Consumer Energy Bills: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor]

Absolutely, and I will come on to the package that the Government outlined last week. It was very welcome, but we need to go further on immediate measures.

More than 12 million households are struggling with high energy bills today. It is not just the cold, but what creeps in with it: the damp and mould in children’s lungs and the reliance, for some families, on heating that produces dangerous carbon monoxide, which presents a threat to life and limb. Let us be clear: in parts of Britain where fuel poverty is all too common, we are at risk of letting one generation slip away slowly, sitting lonely in their homes, shivering, while we raise another forever stunted by a cold childhood.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; it affects everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. About 39% to 40% of households in Northern Ireland are classed as being in fuel poverty, meaning that they spend more than 10% of their income on energy just to keep their homes warm. Those stats are significantly above historic measures, and many working families do not qualify for Government assistance. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government must do more. Does he agree that very little action has been taken to ease pressure on working families, and that more must be done to adjust thresholds so that those families are eligible for support and assistance?

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Member highlights the gap between families who are eligible for support and those who just cannot quite make ends meet. Clearly, there is a challenge in making any measure completely comprehensive and ensuring that those in need get the support they require.

When Beveridge wrote of his five great evils all those decades ago, he had in mind specifically the kind of poverty that we are talking about here—not just in material terms, but in access to living conditions that make a higher quality of life possible. In the decades since, we have clung to the findings of his report while slowly letting the meaning of those words decay, assuming that things such as freezing to death in one’s own home were evils conquered by the “white heat” of revolution. We were wrong, and squalor, by means of poor housing, insulation and lack of warmth, is back in Britain. It is here, not just in the homes of the poorest and most vulnerable, but all too often in the suburban houses of middle-income families and in urban flats where young people raise kids.

That is to say nothing of parts of rural Britain, where very old, pre-modern insulation in housing is still the norm. For too many families and pensioners I meet, across neighbourhoods, ages and even incomes, this is the single most pressing issue in their lives. We do not need a new Beveridge report to tell us that—not that we are wanting for heartbreaking statistics. We can see it with our own eyes and hear it with our own ears, and we feel it in our bones when we knock on doors in our constituencies, time and again, day in, day out.

When an issue gets to the heart of people’s quality of life in such a huge way, the state has a duty to cut through the roadblocks, take the lead and do something about it quickly. This Government, however, have taken too long to do so. The announcement last week of the warm homes plan is welcome; we Liberal Democrats have been pushing for it for years. Many organisations working in this space, such as the MCS Foundation, are relieved to see it finally outlined.

Warm Homes Plan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks eloquently, and I am sure that what he said will resonate with Members across the House when they think of constituents who are poor and vulnerable and face a choice between heating and eating. The key priority is to get the money out to local and combined authorities. They are the best people to deliver the plan. Looking back over previous years, it is the experience of those authorities that means they are the best way to get help to people most urgently.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It really is good news, and we all welcome the warm homes plan and help for families. However, I have some concerns. I know that the Barnett consequential for the devolved nations has been confirmed, and that is good news, but the Executive will be the administrative body for the plan in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State outline how they will ensure access to and deliver the scheme, and—I ask this gently—how will the so-called squeezed middle-income families obtain help for insulation? Those squeezed middle-income families are highly taxed due to fiscal drag and struggle to heat their homes and pay their mortgage.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. The Minister for energy consumers met the Minister for Communities yesterday to talk about how we can work together—for example on the Warm Homes Agency, which is UK-wide, and hopefully on the solar loans as well. We want to do everything we can to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to help serve the people of Northern Ireland.

Oil Refining Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Equally, I recognise how he has stood up for his constituents over the Grangemouth issue, and I compliment him on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also thank the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate. He is right to refer to the Lindsey oil refinery, but all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is affected by the sector if we become vulnerable and reliant on foreign entities. Does he agree that for the nation’s energy security and future energy provision, we need to right this wrong and invest in British-based refineries and energy provision, because otherwise everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will suffer as a result?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. No debate would be complete without such an intervention. He is absolutely right that it is the United Kingdom’s energy security that we are referring to.

