Olivia Blake
MP for Sheffield Hallam · Labour · United Kingdom
“Mr Evans applied for early release of his civil service pension on health grounds because of terminal illness in November 2025, but sadly passed away this May. His case is still not resolved, despite repeated urgent representations from my office. Capita has failed inexcusably.”
“In my constituency, the consequences of the system are painfully clear, as has been mentioned by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed).”
“Under this system, people who have bought homes find themselves paying escalating service charges, opaque administration fees and arbitrary costs imposed by freeholders.”
“At present, leaseholders of houses do not have this right, while leaseholders of flats do. If a freeholder decides to sell the freehold of a house, the leaseholder has no guaranteed opportunity to buy it. They may learn of the sale only once it has occurred, several months later.”
“I declare an interest as a leasehold homeowner, which is very common in Sheffield. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of her Committee, and of Lord Best, about a regulator.”
“A two-bedroom flat on that estate was advertised for sale with an annual service charge of £5,067, or £422 a month, which in Sheffield is a staggering amount of money, given our relatively low housing costs.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Olivia Blake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“The country has a continued history of breaching obligations under the refugee convention, and between 2020 and 2022 the UNHCR found that Afghan, Syrian and Yemeni asylum seekers had 100% rejection rate in Rwanda. Those are statistics that I am sure people would find shocking given our granting rate. It is common for discrimination and abuse to be faced by LGBTQ+ people in Rwanda. Same-sex marriage is prohibited, and LGBTQ+ people are not protected from discrimination by any specific legislation there. All this makes a mockery of clause 2 of the Bill. Ministers can continue to use ad hoc Bills such as this one to paper over the cracks in their asylum policy, but the truth is that the foundations of their approach are completely rotten.”
“It is no wonder that they are recklessly declaring Rwanda as safe, despite the known risks. As the shadow Minister pointed out, since the Government signed their deportation deal, six people from Rwanda have been granted asylum here in the UK. Torture persists there, along with continued risks of refoulement to third countries, which is the reason I support amendments 35 and 37. Human Rights Watch’s reports on Rwanda as part of its World Report series published in 2021, 2022 and 2023 all include examples of torture in Rwanda. In the UN Human Rights Council’s periodic review of Rwanda published in January 2021, it was the UK Government who criticised Rwanda for “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”.”
“That does not take away from the fact that it is not necessarily about the nation those people come from and that it is also about their individual circumstances. I have spoken a lot about the rights of LGBT people and disabled people seeking asylum and how we need to make sure that any system maintains that individual view of an individual going through our system. That is a lesson that should be learned from the Windrush review. At its core, the hostile environment is a policy designed to make life as uncomfortable as possible for everyone who comes here and to prevent anyone from accessing the support that international law says is rightfully theirs, and now the Government are proposing to outsource what little responsibility they have taken by offloading their obligations and offshoring refugees against their will.”
“I would hope that our system has the trust of its politicians and is robust enough to ensure that we are making the right decisions whenever possible, although I still believe that there should be an appeals process within that system. I cannot say that the system always gets it right, and that is certainly borne out by the casework that I have seen. It is more complicated than saying, “This action will reduce this and that action will increase that.” It is a very complicated system, and the most obvious thing to say about it is that in the past few years and months the second or third highest number of people arriving here in small boats has been people from Afghanistan. We are also seeing people fleeing from Syria and from all sorts of other complex and difficult situations at the moment.”
“I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, what lessons will be learned from previous and current projects on value for money? The National Audit Office was scathing about some of the decisions that had been taken on those projects. What more can be done to support manufacturing in this area right across the UK?”
“There is no good reason why children with SEND should not flourish, but that means rethinking how we approach behaviour in classrooms, training and supporting teachers to understand that all behaviour is a form of communication, not off-rolling young people because they do not fit into a certain box or just to cheat the figures. I will finish with the point that Ofsted should not be rating any school excellent if it does not have good-quality SEND provision.”
