Budget Resolutions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I will focus on particular measures in the Budget that will have a massive impact on my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and more widely across the north and north-east of Scotland.
First, one of the bigger contributors to the cost of living crisis is the cost of energy. To recap where we are at present, the Labour party promised a £300 reduction in energy bills in their manifesto, but since the 2024 election, consumer and business energy bills have risen substantially. It is estimated that by April, energy bills will be up to £560 higher than the Labour party promised. Taking into account the measures in the Budget, they will still be more than £400 higher than promised. The Resolution Foundation estimates that by 2029-30, energy bills will be £60 lower than current prices, making them about £430 higher than at the time when the Labour party made their manifesto commitment.
The Labour party’s latest swindle on energy bills is already falling apart. To compound matters, my constituents and businesses in the north of Scotland already pay the second highest level of electricity prices in the UK, second only to north Wales and Merseyside, despite vast amounts of energy being produced on their doorstep. That basically means that those consumers are paying for a regulatory system that was created when Battersea power station sold energy rather than Rolexes—a system that successive Governments have manifestly failed to deal with. It is shocking energy price discrimination, with price increase misery heaped on top.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents would have benefited if Nicola Sturgeon had delivered the promise that she made eight years ago to the people of Scotland to deliver a publicly owned energy company for our country? I think it would have made a difference, but unfortunately it never happened.
Graham Leadbitter
I agree that we need a publicly owned energy company, and I would fully support that. The problem is that we do not have the full powers of an independent country, which are just the normal powers that we would need to do that. I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that problem. We are nearly 18 months into this Government and their energy price promises have fallen apart, alongside the collapse in trust in the Chancellor.
Secondly, let me come to the Chancellor’s treatment of the North sea. Today, Harbour Energy announced a further 100 job losses, on top of the 350 it announced earlier in the year. Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Aberdeen port and many other sites and companies associated with the North sea energy sector are closing, reducing the workforce or focusing elsewhere in the world, as the sector grapples with a fiscal regime that not only acts as a barrier to investment but is accelerating decline. The latest announcement of job losses is pinned squarely on the Government’s failure to reform the energy profits levy. The decision by the Government to do nothing is akin to Thatcher’s treatment of miners and their communities and the steelworkers at Ravenscraig.
Graham Leadbitter
I would be happy to debate that when it is brought before the House by the Chancellor, if that ever happens.
To accelerate the demise of an industry without ensuring that the right and appropriate time is available for the transition is frankly criminal. I have heard many times Labour Members railing against the impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s—and they are right to do so—yet now they are defending their record of doing the same thing to our oil and gas sector. It is utterly shameful.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member accept that 75,000 jobs were lost from the oil and gas sector between 2016 and 2024, under the previous Conservative Government? Does he welcome the North sea jobs service, which this Government will bring in next year?
Graham Leadbitter
On both those points, I absolutely do. The previous Government introduced the climate change targets, and they have now withdrawn from those. That is the last thing that the energy sector needs; we need investment in renewables.
On the jobs and skills side of things, there is investment from both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I welcome their partnership on that, but compared with the impact of the energy profits levy, it is frankly small beer. It will not have an impact unless there is an underpinning fiscal regime that actually supports those jobs until we have a renewables sector ready to take those jobs on. That is simply not there at the moment, and unless the fiscal regime changes substantially, those jobs will not be there and people will simply be on the scrapheap.
The worst cost of living crisis for any family is when a family member loses their job. Some 1,000 jobs are going every single month in the energy sector, and the transition plan—if the Government actually have one—is doing little to nothing to support those workers, their families, or the communities they live in. The Government must take urgent action on the EPL, or we will have another industrial jobs disaster, such as Ravenscraig, that will reverberate in communities for generations.
Let me turn to the plight of WASPI women, who continue tirelessly to campaign against the wrong done to them. A year ago, almost to the day, I asked the Prime Minister when they would be compensated—he flannelled his answer and refused to commit. In the space of that year, around 3,500 WASPI women have died without compensation. The Chancellor made no mention of WASPI women in the Budget statement, despite the Government having to rethink things following recent court proceedings. Action must be taken urgently to give compensation to WASPI women, who have been left without the pensions they deserve because successive Governments communicated with them so badly.
