Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the draft regulations before us. I am conscious that this is not her department. Nevertheless, with her Cumbrian background—not just background but experience—she will be conscious of the number of families in fuel poverty, in particular those off the gas grid.

One of the challenges around the warm home discount is that it is focused solely on electricity bill payers, so there are some issues there around aspects of fuel poverty and how it gets distributed. I am conscious that it has generally been a success; I am going to sound a note of caution though. This looks like a potentially generous package. Of course it is: it is the second, if not the third, package brought in by this Government that is very generous to households that receive universal credit. We have seen the extension of free school meals. With the Royal Assent coming through today, we will see a big uplift for everybody who is on universal credit. I think that the Government underestimated how much all this is going to cost, partly in the impact assessment for the Act that has just gone through but also in these regulations. Even now, there are more people on universal credit than it seems has been considered by the impact assessment for these draft regulations.

There is also a different way of thinking about this. These measures are increasing incentives for people not to increase their earnings and to stay on universal credit as long as they can. That is part of what the Government need to think about in these regulations.

There is another oddity here. Changing the criteria will mean the number of households receiving the discount rising from an estimated 3.4 million—around 3.1 million in England and around 300,000 in Scotland —to an estimated 6.1 million, although I think that it will be a lot more and it will, therefore, cost a lot more. People’s average energy bills will go up by about two-thirds, but everybody pays that levy. Consequently, those estimated 3.4 million people will be worse off as a consequence of the rebate now applying to a lot more people. Before, the cost of the levy was estimated at £22. The net effect is £150 minus £22, which is £128. With the average levy now going up to £37 a year, the logical consequence is of that benefit ending up dropping to £113 per household. I appreciate that the finer points may not work out quite like that in some of the calculations, but the Government cannot do this in a very detailed way. So we are in this odd situation where those households with the highest estimated energy costs will get less rebate to help them; I do not understand how that is going to help fuel poverty.

I appreciate, by the way, that the Minister does not have policy responsibility here. I am not sure what sort of response I might get from DESNZ, but it would be quite useful to get some thinking on that.

The reason why I think the costs here have been underestimated is that, in May this year, the UC statistics showed that 6.6 million households were on universal credit, 6.1 million of which are getting payments. That is not simply the transfer from existing legacy benefits to universal credit; there is an element of that, but that number will continue to increase because people are still claiming universal credit. On top of that, there are around 1.4 million people receiving pension credit and around 1.1 million pensioners receiving housing benefit. This is why the figures start to get bigger and bigger. There will undoubtedly be an overlap between the 1.4 million on pension credit and the 1.1 million on housing benefit; nevertheless, this will show, I think, that the costs here have been underestimated. I fear that the levy will, in effect, be higher for other bill payers. It is not the same as the winter fuel payment, because that came from taxpayers—this is coming from every bill payer.

I should also point out to noble Lords, based on a response to an Answer, that there are 200,000 households on universal credit with an income of more than £35,000. They will continue to receive this benefit now. The brilliant DWP—I love it so much—is fantastic at getting the matching. So I would be grateful to understand why DESNZ estimates that 28% of the 8.1 million people it thinks are eligible for this will not receive the warm home discount due to data-matching. Surely more should be done to kick the energy companies. I am concerned that park home residents are excluded. They are a particular group who have a nice life but tend to be on pretty low incomes, but I understand some of the complexities.

I found it astonishing in a different way, although it was perhaps a bit welcome, that there was a 150% uplift of people receiving this in London compared to the rest of the country. That is pretty high, given that more than double the number of households in the south-east will receive this. Clearly, this has not necessarily been done on what might be considered traditional regional adjustments. It is important also, regarding aspects in annexe 5 of the assessments, that the NHS estimates that the preventable costs would be about £540 million. Now the cost on these bills is going up to £1 billion, but I am convinced it will be more like £1.1 or £1.2 billion.

