Energy Costs

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents. He is making the argument not just for lower prices at the pump and lower costs of energy, but for doing that in a clean, green way. Those two things do go hand in hand; we can reduce energy and fuel prices while people can also make important decisions about clean energy in their own lives. That is exactly what the Government are doing.

As I was saying, the approach that we are taking is supported by our warm homes plan, which represents the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history. It is backed by £15 billion and will help upgrade up to 5 million homes by 2030; that means real improvements to the homes people live in.

Households will benefit from solar panels, clean heat technologies and batteries, and improved insulation. Insulation is an essential part of what we are trying to do in the warm homes plan; it has always been part of Government schemes and will into the future. All that is to cut bills and improve comfort for homeowners, renters and others. It will mean a housing stock that is better prepared for the future and a country that is less vulnerable to energy price shocks.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

We are waiting for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to come up with the results of the community benefit consultation. The highlands only got £9 million of community benefit last year, and Scotland as a whole got less than £30 million. There are tens of thousands of jobs in renewables in the highlands, but they are not for locals; they are imported teams. Very often, offshore firms are doing the construction. We sell 10 times more electricity than we produce. Effectively, there is nothing in it for the people of rural Scotland to produce electricity. Does the Minister agree that the community benefit conclusion from DESNZ is crucial?

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We will come forward with the response on community benefits soon. I point him towards what we have already announced regarding a trial of free wind power for communities close to generation, which will be coming later this year. His point about workforce is also really important. That is why I am chairing a workforce taskforce with the TUC to work through those points and make sure that we have good, home-grown jobs that are unionised and pay decent wages, and that local communities are feeling the benefit of that.

Energy Security

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Select Committee has taken evidence on much of what is in the Gracious Speech, and a big part of this debate has been about the threats that we face as a result of the second fossil fuel crisis in five years. I remember the first in 1973: as a six-year-old, candles on the table were fun, but it was not much fun for most of the country. We have repeated that experience multiple times since.

We have heard one piece of evidence again and again in the Committee: to address the challenge of the current fossil fuel crisis, the Government must bring down the cost of electricity, to enable the transition away from our dependence on oil and gas.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

To support the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the price of electricity, renewable energy is largely generated in Scotland, north Wales and south-west England. We have the highest level of fuel poverty, we have no mains gas, and the suffering caused to those rural areas is remarkable. Until that is improved, we are not in a position to move to an electricity-based economy.

[Bill Esterson]

The Government were supportive of heating oil in the recently announced measures precisely for some of the reasons that the hon. Member sets out. We have to address this threat, and we have to transition for reasons of energy security, cost and bringing bills down. Anybody going to the pump now or looking at what their bills are likely to be—I think Martin Lewis was today predicting the latest increase in the price cap—can see what is coming for domestic and business consumers.

Ukraine has learned about energy security the hard way, from the Russian attacks on its oil and gas installations, and it has shown us all. We have seen the same in the middle east with the war with Iran. Decentralising and moving away from dependence on oil and gas is key to protecting our energy generation.

The economic arguments are strong. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), was talking about growth earlier; I ask her just to look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility is saying. The OBR makes the point that the costs of not addressing climate change are significantly more than the costs of making the transition. The Climate Change Committee predicts that, if we do not act, we will see a 7% fall in GDP by 2050. If we really want to be scared, we should listen to the actuaries: they know a thing or two about this, and they predict that global GDP will fall by 50% between 2070 and 2090, with catastrophic consequences across the world, unless we take the action that we need to take. We have to act.

The North sea is a super-mature basin, with a fraction left of what was there to start with. We were in a hurry to extract from the North sea. Peak North sea extraction was 1999, with 4.5 million barrels of oil a day. By 2023, after 13 of the Conservatives’ 14 years in office, that had fallen to 1.23 million barrels a day. That is a quarter of its peak production, and it will halve again by 2030. As NESO says, new licences will not make a material difference to capacity or production. Jackdaw, if it is given consent, would provide only 2% of UK demand. Rosebank would account for only 7% of production by 2030 levels. Those fields would not stop the decline, but only slow it.

Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

If the Minister will allow me, I will make more of an intervention than a speech. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the £150—thank you very much—but I suspect that that figure was worked out on the basis of the average UK energy costs of approximately £1,750. In sunny Inverclyde, where people are wandering around in their Speedos, that would be fine, but an average fuel bill in the highlands of Scotland or the outer isles is much more likely to be £3,000 than £1,750, so £150 does not cut it. The outer isles and the west highlands have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain.

In my office in Fort William, electricity costs 27p per kilowatt-hour; in my flat in London, gas costs 6p per kilowatt-hour. In the highlands, we are paying four times as much. I can only say that the current Government will have achieved their aim when they make it the same price to heat a property in rural Britain as in the middle of London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I appreciate the right hon. Member’s concerns, having spoken to the hydrogen industry myself, and the representation he has made to me and to the Energy Minister on this issue. I can assure him that the hydrogen strategy will be out soon.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

12. What steps he is taking to support rural homes that use heating oil.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

We understand that many households, particularly in rural and off-gas grid areas, rely on heating oil as their primary source of heat. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced £53 million of support for those who heat their homes with heating oil, and £4.6 million will be delivered by the Scottish Government. Obviously, we continue to monitor the situation closely and will keep measures under review.

[Mr MacDonald]

In the remote highlands and islands, where mains gas is not available, where we have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain, where local households and businesses rely on heating oil and electricity, and where much of Britain’s renewable energy is generated, but to minimal local benefit, does the Minister accept the unfairness of a highlander having to pay a multiple of what those in cities pay for energy?

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I visited the Western Isles last week to speak directly to people who have been affected by the energy crisis, and I heard about the pressures people there are under. It is why we have welcomed the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation into heating oil. On his point about people benefiting from local infrastructure, this morning we announced a trial for free wind power for people living near that infrastructure—he will be able to find the details in the Vote Office.

Geo-engineering and the Environment

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I have received quite a lot of correspondence on that, which MPs have passed on from their constituents. I have answered written questions—which are in the public domain—and replied to queries on both those points. I will try to express as clearly and vehemently as I can that we have no plans for SRM.