To turn to the future of the Lindsey refinery, which has been part of the local economy in my constituency for over 50 years, the closure is a tragedy not just for the immediate workforce, 124 of whom have already been made redundant, but for the area as a whole: the bars, restaurants, hotels, haulage firms, Humberside airport, catering suppliers—the list goes on. North Lincolnshire council receives around £2 million a year in business rates, which could steadily reduce over coming years. Needless to say, that would leave an enormous hole in its budget, which would have a consequent impact on the local community.

At last week’s question time, the Secretary of State said in reply to me that fault lay with the owner, Prax. I agree that the directors bear responsibility, but it is my constituents who are feeling the consequences. A Minister has previously stated that the Government are not in the business of saving failed businesses—even, it seems, when they are a vital national resource.

Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered energy pricing for consumers with factored energy arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a systemic regulatory failure that is quietly draining the bank accounts of residents across Scotland and the wider UK. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, yet large numbers of domestic residents are being charged inflated business electricity tariffs for the essential communal services that keep their buildings safe and functional.

In a nutshell, the issue is that in many residential developments, services such as stairwell lighting, fire alarms, lifts and door entry systems are powered via shared electricity meters. Despite that electricity being used entirely for domestic living, residents are routinely charged business energy rates. It is not a niche issue; it is a systemic failure driven by outdated rules and weak enforcement.

The financial harm to our constituents is stark. A typical communal supply, using around 1,000 kWh per year, would cost roughly £380 on a fixed domestic tariff. Under the frequently used standard variable business tariffs, that same usage can rise to around £1,465, an excess cost of approximately £1,100 per meter every year. Across a modest development of 75 flats, it can add around £12,000 annually to residents’ collective bills.

What makes that particularly galling is that many residents are entirely unaware of how their communal electricity is billed. They may not know whether it is on a separate meter, how many accounts are involved, or whether it is charged at domestic or business rates. The costs are simply absorbed into factoring charges, leaving consumers unaware of both the issue and their rights—unaware when they are being roundly fleeced for someone else’s failure to either act properly or correctly inform them. The root cause of the issue is simple: it is a regulatory mismatch. The problem sits at the intersection of Ofgem regulation, supplier interpretation and third party management structures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He and I spoke beforehand, but he might not be aware that consumers with factored arrangements in Northern Ireland were historically vulnerable to high, unregulated prices, similar to consumers in GB, but the Northern Ireland Assembly moved to correct that vulnerability. Does he agree that, UK-wide, those in communal schemes must have protection from gouging and be able to access better priced energy?

[Graham Leadbitter]

That is absolutely the case. To take Scotland as an example, consumers have a route to address complaints about this issue through the regulation of factors, but it is complex and cumbersome. There should be a simpler way to do it through the energy regulator, as I will touch on later in my speech.

Many communal meters are correctly classed as profile class 01, a domestic designation based on usage. However, where a property factor, managing agent or company holds the contract, suppliers often automatically apply the business tariff.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady has just done a good job of highlighting the importance of this matter, and she gets to the crucial point. The Opposition parties that reject solar, onshore wind and offshore wind are rejecting cheap, clean, home-grown power for the British people, which we on the Government Benches are in favour of.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. Not only is cost important when it comes to looking at gas-fired power stations; it is also important to ensure that communities have an input into the planning process. Has that been central to the formation of any policy on gas-fired power stations? Has he had the opportunity to share those thoughts and that information with the Northern Ireland Assembly, which wishes to look at the possibilities for Northern Ireland?

[Ed Miliband]

We have regular discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive on a range of issues. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about nationally significant projects, it is absolutely right that communities have input into these questions. Certainly in the case of home-grown low-carbon power, we want communities to see the benefit, because by hosting infrastructure, including low-carbon infrastructure, communities are doing a service to the country.

Oil Refining Sector

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for leading the debate. The very thrust of the issue that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) underlined, and that I endorse, is how it changes communities whenever disastrous decisions are taken.

The future of the UK oil refining industry has become an increasingly urgent topic as we navigate the pressures of energy security and the transition to net zero. I should have welcomed the Minister to her position; I wish her well in it. I am not sure whether today’s is a good debate for her to be answering questions, but that is by the way—we will see how it all goes. We have seen the closure of two major oil refineries this year, so it is important that we are here to discuss the future of our fossil fuel sector across the United Kingdom.

