(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fuel poverty in England.
I am looking forward to speaking in this debate under your chairpersonship, Mr Efford. I am sure you will be fair but firm—fair with us and firm with the other side. We meet today to debate what I regard as a very serious issue. It is good to see so many people present, all well-brushed, shaved, toothbrushed and all the other things one does in the morning. I hope we all had a good breakfast. It is great to see everyone here.
This is a serious debate about a serious underlying problem, which affects millions of people, as we will hear. We meet today with the temperature forecast, at least in my patch in Yorkshire—God’s own country, as we call it—to reach minus 1° at the weekend, which will cause great problems for those people who are living in fuel poverty.
I want to share one thing with the House from my personal experience. I grew up in a property that was later condemned as a slum and demolished. I remember my brother and I living in that unheated house—there was no heating at all apart from one coal fire. In winter, it was perishing, and it has left me with an enduring feeling that people living in the conditions that I saw should be better supported by a society that claims to be the sixth wealthiest in the world. With that background, I want to speak briefly about fuel poverty in England.
Let me say another preparatory thing. The incoming Government—although they have now been in place for some time—faced the most difficult inheritance for dealing with fuel poverty, given all the other fiscal problems that we have heard much about. Last week’s announcement that they will address some fuel poverty issues was welcome, but I have one question about their proposals for private landlords.
Many tenants of private landlords live in fuel poverty, because the properties that are being rented are not properly thermally insulated. The Government have now said that private landlords must bring their properties up to standard, but the fear in some people’s minds is that the landlords will simply use that as an excuse to bump up rents further, because they have had to pay to make properties more efficient. But they chose to rent out properties knowing that they were not properly efficient. I understand when tenants say to me and others that that is not right.
When the Government made their decision on the winter fuel allowance, I received about 1,000 emails, and in many cases they were heartbreaking. It is not often the case that the voices of ordinary folk get heard in this place, so I want to refer briefly to three or four of those comments. I received an email from someone who has something called post-polio syndrome—they had polio as a child. A person with that syndrome finds it difficult to keep warm. I spoke to them and we said, “Look, it’s possible to go into one of the local community or church halls”—which every single village in my constituency now has—“in order to keep warm,” but the response was, “That’s fine, but I’ve got to keep the house warm in any event, because when I go back into a cold home, I have this problem with the syndrome.”
I had another communication from someone with asthma. He has managed to keep it under control for most of the years, but he caught the bug. It took him more than a month to shake it off, and he was struggling with his asthma. He could not get warm at all, in spite of wrapping himself in blankets. He tells me that the house he lives in has a roof that is more than 70 years old. He keeps on getting it patched up with the help of his family, because he has no money; he cannot afford a new one, and he cannot get help from anybody. The insurance company says that it is wear and tear, so it will not help to pay for the roof. All the heating he puts on is escaping straight into the atmosphere.
I also had a letter from a lady in Normanton. Her total income is £221 a week—she is a pensioner—and she pays £171 a week just for her mortgage and council tax, so she is left with only £50 a week to pay for heating, food and all the other necessities of life. How is that woman meant to survive in those circumstances?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Kim Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. Does he agree that it is shocking that nearly 80% of Liverpool Riverside residents have to spend nearly 10% of their disposable income on keeping their homes warm, and that more targeted support is needed to enable local authorities to support those most in need in our constituencies?
Jon Trickett
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and of course, what she is saying is correct. The lady who I was just talking about told me that living on £50 a week is practically impossible. I imagine that there are some people in this Chamber, modest as we all are, who spend more than £50 on a meal. Think about that woman in Normanton left with only that amount of money to live on. Her final comment was poignant. She speaks for the 1,000 people who wrote to me when she says:
“For many, retirement now means misery and trying to make ends meet. In the near future no doubt, I will have a choice like many before me—heat or eat. And I’ll just be another statistic. That is something no one would look forward to,”
having worked all their life. She speaks for millions of people.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett
I will, but briefly. There are a lot of people who want to speak.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing those heartbreaking stories. A constituent of mine from Ilton wrote to me recently. She suffers with rheumatoid arthritis and needs a warm environment to keep warm, but because she is on personal independence payment, she is not eligible to claim the winter fuel allowance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must urgently reassess their exemptions for the winter fuel allowance, to ensure that those who are in medical need receive the financial support that they require?
Jon Trickett
The hon. Lady has made her point. The House probably knows my views on the winter fuel allowance, but I had better move on before I get myself into trouble.
One in four households in Fitzwilliam and Kinsley in my constituency, where miners once provided the heat for our country, are now living in fuel poverty as a result of changes over the past few years. There are two definitions of fuel poverty. The first is the Government’s rule, which was changed under the Tory Government in 2015. Under that definition, an estimated 3 million households in England alone are in fuel poverty, but it requires both that the household is in poverty and that the house is inadequately insulated.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett
I am not going to take any more interventions, because so many people want to speak.
So many people with houses that are thermally insulated, but who still remain in poverty, are excluded from that 3 million figure. A more accurate figure is one that only looks at whether a household is living in fuel poverty, and under that definition 8.9 million households in England alone are living in fuel poverty. If we say that there are two people in each household, we are talking about 17 million or 18 million people waking up in the morning in an unheated house, like I did living in the attic with my brother, with ice on the inside of the windows. That is unbearable to think about in one of the richest countries in the world.
Ill health is a direct consequence of inadequately heated houses. Whichever figure is used, between 10% and 20% of all excess winter deaths in England are caused by unheated or cold houses. That is a disgrace. One in four children living in a cold home suffer mental health problems, which does not surprise me when they are living in such conditions.
Let me turn quickly to the causes, which we could debate for a long time. It seems to me that there are two separate issues. One is the prices that energy companies charge, which are, frankly, driven by profits and greed, and the other is poor insultation. I will leave it to others to speak about the impact of uninsulated houses on the climate because I do not have time to say everything. On prices, it is a scandal that between 2022 and 2023 the price of energy increased by 27%, leaving almost a quarter of a million more households in fuel poverty.
The other day, when the Bank of England decided to cut interest rates by 0.25 percentage points, it commented that it expects inflation to increase because of rising energy prices. That is a disastrous position for so many people in our country, which will drive more into fuel poverty. I will quote Warm This Winter, the campaign group that represents 60 different charities. Its authoritative view on energy suppliers is that there is
“clearly an obscene level of profits being made”.
The whole energy industry needs to be looked at, from extraction through to providers. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition said:
“While consumers have suffered in cold damp homes this winter, energy firms’ boardrooms have been celebrating further bumper profits.”