On the supposed chemtrails issue, that is a term used by some people who claim that the white trails seen behind high-altitude aircraft on clear days contain undisclosed chemical agents intended for a covert atmospheric spraying programme. They are, in fact, as my hon. Friend said, contrails, which form when warm, moist aircraft exhaust fumes mix with cold air at altitude. Under certain atmospheric conditions, contrails can persist and spread out to form cirrus-like clouds before disappearing. There is no deliberate spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for climate modification. We are not in favour of SRM and have no plans to change that position; I will say more on that in a moment, but first I want to add a little more on greenhouse gas removals.

Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero across the economy by 2050. I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) about the UK being off track to do that. We will be publishing our carbon budget delivery plan by October; as she said, the previous Government were taken to court for failing to produce adequate policies to match the ambition. Obviously, there is no point in setting targets unless they can be delivered. We will set out our plan in due course, and then talk about the seventh carbon budget and meeting our nationally determined contributions.

We must do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—that is our starting point. We need that effort to be shared across all Government Departments, and we need everyone to play a role.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I hope this is not too much of a diversion, but the Minister will know that mains gas is 6p per kWh, largely imported and certainly a carbon fuel, while renewable energy is selling at 24p per kWh. We cannot get the public behind us as long as the environmental tariffs are on the renewable energy and not on the carbon fuel. May I have her opinion on that?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will not be tempted too far down that path, other than to say that it is very much on our radar. We know that renewables are the cheaper option, but that needs to be reflected in the prices that people are charged. Today, we announced measures in our industrial strategy to bring down energy prices for industry as part of industrial decarbonisation, but on the consumer side it is a work in progress, and the hon. Gentleman can expect to hear more soon.

The starting point is reducing emissions. We know that emissions are hard to abate in some sectors, and that we will not be able to do it fully. Greenhouse gas removal technologies will therefore be important to balance those residual emissions. That is recognised internationally by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by our independent Climate Change Committee, whose latest advice to Government for setting the seventh carbon budget modelled around 36 megatonnes a year of engineered removals by 2050 to help us reach net zero.

Greenhouse gas removal approaches fall broadly into two categories: nature-based approaches, such as afforestation; and engineering-based approaches, such as direct air carbon capture and storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering.

I know that both the hon. Members for South Cotswolds and for South Cambridgeshire are passionate about nature-based approaches, which can play an important role in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale, while delivering a range of additional environmental improvements, such as improvements in biodiversity, air quality and soil health. Those co-benefits are important, too.

We are acting on nature-based approaches. In March, we announced the creation of the Western forest, the first new national forest in over 30 years. It will see 20 million trees planted across the west of England in the coming years, which I very much welcome as a Bristol MP. We also plan to expand nature-rich habitats, such as wetlands and peat bogs, including restoring hundreds of thousands of hectares of peatland—we also seek to promote such work internationally.

We are in the middle of London Climate Action Week, and many visitors from Brazil are talking about what they seek to do for their tropical forests’ “forever facility” at COP30. I was excited to hear what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said about whales and giant kelp, as I have been talking to my officials about the role they play—it is good to have scientific back-up for my views. During London Climate Action Week, we are focusing on the important role of the voluntary carbon and nature markets in securing investment for blue carbon and our forests.

However, we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet our targets. Many countries agree with us on the important role that GGRs will play, and large-scale removal projects are currently operating or being planned around the world. We are also committed to supporting the deployment of engineered GGRs.

Access to carbon capture, usage and storage infrastructure is vital for many GGR technologies, and the Government are supporting the development of the CCUS network by allocating £9.4 billion in capital budgets over the spending review period. The network needs regulation, and we have an established environmental regulatory regime, with several regulators evaluating the environmental impact of GGR and CCUS projects.

Any GGR project deployed in the UK must comply with the relevant regulations and planning processes to ensure it is managed responsibly and that any environmental impacts are addressed, including impacts on biodiversity, pollution and local communities. We will continue to work with the necessary Departments, regulators and other public bodies to ensure that the UK’s regulatory environment is well placed to support the deployment of GGRs without causing environmental harm.

We take the integrity of removals very seriously. A robust GGR standard, including monitoring, reporting and verification, will be crucial in instilling public and investor confidence that removals through engineered GGR projects are genuine and verifiable. In other words, when someone says they have removed 1 tonne of CO₂, at least 1 net tonne of CO₂ must have been removed from the atmosphere once emissions relating to the entire process are taken into account, and we have commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop those assessment methodologies.

Although the petition refers to geo-engineering in a broader sense, solar radiation modification is possibly why it has attracted so many signatures. As I have said, SRM is a set of technologies that could cool the Earth, largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. However, the consequences of SRM are currently poorly understood, with significant uncertainty about the possible risks and impacts of deployment.

I make it clear for the record that the Government are not deploying solar radiation modification and have no plans to do so. There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

However, we do need to understand the potential risks and impacts of SRM. We have a very clear commitment not to deploy it, but we need to understand what would happen if other people chose to. That includes engaging with the Met Office Hadley Centre climate programme, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the coverage of whose climate cooling research programme has triggered some of the concerns we are talking about today.

ARIA is an independent research body that was set up by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Although it is sponsored by that Government Department, it has complete autonomy on its project choices, which goes to the point about whether that is the best use of public money, as ARIA is responsible for its own choices. It is conducting cautious, controlled research aimed at improving the understanding of SRM risks and impacts, but it is not deploying SRM technologies. I say again that its research will not release any toxic materials, nor will it alleviate the urgent need for increased decarbonisation efforts. There is no substitute for decarbonisation, which is why we are pressing on with our missions for clean power and net zero.