“If we take ADHD, we know that the referral rates are going up, and there are some shocking statistics of people waiting up to three years for a referral—the wait is up to a decade in some adult services. We need to cut down the waiting times for all forms of assessment and diagnosis. To do that will require looking at those backlogs as we would any other backlog and taking seriously the staffing shortages we are suffering. We should be promoting strength-based approaches to SEND. In the education system, we should be looking to create inclusive spaces where young people can truly be themselves.”
“We need more healthcare visitors, with visits on day one of a child’s life; we need more early years support for families and young people; and we need a professionalised early years workforce that knows how to identify the SEND needs of our children. Those problems are systemic. They are also about how services integrate. It is no good identifying needs if there is not enough capacity to give a timely referral. In March 2023 the waiting list for speech and language therapy had gone up by 42% since 2021, from 51,000 to 73,000—and no wonder. Last year, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found that almost one in four jobs were vacant across the UK.”
“A recent survey by the Fair Foundation found that people overestimated early years pay by 47%. People value this workforce, but their pay does not value them. Nearly three quarters of the survey participants thought that people working in early years should be paid more, and I agree. We need to invest in the workforce charged with looking after our children and properly value the work they do, as well as training and upskilling them where necessary. On all these points of early intervention—the crisis in the health visitor workforce, cuts to Sure Start and the undervaluing of early years staff, the lack of multi-sensory teaching workforce and speech and language therapists, and the difficulties accessing physio—we are moving in the wrong direction.”
“Only 6% were working within the recommended ratio of 250 children per visitor, and 28% —more than a quarter of the workforce—were servicing the needs of 750 children. That is a terrible statistic. The institute estimates a shortfall of 5,000 health visitors in England, and 48% say they will leave the profession in the next five years. We have also seen dramatic cuts in Sure Start services, with 1,416 centre closures since the onset of austerity in 2010. As an aside, the scale of those closures throws yesterday’s inadequate announcement of 75 new family hubs into stark relief. As has been said, early identification of SEND also requires having trained early years staff who know what they are looking for. To most people, that seems like common sense.”
“Behind those numbers are families and young people who are struggling. The measure of a policy is not a falling statistic or the amount of money it saves, but the extent to which it addresses the needs of young people trying to access the education that is their right. I strongly believe that our approach to the issue should start with treating SEND young people and their families with the dignity and respect that all people deserve. That should mean a supporting hand from day one, but we lack the infrastructure for that kind of early intervention. A survey last year by the Institute of Health Visiting found that only 37% of health visitors in England felt that they were delivering a good or outstanding service. That is too low.”
“Fixing the investment gap is critical to addressing the issue, but I want to make a plea that we cannot see this as simply a numbers problem. We have seen that approach recently from Ministers, for example with the revelations reported in The Observer last October of a target to cut EHCPs by 20% in a contract to develop the delivering better value programme. It is not just about the target; it is about the method of getting there, through early intervention and through making our education system more inclusive. However, we should also be clear about the reality that, although hard-fought and hard-won, in a heavily under-resourced system, an EHCP is a lifeline for young people and families in advocating for the provision they need. For many SEND families, the 20% target will be a source of alarm.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities—everyone is very welcome to get involved in that—and as one of the few openly neurodiverse MPs: I have dyspraxia, dyslexia and ADHD. Across the sector it is a truism that SEND provision in the UK is chronically underfunded. Others have already alluded to the f40 estimate of £4.6 billion. While additional funds delivered through the delivering better value programme and the additional £2.6 billion on capital funding are welcome, it is clear that they just do not meet the funds needed to stand still, let alone the additional demand for services, which is growing every year.”
“T2. I have received a host of emails from constituents, many with respiratory problems, who are rightly complaining about poor air quality. The smoke in the air was caused by heather burning on the moors, which resulted in a spike in poor air quality to levels that were four times the legal limit. Will the Government finally do the right thing and bring in an outright ban on these practices, which are affecting not only my constituents’ health, but the natural environment and the climate?”
