Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Nick Timothy(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
When the price cap fell last month, the Labour party boasted, “£129 off your bills, delivered by Labour”. The Minister knows that energy bills fell as wholesale gas prices fell, and she knows that her policy is to take the country off gas and keep increasing policy costs on bills. That is why she refuses to repeat the claim. Will she take this opportunity to apologise for her party saying something that she knows is untrue?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Every time the hon. Member stands up to speak, I hold my head in absolute frustration. He is gambling with fossil fuels, and quite frankly the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame. Energy bills rocketed under their watch and they did nothing about it—they were happy with that. That is not a legacy that we are willing to contend with, which is why we are taking action in the short term to drive down bills through our sprint to clean power. Their legacy is one they should be ashamed of, so they should not be lecturing us.
Draft Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Nick Timothy(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy
I will go first, then, and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) to ask a superior question.
The Minister is talking about fossil fuel prices and how the Government want to take us away from them. We have had an exchange in the past couple of weeks about when the price cap was lowered because of the fall in wholesale gas prices. When that happened, the Labour party put out literature saying, “£129 off your bills, delivered by Labour”. When I put that to the Minister, she disowned that language and used her own words. I understand why; she is an intelligent and principled person, and that poster from Labour was neither intelligent nor principled. Will she apologise for that and say that it was wrong?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have had this conversation over and over again. What I would say is that we are very clear that we are on a rollercoaster, with fossil fuel prices driving energy bills up and down. We are absolutely committed to dealing with that. We are also absolutely committed to reducing energy bills, which went up and up under the last Government. We will not allow that to happen: we have made a commitment to reduce energy bills by £300 by the end of this Parliament and we are doing the job of making that happen.
I come back to the fact that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The proposition from the Conservative side, to the extent that it is a proposition, is completely wanting and unrealistic. Families and businesses across the country would be saddled with high prices that were a function of our being on this rollercoaster. We are not willing to contend with such a reality, so we are taking measures. The shadow Minister says that he wants to see more nuclear, but there was not a single expansion of nuclear under the last Government: 14 years absolutely wasted. We are doing the job of getting to clean power in order to reduce energy bills—
Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2025
Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Nick Timothy(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for these important technical standards. I will address his question and then reiterate why we believe that the proposed changes are so important.
It is incredibly important to stress that levies on bills are funding critical infrastructure. We inherited a situation of under-investment in our networks and transmission and, critically, in the energy mix that we need in order to diversify our energy supply and ensure energy security. That was the Conservative legacy. We are now fixing it, which requires investment, but we are absolutely clear that every pound of investment has to be combined with a very clear plan to get to clean power. That is important because the last five years have shown us that our dependence on fossil fuel markets has left consumers exposed; people have faced record energy bills because of it. The Conservatives were happy with that when they were in government, but it is not something that we are happy with, which is why we are committed to getting to clean power.
Nick Timothy
If it was clear for such a long time that infrastructure needed to be improved and that the right way to do that was increasing levies on bills, why was that not in the Labour manifesto? Why did the Labour manifesto instead promise that bills would be £300 a year cheaper?
The Chair
Please reply briefly, Minister. We are getting off the subject of the statutory instrument.
Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation
Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Nick Timothy(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will raise the issue of deemed contracts with the regulator and the ombudsman. More broadly, my hon. Friend has raised specific concerns about the ombudsman’s approach. There is a clear complaints procedure, so if constituents feel that they have not had the service that they require, there is a process to escalate their complaint up the hierarchy of the ombudsman and consumers should use it.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of the Ofgem review, as did other Members. I could not agree more; we need a regulator with teeth that is on the side of consumers. As part of our manifesto, we promised to strengthen Ofgem, to ensure that it can hold companies to account for wrongdoing and require higher standards of performance, and to make sure that customers receive automatic customer compensation for poor service. To address that, in December, we launched a comprehensive review of Ofgem. We are in the weeds of that review, which will conclude in the autumn. Critically for me, the review will establish Ofgem as a strong consumer regulator. It will ensure that Ofgem is equipped to address unacceptable instances of customer failing and, importantly, we want it to reset consumers’ confidence in a system that, quite frankly, they have lost confidence in.
In response to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the review will specifically look at whether Ofgem has the right remit, mandate, tools and powers to do the job that consumers expect. We want to ensure that all the examples are represented, so we have done a big call for evidence. We are doing huge amounts of engagement to make sure that all the evidence informs the final conclusions of the review. Critically, it will also look at redress, because we know that we need to get that right. The point has been made over and over again that it is about setting in place the right regulatory framework, but also about making sure that there are repercussions when compliance does not happen, and that there are clear enforcement mechanisms. We want to ensure that the regulator has all that.
