House of Commons · Bill Debate
18 October 2023 · 9 other contributors
Opened by Andrew Bowie Con West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Andrew Bowie raised concerns about the energy bill - lords amendment 274b and commons amendment to remove it in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Moves that the House disagrees with Lords amendment 274B, arguing that the Government has already committed to consulting on barriers preventing community energy schemes and does not feel it necessary to put this commitment into primary legislation. Argues that setting a specific timeframe for bringing forward proposals is premature as the nature of barriers is yet unknown.
Intervenes to express urgency in removing barriers for community energy companies. Asks the Minister if he can provide an alternative timeframe.
Points out that the amendment does not require legislative reform but only requires bringing forward proposals, criticising the Minister's statement as misleading.
Orders Chris Skidmore that it is not misleading the House but possibly inadvertent.
Disagrees with the Minister's defence and argues for the importance of community energy in achieving low-carbon goals. Emphasises that there are substantial legislative and administrative obstacles to developing community energy, especially regarding trading output effectively.
Questions whether the amendment considers solutions for grid shortages or privileged access.
Supports Lords amendment 274B as it aligns with the findings of the net zero review, emphasising the importance of community energy groups. Highlights successful projects such as Ambition Lawrence Weston turbine in Bristol which will power 3,500 homes and generate an annual economic return of £140,000. Emphasises that community energy is an opportunity for both environmental benefits and economic growth.
Argues that the amendment is sensible and balanced, unlocking local enterprise and community wellbeing. Criticises the UK Government for its disdain towards community generation and climate action. Highlights Scotland’s success with the Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) which has delivered 600 projects since 2010 with £58 million funding. Points out that only a mere 0.5% of UK electricity is generated by community groups, emphasising potential for growth in small-scale renewable energy generation.
The amendment is not necessary as the UK government is committed to community energy through various funds, including a £10 million fund for community energy projects over two years. The Government aims to launch this fund as soon as possible and continues to support consultation with community energy groups.
Intervened briefly to point out that the Liberal Democrat position was contradictory, arguing they knew all the answers but still wanted a lengthy consultation process.
Government Response
Defends the Government's position, stating that they have already committed to consulting on barriers preventing community energy schemes through their existing processes. Argues against setting a specific timeframe for proposals due to uncertainty around identified barriers.