Draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026
Luke Evans Excerpts(3 days, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, in my first outing on an SI from a Department I spent 18 months in. Not only is it amazing how much things have changed; it is amazing how much they have not, given some of the arguments that have come forward.
As the Minister rightly set out, the draft regulations extend the BUS to thermal energy storage systems and make it a little easier for Ofgem to recover payments. However, it would be remiss of me not to point out the context of this debate, when we have heard in the media that this could be one of the schemes facing funding cuts.
We only have to look at paragraph 5.5 of the explanatory memorandum to see that it still refers to the £2.7 billion. We discussed this issue yesterday in Energy Security and Net Zero questions, when we asked whether every single penny of the warm homes plan—that £15 billion-worth of funding—would be kept. However, the Minister was unable to give an answer, so it will be interesting to see whether that will be the case today.
When we boil this SI down, the real question is whether this further extension of subsidy represents value for money. The Government’s wider ambition was to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028, but deployment remains far below that level. Of course, this scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government, but we should judge policy by its results, and not defend it simply because we introduced it. The fundamental problem is that electricity remains too expensive. Rather than addressing the underlying problem, the Government continue to reach for subsidies. That risks having to ask taxpayers to compensate for an energy market that makes electric heating less attractive than it should be. There is also a question of fairness: households unable to afford a new heating system should not face additional costs to subsidise those who can.
Heat batteries may well have a role, particularly in homes unsuitable for heat pumps. We are not opposed to the technology; we are simply questioning the economics of subsidising it. The Government have announced a grant of £2,500 per installation, but they appear to have decided the level of subsidy before demonstrating publicly why that figure represents good value. In essence, Ministers have put the cart before the horse. A question still arises over whether the necessary standards have been established. If so, that is welcome, but standards tell us whether a system is safe and properly installed; they do not tell us whether it is worth subsidising. For example, a car can pass its MOT, but that does not mean the Government should give anyone £2,500 to buy it.
I therefore have three areas to explore. The first is the standards, which was also raised in the other place. Can the Minister confirm that all necessary product safety, design and installation standards are now in force? Will those standards assess real-world performance and not just safety? What redress will consumers have if properly installed systems fail to deliver the efficiency or savings they were promised?
The second area I would like to explore is the methodology. What evidence led Ministers to select heat batteries for taxpayer support? Heat batteries can store energy bought at cheaper times for use later. That may lower bills, but shifting electricity consumption is not the same as reducing it. The benefit depends on efficiency, household demand, electricity tariffs and the system’s operating life. Will the Minister publish the Department’s underlying analysis, including its assumptions about consumption, efficiency, running costs and lifetime carbon savings? How does that analysis compare heat batteries with other heating technologies? My question is not whether heat batteries work, but why the technology was selected for subsidy over other electric heating solutions. What criteria were applied and what alternatives were assessed? If another technology can deliver the same or greater carbon reduction at lower cost to the taxpayer, why should it not qualify?
That leads me to the final area: the costings. I simply ask the Minister how the Government arrived at £2,500. It would be helpful to understand what average purchase and installation costs were assumed. What annual running costs have been modelled, and what proportion of the total cost will taxpayers fund? Most importantly, what is the expected taxpayer cost per tonne of carbon saved, and how does that compare with the equivalent support for heat pumps? If the Government cannot answer those questions, how can this Committee judge whether £2,500 represents value for money?
Ministers may point to high satisfaction, as they did in the other place, among existing boiler upgrade scheme recipients, but satisfaction with one subsidised technology does not justify the price of subsidising another. They may also argue that the extension increases customer choice—the Minister mentioned that in his speech—but genuine choice requires clear information about installation costs, running costs and long-term performance, not simply the Government promising a grant. This is not an argument against innovation, but one for evidence-led policy and proper stewardship of taxpayer money.
We ask the Government to establish the standards, publish the methodology, and demonstrate the carbon savings and value for money, then determine the subsidy. Parliament should not be asked to approve an extension of subsidy without clear evidence that the Government have the economics right. The Minister would do well to explain not simply why heat batteries might work, but why the taxpayer should pay £2,500 toward them, and what measurable benefit we will see. Of course, this is all in the context of what will come in the Budget, so I am very interested to see if the Minister can answer those questions today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(4 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In January this year, the former Energy Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and with great fanfare announced £15 billion for the warm homes plan, so I have a very simple question: can the Minister provide a guarantee today that every penny of that commitment remains intact? Yes or no?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He would not expect me to stand here and make commitments that will be made by the Chancellor at the Budget at the end of this month. The hon. Gentleman’s party is trying to make us more dependent on fossil fuels, and to turn back the clock on the future homes standard—changes that would leave people across the country tens of thousands of pounds worse off.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In Hinckley and Burbage, if you look one way, you can see the rooftops of lots of logistics businesses, because we are the heart of the logistics sector; looking the other way, to Barlestone and Nailstone, you see agricultural land that has been turned into solar farms. My constituents rightly ask why we cannot have more solar panels on commercial properties. What conversations is the Department having with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that is a possibility?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is right: we should have many, many more solar panels on rooftops. We agree with him on that. I met the UK Warehousing Association recently to look at some of the technical difficulties around ownership and insurance. We want to do whatever we can to unlock the potential, because we have rooftops across the country that can play a huge part in helping us to achieve our clean power mission.
Budget Resolutions
Luke Evans Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
It is a privilege to open this Budget debate on a theme of paramount importance to our country: the cost of living crisis facing Britain’s families. Whatever our party, we should take a step back and think about the history of the last two decades since the financial crisis, during which we have seen: the stagnation of real wages, only this year getting back to their 2008 levels; the worst progress on living standards in the last Parliament since records began in the 1950s; an epidemic of in-work poverty such that, according to the Resolution Foundation, seven out of 10 families with children who live in poverty now have someone in work; home ownership falling from two thirds of young people in the early 1990s to less than half today; and the biggest rise in energy bills in generations earlier this decade when Russia invaded Ukraine, on top of public services facing strains as never before.
Each of those on their own would cause people to doubt whether this country really works for them. Together, they represent a perfect storm that makes people question their basic assumptions about our economy, society and country. This is the condition-of-Britain question of our time, and it is the backdrop against which this Government were elected 17 months ago. The mission—the driving purpose of this Government and this Budget—is to tackle that crisis. That starts from an understanding that this crisis is due to not accidental circumstances but a governing ideology, and that our response must be to change course in three ways.
First, we need to make fair choices that favour ordinary working people, not the rich and powerful, who have been favoured for too long. Secondly, we must invest in and rebuild our public services and infrastructure so that we never return to austerity, which was such a disaster for the social and economic fabric on which so many people rely. Thirdly, we must endeavour to change our economy so that it produces more good jobs at good wages that sustain a decent living for people, ending the hollowing out of our economy and our communities. That is what this Government are about; that is what this Budget seeks to deliver.
First, then, I want to talk about fair choices. An illuminating chart—I love charts—on page 33 of the Budget Red Book shows the impact of decisions since the 2024 autumn Budget. It shows the progressive approach of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It shows that every decile will be better off as a result of her measures, except the richest 10%, with the greatest gains as a percentage of income to lower and middle-income families. That includes raising the national living wage and the national minimum wage, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years and freezing prescription charges, as well as two measures I want to focus on.
The first measure is lifting the two-child limit in universal credit, which goes to the heart of the affordability crisis that so many face. I think we need to have a debate about this issue. According to a Department for Work and Pensions document published on the day of the Budget, since its introduction in 2017, the two-child cap has put 300,000 children into relative poverty. That is the equivalent, as the document says, of 100 children every single day—more than three primary school classes each day being pushed into poverty. It is also part of a wider picture. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 7.1 million low-income households—one in four across the UK—have gone without essentials in the last six months, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is why we have acted on the two-child limit. Two million children will be helped, and 450,000 fewer children will be in poverty by the end of the Parliament.
As I understand it, the Conservatives oppose the policy change because they claim it is about helping people out of work who are undeserving. We need to unpack this false claim. The inescapable fact that the Opposition want to run away from is that around 60% of families impacted by this policy are in work, not out of work. These are people for whom work simply does not pay, like in the case—highlighted by the Child Poverty Action Group—of Shauna and her husband, who have three children. Shauna’s husband works full time and she says,
“This will make a big difference because we’ve had to incur debts. Hopefully it will mean I can cover the last bills that come in each month instead of being in the red. I could buy a new mattress for two of my children. They can feel the springs on the mattresses they’ve got that they’ve had for many years.”
That is the condition-of-Britain question.
How does the Leader of the Opposition describe Shauna and her husband? She calls them “Benefits Street”. These are people working all the hours God sends, working hard, trying to do the right thing: the very people the Conservatives claim to stand up for. How dare she!
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When it comes to making decisions about poverty, it is difficult, so I would be grateful to understand the Secretary of State decision to change the winter fuel payments, which the Government’s own analysis said put 100,000 people into relative poverty and 50,000 people immediately into absolute poverty. Those are decisions that he and his Government made because they were concerned about the finances of the country. The Opposition now have similar concerns with regard to the child benefit cap changes, and yet the Government have made a different decision. Could he explain the reasons why there is a difference?
Ed Miliband
Well, the hon. Gentleman’s question is out of date, because, in case he had not noticed, we changed the policy on winter fuel payments. Let me just say this to him: he will have to answer to his constituents. Some 1,500 children in his constituency will be helped by our changes to the two-child cap, and he is saying, “Rip that help away.” Let us have the argument about this.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the policy punished children for being born, which is not something any Labour Government should be part of.
We hear that this decision may encourage people not to work, but we all know from the statistics that a majority of people in receipt of benefits are in some form of employment. As for the wider cost, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates the cost of child poverty to the country to be about £40 billion a year, so not only is scrapping the cap the morally correct thing to do; it is also the best thing for our country economically.
While I understand the pressures facing the Government, I hope that the fiscal circumstances will improve in such a way to see income tax thresholds readjusted to take account of the inflationary pressure recently experienced. Going forward, we must continue to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden to ensure that more and more working people are not dragged into paying tax by fiscal drag.
I have to say, I would like an explanation of the Chancellor’s comments about how those in receipt of the state pension will not have to pay any tax at the point that the state pension reaches the tax threshold in future. Of course they should not have to pay any tax on it, but why should a pensioner who might have a small private pension of £20 a week have to pay tax on that and their state pension? Once we start to look at some of the implications of the policy, it becomes clear that there are a number of unintended consequences. I hope that when the extra headroom that has been created by this Budget goes on to inspire further ideas in future Budgets, we can look at stopping some of the anomalies that the fiscal drag has created.
I will conclude with a few words on the automotive sector. I am proud to have in my constituency a Stellantis factory—or a Vauxhall Motors factory, as it is more commonly known round where we live. It is a site I have fought hard for over the years. Of course, the factory now manufactures electric vehicles. I welcome that the Budget reinforces the commitments that were made to our automotive sector in the industrial strategy for manufacturers. I am pleased that funding for DRIVE35 has been expanded by £1.5 billion, providing £4 billion over the next 10 years, which will help to build on the important investment the automotive sector needs.
I am also happy that plans to change the rules for the employee car ownership schemes have been delayed from next year until 2030, as that would undoubtedly have left many of my constituents hundreds of pounds a month worse off. Having now seen the impact of that policy, I hope the Government go the whole hog and cancel it altogether.
Dr Luke Evans
I have the automotive industry in my area too, and electric vehicles are really important. The implementation of the pay-per-mile change for electric vehicles is causing huge anxiety, as is the impact on the second-hand car market. We do not understand how this measure will work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must be clear on this, as it will have a big impact over the next two to three years while it is discussed?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman must have seen my speech, because I am just about to talk about that issue. He is right that there are a number of unanswered questions.
First, it is important to say that we do need to change to a pay-per-mile system for electric vehicles. The revenue we raise from fuel duty is clearly going to go down over the coming years, so there has to be a change.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on keeping one of their manifesto commitments, because their manifesto said, “Change”—it is just that no one realised that would be all that was left in the British public’s pocket when it came to it. I would like to give a second congratulations to the Chancellor, because I gather that she has won an award: best Dubai estate agent for 2025. We know that 250,000 people have now emigrated from Britain because of the impacts of her Budget. I expect she is now going for the next award in 2026.
More importantly, this seems to be a Labour Government who are caught between trying to do things on purpose or by mistake. At the last Budget, they were up front that they were going to tax education for the first time. They did not realise that what they were actually going to do was put up taxes on hospices, pharmacies and GPs—that was all missed. Now a new Budget has come forward, and I call it the “ball of wool Budget”. Why? Because for the first time in history we have had this ball of wool unravel time and again, for weeks upon weeks, until it was finally spun into a yarn that we were supposed to believe, but the British public have seen right through it. It is unparliamentary to use the term “liars”, but I think I can use “Pinocchio”, and I think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may well fall into that category.