The science is clear that, without rapid action, we risk irreversible damage to the planet’s biosphere. To halt global warming, the world needs to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the UK’s emissions. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members present, and the constituents they represent, that the Government are not deploying SRM technologies and have no plans to do so, and that the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies—the other wing of geo-engineering—will continue to be monitored as those technologies scale up in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The Government welcome the plans to invest in and around Luton, including the expansion of Luton airport and the incredibly exciting Universal theme park, which is on the “perfect site”, as its president said. It also has perfect MPs. These projects, along with the mass clean power investments we are delivering, will grow the economy and deliver direct benefits to the communities that host this vital clean power infrastructure which will take all of us off the fossil fuel market rollercoaster.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

The domestic user of electricity pays 24p per kilowatt; the domestic user of mains gas pays 6p. People who live in urban Britain buy their energy for a quarter of the price paid by people in rural Britain. This is a massive problem, and I wonder whether the Minister could explain how the Government will address it.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, though it was not quite about the National Wealth Fund. He is right to highlight electricity prices. This is a challenge for industry and one we inherited from the previous Government. The best way to bring those bills down is to secure clean power by 2030, but he is right to highlight the challenges, and that is what we are trying to fix.

Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for setting the scene so well. He said he hoped his first debate would be more exciting, but this a practical debate. It is a debate that his constituents want him to focus on, and the reason he has secured it is because he is working on their behalf. I always found that I enjoy this particular type of debate because they really matter to people, and they can relate to them. There has been a focus on constitutional issues, war across the world, and all those things, in this last week—or 10 days, or two weeks, or even the last three years—but people back home in the hon. Member’s constituency will want him to pursue debates such as this one, so well done to him.

The hon. Member outlined the case for the renewables obligation in his introductory speech. I want to give a perspective from Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; before the election, she and I often sat on the Opposition Benches, and would have been alongside each other when it comes to asking for things. Today, I will be asking the Minister about some things in relation to discussions about the renewables scheme and the contracts for difference scheme, which we do not have in Northern Ireland.

There is a willingness in the Government approach to renewables, as there should be. It is important to do this as collectively as we can, to ensure that people can get the best value for money in their energy costs, so it is a pleasure to discuss these vital matters, and to consider the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this conversation.

The renewables obligation scheme was introduced in 2002 to incentivise large-scale renewable electricity generation in the United Kingdom. It was phased out or closed in 2017, in favour of the contracts for difference scheme. For me, that is the key issue, because currently the CfD scheme does not apply to Northern Ireland, although before the election I tried to encourage the previous Government to extend it. I know that this is a devolved matter, but will the Minister please initiate some conversations with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—I think it is Gordon Lyons—to see how we can work together to progress the CfD scheme and include Northern Ireland? There is some work for us to do here at Westminster to get this over the line, so it would be helpful if the Minister did that.

In the past, I have worked closely alongside colleagues on this issue and I hope to do so again in the future, particularly with the inspiration and help of the Minister, because it is important that Northern Ireland has the same opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to renewable energy.

Renewable energy is a path that we must pursue, and there need to be targets for us to achieve—the hon. Member for South West Norfolk outlined that as well. Policy direction for Northern Ireland is important and there have been movements to ensure that companies there can benefit from renewable energy incentives. Agencies such as Invest Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and local councils, including my own, can apply for some smaller grants and loans. However, it is important to note that these grants and loans are not on the same scale as the renewables obligation certificates scheme. If we were part of that scheme, we would be in a much better position.

My constituency of Strangford has an important and, I believe, sustainable poultry sector. Throughout my life, there have been poultry houses all the way down the Ards peninsula, where I live, and indeed around Newtownards town as well. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk focused on a project that could play a role for poultry farmers in Northern Ireland.

To be fair, at this moment in time avian flu has once again cast its shadow all across Northern Ireland. In every part of Northern Ireland, there is a shutdown; there is no movement of poultry, and poultry farms have to keep all their birds indoors as a result of the avian flu scare. That is the right thing to do. At the same time, if we are to look beyond the avian flu crisis in Northern Ireland, which is fairly acute, we have to consider using the hon. Member’s idea in Northern Ireland. Such projects have been discussed in the past, but never really got anywhere, so maybe it is time to encourage Northern Ireland’s Department for the Economy to do a wee bit more.

In 2023, the Department for the Economy consulted on a new energy strategy action plan, but nothing formal has come from that. I know that the Assembly has only just got up and running again—it is good that it is up and running again—but it is time to focus on the renewables obligation certificates scheme and on green energy, and on the potential benefits that we can achieve in the future.

Our renewables projects in Northern Ireland relied on funding and schemes in order to succeed. However, I find it very disheartening that Northern Ireland has not been able to adopt a new scheme since the closure of the prior one. We need a new emphasis and there is a real need for Ministers back home and for Departments back home to co-ordinate their strategy and the way forward with the Minister here in Westminster.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

In rural Britain, particularly rural Scotland, the cost per kilowatt to heat a house is about 24p, whereas those on mains gas in the city pay about 6p, so those using renewable electricity to heat their houses pay four times as much as those using mains gas. The renewables obligation certificate scheme is an important part of all this. Basically, rural Britain is getting absolutely stuffed on the cost of energy, so anything we can do to help those in rural areas is important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I represent the rural constituency of Strangford; indeed, most of Northern Ireland is rural, although there are large population groups in the major towns across the Province. In terms of the price of energy in Northern Ireland, the price oil is the highest it has been for some time, although they said on the news this morning that it would drop. But 68% of households in Northern Ireland have oil as their major source of energy for heating and cooking, so when oil prices rise, energy prices rise—as I suspect they do in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—which puts us under a bit more pressure than most.

Energy is devolved in Northern Ireland, unlike in Scotland. However, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, so there must be greater discussion between Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we are able to contribute to the net zero 2050 goals. I am reminded by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention of the SeaGen project in my constituency about 20 or 25 years ago, which tried to harness the tidal flows of the narrows of Portaferry and Strangford. At that time, it was not sustainable because of the price of energy, but today it would be. There are many projects we could look towards when it comes to contracts for difference.

