Fracking Ban

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman has made extraordinary claims about the reserves of shale gas. There are currently no commercially proven reserves of shale gas in the UK, and yet he is suggesting that there are tens of billions at hand just to be plucked. The evidence actually shows that the cost of renewables is going down constantly. I ask him to pay courtesy to the convention of the House that we speak truth in this place and to cite his sources.

[Richard Tice]

Absolutely, I will cite the sources. Look at everybody’s energy bills: they are going up and up, and—

[Dr Chowns]

No, the sources for your claims about reserves—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady did point out the conventions and courtesies of the House. She has to ask the hon. Member if he will give way. It might be helpful for everybody if I add that interventions should be through the Chair. Please do not face the back of the Chamber. It makes it incredibly hard for the microphones to pick up comments and, indeed, it is quite discourteous to the Chair to turn your back on me.

[Richard Tice]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Lady asks a fair question as to the evidence. The evidence is from the experts I have just cited, who say that even if the price of gas goes to zero, our energy bills are going up and up. The next bit of evidence—

[Dr Chowns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I will carry on, because I am in full flow.

[Dr Chowns]

I want to clarify the question I actually asked.

[Richard Tice]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am requesting that he cites his sources for the claims he has made as to the reserves of shale gas in this country.

[Richard Tice]

I was just coming on to that. The British Geological Survey has, for example, made clear estimates that there are vast sums.

[Dr Chowns]

No!

[Richard Tice]

No, there have been tests into the Gainsborough trough, which is why I made the claim about the density. Then, of course, there is the evidence of successful businesspeople who invested hundreds of millions of pounds because they had done the geological work and realised that there is a huge opportunity, and they are still there. That is the evidence, because when people are prepared to invest sums of money, we know that they have done the research.

I come back to this point. It is gross negligence of the highest order—frankly, probably of a criminal order—to refuse to even try, and to not even say, “Okay Richard, I disagree with you, but let’s have an independent test over a couple of years at a couple of different sites, using a couple of different techniques.” Surely that would be the middle ground, because in the event that those on my side of the debate are correct and those on the other side of the debate are incorrect, we would then have taken advantage of this great opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a passionate and utterly convincing case for the need for a green energy revolution and the benefits it would provide not only environmentally, but socially for the communities we are here to represent. We have heard fantastic arguments from across the House for a full ban on fracking. It is not just about the earthquake risks and the environmental damage to local communities, or because it is completely publicly unpopular, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out. British citizens do not want fracking, and banning fracking fully is a very popular policy. Fundamentally, however, there is one key reason why we must have a full ban on fracking, which is that we must keep fossil fuels in the ground. We know that we live in a hugely warming world.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I understand the hon. Member’s view about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, but does she not agree that, while we still need fossil fuels, it is much better for jobs, for the environment and even for the Exchequer that we produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports from elsewhere?

[Dr Chowns]

Fossil fuels are traded globally. If we open up new production of fossil fuels, the reality is that that will do nothing for bills, do almost nothing for energy security and be a complete distraction from the investments we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future that is our only hope of a sustainable economy not just in the long term, but in the short and medium terms. These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should continue to invest in typewriters during the era of the personal computer or continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot continue to have our heads in the sand.

[Richard Tice]

Talking of having heads in the sand, I think the hon. Lady has just agreed that it would be better to send our money overseas, send our skills overseas and send our jobs overseas, and to literally be impoverished in a tent on a sandbag with our heads in the sand. Is that really the future she wants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

No, that is a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. We know, for example, that Jackdaw would generate 27 jobs—the number of people who fit on the top of a double-decker bus.

[Richard Tice]

Seriously?

[Dr Chowns]

Yes, seriously. I can give the hon. Member the reference, unlike for the extraordinary statistics he cited in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, and that means we need a full ban on fracking.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not true that, in the end, this is a choice? It is not the case that we invest large amounts of public money in the transition to net zero and nothing in the oil and gas industry. Is it not true that our energy bills are subsidised, and that we are subsidising the oil and gas industry? It is therefore a distraction to say, “Renewables are very expensive, so we need to subsidise them, whereas oil and gas are not expensive.” That argument is completely wrong, because we publicly subsidise oil and gas.

[Dr Chowns]

It is indeed true that there is considerable public subsidy for oil and gas, as well as revenues from the windfall taxes. As the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth pointed out, the fossil fuel companies are making tens of billions of pounds in profit, which is raked in from consumers.

Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as quickly as possible. We are here talking about fracking, but there is no commercially viable shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK.

[Richard Tice]

Nonsense!

[Dr Chowns]

No, the argument that there is commercially viable production is a nonsense. The hon. Member should look at the information from the British Geological Survey.

[Richard Tice]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and several other people, so I will move to my conclusion.

Fundamentally, we are living in a burning world. The 11 hottest years on record were the past 11 years. The three hottest years on record were the past three years. The trajectory is going up and up, and this is not just a question of graphs on paper and reports from the World Meteorological Organisation; we are feeling it in our communities. The Prime Minister, when he considers decisions on things like fracking, should listen to communities in places such as Stourbridge, West Sussex and Stoke-on-Trent, where people have had their homes burned by wildfires that have been supercharged by the climate change that is already built in. It would be utterly irresponsible to pour yet more fuel on the fire of climate crisis.

We need to recognise the reality that is hitting us in the face: a barrelling and accelerating climate crisis. We need to do everything we can to change direction, and the very least of those things has to be a full ban on fracking. Can the Minister confirm that when the energy independence Bill comes to this House after the recess, it will include a fulfilment of the Government’s previous promise to implement a full and statutory ban on fracking that cannot simply be overturned by ministerial diktat? Will he apply the ban to existing licences? We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground and supercharge our transition to the green, clean energy revolution, which is the only fundamental basis for a sustainable and prosperous future for all of the UK.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie White]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is passionate about her constituency and about this area. She is right that we are at the behest of the fossil fuel rollercoaster, and we have all seen the impacts of that over the last few years. We have had two international energy crises in the last four years, and we are, at the moment, a price-taker on the international fossil fuel markets, which has an impact on our constituents. That is why our Secretary of State is focusing on energy affordability as her priority.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

We cannot discuss this issue without recognising that the climate breakdown is already costing us hugely: the hottest summer ever, the worst arable harvest ever, and the Met Office says that it was 130 times more likely that we faced this crisis this year. Just today, the World Meteorological Organisation has said that climate breakdown is super-charging natural phenomena such as El Niño. The shadow Secretary of State says that North sea communities need a new direction: yes, a just transition to clean energy for the future, not the dirty energy of the old. Will the Minister recognise that the climate damage created by Rosebank and Jackdaw will hugely outweigh any potential economic benefits and therefore rule them out? Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have a liveable future.

[Katie White]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her passion on this topic. The environmental impact assessment that has been part of the process will take account of Scope 3 emissions. I can say no more about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions today, but what I will say is that this Government take climate change incredibly seriously. I hope that she heard the new Prime Minister talking about it on Tuesday and heard his commitment. He will also go to Turkey for the COP this year.

Climate Change

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Well, we are debating the carbon budget order, but I think we should rename it the job-destroying, industry-killing order, because that is essentially what net zero is doing. For the hon. Members who do not appreciate the economics of this, let us go on a little history lesson, shall we? Let us go back to the 20-year period between 1980 and 2000. Yes, our energy consumption increased by some 20%, and real GDP per capita—per person—increased every year by 3.2% per annum. Let me now take everyone forward to the last 20 years: our energy consumption has declined by about 15%, and guess what has happened to our GDP per person? Yes, it has collapsed to just 0.5% per annum. There is a direct link between the quantity of energy we consume—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Member not recognise: first, that correlation is not causation; and secondly, that there was a financial crisis caused by outrageous speculation and a lack of control of the financial markets, and that is at the core of the problems we face today?

[Hon. Members]

And Brexit!

[Dr Chowns]

And Brexit!

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The renewables sector keeps saying that it is going to reduce the bills, yet the bills are going up. Indeed, only recently an energy boss said that even if the price of gas went to zero—clearly, it is not going to, folks—our electricity bills at the next general election, assuming that is in 2029, will be even higher. Why? Because of all the increased policy costs, increased levies, increased constraint costs and beyond.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the reality that the main factor that has driven up energy costs in the last few years has been Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine? Policy costs are a small proportion of energy prices and gas determines the electricity price, which is the—

[Richard Tice]

Oh dear, oh dear. How desperately sad it is that the hon. Lady does not appreciate that the wholesale price of electricity, which some claim is driven by gas, is about a third, so it is not the majority—a third is less than 50%.