I do not see how that is acceptable in a society that claims to be one of the richest in the world, but there we are.
Let me turn to the building stock itself. I am a builder by trade; I was a heating engineer and plumber and worked in the building industry. It is shocking, when there are still people with building skills out of work, that the building stock of our country is so poorly thermally insulated. Just over 40% of all residences—houses and flats—in Britain do not meet the Government’s minimum standards. The implications for the planet are clear, and others might want to talk about that.
The Government inherited a number of programmes trying to tackle fuel poverty. The previous Government had moved to providing smart meters. They are useful for consumers to see and control the amount of energy they are consuming, but they do not help to keep the house warm. That initiative by the Conservative Government distracted people from the real problem of low incomes and high energy costs, driven by profit-seeking.
There were three programmes in place. The energy company obligation required energy companies to begin to tackle the problem. That started well in 2020 with 113,000 houses, but by last year that number had gone down to 38,000. It collapsed when the energy companies, which were taking all that money from tenants and residents, failed to deliver. The second programme, the warm home discount, applies to only 11% of the population in England. Only 15% of all the houses that need attention have been fully insulated.
That is where we are today. I think it is a scandal. It is wrong morally, economically, financially—in any way we can imagine—that people who have worked all their lives and are now pensioners, who had a reasonable prospect of living a satisfactory life, are living in homes that are poorly heated. Children are living in poorly heated homes in which at least one adult is working on low pay—another problem is that bosses are increasingly paying low pay. Those houses ought not to be left in that condition. I hope the Minister will give us some confidence that we are going somewhere. It takes time for the Government to change direction, but we need to move fast.
Finally, let me pose three questions to the Minister, who I am pleased to see in her place. First, where are the Government going on fuel poverty—is it a high priority for them? Secondly, what is she going to do about the energy company obligation, which is failing? Finally, we often discuss the idea that the energy companies should have a social tariff for the lowest paid and those in the most difficulty. The country has decided that there should be a social tariff just for the internet—people living in difficult situations pay less for the internet—so it is extraordinary that we do not have one for energy production. I believe that there is a consultation on a social tariff ongoing, so will the Minister tell the House exactly where we are going on that?
There is much more to say, but quite a number of Members want to speak, so I will draw my comments to a conclusion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if you want to speak; you will only get called if you are standing. That allows us to plan ahead and make sure we get everyone in. Because there are so many of you who want to speak, we will have an informal time limit of five minutes.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important and timely debate. I thank all the constituents who have written to me, not just in the run-up to this debate but over months and months, to share their concerns about fuel poverty, and in particular the winter fuel payment, which I will discuss later.
This is an incredibly important issue in my North Herefordshire constituency, where 22.9% of households live in fuel poverty, according to the latest data from the Government’s low-income, low energy efficiency measure. That is far higher than the national average of 14.4%. As the measure indicates, fuel poverty is due to both low income and the lack of energy efficiency in the property—and, indeed, high fuel prices, as the hon. Member said. The number of detached houses in my constituency is nearly double the national average, and a far lower proportion of houses are on the mains energy supply. All those factors make fuel poverty a particular issue in a rural constituency like North Herefordshire. We also have a far higher proportion of over-65s— 50% more than the national average. All those contributory factors mean that fuel poverty is an incredibly real and presenting issue in my constituency.
In the emails constituents have sent me in recent days, weeks and months, they have talked about living with only one radiator on, and the fact that the lack of winter fuel allowance means they can no longer buy any coal in the winter—coal is the only source of heating for some of my constituents.
Freddie van Mierlo
Like the hon. Lady, I represent a rural constituency in which the number of residents who use heating oil and gas is more than double the national average. Will she comment on how we can transition those residents to more sustainable and cheaper sources of fuel?
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member, and I do plan to comment on that topic.
A lady wrote to me saying that she now lives wrapped in blankets. Constituents have shared with me their particular needs relating to their health conditions and just how damaging it is not to be able to afford to keep warm.
The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth talked about the outrageous profits made by the energy companies, and I share his extreme frustration and distress at that situation. The Government could go even further to ensure that we do not see what is essentially price gouging. Constituents struggling in fuel poverty are the ones who are basically bearing the costs, and at the same time the big energy companies are making profits in the billions each year. It is absolutely extraordinary.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Far be it from me to intrude on the grief of elected Members in England and their constituents, but this is Westminster, which is currently responsible for energy laws across the UK. Although devolved Governments have a role to play in reducing fuel poverty, the biggest levers of change, as the hon. Member would surely agree, are in the remit of the UK Government. I am thinking of the coupling of electricity prices—when electricity is increasingly generated here, on this island—with the global gas market; the nonsensical decision to cut the winter fuel payment; and the ongoing failure of the Government to reduce fuel bills, which are going up for the third time since July.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and agree that we must see the decoupling of electricity prices from gas. That situation currently contributes to the problems that people face.
We have established that the problem of fuel poverty is related in part to prices, which the Government have levers to control, but also to Government policies. I would like to talk in particular about three areas: targeted support to households in fuel poverty; insulation policies and how we deal with the housing stock that we already have; and how we ensure that future housing is future-proofed so that nobody who moves into a new house has to pay through the nose for energy.
On targeted support, I have criticised in the House a number of times the Government’s nonsensical decision to completely cancel the winter fuel allowance for all except a small number of people. Very large numbers of people in my constituency have written to me and still do, expressing great distress at the impact of that decision on them. I cannot urge the Government too strongly to reconsider and ensure that next winter we do not have thousands of people in my constituency, and millions of people throughout the country, facing increased fuel poverty because of the Government’s decision to stop the winter fuel allowance for so many who still need it. We also need there to be targeted support—I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth about a social tariff—and help to repay for those in energy debt.
On the fundamental structural question of the quality of housing, the problem is essentially that our homes leak heat. People are paying money for energy that is going out the windows, up the chimney and out of the roof. It is a total waste. What will the Government do to tackle this? The previous Government destroyed the energy efficiency programmes. We need a nationwide, house-by-house, street-by-street home insulation programme to ensure that the energy that people buy stays in their homes. I really hope that the Minister will make concrete commitments to go further and faster to insulate homes.
Lastly, new homes must be built to the highest possible energy efficiency standards. If the cheapest time to insulate a home is at the point of construction, why are we not ensuring that all new homes are built to zero-carbon standards, to ensure that all the heat in a home stays in it?
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. All of us, from all parties, would agree that this topic matters enormously to our constituents.