Dr Arthur
I think there is support for this issue across the House. I do not know any MP who does not think that the WASPI women should not be compensated, because their fight is a just fight, but there is uncertainty about how it would be funded. How would the hon. Gentleman fund it?
Graham Leadbitter
We have made the point repeatedly that there can be additional funding from banks, which I know hon. Members from the Liberal Democrats agree with, and funding could certainly be made available through a wealth tax, which we have supported for a long time.
The one thing I can welcome from the UK Government in this Budget is the removal of the two-child benefit cap, but I have questions for Labour Members. A principled few Members voted in support of the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech nearly 18 months ago, including the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I agreed with pretty much everything he said earlier. That could have happened then, but Labour Members chose not to support it. I am glad and grateful that they do now.
Several hon. Members rose—
COP30
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I agree 100%. For all that the Opposition say, according to the Confederation of British Industry the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy as a whole. There is a reason why China, India and all those other countries are driving into clean energy: they see it as a massive economic opportunity. The Opposition would say, “Let’s just rip up that economic opportunity.” Frankly, that would be a betrayal of not just young people, who will look at them and think, “What about our future?” but people today who want those good jobs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Right across the world, people’s day-to-day lives are being destroyed by the impacts of climate change and associated industrial activity, from the indigenous tribes of the Amazon seeing their rainforest home destroyed around them, to island peoples in the Pacific, whose nations will literally cease to exist as water levels rise. To many people looking at COP30, it feels like developed nations are taking a somewhat protectionist view at the expense of millions of people. In years to come, when the Secretary of State looks back at this COP, will he be able to say that he did absolutely everything he could for those people? From here, it does not look good for so many people who are on the brink.
Ed Miliband
That is an absolutely fair question; it is one I ask myself a lot. Are we doing everything we can despite the global pressures and how difficult it is? I will tell the House this: as it looked like we were going to end up with no deal, I thought a lot about what signal that would send. At the same time, though, we wanted to have as robust an agreement as possible. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question is yes; we are trying to do absolutely everything we can, but it is hard because 190-something countries are all wrestling with their own dilemmas and constraints. However, he is right to push us to do as much as we can, because we are the generation that both knows the scale of the crisis that confronts us and has the chance to do something about it. Future generations will have less opportunity to do anything about it because the pathway will be more set. He is absolutely right to push us.
Energy
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty.
The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential.
Perran Moon
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the jobs in the oil and gas sector are easily transferable to the renewables sector?
Graham Leadbitter
Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential.
The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero.
We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.
The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry.
The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she?
Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention.
Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe.
Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest.
Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money.
Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The Energy Minister says that he went on a profile-raising visit to the programme two weeks ago, so many more people now know about it, thanks to that. Indeed, even more—thousands, millions—will know about it as a result of watching this question time. The hon. Lady makes an important point about how GB Energy can roll this out across the country, and floating solar has real potential as well.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Over a year ago, the UK Government promised that there would be hundreds of jobs for GB Energy in Aberdeen. A year on, the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen is haemorrhaging thousands of jobs and we are barely into double figures for GB Energy jobs. When will that promise be kept?
Ed Miliband
I have to say that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the work that GB Energy is doing. When I talk to industry representatives, they say that GB Energy now plays a crucial role. There is investment coming into the supply chain—a supply chain fund of £1 billion, thanks to the spending review, which the Conservatives would abolish because they do not seem to want jobs in Britain. There is £1 billion in the supply chain and GB Energy is rolling out community energy projects in schools and hospitals in England, as well as the ones in Scotland that I have talked about. GB Energy is partnering with the private sector. This is all part of the clean energy workforce plan, which we will publish soon, for 400,000 extra jobs as a result of our clean energy mission.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about her constituency and the steel industry, and I would say two things. One is that what this Government have done, which I am afraid was not done previously, is set up a dedicated fund for steel so that we are able to make the green transition. We talked about this in opposition, and we are now delivering billions of pounds to help the steel industry transition. The other is that I will take up the specific pensions issue she raised with my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The workers of Grangemouth deserved far better than they got from the Labour Government. To add insult to injury, they have had to watch them pull out all the stops for Scunthorpe and Prax Lindsey. In a written answer to me, the Energy Minister refused to confirm how much money the UK Government had spent to continue operations at Lindsey. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and tell us what price they are willing to pay to save jobs in England, which they were not willing to pay to save Grangemouth in Scotland?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is so wide of the mark it is unbelievable. The Grangemouth closure was foreshadowed before this Government came to power. We have worked hand in glove with his colleagues in the Scottish Government—all the way along, Gillian Martin and I have been working on it—and for him to try to make party politics out of the issue is, frankly, a disgrace.
Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The report by NESO has clearly uncovered serious structural failings at National Grid, but let us not forget that the Government’s response to the outage was severely wanting as well. On the Monday following the outage, the Transport Secretary confirmed that she was relying on the contents of a three-day-old conversation with Heathrow, with no assessment from the Government and no conversations with National Grid. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient lessons are being learned in Government to ensure that, when the power supply to critical national infrastructure is affected in the future, the Government are not left without answers again? Additionally, Members will understand the phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, meaning “Who guards the guards?” Why did it take such a serious outage for the National Grid to be audited like this? Surely better oversight may have identified the shockingly poor risk management.
Michael Shanks
Since I did not realise in my statement earlier this week that the hon. Gentleman is now the SNP’s energy spokesperson, I welcome him to his place—I hope he will bring the same customary sunshine that his predecessor in the role did to our deliberations in this place.
On the incident itself, clearly there are lessons to be learned from the way the energy infrastructure worked on 20 and 21 March, and for Heathrow on the configuration of its internal network and how that worked. The incident itself is clearly one we want to avoid at all costs, but actually the process was carried out safely, passengers were informed and the disruption was kept to an absolute minimum, but if an airport such as Heathrow closes, there will be disruption. I am not sure that I take the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the handling of the incident. He is right on the broader point about how we ensure we are regularly auditing the processes of maintenance work going forward. The three transmission owners in the UK have a responsibility for doing that, and that is regulated by Ofgem, which regularly checks on this. The second part of Ofgem’s review announced today will look specifically at whether those maintenance backlogs and any other long-standing issues have been resolved, and look at the lessons we can learn on ensuring that those processes actually happen and that we do not just have things sitting on a list but not actually delivered.
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work that the Government are doing following our £200 million commitment to support the future of Grangemouth through the national wealth fund. There have been 84 serious and credible inquiries about projects there, and I have been meeting those involved in some of those projects to discuss what more the Government can do to ensure that they are delivered. We will say more about that in due course, but we are working collaboratively with the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to bring the projects forward. As we have said since day one, we are determined to deliver a sustainable, viable industrial future for Grangemouth. The difference between Grangemouth and the Prax Lindsey refinery—I want to separate the two slightly—is that while we may have issues with the owners of various sites across the country, an 18-month redundancy package was put in place at Grangemouth and that is not the case in this instance, which is why the Government are particularly calling on the owners of this refinery to do the right thing for the workers there.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Westminster’s mismanagement of the energy sector is clearly being felt across these islands, and the Government were right to arrange a statement today to address the possible closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. However, that is not a courtesy that the Labour Government have ever extended to Grangemouth in Scotland: they have not once come to the Chamber to make a statement about it. We have seen Labour pull out all the stops for Scunthorpe and now begin that process for Lindsey. Will they think again and do the same for Grangemouth?
The Shetland gas plant is also owned by Prax, and is also a significant employer. What steps are the Government taking to secure the future of this site, and why did the plant not feature in the statement, if only for the purpose of an assurance?
Michael Shanks
Let me deal with that on two fronts. First, we have come to the House repeatedly to talk about Grangemouth. I have had meetings with a number of Members over the past year to discuss Grangemouth, probably more than I have had to discuss any other issue, and I have weekly meetings with Scottish Government Ministers, businesses or others to discuss Grangemouth’s future. No one wanted the outcome that we got from Grangemouth, but we have done everything in our power to turn that around and deliver a viable economic future for the site, so I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, which I think is misplaced.