To conclude, I look forward to working with colleagues to find a way forward that can benefit us all. The world is progressing, and climate change is a huge issue of major importance to many. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk referred to a project that is critically important for his constituency and that could be replicated across this great United Kingdom. Ensuring that we have a replacement strategy that we can take advantage of would be a positive step forward in achieving our goals. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and hearing about her commitment. Through further discussion and integration and by working better together, Northern Ireland will not be left behind. Thank you so much, Sir Andrew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Murrison. It is also a great pleasure to follow four excellent speeches. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his excellent contribution and for securing this important debate. He said it felt somewhat less glamorous to be here talking about chicken poop, but people will say that I have been talking poop for the last 20 years; certainly, as my party’s water spokesperson, I spend half my life in this place talking about the human variety, so chickens makes a nice change. I also belatedly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to this place, not least because it has allowed us to deploy Liz Truss elsewhere, in our battle to take down the forces of reaction across the world.

On the renewables obligation certificate scheme, we are right to think about what happens next. The scheme is being phased out by the current Government, with the contracts for difference scheme being its principal successor. For what it is worth, I am proud of the role the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition in trying to move on to a better scheme.

That said, hon. Members have rightly pointed out that letting ROCs disappear without being replaced is a particular problem for biomass. All four Members referred to the impact on their constituencies if that was to happen, and they talked about the jobs the scheme has created in Stafford, Suffolk, Norfolk and in Strangford, in Northern Ireland. They recognised that biomass plays an important part in providing diversification of income for farmers and others, and in using organic waste that might otherwise find itself on the land. Indeed, when I am in this place talking about water quality, we are principally talking about the failings of the water companies, but agricultural run-off is clearly part of the issue, so if we can deal with that in a positive way, that will be a good thing. It would be an unintended consequence of moving on to new and better schemes if we allowed important plants such as the one in Thetford to close, with the impact that that would have on the local economy, because we had not thought through the transition and managed it in an efficient way.

I want to say a few words about how ROCs fit in with the nation’s energy security and about the extent to which they sometimes have perverse incentives. Drax power station in Yorkshire enjoyed just over 9 million renewables obligation certificates last year, at a value of £548 million. The material burned at that site includes biomass that has been imported into the UK, which is often wood pellets, mostly from America and Canada. Drax has previously admitted that some of the wood is from primary or old-growth forests—ancient forests of incalculable value in terms of biodiversity and beauty that would be vital in the fight against climate change if they were not felled. The new contract, I am pleased to say, states that 100% of those pellets must be sustainably sourced, which is something. But it is not organic waste, and there is still something not very sustainable about wood imported from across the oceans and then burned. We want to ensure that we invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by the end of this decade. To do that, we will need to call in all our available resources; we do not want a situation where we are meeting our targets by having renewables in name only.

Members have talked about energy security and the importance of getting to net zero, which is vital. In the last few days—hopefully it is longer than that—we have been waking up to our need to protect our national security on a military footing. Yesterday, in Treasury questions, I raised the issue of our failure to step up to the mark when it comes to food security. Only 55% of Britain’s food is produced in Britain; that is a deep threat to the United Kingdom’s food security, and we need to take action quickly to tackle that by undoing the basic payments cut and scrapping the family farm tax.

We also need to look at energy security. It troubles me that some of those who claim to be very patriotic seem to pour cold water on and be sceptical about the environmental imperative. Even if I cannot convince people of the reality of climate change, and of the need to produce renewable energy for that reason, if we care about our energy security, we should surely care about net zero, which is a way of achieving it. To put it bluntly, Vladimir Putin cannot turn off the wind, the waves or the sunshine in this country.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the fact that we have major issues with environmental tariffs being placed on renewable energy but not on the carbon fuel of mains gas? That is really hitting the renewable energy industry and the cost for consumers.

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree. We are talking about incentives that we give to renewable energy generators and providers, but we have an energy market that essentially advantages not just fossil fuels but ones that, to some degree, are in the hands of potentially hostile powers. That is ludicrous for both the environment and our security.

I was pleased to hear Members on all sides of the debate talk about the importance of farmers and farming to the battle against climate change and to clean energy generation. We would love to see a recognition that farmers are primarily food producers but that diversification of businesses and cross-subsidy within them is a good thing. It is right that farmers should be incentivised and encouraged to use their land—for example, by putting solar panels on buildings and land that is not good for food production—so long as that is not displacing good-quality agricultural land.

I want to draw attention to a site near Barrow, which is not in my constituency but next door, in the Westmorland and Furness council area. The council now has a solar farm on unproductive former agricultural land, with the full support of the local farming community. Let us look at the ways in which we can support farmers to do that. I live in a very wet part of the United Kingdom with 1,500 farms within it. Pretty much every farmer has fast-flowing becks and rivers on their land, so why are we not incentivising them to build small but nevertheless powerful hydro schemes? That would be great for the environment and the local economy, and it would ensure that farmers can continue farming.

I sound like a broken record given how regularly I talk about this, but it continues to astound me that the United Kingdom, which has a higher tidal range than any country on planet Earth apart from Canada, does next to nothing with the latent tidal power around our islands. I encourage the Minister to come up with schemes to reward that.

I also want to say a word about grid capacity. A huge barrier to progress with this scheme and those that follow is the fact that 75% of energy sector insiders find timely grid connections to be the biggest single obstacle to growing renewable energy in the UK. To give a sense of the size of the queue, there are £200 billion-worth of projects waiting to be connected to the national grid, and that delays all the benefit that would come with that. We would seek to expand the grid network and unlock those billions of pounds of renewable energy projects through a land and sea use framework that has statutory weight in the planning and infrastructure Bill. That would help us to balance the many competing demands on our land, and the competing priorities of security and self-sufficiency that I mentioned earlier.

Those priorities also include local communities’ experiences, which are important to understand when we are trying to tackle the climate imperative. It is no good building huge energy infrastructure near communities if there is no clear, tangible benefit to them. For example, customers in communities local to such projects should receive energy at a discounted rate. If we build renewable energy schemes on the River Kent or the River Crake, the people of Kendal, Staveley, Windermere and Coniston should benefit from them, at least to a degree. We also want to empower local authorities to develop local renewable electricity generation and storage strategies, because they are best placed to understand where the most and least appropriate sites to place them are.