This debate is important not just for the constituencies represented by, for example, the hon. Members for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), but for us in Northern Ireland as well. Our oil came from Grangemouth and Lindsey, so the impact for us in Northern Ireland will be the same as it is for everybody else. The difference will be that we will not be getting oil from within the United Kingdom and will have to buy it from outside. That concerns me greatly.

I commend the Members who have spoken. In particular, I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth for his passion, which he always shows in the main Chamber and here in Westminster Hall. He puts forward his case incredibly well.

The UK’s oil-refining capacity has shrunk substantially over the past 20 years or so. As of 2023, total refining capacity stood at roughly 1.22 million barrels per day, and the UK produced around 51.45 million tonnes of refined petroleum products. Some people ask how this effects the workers. Many of us have constituents who work in the oilfields—I think nearly every constituency has them; I know I have them in Strangford—and this impacts on them as well. Northern Ireland does not have any operating crude oil refinery, and all refined fuels, such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel, are imported.

Historically, some of Northern Ireland’s fuel came from refineries across the rest of the UK, with the products shipped or piped to Northern Ireland terminals. For example, Petronas, which until 2025 operated the Grangemouth refinery, supplied almost all the fuel for Northern Ireland. We have witnessed the closure of two refineries, Grangemouth and Lindsey, and Members have outlined their concerns, whether they represent the area or are here to speak on behalf of others. There is no doubt about the significant impact on where we source fuel. Events in the wider UK refining sector, such as closures or capacity losses, will have knock-on effects on fuel security, price stability and supply chain resilience in Northern Ireland. The impact will be felt by us all.

We have witnesses the United Kingdom’s reliance on imports, and there has been a significant impact in terms of job losses, and the redundancy of engineers, technicians and maintenance workers. We also have to recognise the significant loss of skill and experience. Even if things were to change in time, those people will have moved elsewhere, so how do we start again? That is, if we are able to start again, of course.

Furthermore, the closure of refineries has an impact on associated industries such as petrochemical storage and marine freight. The impact is like a domino effect: one thing happens and it knocks on right down the line. With two large domestic refining assets having closed, the UK must now import more petrol and more diesel, which completely reduces our domestic control over fuel supplies.

I believe that we are doing our bit to improve our infrastructure and to adapt to net zero goals, but what does that mean in the meantime? I do not think anybody here does not believe that there is a role for net zero, for the green environment and for green energy, but we do not want to lose the core of our ability to produce oil for our own country. The United Kingdom’s commitment to net zero remains essential to protect the environment and for our long-term energy security, and to create new green industries. However, the recent closures of the refineries at Lindsey and Grangemouth show that the transition also brings real challenges for workers and local economies—for every economy right across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—affecting all the regions and our overall industrial capacity.

The transition has to be carefully managed. It is the responsibility of the Minister and this Government to ensure that we are equipped to deal with the changes, for the benefit of everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I always say that we are better together, but we have got to work together as well. We have to work together for everybody. That is what I ask the Minister: how can we make sure that we can all do it better together?

Budget Resolutions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for what he is saying, but on the £150 energy dividend for people across the United Kingdom, the Red Book lacks detail about how the policy will work in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he could indicate whether the support will be £150 in Northern Ireland, as it will in England. We must ensure that people receive the same in Northern Ireland as they do on the mainland.

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question; let me write to him with the detail on his point. We want as many people as possible across our country to benefit from this policy. By making different choices from those made in the past, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is able to invest in the long term. She is delivering the highest levels of public investment that this country has seen in four decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is vital that we rebuild our public services and invest in our national health service, to ensure people are able to contribute to our economy.

We also inherited a mountain of debt, with the previous Conservative Government having borrowed £1.5 trillion between 2010 and 2024. The fact is that austerity, Brexit, covid and Tory economic mismanagement have left our economy in peril, and our constituents are suffering the consequences in the form of rising prices and flatlining wages. For the poorest and most disadvantaged, the cost of living crisis has been a daily struggle for years. The Trussell Trust distributed approximately 60,000 food parcels in the 2010-11 financial year. By 2024-25, the number had risen to 2.89 million. This is the poisoned inheritance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is tackling, so of course she had to make tough choices with the hand that she had been dealt.

