Energy Bill
Debate between Andrew Percy and Luciana Berger
Andrew Percy
No, I will not give way. There are very concerned people who feel very disempowered with respect to the planning process because of the march of onshore wind. That has to be taken into account. I am not prepared to vote for something that would say to my constituents, “Whatever your view is, it doesn’t matter. We have this target and we have to deliver on it.”
I think about the public inquiry at Saxby Wold, at which I spoke only a few weeks ago. I got a clap from local residents; it is not often that Members of Parliament get clapped by their constituents. I spoke for my constituents who said clearly that they did not want an ever-increasing march of onshore wind turbines. I also think about the residents in the towns of Winterton and Broughton and elsewhere. Just this weekend, I was informing them about the proposed development in the Ancholme valley of yet more wind turbines—an area that has already hit its 2020 targets.
So please do not present those of us who oppose the target as anti-renewable. We are pro-renewable, but we want a balance and a sensible energy policy that gives the people most affected by the changes a real voice in the process. That is why I will support the Bill. Perhaps in a year, two years or three years, we will be able to support a decarbonisation target. However, the CCS technology is not yet there and I am not prepared to say to people in my constituency who work in the industries I mentioned that they should be put out of work for a vague target that somebody has plucked out of thin air.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Energy Bill [Lords]
Debate between Andrew Percy and Luciana Berger(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Luciana Berger
We are delighted that the Government are keeping the amendments proposed in Committee. We accept the proposals to make the provisions more workable, as the Minister set out.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I wish to speak to my amendment 28. I am delighted to hear the Minister say that he will respond to it later, which allows me to make my points before they are addressed.
I say at the outset that I think the green deal is a fantastic idea. As we went into the election campaign, I was very enthusiastic about it and I found a lot of support for the concept on the doorstep. I pay tribute to the ministerial team for bringing it forward so quickly and in such a concise manner. It is especially important because it provides for improved energy efficiency of our housing stock, which is vital to protect not only the environment, but residents. It will also have the benefit of reducing carbon emissions and hopefully, if it works correctly, insulate our residents and consumers against rising energy prices. If the “pay as you save” model works as envisioned, many more homes will be made much more energy efficient than could have been achieved under the previous schemes, whose limitations anyone who has served as an MP or a local councillor will have seen. This model is a great improvement.
Affordability is a massive issue for our constituents, as no doubt all of us have seen over the summer, with a large amount of correspondence in our postbags arising from various energy companies raising their prices. Citizens Advice has informed me and other Members that there has been a 78% increase in hits to its advice websites compared with a year ago. That clearly demonstrates how welcome is any measure that helps to bring down prices and encourage energy efficiency. It is in all our interests that the green deal works properly and effectively and is accessible to as many residents as possible on an equal basis.
There are some concerns—the Minister probably heard them in Committee—about the attractiveness of the green deal to certain sections of our constituents. The Great British Refurb campaign has said that although the green deal is attractive, mass demand will be contingent on a number of factors. I believe it surveyed about 2,000 people across the UK and found that whereas 56% of respondents saw the green deal as attractive, only 7% said that they would be prepared to take it up if a 6% interest rate applied. That is why my amendment focuses on interest rates.
We need to ensure that the interest rates are as low as possible to make the scheme as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. That is what amendment 28 would allow. The advantage of setting a single scheme interest rate is that it will stimulate demand from as many people as possible while forcing green deal providers to compete directly for customers based on the cost and quality of the energy efficiency measures and installation, rather than on the headline interest rate of the finance. I believe that it will also help to increase transparency and empower consumers who would find it much easier to compare different offers and the services provided by different companies.
Public Disorder
Debate between Andrew Percy and Luciana Berger(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luciana Berger
Of course. The cuts are incredibly concerning. Merseyside police have already been recognised for the cuts and efficiency savings they made before the latest police settlement. No accommodation for those efficiency savings and back-office cuts was made in the settlement.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Perhaps before we decide that police cuts are the reason for the problem, the hon. Lady should consider the words of the chief constable of West Yorkshire, who said he had the resources he needed and that he had enough resources to invade a south American country.
Luciana Berger
Two weekends ago, before the troubles occurred, I was out with the police in my constituency, and it was evident then that they were already stretched on a Friday night to respond to all the priority 1 calls. Over the next few years, until 2015, Merseyside police are set to lose 800 police officers, so the challenge is about the number of police officers we might lose in the future. My constituents have told me more than 100 times over the past couple of days that they want more police officers on our streets, not fewer. I echo the call from the shadow Home Secretary that the Home Secretary should clarify whether police forces will be able to recoup the additional costs they have incurred over the past few days. If they cannot, I am even more concerned about future community safety for my constituents and across Liverpool.
My concerns extend to all our emergency services. On Tuesday night four fire engines were attacked in my patch while they were attending fires. That was a completely despicable act. Merseyside fire service is already stretched and bearing the brunt of the biggest cuts in the country. I urge the Government to revisit the amount of resources that all the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, heal us and put out our fires deserve in order to look after my constituents, all the people of Liverpool and the entire British public.