Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility

Debate between Sharon Hodgson and Alex Sobel

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing this debate.

As we know, the Government have declared a clean power 2030 mission, which aims to achieve a target of 12 GW in consumer-led flexibility. Earlier this year, the Government also published their landmark “Clean Flexibility Roadmap”, which I fully support and which formally recognises consumer-led flexibility as essential for energy security and will lower bills for more than 4,000 households in fuel poverty in my constituency. I have campaigned extensively, over my whole parliamentary career, on fuel poverty. I cannot beat the Minister, who comes from Scotland, but the north-east tends to be one of the colder parts of the UK, so that issue is very important. Consumer-led flexibility is essential for a just transition. Unlocking just 10 GW of consumer-led flexibility by 2030 is equal to a third of the UK’s entire gas power station capacity.

I will start by highlighting some of the impressive developments taking place in my constituency of Washington and Gateshead South. Nissan is leading the way by developing electric vehicles, while AESC is currently building a second battery plant in my constituency, supported by a Government-backed £1 billion funding plan, which will be the UK’s largest gigafactory. Those are proud additions to the north-east’s already impressive manufacturing history. EVs are an example of the smart technology we need to shift energy use intelligently to times when it is cheap, clean and abundant, as the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned.

Nissan has also boldly embraced wind power to supplement its power supply. Across the UK, however, we are not using that energy efficiently. Octopus Energy has found that we are currently wasting more than £1.2 billion a year paying wind farms to turn off and gas plants to turn on. More broadly in the north-east, we are pioneering solar energy through companies such as Power Roll, while former coalfield communities such as mine are exploring mine-water heating as a potential heat and energy source of the future, rooted in our past.

The award-winning Gateshead district energy scheme in the town centre supplies 24 buildings with heat and/or power, as well as more than 600 homes. That includes 4 MW of power capacity, forming part of the UK’s capacity market, and 5 MW of solar PV farms on urban brownfield sites. It also operates the UK’s largest mine-water heat pump, extracting renewable heat from flooded mines beneath Gateshead. Furthermore, Labour plans to ensure that clean energy jobs are always good jobs, by ensuring that companies receiving public grants and contracts must create jobs with decent pay, access to trade unions and strong rights at work.

The clean energy economy is currently growing three times faster than the wider economy. Labour’s analysis shows that employment in clean energy jobs is expected to double to 860,000 by 2030. Our energy transition must not just be driven by the technologies we know; the Government must also keep an eye on emerging technology. I am impressed by the widespread uptake of heat pumps and happy to see that heat batteries are one the latest technologies added to the boiler upgrade scheme.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, talking about different types of emerging technology. We have had solar panels on domestic roofs for more than 30 years, yet our electricity grid is not ready for new types of technology. Does she agree we should have started flexibility earlier, with the emergence of the solar revolution? Consumer flexibility will create those jobs and give people a stake in the electricity market.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sadly, we could only start once we came into government. We can see that more should have been done over the past 14 years. At least we are now in government and heading in the right direction.

As a leading alternative for homes where heat pumps are not yet viable, heat batteries support consumer flexibility by storing energy at cheaper, off-peak hours and releasing it on demand. Consumers should also be rewarded when renewables are plentiful, which is an increasing proportion of the time. Perhaps the Government should investigate the final consumption levies and network costs to allow consumers to be paid for using power. That would be a tangible benefit of the green transition that they could feel in their pockets, which is very important to our constituents.

I warmly welcome the Government’s appointment of the UK’s first flexibility commissioner, following campaigning by organisations such as the Association for Decentralised Energy with its ADE: Demand initiative. The commissioner’s role will be to champion this agenda across government, Ofgem and NESO, providing the accountability and leadership that have been missing. There is more work to be done, but I welcome the positive steps the Government are taking and their recognition that consumer-led flexibility is essential for both energy security and a just transition.

TV Licences for Over-75s

Debate between Sharon Hodgson and Alex Sobel

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate free TV licences for over-75s. My mam, who I know will be watching, as a lot of pensioners do—I am sure lots of people besides our mams will be watching the Parliament channel—is very passionate about this issue because she is turning 75 in January. To her, this is personal, as she keeps telling me. She feels it has been done deliberately to give her a hard time. It is also personal to the thousands of pensioners who will be worse off if the free TV licence for over-75s is revoked, curtailed or means-tested.

In March, I hosted and addressed the National Pensioners Convention in Parliament for its rally on the BBC’s consultation. I share all of their frustrations about these proposed changes, because I know—I heard this at the rally, from the pensioners—how important their TVs are to their everyday lives. That is why I contributed to the BBC’s consultation in February this year. I have received notification that my letter will be included in the consultation document, so I hope all my points will be taken on board by the BBC and, in turn, listened to by the Government.