In my Mansfield constituency, one in six households live in fuel poverty. That is almost 10,000 households, which is higher than the average for the east midlands and considerably higher than the national average. Although energy costs have fallen from the extraordinary highs that we saw in 2022, the price cap remains very high for my constituents. Families with children in my constituency are more than twice as likely to be in fuel stress compared with pensioner households, and lone-parent households are three times as likely to be. The Government must recognise that.
I am pleased that the new Government are currently reviewing the fuel poverty strategy for England to help everyone, whether they are pensioners, families or people living alone, to keep warm. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to help to reduce bills in the longer term, including through their warm homes plan, which will provide funding to enable property owners, including social landlords, to transition their housing stock to become decarbonised and more energy efficient.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Mansfield district council on all its work to retrofit existing properties. I hear from my constituents that that has made a huge difference to their fuel bills. I also congratulate the Labour-controlled Mansfield district council on building more eco-friendly, affordable family council homes in my constituency, such as those on the Bellamy Road development that I visited last week.
In the long term, Great British Energy will invest in clean power projects all across the country. Clean power is the cheapest form of electricity generation and will help our country to become energy independent and not as susceptible to huge swings in international energy prices. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth that in the medium term we should encourage energy suppliers to re-establish social tariffs. I say to the Minister that it is really important to have that in place for next winter. It would help everyone in my constituency who is experiencing fuel stress to access cheaper energy, and it would have a tangible impact for my constituents.
In the short term, I want to make the case for a substantial expansion of the cold weather payment scheme as an efficient way to address the current reality of energy cost pressures in Mansfield. It would offer a way for the Government to provide pensioners with further payments in the event of a serious chill, while at the same time offering something to families who are not often part of this conversation. Expanding the eligibility for households in receipt of a means-tested benefit, state pension, child benefit or disability benefits would help the poorest families and non-pensioner households to receive support. This would provide vital economic security for families in my constituency.
I know that the Government want to do more—I am sure of that. I look forward to hearing their response to the review in due course and hope that Ministers can implement it ahead of next winter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I have to impose a limit of four minutes if I am going to get everybody in by half past.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. All of us have heard heart-wrenching stories from our constituencies of families struggling to heat their homes. Vulnerable pensioners are worried about staying warm in what has been a cold and damp winter. Nearly 5,000 households in my constituency, or 11.3%, are classified as being fuel-poor or in fuel poverty. They struggle to keep their homes warm, spend a high proportion of their household income on heating their homes, or live in energy-inefficient homes that make keeping warm incredibly difficult, with the choice of keeping warm or putting food on the table a real one.
It is worth noting that just 1,372 pensioners in my constituency—6% of the total number—are on pension credit. That raises further questions about those who did not apply for pension credit, even though they may deserve it, or who fall just outside the limit but are actually in fuel poverty. In a first-world, highly developed country, that is unacceptable; it is unacceptable that people in one of the richest nations of the world struggle to keep their homes warm in winter. Fuel poverty has impacts outside of energy policy: it affects people’s physical and mental health, and it adds demands to the NHS’s winter crisis.
We must tackle fuel poverty by looking for both long-term and immediate solutions. In the long term, we must retrofit houses to make them more energy-efficient, insulating homes and installing heat pumps. Immediately, however, we must provide vulnerable households such as those in Melksham and Devizes with more support to pay unaffordable energy bills, and we must restore the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this timely and important debate.
According to National Energy Action, one in 10 households in my constituency live in fuel poverty, with the worst affected likely to be low-income households, the unemployed and, of course, pensioners. There is no doubt that fuel poverty is inextricably linked to financial poverty. For example, 1.8 million carers struggle with their fuel bills, and the same people often have to use food banks or to cut back on food in order to pay for their gas and electricity. Many of those carers are themselves older; as we know, it is essential to keep warmer for longer when we get older, as we become less active and more sedentary and our blood circulation becomes poorer.
That is why the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance was wrong and needs to be reversed. Department for Work and Pensions figures show that 880,000 older people were eligible for pension credit but did not claim it. Since the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment, around 47,000 pensioners have come forward to make a claim, but that leaves over 800,000 older people without a winter fuel payment they previously would have received. Let us be under no illusions: these are among the very poorest pensioners in our society.
There is considerable evidence that when a benefit such as the winter fuel payment is specifically named for a purpose, recipients are more likely to use it for that reason—they put it aside to pay the next bill that comes in. It comes in the winter, because that is when the largest bills arrive; however, for this group of pensioners, the bill came but the winter fuel payment never showed up. Universal payments also reach the people who need them most; it is more efficient to make payments to everyone and then to use the taxation system to redistribute from wealthier pensioners who might not need the payment.
According to the Carers Trust, at least 180,000 unpaid carers over 65 will have been negatively impacted by the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. That group is also shut out of much of the other support available from Government. For example, eligibility for carer’s allowance does not qualify people for the warm home discount, which is based on a property’s type, age and floor area, not on someone’s actual bill. Likewise, an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance does not qualify individuals for cold weather payments.
The drive for a clean energy transition is an opportunity to tackle the problem by lowering bills and insulating our homes, but the energy market, with the role of private companies, is broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth mentioned the obscene levels of profit being made, and they need to be addressed. As a minimum first step, we need to introduce social tariffs for low-income households to guarantee lower bills for those who need them. We also need to consider making assistance with fuel bills available as a form of social prescribing. Health professionals who consider that it would have a recognisable health benefit could then enable patients to get cheaper fuel. Finally, we need to reverse the cruel decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. In one go, we reduced support for 10 million pensioners. That needs to end.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. As one of the sole surviving Conservatives representing a West Yorkshire seat, I agree with him that Yorkshire is very much God’s own county. This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank many of the constituents who have kindly contacted me about fuel poverty.
There are specific challenges in the northern towns I represent. Not least, the housing stock is old, and most of it remains poorly insulated. There are also the increasing fuel prices that all households are experiencing. In the rural parts of my constituency, most of the houses are off-grid and therefore experience higher energy prices. In Keighley, 17.6% of residents are in fuel poverty, and many are pensioners who have been drastically impacted by this Labour Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel allowance. Across the Bradford district, 64,000 pensioners are being impacted right now, over this winter period, as a result of Labour’s choice—and it is a choice—to remove that allowance.
That is not the only challenge that people in the Bradford district face. The council requested a 15% increase in council tax, although the Deputy Prime Minister signed off a 10% increase. So, this financial year, all my constituents will have to pay an extra 10% on top of everything else. Labour Members may say that that is because of 14 years of Conservative Government, but only in 2021 the council declared that it was in sound financial health. It has also chosen to waste up to £50 million of taxpayers’ money on a music venue in the centre of Bradford, Bradford Live, which is not even open yet. That money could be spent on better supporting those in fuel poverty across the Bradford district.