The simple reality is that there is a direct causal link between the growth of renewable generating capacity in the last 20 years and the growth of our electricity prices to the highest in the western world. That is the reason that everybody is feeling so much poorer. It is as simple as that. All the advocates of the renewables industry cannot answer the question: when are the bills going to come down? The answer is: they are not going to. The Government can try to cheat by putting it into general taxation, but the simple fact is that, actually, costs are going to go up. We have heard, for example, that the cost of more contracts for difference is going to increase by £4 billion, £5 billion or £6 billion by 2030, and that the extra cost to the grid is going to increase by some £10 billion a year by 2030. Per household—which is how people will want to understand it—that equates to about £500 per year extra on the cost of living because of the costs of net zero. Everybody needs to understand that point, as they debate and vote on this issue.

As we look to the future, having explained the history and the economics to those who do not seem to understand, we hear that the Secretary of State for Energy—he is rather absent at the moment; where is he?—wants to get rid of all our wonderful tumble dryers. No, no, we can’t have tumble dryers in the brave new world of the Secretary of State for Energy! Then we hear that, through this carbon budget, the Government want us to reduce our dairy and meat consumption by some 20%. We have had enough of this. We should vote against this ridiculous motion and scrap net stupid zero.

Warm Homes Plan

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and I want to tell him a nerdy fact. I like nerdy facts; it is in character. Nearly half the people on the boiler upgrade scheme are in rural areas, and I think am I right in saying that a third are off the gas grid. That tells you something about the appetite, particularly in rural communities and among those who are off the gas grid, to find alternatives. Hopefully, the continuation and expansion of such schemes will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I warmly welcome the publication of the long-awaited warm homes plan. The Green party has tirelessly campaigned for many of the things in it: a more consistent, clearer, straightforward, nationwide system for people to access support; better inspection and accountability of installers; and of course solar panels on roofs as default. However, I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, this is supposed to be a warm homes plan, but there is a lot of focus on energy supply improvements, and less than I would expect on energy demand management and insulation, which is crucial to reducing bills. Why is that? Secondly, the scale of this plan is still nowhere close to matching the scale of the need. According to the Government’s statistics, there are 2.7 million households in fuel poverty; it is 6 million households, according to other statistics. This plan aims to address only 1 million of those households, and it represents a 25% cut to the amount previously promised for this work. Why is that, and what will the Government do to reach the millions of additional households that will not be covered?

[Ed Miliband]

I half thank the hon. Lady for her questions. On the second question, by anyone’s reckoning, this is a very substantial investment. It is multiple times more than was invested in the last Parliament, and there needs to be recognition of that. I recognise that there is further to go. This will help 5 million homes; there are a lot more homes that we want to help, but this is, by any measure, making a difference. On her first point, I reassure the hon. Lady that we absolutely see the value of making fabric and insulation part of this agenda, but the focus has to be on what works to cut bills. That is what our constituents want us to focus on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Energy prices are still far too high because of dither and delay from the Opposition when they were in government. No one should have to make the difficult choices that my hon. Friend describes. The Government are totally focused on reducing the cost of energy and making life easier for people throughout the UK. That focus includes the £150 off the cost of energy from next April—the removal of those costs from bills—and the extension of the warm home discount. We are also working with other Government Departments to improve access to data so that we can properly target support for households. We will come forward with more proposals in due course.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Charities estimate that more than 6 million households in the UK live in fuel poverty. The Minister’s answer did not even mention the warm homes plan, but he talked about dither and delay. His Government have repeatedly postponed publication of the warm homes plan. They have cancelled previous fuel poverty programmes without replacing them with new insulation programmes. When will the Minister finally publish the warm homes plan? How many of those 6 million households in fuel poverty will benefit from it?

[Martin McCluskey]

It is worth waiting for the warm homes plan, which will be published very soon. Alongside that there will be an ambitious fuel poverty plan for England. The Chancellor has already announced £15 billion of funding for that. We will set it out very soon and I look forward to constructive discussions with the hon. Member when it is published.