The introduction of free TV licences in 2000 for those aged over 75 was one of the many great achievements of the last Labour Government. That is why I and many of my colleagues opposed the Conservative Government’s outsourcing of this social benefit to the BBC as part of its 2015 royal charter. As we have heard, the cost to the BBC is roughly equivalent to the total it currently spends on all of BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, the BBC news channel, CBBC and CBeebies, so I strongly disagree with what the Prime Minister said at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). She said that

“there is no reason why the BBC, with the money made available to it, is not able to continue that.”—[Official Report, 1 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 203.]

I am incredulous that the Prime Minister really believes the BBC can fund all of this without detriment. Even to try to do so would be extremely detrimental to the content the BBC is able to offer, and risks causing immense damage to the quality of the service that we all currently enjoy.

I agree with BECTU—the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—which has said, in opposing the proposals to scrap or limit free TV licences:

“as a welfare benefit, meeting the cost of free licence fees should be the duty of the government”.

It is a disgrace that the Government not only feel able to wash their hands of the responsibility for providing this welfare policy, but are now refusing to rule out breaking the commitment they made in the 2017 Conservative manifesto to maintain free TV licences for the over-75s up to 2022. More than 5,000 households in my constituency are eligible for a free TV licence as they have someone over the age of 75. I am sure that those households will feel let down and unable to trust the Conservative Government if their free TV licence is taken away.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The BBC is under a lot of pressure in respect of new services, and has introduced BBC Sounds, on-demand services and social media services. These services are less likely to be used by the over-75s, but the Government expect the BBC to introduce these services and take away the benefit for over-75s or take the costs. This cannot stand. Does she not agree that the Government need to pay for this, because the BBC needs to continue to innovate?

No-deal EU Exit: Public Sector Catering

Debate between Sharon Hodgson and Alex Sobel

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of leaving the EU without a deal on public sector catering.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking all the public sector catering providers, users and campaigners who have been in touch with me over the past week to raise their concerns about this issue. I can see a number of them in the Public Gallery today. I am extremely grateful and pleased that they have made the journey here today.

Although a no-deal Brexit in general is deeply concerning to me and many others up and down the country, I tabled this debate because the quality, quantity and safety of the food provided to some of the most vulnerable in our society is often overlooked in the debates around a no-deal Brexit. I therefore wanted to speak up today for the estimated 10.5 million people in the UK who rely on public sector institutions for at least some of their food. Some are completely reliant on such institutions for all their meals. I want to say clearly to the Government that no deal should not mean no meal.

The Soil Association brief sent to me yesterday reads clearly:

“It is very likely that a No deal Brexit would be disastrous for public sector catering.”

Institutions including schools, universities, hospitals, care homes, meals on wheels and prisons will be adversely affected by a no-deal Brexit. They feed some of the most vulnerable in our society. Without those services, many would simply not eat. High quality public sector catering is so important to the health and wellbeing of millions of people across the country. A drop in standards or the availability of nutritious food because of a no-deal Brexit would be extremely detrimental to service users.

I want to focus on three main concerns today, which I will address in turn: the cost and availability of meals; the quality, quantity and safety of food available to public sector providers; and, finally, workforce retention.

At the end of last year, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, told the Treasury Committee that in the most “extreme” no-deal Brexit, food prices would rise by 10%, but that in a less severe scenario, the increase would be about 6%. Either scenario is concerning to suppliers of public sector catering, which are already struggling to cover the cost of nutritious meals.

For example, the allowance for universal infant free school meals is £2.30. That goes directly to schools and is not ring-fenced. It has not been increased since the start of universal infant free school meals in September 2014. In many cases, the caterers do not receive the full amount. Bidfood has calculated that with 13% inflationary costs and the potential increase in costs following no deal, the meal allowance would need to be increased by 69p to bring the allowance back to where we are now. There are serious concerns about the impact Brexit could have on the provision of school meals in some schools, particularly small rural schools, that no longer receive the small school allowance of £2,000, which ceased about two years ago.

Due to Brexit uncertainty, caterers have reported an overall increase in costs of up to 20% for some ingredients over the past 12 months, with the cost of eggs reported to be up by 14%.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and making the case about food price rises. Is she not also concerned that a no-deal Brexit might lead to trade deals that lower standards, particularly with the US? The National Farmers Union has said that it is concerned about US practices and that trade deals should

“not allow imports of food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers”,

such as chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-fed beef. We might be pushed to lower standards for cheaper food. That is a huge health and safety issue for our children.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on the issue he raises later in my contribution. This morning, I sat on a no-deal Delegated Legislation Committee with my shadow Public Health Minister hat on. In that Committee Room, we were talking about the very issues my hon. Friend raises in respect of a no-deal Brexit. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), assured me that our chicken will still be washed in drinking water and not in any form of chlorine. However, my hon. Friend’s worry is very much taken on board, given that the money will not be there and costs will be cut to the bone—no pun intended.

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the prices of raw materials and commodities will go up, but who will absorb the price increases? Social care providers, particularly those with a majority of local authority-funded residents, will not have the capability to accept increased catering costs. Will the Government therefore increase the budgets for public sector catering to cover the shortfall?