The decisions made in this Labour Government’s second Budget to lift 450,000 children out of poverty, help families with the cost of living and enable record investment to be made in our NHS will help a great many children. In my constituency, the scrapping of the two-child cap will lift more than 6,000 children out of poverty.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this Budget debate. I am reminded that in 2005, whenever Tony Blair was seeking re-election for an historic third term as Prime Minister, he celebrated the fact that this country had enjoyed 40 quartiles of economic growth. If anyone cares to think about that, they have to realise that that economic growth commenced two years before he commenced as Prime Minister. I say that because often in this Chamber all we get from our Government is complaints about what the Opposition could or should have done when they were in government, and an Opposition who chide the Government for some of the choices and pressure that they face. However, there are those of us in the Chamber—and, more importantly, in the country—who can look clearly at some of the economic challenges and missed opportunities.

It has been right in this debate that we have heard that a Government who promised not to raise tax on working people raised £40 billion in last year’s Budget. It is right to reflect that this year, having said that that was a one-off, £26 billion will be raised from this Budget. It is right to reflect on the pressure that that is putting on ordinary people up and down this country. It is right to reflect on the numbers who did not pay tax and who will pay tax—5 million additional taxpayers over the course of five years—and on middle earners in this country, 5 million more of whom will pay a higher rate of tax over those five years. Those are choices that the Government brought forth and that people in this country will have to pay for. This debate on the cost of living should lead to the same questions around threshold freezing or two-child limits.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland we have 440,000 children, and 103,000 of them are in poverty. By abolishing the two-child cap, this Government have ensured that those 103,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. The potential is there to do that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the two-child cap takes those children out of poverty and makes their lives better?

[Gavin Robinson]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have campaigned on the removal of the two-child limit. We did not agree with the limit; we do not think it is right, and we think it is immoral for families to be placed in that position. We opposed it when it was introduced, and we oppose it today.

When considering the cost of living, let us reflect on the fact that within two years—by 2027—the state pension will be taxed because of frozen thresholds? It will be taxed in 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2031 because of choices by this Government. We recognise that pensioners should be entitled to and need pension credit to supplement that, but if their sole income is the state pension, it will be taxed, unlike pension credit. That cannot be right, but it is what has been delivered through the freezing of thresholds.

I am happy to engage with the Northern Ireland Office—I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here—about some of the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. I recognise the additional £370 million through Barnett consequentials, although that is not one year’s addition; it covers a period of years with but £2 million in one of those years. The Secretary of State knows that the challenge this year for our Executive is £400 million—that is the current pressure. What is the one thing missing from the Red Book’s section on Northern Ireland? It is any challenge to the Executive; it is any mention of the fiscal framework and those negotiations that need to take place.

I lament the fact that there was praise for our Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland last week, when he talked about the need for revenue raising in our Province but then went on to rule out every significant aspect of revenue raising. Politically, they are not in that space, yet we have to share power with them. That is wrong. I lament the fact that we have partners in government who say, “We need more fiscal devolution; we need more powers in Northern Ireland”, yet they have manifestly failed to use the powers at their disposal. That cannot continue, and I say that there is a role for national Government in those negotiations.

We welcome that there is a potential £150 of support for energy bills in households across this United Kingdom, but there is no detail in the Red Book—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked the Secretary of State about that earlier, but he was unable to answer. This measure is coming in in April 2026, yet all we have is a notional offer from the Government to support the Executive in creating a system. Can we have confirmation as to whether annually managed expenditure will be made available to ensure that every household in Northern Ireland will be entitled to £150 on the same basis as in England and Wales? Will that extend to oil boilers? We heard about £130 for gas boilers, but 70% of homes in Northern Ireland are fuelled by crude oil.

I hope the Government will respond to those challenges today, because I do not want to be sitting in four or five months’ time with constituents in Northern Ireland saying, “What of that offer of £150?”, only to find that the support has not been there through AME or through central Government negotiations.

