Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and indeed their correspondents and constituents, for raising the issue of heating oil and the powerful ways in which they have conveyed it here in this Chamber.

It will be of little comfort to those people that the situations that I hear about in my own correspondence regarding heating oil keep me awake at night. The reality is that, for far too many families in this country, our exposure to the global energy crisis is felt most strongly by people who simply thought that this was the way they would be able to heat their homes for good. That change is a profound and difficult transition for them, which we as a Government have a responsibility to support them through.

Others have mentioned those 1.5 million homes and talked about the thousands of people affected in their own constituencies, and we recognise those particular challenges. It is worth while, however, thinking about how we are addressing that in the context of the wider global energy crisis and the efforts that we have already made.

This is an extremely difficult international backdrop. Some Members have mentioned how hopeful they are because of the midterm results overnight, but I tell this Chamber that, even if there were to be a full and complete ceasefire in Iran now, we would not see a return to the comparatively low prices we had before. Half of the recessions since 1973 have been caused by fossil fuel shocks. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), but if we are to protect these families in the future, we need to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, not simply talk about drilling more—anywhere at all, frankly. Oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for some time to come, but continuing to allow these families to be exposed to the fossil fuel rollercoaster would be a dereliction of duty.

That is why it is so important that we have committed to the boiler upgrade scheme, for example. I slightly correct my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), as the scheme actually provides £9,000 for off-grid homes. The last quarter saw a 120% increase from this time last year in the number of people applying. That indicates that people can see that, if they want to reduce their exposure to the appalling consequences of this fossil fuel crisis, the best thing to do is to take advantage of the scheme and adopt cleaner heat technology.

I reassure those colleagues who mentioned that the housing stock in their communities is possibly not suitable. The Department has done a significant amount of work on this, and it suggests that more than 90% of households will be suitable for heat pumps. That will include many of the households that are currently exposed. This is not, in any way, shape or form, enough on its own. We have an emergency, bearing in mind that it is early November.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I mentioned the ECO4 scheme. I accept the Minister’s statistics on suitability for heat pumps, but one of the key challenges is that we have few fully qualified tradespeople capable of carrying out this work. That is why my constituents have been left with completely substandard work when they have tried to implement changes.

[Ms Billington]

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government understood the importance of devolving the responsibilities for this kind of thing to local government in Scotland, and ensuring that local government has the skills, powers and potential to deliver the jobs and skills that will be required. That is part of our commitment under the warm homes plan. I would like to see that fully implemented in co-operation—I believe in problem solving, not point scoring—with our partners north of the border.

It is important to think about this in the context of the other things we have done. The £100 household energy payment will be made to everyone with a house in council tax bands A to D from January, and 19% of those homes—that is 3.9 million—are in rural areas. The idea that this will not reach those people is not true. Remember that the temporary zero VAT rate on domestic electricity will extend to 98% of people who use heating oil, because they are also on the electricity grid. That will benefit them.

[Mr Snowden]

The Minister has just quoted the number of houses in council tax bands A to D in rural areas. Does she know how many of those houses are not connected to the grid? We need to know whether these are people in small houses in villages, or whether the measure is actually getting to the people who use heating oil.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that 19% of the people who will qualify are in rural communities and off grid. I am pleased that they will benefit.

Remember also that everybody who is on the electricity grid will benefit from the reduced policy costs on bills, which is worth £150. We have also extended the warm home discount, a £150 rebate for people on means-tested benefits, to 6 million households. These are not inconsequential efforts in taking some of the pressure off people and creating the breathing space that is required.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and confident approach to the questions. She is right that this is about solutions—life is about solutions. I mentioned that 82% of my rural community need oil to survive, so they are greatly impacted by this. The Minister and the Government have given some help, but when such a large proportion of my constituency, and 65% of households across Northern Ireland, entirely depend on heating oil, do they have any other ideas for how help and alleviation can be given to those who entirely depend on heating oil?

[Ms Billington]

We have allocated £17 million to Northern Ireland for precisely the reason that so many people there depend on heating oil. It is also important to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive take up the opportunity to shift and accelerate people away from dependence on heating oil by using schemes similar to the boiler upgrade scheme that we have in England and Wales.

A lot of Members talked about the Competition and Markets Authority recommendations, and how we are accepting the recommendation to regulate. This is a long time coming. I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we had an oil crisis when his party was in charge, and there was neither a decision to call in the CMA nor a decision to regulate. In fact, people who have been involved in energy campaigning and strategy for a long time are saying, “Thank goodness! This has been decades in the making.” The fact we have not had regulation in this space has caused significant problems for decades.

Through the Energy Independence Bill, which has been published today, we will be able to bring forward a new general authorisation regime to take the powers needed to bring heating oil within a proportionate regulatory framework and to strengthen protections for consumers, particularly vulnerable households. It will take time to get that regulation right, and I am sure that hon. Friends and colleagues will be aware that there are large risks in regulating at speed unless we are absolutely clear that we have ironed out all the potential risks. For this winter, we need to ensure that there is voluntary co-operation with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association and the Northern Ireland Oil Federation to ensure that providers sign up to voluntary codes of conduct and behave properly this winter.