I return to the issues raised by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk. It is important that ROCs have played a significant part in the transition from fossil fuels to new and renewable forms of energy. I recognise that they have had a big impact on his constituency by creating jobs and ensuring that farmers have additional sources of income. They are part of a range of actions—our arsenal—for tackling water pollution. We must not throw out the good things that ROCs have achieved when we move on to new schemes, which hopefully will make even more progress in our move towards a society run entirely on renewable energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I should have known the hon. Gentleman would be on top of things and would be aware of the Minister for Energy’s visit, but it is important that we have that continual dialogue and that the hon. Gentleman comes along to these debates to ensure that the Northern Ireland voice is heard.

I do not want to go too far off piste from the subject of the debate, but to respond to what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), had to say, I am an MP from Bristol, so the Severn estuary, the Severn barrage, the Severn tidal lagoons or whatever are very much on my radar. I went up to the Orkneys last summer to look at what they are doing on harnessing wave energy there, and it was very interesting.

On grid capacity, we know that grid capacity is a real issue, in terms of both our ambition for clean power by 2030 and our wider industrial decarbonisation. The Secretary of State likes to talk about the “four horsemen” standing in the way of us getting there, and grid is very much one of those. We have brought in Chris Stark, the former chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, to head up mission control on that issue, and he is working daily on how we can unblock and accelerate projects within the grid.

To the hon. Member’s point on farmers, I agree with giving farmers support to diversify, and energy from waste or anaerobic digestion and so on is part of that. I met two of the DEFRA Ministers earlier this week—although it might have been last week; it all becomes a bit of a blur—and I am in constant conversation with them about how we can work together on that and on our local power plan, which will be part of GB Energy. Hopefully there will be pots of money available for some of those community projects in rural areas, possibly on farms that he has talked about.

I understand that the company that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned, GE Vernova, is doing innovative things on grid solutions. That is the sort of high-tech new approach that we need if we are to solve the problems that we have talked about, and I congratulate her on speaking up on behalf of a company in her constituency.

Turning to the actual debate, the experience of recent years has reinforced what we already knew: we cannot rely on fossil fuels. We need clean power to reduce vulnerability to volatile global fossil fuel markets, to give us energy security and reduce the cost of energy, and to tackle the climate crisis. That is why one of the Prime Minister’s five missions is to make Britain a clean energy superpower by delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Electricity generated by renewables and nuclear power will be the backbone of a clean electricity system by 2030.

I have told the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) how disappointed I am with the Opposition’s U-turn on this issue. I understand the position they are coming from and that there has been a change from the stance that they adopted in Government, but I have not heard from him what the answer is for our future energy security. What is the answer to dealing with the global fossil fuel markets? What is the answer to tackling the climate crisis? What is the answer to bringing down bills in the long term?

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

I wonder if the Minister could put herself in the position of somebody from the island of Skye who wakes up in the morning, opens his windows, and sees beautiful mountains in the background —it is always sunny there and there are no midges. He sees the wind turbines, but then he goes and looks at his heating and realises he is paying four times as much to get energy from those turbines. Meanwhile, there is negligible community benefit coming to that area. Can she position herself in that person’s or that household’s shoes?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said to the hon. Member, that issue that has been debated numerous times here, and it is not really the subject of today’s debate—but nice try on getting it in there. He might want to secure his own Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on it. As I said, it is very much on our radar to look at the fairness in the system and to make sure that energy is affordable for everybody and that there are community benefits as we roll out that clean power ambition. All those issues are talked about in the Department on a daily basis.

Before I move on from the hon. Member for West Suffolk, I will say that the urgent question on carbon budget 7 was not granted because there is a process for the Government to respond to the analysis given to us from carbon budgets, and we will follow that process. First, though, we have to deal with the carbon budget delivery plan. Before looking to CB7, we must look at how we meet the obligations contained in current carbon budgets.

The previous Government were taken to court because their plan was not deemed adequate. They presented another plan, and the courts again found that it was not adequate, so we now have a deadline from the courts to produce our carbon budget delivery plan this year to show that we are back on track. That is very much our first priority. I am sure that once that is published, we will debate that and then carbon budget 7 as well, but we have to show that we are back on track before we start looking into the future.

Cost of Energy

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate. Much of what I was going to say has been mentioned, but I want to reiterate a few things.

How can it be that households on renewable electricity pay four times as much as those who get fossil fuel gas? That is inappropriate, not least because the cost of electricity generation from onshore wind was one third of the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels, yet electricity bills remain nearly four times the price of mains gas. To put that into perspective, my parliamentary flat in London, which runs on mains gas, costs 5.8p per kilowatt-hour to heat, while my home in the highlands costs 23.7p. That premium is paid not just in the highlands, but across the countryside and in rural Britain, and in high-rise properties throughout cities across Great Britain. It is an enormous and painful gap. We all believe that net zero is the way ahead—we all support that—but we do not think that the current pricing is just.

In England, the level of fuel poverty is 13%, and as the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said, it is much higher in the highlands at 47%. We have a dramatic problem with fuel poverty in the north of Scotland. In 2021, an estimated 16% of households that used gas for heating were classified as being in fuel poverty, and 41% of those who required electricity. There is a clear link between fuel poverty and lack of access to mains gas. That damages business as well: a hotel in rural Britain is paying £80,000 if it is using gas, but it would cost only £25,000 at most in a city for the same amount of heat. If the hotel was in the United States, the same amount of heat would cost only £10,000.

We have touched on the coupling of renewable energy and gas, and I do not think anybody would disagree that they need to be decoupled. I am sure that the Minister will talk about that. We have also touched on the environmental surcharges that are put on the electricity price, so 20% or more of an electricity bill, but just a fraction of a gas bill, is an environmental tariff. Ironically, it is people using renewable energy who are shouldering those environmental charges, not those using fossil fuels—mains gas.

I am glad that we have had this debate. I hope that the Minister will give an idea of how the enormous injustice of environmental charges, the standing charges and all the excess charges on renewables can be removed to balance things out with people who are relying on gas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I had a segue planned in my speech that was going to get me to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he pre-empted me, and he is quite right to do so. He is right. This is a real challenge. The switch-off is the right thing for us to do in the long term—I think that everyone agrees that as a system that is outdated—but we do need to be absolutely certain that no one is left behind.