Budget Resolutions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

If we look at the average of bills in 2025 versus 2024, they are lower. I hope that the hon. Lady will support our cuts to energy bills in April, when they come in.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Miliband]

Let me make a bit more progress. My second point is about public spending. In the spending review and the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the crucial decision not to return to austerity. She could have made a different choice and cut public services—I think that is what Conservative Members would go back to doing—but we know the impact of that approach from the last 14 years. This is about the living standards of millions of people across our country who cannot buy their way into private health care or private schools. This can be hidden by the smokescreen that Conservative Members want to put up, but the Chancellor has made the incredibly important decision to invest in the future. That has enabled the Government to cut NHS waiting lists by more than 200,000, roll out free breakfast clubs in schools, expand free school meals, fund the expansion of free childcare, and announce the biggest boost to investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. Conservative Members are back to austerity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we recently announced the small modular reactor fleet at Wylfa in north Wales, we saw the huge opportunities, not just for the areas where nuclear power stations are being built, but rippling across the supply chain. That is why I am so proud of the investments that we have been able to make. What is the result?

[Dr Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ed Miliband]

I will not, for a few minutes. The result is new jobs building wind turbines at Siemens Gamesa in Hull, new jobs making transformers in Stafford, new jobs making heat pumps in Derby, and new jobs at Sumitomo’s new factory at the Port of Nigg—some of the 400,000 additional clean energy jobs that we expect our mission to support by 2030. That is the difference.

What is the Conservatives’ policy? They want to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008 and abandon net zero by 2050, which was their legacy. As a result, they have been roundly condemned by British business. Energy UK says that abandoning that target will scare off investors. The Confederation of British Industry says that it is a “backwards step”, because the Climate Change Act is

“the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK”.

Baroness May—they do not like to talk about her—called it a “catastrophic mistake”. And get this: even Boris Johnson —rarely have I quoted Boris Johnson—says that

“in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on…saying what rubbish net zero is.”

Normally—I have experience of this—Oppositions stick by what they did right in government, and trash what they did wrong. The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is pursuing a novel approach to opposition: trash anything that they did right, and double down on everything that they did wrong. Nowhere is that more true than in our dependence on fossil fuels.

At this point, I express my sincere thanks to the right hon. Lady’s colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who sadly is not here. Last week, I was talking about the causes of the energy bills crisis of 2021. He shouted out—I checked Hansard—“Because Putin invaded Ukraine!”. Obviously, he is one of the finest minds on the Opposition Front Bench, and he is right about that, but he has given the game away. This relates to affordability and this Budget debate. The lesson from the worst cost of living crisis in generations is this: it came about because Putin invaded Ukraine. What was the cause of higher bills? Why were we worse hit than many others? Because we were so exposed to fossil fuels. It was not the price of renewables that soared; it was the price of gas, including from the North sea, priced and sold on the international market. That is what happens when we do not have clean, home-grown power, and when we are at the mercy of petro states and dictators. What is the strategy of right hon. Member for East Surrey now? To double down on the Conservatives’ failure. She literally says that we should cancel the allocation round 7 auction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

With sky-high bills, unaffordable, cold and mouldy homes, and one in three children growing up in poverty, our country is in crisis. Life has become unaffordable for millions of people, and years of devastating cuts to our public services, from hospitals and schools to social care, mean that those who most need support are too often unable to access it. Every day I hear from my constituents in North Herefordshire, who are living through this crisis and crying out for change.

Instead of delivering change, this Government have repeatedly claimed that there is not enough money to go around. That simply is not true. Last year, billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by £35 million a day. Britain’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than half the population combined. A wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million and 2% on assets over £1 billion could raise nearly £15 billion. If we also aligned rates of capital gains tax with income tax and introduced national insurance on investment income, so that wealth is taxed at the same rate as work, we could raise over £30 billion a year.

This Budget needed to mark a turning point and an end to the politics of the past 18 months—a politics that has, sadly, scapegoated refugees and migrants while failing to tackle the inequality and the real issues that drive people into hardship. Of course, I welcome the long overdue scrapping of the cruel and counterproductive two-child benefit cap. That should have been done on day one after the general election. Instead of delivering a transformational Budget that confronts the cost of living crisis and taxes extreme wealth fairly, this Labour Government have, sadly, chosen to paper over the cracks —to tinker, not transform.

For example, take the Chancellor’s decision to remove policy costs from energy bills. Nearly 3 million households in England were fuel poor in 2024—that figure could be more, depending on how it is calculated. This is a huge problem, especially in the west midlands and especially in my North Herefordshire constituency, where fuel poverty is particularly high because of the nature of our housing and low wages. It is therefore essential that we do everything in our power to cut bills. But the decision to lower bills by cutting vital funding for home insulation by a quarter is not a real solution; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Home insulation is one of the most effective ways to bring down bills: upgrading the average UK home to a decent standard saves households £210 a year.

Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that, because of the Government’s decisions regarding the energy company obligation and the warm homes plan, the poorest households living in the coldest homes have now lost two thirds of the support they were due to receive for energy efficiency upgrades. When the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in western Europe, we should be scaling home insulation up, not down, and using progressive taxation to pay for it. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is back in his place to hear me make these arguments.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

I will not, because many Members want to get in.

Frankly, given that a typical energy bill in October 2025 was £478 a year higher than four years before, it is indefensible that this Budget does nothing to address the structural factors that keep costs high. In 2024, almost a quarter of the average energy bill went straight to the pre-tax profits of the major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers. If we are serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, we must stop private companies profiteering while ordinary people cannot afford life’s basics. Those basics should not be a luxury. We can have lower bills and more investment in affordable, warm homes, all while protecting our planet at the same time.

In ordinary times, a Budget that tinkers at the edges might be acceptable, but after the financial crash, a decade of Conservative and Lib Dem austerity, the pandemic and the fuel price crisis, the country is at breaking point. This Budget needed to go further and be bolder. That is what a Green Budget would do.

COP30

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I will finish this statement in the next 10 to 15 minutes, so I would be grateful if Members and the Secretary of State could keep their answers short.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs?

[Ed Miliband]

On the second point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). On the first point, I think she is being a little unfair, to put it mildly, on the UK. We led the process of agreeing last year an ambitious NCQG on overall finance. We were part of an agreement that saw the trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, targeting those resources. She knows the fiscal situation that we face as a country. I say very clearly to her, and to all Members of this House who take an interest in these issues, that we absolutely have not ruled out contributing to the TFFF in the future.

Warm Homes Plan

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight. I hope to bring to the House the voices of people in my constituency, of campaigners across the country, and of the many families who wake up each morning wondering, “How will we keep our children warm this winter? How will we keep our grandparents warm?” Those are questions that nobody should have to ask.

The Government have committed £13.2 billion to the warm homes plan, which is welcome. It was very strongly implied that this would be £13.2 billion of additional funding, but there are rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation and paying for it with the warm homes plan funding. That would mean that the Government were, in reality, reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If that is the case, it is extremely disappointing—and that is the understatement of the year.

I am really disappointed that the warm homes plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago, has been delayed and delayed. We now find that there is perhaps a Government plan to reassign some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the warm homes plan, and in the face of what we need to do: upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm home that is affordable to heat. Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country, and we simply cannot let a long-term programme be cannibalised to produce a short-term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short-term tinkering in the Treasury.

We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The Government’s own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England were fuel-poor in 2024.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful case about fuel poverty. In my constituency, around 5,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty—about one in 10 homes. We know that three factors affect this issue: the energy efficiency of a property, the household’s income, and the cost of keeping warm. Given that last year alone, energy companies made a profit of £61 billion, does she agree that it is time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff, which would bring down bills for all low-income households and those living in fuel poverty?

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the eye-watering profits made by energy companies—a subject raised during exchanges on the statement made just before this debate—and the irresponsibility of many of those companies’ actions. It is essential to ensure that when people pay their bills, the money goes towards keeping them warm, not filling the coffers of shareholders. Given those eye-watering profits, it is clear that there is capacity in the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices that has resulted from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is what has driven them through the roof; it has nothing whatever to do with levies and policy costs. We should be ensuring that those eye-watering sums are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, and enabling them to live in warm homes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In Northern Ireland we have a slightly different scheme called the affordable warmth scheme, run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem we have is that only a certain amount of money is set aside, and it is first come, first served, so some people in poverty do not receive the benefit, whereas others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that such schemes, whether here in England or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, must always make funding available to those who meet the criteria?

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Gentleman may have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I was about to make exactly that point. We must keep the needs of the most vulnerable households front and centre.

I was talking about the fuel poverty statistics. According to the Government’s own figures, 3 million households were fuel-poor in 2024, but using the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number—about 6 million households. We live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and no one, but no one, should be struggling to keep their home warm.