Remember, it was the Competition and Markets Authority that enforced and secured compensation for consumers who ended up either having their orders cancelled or being charged excessively at the beginning of this conflict. That is the kind of regulation we need to see in future, and I am keen that we will be able to do that, including on minimum order volumes, which Members have talked about, and payment schemes. It is unconscionable that, for electricity, one can have a fixed tariff, a direct debit or a prepayment meter, if they are really struggling, yet people on heating oil cannot manage things in the same way.

I am extraordinarily grateful to everybody who has contributed to debate today. I am conscious of time, and I want the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) to be able to sum up, but I assure people that the concerns of rural communities around heating oil, exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster and the global energy crisis are absolutely at the forefront of my mind as the Energy Minister for consumers. It is absolutely essential that we establish an energy market that works for people. Notwithstanding the particular things that are helping at the moment, in the long term we will reform the energy retail market not only for those on heating oil but for everyone, so that we can benefit from the clean energy we are generating ourselves and give ourselves resilience and security that we have not previously had because of our exposure to fossil fuel shocks.

Renewables Obligation to Exchequer Scheme Expenditure: 1 July to 30 September 2026

Polly Billington Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

I am making this statement to update hon. Members on expenditure incurred under section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022, in accordance with the statutory requirement to provide quarterly reports to Parliament.

This quarterly report is required under section 14 of the EPA. It covers expenditure incurred from 1 July to 30 September 2026 under the renewables obligation to Exchequer scheme.

The renewables obligation to Exchequer scheme was announced at autumn Budget 2025 as part of the Government’s package to reduce energy bills for households. It came into effect on 1 April 2026 and will run for three years. Under the scheme, 75% of renewables obligation costs are removed from domestic electricity bills and funded instead by the Exchequer, thereby reducing costs for consumers.

The expenditure set out in this report relates to the delivery and operation of the scheme during this reporting period, as well as the cumulative spend to date.

CMA Heating Oil Market Study: Government Response

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s market study into the heating oil sector.

For the first time, families who rely on heating oil will benefit from stronger protections under Labour Government plans to regulate the sector for the first time. This Government are committed to protecting households from volatile global fossil fuel markets. Home-grown power that we control is the only way to lasting energy security and lower bills. While the Government cannot prevent global price shocks, including those driven by the middle east crisis, consumers must be treated fairly and supported when markets come under pressure. This includes the 1.5 million households across the UK that rely on heating oil to heat their homes, many of them in rural and off-grid communities, who currently lack many of the protections available to other energy users.

We are grateful for the CMA’s swift action to investigate and the publication of its report in July. While the CMA found that recent increases in heating oil prices were largely driven by higher wholesale costs rather than a lack of competition or excessive profits, it identified clear gaps in consumer protections, compared with those available to gas and electricity users. These include weaker rights when things go wrong, limited access to redress and dispute resolution, less price transparency and less support for vulnerable households. Today I can confirm that this Government are taking forward proposals to regulate the heating oil sector for the first time. We will strengthen consumer rights and ensure a fairer deal for off-grid households.

We will take forward a programme of reform to establish a stronger consumer protection framework for households. Working with Ofgem, the devolved Governments, and industry and consumer representatives, we will develop options for proportionate regulation that puts consumer rights at its core, while supporting competition, investment and security of supply. This will be underpinned by a robust evidence base, extensive engagement and the appropriate legislative framework.

In practice, this means consumers can expect stronger rights, clearer standards, better support for vulnerable households and easier access to redress when things go wrong. These actions build on the issues faced by thousands at the start of the middle east crisis when their heating oil orders were cancelled, forcing them to re-order and pay more.

Getting this approach right will take time, to ensure the best outcomes for consumers. In the meantime, we will take practical steps to strengthen consumer protections without delay. Working across Government, with Ofgem, and with industry and consumer groups, we will seek improvements to existing codes of practice, promote access to existing appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, and increase consumer awareness of available support.

We will also examine areas where consumers may face barriers, to help with affordability and transparency issues. This will include considering minimum order volumes, access to smaller deliveries and payment plans, as well as whether further action is required to improve price transparency. Intervention will be considered where there is a clear case to improve consumer outcomes, while avoiding unnecessary burdens where markets are functioning effectively.

Today’s announcement is the next major step in our commitment to improve the heating oil market. It builds on the swift action that this Government have already taken—over £50 million of financial support to help with the cost of heating oil, and we are helping thousands of households on heating oil switch to clean heat with grants worth £9,000.

Our aim is simple: a fairer, more resilient and trusted heating oil market that prioritises consumer protections, while preserving competition and security of supply. Our response combines practical action now with a clear path towards stronger, proportionate protections for the future.

