Energy

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy. He is right: the only people who have not got the message are Labour Members, who are on the wrong side of this debate. The Secretary of State promised to cut bills by £300, but bills have gone up by £200 since the general election. I warned Labour Members over and over again that this would happen, but they did not listen. Now, under their plans, energy bills will keep on rising. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions, or to energy bosses, who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and, in a bombshell moment, said that even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of Labour’s plans. I would hazard a guess that their view is shared by the Prime Minister, given that he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does the Prime Minister know that these guys don’t, I wonder?

Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most expensive. If we want people to adopt electric cars or electric home heating, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want artificial intelligence or industry to succeed in this country, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want people to have a better standard of life, so that they can spend more money on their families than on their bills, we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, and not just for a favoured few, whereas Labour is pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. Our plan would cut bills for everybody—households and businesses. It would mean £165 off the average family’s bill, but even more if they spend more—and we could do it now.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the right hon. Lady speaks about “our country”, does she include Northern Ireland? Would her motion extend to Northern Ireland? Unfortunately, we are subject to EU regulations, which on 1 January will introduce the carbon border adjustment mechanism; so in addition to the iniquitous Irish sea border, there will be a carbon border. Her party brought that about. What does she intend to do about it in the future?

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the plight of Northern Ireland. As he knows, there is a single energy market on the island of Ireland, but we need to cut electricity costs for everybody, right across these isles.

The first part of our plan would be to axe the carbon tax. The carbon tax on electricity pushes up the price of gas, wind, solar and nuclear, and it has gone up by 70% this year, thanks to the Government’s policies. We asked Labour Ministers about this, and they pretended not to know anything. We warned them not to put the tax up, and they said it was a Conservative scare story, but here we are. The Secretary of State blames gas for high bills, and I am sure the Minister will do the same in his speech, but a third of what we pay for gas is a carbon tax that the Government choose to impose. If the Secretary of State thinks that the price of gas is too high, he could take off the carbon tax and cut the price of gas by a third tomorrow. Guess what? That would make wind, solar and nuclear cheaper, too. Every time someone blames gas, it is like them complaining that their bath is overrunning when they will not turn off the taps. It is in the Government’s gift to axe the carbon tax. It has gone up because of them, so what are they waiting for?

Secondly, when the wind blows, there are wind farms in this country getting three times the market price for electricity, thanks to renewables obligation subsidies. That is clearly mad. The Secretary of State doubled those subsidies when he had his last chance to ruin the energy system. We closed the scheme in office, but it is time to scrap it.

Those two policies would cut people’s electricity bills by 20% now, in time for winter—and in time for us to be a world leader in AI, and to stop the crippling redundancies in the industry that are coming down the track. Instead of taking up those policies, the Labour party is doing something very different: it is intent on locking us into higher prices for longer.

The results of the Secretary of State’s botched wind auction will become clear in January. When the Government promised to cut bills, the cost of electricity was £72 a megawatt-hour. Last year, they locked in a fixed rate of £82 for offshore wind, and this year they are offering up to £117. These are fixed-rate, inflation-linked contracts, and they have extended the length of those contracts, so we will be paying these prices for 20 years. Essentially, they are signing us up to a 10% fixed-rate mortgage for 20 years, because they do not want to be on a 4% variable that moves around. The problem is this: if they sign up to higher prices than the current cost of electricity—this is before we include all the extra costs of wind, such as paying to turn it off when it is too windy, and paying for back-up when it is not windy enough—how will that cut bills? There will be higher prices for longer. Those are the prices that not only you and I will pay, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that our children will pay.

Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The essence of these regulations is that a part of this United Kingdom should be subjected to regulation governing energy-related products, not by the laws made by this Parliament, nor even by the laws made by the devolved Stormont institutions, but by laws made by a foreign Parliament and initiated by an unelected foreign institution—namely, the European Commission. Those are the laws that would be imposed on consumers and citizens of Northern Ireland by these regulations.

Any rational observer might expect that the right to make the laws of any part of a country would rest with the elected representatives of that country—but in fact, pursuant to the protocol/Windsor framework, the right to make those laws was surrendered to a foreign polity. We have an absurd situation, illustrated by these regulations, whereby seven new EU regulations are being enforced automatically upon citizens of the United Kingdom, and the very Parliament of that United Kingdom is prohibited from changing, amending or disapplying them—or doing anything other than applying them—because the lawmaking powers on these issues have been surrendered to the EU.

That is all set out in graphic, frightening detail in annex 2 of the protocol, where we read 289 areas of law where the United Kingdom can no longer make laws for Northern Ireland. These regulations represent one of those ambits or areas of law.

Of course, that has many ramifications, including the important democratic fact that it disenfranchises the people of Northern Ireland. The fundamental principle of this nation, and indeed of any democratic nation, is that people live under the laws made by those whom they elect. These laws, however, are made by those elected not by anyone in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, but by people in 27 foreign countries. That is the absurdity of what has been imposed in these regulations.

That issue is of immense constitutional significance and, in truth, it is why there is no consultation. There is no consultation about whether these laws should be applied to Northern Ireland for the simple reason that, if there were a consultation, and if that consultation suggested that they should not be applied, it could not be adhered to. It would only show up the impotency of Parliament and the institutions in the United Kingdom, because the right to make these laws has already been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. The view of the Government is that there is no necessity or point to consulting, because their hands are tied.

However, if there is a suggestion that similar regulations might be imposed in Great Britain, there has to be a consultation. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum says that there will be such a consultation—why? Because that is the normal process. We do not impose something without going through the due process of consulting about it. But what we are doing here tonight is the antithesis of that. We are imposing on Northern Ireland regulations upon which we will not consult, because we have already sold the right to consult and the right to make any decision other than to impose them.

It is not just a constitutional issue; it is a practical economic issue. It applies to the vast range of energy-related products, from smartphones through to tumble dryers. Take tumble dryers as an example. There are basically two types: the convector or vented tumble dryer, and the heat pump tumble dryer. Under the regulations, it will become illegal to have a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland, or for a retailer to sell one. It will be impossible for a manufacturer in Great Britain to complete an order for a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland. A convector tumble dryer operates at lower ambient temperatures, so many of them are in garages attached to houses, whereas a heat pump tumble dryer would not operate in those colder temperatures. We are saying to the people of Northern Ireland, “You cannot any longer have a British-made convector tumble dryer in your garage. Why? Because the EU says you can’t.”

Think of the magnitude of the absurdity of that: citizens of this United Kingdom are being dictated to not by the democratic mandate of this House but by the undemocratic control of a foreign Parliament. That is the abiding absurdity of the regulations. The Government’s answer to all of that will be to just align the whole of the United Kingdom to the same EU standards, as we will see tomorrow with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and as we are seeing through their approach to these regulations. What was the point of Brexit? The whole point of Brexit, we were told, was that we could be master in our own house and make our own regulations, but now we will simply reregulate back into line with the EU. That is a very retrograde step.

One other very important thing about the regulations is that they provide that there will be no further debate about such matters when it comes to further new regulations. All there will be is a statement by a Minister that they have come into effect. Courtesy of what is being approved tonight, there will never again be a debate, a discussion, a Delegated Legislation Committee or a debate on the Floor of the House about new measures, because that right is being surrendered as well. That was confirmed by Lord Hunt in the other place.

I say to the members of this Committee—although I know that, whipped as they are, they will not do it—that this is a step they should not take. They should have some thought for their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, and stand up for the right that they should be governed by laws that this Parliament can make and that this Parliament can change, and not subject them, colony-like—because that is what it is, colony-like—to the laws of others.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I start by saying that we have our obligations under the Windsor framework, which was passed in this House with an overwhelming majority. We are not here to litigate the rights and wrongs of that process; that has already been done. We are here to discuss the specific regulations that are being put in place. Critically, the regulations are about improving the efficiency of products that we believe will be good for consumers and good for businesses, and will create opportunities.

[Jim Allister]

Surely the truth is that we are here to impose regulations that the EU thinks will be better for consumers, because it treats Northern Ireland as EU territory. These are not the regulations of the United Kingdom Government.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me say to the hon. Member that we have absolutely looked at the regulations. As the UK Government, we believe that they are good for consumers. In fact, the ambition that has been set by the regulations is one that we wish to mirror ourselves. We will consult on these standards, not because the EU is telling us to but because we think that it is the right thing for UK businesses and consumers.

The vast majority of manufacturers who sell not only in the GB market but in the EU market are already making the transition, because that market is much bigger. They are already driving up product standards. That is good for businesses, and we want to support and encourage that.

I hear the arguments and the caution about not being dictated to by the EU, but please hear me when I say that we think it is right that we drive up standards for our consumers. We would want to do this. The EU has done it, but we would want to do it in our own right. That is why we have tabled this SI and it is why we are also planning to consult on improved standards.