“We must get the hate crime action plan back and ensure that we bring in a total ban on conversion therapy. It is incredibly important that this issue is taken as seriously as it can be. We should stamp out hate as much as we can.”
“Instead of taking steps to address the crisis, reduce hate and ensure that those who experience it can access all the support they need, our politics is focused on fuelling it: “Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences”. Those are not my words, but the words of the Home Office. Filling the public domain with toxic language that dehumanises LGBTQ people has real, life-threatening consequences, and it is telling that those in this place who often spread hate are not here to listen to those consequences. When the Prime Minister suggests to his Conservative conference that transgender identities are not valid, his words do not go into a void: they have repercussions. What must we do?”
“In the Government’s national LGBT survey, more than 91% of respondents said that the most serious incidents they had experienced in the preceding 12 months had not been reported. Those incidents included sexual assault and physical violence. That evidence is supported by Galop, which has said so much in the last year. It has seen a 65% increase in LGBT victims coming forward for its support. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, we have slipped down the charts in terms of being LGBTQ+ friendly, and that should shame us all.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate and for the words he put so well. In just over a month, on 20 November, we will mark Transgender Day of Remembrance. It is a moment for communities around the world to honour the memory of transgender people whose lives have been lost in acts of anti-transgender violence. In 2021, that was 375 people. We are facing a crisis. As we have heard today, LGBTQ+ hate crime is rising at a terrifying rate. The figures are startling, but what is worse is that they do not even represent the full picture.”
“Evacuation orders in the past week have included hospitals, but many vulnerable people are unable to move because of their disabilities or illness. What conversations has the Foreign Secretary had directly with UK aid agencies and non-governmental organisations about that situation? What more can the UK do to ensure that civilian populations, including medical and aid workers, are protected?”
“This is an embarrassment for the Government and shows that we are falling further and further behind in the race for green jobs internationally. We have the lowest growth in these industries among the eight biggest economies. Should the Government not be focusing much more on broadening and increasing the capacity of offshore wind, rather than not listening to industry and making fatal errors?”
“I am a biomedical scientist by background, and having read that review, what I find important is the way the researchers interrogated all the subsequent research that had been done, to ensure that there was no bias in any of the studies they included, and they excluded any studies that they felt were biased, using stringent statistical analysis. That makes the review all the more important to listen to.”
“I want to know what assurance the Secretary of State has received that the 600-odd schools awaiting inspections or that have been inspected is the upper limit of those at risk of RAAC. What assurances does she, and the Department for Education, have about the quality of the surveys being conducted?”
“I am really concerned that, to grapple with this issue, we need to ensure that all the school estate is looked at in the round so that issues such as asbestos do not get forgotten. While two schools benefited from the Government’s last round of funding, it was barely enough to cover the basic repairs. Many missed out on any funding at all. I have to question why the guidance to schools on this year’s funding round stated that not all RAAC is dangerous. I would like to ask the Secretary of State if she stands by that statement that not all RAAC is dangerous. Why was it not the aim to eradicate RAAC from schools, as stated by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care? Finally, I hope that schools will be reimbursed for the costs associated with RAAC litigation and setting up classrooms and temporary accommodation.”
“As Carla said in her statement to me, “this…could have been prevented and it was pure luck that no one died”. That happened when she was going to collect her children. It is exceedingly lucky that the three incidents this summer happened when no one was there to be hurt. According to data from the Government, from 2017 to 2019, 27 schools in Sheffield had at least one grade C “poor” construction type, and 14 were found to have at least one grade D construction type. I have visited schools and spoken to headteachers, all of whom report a similar story of decade-old buildings going unchecked, repairs to the basics being left undone, and of struggling to manage capital budgets that have been cut over the years to fix things such as boilers.”