[HCWS366]

Oral Answers to Questions

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

Fuel prices are through the roof, but it is okay because the Prime Minister says that he gets it. He has tweeted,

“I won’t accept that there’s nothing I can do to help”,

and he has proved it by pointing to a forecourt price comparison app. What he did not mention was that his Government are adding VAT on top of those price increases. That is a windfall of £2 billion to £3 billion. If the Prime Minister gets it, why is he adding 20% to the misery of motorists?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

In fact, the fuel finder it is a good way of ensuring that people have the transparency that is required for the market to really work. The Competition and Markets Authority has found that, fundamentally, the market works competitively, but if anybody finds anything that they suspect to be price gouging, they should report it to the CMA. I would also like to point out that we have frozen fuel duty. Diesel, for example, is £11 cheaper than it would have been under the previous Government before 2024. It is important for Conservative Members to remember that we are doing what we can to bear down on the cost to the motorist and to ensure that the market works as transparently as possible.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

T2. The Wat Tyler is a historic 15th-century pub in Dartford town centre. Jemal Akkus, the owner, recently contacted me because he wants to get his energy bills down and increase the energy efficiency of the building. Can the Minister help me to help him, by outlining what support might be available to Jemal and the Wat Tyler to do just that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

T3. Families on the Isle of Wight were interested to hear the Prime Minister wanting to do his bit to help by telling us where we could buy cheaper fuel at the forecourt via the fuel finder app. Our interest waned somewhat when we discovered that the cheaper fuel was available in Portsmouth, which involves a two-hour round trip on a ferry. Does the Minister accept that this is a city-focused Prime Minister leading a city-focused Government who do not understand the realities of life in rural and coastal communities, including high energy costs?

[Ms Billington]

As a fellow coastal MP, I absolutely rebut the hon. Gentleman’s idea that this Government do not understand coastal or rural communities. I accept the challenges he found with the fuel finder for the Isle of Wight, and we need to ensure that full transparency also extends to making sure that the cheapest fuel possible is available in all communities. I would like to point out, however, that many of his residents will benefit from the announcement we made today on the regulation of heating oil. Off-grid heating oil has, until now, not benefited from regulation; now it will do.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

T5. This summer saw the first hosepipe ban imposed by Essex and Suffolk Water on my constituency since 1997. However, some Opposition Members would deny that what we are seeing is a result of climate change. Does the Minister agree that the weather we saw this summer is evidence enough that the work towards net zero must continue as a priority for this Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State assure me that those people who are off-grid—they are prevalent in my constituency—are at the heart of the Government’s thinking with regard to energy support? While I welcome regulation on heating oil, which has spiralled in price, it is not clear that regulation alone will bring down prices. Therefore, if the Chancellor is to give energy support, can off-grid be part of that?

[Ms Billington]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman represents one of the most rural parts of the country, and the fact that we have allocated £53 million to help the most vulnerable people across the UK is very important. Some £4.6 million has been given to the Scottish Government, and it is important that they get that money out of the door in order to help the most vulnerable people in his constituency and many others across Scotland.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I recently met Paul Hughes, who proudly showed me his AI-enabled heat battery boiler. I am delighted that the Government have made that tech eligible for the boiler upgrade scheme. Would the Minister consider speaking to Treasury colleagues about this technology being part of the energy-saving materials VAT relief framework?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome the announcement today about the Government’s intention to regulate the market in heating oil. For communities like mine that are completely off the gas grid, with the highest levels of fuel poverty in the country, this could be a significant moment. What my constituents would like to know, however, is when they might see this proposal become an implemented reality.

[Ms Billington]

It is important to make it clear what kind of proposals we are considering taking forward. This is about working with the regulators and industry to ensure we have a proportionate regulatory regime and stronger protections for consumers, and that we develop a robust evidence-based framework. We will work with the industry to strengthen consumer protections in the codes of conduct, and we will review industry practices, which currently set minimum order volumes at 500 litres for some customers. We will raise the awareness of payment plans to ensure that customers have the right options available to them. We want to get this right, and that is why we will work with the industry and consumer organisations to ensure that the regulatory framework really makes a difference for consumers in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the country.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I am proud to stand behind a Government who are taking climate action seriously. However, we are already overshooting critical limits, and climate change will only get worse if we do not stop burning fossil fuels. Will the full direct climate impact of Rosebank and the implications of the international community’s efforts to transition away from fossil fuels be considered in making this decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Last year, some of us warned that distributing heating oil support through local authorities carried risks, with some councils imposing strict means tests that help too few and others setting limited criteria, meaning nearly all applicants were successful but got very little and then blamed the Government for insufficient support. In Cumbria, that is exactly what happened. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the right people receive the right level of support?

[Ms Billington]

My hon. Friend is right that local authorities—in England, in particular—are the ones making the decisions about how they use the crisis and resilience fund money allocated to them in order to support heating-oil households. However, they should be on notice from us. If councils have been allocated money for their crisis and resilience fund in order to support vulnerable households that use heating oil, those councils should be creating criteria so that affected households can access the fund.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Earlier this year, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency ceased production, creating job losses and meaning that a greater proportion of our diesel products have to be imported at greater cost. Do Ministers now regret not giving additional support to the continuation of production there?

Energy Prices Act 2022: Energy Scheme Expenditure

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

I am making this statement to update hon. Members, in line with the requirement for quarterly reporting to Parliament under the Energy Prices Act 2022, on expenditure incurred under section 13 of that Act.

This quarterly report on energy scheme expenditure is required under section 14 of the Act and covers the period from 1 April to 30 June 2026.

The renewables obligation to Exchequer measure was announced at autumn Budget 2025 as part of the Government’s package to reduce energy bills. The scheme came into effect on 1 April 2026 and will run for three years. It removes 75% of renewables obligation costs from domestic electricity bills, with these costs instead funded by the Exchequer.

The expenditure reported below relates to the operation of this existing scheme.

Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In the autumn Budget, the Government acted to reduce energy costs to benefit all households with a domestic energy contract. We did that by closing the energy company obligation scheme to new costs on bills and by moving 75% of the domestic cost of the renewables obligation to the Exchequer. Those decisions are already making a real difference. From April 2026, they took an average of £150 in costs off household energy bills, and they continue to keep bills lower than they would otherwise be.

The renewables obligation exists to support renewable electricity generation through a system of tradeable certificates. The scheme is closed to new applications, and the first generators will come off the scheme from April 2027; the scheme will close finally in 2037.

The scheme has been instrumental in building the UK’s renewable energy sector. It supports about 35 GW of generation capacity and about 30% of total UK electricity generation. The core of the renewables obligation scheme is a process in which electricity suppliers purchase certificates from renewables generators. Previously, suppliers recovered all the costs of complying with the obligations from consumers via their electricity bills, with Ofgem reflecting those costs through the price cap.

From 1 April, the Government have instead provided grant funding to electricity suppliers to cover 75% of the domestic share of the costs in Great Britain. We have also taken steps to ensure that those savings are passed on: for customers on standard variable tariffs, Ofgem has factored the lower policy costs into the price cap; and for customers on other domestic tariffs, including fixed tariffs, the Government issued a legally binding direction requiring suppliers to pass through the savings in full.

The latest price cap illustrates why that action matters. On 26 August, Ofgem announced that the cap for 1 October to 31 December will increase by 4% to £1,723 for a typical household, driven by ongoing wholesale price volatility as a result of the war in the middle east. Ofgem has been clear that the increase is likely to be felt primarily in gas bills, with electricity bills remaining broadly flat. Without the action we took at the Budget, the cap would be significantly higher still.

The draft regulations are concerned with the legal basis for continuing to deliver the bill reduction measures. Section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022 provides the power we are using to take such steps to reduce people’s bills, but the power in section 13 is time-limited and may be extended only by six months at a time. Earlier this year, Parliament approved regulations extending the power from 25 April to 25 October 2026. The regulations before the Committee extend that time limit again, from 25 October to 25 April 2027, so that the policy can continue without interruption.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s intent is to maintain this—albeit on a six-month rolling basis—for the entirety of this Parliament?

[Ms Billington]

To be clear, we will do this while we need to. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will change the law so that we do not need to continue to extend in this way.

The regulations do not give the Secretary of State any new powers. They simply extend the period in which the existing power may be used. I assure hon. Members that the Department is working on primary legislation to provide a more permanent solution when parliamentary time allows.

The position is slightly different in Northern Ireland, where energy costs are a transferred matter for the Executive, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation forms a smaller cost on energy bills. The Department has been supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland as they develop a comparable offer to the policy in Great Britain. Following a request from the Northern Ireland Minister for the Economy, separate regulations came into force on 20 June to enable the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver their comparable offer.

The regulations are a straightforward extension of an existing time-limited power. At a time when international events continue to put pressure on wholesale energy markets, it is vital that the Government can continue to deliver the bill reductions announced in the Budget while work progresses on a longer-term legislative solution. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has the Minister assessed how much the additional six-month extension will cost the Exchequer?

[Ms Billington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am happy to write him about the specifics of that.

[Graham Stuart]

If I may further ask the Minister, I find it—

[The Chair]

Order. I think the Minister has concluded—has she?

[Ms Billington]

indicated assent.

[The Chair]

I call Bradley Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Billington]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I will turn briefly to the points raised. The No. 1 priority of this Government is to tackle the cost of living crisis that people face. The Government acted at last year’s Budget by taking an average £150 of costs off energy bills. Those decisions are now factored into bills for the years to come. That decision was taken at the autumn Budget 2025 before the conflict in the middle east and the subsequent increase in wholesale energy prices. As a result, households are better protected from those increases than they would otherwise have been.

The rise in the price cap announced by Ofgem will be deeply concerning news for families. We will continue to monitor the situation ahead of the winter and plan for all contingencies. I recognise that some would like us to go further in immediately reducing bills in response to recent events. One of the first steps that the new Prime Minister took was to cut VAT on electricity bills. Without that intervention, the price cap figure would have been around £45 higher than announced. Although the price cap will increase by 4% on 1 October, driven by ongoing wholesale price volatility as a direct consequence of the events in the middle east, it would have been considerably higher still without the ongoing effects of moving the renewables obligation to the Exchequer, which continues to suppress bills.

Where impacts have been felt by those outside the energy price cap, we have acted, with £53 million of support via the crisis and resilience fund for vulnerable heating oil customers announced in March. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk for his question about the crisis and resilience fund. I understand people’s concern about whether they should apply. I urge anyone who relies on heating oil who has any concerns about their ability to afford to keep their home warm this winter to apply to the fund, and I will be keen to ensure that local authorities recognise their responsibilities when it comes to disbursing funds accordingly.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is being most generous in giving way. There was a clear manifesto promise to reduce energy bills by £300. Is that manifesto promise still extant? Is she intent on delivering it, and if so, how and when?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Billington]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am sure we will continue to have conversations about this. Our manifesto commitment is absolutely to make sure that we have lower energy bills in the future. We also have to be honest about how we manage external shocks to our system and make sure that we are protecting customers and consumers from those. That is one reason why we have the clean power plan, and why we are looking to reform the market over time so that we are not exposed to the kinds of global shocks that push up prices, as we have seen recently.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is being most generous again. I did not ask her about protecting consumers from energy price shocks; I asked about a clear, unequivocal manifesto pledge to reduce household energy bills by £300. She, like her predecessors, refuses to address it directly. It was a clear promise. She and her colleagues were elected on the basis of delivering that, and this Government are not delivering it. They are delivering higher bills at a time when people are struggling with household finances. Those people demand and expect that Ministers in the Government account for that promise and tell us whether it will be delivered, and if so, how.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is very clear. As I said, we absolutely stand by our commitment. The previous Energy Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), said:

“Bills are too high and we stand by our promise to get bills down by up to £300 by 2030.”

