Fuel Poverty: England Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Richard Burgon
Main Page: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)Department Debates - View all Richard Burgon's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 week, 2 days 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
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate. We meet at a time when there is a scourge of fuel poverty across our country. Nearly 20% of households in Leeds East live in fuel poverty. Over 400,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber live in fuel poverty. To say that the fuel poverty strategy needs reviewing is an understatement. It is necessary that the Government review it, and we need real action.
Before I get on to the winter fuel payment, we have been reminded that we live in the sixth-richest economy on earth. Let us look at the eye-watering, obscene, unjustified and immoral profits made by some of our energy companies. In total, since 2020 energy companies have made £483 billion in profits: Shell made £88 billion in the last four years; BP made £46 billion of profits; E.ON made £33 billion of profits; EDF made £75 billion of profits; and Equinor made £134 billion of profits. The winter fuel payment cuts that I and others voted against were estimated to save the Government £1.4 billion. That is before the increased take-up of pensioner credit and the increased cost to the NHS from people getting cold and needing extra medical treatment. That is the reality we face, but the money is there.
I say that a number of us voted against the winter fuel payment cuts after listening to the voices of our constituents. I do hope that the Government can reconsider the cuts. There was not just concern from those who voted against it; the concern went far wider. I was only 17 years old when Gordon Brown introduced the winter fuel payment. It was one of the key achievements of the last Labour Government. I would argue that the winter fuel payment is a key part of our welfare state. I think the decision should be revised and reversed as soon as possible—certainly before next winter. We can call it something else if we like, if that makes it easier. We do not have to call it the winter fuel payment. We could relabel it as something else and reintroduce it.
On the wider points of the debate, I mentioned the obscene, eye-watering profits from these energy companies. They are the same energy companies, by the way, that have pushed our bills up and pushed us towards climate catastrophe.
We can look at the important issue of retrofitting, which has already been mentioned by colleagues. Of course retrofitting is vital, but on its own it is not the answer, because it will take years; it needs to happen, but it is not the answer to fuel poverty on its own. We need intervention in the market, with real price caps; we need action against these energy companies. And we need Government support.
That is why this debate is welcome and it is why I welcome the Government’s review of the fuel poverty strategy. However, I would argue that the fuel poverty strategy cannot be sufficient without two things: reintroducing the winter fuel payment; and taking real action on these energy companies, which have left people cold and frightened, and left too many people in our country living in misery.