“Parents should not have to worry about the safety of their children when they send them to school, and teachers should not be worried about their workplaces being at risk of collapse, but here we are. I am frankly not that surprised that the Secretary of State said it was “not the job” of the Department for Education to ensure that children are learning in safe school environments. At the start of the year, I raised the case of my constituent Carla, a parent who suffered a serious head injury after a 15-foot piece of board flew off the outside of her child’s school. She suffered significant injuries: she had a black eye and went on to have headaches—she needed to have an MRI scan—and minor scarring, and she still suffers from tinnitus. It could have been a lot worse—someone could have died as a result of that event.”
“What we need to understand is why, in this place, we have not taken the risk seriously enough when we have known since 2018 about the risk of sudden failure without any warning signs. Thankfully, I have been informed by the DFE that it is not aware of any confirmed cases of RAAC in my constituency, but Government actions have undermined my constituents’ confidence in the inspection process. One school, which we are in close communication with, had a second survey carried out this week by the local authority after there was confusion by the Department as to whether the first survey had taken place. RAAC was not identified in either survey. However, some parts of the survey could not be completed due to the possible presence of asbestos, leaving that school in limbo, not knowing if RAAC presents a problem underneath the asbestos.”
“Through the Public Accounts Committee, NAO reports and visits, I have been looking at RAAC and, just from having a glance online, it is easy to find multiple reports, including a report from February 2022 by the Institution of Structural Engineers that says that although visual surveys help to assess the condition of panels, “the nature of any warning signs of sudden failure at the bearings are not fully known…Not all defects are visible…panels which appear to be in a good condition may conceal hidden defects which could present a risk to the integrity of the panels…The corrosion of reinforcement could lead to large pieces of RAAC falling which presents a risk to occupants.” So I do not believe that there is new evidence; what I believe is that the risk has come to fruition.”
“I want to start by extending my thoughts to every student, parent, teacher and school staff member who is this week having their education disrupted, unable to do their job or having to work around the clock to find alternative teaching settings. My first question is: what new evidence has been presented? I do not believe that “evidence” is the right word to be using.”
“The treaty that has been outlined is holding us back and we need to be on the front foot with this. I hope that Ministers will reconsider whether or not we should be part of this treaty in the future.”
“They could and should have been central pillars of the Bill. They are about how we can transform our energy system and meet Labour’s ambitious plans to be a green energy superpower by 2030. However, the Government have removed many new clauses that were won in the Lords—for example, the one on banning new coalmines—and Ministers are refusing to support any such measures today. Instead, they waited until MPs went home over the summer to give the green light to hundreds of new North sea oil and gas licences, without proper scrutiny, in a damning indictment of this Government’s record on climate action. Those are not the only amendments that would help to raise the ambition in this Bill that the Government have removed. Finally, I wish to mention the importance of new clause 7.”
“New clauses 33 and 35 aim to correct the current position by making it a legal requirement for the Government to produce an energy demand reduction plan and providing local authorities with funding for the decarbonisation of homes. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for tabling those new clauses, and I urge the Government to support them. Finally, the Bill fails to decarbonise at speed and scale. Again, the latest CCC report could not be clearer: “Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero”. New clauses 2 and 29 would prohibit coalmines and new oil and gas respectively. New clause 30 would phase down UK petroleum, and new clause 59 would decarbonise electricity supply by 2030.”
“Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which would introduce a national energy guarantee. This idea needs to be considered, as we need to make sure that the burden of the transition does not fall on those who are least able to meet it. Secondly and shockingly, the Bill fails to deliver any energy efficiency measures. There is nothing about how we will achieve the targets that have been set. The latest CCC report is clear that the Government need to rapidly scale up and accelerate energy efficiency to stand any hope of meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets. Obviously, the greenest energy is energy that is not used, and the more we can do to reduce the need for energy in poor-quality housing the better.”