We have already taken £150 off bills as a consequence of the decisions made in the previous Budget. The new Prime Minister has announced a £45 reduction on average across an energy bill because of the reduction in VAT. The independent Resolution Foundation found that across 2026 as a whole, the typical energy bill is now expected to be more than £200 lower in real terms than in 2024 before the conflict in the middle east began.

I understand that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness knows a lot about the energy system and I respect his understanding, but when there are global shocks like there are, we have to do everything we can as a Government to protect consumers from those global shocks. That includes the short term with the efforts we are putting in now, and the long term in reforming the market. I look forward to seeing him supporting our reform of that market in order to be able to protect consumers in the future.

The UK has a diverse and resilient energy system—indeed, one that the right hon. Gentleman oversaw for some time—and we will of course continue to monitor the situation in the middle east closely. I assure colleagues that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality to ensure that the Government can be responsive and responsible. It is important to understand that we need a principled reform to shift the balance of levy costs from the bill to the Exchequer, because we need to make sure that that is a fairer way of dealing with the cost of a shift to a cleaner and more resilient energy system. The reason we have given for not abolishing the renewables obligation, which is a suggestion from the Conservatives, is that it would significantly impact on investor confidence and energy security. There is a risk of there being no certainty that 25,000 renewable energy projects would continue generating without that subsidy. I am sure that His Majesty’s Opposition would not want a set of policy proposals that would threaten the security of our energy system in that way.

The draft regulations extend a time limit on essential legal powers that will enable us to take action to reduce people’s energy bills. While simple in themselves, the regulations support the reduction of energy bills, which is a key part of the Government’s focus on the cost of living.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does to advocate for his constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar; I was pleased to visit him recently to see the impact that the increases in heating oil are having on his constituents. We are looking closely at the non-domestic heating oil market, and we will come forward with more proposals in due course.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the team on reducing the cost of energy, including with recent efforts to break the link between the volatile gas price and electricity prices. However, every witness before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, when we ask how to decarbonise and reduce bills, tells us, “Make electricity cheaper.” What further efforts will the Government make in reforming the energy market in order to achieve that?

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend will know that we are taking action, which the Secretary of State announced, to further delink the cost of electricity from gas. As Ofgem said last week in relation to the price cap, we are already seeing the effects of that. Because of the additional renewable generation in the system, we are seeing the effects of that. Every turbine we build, every solar panel we deploy and every reactor we bring online will ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and bring down the cost of electricity.

Energy Security

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I know that the hon. Gentleman’s party has changed position on this recently, and I welcome that change. As I have said, the North sea is a foundational industry. It is not just about the oil and gas it provides. It is not just about the tax revenues. It is not just about the jobs that exist within that industry. It is about all those other industries it supports, including the chemicals and plastics industries. By the way, even the renewables industry supports more drilling in the North sea, because it needs the specialist rigs, the undersea technologies and the exact same workers. There are so many industries and wider economies that the Government are killing just because of the ideological bent of this Secretary of State.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Claire Coutinho]

I will make a bit more progress.

Here is the fundamental bind that the Labour party is in. It does not matter who its next leader is—they will all fail. Its supposedly popular leadership contenders will become unpopular very quickly when they cannot keep their promises. It happened to us in government. It is happening to Labour now. It is happening to Reform at council level. It will happen to whoever is in government next unless they face up to the trade-offs that get us better growth.

Growth is the antidote to so many of our problems, but to deliver it, we need two things: cheap, abundant energy and economic freedom. By shutting down the North sea, cancelling nuclear projects and keeping a distorted electricity market in place, the Government are making energy scarce and expensive. Being part of the EU does not solve that problem. The EU leaders themselves rail against their own energy policy. Reindustrialisation is just a meaningless slogan unless we back the North sea, axe the carbon taxes that are killing British industry and cut the cost of energy. If none of Labour’s contenders has the courage to say anything about these issues, nothing will change.

Alongside cheap, abundant energy, the most important ingredient for growth is economic freedom, but the Labour party openly stands for more state control, more tax and spend, more red tape on employing people, more expensive energy, less AI, fewer profits and more subsidies. It has been on this path for two years now, and what do we have to show for it? Higher inflation, weaker growth and soaring unemployment. Why would anyone want more of this? Families are working harder and harder and getting less and less at the end of the month. And if people want full-fat socialism, why would they choose Labour when they have the boob whisperer offering them bigger and better?

Our whole system is flooded with caution. Nobody is incentivised to take any risks.

That is what is making us poorer. The truth is that the personalities in the Labour leadership race do not matter. Unless we get cheap, abundant energy, remove the legal straitjackets and onerous taxes, and fix the broken regulators and the sluggish machine of government to set the economy free, nothing is going to change.

