy Markets
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, so I will take the last part on marginal pricing, as that is the challenge, and be as brief as I can. I completely understand the logic of his question. One of the benefits of a clean power system is that gas will set the price much less of the time. One of the benefits of moving from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference is that it gives us a fixed price that is not subject to the marginal price of gas. I am sympathetic to the principle that my hon. Friend espouses, but the truth is that there are significant obstacles to getting to what he wants to see in a timely way and a way that is better for bill payers. Among all the other things, my Department continues to look at that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee is running an inquiry into the costs of energy, as we have already heard from its Chair. With all due respect, I cannot understand how the Conservative Opposition can with a straight face deplore the cost of energy for bill payers while at the same time advocate prolonging our dependency on oil and gas. That is precisely what keeps our energy bills high.
Let me come back to our inquiry. We heard from one of the witnesses from E3G that there could be costs of up to £500 per household in hidden profits due to the untransparent network charges put on to energy bills. Will the Government ensure that bill payers are given a full picture of the breakdown of profits across the energy sector?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for the point that she makes. It is worth saying that Lord Browne of Madingley, formerly of BP, was on the radio yesterday making precisely the same point that she and I have made. This is a man who used to run one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, and he said that the lesson of this crisis is that we have to get on to clean power.
On the hon. Lady’s point about networks, it is important to be transparent about that. It is also important to bear down on those costs, and I obviously discuss that a lot with the regulator.
Local Power Plan
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Briefly, there are three important aspects to this: first, communities can have lower bills for their community centres and local institutions; secondly, they can generate a stream of income by selling power back to the grid; thirdly, there is something wider, and perhaps more intangible, which is the matter of giving local communities a sense of stake in the system. I think this is really important, because one of the ways that we gain consent from people is through the sense that it is not simply the big multinationals that will own our energy system, but local people themselves.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I welcome the publication of the local power plan and I honestly recognise the Government’s commitment to community energy. However, I think there is still a piece missing—namely that properties in the vicinity of a community energy generator can ultimately benefit by being directly supplied, rather than being supplied through a third party. Will the Secretary of State look again at how community energy is defined and include households benefiting from the energy generated within that community? We have been struggling with the definition of community energy on the Select Committee. I think it is important that households can benefit from the energy generated within the community.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on this issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is the world expert on these questions—or at least the UK expert; I will not push it too far—assures me that her important question about the statutory definition, which is, I think, on code P441, is being answered in the plan.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I congratulate the scout group. The Minister for Energy promises that he will visit, and that is now on the record in Hansard.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady will not be disappointed because, as she said in her question, I will not comment on the application. However, we set out clearly in response to the Finch ruling how scope 3 emissions will be taken into account. That process is now under way, and I cannot comment on those applications.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. The figures that came out from NESO over Christmas show that we had extra renewable power in 2025 equivalent to powering 2 million homes; that is 2 million homes that will not be powered by imported gas. That gives us the price stability that we never had under the previous Government. The fundamental lesson at a time of geopolitical instability is that home-grown clean power is what gives us the certainty we need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
According to Government figures, output from new solar projects costs around £41 per megawatt-hour compared with roughly £140 per megawatt-hour for the lifespan costs of new gas power. I know the Secretary of State agrees with me and RenewableUK that clean energy remains the energy with the lowest cost, but how do we ensure that the British public agree with us?
Energy
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his time and willingness in going through the plan. Costs were not always so high; we actually had the lowest gas prices before the crisis, and we had lower electricity prices as well. What has happened is that we have switched a lot of costs into fixed costs, and those costs are increasing. It is something everybody is looking at, from the Tony Blair Institute to the trade unions—people right across the political spectrum. We need to address this issue because there is a huge amount on the line, whether that is growth or living standards. As I have said, AI is here in the near term; we cannot wait until the 2040s, which is the Government’s plan. Even then, it is not clear that their plan would bring down bills at all.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Is it not the truth that the reason energy bills are still so high is because we still produce a lot of electricity by burning gas? Burning gas, which is sold on the global market, keeps energy prices high. That is the main problem. We need to decouple electricity from gas prices, and particularly to get away from gas.
Claire Coutinho
As the Chair of the Select Committee was happy to spend some time with me on this, I hope that the hon. Lady would be too, because she might learn something. Some 40% of our electricity prices are wholesale prices, while 60% are fixed costs, which covers things like building out the networks, which is going up phenomenally under the Government’s plans, as even Ofgem has pointed out; it also covers switching off wind farms when it gets too windy, which we spent £1 billion on this year, and will spend £8 billion on in 2030. I urge the hon. Lady to go and look at the numbers.
Our imports of foreign gas, which has four times the emissions of British gas, have soared because of what the Government are doing to the North sea; they were up 40% year on year at the beginning of this year. When the unions, the chief executive of Octopus and even the chair of Great British Energy have said that we should keep drilling in the North sea, do Government Members not wonder whether their Secretary of State has got this wrong?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, and I recommend he looks at my website because everybody else in the Chamber seems to have done so by now.
