David Mowat
Main Page: David Mowat (Conservative - Warrington South)
Meg Hillier
The hon. Lady may be jumping to conclusions. It is this Government who are removing the Warm Front scheme, and it is this Bill that is failing to deliver for the fuel poor. I shall say more about that shortly.
In his 45-minute peroration, the Secretary of State promised 100,000 jobs. He promised that the poorest would be saved from the cold, and that the market would protect the consumer and many others. However, he did not give us the details of some important matters. We have a Secretary of State who has been rolled over by the Tory Chancellor—and, we have learned in recent hours in days, by his own party colleagues, particularly the Business Secretary—on every important issue in his Department. We have also learned today that the ECO may be within the levy cap, but not yet. We have a Liberal Democrat sheep in a wolfish Government: a Government who want to be green-tinged, but who are under-delivering on their grand promises.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
When the last Government left office, one half of 1% of the UK’s total energy production was delivered by renewables. Is that under-delivery or not?
Meg Hillier
The Opposition seem to misunderstand—[Hon. Members: “You are the Opposition!”] They are the Opposition to me. They seem to misunderstand the position. There is cross-party agreement on the need for more renewables and a lower-carbon economy, but we believe that the Bill could do more to deliver that. What disappoints us is that a Bill that promised so much is delivering so little. We hope that in Committee we shall see some movement from the Government.
At the heart of the Bill is the green deal, which the Secretary of State spent much of his speech telling us about. The task is obvious. We all agree that Britain needs to insulate its homes and buildings. It needs to improve energy efficiency in millions of households. Given rising energy bills and the need to hit our carbon reduction targets, that work must be done, as Labour’s manifesto made clear at the last general election.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to contribute to today’s Second Reading debate. I have a long-held interest in energy-related matters, and I strongly believe that the Bill contains some really positive measures that, together, will lay the foundations for a fairer, more efficient and greener energy market across the country.
Although wide-ranging initiatives covering energy efficiency and the empowerment of the Coal Authority are present in the Bill, it is clear that it is only the first legislative part of the Government’s promised energy reform programme. Missing from the Bill—this is no criticism of it—are provisions relating to the regulation of carbon emissions, the creation of a green investment bank and the security of energy supply, which I think is immensely important and on which a number of Members have touched. I see energy security, along with food security, as being the defining issue over the next decade. The decisions that we take in this Parliament will affect generations to come, so we have to get them right.
It is my understanding that, as the Secretary of State outlined earlier, a second energy Bill is planned for the autumn, to provide the missing pieces of that important jigsaw. In light of that assurance, I must confess that I am extremely optimistic about the Government’s energy ambitions, and thus very supportive of the Bill. However, I would not want to see the time scales in the Bill slip any further. Energy security must not become a political football, because it is far more important than any party politics.
I wish to focus my thoughts on the attempts in the Bill to improve energy efficiency. Such improvements must be made if we are to meet our international and domestic climate change targets—after all, energy efficiency can play a major role in cutting energy use and emissions of harmful gases. Alongside our requirements to meet international targets, we must tackle once and for all the tragic and unnecessary problem of fuel poverty here in our own towns and cities, and we must also bear in mind the often vast financial cost of energy to ordinary households. Together, meeting legal targets, tackling fuel poverty and reducing families’ energy bills make up the triangle of criteria by which we must scrutinise the Bill and judge its success.
In discussing a new approach to energy efficiency, it is worth briefly reviewing previous policies and schemes. The decent homes programme and the Warm Front scheme are two examples. I strongly believe that lessons can be learned from those programmes, particularly Warm Front. I have recently been actively engaged with Warm Front through the provider of the scheme, Eaga, on behalf of local constituents.
As hon. Members will be well aware, Warm Front offers grants to enable certain households in fuel poverty to install energy efficiency improvements such as home and loft insulation and heating measures. Unfortunately, in my constituents’ case, applying to Warm Front to get a new boiler to replace one that was broken took over 13 months. The paperwork was burdensome, and the inefficiency and bureaucracy of the system beggared belief at times. Spending on the Warm Front scheme and its predecessors has totalled £2.6 billion between 2000 and 2011, yet at national level too many homes, particularly in vulnerable communities, remain poorly heated and insulated. I urge the ministerial team to ensure that future schemes under the new proposals are accessible to more people, easier to follow and less bureaucratic in nature. Even those simple changes would, in my opinion, encourage households to take advantage of such Government-led measures.
For the time being, despite huge investment in various schemes, the simple truth is that too many properties continue to achieve very poor energy efficiency ratings. We must embark upon a new pathway, and the Bill provides us with a perfect opportunity to do so through the green deal. To coin a phrase, it is a game changer.
The green deal clearly has a mammoth task ahead. I am excited about the realistic tone, and the practical and flexible nature, of the policy. The current lack of investment in efficiency priorities is not only the result of poorly administrated Government schemes such as Warm Front, but because too many households have been put off by the time and money that it takes to benefit from implementing energy efficiency measures.
When tapping into the green deal, customers can take advantage of up-front money to make responsible energy efficiency improvements. Repayments will be attached to energy bills at the property, rather than the individual having an obligation to pay the money back or pass the cost of improvement on to a future owner of the property. That is an important part of the Bill, because it is increasingly clear that the younger generations move more frequently and more widely than generations before them. That simple measure will in effect encourage participation in the green deal through the flexible transfer of responsibility for repayments to whoever benefits from efficiency savings. Although I am very much in support of the principle, I look forward to more detail as the Bill develops.