In the west midlands, where my lovely constituency is, we face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in England. North Herefordshire far more badly affected than the national average. Adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more likely to be detached or built before 1919—that is certainly the case in North Herefordshire—and therefore harder to heat efficiently, and rural households face deep fuel poverty and high energy costs. Moreover, installers are known to avoid complicated homes, such as those in my constituency, because they are less profitable, which means that schemes such as the ECO often fail to reach rural locations.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, the charity Act On Energy gives advice and support on energy efficiency to residents, many of whom are in fuel poverty. Its work is particularly relevant in rural communities where properties are older and harder to insulate and, in many instances, rely on oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Does my hon. Friend agree that more must be done to help off-grid households to insulate their homes properly?

[Dr Chowns]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the particular problems that we face in rural areas. This is relevant to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): we must support the most vulnerable households.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree that rural households such as those in my part of Cornwall desperately need the warm homes plan. Does the hon. Member agree that other sources of energy provision—for instance, ground source heat pumps and liquid fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil—could also be included, and would be a good addition to the plan when it arrives, which we hope will be soon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I am not an engineer, and I must confess to having some doubts, certainly about HVO, so I would need to engage in a bit more conversation on that subject. As for ground source heat pumps—yes, absolutely, although I understand that air source is normally more efficient. In my constituency we have some water source heat pumps as well, so all sorts of wonderful technologies are possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) drew attention to the excellent work done by charitable organisations in this sector, but fundamentally none of it is a substitute for a decent, proper, national, strategic, well-funded and long-term programme of home insulation to tackle the problem at its root. If we have delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors, whole swathes of the country will be left behind. We have had problems, such as those highlighted by the National Audit Office recently, that are related to short-termism and profiteering by some rogue contractors.

Retrofitting homes is central to solving fuel poverty. Insulation and proper energy efficiency measures reduce bills and cut emissions. Upgrading a typical home from an energy performance certificate rating of D to EPC C— I recognise that EPCs are not perfect, but I will leave that aside for the moment—would save households around £210 a year. That is a significant amount of real money for families who need it, and it is also good economics for the country. Investments in innovation and home energy efficiency pay back in lower bills, reduced pressure on the NHS, health savings, which are related to better health outcomes, and, of course, jobs created up and down the supply chain. We want to be investing in these new green industries.

It is important to acknowledge that there is a history in this sector; we have been here before. Past retrofit schemes have been structured in ways that prioritised speed and profit over quality and need, allowing cowboy contractors to exploit the system. That was in significant part due to the short-termism of those programmes, which limped from year to year with single-year funding allocations. It was utterly counterproductive, and I saw that myself as I wrestled with such programmes when I was working as a councillor and as a cabinet member with responsibility for energy and environment. We need long-term policy certainty. The colleges providing the skills training, the businesses wanting to support apprentices and take them on, and the companies wanting to join the supply chain need that long-term policy certainty, which is in the gift of the Government.

The National Audit Office recently reported very serious quality failures in recent ECO4 retrofit installations, leading to significant health risks for thousands of households. The Government absolutely must not allow the same mistakes to be repeated in the warm homes plan. The plan must commit not only to making homes warmer and bringing down bills for the millions struggling across the country, but to ensuring that no one ends up in a worse financial situation through having used a Government retrofit scheme. That is why the warm homes plan must promise homes that are not only warmer, but retrofitted properly by those with appropriate certification, and must be subject to independent checks.

The Treasury is tempted by immediate headline reductions in bills, but if the Government reduce or eliminate the ECO scheme and use the warm homes plan money to backfill those losses, the result will be fewer homes upgraded, fewer people protected from fuel poverty, and a greater long-term cost to the public purse and to our national health.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because the two things are intrinsically linked. It is absolutely vital that we have a strategic plan that brings together the issues that cause fuel poverty, including poorly insulated homes. Does she agree that the Government need to have a strategic plan that looks at geography as well as degree of poverty, in order to ensure that people’s homes and their finances are insulated?

[Dr Chowns]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who is a fantastic champion for health. She pays attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, and ensures that policy really addresses the root issues that people face. I agree, and that is why I am so deeply concerned that the Government are flying this kite, and suggesting that they will start plugging gaps in the cost of their energy bills policy by using the warm homes plan money. Instead, they should introduce a wealth tax; that could be another source of funding for this endeavour.