Andrew Bowie
I will do so one last time and then I really need to make progress.
Wera Hobhouse
I am interested in hearing what he has to say about cutting bills. Does he not recognise that the cost of letting climate change go on unmitigated is a vast one for every household in this country?
Andrew Bowie
I remind the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, we cut our carbon emissions faster than any other developed nation on Earth and yet global warming is increasing. We need to encourage other countries to reduce their emissions, but we do not do that on the backs of British bill payers, who pay far too much for their energy. I thought the Liberal Democrats would be supportive of creating jobs and reducing bills and the burden on British people, but obviously they are not.
The Government’s policies have seen imports soar as a direct result. Those policies have been described as “naive” by the GMB; “incorrect” by the American ambassador; they will make Britain increasingly dependent, according to the Norwegian Government; they need replaced, says Scottish Renewables; and they lead to a “haemorrhaging” of energy jobs, according to none other than the head of Great British Energy, Juergen Maier. In fact, the only person who seems to think that this is a good way to manage our energy industry is the Energy Secretary.
This Government are sacrificing an industry and livelihoods, communities and prosperity on this mission, many of them in my constituency. The irony is not lost in the north-east of Scotland. We import more gas from abroad, from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting ourselves, and at a higher carbon footprint, while workers in Aberdeen and across the north-east of Scotland and the domestic supply chain across the United Kingdom see their jobs disappear. Aberdonians are incredibly proud of the fact that an Aberdonian accent can be found in every oil-rich nation on earth. Soon, the only place we will not find a Scottish oil and gas worker is in Aberdeen itself. One thousand jobs are set to be lost every month as a direct result of the policies of this Labour Government, because those people are leaving. They are off to the middle east, Australia, the far east, South America, Mexico, the USA and Canada—in fact, they are off to anywhere the British Labour party is not in charge of energy policy.
This successful industry is enduring a politically manufactured decline, made in Whitehall and devastating livelihoods across the UK and particularly in Scotland. This Government are demonstrating a reckless disregard for the industry, which for decades has kept the lights on in this country; an industry that we will continue to need for decades to come.
The oil and gas industry has been through challenging waters before. The 2014-15 global downturn and oil price collapse saw a contraction in operations and job losses. Yet the response could not be more different. In 2015, the Conservative Government commissioned the Wood review and initiated a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We recognised the value of the domestic industry and acted accordingly.
Our oil and gas industry is facing tough times again, but this time the downturn is only in the UK. Globally, the energy industry is booming. In the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the gulf of America, South America and Norway, activity is increasing, and New Zealand has just overturned the ban on drilling brought in by its previous Labour Government. The difficulties experienced in our domestic industry are the result of political decisions driven by ideology over pragmatism.
I very much hope the Chancellor is listening to us on these Benches, and to the workers in the oil and gas industry, their unions, the businesses, the Americans, the Norwegians, the renewables industry and even Juergen Maier, because we are at a critical turning point. The industry stands on a precipice. The Chancellor must act now. If she does not act now, at this Budget, the UK will not have a domestic oil and gas industry left to salvage. The real irony is that the Secretary of State, in his vitriol and zealotry, is jeopardising the future of renewable energy in the North sea. As the Port of Aberdeen CEO said this week as he announced further job losses, our energy sector risks being “stranded” in limbo between the destruction of our oil and gas industry and a nascent renewables sector. Also this week, we saw Shell divest from offshore wind projects. The Government just do not get it. With their scorched earth strategy against our traditional offshore industries, they are decimating a skilled workforce and dismantling a world-leading supply chain. Talent and capital are moving elsewhere.
We need cheap energy, and that means all of the above: nuclear, gas, hydropower and innovative technologies, and renewables if it can be proven that they will cut bills. As this Labour Government rip the floor from beneath the oil and gas industry of today, they will soon realise that they are losing the workforce, the supply chains and the investment of tomorrow, but there is another way: our way. The Government should declare the North sea open for business, reduce our reliance on imports, get rid of the energy profits levy, build more nuclear—big and small—create energy abundance and cut electricity bills for families by 20% right now using our cheap power plan. They could do it but, blinded by ideology, I very much doubt they will.
Michael Shanks
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak positively about the Conservative party’s record on renewables when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all.
A number of hon. Members said that the reason we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far too often. The only way that we will bring down prices in the long term is by removing gas as the price setter. That means that we need to build more renewables, but another key point that the Conservatives have missed is that they built lots of those projects while not building the grid to connect them. They talk about constraint payments, but that is the legacy of a party that for 14 years failed to build the grid that would bring significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not the truth that once the projects have been built, the energy is free? There is no commodity concentration, because the wind and sunlight cost nothing; there is very little cost apart from the installation.
Michael Shanks
I would say that it is significantly cheaper to generate electricity from renewables, but I might not go quite as far as the hon. Lady does.