The Minister responsible for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), has already had a number of meetings with Ofgem and with industry to make sure we speed up the roll-out. The service ends in June, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, and the taskforce that has been put in place to roll it out is now moving at pace. I think it is fair to say that it should have been moving faster up to this point, but they are very aware of the issues and we will keep that under review; it is of course essential that people are not left behind when the signal is switched off.

Moving on to short-term support, we recognise that by 2030 the clean power system will be crucial to bringing down bills in the long term, and to protecting consumers from the price spikes that we have faced in recent years. However, short-term support is important for households that are struggling with their bills while we are in that transition. That is why the Government continue to deliver the warm home discount, which gives a £150 rebate off energy bills for all eligible low-income households, and it is expected to support 3 million households across the country this winter.

The Minster for energy consumers has worked with energy suppliers to agree a £500 million industry support commitment to help specific customers who are struggling this winter. We also extended the household support fund until March 2026 with an extra £742 million, with additional funding for the devolved Governments as fuel poverty is devolved through the Barnett formula.

A number of hon. Members raised the question of a social tariff. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made a passionate case for it, and we are looking at what bill support could look like in the future, including the possibility of a social tariff. I acknowledge that there is a broad consensus on the idea of a social tariff. The challenge is that it means different things to different people. One of the challenges that we are grappling with is how we define a social tariff, and how we can reach, in a very targeted way, the people who need it the most.

Part of that is the issue of data sharing, which a number of hon. Members have raised—that is, how we bring together the information that the Government have about the individual people who could most benefit from such a scheme. The Minster for energy consumers is leading that work, alongside industry bodies such as Energy UK and stakeholders. They are looking at how we can improve affordability and accessibility, and they are working with the Department for Work and Pensions on how we might be able to share some of the data that it has.

The question about levies has been raised by a number of hon. Members, and I think the Conservative party is now pledging to abolish levies entirely. It is an incredibly complex subject, but it is something that we want to grapple with, and we need to be very mindful.

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath at the beginning of the debate. While the wholesale price will come down as we put more renewables on to the system, and as we squeeze off gas as the marginal price, if bills do not come down because levies remain high, people will not see the benefit. It is really important to bring communities with us. The truth is, it is a complex issue. I am not going to stand here and say that we can just abolish levies, or that we can just transfer them entirely on to taxation. Neither option is possible in completion, but we are considering how we look at the future of levies, and we are open to suggestions from all parties on how we do that.

On the point about rebalancing—how we move electricity costs, in particular, on to gas—that is also a challenge. We want the number of people who use gas to decline in the coming years, as we decarbonise. The challenge will be making sure that we do not put charges on to a dwindling number of customers. Potentially and inadvertently, some of the poorest people in the country might be those who are the last to convert from gas to alternatives. I do not, for a second, dismiss the points that have been raised; they are incredibly important. However, I want to be very clear that we are working relentlessly in this Parliament on how we reduce the wholesale costs, and we want to make sure that it follows through on to consumers’ bills.

Related to that, of course, is the point about standing charges on bills, which, as many hon. Members hear from constituents, seem to be such an unfairness because they are not based on consumption or on particular customers’ circumstances. We are committed to looking at the future of standing charges. In December, Ofgem provided an update on reform. It included quite a radical proposal for introducing a new zero standing charge option under the energy price cap, which would give consumers greater choice in how they pay for their energy bills. It is for Ofgem now to consult on that proposal, which it will do this year. The driving force behind that will be making sure that any reforms are fair to all customers.

To underline that this is not straightforward and we cannot just simply abolish levies, I note that there would be unintended consequences if we were to transfer some of the costs on to other people. We could inadvertently find ourselves raising bills for some people without that being the policy intent. We are committed to reforming standing charges, but we want to do it in a way that is fair.

[Mr MacDonald]

Would the Minister spare a minute to talk about community benefits?

[Michael Shanks]

indicated assent.

[Mr MacDonald]

Thank you very much.

[Michael Shanks]

I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman to stop at that point. I saw him in his place earlier and knew that I would talk about community benefits. I will turn now to the points about community energy and community benefits; both are important.

On community benefits, in all of this, we want to bring communities with us on this journey. That is important. We have made a very clear case that this Government intend to build the energy infrastructure we need, the transmission infrastructure we need, the homes that people need and the industry that people need to grow our economy, which is important. For far too long, this country has not built the infrastructure it needs. In doing so, we want to streamline the planning process so that applications are dealt with far more efficiently and far faster, but we want to bring communities with us. That is absolutely vital.

We will be saying much more very soon about community benefits on several fronts. The first will be how we expand some of the community benefits for particular technologies. That process is already well established in Scotland, for example with onshore wind. The absurd policy of the onshore wind ban in England means that it has not developed as much, but we can look to Wales and to Scotland for advice on that. We also want to expand that to other technologies, particularly solar, which does not have the same community benefits at the moment, and to network infrastructure. I have always said that, if we build network infrastructure and a community is hosting that infrastructure that is essential for the country, it is doing a favour for the rest of the country and should feel some benefit from it. We will announce a package of community benefits shortly.

On the wider point about community infrastructure, we do not only want communities to benefit—we want them to actually own the infrastructure that gives social and economic benefits as well.

Fuel Poverty

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing it.

The two big issues facing rural Scotland, and the highlands in particular, are the care sector and fuel poverty. I am sure hon. Members have not spent too much time worrying about this, but although the mean daily temperature in London is 16°C, it is 9°C on the island of Skye, where God comes from. On Skye we have longer nights, colder weather, windier conditions and older, draughtier houses. In June this year, the daily standing charge for electricity was 61.1p in the north of Scotland and 40.8p in London, so in the north of Scotland we pay 50% more to be connected to our electricity. That is shocking.

[Mr Carmichael]

Standing charges, which vary massively and randomly across the country—from memory, I think the worst area is actually north Wales—are one thing, but just a couple of weeks ago OVO Energy announced that it would start charging its customers £1.50 every time it sends them a paper bill. Is that not just—I say this, Sir Roger, for the purposes of staying on the right side of you—taking the mick?

[Mr MacDonald]

What is absolutely clear is that the electricity companies are not losing money. Their total profits add up to tens of billions of pounds, but the costs are being borne by the poorest people in our society.