Rest assured, people in Leicestershire and up and down the country see right through this Labour Government. They see what this Budget was all about: trying to placate the Back Benches, and how? It is through £40 billion of tax rises in the first Budget and £26 billion of tax rises in this one. Don’t just take my word for it, because even if, before the last Budget, we believed in the fictional black hole, which was then disproved by the OBR, the Chancellor went on Sky News after that Budget and said:
“We’ve now wiped the slate clean… It’s now on us…we’ve set the spending envelope on the course for this Parliament, we don’t need to come back for more. We’ve done that now”.
She went on:
“there’s no need to come back with another Budget like this, we will never need to do that again.”
Yet here we are with £26 billion more tax on the British public, yet we still have weak growth, high inflation and no living within our means.
The Chancellor has even broken her own manifesto commitment, which she has admitted, because in the 2024 Budget she said from the Dispatch Box:
“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous Government.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Yet, one year on, she said from the Dispatch Box last week:
“I am asking everyone to make a contribution.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.]
I need to tell the Chancellor that being asked for a contribution is not the same as being told, which is what this Government are doing. What would happen if someone tried to refuse, saying, “No, I’ve paid my fair share”? My constituents say, “I’ve done enough,” but they cannot just say no. They will get a fine or, worse, a criminal record and go to jail. So let us deal with the semantics and say what it is: a naked choice to increase tax on the British public.
In the run-up to the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was prophetic in what he said. We were not listened to, and I understand all the reasons why. He said, “A Labour Government will tax your holiday, your house, your GP, your pharmacy, your flights, your car, your pension, your savings”—have I missed anything? They have taxed charities, and even milkshakes—tax, tax, tax. The public have seen what a Labour Government have done. They were told about it, and they have seen it twice in a Budget. When it comes to the next one, I hope they will remember that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The hon. Gentleman may have meant to evade the rules with his reference to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, but he did not. I advise him to withdraw those comments.
Dr Luke Evans
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Budget contains pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicles? How will someone crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland be impacted by that taxation? The Transport Secretary is present; I think it is a question that many people may well be asking.
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—that is one of the issues I was going to raise. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was here earlier; when I asked that specific question, he could not answer it.
Our voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland is facing a funding cliff edge with the end of the UK shared prosperity fund. The sector has a further ask that support be ringfenced, which now seems to be a common call from many sectors in Northern Ireland.
When I had the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster here, the Prime Minister welcomed them to this place. Have those young farmers not made representations directly to Ministers on the impact of the family farm inheritance tax, which will have a disproportionate effect on them? The £1 million spousal transfer is a small token. What of the generational transfers so common in Northern Ireland farming—the transfer of a family farm from father to daughter, from mother to son, or from and to any other relative not mentioned in this case? Those asks have obviously fallen on deaf ears, tuned out by all but a select cohort of Back-Bench Labour MPs.
I have heard appeals from some noble Back-Bench Labour MPs, like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), asking their own Front Benchers to review the family farm inheritance tax. Will we see a reversal, or has No. 10 or even No. 11 made the calculation that a U-turn like we have seen in other areas would not save their seats and written them off already, like the farming families of the United Kingdom? I hope not, because some of those Members are among the most passionate the Government have.
We hear of the headroom that the Chancellor has established. I hope that she can use it to reimburse the £500 million that the change to agricultural property relief was set to raise, because there should now be the quantum to do that now.
I welcome the fact that the Transport Secretary is present, because I welcome the investment in the midlands rail hub and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. I have raised with her and the Northern Ireland Office investment in rail in my constituency, specifically the rail link from Antrim to Lisburn, and the Department for Transport has kindly funded the £1 million feasibility study. She has had sight of that, but our own Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland has yet to release it, even though she said she would do so this summer.
Those are the specific Northern Ireland concerns that we have with this Budget.
Heidi Alexander
In the interests of time, I will not give way.
It is because we understand what life is like for ordinary people that we have taken decisions in this Budget to provide real help with the cost of living. We know that an average household spends more than 10% of its income on getting around, getting to work and school, and making essential daily trips. That is why this Budget has not only extended the fuel duty freeze beyond the spring of next year, but restated our commitment to protect the bus fare cap.
For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares. If someone has a season ticket, is a commuter on a peak return or is travelling off-peak between major cities, they will get to keep more of their hard-earned cash. It is good news for millions of passengers, some of whom will save hundreds of pounds a year. That means extra money in people’s pockets, and it means that we will continue to keep a lid on everyday costs that drive inflation.
Heidi Alexander
I am not going to give way.