Of course I am not going to try and vote down this instrument, because that is not what we do in the Lords. I wish I had spotted the consultation earlier so that I could have contributed then but, when we come to the post-implementation review of the regulations in a few years’ time, the figures will be telling and Ministers should be looking out for this a lot more quickly. Genuinely, the impact will be that benefits from this levy will decrease, as opposed to increase.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for stepping into the breach and presenting the regulations in the form of the statutory instrument before us. I share and echo the concerns of my noble friend, without going into any great length, who was an excellent Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions at a most difficult time during Covid—a big applause to her and her department at the time, and the work that it continues to do.

I welcome much of the content of the regulations. I forgot to declare my interest as president of National Energy Action and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water, which will be significant when I come on to smart meters. However, the Whip on duty will remind me that I have said this in the past, so I am going to say it again because I want to record it at every opportunity. I do not know if it is something that the department might look at but, if the noble Baroness is not able to answer today, can she write and place a copy of the letter in the Library? Those households that are most in need of energy, such as in the north of England, Scotland and many vulnerable areas would have qualified for, say, £300, so fewer households would have benefited, but it would have had a much bigger impact on fuel poverty in that regard. Is that something that the Government are minded to look at?

Again, it is not part of these regulations but it is something that National Energy Action would like to place on the record but that I do not necessarily agree with. It would like to see a social tariff. My understanding is that there was a social tariff for energy prior to the warm home discount. I was trying to explain to NEA that you either have one or the other. Social tariffs operate quite effectively in the water sector, but I do not see how we can have both. I presume that that is something that the department under successive Governments has looked at. I should like to find out and have placed on the record for National Energy Action’s benefit what the current Government’s thinking is. Are we going to stick with the warm home discount, which would be my preference, or are we going to have both a warm home discount and the social tariffs?

My more radical thinking, when the Minister was referring to the contents of the regulation and the result of the consultation, was about transforming the housing stock. The Government have granted £13.2 million, not an insignificant sum of money, in that regard. I have a mounting concern that there is housing stock—I see this locally, and I am sure it is in other parts of the country as well—that would benefit from just a bit of an upgrade in having double-glazed windows and maybe a bit of stuff in the wall cavity areas and the roofs to make those houses more habitable. Obviously that would reduce the cost of heating, so it is not going out the window or through the walls, so to speak.

The plan I propose is that we reverse VAT. Take VAT off renovations and put it on newbuild. That way, I argue that it would be neutral. Obviously, it would pass on to the purchasers of new houses, but it would greatly increase the housing stock. Again, that is not in the regulations, but is it something that the Government might consider?

In preparing for today, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 30th report, where it did a short analysis on this. Its conclusion, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referred to, was:

“We note that the percentage increase in the levy on billpayers and the impact of the expansion of the Scheme on the number of recipients and overall spending are expected to be significant”.


It is no secret that the major parties are deeply concerned about the cost of living crisis, which is ongoing. We have had the higher cost, for those who are not on a fixed tariff, of energy prices going forward for this winter. As my noble friend pointed out, that is going to mean a higher increase for those households that do not benefit to pay for the significant amount of money, which we know to be approximately £1 billion, up from £600 million in the past.

The Government could look at other measures as well. I have long been interested in the possibility of having a smart meter. Anna Walker did a report on water efficiency at the same time as there were the reports by Martin Cave on competition and Michael Pitt on flooding in about 2007 or 2008. Of those three reports, the Walker report on water efficiency never really got any legs. However, she gave very useful advice like, “Don’t run your water when you’re brushing your teeth, but in particular don’t run the hot water because you’re literally putting hot water that you have heated down the system, which is ridiculous”.

Is there a possibility that energy and water would both be governed by the same smart meter? Are the Government aware that currently—my authority for this is the Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”, which I happened to listen to on, I think, Friday—there is evidence that smart meters do not work in rural areas? I know the Minister lives in a deeply rural area. I have been reluctant to fit a smart meter for that reason; there is no point in having one fitted if it is not going to work. Apparently they will give you all these other gadgets to help it work, but still it will not.