On pensions, I welcome the decision taken to provide an index-linked rise to pensions from 1997, but the Deprived Pensioners Association has highlighted that it is only prospective, not retrospective. It has asked for retrospective index-linked pensions and arrears, because far too many pensioners from 1997 and onwards have had their economic wellbeing curtailed in this cost of living crisis, because of the Government’s failure to introduce this change. It must be retrospective, and I would look forward to that coming about.

Home Insulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of home insulation on energy bills.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Across the country, 12 million households are in fuel poverty, with almost 5 million of them spending over 20% of their income on energy. Like many other people across the country, my constituents in Shipley face a cost of living crisis, and energy bills are a huge part of that crisis.

Increasing the energy efficiency of our homes is a crucial way in which we can reduce bills, yet the rate of home insulation installations declined under the previous Government. I am pleased that this Labour Government have taken positive steps to reverse that decline with the warm homes plan. In addition, I particularly welcome today’s Budget announcement by the Chancellor to scrap the disastrous Tory energy company obligation scheme, which cost more than £1 billion per year and cost many families more money than it saved. All of this will bring down energy bills for the average household by £150 from next April, reducing the cost of living and lifting more people out of fuel poverty.

However, there is an urgent need to upgrade our homes. The UK’s housing stock is among the least energy efficient in Europe. According to research by Imperial College London, homes in the UK lose heat up to three times faster than homes in the rest of Europe. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that almost a quarter of properties in Great Britain with cavity walls have no cavity wall insulation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand. The problems that she is outlining in her own constituency of Shipley are similar to those we have in Northern Ireland, where 65% of dwellings have full cavity wall insulation, 15% have partial cavity wall insulation and 20% have no cavity wall insulation. Does she agree that more must be done to lower the threshold for programmes such as the boiler scheme insulation grant, so that more households can apply for such grants to support them in heating their homes properly?

[Anna Dixon]

It is vital that people in all types of tenure and even low-income households—indeed, everybody—can access modifications that could save them money on their bills.

Poor-quality housing particularly traps households in fuel poverty, because people need to spend a fortune to keep warm. Data from Friends of the Earth shows that there are 17 energy crisis hotspots in my own constituency. These are neighbourhoods that have below-average household income but above-average energy bills.

In Shipley, we also have a higher than average proportion of homes that are non-decent, which means they do not meet the standards for a warm and dry home. Indeed, 64% of homes in Shipley have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. As a result of the extortionate cost of energy, the unnecessary additional high usage due to poor insulation and the flatlining of living standards under the previous Government, energy debt is soaring. Millions of households across the UK now have a combined energy debt of over £4 billion.

To help people to deal with this situation, fantastic organisations such as Christians Against Poverty work to tackle poverty. In Shipley, CAP provides a debt advice service. Across the country, this service has helped more than 20,000 people to become debt-free since 2010. We also have local food banks that offer fuel vouchers to those on pre-payment meters who cannot afford top-ups. However, energy companies must also act to support those people who have large unpaid debts, by bringing in programmes such as social tariffs and other forms of fair pricing to help those living in fuel poverty.

Poor-quality housing not only harms people’s finances; it also has a severe impact on their health.

Warm Homes Plan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Energy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I will limit the number of interventions that I take, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Conservative party had a record of being, or at least presented itself as, the party of sound money. This appears to be a decision to move away from that and instead to chase after our permanently absent colleagues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The cost of energy bills for the average household will be £1,775 this year. Charities indicate that energy companies are owed £4.4 billion by UK households. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the vulnerable and needy will be unable to heat their houses this winter because of the money that they owe? They cannot take on any more debt.

[Tim Farron]

Fuel poverty is a reality and a stain on our country. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it on behalf of his community.

Let us get to the heart of this debate. We must bring energy bills down, and the question is how. I am afraid that the plan put forward by the Conservatives is nothing more than a mirage. They say that we should cut bills by removing the renewable obligation levy—that is great. As always, we are ahead of them and have set out our plan to do just that, but the key difference is that our plan is properly funded through a windfall tax on the extra payments that the big banks are getting as a result of quantitative easing. The plan in this motion is funded by the Conservative hand wave—a classic these days—of saying, “We’ll just cut spending.” What happened to the Conservative party being the party of sound money?