“Although I am pleased the Minister has listened to Members on both sides of the House on the hydrogen levy, there is still a lot more to do. The Bill could have been our opportunity to tackle these issues head on, transitioning away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels while making energy affordable for everyone. Sadly, in its current form, it fails on those fronts. First and foremost, the Bill will fail to make energy more affordable for my constituents. National Energy Action has warned that 6.3 million households could be trapped in fuel poverty this winter, and by 2024 some households will face spending up to a quarter of their income on energy bills. We need to overhaul our broken energy pricing system, not have more tinkering around the edges. I am proud to support new clause 36, tabled by my hon.”
“I declare an interest, as my husband is the company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield. I rise to speak in support of a number of amendments that would be vital additions to the Bill. It was a pleasure to sit on the Public Bill Committee to debate, at great length, many of the issues that have been raised today. I still feel the Bill is missing its intended purpose, as the Government put it, to “deliver a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system for the long term.” We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we are now seeing its effects. We are also facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades.”
“T9. The Secretary of State has signalled that his party will finally drop the nonsensical proposed hydrogen levy—another welcome Government U-turn. Will he confirm that it is, in fact, a U-turn? Will he outline exactly how the much-needed investment in green hydrogen technology will be paid for without already struggling households being made to foot the bill? [R]”
“Put simply, while we are still members of the ECT we will not be able to achieve the aims of the Bill and meet our net zero obligations without facing huge costs from the agreement. A co-ordinated withdrawal is the most effective way to protect taxpayers’ money, the planet and our future from this damaging treaty, and I urge the Minister to have a rethink. I will not push this probing new clause to a vote, but I hope that it will allow the Minister the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this very important issue. It is right that it is considered in this debate, but I accept that I probably will not get the support of Government Members in a vote.”
“Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said: “The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges.” That was stated in a press release on 24 June 2022. Back then, the Government wanted to put their trust in the reform proposals to fix the problem, but we have since seen country after country doing its own assessment and concluding that reform is not possible or has failed. If the UK does not step up and become part of the vanguard for exiting the ECT, it could be left behind in an obsolete and collapsing treaty, bearing all the risks while others move on.”
“Projects that have just been given new or extended licences, such as the Cambo oilfield, will be protected and all existing projects can still continue. Reform has ultimately been a failure, and exiting the treaty is now the only option. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia have all referred to the incompatibility of the ECT with the Paris climate agreement and climate goals, and the EU Council recently decided that it will not support reform. If countries exiting the ECT do so in co-ordination, as seems to be happening, they could agree between each other not to apply the 20-year sunset clause, as has been suggested by several countries that are leaving. In June, the Energy Minister at the time, the right hon.”
“Towards the end of 2022, there was a cascade of announcements from countries planning to exit the ECT. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Denmark all said that they are leaving, and Italy has already left. The European Parliament has voted for a co-ordinated withdrawal of all EU countries, and the European Commission is now recommending that as well, because reform of the treaty has not worked and will not work. Current proposals for modernising the treaty are weak and do not have the support of many countries. They will mean that existing fossil fuel projects will remain protected for at least 10 years, and that some gas projects will be protected until 2040.”
“It has been estimated that if the UK Government follow the International Energy Agency’s recommended pathway and cancel oil and gas projects that are in the pipeline, they could face claims of up to £9.4 billion from the ECT alone. Globally, there is a risk of up to $111.5 billion in claims, but that is clearly not the only risk. The most recent IPCC report warns that there is a risk of regulatory chill from investment agreements, and again it particularly highlights the ECT. The fear of being sued is causing Governments to delay or decide against taking the necessary action on climate. Last year, two countries acknowledged that that is already happening. Countries across Europe are seeing the risks for what they are and are already taking action.”
“For example, German energy giant RWE is suing the Netherlands for €1.4 billion over its coal phase-out. The UK oil company Rockhopper won a case this summer against Italy over a ban on offshore oil drilling. It won more than £210 million—more than six times what it had spent on the project. UK fracking firm Ascent Resources launched legal action against Slovenia over requirements for an environmental impact assessment, which is quite a benign ask of any project. It has also launched legal action over Slovenia’s subsequent ban on fracking, introduced by its Parliament, and that case is still pending. The energy charter treaty poses a huge threat to climate action. As states take the necessary steps to phase out or phase down fossil fuels, more and more fossil fuel giants will turn to such mechanisms to sue Governments.”