In plain language, taking money out of the warm homes plan to fill a gap that would be created by abolishing ECO is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is completely short-sighted. We absolutely need to cut energy bills, and we need as much investment as possible—as much as is needed—in the home insulation programmes that will provide the long-term solution to the problem of fuel poverty. This is not an either/or choice. We can and must make bills more affordable, and must at the same time invest in home upgrades to create future savings. We do not need to choose between warmth today and efficiency tomorrow. I mentioned a wealth tax; a 1% tax on wealth above £10 million, and a 2% tax on wealth above £1 billion, would raise at least £14.8 billion. That is way more than enough to pay for the cost of electricity bills policy, and to scale up, not down, the warm homes plan.

I want to set out briefly what a responsible warm homes plan must contain. First, it must treat the worst affected first, as hon. Members from across the House have said. It must prioritise low-income and vulnerable households and the coldest and least energy efficient homes, and treat warmth as a basic human right.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that a well-funded warm homes plan is essential to insulating draughty homes and cutting bills. I wonder if she aware of the situation faced by my constituents in Letchworth Garden City. They have a separate scheme of management, so people applying for insulation have to go through two layers of regulation. That creates a real block to getting insulation for people who desperately need it. Would she join me in urging the Minister to bring together MPs who represent areas with such schemes of management, so that we can address that hurdle and ensure that those most in need, in all parts of the country, get the support that they need from the warm homes plan?

[Dr Chowns]

The hon. Member is a fantastic champion for policies that address social and environmental justice. He raises the important point that in these schemes, far too often, people have to jump through umpteen hoops. We are talking about supporting the most vulnerable households; the last thing they need to do is jump through multiple administrative hoops, go through all the levels of a scheme, and then find that the deadline for the programme has been reached. We need to simplify and clarify, to provide long-term certainty to everybody working in the sector, and ensure that all households that need to access the warm homes plan can do so as easily and simply as possible.

I was talking about treating the worst-affected homes first; that was my first point. Secondly, a good warm homes plan must guarantee independent retrofit assessment and performance monitoring. We must not repeat the problems we had with ECO4. When public money pays for home improvements, the public must demand high standards. That means an independent public body with statutory powers to co-ordinate, monitor, evaluate and enforce, and to make sure that this stuff is done to the correct standard. It must be able to withhold payment until independent sign-off is achieved, and have a compulsory remedial fund that fixes, at no cost to households, any poor workmanship that somehow gets through. If we are to prevent a repetition of past problems, this body must create a publicly accessible register of any firms that fail to meet high standards.

Thirdly, a decent warm homes plan must include proper support and tailored delivery, especially for rural homes. North Herefordshire and many constituencies like it cannot be dismissed or overlooked because our properties are older and more challenging. We need specialist assessment teams, rural tailored procurement, and grant funding that recognises the additional cost of retrofitting hard-to-treat homes.

Fourthly, the plan must protect tenants. Retrofitting must not become an excuse for “retroviction”, in which landlords evict tenants to carry out improvements or unduly raise rents as a result. The warm homes plan must include a freeze on evictions and rent rises during any improvement works, and for a certain period after they have been completed. That would ensure that tenants felt the benefits of these improvements, and that costs were not passed on to them.

Fifthly, the plan must include an urgent programme to inspect and fix the homes affected by poor ECO4 installations. The victims of past Governments’ poor-quality schemes deserve an apology, compensation and a guarantee that this will never be repeated. The Government have to replace broken accreditation schemes and reform regulatory responsibilities, so that the system provides real accountability, not a paper trail of excuses.

Sixthly, the plan must be aligned with a clear energy affordability strategy. Real reductions in household energy bills mean reducing our dependence on volatile global gas markets, decoupling the price of gas from the price of electricity, expanding clean power capacity and tackling excessive corporate profits.

It is unconscionable that while millions struggle in cold homes, nearly a quarter of the annual average energy bill went to the pre-tax profits of major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers last year in the UK. That scale of profit demands scrutiny and a reconsideration of who bears the cost of our energy transition. Do we accept a system where families are priced out of warmth, while companies report massive profits, or do we invest in public goods that protect the vulnerable and create sustainable jobs?

The warm homes plan is a chance to change lives, lower bills, create good, skilled jobs and cut emissions. It is also, frankly, a test of this Government’s political will and our moral compass.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this really important subject to the House. Does she acknowledge that the Government have invested £13.2 billion, which is a long-term investment? Further, does she acknowledge that in my constituency, that has meant £11 million for the warm homes plan, which was match-funded by the council? The council tells me that this enables it to get on with delivering efficiency improvements to about 1,000 council homes over the next three years. That sounds pretty long-term and substantial to me.