I am not the only one calling the Government out: many people in Keighley are doing the same, including the co-ordinator of a social supermarket, the Good Food Shop, who says that the 10% increase in council tax could push more of those coming to his shop—families and individuals who are already struggling—well below the breadline and lead to a huge surge in demand for its services. People in Keighley are indicating that the council and the Government—both of which are controlled by the Labour party—should be helping those who are struggling, not wasting council tax money on city-based projects in the centre of Bradford that do not benefit my constituents in Keighley.
The Salvation Army in Keighley is saying exactly the same thing. Major Imogen Stewart has also raised concerns about those in fuel poverty, linking that to the 10% increase in council tax. She said:
“People are afraid to turn on their heating”,
due to the increased costs they face. Those costs are also due to the winter fuel allowance being removed, which has directly impacted those in fuel poverty. The Salvation Army indicates that people are now coming to it not to use its food bank but to ask for blankets, sleeping bags and clothes to keep them warm. It is experiencing increasing referrals, and it fears that that will only get worse as time goes on.
Labour Members were elected on a promise not to introduce tax rises for working people and to put their party back in the service of working people, but my constituents are not seeing that; they are seeing the exact opposite. It is about time that the Government change tack and put working people at the heart of their policies going forward.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate on a pressing issue that has plagued our society for too long. It is a travesty that, in a nation as prosperous as ours, more than 3 million households are struggling to keep their homes warm and their lights on. If my hon. Friend is correct, that number is perhaps 8.9 million; however, it is at least 13.1% of households, and in parts of Northwich in my constituency, it can go as high as 20%. Those statistics not only show the scale of the problem, but highlight a reality that affects the health, wellbeing and dignity of too many people throughout our communities.
This crisis did not emerge overnight: over the last decade and a half, the action—or inaction—of the previous Government not only failed to address fuel poverty but made things worse. Nowhere is that failure more evident than in the Conservative’s disastrous record on home insulation and energy efficiency. In 2013, David Cameron's Government infamously decided to “cut the green crap”, leading to insulation rates falling off a cliff edge and never sufficiently recovering. That reckless decision has cost UK households an estimated £2.5 billion in higher energy bills since.
When that Government eventually acknowledged the crisis and promised to upgrade millions of homes, their attempts at intervention were nothing short of chaotic. The green homes grant scheme, launched with great fanfare in 2020, promised homeowners £1.5 billion in vouchers for insulation and energy-saving improvements. Yet, within months, the scheme collapsed in total failure—scrapped after just six months, having delivered insulation upgrades to just 10% of the homes it was supposed to help. Contractors were not paid, homeowners were left stranded and the Government wasted millions. Meanwhile, Britain’s housing stock remains among the least energy-efficient in Europe, with millions of homes leaking heat because of inadequate insulation. The impact of these failings has been stark, with higher energy bills, colder homes and increased fuel poverty.
It has been great to see this Government committed to reversing that damage and to bringing energy bills down sustainably for the long term by improving the energy efficiency of our homes through the warm homes plan. This will not only help to tackle fuel poverty, but reduce carbon emissions, create green jobs and help us to meet our climate targets. I recognise that a significant part of the scheme will be delivered by social landlords, which will avoid many of the issues encountered with the previous Government’s programme. However, the boiler upgrade scheme operates on a voucher basis, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what the Department has learned from the previous Government’s rushed implementation of the green homes grant, and how those issues will be avoided in our plan.
The contrast could not be clearer: while the Conservatives spent years failing to deliver on their promises, we are getting on with things. We are determined to ensure that no family is forced to live in a freezing home. Through our investment, regulation, and commitment to a fairer, greener future, we can tackle fuel poverty. We can bring down bills and deliver energy security for the long term.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for leading the debate. Fuel poverty is huge and has no doubt been emphasised further through the loss of the winter fuel payment for elderly people. I commend the hon. Gentleman for Normanton and Hemsworth; I admire courage, and I admire his, because he had the guts—I could use another word, but it would not be parliamentary—to stand up and vote against that decision by his Government. Well done! We admire him for his courage and for the stand he took.
I wish to give a quick Northern Ireland perspective to back up the hon. Gentleman and the stand that he and others in the Chamber have taken. The Department for Communities back home defines a household as being in fuel poverty if it spends 10% of its income on energy costs. We are talking about a substantial section of the population. Others have outlined clearly that fuel poverty rates have fluctuated, and that is the case in Northern Ireland too, with rates of 44% in 2009 and 24% in 2021.
Yesterday, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak in the energy debate led by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which highlighted the correlation between the cost of energy and fuel poverty, and this debate is an opportunity to highlight that issue again. The increase in prices has meant that many are on the breadline, and that is not to mention the devastating impact that the loss of the winter fuel payment has had on our elderly generations. I have never had as many elderly people, pensioners, vulnerable people and people with complex health needs battling—I use that word on purpose, because it is the right word—the loss of the winter fuel allowance. I say this with respect to my colleagues on the Government Benches, but not supporting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners was wrong.
I wish the Minister well in her job, which she does to the best of her ability, and we welcome that. Has she had an opportunity to speak to the Department for Communities back home, which has responsibility for this issue? In his intervention, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said that this theme starts here at Westminster, but has she had an opportunity to discuss it with the relevant Minister? Back home, we have just—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. This is about fuel poverty in England and you are starting to talk about back home and your constituency. There are English MPs who want to get in on this debate, and we are running out of time, so draw your comments to a conclusion.
Jim Shannon
I will certainly do the best I can, Mr Efford.
The issue, no matter what, starts in Westminster—it is a fuel poverty debate on England that affects everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and decisions are made, right here, in this House. With that in mind, I ask the Minister again, will she speak to the relevant Minister on how we can do better?
Seamus Logan
Would the hon. Member agree that reforming energy standing charges would be an easy way to cut costs for consumers, especially those living in rural areas such as in my constituency? It seems absurd that daily standing charges can vary so wildly. Would he agree that they are often higher in areas with huge energy infrastructure, such as my constituency?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. One of things we can do here on the mainland is look at the issue of poor insulation and heating systems that need updating. I know the Minister will look at that and ultimately decrease the amount of energy a particular household has to use, but those are some of the things that we can do to help our constituents. Fuel poverty is still a massive issue across the board and there are few signs of it mellowing. We must do more to support our constituents around energy prices and fuel poverty, especially given that there is a huge section of the population struggling with energy bills.