Secondly, I apologise to the House for being unable to give explicit details about every part of the business, but one of the problems is that we have not been able to obtain clarity from the company about all the interdependencies within its own business group. We will discuss more of this in the coming days as we engage with the official receiver. It is important to separate the issue of insolvency for the refinery—the specific issue that we are discussing today—from the wider group issues, but I have no doubt that we will return to some of those in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that speech—[Interruption.] I mean, for that beautiful short question. I welcome the jobs that are coming to the port of Mostyn. This Labour Government are driving investment in our communities from carbon capture, hydrogen, nuclear, wind and solar energy. Opposition Members have to explain to the British people why they want to leave them colder, poorer, in the pockets of dictators and with less good jobs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I hear that it is your birthday, Mr Speaker. Congratulations! The UK Government have announced £14 billion for new, extremely expensive nuclear energy projects, while crucial shovel-ready green developments in Scotland are receiving nothing at all. Both Cruachan 2 and the Acorn project are awaiting the Minister’s approval to create new green jobs in Scotland. When will that money be made available?
Cost of Energy
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this morning’s debate. I will not speak for too long, because we have had several debates on this issue; instead, I will focus on the key points that I think need hammering home.
For several years colleagues in the highlands and islands, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and I, have worked on the highland energy rebate campaign., which would mean a geographic rebate for people in the highlands and islands affected by higher fuel prices. I am not precious about the mechanism for that. There is a bit of kickback about a geographic mechanism, but it is a very useful debating tool because it hammers home the fact that there is a geographic discrepancy and discrimination for people living in the highlands and islands, and the north of Scotland more generally.
We need a solution from the Government, and we need it urgently. For decades, people in the highlands and islands have been paying more for their energy than those in almost any other part of the UK. They pay more for distribution, and no other part of the UK pays more for transmission. All that people see are wires and pylons. The energy infrastructure, much of it in the highlands and islands, is used to send energy hundreds of miles away, but that is not distributed across bills in the same way as the distribution charges are. For example, in the flat that I live in when I am down here in this place, I pay roughly 40p on standing charges, and at home I pay 60p-plus on standing charges. That is a third extra every single day on that standing charge, and that is the same for people across the whole of the highlands and islands, which puts it in perspective for folk.
For decades, successive Governments have failed to tackle poor regulation. Ofgem has shown little interest in dealing with energy prices in the north of Scotland. Twenty years ago, we were less focused on decarbonisation issues than we are now. We were trying to get people on grid because there were so many people off-grid in the highlands and islands. The authorities would not look at getting gas into more remote areas; that was very low on the priority list. I am not advocating that we should do that now; new technologies have come in since then and we need to focus on decarbonising our energy systems. But it evidences that this has been going on for a long time, and that solutions have not been found.
Governments have always focused on urban areas with big populations to the detriment of rural customers. That is not acceptable, because the highlands and islands of Scotland are the coldest parts of the UK and have the highest levels of fuel poverty per head of population. That major issue needs to be addressed.
I want to highlight a couple of strategic issues about generators. We have wind farms consented to produce many gigawatts, but they are not able to progress because the Ministry of Defence has not come up with a radar solution that will allow them to operate. That is a matter of urgency. It is about capacity within the MOD and the amount of effort that it has been able to put into coming up with a solution; it is not because there is no solution, but because not enough people are working on it.
As a consequence, we have big projects that would generate employment through their construction and would contribute to our net zero goals, but they cannot get over that hurdle, despite being consented and having passed all the other barriers. If they cannot get over that hurdle, those consents will fall and the projects will be lost. That needs to be urgently addressed, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to work with colleagues in the MOD to get some focus on that.