[Dr Chowns]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the earlier part of my speech, in which I explained that I absolutely do welcome the commitment to £13.2 billion, but I am deeply worried that the Government appear to be backsliding from that commitment; they are promising to use part of that in other policy areas, as a sticking plaster. That could significantly reduce the overall package of funding available for this vital work, when the Government should be increasing it. If the Government do good things, I will say, “Well done.” If they threaten to do bad things, I will be really rather cross, and will try to put as much pressure as possible on the Minister.

This House, the Minister and the Government can choose to protect that full £13.2 billion, make it additional to the other schemes to tackle fuel poverty, and make this work for the poorest and most vulnerable, or we can stand by and watch the plan be hollowed out for short-term convenience. We can measure the cost of inaction in ill health, avoidable deaths, poorer education outcomes, and long-term added pressure on our NHS and social services. The choice is clear: the Government must not let short termism steal warmth and energy bill savings from millions. Please, do not let the lessons of the past be the mistakes of our future.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady rightly points out the importance of health in this debate. We face a crisis of warmth, but also a crisis of damp in our housing stock. In a building, ventilation and heating can often sit in tension with one another, yet it is vital that we think about the two together, and about how people dry in their homes, for example. Does she agree that we should look at fabrics, which I am very pleased she mentioned, as well as technology for heating, and should look to address in a conscious and positive way the ventilation of homes?

[Dr Chowns]

Absolutely, I completely agree. We need a long-term strategic approach that takes into account all the issues in houses, so that we do not repeat the problems of ECO4. That is part of the issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

I am literally on my final sentence. Let us make the warm homes plan the bold, high-quality, fair, accessible and accountable programme that the people of Britain deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on my liberation from the Government Whips Office. I know that he is a champion for his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am always happy to meet to discuss these important issues. He will know, as I do, that with wholesale gas costs 77% higher than before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we must get people off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices and on to clean home-grown power.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Nearly 3 million households in the UK live in fuel poverty. At the same time, a recent report from the Common Wealth think-tank told us that energy company profits average about a quarter of everybody’s bills. In the last few years, £70 billion has been paid to shareholders, instead of being reinvested or used to help tackle fuel poverty. Will the Minister commit to tackling those energy company profits by taxing them fairly and reinvesting the money in the urgent work that is needed—for example, through the warm homes plan—to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty in our country?

[Martin McCluskey]

The cost of energy has to come down, and one of my jobs as Minister for energy consumers is driving down the cost of bills, but we must also remember that the Government introduced a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, and we have the price cap on energy, which caps the profits of energy companies. We will continue to take that action.

Warm Home Discount

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Fuel poverty is an absolute scourge that we must work hard to eliminate. There are two things we must do to achieve that. On the one hand, we must deliver bills support. The expansion of the warm home discount is so important, because more households in fuel poverty will receive it. On the other hand, we must make sure that we are doing the job of upgrading homes. This year we have invested £1 billion to deliver 300,000 upgrades, but that is not enough. We have to massively increase the number of upgrades so that we are delivering millions over the course of this Parliament. We have committed to £13.2 billion, and we are now doing the work of setting out how we will drive the shift and change that we need to see across the country. We must ensure that the households that need it have insulation, solar panels, batteries and heat pumps so that their homes are warmer, and ultimately so that we can lower bills by up to £600.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Today’s announcement is very welcome and will make a real difference to many of our constituents. I am glad to hear the Minister reaffirm today that in addition to support with bills, the Government recognise the urgent need to ensure that every home is well-insulated and affordable to heat—a genuinely warm home—and are doing that through both hugely increasing standards for new homes and insulating existing homes. She has referenced the £13.2 billion Government commitment to the warm homes plan, which is welcome, though not enough, but why do the spending review documents show that more than a third of that money—£5 billion of the £13.2 billion—is money that the Government expect to get back, presumably to be repaid by households?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I think the hon. Member is referring to some of the financial transaction mechanisms. We will deliver the warm homes strand through Government support to some households as well as by working with energy companies, whether it be suppliers or distribution network operators, in order to ensure that we are driving upgrades. Part of that will involve the Government providing loans to suppliers, which they will pay back over time. I think that is what the hon. Member is referring to. We are very clear that we need up-front investment as a catalyst, and we are clear that we need to upgrade millions of homes and crack on with the job.