If Labour Members think that Andy Burnham has the answers, let me tell them this. Andy is like the fun uncle who sits on the sidelines saying whatever he wants without anybody holding him accountable: “Let’s have ice cream for dinner! Let’s go to the zoo next week! Let’s nationalise everything! Who cares about the bond markets? Let’s rejoin the EU!” He has said whatever he liked because he has never had to pick up the bill. Now that he is actually looking at being in charge, he is having to go back on all those promises. Members should ask him this: how is he going to fund his nationalisation plans? He wants to stick to the fiscal rules. Is he really saying that he is going back to taxpayers, who already face the highest tax burden in history? When he talks about reindustrialisation, they should ask him whether he supports the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the oil and gas industry—the biggest act of industrial self-harm committed in generations. If Andy Burnham wants more powers at a local level, amen to that—I could not agree more—but Labour Members should ask him how he can argue for economic freedom in one breath, while in another dictating to people what tumble dryers or cars they have to buy.

If Labour Members really cared about growth and reindustrialisation, they would axe carbon taxes, get Britain drilling, double down on nuclear and make electricity cheap. In short, they would put the national interest ahead of the Secretary of State’s ideology and vote with us tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend is very well respected in his area for the fantastic amount of work that he has done in Scunthorpe. He is constantly holding the Government to account, and indeed working with the Government. We have to do this together to protect our steelmaking capacity, for the sake of our industrial wealth.

I agree—we all agree—that the energy independence Bill provides a framework for transitioning the UK energy market away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy. We have no problem with that; it is sensible in the context of nuclear energy. However, the ideological pursuit of renewables is doing harm, and is at odds with achieving energy security when we have our own fossil-fuel resources in the North sea. It is not a zero-sum game. I do not see the ideological virtue of simply exporting our carbon emissions, which we are doing.

[Ms Billington]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I must make some progress. I do apologise.

I should have thought that we could have a compromise on this. We could have a policy that is sensible, gradually moving away from fossil fuels and gradually becoming a more green-energy economy, but we should not simply export our emissions and set arbitrary dates.

As this is a debate on the King’s Speech, I hope you will you forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I mention another subject in the short time available to me. When you get to my age, you can say unpopular things; I have not got much longer anyway. [Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I have two minutes!

The problem with our country is that we are governing by focus group. What do focus groups want? They want less tax and, of course, better public services. Debt is already 100% of GDP, and within 50 years, because of the triple lock and other benefit increases, it will be 170%. Of course the old vote, but the old have children and grandchildren, and we have a responsibility to younger people in our country. The Government know that the present system is unsustainable. While the average increase in the triple lock measures over the past 13 years—and we brought that in; it was supposed to be a temporary measure, but no party has the courage to change it—has been about 40%, pensions have gone up by over 60%. That is nearly £20 billion of annual additional costs so far, and that will get bigger every year and more unaffordable. The gap is likely to grow to £120 billion, if not more, by 2050, exacerbating the economic crisis. Whoever becomes Prime Minister will have to cope with that. By then, there will be 20% to 25% fewer taxpaying workers—our children and our grandchildren—per pensioner in Britain.

Of course we have to care for old people, particularly old people in poverty, and divert resources to them, but we must remember the younger people as well. This is entirely unsustainable. Yes, we want to keep a triple lock, but not the triple lock. We want it to be the average of the three indices, so that the amount does not go up exponentially every year. The Government should do the right thing by the nation, and bring in a measure to that effect. They should make our finances affordable, and those on my party’s Front Bench should not oppose them. We should govern in the national interest. We should make our finances sustainable, and then we really can help the people who are most in need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I accept that there are some difficult questions in and around this whole area of debate. The truth remains that no Government have done more to decarbonise the economy and to bring forward green technology than the last Conservative Government, but we would not do that at the expense of hard-working families. The bonkers green tax agenda that this Government are peddling is harming the debate on decarbonising the economy. I will give an example of that.

[Ms Billington]

I am comfortable with accepting that there has been a growing consensus about decarbonising our energy system over a period of time, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008, which only a handful of Conservative MPs voted against. However, I am puzzled that hon. Member thinks that the last Tory Government did that without any burden on the taxpayer or on bills, when the so-called energy savings package that Liz Truss put in place cost £44 billion and has left this country in profound debt.

[Joe Robertson]

I acknowledge that the last Government made mistakes—I do not have a problem with that—but that is not an excuse for the hon. Lady’s Government to do even worse for hard-up working families.

Bonkers green taxes harm the debate, and I will give this House an example. UK emissions trading scheme levies on the maritime sector are levied on ferry companies. My constituents on the Isle of Wight rely on those ferry companies to access things that everyone else takes for granted: health, education, jobs and seeing friends and family. Next month, someone can travel across the Solent to the Isle of Wight, taking their car on one return trip, for £511. That is for a five-mile return crossing.

The Government, instead of helping us—they say they will help, and I am still holding out hope that they will—will in July levy a carbon emission tax on the Fishbourne to Portsmouth route that the ferry company cannot avoid. It cannot decarbonise its ferries and go electric, because there is no grid charging capacity in Portsmouth harbour. There is no grid charging capacity in Southampton either. These are not strange little harbours—they are the naval base of the United Kingdom and one of the biggest export container ports respectively—yet there is not the grid capacity to charge an Isle of Wight ferry. The ferries will pay, however, and guess what: they have passed on that charge to consumers and my constituents.