I welcome the work on social tariffs, on which the SNP has a manifesto commitment, and I know from colleagues in the Scottish Government that a lot of close working is going on with the Department, which I welcome. Hopefully we will see a positive resolution to that in the not-too-distant future.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the winter fuel payment. The £300 winter fuel payment has been lost to tens of thousands of people across the highlands and islands. That combines with the points I have already made—along with the cost of energy going up since the Government came in last July and the promise to reduce energy bills by £300 for the most vulnerable pensioners—so we are now looking for £780. I am not entirely sure how that £780 reduction in bills will be achieved, but that is essentially the position that the Government find themselves in—they need to find that for thousands of people in order to maintain that manifesto pledge, and it will be interesting to know how that is going to happen.
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.
Michael Shanks
I will not, because I am going to come to the point made by the hon. Member. He has made the point about a highland pricing formula in the past—he is very reasonable about the issue—and it is something we will look at. The reform to the energy market will be part of that work as well. I am afraid I do not have time to come to much detail on mitigations on radar, apart from saying that we recognise the problem and we are working on it.
As always, this has been an incredibly useful debate. The passion from hon. Members is important, because this is one of the most important challenges facing our communities. We are committed to ensuring that energy is affordable for households across the country. Our clean power mission will help us deliver on that, but we have much more to do and we recognise that fact. We will work with Members from all parties, with industry and consumer groups, with charities and with individual constituents who raise these issues to make sure that we support everyone with this transition, to bring down bills in the long term and to support families with their energy costs.
End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am pleased to raise the issue of the radio teleswitch service decommissioning in the House this evening. This is a pressured and important matter for 4,665 households in my constituency, a further 80,000 households across the north of Scotland and fully 800,000 households across Great Britain. The ending of the radio teleswitch service, or RTS, which controls “total heating with total control” meters, is of vital importance to electric-only customers and yet remains a troubled landscape to some extent.
RTS is a radio signal that tells “total heating with total control” meters when to switch between peak and off-peak rates, and this obsolete system will come to an end on 30 June 2025. It was originally going to cease on 31 March 2024, but that had to be pushed back because the system was not ready. That should have been when alarm bells started to ring.
Customers are being asked to switch to smart meters, and Energy UK, the trade body for energy suppliers, has advised customers what could happen if they do not:
“You may find that your heating and/or hot water is continually left on or off, or the charging-up happens at the wrong time of day. Your electricity supplier won’t be able to confirm how much electricity you have used during peak or off-peak times, which means your electricity costs could be much higher than before.”
However accurate that message might be, it could easily be a source of alarm for customers. Any of us who have had the misfortune to have electric-only heating will realise that even with the discounted rates, it is still ferociously expensive, so the idea that anyone could have it without the discounted rates is simply not realistic.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Like my hon. Friend, I have significant concerns about the end of RTS in rural Scotland. Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey has a disproportionate number of RTS meters, and I include myself in that statistic. My own experience with OVO Energy and switching to a smart meter from RTS has left a lot to be desired. I have had several telephone conversations with OVO representatives as a private customer regarding the RTS switchover. The main question I had during those phone calls was, “If I switch, will I be better or worse off, or paying the same as I am now for electricity?” I had to push extremely hard to get a straight answer to that. If that is the difficulty I am experiencing, as someone who is experienced in assisting constituents with this very issue, does my hon. Friend share my concern about how more vulnerable people, who may feel immense pressure from operators installing new meters, will be impacted?
Dave Doogan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has raised a couple of points. One is really important, and that is whether or not customers have an option. They actually do not have a realistic option. The radio teleswitch service is coming to an end at the end of June next year, and they will not want to be in the position where they do not have a smart meter that can toggle between a reduced-rate tariff and a full-price tariff. That would be ruinously expensive.
My hon. Friend also touched on the communication, and the quality thereof, that supply companies are having with their customers. One of the reasons that the uptake is so slow is that people do not have confidence in smart meters—and why would they? There were plenty of problems with the smart meter roll-out just for regular electricity customers who want to know how much electricity they are using. The stakes are far higher for electric-only customers who heat their homes with electricity. They need confidence that their smart meter will actually work. I will come on to that point in a second.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree with the hon. Member. We have said to suppliers that they must inform all affected customers by 31 December to make sure that we are injecting that sense of urgency, both within the supply chain and, critically, among customers. There is a collective job for us all to make sure that those who are affected are aware that this is happening. That is why this debate is so important. That is why I am keen to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that we are getting that message out to constituents.