I genuinely and kindly look to the Minister for direction and support, because I am an MP from Strangford in Northern Ireland, representing my people in this Chamber on an issue that affects us all across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Know something? I want answers as well.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber.
Fuel poverty did not start on 4 July 2024, for heaven’s sake. I am not going to take any lectures from anybody who suggests that it did, because let me tell hon. Members that under the last 14 years of Tory Government, tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of ordinary people died as a result of fuel poverty. That is the real issue. The Labour Government are now gladly and positively elected, and we look forward to seeing some changes very soon.
What actually is fuel poverty? There are two definitions: the new one from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the pre-2015 definition. They are greatly different. The preferred definition of fuel poverty used by the Government until 2015 and still by some parts of the UK, is a household that is
“required to spend more than 10% of its income”
to keep sufficiently warm. That definition has advantages; it links directly to the cost of energy prices and can still give credit to energy-efficient homes. If a low-income household in a very modern energy efficient dwelling still finds that it spends 10% of its income on energy, it is a clear reflection of the impact of energy price inflation. That is very important.
We cannot get rid of poverty in this country by rewriting a policy. It cannot be done—whether it is fuel, food, child or pensioner poverty. We cannot get rid of poverty just by rewriting policies; work has to be done on the ground. It is always the less well-off who suffer from fuel poverty and all other types of poverty. In my Blyth and Ashington constituency, according to the House of Commons Library there are 5,211 households in fuel poverty, but that increases to 14,500 using the pre-2015 definition. There is more fuel poverty in the east of my constituency in Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Blyth itself. That is something the Government should be looking at as a matter of urgency.
Who suffers because of fuel and energy prices? The less well-off, and people in fuel poverty using prepayment electric meters. Of those in fuel poverty, 63% are on some kind of benefit, and there are around 2.5 million pensioners suffering as a consequence of fuel poverty. We have got to keep people warm. There are lots of things the Government can do. Fuel poverty simply means that people are not warm, but we live in the UK, one of the richest nations in the world. Why on earth are we not ensuring that everyone has a safe and warm home to live in?
It is called decency. It is called respect. It is necessary and extremely important that the Government address this. I urge the Minister to consider the points that have been raised this morning about what the Government can actually do.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate. We meet at a time when there is a scourge of fuel poverty across our country. Nearly 20% of households in Leeds East live in fuel poverty. Over 400,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber live in fuel poverty. To say that the fuel poverty strategy needs reviewing is an understatement. It is necessary that the Government review it, and we need real action.
Before I get on to the winter fuel payment, we have been reminded that we live in the sixth-richest economy on earth. Let us look at the eye-watering, obscene, unjustified and immoral profits made by some of our energy companies. In total, since 2020 energy companies have made £483 billion in profits: Shell made £88 billion in the last four years; BP made £46 billion of profits; E.ON made £33 billion of profits; EDF made £75 billion of profits; and Equinor made £134 billion of profits. The winter fuel payment cuts that I and others voted against were estimated to save the Government £1.4 billion. That is before the increased take-up of pensioner credit and the increased cost to the NHS from people getting cold and needing extra medical treatment. That is the reality we face, but the money is there.
I say that a number of us voted against the winter fuel payment cuts after listening to the voices of our constituents. I do hope that the Government can reconsider the cuts. There was not just concern from those who voted against it; the concern went far wider. I was only 17 years old when Gordon Brown introduced the winter fuel payment. It was one of the key achievements of the last Labour Government. I would argue that the winter fuel payment is a key part of our welfare state. I think the decision should be revised and reversed as soon as possible—certainly before next winter. We can call it something else if we like, if that makes it easier. We do not have to call it the winter fuel payment. We could relabel it as something else and reintroduce it.
On the wider points of the debate, I mentioned the obscene, eye-watering profits from these energy companies. They are the same energy companies, by the way, that have pushed our bills up and pushed us towards climate catastrophe.
We can look at the important issue of retrofitting, which has already been mentioned by colleagues. Of course retrofitting is vital, but on its own it is not the answer, because it will take years; it needs to happen, but it is not the answer to fuel poverty on its own. We need intervention in the market, with real price caps; we need action against these energy companies. And we need Government support.
That is why this debate is welcome and it is why I welcome the Government’s review of the fuel poverty strategy. However, I would argue that the fuel poverty strategy cannot be sufficient without two things: reintroducing the winter fuel payment; and taking real action on these energy companies, which have left people cold and frightened, and left too many people in our country living in misery.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this hugely important debate; I have enjoyed the contributions to it.
According to the latest data from the House of Commons Library, almost one in five people—17%—in my constituency of Liverpool West Derby are living in fuel poverty, which is a shocking figure. However, that was the figure in 2022. Today the figure will be even higher, because as energy bills have gone up, so have the rates of fuel poverty.
National Energy Action estimates that in October 2021 4.5 million UK households were in fuel poverty. By January of this year, that figure had risen to 6.1 million. For older people, fuel poverty is linked to increased risk of stroke, heart attack, flu and hypothermia, and children growing up in cold, damp and mouldy homes suffer from higher rates of respiratory infections and asthma. I speak to my great friend Dr Ian Sinha from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital about the devastating impact of fuel poverty on children’s health, and we will always remember Awaab Ishak, who died because he lived in awful conditions.
That is why in September I voted to oppose the means-testing of the winter fuel allowance. In the run-up to that vote, I received more correspondence from constituents than at any other time in my five years as a Member of Parliament. They told me about the devastating impact that the cuts would have. Jennifer was terrified about the impact the cut would have on her and her husband’s declining health. Again and again and again, people told me how frightened they were about losing the allowance and the upcoming winter. I was true to my word and voted on their behalf, but I desperately regret that the cut went ahead.
Things are set to get worse. Forecasts suggest that the energy price cap could rise by nearly 3% in April. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease, I have heard first hand about the impact of the cuts within the motor neurone disease community. Along with 40 other MPs from across Parliament, I signed a letter to the Chancellor about the impact of this cut. Research shows that people living with motor neurone disease spend an estimated £14,500 extra to cope with cold conditions. The decision to restrict the winter fuel payments to those receiving means-tested benefits will acutely impact the MND community. Ian Lev, an MND sufferer, said that
“My bills will increase in the winter because we must keep our bodies warm. This is a real kick in the pants for me, because I need everything I can. In my nine years of motor neurone disease, my expenditure has been approximately £100,000.”
