Energy Security
Tim Farron Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith). Something I find less pleasurable—indeed, I detest it—is the use of the phrase in our discourse that “Britain is broken”. I hate that phrase because it is not true. I wonder if we could reflect on how damaging and intoxicating the opium of nostalgia is. It is not like a wistful nostalgia, harmless and benign, used by commentators and politicians; it is an angry, aggressive and malign form of nostalgia. The reality—let’s open up and be honest about this—is that there was never a golden age, and the idea that somehow everything in the past is better and today it is all rotten and broken is utterly poisoning our democracy and discourse. The only things that were better about the past are that the music was better and we were younger. Let us not fall for witless, unpatriotic guff about Britain being in terminal decline. We are a wonderful people with a history strong and rich and resources second to none. We are not broken, but we must be better.
A wise Government would acknowledge our challenges, strengthen our alliances with NATO and the Commonwealth, and reconnect with Europe, not least on energy security. John Maynard Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Members do not need to love everything about the European Union to know that our security and sovereignty now obviously depend on deepening and widening our alliances. We need to see Europe as the third bloc alongside the US and China; if we are detached from it, we are not safe.
Our security also involves looking internally on energy and food security. Over the past few weeks, the energy market has been in the eye of the storm, with the loss of 14.4 million barrels of crude oil a day.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Food prices have become the biggest pressure on family budgets, and our food system is failing households, farmers and the economy alike. It is clear that a good food Bill is a glaring missed opportunity to back British farmers and improve public health, so does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot have food security without energy security, and that the Government must set out a national food strategy to support that?
Tim Farron
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s food security Bill, and I will come to that in a moment.
The loss of Gulf crude oil output since Donald Trump’s war began has been partly offset by draining stockpiles and other temporary reliefs. In the developed world, prices have risen and crippled many communities that I represent in Westmorland, as well communities across the whole country. So far, we have yet to run out, but the International Energy Agency warned just last week that oil inventories are being depleted at a record pace. Governments, companies and consumers therefore need to be ready. Are we? I do not think so.
Energy security is now utterly urgent. If I cannot convince hon. Members of all the science that points to the need to tackle the catastrophic blight of human-made climate change, surely I can convince them that our energy security rests on domestically produced renewable energy: Putin cannot turn off the sun, the wind or our waves. Surely we should therefore rejoin the European international energy market and invest massively in the national grid.
It is vital that we recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) wisely said, the importance of food security in all this. The United Kingdom is only 55% food secure. The outsourcing of our agriculture has become a national security liability. We need more short, diversified food chains, with more incentives to primary producers to grow food domestically. The problem is that England is now the only country in the United Kingdom and the only country in Europe that does not provide support for farmers to produce food. Perhaps we can agree that back in 2020, when the previous Government was drawing up the environmental land management scheme, which this Government adopted, that that was how things felt at the time. But the facts have changed. It is time to change our mind, and back our farmers to produce the food that we need. Food prices are projected to be 50% higher in November this year than they were in 2021. Agricultural inflation is double regular inflation, and is therefore feeding through to food inflation, which will harm our communities.
We live against the backdrop of uncertainty. The technological and geopolitical shifts that we are living through include the threat to the very future of NATO, as well as Russian and Chinese aggression. Our energy, food and military resilience matters more now than it ever has before. We are fools if we do not respond.
We are not a broken country. We are a brilliant country. But we are a vulnerable country. We should not be energy insecure or food insecure, should not have the smallest Army we have had in 200 years, and should not be decoupled from our allies in Europe, but the good news is that we can fix all those things if we have the will. That will mean uncomfortable choices and changed stances for many, but the facts have changed, so we need to change our minds.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tim Farron Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend asks an important question. I completely understand the frustrations of people who are without power and the disruption that it has on people’s lives. My Department has had a number of conversations with Northern Powergrid on the particular issues in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I am advised that many of the power outages across Waterhouses, Brandon and Esh Winning were caused by trees contacting overhead lines. This is all feeding into work that is being done to ensure that the resilience of the network allows us to avoid those situations in the future. We are also working on how we can upgrade the network where possible to ensure it is resilient. There is always more that we can do, but the grid does remain hugely resilient across the country, and we will work to support communities such as that of my hon. Friend where, unfortunately, there are power outages.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
There are two things that the Government could do to improve energy resilience, particularly in communities like mine in Cumbria. First, they could support Electricity North West by ensuring that it buries its cables where possible to protect them against wild weather, which, as the Minister knows, we have from time to time. Secondly, they could accelerate local energy markets so that in places like Coniston, which the Minister and I discussed in our meeting yesterday, they are able to provide energy for the community they are embedded within, thereby enhancing the resilience of the network. Will the Minister do those things?
