Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Caroline Lucas (Green Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 14 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Energy Bill (HL).


Energy Bill [Lords]

I did not see that piece in The Daily Telegraph, but I would query some of the assumptions on which such a calculation was based in relation to the levels that fuel bills might reach—because fossil fuels are getting so expensive—without some measure of investment in alternative fuels. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, that it would be better not to put more and more obligations that have to be paid for on to people's fuel bills. That is a regressive thing to do, and any such measures should be funded either through direct taxation or through mechanisms such as the emissions trading scheme's revenues. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted its concerns about the dual direction of the ECO funds. It states clearly that they should be used to prioritise solid-wall insulation in the 1.9 million fuel-poor households that live in solid-wall properties. We should combine the two functions of the ECO: yes, it should be used for low-income and vulnerable families, but it should also be used for low-income and vulnerable families in hard-to-heat homes.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c1111-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Consumers Decommissioning Conservation Climate change Apprentices Billing Finance Environment protection Energy Fuel poverty Housing improvement Insulation Interest rates Landlord and tenant Local government Low incomes Protection Ministerial responsibility Payments Nuclear power stations Ministers Prices Private rented housing Subsidies Green Investment Bank Green deal scheme Energy company obligation Social tariffs
Legislation
Energy Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk