Oral Answers to Questions Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberPublic services across the country, including schools and hospitals—I hope this will come to the hon. Member’s constituency—are seeing reductions in their bills, and money is being transferred to the frontline. We on the Government Benches support those proposals. We support lower bills. As I said to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), he can look forward to his constituents having lower bills as a result of this Government’s actions.
There are people who are saying that the way to bring down bills is to reach agreement with the oil and gas companies to charge less for gas in the North sea. Is not the problem with that argument that there is absolutely no way that those privately owned companies will agree—or that their shareholders will allow them to agree, to be more accurate—to a lower price than they can get elsewhere in the world?
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The Conservatives come here month after month making the same argument about something that will not reduce bills by a single penny. It was they who said that during the last crisis and when they were in government. This Labour Government are about reducing people’s energy bills, which is the priority of the British people.
This Government are taxing people up the wazoo and piling cost after cost on to their energy bills. People on £30,000 or £40,000 a year, who are not well off, are being hammered to pay for welfare when they are already working all hours to support their own families. Now we hear that the Government are about to go back to the taxpayer again to subsidise those on welfare, but their first port of call should be to adopt our cheap power plan. It would cut electricity bills by 20% for everybody by cutting green taxes and levies, and it would not cost the taxpayer a penny. Why will they not do that?
The Conservatives’ plan is totally incredible, and the shadow Secretary of State knows it. Their plan on renewables is just to tear up the contracts. They had 14 years to do it, and they did not do it. Why? Because they know that they cannot. I have to say, it is quite extraordinary that her position is now to abolish the windfall tax, which has raised £12 billion since it was introduced in 2022. The difference between us and them is that we are willing to tax the oil and gas companies to help ordinary families.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Despite solar and wind being freely available, only 15% of renewables are subject to contracts for difference, which effectively control prices. Given that the conflict in the middle east is set to add up to £300 to bills, is it not time that the Government addressed this Trump tax by transferring all renewables on to contracts for difference, as part of the Liberal Democrat’s plan to halve energy bills?
No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to alternative facts. What the last Government said, what this Government said and what every sensible economist says about more production is that his idea of more drilling—“drill every last drop,” or “drill, baby, drill”— would be precisely the wrong thing for our country because it will make no difference to the price. The answer is home-grown clean renewables that we control.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“In the face of further geopolitical turmoil, now is the time to alter our approach to energy… Drilling in the North Sea and scrapping carbon taxes on British manufacturing would kickstart economic growth, tackle unemployment…as well as prevent further deindustrialisation.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments from the Labour Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s advocacy for his constituents. It is essential that the Scottish Government scheme, which is running to support people with heating oil costs, finds its way to the people who need it. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government have chosen to centralise the funding rather than work alongside local government, but it is for them to set out how they will ensure that everyone is reached.
I declare an interest: my home is off the gas grid and my boiler is fuelled by domestic heating oil. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, and there have been significant gaps—there has been no mention of liquefied petroleum gas, for example. Although it is always right to support the most vulnerable in our society, I am not sure that he has fully understood that there are many households on modest incomes across rural communities that do not receive benefits and simply do not have £500, £600 or £700 lying around to meet a bill that they have not budgeted for.
Perhaps the Minister could answer a specific question on certainty. While the CMA investigation goes on, customers continue to place orders without knowing how much they will be charged when the oil is delivered. He could implement an interim measure before a wider set of changes to stop that practice. Will he do so?