And Alex Massey from the Motor Neurone Disease Association says that
“Means-testing the Winter Fuel Payment will take no account of the unavoidable costs of living with a highly disabling condition like MND. People coping with this devastating condition do not deserve to lose the support they rely on this winter.”
Even as more people are dragged into fuel poverty, the energy companies, as has been outlined already, continue to make a killing. Just yesterday, BP announced record annual profits of £8 billion. Collectively, 20 energy companies have made a staggering £483 billion in profits since the start of the energy bill crisis. Sky-high energy bills for our constituents equals obscene profits for these giant corporations.
To conclude, I really welcome the Government’s review of the fuel poverty strategy. We should tax energy companies and end fuel poverty, reintroduce the winter fuel allowance as a universal benefit to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks, committing to a social tariff—to lower energy bills for low-income households—and to ramping up the warm home plan to insulate homes across the country, in order to cut both bills and carbon. I really hope that all these things are in the Government’s review.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
We are bang on time, so thank you very much, everyone. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate.
The subject of the debate is vital to my constituents. Fuel poverty has left thousands of people in Eastleigh and across the country in a terrible situation this winter. The Liberal Democrats are gravely concerned that Government delays in tackling poorly insulated homes have left thousands of people cold and living in fuel poverty. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe and it is among the least energy-efficient. The previous Government failed to commit to a meaningful renewable energy programme or a decent homes standard to bring down energy bills, reduce emissions and improve public health. As a result, an estimated 6 million households are in fuel poverty.
I have spoken to constituents whose hands are turning blue because they are so afraid to turn on the heating. My constituent Kay wrote to me after discovering that she would lose her winter fuel payment. She told me:
“I have had no heating this winter. I suffer from PHPT, which means I cannot work or move around easily. It is so cold in my maisonette that I can see my own breath.”
Another constituent who lost the winter fuel payment told me:
“I am wrapping myself up in blankets and extra layers. I try to stay out of the house longer so I don’t have to turn the heating on. Finding that extra £300 last winter was a lifeline”.
According to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero sub-regional fuel poverty data, 7.2% of households in my constituency, amounting to nearly 3,000 families, live in fuel poverty. Many pensioners are just over the income threshold for receiving pension credit, but still struggle immensely. Constituents tell me that they have resorted to using only a microwave to cook meals, because it is cheaper than an oven, while people living in park homes have told me that they have had to turn off their electric heating entirely, even though their walls are just two inches thick and not properly insulated.
According to the Committee on Fuel Poverty, energy efficiency programmes are essential to reducing fuel poverty. Liberal Democrats are concerned that the Government have delayed the new decent homes standard and the warm homes plan, leaving people without support this winter. Citizens Advice in Eastleigh has confirmed that it has seen a massive uptake in energy-related casework among low-income households this year. Their clients are being forced into impossible decisions.
With bills expected to rise again in April, I hope that the Government will do more to protect my constituents and all those in fuel poverty across the UK. I am deeply concerned about the thousands of pensioners who are still waiting to receive their winter fuel payment, even though they applied on time. Can the Minister please update us on when they will receive their payment? They should not be left struggling through the coldest months due to Government delays.
The Government’s own analysis has confirmed that cuts to the winter fuel payment could push 100,000 pensioners in England and Wales into relative fuel poverty. That means 100,000 more people who will struggle to afford heating, more elderly people who will face freezing winters in homes they cannot afford to keep warm, and more people suffering preventable illnesses caused by cold and damp conditions, and yet the Government are pushing ahead with this mistaken approach which will put so many more people at risk. Truly to address this ongoing crisis, the Government must be more ambitious.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) tabled an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that would have ensured that the new body facilitated the home insulation programme, but the Government voted it down. A proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies would help fund support for the most vulnerable, rather than allowing energy giants to continue making billions while families suffer. We must also fundamentally reform how energy is priced. Electricity prices should be decoupled from the wholesale gas price to prevent outdated pricing mechanisms from inflating household bills unfairly.
This winter, thousands of pensioners and vulnerable families in my constituency are suffering in cold homes and struggling to pay their bills. I urge the Minister to rethink cuts to the winter fuel payment, and to introduce meaningful support for those who need it most.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate.
I hesitate to compete with a Yorkshireman, but it has also been very cold in Suffolk recently, and the stories that the hon. Member told of his constituents will be familiar to all of us in the Chamber today. From the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson)—who is no longer in the Chamber—to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), we were reminded that fuel poverty affects urban and rural constituencies alike. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) rightly talked about the reliance on heating oil in rural constituencies, and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) was certainly right to say that pension credit take-up is far too low.
As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, we cannot ignore the hardship caused by the Government’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment so aggressively for millions of pensioners. Of course there is a case for means-testing that payment, but the Chancellor is cutting it for not just the richest pensioners, but those on very modest incomes. If the winter fuel payment is to be means-tested, surely the proceeds should go to low-income pensioners and the cost of social care, but they do not, because we know that Labour’s spending priorities are to throw the money it is taking from pensioners to the public sector and railway unions that funded it.
Let us remember that during the election campaign, Labour repeatedly promised us that it would protect the winter fuel payment, but we know that the Chancellor planned the cut all along, because she had said that she wanted to do it as far back as 2014. Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, this policy is a political choice, not an economic necessity as Ministers claim. The Office for Budget Responsibility has blown up the Government’s claim that they inherited a fiscal hole. Of the report used by Ministers to justify that claim, Richard Hughes, the OBR chairman, said that
“nothing in our review was a legitimisation”
of that claim. Indeed, the Minister who is with us today must answer this simple question: if the cuts for pensioners and the tax rises were made necessary by fiscal prudence, why did Labour promise in its manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion a year by 2028-29, only to actually increase it by £76 billion in its Budget? This was a choice.
The challenge of fuel poverty affects people of all ages throughout the country. Rather than just creating new benefits and schemes to address the high cost of fuel, we need to resolve the root causes of energy costs more generally. Here, the Government are taking the country in a very worrying direction. The Energy Secretary promises to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and the Business Secretary wants to ban petrol and diesel cars by the same year. Tough standards on aviation fuel are being enforced; heat pumps are expected to replace gas boilers; expensive and intermittent renewable technologies funded by huge and hidden subsidies are favoured; and oil and gas fields in the North sea are abandoned, left for the Norwegians to profit from what we choose to ignore.