“The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty allows foreign companies to sue Governments outside the national legal system in somewhat secretive tribunals. The amounts at stake can be in the billions, and the ECT has already generated at least 135 claims, making it the world’s most litigated ISDS agreement. In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, UN climate scientists warned of the risk that ISDS agreements are “able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”. The report even name-checked the energy charter treaty, yet the UK continues to be party to it. The treat is not just a potential risk. There have already been several high-profile cases of fossil fuel companies suing Governments through the treaty.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. It is the first time, I think, that we have been in the room together for this Bill. New clause 86 requests that the UK Government commence withdrawal from the outdated investment provisions of the energy charter treaty, which risk undermining our Climate Change Act 2008 targets, internationally agreed emissions reductions and duties in this Bill in respect of the impact of energy production on habitats, species and the climate. As many Committee members are aware, the energy charter treaty is an investment agreement between 50 countries for the energy sector.”
“(4) The assessment must set out— (a) the total amount of financial support provided by the policies in the report; (b) the number and capacity of low carbon community energy schemes — (i) completed, and (ii) in development; (c) the number and capacity of new shared ownership schemes; (d) any changes the Secretary of State proposes to make to the policies, programmes and other initiatives included in the original report.”— (Olivia Blake.) This new clause is intended to replace clauses 272 and 273, if those clauses are removed as indicated by Government Amendments 15 and 16. It would require the Government to report annually for 5 years on the support it is providing to Community Energy schemes and the number and capacity of such schemes that are delivered. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(3) Not less than twelve months after the publication of the report, and not later than the end of each subsequent period of twelve months, ending five years after the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish an assessment of the progress made by the policies, programmes and other initiatives set out in the report.”
“(2) The report must set out— (a) all policies, programmes or other initiatives with which the Secretary of State plans to support the development and construction of new low carbon community energy schemes; (b) the level of financial support which will be made available for— (i) the Rural Community Energy Fund, (ii) the Urban Renewable Energy Fund, and (iii) any other fund or support package designed to support the development of new low carbon community energy schemes; (c) all policies, programmes or other initiatives the Secretary of State intends will increase community ownership of local low carbon energy schemes through shared ownership schemes; (d) the steps the Secretary of State is taking to develop new market rules to make it easier for low carbon community energy schemes to sell the energy they generate; (e) the number and the capacity of the new community energy schemes the Secretary of State expects to be constructed as a result of the measures set out in the report.”
“New Clause 87 Government support for community energy “(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the financial, policy and other support that the Secretary of State plans to make available to widen the ownership of low carbon and renewable energy schemes and increase the number of such schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised that I am not satisfied with it, but I will not press the new clause to a vote. There are many risks in this area. Other countries have already taken the lead, and we are being left behind, which exposes us to a higher level of risk. I hope that the Minister will not only continue to consider the modernisation of the ECT but consider withdrawing from it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The new clause leaves scope for other initiatives to be included in the report, whether new funds, new policies or a new approach to allowing community groups to buy into and benefit from larger commercial schemes in their area. It would require assessments of progress and updates to be done annually for five years after the report is published, to check that we are on track. As I say, we should be doing so much more with the Bill in this space, but I would love to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause and to the idea that the Government should, at the very least, restart the support schemes that they have let lapse and report on progress until REMA is completed.”
“Were we to have a Labour Government, there would be something much more robust in the Bill on this policy area, like clauses 272 and 273, which the Opposition defended last week but the Government were successful in stripping from the Bill. The new clause asks the Minister to report on how he will refinance and restart the urban and rural community energy funds, which closed when the initial money allocated was used up. In its former shape, his Department supported those schemes at the time, so there is no reason why, if the Minister wants to see more community energy, he could not relaunch them now, or look into doing so.”