[Ms Billington]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Joe Robertson]

I will give way to the hon. Lady to try again.

[Ms Billington]

Specifically on the Southampton point, it was under the Tory Government that the Labour-run Southampton council wanted to clean up and install that grid connection to be able to decarbonise shipping in that port and specifically to tackle air quality in that city. The Tories had 14 years, and they did nothing.

[Joe Robertson]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that the reason her Government are in such a mess and polling at under 20% is that she and her colleagues think that the universal excuse for her Government’s inaction is to blame a previous Government. She won that argument at the last election, and since then her Government have done nothing. Southampton will have that grid-charging capacity for boats in the mid-2030s, yet the Government are bringing in a charge in July this year. Do you know what the irony is, Madam Deputy Speaker? One of those ferries has batteries on board. It is a hybrid boat that can use batteries to cross the Solent and not burn fossil fuels, but it is being charged because it cannot use its batteries, because it has nowhere to plug into. The EU is bringing in that charge and ringfencing the money it receives from its emissions trading system to invest in grid capacity in ports—but not the UK Government; they are taking the money, shoving it into the Treasury and making no promises about investing in grid capacity. That is not the last Government; it is this Government.

I say to those on the Government Front Bench that these bonkers green levies make no sense, harm ordinary people and undermine the entire case for their green agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Time and again over the past few months, and, indeed, in this debate, we have heard Ministers talk about the importance of energy independence, and they are right to do so. No country has ever succeeded without cheap and abundant energy. For energy to be cheap and abundant, its supply must be reliable. If we are dependent on energy imports from overseas, the supply of energy will necessarily be unreliable, as the disruption caused by recent events in the Persian gulf has made abundantly clear. But it is profoundly dishonest to talk of energy independence while making us more dependent on energy imports from abroad. That is exactly what the Government’s plans to ban new North sea oil and gas would do. They should, at the very least, be brave enough to admit that to the public.

Ministers say that there is no point in using our vast oil and gas reserves; they say that energy prices are set entirely on the international market, which means that increasing our domestic supply would have little to no impact on the overall prices. But that is not true. Gas is a highly localised market, specifically in the case of liquefied natural gas, which is gas that is turned into liquid, loaded on to ships and transported globally. The further those ships have to travel, the more expensive it becomes to deliver. If we rely on gas imports from the rest of the world, we will need to spend more money to bring that gas to Britain.

The vast majority of homes in the UK—87%—use gas for heating. We currently import half of the gas that we consume. If we produced more gas domestically, it would be cheaper to buy gas, meaning that heating bills would, in fact, come down.

[Ms Billington]

I know that the hon. Lady’s party is not very keen on experts, but I would refer her to Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, who has pointed out that expansion of production of North sea oil and gas does not significantly improve the UK’s energy security, will not alter the UK’s status as a net importer and will take too long to affect global prices. He says that global demand for fossil fuels has changed permanently and we should, therefore, be prioritising renewables, nuclear power and electrification over further fossil fuel expansion.

[Katie Lam]

As I just said, 80% of houses use gas for heating. We cannot simply substitute that for renewables—it is impossible.

Returning to the issue of energy independence, producing more gas domestically would also make us more resistant to global shocks. We would be far better served if companies that provide energy in Britain were bidding on gas produced in this country, rather than gas produced halfway around the world. Not only would bills come down, but we would mitigate the risk of sudden cost increases as a result of supply restrictions elsewhere. Yet the Government are proposing a policy that would achieve exactly the opposite.

The demand for gas is not going away, much as the Government might wish that it were. Even if British homes move away from gas in the long term, it is absurd to impose higher bills on them in the short term in the name of ideology. Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. Families across the country are facing higher bills and extra taxes to fund this Government’s ideological commitment to intermittent energy sources. Many will be forced to do things such as postpone holidays or delay moving house to be able to afford the increasing costs imposed on them by this Government.

Meanwhile, businesses are being forced to cut back on staff or shut their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is now simply too high. That means local pubs, family farms and nursing homes all being forced to shut up shop. For industrial businesses in particular, the situation is even worse. These are businesses in sectors such as AI and high-skilled manufacturing that can provide some of the best paid and most durable jobs, revitalising whole communities and enabling people to build successful lives for themselves. While China and India fuel their industrial expansion with new coal-fired power plants, British industry faces some of the highest energy prices in the developed world—they are the highest in Europe, and they are more than double the price paid by industrial businesses in the United States. We cannot hope to sustain an industrial base in this country, let alone grow it, while the price of energy is so vulnerable to global shocks. Why would anybody start a new industrial business in Britain under these conditions?

If this action is being taken in the name of climate change, it is proving to be a catastrophic failure. In the eight years between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon emissions than Britain has produced over the past 250 years. That is not just because China is a bigger country—per-person emissions from China are more than double those in Britain. We are sending our emissions abroad to countries such as China without making a dent in addressing global climate change, and British families and businesses are left to pick up the tab.