Michael Shanks
I think Electricity North West is considering exactly that question, looking at where the lines can be buried to avoid repetition of the issues that have been caused so far. I will follow up on that point in particular with it. I had a fantastic meeting with the hon. Gentleman yesterday to talk about Coniston and local energy markets. I encourage him and Members across the House to read the local power plan, published this morning, which sets out our ambition to look at innovative ways in which communities can own and invest in their own energy while also having the resilience of local energy networks and smart energy systems that help the grid both nationally and locally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
At the recent North sea summit, we committed to a joint ambition of 100 GW of offshore renewable projects with our European neighbours, including through co-ordinated energy infrastructure planning. We are determined to work closer than ever with our European neighbours to maximise our joint clean energy independence. Strategically planned, interconnected and efficient electricity trading is a key element of that plan.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Ed Miliband
This has happened because of the fossil fuel crisis presided over by the previous Government. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are doing absolutely everything we can to help his constituents and others. We recognise the scale of the problem and that there is more to do.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tim Farron Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman, if I am honest. The truth is that he would give up on young people. He would sell them down the river, as he would today’s generation, the future generation, and all generations to come. I do not think that is a very good platform to stand on.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Some 25% of the houses in my constituency were built before 1900. They are expensive to heat and very difficult to insulate. When will there be a bespoke plan for insulating those properties, using the right materials, and, crucially, for the insulation to be installed by specialists?
Martin McCluskey
I have had very constructive conversations with the hon. Member about this. The warm homes plan will be published soon, and we will have something to say in that.
Energy
Tim Farron Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When this country is at its best, we rise together to face challenges and threats. We roll up our sleeves and deploy ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to meet those threats and challenges head on. That is what we need now: a collective patriotic endeavour to tackle climate change, cut bills and ensure that our economy is based on cleaner and cheaper British energy sources that will not run out and that are immune from the whims of foreign dictators—what is not to like? Sadly, there are colleagues in this House who do not like that, who are against that patriotic endeavour to secure the future for our children and grandchildren. It is not for me to speculate on their motives, but for the security of our country and the good of our future, we certainly need to ensure that those people never get anywhere near power.
Let’s start with the one part of this motion that we can all agree on: energy bills are far too high. The typical family has to pay £60 a month more than it did five years ago. British businesses still face some of the highest electricity prices in the OECD. That is bad for the cost of living, bad for business and bad for economic growth, so we must bring energy bills down. The simple question is, how?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a spirited speech that gets to the heart of what we are all trying to address. There are fiscal levers that we can pull to ensure that we bring down bills. Does he share my sense of disbelief about the irony in the Conservatives’ earlier motion suggesting that there should be no further tax rises of any kind while they are simultaneously willing to propose a set of multibillion-pound measures to scrap all those levies?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench speeches are already limited to four minutes. If interventions are long, the limit will drop further. Please be mindful of that.
Tim Farron
I will limit the number of interventions that I take, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Conservative party had a record of being, or at least presented itself as, the party of sound money. This appears to be a decision to move away from that and instead to chase after our permanently absent colleagues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The cost of energy bills for the average household will be £1,775 this year. Charities indicate that energy companies are owed £4.4 billion by UK households. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the vulnerable and needy will be unable to heat their houses this winter because of the money that they owe? They cannot take on any more debt.
Tim Farron
Fuel poverty is a reality and a stain on our country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it on behalf of his community.