[Anna Dixon]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore join me in congratulating the Chancellor on increasing the windfall tax on gas and oil companies in recognition of the excess profits they are making? That money is being invested in some of the priorities that we have been talking about, such as home insulation.

[Mr MacDonald]

That is also Liberal Democrat policy, so I am pleased to support that.

Interestingly—I know you will find this interesting, Sir Roger—France, Italy, Ireland and others have an equalisation of standing charges. Ofgem’s reluctance to reform standing charges has been raised many times in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, so we need to get proper answers.

Town gas is by far the most affordable way of heating a house, but 60% of houses in the highlands do not have access to it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland says, kerosene, bottled gas, electricity, wood and coal are very much more expensive, but people in the highlands have no option but to use them.

It is easy for us to have a go at the policy of stopping the winter fuel allowance. I do not understand why the figure was set at £13,000, rather than at the average household income of £34,000. That would have been a huge relief to many of the people who have been most affected, and it would probably have been much more popular for the Government.

In the highlands, incomes are much lower than in the rest of Scotland and Britain as a whole, and we have a much older population. The cost of living is between 15% and 30% higher than in the rest of Scotland, according to the Scottish Affairs Committee in 2021. We have a substantial depopulation problem and the highest cost of living in the UK, to which fuel is a major contributor.

I know the Energy Minister has heard this from me before, but community benefits from renewables are potentially the biggest saving grace from this. My No. 1 call is for fuel vouchers to be given to affected locals, and of course in the highlands we have lots of renewables. That would make a very big difference. The second thing the Minister could do is to get Ofgem to review standing charges. I estimate that if they were equalised, there would be a £75 a year saving at no cost to the Treasury. Thirdly, we should concentrate the winter fuel allowance on the most deserving people, who tend to be the older, the poorer and the more remote.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in the debate. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for his commitment on this issue in debates over many years. I know that it is a considerable issue in his constituency, where I think 31% of households are in fuel poverty, and he is right to raise it in this House. I always appreciate conversations with him, including our recent conversations on many of the topics that have been raised today.

I agree on the importance of this debate on tackling fuel poverty, although I should say at the outset that fuel poverty is devolved across the UK. Certain things that I will speak about relate to the UK Government’s responsibility for fuel poverty, which focuses on England. In the Budget last week, a considerable amount was assigned to the devolved Administrations, including one of the biggest devolved settlements for the Scottish Government in many years. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will raise these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to get much-needed funding to projects in Scotland as well.

On devolution, it is also important to say that we measure fuel poverty in very different ways across the country, with different metrics and targets for how we identify it. In Scotland, the metric for fuel poverty is the same as that used in England to measure energy affordability. It includes deeming a household fuel-poor if it has to spend a certain proportion of its income after housing costs on energy, which is a slightly different figure from the one used in Scotland.

Nevertheless, much of what we have heard today is true across all parts of the UK. Many hon. Members made the point that the choice between heating their home and feeding their family or paying other bills is a stark one for any family. In a country as wealthy as ours, that should not be a choice that families have to make.

I welcome the point made by the shadow Minister and others that we can all work together to move forward on the issue. However, we need to take more action than has been taken in the past 14 years. That is why our manifesto committed to slashing fuel poverty and delivering our warm homes plan. We have already taken the first steps in delivering that. In the Budget last week, the Chancellor committed £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes, helping over 225,000 households to reduce their energy bills by over £200. We have announced that we will consult this year on increasing the minimum energy standards in the domestic private rented sector: 35% of all those in fuel poverty in England are in the private rented sector, so it is vital that we provide as much support as we can.

I will pick up on several points raised during the debate, but the critical point was about trying to bring all the different policies together into a cohesive fuel poverty strategy. That is indeed what the Government have committed to publishing in due course, to ensure not only that we have a clear focus on tackling fuel poverty but that the whole Government are aligned on delivery. That is the approach that the new Government have taken on a range of issues; in my Department that includes clean power by 2030. We making sure that all Ministers, wherever they are—in whichever Department and with whichever responsibility—come together to make the situation better.

I want to provide a little bit of context. I repeat that much of fuel poverty policy is devolved. In 2023, an estimated 13% of households—just over 3 million—were in fuel poverty in England, under the metric that is used here. That remains effectively unchanged since 2022. The Committee on Fuel Poverty, which advises on the effectiveness of policies and scrutinises them in England, stated that progress towards tackling fuel poverty has effectively stalled. In England, the target is to ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as possible achieve the minimum energy efficiency rating of band C by 2030, but 46% of all low-income households in England were still living in a property with a fuel poverty efficiency rating of band D or lower. That shows the sheer amount of work we have to do on the issue.

We are therefore working on a number of policies. In reflecting on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), I accept that there is an urgency to moving forward on all these issues. We have inherited quite a lot of issues that require urgent action. I ask for just a little patience, but I absolutely recognise the point that for someone living in fuel poverty, the impending winter is a crisis. The Government are therefore moving as quickly as possible on the issue.

The warm homes plan, which we announced in our manifesto and on which we are moving forward, is about transforming homes right across the country by making them cheaper and making energy clean to run, rolling out upgrades from new insulation to solar and heat pumps. We will partner with local and combined authorities, and the devolved Governments where possible, to roll out the plan. That was in the Budget speech last week, in which an initial £3.4 billion was announced towards heat decarbonisation and household energy efficiency over the next three years. That includes £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes, which, as I said, will help more than 225,000 homes.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised several points. He rightly notes that the radio teleswitch service situation will be a worry to many people, particularly in rural communities. As he said, a roundtable was held, which was important and brought together the key stakeholders. Ofgem has updated its action plan to make sure that we are pushing forward and in particular that we are putting pressure on the energy companies responsible for delivery, to make sure that the upgrades are made and that targets are in place, including some key milestones that they must meet early next year.