Critically, the taskforce has been asked to establish working partnerships with local authorities, housing providers and other customer-facing organisations, so that we can get the word out that this is happening, that customers need to engage and that they must get in touch with their suppliers so we can provide the best possible options for them as we move forward.
Graham Leadbitter
My experience is that the energy company has been in touch with me. The tone of the emails has been quite pushy, which is what we are talking about, in that they need to be pushing quite hard on customers to make that change and get the right meter in place. However, when I have subsequently been in touch with them—I do not have a smart meter yet; it is coming in January—the first time there were no appointments and they were unable to answer that simple question of whether it will be cheaper. I cannot stress enough how much I have had to push them to get that answer out of them.
I am not a vulnerable customer; I understand why this is happening, like everybody else in the Chamber. Vulnerable customers, however, may just accept that. There is a sense of urgency that needs to be injected, but it needs to come with a note of caution about how it is injected and how it is communicated, and it needs to make sure that customers understand how much they are likely to be paying. There also needs to be a transitional arrangement so that if somebody gets the wrong tariff, they are not penalised for that and it can be changed.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising his personal experience of the issue. From the perspective of the Government, it is very important that we have sight of where it is not working, because we need to ensure that it is working for consumers. There is a question about capacity that we are very exercised about. We are trying to work with suppliers to ensure, particularly in rural areas, that we are putting in roaming teams and building the capacity to be able to respond in a way that is timely, and sensitive to the fact that we are asking consumers to make a transition and go through disruption.
Smart meters are the natural upgrade for RTS, and we have energy suppliers that will be offering them. If we get this right, smart meters are an opportunity to upgrade people’s homes, and critically, for them to access smart tariffs that will give them greater control and reduce bills. I urge consumers to discuss the options with their energy suppliers. I acknowledge that, particularly in rural areas where we have large numbers of RTS users, we have lower levels of smart meter coverage and installer capacity. To address that, we are actively encouraging energy suppliers to ensure that they are building capacity. We are looking at roaming teams, and how we manage demand across different geographies. We know that there are issues with network coverage, and we are working with the data communications company to ensure that we are resolving them. In a minority of cases where households cannot connect, we are advising them to engage with their energy suppliers to think about the right solutions for their home.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that customers have genuine concerns and scepticism about smart meters; we have received that intelligence as much as other hon. Members have across the House. It is worth saying that there are 37 million smart and advanced meters in homes and small businesses across the country—65% of all smart meters. Our analysis and data suggest that 90% of smart meters are sending automatic signals and working, but for too many customers the experience of smart metering is not as good as it ought to be.
The number of meters that are not working across the country is problematic, and we are trying to build confidence. There is a really important job for us to do in working with the regulator to deal with those particular issues. The Government are working with Ofgem to introduce new guaranteed standards of performance to improve and protect consumer experience with smart meters, offering compensation when the system is falling short for consumers. Ofgem will be consulting to introduce those new standards in the new year.
Let me end by touching on the wider point about public confidence, which is key to us getting this transition right. I acknowledge that some consumers have lost faith in the energy suppliers, and the levels of satisfaction have damaged consumer confidence. We hear that when we engage with customers. We absolutely must and are trying to do more to prioritise and protect consumers in the transition, both with RTS and more widely on home upgrades and our warm homes plan. That is why the Government are strengthening the regulator to ensure that it can hold companies to account for wrongdoing and can require higher standards of performance, as well as ensuring that there is automatic consumer compensation where failures occur.
There is a lot to do, but I hope I have reassured the House that we are aware of the challenge and are doing everything we can to grip the problem and to get the regulator and suppliers to work with partners on the ground to make the transition as smooth as possible.
I again thank the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens for raising the profile of this important issue and highlighting the needs of all communities. We have to get this right, and I confirm my desire to work in concert with hon. Members across the House to make this as easy for constituents as possible.
Question put and agreed to.