Let us get to the heart of this debate. We must bring energy bills down, and the question is how. I am afraid that the plan put forward by the Conservatives is nothing more than a mirage. They say that we should cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy—that is great. As always, we are ahead of them and have set out our plan to do just that, but the key difference is that our plan is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments that the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The plan in this motion is funded by the Conservative hand wave—a classic these days—of saying, “We’ll just cut spending.” What happened to the Conservative party being the party of sound money?
Dr Evans
In the previous debate, we talked about tax, and the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentions was also being used to deal with the tax burden on the high street. Will he explain the Liberal Democrat policy? How would they levy these taxes on social media giants and big banks, and where would that money go? It seems as if they are spending it twice in one afternoon.
Tim Farron
That is not the case. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning two of the sources of the additional income that we would raise. It is all very well just to blandly say, “We will get the money from somewhere,” but not to say where. The Liberal Democrats have said where we will find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. The people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats.
Tim Farron
I will not because we need to let other people speak later.
Given the Conservatives’ record in government and the complete lack of detail about which spending they would cut, it is very rich that they are asking us for details—we have given some. Once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe in the magic money tree, but today their plans seem to rest entirely on its fictional bounty. The only other part of their plan that would supposedly bring down bills is the scrapping of the current auction of new renewable projects altogether.
Let us remember what that would actually mean. It would cut between £11 billion and £15 billion of private investment in cheap, clean power.
Tim Farron
The right hon. Lady says that it is not cheap. Over the lifetime of the projects, yes, it is cheap. Does the Conservative party not understand that the up-front costs are one thing, but the input costs over time—over 20 years—are as cheap as chips? This is basic economics, and I struggle to comprehend how a party that was in government for so many years has lost touch with reality so very quickly.
Tim Farron
I will not.
That would be a disaster for our economy, our communities and our young people. Far from bringing down energy bills, it would make us even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, which are expensive. Energy bills skyrocketed in the past few years because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That shows what a truly terrible idea this is. What happened to the Conservative party being the party of national security? That idea is long gone, too, alongside its commitment to sound money. Putin would profit, while British families and pensioners struggle.
The whole argument being put forward by the Conservative party, and by our habitually absent colleagues on the fourth row back, is that bills are too high because we are investing too much in renewable power. They say that we should stop investing, scrap our climate commitments, and bills will magically come down, but it is just not true. It is not the price of renewables that is pushing up bills; generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas, even when we factor in extra costs for back-up power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. However, people are not seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas, even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared with just 30% from gas. That is because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix, which in the UK is almost always gas. That is not the case in some other countries in Europe such as Spain and France.
Graham Stuart
As this is supposed to be a debate, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
One of the hon. Gentleman’s fantastical suggestions is that he has a way of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices. I do not know which model he wants to follow—that of China, or perhaps a Korean model—but will he please explain how exactly we do that? When I was the Energy Minister, I looked to see whether that could be done, and we could not find a way of making it work. I am really interested to see the Liberal Democrats’ detailed work, and for them to explain it to the House.
Tim Farron
That the right hon. Gentleman was the Energy Minister makes me question the selection standards of the previous Prime Minister. How far do we need to look? The channel is not that wide. Look at France and Spain. France has nuclear, and Spain has renewable energy—[Interruption.] If people stop chuntering, I will explain. In Spain and France there is no reliance on gas, partly because of nuclear in France, and in Spain it is down not to nuclear but entirely to renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked not very far away at the other side of the Bay of Biscay down in Spain, he would see that it is entirely possible. How do we decouple ourselves from reliance on gas? It is blindingly obvious: do not make it so that we have to rely on gas, and invest in renewables—it is so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that people who held that brief not long ago do not get it. Investing in cheap renewables, and making sure that people see the benefit in their bills—that is the answer.
The Conservative’s plan would rip up our crucial national commitment on climate change. I will not repeat quotations from previous Prime Ministers such as Baroness May of Maidenhead and Boris Johnson—Boris Johnson, now a moderate and a progressive by comparison, which is utterly stunning. It is distressing that the Conservative party has left behind traditional voters who do care about the environment and our economy.