I am conscious of the time, and that other hon. Members want to speak, but I shall add another note of caution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) mentioned earlier. There should be further incentivisation measures in the green deal. As the CBI has said, there is concern that the policy, which is a truly exciting one, could become a lame duck if people are not truly engaged to take it up. We must not let that happen, because the consequences are too important.
We should not understate the importance of making a breakthrough in improving energy efficiency in this country. It is therefore imperative for the Bill to win cross-party support and progress successfully. I have been heartened by many of the comments made on both sides of the House this evening. If progress is made, the framework to establish the green deal will be in place, and we can be far more optimistic about meeting our emissions targets, reducing energy bills, tackling fuel poverty and contributing to a greener and fairer energy market. I hope that Members on both sides of the House support those objectives.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
It was not clear to me this evening whether I would make the remarks that I want to make, because it occurred to me that they might be more apposite to the next energy Bill. However, I want to make a few points that perhaps have not yet been made.
First, on the context and the legacy with which this legislation is kicking off, we have heard about two dates this evening. We have heard about 2050, which is the date by which we must reduce our carbon emissions by 80%, and 2020, which is the date by which renewables must account for 15% of electricity generation. However, we have heard less about another date that is equally important, which is 2017 or thereabouts, which is the date by which we will start having power cuts unless we put in place measures to stop that happening.
I have two other pieces of legacy data for the House. Currently, 0.5% of our total energy production comes from renewables. It is also true that 7% of electricity generation comes from renewables, but 0.5% is the measure of what we have to achieve over the next 40 years to meet that 80% reduction. Roughly speaking, even if we achieve a 40% reduction in energy use through such excellent measures as this Bill, we will need to scale up renewables by a factor of about 50. That is absolutely massive.
Although we have talked about fuel poverty, another thing that has not been mentioned in this debate is the fact that energy prices in this country are among the highest in western Europe. Our starting point is that our industries and our people pay more for fuel than others. In particular, those in competitor countries such as France have had cheap, plentiful nuclear power for many years, and they pay less than us. Why does that matter? It matters because we are trying to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing, and a unit of GDP generated from manufacturing requires more energy than a unit of GDP generated from services. That is a further challenge that we have to face.
Broadly speaking, Government policy has two thrusts to it, one of which is energy reduction, which is dealt with in this Bill through the green deal. Our target is to reduce total energy use by some 40%, and that can be achieved—the Royal Academy of Engineering is certainly of that view. Part of that will involve the measures that have been discussed at some length this evening, but part of it will involve, for example, smart meters and smart grids, and all that goes with that.
The other part of our strategy to meet the challenges that I have spoken about is the fact that we are about to manage the market. Why are we managing the market? We are doing so because if the market were left alone, we would end up using gas. That much is clear. Using gas would not be disastrous for our climate change objectives, given that so much energy comes from coal and oil, and that gas is 50% better in terms of carbon emissions, but that is nothing like enough to meet our statutory targets. That is why the strategy on the mixture of renewables, nuclear and carbon capture is important. One of the oddest things about the whole energy debate is that we talk about nuclear and renewables as though they are competing with each other, when we clearly need both. If anything, they are both competing with fossil fuels. The default solution if we react slowly is that we will have to use gas, because that can be obtained relatively quickly.
I have a couple of observations on the Government’s strategy. One relates to urgency. We have heard numbers relating to how quickly we need to implement the green deal, but I do not believe that the 2017 deadline is being treated with sufficient urgency. I was at a meeting recently with some nuclear supply chain people in my constituency, and I was disappointed to hear that they did not believe that any effective nuclear new build would start for at least another year, although time was ticking away. An ex-colleague of mine in Shell once told me that the chief executive officers of the utility companies were quite sanguine about the fact that all this was taking so long, because they had nothing to lose from our inertia. When the time comes, what they have to offer will cost even more. It is important that the Government should take the initiative, rather than leaving this to the utilities, because it would be a perfectly viable strategy for a utility CEO to take their time over this.
Another aspect of the strategy is cost. We have not said a great deal about the differential costs of the different kinds of energy. Energy has to be environmentally sustainable, but it also has to be economically sustainable. I leave the House with the thought that the brilliant technical achievement of the Thanet wind farm, which is a tremendous thing, is going to cost £1 billion in subsidies over its lifetime. It does not produce that much electricity, and its actual cost is therefore very high indeed. Some of the hon. Members who have spoken about fuel poverty today might like to reflect on the fact that a starting point for fuel poverty is when our power costs more than that of other people in the first place.
A third element of our strategy is our approach to technology. Possibly the most impressive technological breakthrough in energy in the past 30 years is horizontal directional drilling, which, combined with a fracture technology, is enabling shale gas and coal gas to be discovered in quantities that would be of material use to the US and the UK, but I am concerned that their use is not forming part of our approach. Perhaps a wider point on technology is that I believe that we should be a fast follower, rather than being at the leading edge—or perhaps the bleeding edge, as one might say. Carbon capture and storage was mentioned earlier. Of course it is a good technology, but it is unproven, and there are other technologies out there that we need to adopt more rapidly.
This all leads me to the subject of nuclear. There is no possibility that we could come close to meeting our 2050 commitment without a massive upgrading of renewables and nuclear. In fact, they go together. Renewables are, by their nature, somewhat intermittent, while nuclear has a very high base-load. The two can be put together quite well. I support the Bill. It is innovative, it is radical and it is right. I hope that it will result in a 40% reduction in energy use, but there is no realistic alternative to nuclear and if we are to meet the 2017 deadline, it is important that we move faster, because 2017 will be here a lot sooner than 2020 or 2050.