If smart meters are not working and people are not able to monitor true energy use then that is one point, but if we were able to develop smart meters that covered both water consumption and energy consumption then that would be a big plus for households. So I give a cautious welcome to these regulations, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make the few comments that I have.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am sure that the heat that my noble friend was about to allude to will make it attractive to certain kinds of rapid acceleration of growth. It is not the only thing that would benefit there, but it is more about trying to neutralise the impact of what seemed to be necessary infrastructure with the ongoing operations rather than disrupting those who are already farming our land for the food that we need for continued food security. With that, I put forward the benefits of my amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I commend the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and for introducing this group. I will speak to Amendments 79A and 94FA—if your Lordships will pardon the expression—tabled by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Coffey and will end with a question for the Minister.

There are environmental and financial reasons for undergrounding these transmission wires. The environmental reasons are mostly because they are wasteful. It is debatable how much they waste, but I think it is between 7% and 10% of the energy that is transmitted, which seems nonsensical. As my noble friend Lord Swire said, they are also unsightly, which in tourist areas is very unwelcome. They are also extremely vulnerable to storm and extreme weather conditions. We have just had the first storm names for the forthcoming season—I do not know whether my niece and god-daughter will be delighted that Storm Amy will be the first one to hit us, but there we go. I remind the Minister that Storm Arwen caused such damage to the north-east of England and North Yorkshire that large swathes of north-east England and North Yorkshire had no electricity for up to 10 days. That is unacceptable.

The second power lines, which I think I referred to at Second Reading, run through the spine of North Yorkshire, from Middlesbrough all the way down to York, where they join the national grid. Only three months prior to those being built, an ethanol pipeline had been laid, tracking more or less the same route through agricultural land that the overhead pylons were following. It makes sense that if you are digging the land up once then at the same time you put the transmission lines there. Underground lines are less vulnerable to storms, extreme weather and extreme frost. In one year, we had temperatures of minus 17 degrees for six days running in North Yorkshire in the winter. Those are the environmental reasons that I put to the Minister.

We are frequently told that we cannot afford to place these transmission wires underground. I remind noble Lords that every single customer is paying, through the standing charge, for the infrastructure. Why do we not have a say, as customers, on the infrastructure that is being used? I give three examples of the latest profits for electricity companies. They are eye-watering and beg the question: why are we told that it is not affordable to place these transmission wires underground? The latest figures I have seen from Octopus Energy are of a 0.7% profit margin, delivering a net profit of £83 million. For OVO Energy, the latest figures I can find are for 2023—I cannot find the figures for 2024, though they are probably available—when OVO Energy announced a pre-tax profit of £1 billion. That is one electricity-generating company alone. For Centrica, there was a £1 billion profit for 2024. Why are we being told that it is unaffordable when there are monstrous profits to which we are all contributing as consumers?

To sum up my short contribution, I strongly support Amendments 79A and 94FA, and argue that there are absolutely no environmental and financial reasons not to underground these transmission wires.

Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I have only one brief question in thanking the Minister for moving this statutory instrument so eloquently. In his opening remarks, he referred to the responses to the consultations, particularly the first. I quote paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“42 responses were received from a variety of stakeholders… Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals”.


In times gone by, responses to consultations were published on the internet; I do not know whether that is still the case. That the respondents were “broadly supportive” indicates that some of them were not supportive. Can the Minister clarify? I just wonder what criticism there was and for what reason, if any, the Government did not revise the statutory instrument in any way. Otherwise, they are very sensible regulations, and I support them.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. I completely understand why trying to move off gas is a clear policy of the Government, as reaffirmed in its recent 2030 plan. However, gas is, without doubt, the cheapest way of heating a home. I want to get an understanding of what financial impact this is likely to have on household bills. I could not see anything in the accompanying notes. My sense is that it is good news for trying to get away from gas as a source, but bad news for households in the costs of heating their home and food.

Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations, on several grounds. First, as the Minister mentioned, this is a deregulatory approach. There cannot be many regulations deemed to be deregulatory that have 104 pages, but 70 of those pages deal with revocations of existing legislation. That is to be welcomed.

I completely support that this will be a risk-based approach. I am conscious that consultations are ongoing on products being considered by the FSA under this approach. I am conscious that some may be concerned about removing the need for separate secondary legislation, which is a hangover from our days in the European Union, but this is perfectly routine.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I am conscious that the Food Standards Agency is a non-ministerial department, with the DHSC leading on this in government and in Parliament. Can she confirm whether DHSC Ministers will be making these decisions or whether it will be open to Defra Ministers?

Secondly, an issue that arose during the passage of what is now the precision breeding Act was concern that the devolved Administrations would be reluctant to have any GMO in products sold in their countries. The purpose of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and the non-discrimination principle was to make sure that, where something had been given the go-ahead in England, say, it could be sold anywhere across the United Kingdom, respectful of the devolved Administrations but nevertheless giving consumers that choice. Will the UK Government fully assert the non-discrimination principle in the sale of future products? As I said, I support these regulations.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend and concur entirely. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this streamlining and deregulatory process. However, I share some of the concerns put forward by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

My noble friend talked about GMO. I am personally very wary of GMO products: I would like to know if I were eating such a product or if such feedstuff was being fed to an animal that I may go on to eat. Can the Minister assure me that the removal of the renewals process will not lead to any information affecting the suitability of validation methods for GMOs being overlooked? Put simply, can the public and consumers rest assured that the processes that have been followed hitherto will be followed? How can the public be made aware of those processes and know that that is the case?

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the regulations before us, which I broadly support. I will direct my questions to two specific areas.

The Minister mentioned that guidance will be given to councils on the separate collections. My concern is around what guidance will be given by councils to households in particular. I remember chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the time of the “horsegate” scandal, where people found that they were eating prepared foods—usually lasagne—made from horsemeat, not beef. It ended, I think, a lot of people’s desire to carry on eating these pre-prepared, highly expensive, undernutritious, highly salted foods. However, if you are a householder and you have one of these trays in front of you, it normally goes, I assume, in your food waste because it is highly contaminated—or the packet that the lasagne I have eaten was in will have to be rinsed sufficiently to ensure that it is not contaminated.

Who is going to guide households on what to do with such prepared food, where it is difficult to get rid of the residual food waste? How does the Minister intend to ensure that, if it goes into the paper recycling, which will now be a separate collection, this will not lead to greater contamination? How will guidance be given to households to ensure that there is no cross-contamination? How does the Minister plan to ensure that there will be no increase in cross-contamination because of the contaminated stuff going into the wrong recycling bin or plastic bag—whatever it is called—that we are going to be issued with?

I would also like to press the Minister on ensuring that a strong message will go out from the Government to councils that there will continue to be a mandatory weekly food waste collection. Anything less frequent than that will lead to vermin and a lot of highly undesirable threats to households, through no fault of their own.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I made my maiden speech last week simply to make sure that I could speak in today’s debate. I congratulate the Minister on bringing these regulations forward; it is fair to say, I think, that they have been a long time in gestation. I recall, back in 2018, the resources and waste strategy setting out the idea of trying to get consistent recycling. I have to say, when I became the Secretary of State a while ago, I worked quite hard on this issue to try to get simpler recycling to achieve the outcomes that the Minister has set out.

VAT on Static Caravans

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)

- Hansard -

I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.

The petition states that

levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs

in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,

and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will

reduce investment in these businesses and

lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001059]

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001094]

Peittions

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.

The petition states that

levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs

in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,

and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will

reduce investment in these businesses and

lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001059]

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001094]