Communities such as mine bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, as well as farmers whose businesses are blighted by ever-lengthening droughts and ever more severe floods. Communities such as Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Appleby, and Grasmere are experiencing appalling flood damage. In just three weeks, we will note the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond, which did hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of damage to our communities, and devastated lives, homes and communities. An apparently once-in-200-years event happened only a few years after two once-in-100-years events. It is obvious that things are changing; do not dare to tell Cumbrians that climate change is not a clear and present danger.
Fuel poverty is worse in our area too, and 27% of our housing stock was built before 1900. Those homes have solid walls, and are hard to insulate and expensive to heat. North Westmorland has the least energy-efficient housing in the whole of England, with 17% of homes classed as either F or G, but we are well placed to provide the solutions. Our coastal waters hold huge amounts of latent energy, yet like the rest of the UK they are largely untapped for tidal power. Britain has the second highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, and we are making use of nearly none of it—what an absolute waste.
Tim Farron
I will not.
Just think about all the jobs that could be created in Cumbria if we did that, all the cheap energy that we could generate and all the bills that we could slash. We have the big scale answers in our community, as well as the small scale ones. The Coniston hydro scheme has been hugely successful, but its future could be secured and the energy bills of the local community drastically reduced if only the Government would deliver the P441 code modification to make local energy markets a reality for us in the lakes, and across the United Kingdom, in every community. Local energy markets would open the floodgates—pun intended—for local schemes in every community, in every constituency represented in this House and beyond, so that households and businesses benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy created by people they know.
What would a real plan to cut energy bills, while continuing the UK’s leadership on climate change, look like? We have set it out in our amendment on the Order Paper: do not slash investment in cheap, clean renewables, but increase it, as we Liberal Democrats did when we were in government. We quadrupled the amount of renewable power generated between 2010 and 2015. We also say: make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with an emergency upgrade programme; and work with the European Union to trade energy more efficiently, cutting costs and reducing reliance on gas. In addition, we must end those expensive, old renewable obligation contracts from 20 years ago that impose levies on people’s bills and stop them seeing the benefits of cheap renewables, and move them on to cheaper contracts for difference, pioneered by the Liberal Democrats, to bring down prices and drive investment at the same time. Now, that is a real plan that treats the British people with respect, by presenting actual solutions, rather than vacuous soundbites.
In closing, the crushing poverty that millions endure as a result of eye-watering energy bills is real, and it is an outrage. The threat to our world and to our children’s future from climate change is real, and it is an outrage. Loving our neighbour means having a real and practical plan to tackle both. The motion does not provide that, but I am determined that we will.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tim Farron Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katie White
Homes and home standards are absolutely key to decarbonisation for a variety of reasons, including the health benefits for residents. We will consult on the warm homes plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), spoke about the warm home discount earlier. We are working with MHCLG on bringing forward the future home standard.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A major gap in our ability to make progress in reducing emissions is the disconnect—both literally and figuratively—between small renewable energy schemes and the communities in which they are situated. I think in particular of the Coniston hydro scheme, which faces resilience and sustainability issues relating to the removal of rocks. Is the answer to this not the creation of local energy markets to reduce the gap between service users and energy producers? Will the Government back the urgent delivery of P441 to make local energy markets a reality, save Coniston hydro scheme and service the local community?
Katie White
In this role, there are a lot of acronyms. I have to say that I did not know P441 until I sat on this Bench, but I understand from my colleagues that we are looking into that. We support local community projects, and we will be looking at that project and will come back to the hon. Member on P441.
State of Climate and Nature
Tim Farron Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks about an important issue, and I am deeply concerned for those workers and their families. There are serious questions to answer about the running of that company, and how it ended up in this state. On the day that the insolvency happened, I wrote to the Insolvency Service to ask it to look into this matter, because those workers have been badly let down by the company.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Nobody knows better than farmers the reality of climate change and the importance of tackling it immediately, so it is bizarre that their expertise is being ignored. We should stand with them. Extreme weather conditions are a threat to animal welfare, agricultural productivity and farming business survival. We desperately need a food security strategy. Already, we produce only 55% of the food that we eat in this country. How will the Secretary of State help our farmers to be resilient against the twin threats of drought and flooding?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great expertise on these matters, partly because of his constituency. He is right about the threat to farmers’ livelihoods from the climate crisis, which I talked about in my statement, and the need for food security, which my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes incredibly seriously. Indeed, the land use framework is partly about making sure that we have the land we need for our food security.