The Government’s plans on energy policy will leave us more dependent on overseas imports and will leave the British people worse off financially, without making any noticeable impact on global climate change. If the Government genuinely want to advance our energy independence, we welcome that, but they will not do so by wrecking domestic production and leaving us reliant on imports from abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Almost 15% of people in East Thanet are in fuel poverty—significantly above the national average of 11.4%. That is thousands of my constituents who cannot afford for their energy bills to go up, but who, because of international events completely out of their control, are now facing exactly that. Working people like them should not bear the burden of decisions made by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. That is why I am glad to see the Government’s focus on energy and energy independence in this upcoming legislative Session.

There is no one silver bullet for achieving energy independence. It requires action to reduce energy usage, which is why the warm homes agency will be so important in order to give people trusted advice and access to grants and low-interest loans. It requires more generation of energy at home, because the more we produce domestically, the less exposed we are to volatile fossil fuel markets. It requires reform of the market and it requires diversity of supply.

However, this new international situation is different from the circumstances we were previously considering when tackling the science of climate change and the failed energy market in this country. We now live in a situation where the global context is more volatile and more unstable than it has ever been. Therefore, the legislative programme that the Government have announced is absolutely necessary, but it may not be sufficient on its own. To secure the energy independence and resilience we require, the Government need to consider their role in establishing greater international agreements on how we increase the resilience of our global economy against our exposure to fossil fuel markets. I have called on the Government to convene an international energy summit with the same boldness and scope of Gordon Brown’s crisis summit in 2009 following the great financial crash. I saw at first hand then the role of Britain using its convening power to bring nations together, and we should look to do so again.

I was delighted to hear in the King’s Speech that we will be hosting the G20 next year, and I hope the Government will put energy co-operation right at the heart of that summit. This is crucial because 20% of the world’s oil, 20% of global liquefied natural gas and one third of seaborne fertiliser pass through the strait of Hormuz every day. The economic pain of this has not yet hit us. People are already talking about the risk to family holidays, but there is a risk of food shortages and starvation, and of blackouts in countries that are vital to our supply chains. That is the seriousness of the situation we are facing, which requires an international solution. I am delighted that we have a deep, broad and integrated approach to tackling some of the most challenging elements of creating increased energy resilience, as outlined in the legislative plans, but the situation does need to be seen in the wider global context, and it demands global leadership from the British Government.

Oil and Gas

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

The two Ministers are Scottish MPs. They have been to industry, and they know what people in those areas are saying. They know the jobs that are being lost. It is so blindingly obvious that we should use things that we make in this country, rather than using dirtier imports from abroad. The question they need to ask themselves is, why is it that their Secretary of State cannot see the truth?

Fifthly, the Government say that new fields will take too long to get up and running. That is dangerous, short-termist rubbish. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running by Christmas. They have been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk gathering dust. The Government are hiding behind the process. I was part of the process, and it is in the Secretary of State’s gift—it is up to him to make the assessment. We are in an energy crisis, and he could speed things up if he chose to do so. Jackdaw alone could produce enough gas to heat more than 1.5 million homes. Labour’s Chancellor commended Norway and Canada for drilling more—[Interruption.] That is what she said last week. She said that

“every country has got to play their part”

by generating more oil and gas. Government Members should ask themselves why their party position seems to be to support the oil and gas industry anywhere but Britain.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree with her shadow Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), when he said:

“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for”?

[Claire Coutinho]

I would thank the hon. Lady, but I do not think it takes much effort to read out a Whip’s question. The question she needs to answer is why she is supporting a policy that will increase British emissions. She is supporting a policy that means we are importing goods with higher emissions.

I have laid out five bad arguments that have been thoroughly disproved by people outside this Chamber whom the Government supposedly respect. Those five bad arguments spun by the Secretary of State should be consigned to history. What the North sea can give us is what it has been doing all along: stronger energy security, a stronger environment and a stronger economy. Are those not things that we want the next generation to have? The question that the Government need to answer is this: what reason do RenewableUK or their very own chair of Great British Energy have to back the North sea if it does not give us those very things? Maybe—just maybe—it is time for the Government to admit that their Secretary of State has approached his role with a dangerous, blinkered ideology, rather than being interested in the national interest. Perhaps even they realise that they are once more being marched up the hill on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of public opinion, when we all know that there will be an inevitable U-turn from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in a few weeks’ time.

It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources. The idea that one should ban industry if it does not change prices in this country is, let us be clear, an argument to shut down all business in this country. There are benefits to making things in Britain: jobs, tax revenue and self-reliance. The Labour party used to understand that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Polly Billington Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes the really important, and relatively basic, point that gas is priced and sold on the international market. Whether it comes from the North sea or is imported, it is charged at the same price. And do not just take my word for it; when the shadow Energy Secretary was in post she said that more drilling would not necessarily lead to lower energy bills.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that this energy crisis offers the opportunity to shift further and faster on clean energy. Will he consider an energy social tariff linked to the warm homes plan to support those who are most exposed to the volatility of fossil fuel prices, not just those on benefits, but other vulnerable communities like the disabled?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and no doubt the Chancellor will cover this in her statement shortly. It is incredibly important that we protect the most vulnerable, particularly at this time. I am proud of the action we have taken to nearly double the number of people getting the warm home discount to 6 million people. This very important action will take another £150 off people’s bills, so in a sense, we have a form of a social tariff, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep looking at how we can expand that and help more families.