The Energy Secretary has made much of the National Energy System Operator’s report on decarbonising the grid. He says that report shows that he can do so by 2030 without increasing bills, but in fact the report does not say that—and even then, its calculations rest on a carbon price that will rise to £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide. It is no wonder that, in reply to a question I asked him last week, the Energy Secretary would not rule out having a higher carbon price in Britain than in Europe. That will be terrible for families struggling with the cost of heating their home, but it will hurt them—and indeed all of us—in other ways. As long as policy runs faster than technology and other countries do not follow our lead on climate change, decarbonisation will inevitably mean deindustrialisation. That will mean a weaker economy with lower growth, fewer jobs, and less spending power to help those who we have been discussing today—those who need support the most.
Of course, it is not just the NESO report that shows us the future consequences of the Government’s policies. The OBR says that environmental levies will reach up to £15 billion by the end of this Parliament to pay for net zero policies. As those levies will fall heavily on consumption, they will have a particularly regressive effect, as analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Cornwall Insight has confirmed. It is therefore no wonder that Labour’s election promise to cut bills by £300 by the end of the Parliament has vanished without trace, so I challenge the Minister today to do what she has not done since polling day—repeat that promise very clearly. I suspect she will not because, unlike the Secretary of State, she knows the reality of his policies. The Government are adding complexity and contradiction to our energy system and loading extra costs on to families across the country. There is still time for Ministers to think again and put the interests of decent, hard-working people ahead of the Energy Secretary’s ideological dogma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this really important debate. He has a great record of speaking up for low-income and vulnerable families in his constituency and across the country. I share his desire to tackle fuel poverty and his anger that energy is simply unaffordable for too many people in this country. The Government are determined to take the action necessary to lower bills and support the most vulnerable in our society.
I thank all Members for their contributions, and for highlighting the heartbreaking stories of families across the country that are struggling.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The Minister talks about heartbreaking stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and I have just come off a Public and Commercial Services Union picket line outside a Department, and one of the issues that was raised with us was the cost of living, particularly fuel poverty, because those workers are on low wages and are experiencing poverty. One of the things that Ministers could do now is go back to their Departments, review all their contracts, end the outsourcing and bring those workers back into an insourced service.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know there is a challenge with the cost of living. We are coming out of the worst cost of living crisis that we have faced in a generation, and tackling it is central to what we are trying to do in my Department and across Government.
It is important that we situate this debate in the context in which we find ourselves. We published a review of our fuel poverty strategy last week, and the headline was staggering: fuel poverty stagnated in this country under the previous Government. In 2023, an estimated 13% of households in England—3.17 million people—were in fuel poverty according to the low income low energy efficiency metric, which is a narrow statutory definition. We know that out there in the country a lot more people are feeling the pressure of energy bills and have the sense that they cannot cope and cannot afford to heat their homes.
In 2023, about 46% of all low-income households in England lived in properties with an energy efficiency rating of band D or lower. That creates a cycle that is difficult to escape: the poorest in our country live in cold homes. Behind those statistics are lives, and I have heard the stories directly. People are scared to turn on the heat because they fear the bill at the end of the month. Parents are having to make the impossible choice between feeding their kids and heating their homes.
We know that the reality is intolerable for too many people. That is the legacy of the previous Government that we inherited, but we are determined to turn it around. Every family and business in the country has paid the price of our dependence on global fossil fuel markets that we do not control. We inherited sky-high energy bills. Yes, they are down from the crisis peak, but they are still at record highs.
Our clean power mission is not ideological; it is a primary solution to this problem. We are running to deliver clean power at this pace because we see that as our route to delivering home-grown energy that we have more control over, that will deliver energy security for the country and, critically, that will take us off this rollercoaster of price hikes, which are impacting families, and deliver the financial security that families across the country are desperate for. But we recognise that, while we do that, we also need to reform the electricity market. The review of electricity market arrangements, which we are working on at the moment, is looking at the very question of how we decouple gas from clean power prices. Our judgment is that, as we increase the amount of clean power in the system, we will do the job of decoupling, alongside market reforms, so that people can benefit from the big changes we are trying to make.
We recognise that we also have to support struggling families while we make that transition.
Robbie Moore
I thank the Minister for allowing an intervention. I raised concerns in my speech about the fact that 64,000 pensioners are struggling now to make that difficult choice between putting food on the table and heating their homes, and she has rightly acknowledged that. Does she recognise that the choice she and the Government made to remove the winter fuel allowance was wrong, when so many pensioners are in a dire state as a result of that choice?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member raises winter fuel payments, as hon. Members across the House have done. The Chancellor had an impossible job to do and made a tough call, but we have been clear that we will do whatever is needed to support the most vulnerable. Everything I am charged with doing, everything that my Department is trying to do, is to ensure that households struggling with bills can be protected and insulated.
The Government reviewed the fuel poverty strategy, “Sustainable warmth: protecting vulnerable households”, because we recognised that the trajectory we were on was not the right one. The review showed that progress on meeting the statutory target has stalled. Alongside that review, we are consulting on how to up our strategy to respond to that problem.
Jim Shannon
In questions, urgent questions and statements in the Chamber, I have been keen to ensure that every part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from strategies in this House and that the ripples go out to everywhere. In my contribution, I asked the Minister again whether there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter with the relevant Minister back home. I know the Minister is committed to that. Will she please update me on where those talks and discussions have gone, so that we can all benefit?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me reassure the hon. Member that we are talking to all devolved Administrations. There are common challenges that we all face and common solutions. We are working in collaboration; we have an interministerial working group, and I am having direct conversations with all devolved Administrations as we take forward our plans.
We are also trying to work with everyone. The challenge we face to turn around the trajectory on fuel poverty is huge and the inheritance is tough, so we want to draw on the expertise of consumer groups, industry and academia as we develop our plan on fuel poverty.
Nick Timothy
The Minister talks about the tough job the Chancellor faces. Does she acknowledge that the job is tough because of the Chancellor’s own choices? The Minister talks about the inheritance but, as I said in my speech, the Labour manifesto said that Labour would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, while the Budget increased it by £76 billion a year. That is why the Chancellor faces tough decisions—they originate with her own political choices. Does the Minister acknowledge that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is pretty audacious of the hon. Member, given the record of the previous Government, their financial position and the wrecking ball they took to the economy. We have to clean up the mess of the previous Government, so yes, we have had to make tough choices before that. Candidly, if I were in the hon. Member’s position, I would be hanging my head in shame, rather than lecturing this Government on how we clean up the mess they created. What I will say is that, whether on the economy or fuel poverty, we understand that we have been given an atrocious inheritance. We are not complacent about that. Things that the Conservatives were willing to accept, we are not willing to accept.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress. On the critical issue of fuel poverty, we are consulting in order to improve our strategy, looking at how to make progress on our statutory target for 2030 and asking questions about wide affordability. As we take action, we must ensure that we are dealing with our statutory obligation and the more fundamental problem of affordability across the country.