ECO4 Scheme Redress
Tim Farron Excerpts(11 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
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of redress under the ECO 4 scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir John. This debate is about a lot of things. It is about the need to retrofit UK homes to improve their fuel efficiency, training the future workforce and the consumer protection landscape, but it is also about the Government taking responsibility for policy failures. Most importantly, it is about people. Therefore, before I cover the issues with the ECO4—energy company obligation 4—scheme and the wider consumer protection landscape, I want to set out the experience of my constituent, Jackie.
Jackie and her husband live in a gable end cottage. They have worked hard and done well, and are meant to be enjoying their retirement, but they are not. It all started to go wrong just more than a year ago, when, out of curiosity, they filled in a small quiz about rural homeowners without central heating on the Energy Advice Helpline website. They were contacted by a representative by phone and email very quickly, and found themselves put into a pipeline for works to be carried out. They described that period to my team as dizzying and said that they felt under pressure.
Jackie and her husband had checked that the Energy Advice Helpline seemed to be a genuine not-for-profit advice service, but they had not been advised that the project had been given to a company called Central Eco Solutions. Now, some 12 months later, we have just found out that there was a further middle company—a surveyor based in Leeds, who my constituents had never spoken to until yesterday. The workflow that he described was that the Energy Advice Helpline adviser supplied work to him, and then he supplied work to installers.
The work was carried out hurriedly in three weeks at the end of July and start of August last year. Alarmed at the poor quality of work being done in their property, Jackie and her husband started questioning the contractors about who was employing them and what instructions they had been given. It was only at that stage that they found out that Central Eco Solutions was involved. There was no project management, contract or design proposals, and when they asked for technical surveys, they were carried out by someone who was not a surveyor.
Problems became obvious with the works immediately. No care was taken with the preparation. Floors were taken up and cupboards removed without notice. They described a small bookcase being ripped out with a crowbar, and the promises of it being replaced transpired to be completely false. The insulation and plastering had to be redone three times. The team attempted to insulate around a radiator, until they were stopped, but they did manage to insulate over a double socket, making it unusable. One insulation wall was put in at a very non-vertical angle. A joiner was sent to repair the woodwork, but he was instructed only to use MDF in place of pre-existing solid wood, and clearly, did not have the skillset to do the job in hand.
Those are just the snags. The air source heat pump was originally installed on the outside of the gable wall, causing such bad noise and vibration in two bedrooms that they became unusable. Jackie investigated and found it had been bolted directly to the wall, whereas others she had seen were bedded on insulation. When she suggested that as a remedy, the heat pump was removed and placed apart from the building, but pipework was left running at waist height over the pathway to the garden. Most of the snags have still not been resolved. There are uncovered pipes, ruined woodwork, excess pipes creating energy waste, and a slanting kitchen wall.
My constituents have had a terrible year dealing with these issues: chasing Central Eco Solutions for the work to be finished properly, trying to find some sort of guarantee scheme, making complaints, and escalating those complaints with no clear route for doing so. They are not alone. I am telling Jackie’s story, but there are many others in North East Fife and around the country. It is not a problem with just one installation company, because I have heard cases with others; I have been contacted by people all around Great Britain since my debate went on to the Order Paper, who have named different companies that have ruined their homes and left.
This is a Government problem that must be solved. I have questioned the Minister in the House about it previously, and I think she knows that it is a Government problem because she announced in January that she would review the consumer protection landscape, particularly in relation to solid wall insulations under ECO4. However, I have had sight of a letter sent by her team in response to a complaint by a company outwith North East Fife. I was disappointed that the letter makes it clear that, as the Government do not directly fund ECO4, they do not get involved in private and contractual decisions between the parties involved.