There is a false argument that because the wholesale price of gas is cheaper, we should simply rely on gas more. That completely ignores the fact that we have an ageing gas fleet in this country, and would have to build significant numbers of new gas power stations to take advantage of that price. The figure the Conservatives frequently throw around compares the construction costs of renewables with the cost of gas, not the cost of building gas power stations, whereas renewables have extremely cheap ongoing costs in the long run.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a brilliant champion of the port of Tyne and what it offers, and she is right to draw attention to this important issue. Approval of any works to reroute the line is a matter for Ofgem, but we stand ready to engage with her and, indeed, Ofgem to try to bring this forward. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Energy Minister meets her to discuss this important issue.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Despite the growing need for green jobs—obviously, we are all in favour of making sure we have green jobs—fewer than one in 10 employees receive any dedicated green skills training, according to an OVO Energy survey. What can we do to support businesses, and what can the Government do to accelerate that important training programme in all businesses where we need green jobs?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Later this year, we will publish a clean energy skills plan to address precisely this question: how do we make sure we equip workers with the skills they need to take advantage of those jobs? That is being led by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary in the work she is doing with Skills England, but there is a whole range of things we can do. For the first time, the Government will publish what the skills needs are for clean energy jobs and how we will meet them, which will be an important step forward.
Electricity Market Review
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I will come to my hon. Friend’s earlier points in a minute, but his last point is absolutely crucial. The last Government looked at this and found it difficult to find a mechanism to do it within the system. A key thing that clean power will do is that gas will set the price much less of the time, and with ROs being phased out and CfDs coming in, that will have a dramatic effect. At the moment, the gas price covers something like more than half the generation, and that will fall to a much lower figure—I can give my hon. Friend the actual figures.
My hon. Friend’s first point about constraint payments is worth dwelling on. If we are worried about constraint payments because the network is not there, we are right to be worried. But if that is our view, we should support the building of the network infrastructure across the country. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are worried about constraint payments and the cost on consumers but that we cannot have the new infrastructure built. That is an issue and it is a choice— I would not call it a dilemma, exactly—that every Member across the House has to make.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
UK households and businesses pay almost the highest energy costs compared with other European countries. As has already been said many times, although it is worth repeating, that is because the cost of electricity is coupled to the cost of gas. I absolutely share the Secretary of State’s ambition to rapidly reduce our reliance on gas. Long, medium and short-duration storage will play a vital role in bridging the intermittency of renewables. What more can the Government do to rapidly increase support for these emerging technologies?
Ed Miliband
LDES, as it is known to the super-nerds—long-duration energy storage—is really important, as indeed are batteries. We now have a cap and floor mechanism for LDES. Ofgem, along with NESO, is looking at the applications that have been made, and that will now be driven forward. That is really important. What I always say to people is that we need all the elements of the system. We need nuclear—in my view—we need renewables, we need battery storage, and we also need LDES. All of them can contribute to a clean power system.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
There are a few questions in there, and I will try to answer them as briefly as I can. Even for the biggest solar ambitions, less than 1% of land would be covered. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need solar rooftops too. That is why we have put an end to years of dither and delay, and last week announced that new homes will have solar panels fitted as standard. It makes total sense.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The solar panels on my roof started working last week, and I am very excited. If you do not have any solar panels, Mr Speaker, maybe you could give yourself a birthday present and ensure that you have an array, too. Mine were made possible by the Solar Together scheme organised by Bath and North East Somerset council. Such schemes are so important to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs. Will the Secretary of State ensure that funding for those schemes will continue?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the hon. Lady on having taken that step. She makes an important point: lots of people want to do this, but there is an up-front cost barrier. One thing that my Department is doing is working with the private sector, social housing providers, as I have said, and others to ask how we might break down up-front cost barriers so that more people, particularly those who cannot necessarily afford those costs, can benefit from solar power and cheaper bills.
Warm Home Discount
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the cost of living crisis that blights constituencies across the country, with many people facing energy debt totalling £3.8 billion. She is also right, however, to point out that there are things that must be done to ensure that customers are served by the energy market. That is why we are ensuring that the regulator has the power—we are also instructing it to use the ones it has—to ensure that things such as back billing, which we know is an issue, do not happen. The rules are very clear and we need them to be enforced to ensure that when customers do not receive the best customer service from their suppliers, there are consequences. Our review of Ofgem is to ensure that it has the powers it needs to be that champion for consumers. In the end, the energy market must work in the interest of people. We agree that that is not happening at the moment and it must happen after we reform it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In the UK, electricity prices are linked to the global fossil fuel market, which is at the bottom of UK households’ paying the highest energy costs in Europe. To fix that, the use of a single levy-controlled system has been suggested, with two simple rates—one for electricity and one for gas—set by Ministers. That would allow the Government to manage the cost for households and lower prices, especially for clean energy. Will the Minister look into that suggestion? I am happy to meet her to go through those details further.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Our reform of the energy market arrangements looks at all the aspects of our electricity market that are not working. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) is looking at that question and the Department is willing to work across the House to ensure we get to the right arrangements. As long as gas continues to drive the cost of energy, that will create a problem and have an impact on consumers. We are alive to that question and will report on that in due course.