We know that the cost of energy is a massive issue for businesses across the country, particularly small businesses. This issue, and the question of whether we cap energy bills for non-domestic customers, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). We have taken the judgment that the way that we respond to energy bills that are too high is to sprint in order to deliver clean power and break our dependence on fossil fuel markets so that we can drive down costs and bills for consumers. The shadow Minister is wrong: this is not and never was ideological. We have seen the worst energy crisis in a generation and our dependence on fossil fuels was at the root of that. That crisis, not on our shores, meant that businesses and consumers across the country were paying the price. That is why diversifying our energy mix, whether Members believe in net zero or not, and generating home-grown clean energy that we control are the routes out of this bind and out of volatility. That will deliver energy security for families and fundamentally secure family and business finances.
Nick Timothy
The Minister, as Ministers do, made a point about the volatility of gas prices. When wholesale gas prices fell and the price cap was lowered, the Labour party put out posters saying, “Labour have just cut your energy bills.” Will she accept that it was wrong for the Labour party to do that, when that fall was because of the reduction in wholesale prices and nothing to do with policy costs, which were actually increasing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My words were very clear. We welcome the reductions in energy prices, but we were very clear that we are on a rollercoaster: prices go up and prices go down. We must get off the rollercoaster so that we deliver energy security. That will deliver price stability and fundamentally secure family finances.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make some progress.
I want to end by addressing the issue of energy brokers, which has been raised. We know that many energy brokers can help businesses to save money on their bills with contracts tailored to their needs. However, we have also seen evidence of opaque charging structures and unfair sales practices. We are hugely conscious of that, and last year the Government launched a consultation on introducing regulation of third party intermediaries such as energy brokers, aimed at enhancing consumer protection, particularly for non-domestic consumers, where we have recognised that there is an issue that must be addressed. The consultation has now closed, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that the Government are working through the huge volume of responses that we received and will respond in due course.
Finally, to the hon. Members—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Nick Timothy(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Several times now, I have asked Ministers to rule out aligning the British carbon price with the European one and each time they have refused to do so. They have already abandoned their promise to cut energy bills by £300 a year, but alignment would increase wholesale costs and therefore increase bills for every family in the country. Can the Minister, at last, be straight with the public and tell us whether the Government plan to match the European carbon price—yes, or no?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are engaging with industry on this matter. The Confederation of British Industry and Energy UK are clear that they should support alignment, but we are looking at that. Ultimately, we are doing everything that we can to bear down on energy costs in this country. That is why we are sprinting to clean power. We inherited an absolutely atrocious legacy from the Conservative party, which allowed businesses and consumers to bear the price of a broken system. We will not make the same mistakes, which is why we are cracking on with the job.
Nick Timothy
I think we are getting closer to the Government admitting their secret plan. As soon as the local elections are done, Labour is going to sell out to Europe, and the result will be higher bills for British families. But there is more: the EU is expanding carbon pricing to include transport and heating emissions, so alignment with the expanded scheme would mean extra taxes on every British family for driving their cars and heating their homes. Will the Minister rule out aligning at least with the expanded scheme and say no to new taxes on everyday life—yes or no?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am absolutely disappointed by the Conservatives. I should expect more, but maybe I need to get used to being disappointed. We saw the press release a week ago, and it has had no publicity because it is a Conservative party scare story. It is absolute nonsense. The Government are serious about bearing down on the cost of energy for businesses, and we are getting on with the serious work of doing that. I suggest that the Conservatives get a grip and join us in that task.
Fuel Poverty: England
Debate between Miatta Fahnbulleh and Nick Timothy(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me reassure the hon. Member that we are talking to all devolved Administrations. There are common challenges that we all face and common solutions. We are working in collaboration; we have an interministerial working group, and I am having direct conversations with all devolved Administrations as we take forward our plans.
We are also trying to work with everyone. The challenge we face to turn around the trajectory on fuel poverty is huge and the inheritance is tough, so we want to draw on the expertise of consumer groups, industry and academia as we develop our plan on fuel poverty.
Nick Timothy
The Minister talks about the tough job the Chancellor faces. Does she acknowledge that the job is tough because of the Chancellor’s own choices? The Minister talks about the inheritance but, as I said in my speech, the Labour manifesto said that Labour would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, while the Budget increased it by £76 billion a year. That is why the Chancellor faces tough decisions—they originate with her own political choices. Does the Minister acknowledge that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is pretty audacious of the hon. Member, given the record of the previous Government, their financial position and the wrecking ball they took to the economy. We have to clean up the mess of the previous Government, so yes, we have had to make tough choices before that. Candidly, if I were in the hon. Member’s position, I would be hanging my head in shame, rather than lecturing this Government on how we clean up the mess they created. What I will say is that, whether on the economy or fuel poverty, we understand that we have been given an atrocious inheritance. We are not complacent about that. Things that the Conservatives were willing to accept, we are not willing to accept.