That somewhat misses the point. ECO4 may not be taxpayer funded, but it is a Government-backed scheme. For consumers that is the same thing, because that gives the scheme a stamp of Government approval. The Government surely would not, and should not, be backing something that allows traders to carry out unreliable and unsuitable work on somebody’s property. The Government would not be backing something unless they were really sure of what it was—right? In any case, ECO4 is taxpayer funded in some ways, because it is funded by a Government-backed levy on energy customers’ bills. Just because those public funds do not go through the Treasury’s coffers does not mean that there is not a public interest in getting their use right.
I am happy to put on the record that I support ECO schemes: it is incredibly important to upgrade properties so that they are energy efficient. Our constituents need to do that to save money on their bills, and energy efficiency is a must-have in the face of a climate crisis.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One in six properties in Cumbria is more than 100 years old. Almost all of them will be single-walled properties, which are incredibly hard to insulate. Yet the award of grants through ECO4 always tends to favour large companies, not the smaller businesses that are better able to retrofit heritage buildings. Should the Government change that so that my constituents can have warmer homes that are also cheaper to heat?
Oral Answers to Questions
Tim Farron Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to say that we lost thousands of jobs under the previous Government, whether in ceramics, chemicals or steel. The previous Government saw foundational industries through the rear-view mirror, but we know that these industries will forge our future. That is why we are rushing to get to clean energy by 2030 so that we can bring prices down, why we are supporting our industries through the supercharger, and why through the industrial strategy we are looking to provide more support, not less, to those crucial foundational industries.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. We have been busy since we last met for oral questions. We have confirmed that rooftop solar panels will be standard on all new build homes and have funded £650 million of clean energy upgrades for over 200 buildings. We have also delivered the first solar projects for 11 schools, secured Royal Assent for Great British Energy—the UK’s first national publicly owned energy company in 70 years—launched the marine energy taskforce, signed a green industrial partnership with Norway and kick-started community energy right across the country. We are ambitious in our plans. There is much more to do, but we are doing more than any other Government to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Tim Farron
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Most of the 1,500 farms in Westmorland and Lonsdale have rivers or becks running through them. Since we are the most beautiful—and indeed wettest—place in England, that is an awful lot of potential, and mostly untapped, energy. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister meet me and hydro energy experts to consider a new nationwide project to support farmers to have small hydroelectricity schemes on their farms to diversify farm income, provide clean energy for the farm and harness natural renewable energy for the wider economy?
Michael Shanks
I will not be drawn on confirming whether the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is the most beautiful part of England—I will leave that to him. However, what he proposes sounds like a fantastic idea and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further. We see huge potential for a whole range of renewables. Those kinds of innovative projects—smaller scale as well—are what could deliver not just benefits for the system but real benefits for the communities that host them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tim Farron Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
As with Acorn, we think Viking is a really important project. I am very proud of the progress we made on track 1, and we are obviously looking at both Viking and Acorn in the spending review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the role that local community energy can play; I think that is what he is alluding to. We are committed to ensuring that. Great British Energy local has already made some announcements in this space, including on local energy funding in England. We will have much more to say in due course, but we want to ensure a partnership, so if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will make sure that what he says gets to GB Energy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tim Farron Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise about these issues. She will know that the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), put in place with the energy companies £500 million this winter to help families struggling with their bills. We also want to see Ofgem proceed with the plan to relieve the debts that many families face, because the debt overhang from the cost of living crisis that we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still blights many families in our country. If we move forward on all those fronts, we can tackle these issues.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I strongly support all efforts to increase energy efficiency and bring down bills. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of raising the minimum level of energy performance certificates to C for long-term rented accommodation but not doing so for short-term lets and owned properties? Will that not create an incentive in communities such as ours for people to go to Airbnb or second home ownership, rather than providing affordable homes for local people?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I believe I am right in saying—I was checking with the Minister for Energy Consumers—that as part of the consultation on energy efficiency, we are looking at the issue of short-term lets, which has been raised in the past. He is right to draw attention to what we are doing here, because this measure, which the last Government proposed and then backed away from—a pattern we are seeing quite a lot at the moment—will take up to 1 million families out of poverty. It is a basic principle: if someone is renting a home and they pay their rent on time, they have a right to live in decent, warm accommodation.