Alongside our consultation on the fuel poverty strategy, we have also taken steps to try to lift half a million people out of fuel poverty by improving standards in the private rented sector. Last week we published a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector by 2030. Our proposals would require landlords to upgrade their homes so that tenants can benefit from warmer homes through insulation, cavity wall insulation and double glazing first, and then through other measures such as solar, batteries and smart meters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth asked about the impact on renters. I would say two things. Our analysis suggested that if we get this right, it could save renters about £240. We know that there is a risk of landlords potentially hiking bills, but when we have upgraded homes in the past, we have found that landlords have not increased bills, so we do not expect them to do so this time. Critically, we have also been surveying landlords, and the feedback is that the majority would cover the cost of the upgrades, which they know is the right thing to do. I should add that 50% of landlords have already upgraded their homes up to EPC C, so they will pay for this through those savings. We are therefore confident that renters will not be penalised, and we believe that the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill will provide enough safeguards to ensure that renters can benefit from £240 off their energy bills and the security of knowing that their rents will not be increased.
Robbie Moore
Does the Minister recognise that many landlords are not in a sound financial position themselves, and that the challenge of getting the energy performance rating of their rental properties up to C can therefore be incredibly costly and sometimes unachievable, given the old housing stock? Will she outline what support will be available to achieve the Government’s ambition of upgrading to an energy performance rating of C?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have estimated that the average cost of upgrading homes to C is about £6,000. To protect landlords, we have put in place a cap of £15,000 and created mechanisms to provide exemptions for those landlords who we know will genuinely struggle. Alongside that, we are already providing support through our boiler upgrade scheme and warm homes local grant, which landlords can access, and we will be setting out more measures in the warm homes plan to support landlords on this journey. I should say that the vast majority of landlords want to do this—50% have already done so. We need to level the playing field for renters, so that all landlords are delivering homes to a standard that will ensure that they are warmer and cheaper to run for tenants.
A big plank of what we know we need to do to tackle fuel poverty—alongside what we are trying to do on minimum energy efficiency standards in the rental sector—will be our warm homes plan, which will transform homes across the country to make them cheaper and warmer. The idea behind it is simple and will mean upgrading homes with insulation, solar and heat pumps. In response to the points made about delays in rolling out the warm home plan, I would say that we are running at this. This year alone, we have massively increased the number of upgrades that we are expecting to 300,000, backed by £3.2 billion-worth of investment, and we will come forward in the spring with our plans to ramp that up.
The key thing that we are trying to achieve is moving from the hundreds of thousands of upgrades that we have seen—the inheritance of the last Government, who frankly slashed home upgrades, despite knowing their huge impact on bills and the comfort of consumers —to upgrading millions of homes. That will mean taking a comprehensive look at how we increase demand for home upgrades and deliver at scale in different places, working with regional government and suppliers, and, critically, how we ensure that when people go on this journey of upgrading their homes, they have the confidence to know—to the point made earlier—that the work will be done to a quality standard, and that if things go wrong there will be redress and protection. The current system that we inherited was far too fragmented and ad hoc. Consumers are not at its heart, and we absolutely must turn that around.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for giving way and for her comments so far. On the point about tackling the fragmentation and ad hoc nature of the previous system, does the Minister agree with me that home insulation upgrades are a win-win-win policy. They are good for people’s warmth and health, they are really good for jobs and they help to save the climate as well. One key barrier in recent years has been the stop-start, year-on-year type of policy that means that nobody in the supply chain is able to plan and have the strategic direction that they need to make the investments, build the labour force and so forth. Will the Government provide the long-term certainty about the policy direction and level of investment required so that everybody can pull together in the same direction?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I absolutely agree that home insulation is a key part of how we tackle the problem of fuel poverty. Unless we have homes that are insulated, whatever energy we put into people’s homes, at whatever price, is going out of their windows. That is why it is so important to what we are trying to do through the warm homes plan. We seek through the plan to provide long-term certainty: for consumers, so that they know there is a programme that will support them through a journey, and, critically, for the supply chain.
I have spoken to many installers who tell me they are living hand to mouth. The ability to build, to plan, to recruit apprenticeships and to build up capacity is constrained by a stop-start approach. We are clear that the plan needs to be long term. We are working to make sure we can underpin that with long-term certainty on funding, so that we can see the level of ramp-up and scale-up that we need to insulate and upgrade millions of homes, rather than hundreds of thousands of homes.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Can I just say that I need to bring in the mover of the motion for a couple of minutes at the end? Thank you, Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me address the points made by Members from rural constituencies. This plan has to work for every part of the country and we have to have solutions for every house. Rather than the Government dictating solutions from on high in Whitehall, we need to empower the system to figure out the best way to deliver warm homes for people across the country. That means thinking about the range and mix of solutions that go into people’s homes, so that they can have low-carbon options, but also options that work for their pockets.
Alongside what we need to do through our warm homes plan, it is important to say that we must also deal with the question of supporting households on bills. That is why going into this winter, wanting to do everything we can to support the most vulnerable, I worked with energy suppliers to get them to commit to £500 million of industry support for people this winter so that we can get help to households that we know are struggling. The Government have also extended the household support fund until 31 March 2026 with an extra £752 million. We are providing the cold weather payment and our Department is providing the warm home discount to more than 3 million households. The Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 expire in 2026, so we want to consider options for the future.
Members talked about a social tariff. The challenge with the social tariff, which we are hearing about across the piece, is that it means different things to different people. However, we are looking at all the options to make sure we can provide the support that people need.
In conclusion, I understand Members’ passion; I share their passion and their commitment. Energy is not a luxury good. It is not a “nice to have”. It is foundational for people, but it is out of reach for some. That is a shame and a stain on us, and we are determined to turn things around.
Jon Trickett
I thank everybody for contributing. The House will have heard the Minister’s passion and commitment. I was particularly interested in what she said about warm homes—that she had heard heartbreaking stories and was determined to drive down fuel poverty. Although there was much that was good in her remarks, there were elements missing. In truth, our society is deeply dysfunctional; it needs structural change and a rupture with the existing arrangements. The fact that billions of pounds of profits are made in the energy sector while millions of people are left in poverty leads me to one conclusion: those who drive people into poverty by driving up the prices must pay for the fact that so many people are in poverty, while we get on with retrofitting houses.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).