Budgets are about choices, and I know that not everyone agrees with our decision to freeze rail fares. Indeed, just days before the Budget, I received a letter from the shadow Transport Secretary effectively proposing a 4.8% hike in fares. I considered his request, but an increase in line with the retail prices index, as the right hon. Member pretty much suggested, would have put passengers’ fares up by hundreds of pounds next year. We should not be surprised that the shadow Transport Secretary wanted passengers to pay more—after all, his party increased fares by 60% when it was in office—but Labour Members believe in cutting the cost of living and putting money back into passengers’ pockets. As we set up Great British Railways, bringing together 17 different organisations into one public organisation, we will build a railway where passengers, not profits, come first.
While rail may often dominate newspaper headlines, this Government will never ignore the roads that carry most of our daily journeys. That is why, earlier this year, I gave the green light to the lower Thames crossing. After years of being stuck in planning limbo under the Conservative Government, it is now set to become the largest road building project in a generation. Thanks to this Budget, we are confirming a further £891 million of public funding, after which the private sector will take forward construction and long-term operation. Along with our commitment to extend the docklands light railway to Thamesmead, this is further proof that this Government are firmly on the side of the builders, not the blockers.
Before we came into power, our roads were a symbol of national decline. Poorly maintained and riddled with potholes, they were a nuisance at best and downright dangerous at worst. That is why, by the end of this Parliament, we will commit over £2 billion annually for local road maintenance, doubling funding since coming into office. We will fill millions of potholes every year, protecting drivers from having to shell out hundreds of pounds on costly repairs.
Investment and reform are my watchwords as we work to improve everyday journeys, but throughout all this we cannot be blind to the impact of transport on our climate. The truth is that most transport emissions come from our roads, which is why reducing costs for drivers while cutting emissions will be at the heart of the EV transition. The trends are already clear. EVs are often cheaper to run and maintain than more polluting cars, and consumers have noticed that, with EV sales accounting for a quarter of new car purchases in October.
However, this Budget enables us to go further. By committing an extra £1.3 billion to the electric car grant, we will keep saving buyers thousands of pounds on dozens of EV models. We will increase the expensive car supplement threshold for EVs to £50,000, and invest a further £200 million in the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure. My ambition is to make it as easy to charge up as it is to fill up, so I am pleased that the Budget confirmed a decade of 100% business rates relief for eligible EV charge points, and a review of the cost of public charging, including the impact of energy prices. Fairness remains at the heart of this Budget, and as the Chancellor rightly said, “everyone must contribute”, so electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles will start paying a new electric vehicle excise duty from April 2028. Above all, that ensures that all those who use our roads and all those who depend on our roads help to maintain our roads.
For years, the British people were resigned to poorer living standards, stagnant wages and public services that were not fit for purpose. This Government promised change, and despite the state of the economy when we entered office, we are delivering that change and doing so fairly. We promised no return to the long winters of austerity, and we meant it. An extra £120 billion in public capital investment over this Parliament will build new infrastructure and homes across the country. It will strengthen our energy security, and it will give the NHS its biggest ever capital settlement. For transport, it is a downpayment for better, more reliable journeys—trains people can rely on, buses that turn up on Sundays, roads that make driving easier and infrastructure that connects not just people with places, but the aspirations of the next generation to the opportunities of tomorrow. That is what this Budget is about: fair choices for a fairer Britain, where the cost of living falls, real wages rise, and our towns and cities get the connectivity they deserve. This is a Budget that delivers on the public’s priorities, and I am proud to support it.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Energy
Luke Evans Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
We saw this in the health service, with the private finance initiative; £13 billion of investment became £80 billion of public debt to pay back. Does my right hon. Friend worry that Labour seems to be following exactly the same principle by locking in these high future costs for our children and for the country?
Claire Coutinho
That is exactly right, and I will come on to that point in a moment. Everyone remembers those contracts. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the Secretary of State is signing us up to this century’s PFI, but this time, the cost goes straight to our energy bills.
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?
Dr Evans
In the previous debate, we talked about tax, and the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentions was also being used to deal with the tax burden on the high street. Will he explain the Liberal Democrat policy? How would they levy these taxes on social media giants and big banks, and where would that money go? It seems as if they are spending it twice in one afternoon.