Several hon. Members mentioned community benefits. This is a debate that we have had in this Chamber and across the House before. It is extremely important that if communities are hosting energy infrastructure such as the Viking wind farm in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which I visited not long ago, there should be some benefit. We certainly do not want the communities that host vital energy infrastructure to be those that are most likely to be in fuel poverty. We are therefore doing a lot of work, building on the previous Government’s consultations, on what community benefits might look like. We want to make sure that communities and individuals get a genuine benefit, because some community benefits do not currently deliver quite the change that we would like.

[Mr MacDonald]

Will the Minister allow humble servants such as myself to get involved in that? I have spent several years working with the Highland council and others on community benefits, and I would appreciate a meeting.

[Michael Shanks]

I am always willing to take help from any Member. If the hon. Gentleman can take some of this work off my plate, I will be very happy to work with him. Of course, we will first have to work out the answer to the question of where God comes from, but if we can settle on the fact that it is self-evidently Rutherglen in the central belt, I will be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman. That spoils the joke I was going to make about his comparison of temperatures, which is that seeing him wear a very woolly jumper this morning in London made me wonder what he wears in Skye, but that is for another debate.

Genuinely, though, we want to have an open and collaborative approach, and we want to make this work. The consultation that the previous Government carried out and the feedback we have from a number of partners show that there are really good examples of community benefits working well, along with a lot of examples where they are not working well. If we could build on that approach together, I would very much appreciate it.

While we are discussing the hon. Gentleman, he made a very good point about remembering the different types of fuel that households use, and the real issue for off-grid homes—particularly in the north of Scotland, but right across the UK. Again, fuel poverty is devolved, so some of those questions are for the Scottish Government to answer—I know that the questions will be put to them—but we are aware that in England, for which the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible, 12% of rural households are in fuel poverty, and those are the ones with the largest fuel poverty gap. Tackling those particular challenges in the rural context is therefore really important.

Great British Energy Bill

Angus MacDonald Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend pre-empts me. This will work only if we do it across the whole of Government and in all sectors, and I want my Government to be leading the way on that. We have a hugely important role to play internationally, as well as in our own industries.

The UK’s failure to keep pace with our partners has resulted in the global supply chain splitting. Slave-made renewable products are being redirected to countries with weaker regulations, such as the UK. As the other place’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee recently recognised, without forced labour import bans, the UK risks becoming a dumping ground for tainted products. Current legislation, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, cannot meet the scale of the problem, especially while human rights due diligence remains optional for companies.

I appreciate that the Department is looking into these issues through the solar taskforce’s upcoming solar road map, which I really welcome. However, the solar taskforce, made up mostly of industry voices, needs to have civil society and trade unions on the team for its work to be truly credible. That is especially the case given my concerns about Solar Energy UK’s solar stewardship initiative, or SSI, as I am doubtful that an industry-led solution can meet the scale of the challenges I have outlined today.

A just transition is not only about international workers’ rights; it is also about securing UK jobs and industry. Our energy strategy must prioritise green jobs and wealth creation here, and avoid fuelling growth in economies known for cutting corners. Following my discussions with the industry and unions, it is clear that the UK’s inadequate response to these issues is creating a competitive disadvantage for businesses here and an uneven playing field internationally. If GB Energy allows exposure to state-imposed forced labour, it creates a distinct risk for investors and businesses here in the UK.

The arguments I have laid out today have the support of unions, businesses and human rights advocates alike. They echo the sentiments of our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Business Secretary and Energy Secretary. For too many years, tackling modern slavery has received a siloed, disjointed response from Government. We now have an opportunity to change that and to embrace cross-departmental, collaborative working. Renewable energy has a key role to play in our transformation to a low-carbon economy, but without placing human rights at its centre, our green transition will come at a grave cost.

This Bill is aptly named the Great British Energy Bill. It simply cannot live up to its name if it depends on modern slavery to achieve its aims.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I invite hon. Members to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her commitment to our essential amendments, both in Committee and here today. I also thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who has been incredibly supportive of our ambition for communities to benefit from renewable energy. I have one little correction: Tom Johnston, who invented the hydro boards, and the Labour Government did not actually put in place a proper system whereby local communities could benefit. They supplied a lot of power to the south and the cities, but it was of very little benefit to those of us living in the highlands, even then.

The Government have argued that nothing in this Bill limits community ownership. That is almost certainly true, but as my colleagues and I have emphasised, amendment 5 would not restrict GB Energy; it would simply clarify that community-led energy is a priority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), recently experienced a powerful story of community-driven energy on his visit to the island of Eigg. Just 25 years ago, Eigg’s residents, frustrated by years of poor management and a lack of investment, took matters into their hands and purchased their island. The Eigg buy-out succeeded in 1997, sparking what is now a beacon of self-sustained energy. Since then, Eigg has moved away from fossil fuels, becoming the world’s first island to generate 24-hour electricity from a variety of different renewables. This small community of just 110 people demonstrates the innovation and resilience that flourish when communities are empowered.

Eigg’s journey is a true example of prioritising community ownership and how that drives forward sustainability and local resilience. To paraphrase the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), community involvement is critical, not a mere “nice to have”. If we are to build the infrastructure of the future, we must ensure that communities benefit directly. Community-driven projects are key to making that a reality, so let us follow Eigg’s lead and put the Government’s own words into action.

The current Government have an opportunity here to show their commitment to cross-party collaboration by embracing community energy. We are all aligned on the goals, so let us not get bogged down by technicalities or party politics. The Minister knows of the huge cross-party support for community energy ownership. If this goes to a vote, do this Government really want to vote against community energy ownership? Let us show the people of Britain that this Bill truly supports the right to own and benefit from our natural resources through Great British Energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

He can indeed. The hon. Member may think he is being terribly smart—he is a self-professed expert in the energy market—but he will know how difficult it is for someone to penetrate the UK energy market unless they happen to be a large plc or a multinational. When the Scottish Government took forward that noble ambition, they found precisely the same barriers to entry as community energy companies and trusts. If the hon. Member wants to get excited about that situation, I suggest he takes it up with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SNP Government have left community benefit at the same £5,000 level it was in 2014, even though prices have gone through the roof? Their advisory information could have been changed. They have been pressed on the issue many times because it has severely damaged the income of rural communities.

[Dave Doogan]

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but if he wants to get in touch with me after the debate, I will be happy to discuss it further.