Tim Farron
That is not the case. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning two of the sources of the additional income that we would raise. It is all very well just to blandly say, “We will get the money from somewhere,” but not to say where. The Liberal Democrats have said where we will find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. The people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, assures me that the deal was not signed. He will keep the House informed as and when it is appropriate to do so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Under Ofgem’s current rules, suppliers must provide complete and accurate billing information. Critically, bills are required to be displayed in plain and accessible language. We will work with the regulator to ensure that suppliers abide by that. However, it is worth saying that we recognise that many consumers feel let down by a broken energy system that is not working on their behalf. That is why we are reviewing the role of Ofgem, to ensure that it has the powers necessary to be an effective consumer champion.
Dr Evans
When it comes to bills, the public understand what unit costs are, but not what standing charges are. When I raised this with the previous Government and Ofcom, they said that it was a complex matter, but what I am asking for is transparency, so that people understand how the charge is made up, and can then make a judgment on what it looks like. Will the Government commit to asking Ofgem to ensure that that information is included in the billing, so that we can see the breakdown of costs—how much is going on human resources and how much is going on the actual infrastructure and wires—so we know exactly what is going on in the energy market?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We support transparency. Ofgem publishes the breakdown of all costs within bills, but there is more that we need to do to ensure that consumers understand what is going on. Critically for us, we know that consumers are very frustrated about the standing charges, which is why we are committed to lowering them. As I have said, a consultation is under way around what we do with standing charges, which includes introducing a zero-standing-charge tariff. Within that, we will be considering options to increase transparency.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises the important issue that what will define the future for North sea workers is whether there is a plan for future jobs in offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. There was no plan from the previous Government; this Government are absolutely determined to ensure a just transition for those workers, using the power of Government and a proper industrial policy to make it happen.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On petrol prices, for the past 11 years the Government froze fuel duty; they cut it in 2002 and then froze it again. The Government instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to carry out a review, and we came up with the pumpwatch scheme. A consultation was undertaken in January, but when I wrote to the Government in September to ask about its results, they said they were looking at it and would consider it in due course. Is the scheme a priority for the Government? If not, in what other ways will they ensure petrol prices are kept low at the pump? Are they going to freeze fuel duty?
Ed Miliband
I will not comment on the Budget, obviously. We are very sympathetic to pumpwatch—it is important that there is a fair deal for consumers at the pump.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my previous answer. It was this Government who worked with Ofgem to make sure that forced prepayment meter installation stopped taking place for vulnerable households. We have said very clearly that it is abhorrent, and we do not want to see it again. On compensation, we are working with Ofgem.
However, if the right hon. Gentleman talks about the wider energy plans—and we should do that—I think that he should consider the recent comments from industry that Labour’s plans would leave the country uninvestable, that they would hike the bills that people would pay, and that they would cost so much in needed taxes—over £100 billion of costs for Labour’s mad plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030, which, let me be clear, are not backed by industry, the unions or consumers.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
We will publish the Government’s response to the recent Pumpwatch consultation as soon as possible, and we continue to work closely with the Competition and Markets Authority, and the sector technology companies, to launch Pumpwatch this year. Of course, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that, when we launch this, we will of course make sure that everybody knows about this valuable resource.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will know, the Government delivered over £40 billion in support last winter. We expect the warm home discount to support around 3 million households this winter, with the final figures to be published later. Since 2011, the warm home discount has delivered over £3.5 billion in support for eligible low-income households.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the news that Ofgem has put the price cap down by 12%, which represents a discount of about £20 for every average home. There is one problem, though: the standing charge is still relatively high. I know there is an open consultation, but would the Government consider transparency about the standing charge on bills so that the public understand exactly what it does?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Clearly, it is vital that we had the call for input on the standing charges, and we await with anticipation how we will react to the over 40,000 responses that we have had so far.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Solloway
I am aware of the challenges facing all the industry. I have ongoing talks with UKHospitality and other groups. There are things that we can do, such as blend and extend, and we are looking at the brokers, and ensuring that third-party intermediaries are doing their jobs correctly.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Driving down to Parliament, I pass petrol stations. In my constituency, prices were 136.9p and 137.9p. However, at the service stations, they were 164.9p and 167.9p. That is a massive difference, which the public just will not tolerate and want something to be done about it. What will the Government do?
Amanda Solloway
Road fuel prices are down for a second consecutive month. Petrol prices are now at a level not seen since early October 2021, following our work to bring transparency to the market. Today, we launched the consultation to require petrol stations to report real-time prices, which will mean that drivers can compare prices and get the best deal, and prices will fall through greater competition.