(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. As one of the sole surviving Conservatives representing a West Yorkshire seat, I agree with him that Yorkshire is very much God’s own county. This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank many of the constituents who have kindly contacted me about fuel poverty.
There are specific challenges in the northern towns I represent. Not least, the housing stock is old, and most of it remains poorly insulated. There are also the increasing fuel prices that all households are experiencing. In the rural parts of my constituency, most of the houses are off-grid and therefore experience higher energy prices. In Keighley, 17.6% of residents are in fuel poverty, and many are pensioners who have been drastically impacted by this Labour Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel allowance. Across the Bradford district, 64,000 pensioners are being impacted right now, over this winter period, as a result of Labour’s choice—and it is a choice—to remove that allowance.
That is not the only challenge that people in the Bradford district face. The council requested a 15% increase in council tax, although the Deputy Prime Minister signed off a 10% increase. So, this financial year, all my constituents will have to pay an extra 10% on top of everything else. Labour Members may say that that is because of 14 years of Conservative Government, but only in 2021 the council declared that it was in sound financial health. It has also chosen to waste up to £50 million of taxpayers’ money on a music venue in the centre of Bradford, Bradford Live, which is not even open yet. That money could be spent on better supporting those in fuel poverty across the Bradford district.
I am not the only one calling the Government out: many people in Keighley are doing the same, including the co-ordinator of a social supermarket, the Good Food Shop, who says that the 10% increase in council tax could push more of those coming to his shop—families and individuals who are already struggling—well below the breadline and lead to a huge surge in demand for its services. People in Keighley are indicating that the council and the Government—both of which are controlled by the Labour party—should be helping those who are struggling, not wasting council tax money on city-based projects in the centre of Bradford that do not benefit my constituents in Keighley.
The Salvation Army in Keighley is saying exactly the same thing. Major Imogen Stewart has also raised concerns about those in fuel poverty, linking that to the 10% increase in council tax. She said:
“People are afraid to turn on their heating”,
due to the increased costs they face. Those costs are also due to the winter fuel allowance being removed, which has directly impacted those in fuel poverty. The Salvation Army indicates that people are now coming to it not to use its food bank but to ask for blankets, sleeping bags and clothes to keep them warm. It is experiencing increasing referrals, and it fears that that will only get worse as time goes on.
Labour Members were elected on a promise not to introduce tax rises for working people and to put their party back in the service of working people, but my constituents are not seeing that; they are seeing the exact opposite. It is about time that the Government change tack and put working people at the heart of their policies going forward.
We know there is a challenge with the cost of living. We are coming out of the worst cost of living crisis that we have faced in a generation, and tackling it is central to what we are trying to do in my Department and across Government.
It is important that we situate this debate in the context in which we find ourselves. We published a review of our fuel poverty strategy last week, and the headline was staggering: fuel poverty stagnated in this country under the previous Government. In 2023, an estimated 13% of households in England—3.17 million people—were in fuel poverty according to the low income low energy efficiency metric, which is a narrow statutory definition. We know that out there in the country a lot more people are feeling the pressure of energy bills and have the sense that they cannot cope and cannot afford to heat their homes.
In 2023, about 46% of all low-income households in England lived in properties with an energy efficiency rating of band D or lower. That creates a cycle that is difficult to escape: the poorest in our country live in cold homes. Behind those statistics are lives, and I have heard the stories directly. People are scared to turn on the heat because they fear the bill at the end of the month. Parents are having to make the impossible choice between feeding their kids and heating their homes.
We know that the reality is intolerable for too many people. That is the legacy of the previous Government that we inherited, but we are determined to turn it around. Every family and business in the country has paid the price of our dependence on global fossil fuel markets that we do not control. We inherited sky-high energy bills. Yes, they are down from the crisis peak, but they are still at record highs.
Our clean power mission is not ideological; it is a primary solution to this problem. We are running to deliver clean power at this pace because we see that as our route to delivering home-grown energy that we have more control over, that will deliver energy security for the country and, critically, that will take us off this rollercoaster of price hikes, which are impacting families, and deliver the financial security that families across the country are desperate for. But we recognise that, while we do that, we also need to reform the electricity market. The review of electricity market arrangements, which we are working on at the moment, is looking at the very question of how we decouple gas from clean power prices. Our judgment is that, as we increase the amount of clean power in the system, we will do the job of decoupling, alongside market reforms, so that people can benefit from the big changes we are trying to make.
We recognise that we also have to support struggling families while we make that transition.
I thank the Minister for allowing an intervention. I raised concerns in my speech about the fact that 64,000 pensioners are struggling now to make that difficult choice between putting food on the table and heating their homes, and she has rightly acknowledged that. Does she recognise that the choice she and the Government made to remove the winter fuel allowance was wrong, when so many pensioners are in a dire state as a result of that choice?
The hon. Member raises winter fuel payments, as hon. Members across the House have done. The Chancellor had an impossible job to do and made a tough call, but we have been clear that we will do whatever is needed to support the most vulnerable. Everything I am charged with doing, everything that my Department is trying to do, is to ensure that households struggling with bills can be protected and insulated.
The Government reviewed the fuel poverty strategy, “Sustainable warmth: protecting vulnerable households”, because we recognised that the trajectory we were on was not the right one. The review showed that progress on meeting the statutory target has stalled. Alongside that review, we are consulting on how to up our strategy to respond to that problem.
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.
I will make progress. On the critical issue of fuel poverty, we are consulting in order to improve our strategy, looking at how to make progress on our statutory target for 2030 and asking questions about wide affordability. As we take action, we must ensure that we are dealing with our statutory obligation and the more fundamental problem of affordability across the country.
Alongside our consultation on the fuel poverty strategy, we have also taken steps to try to lift half a million people out of fuel poverty by improving standards in the private rented sector. Last week we published a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector by 2030. Our proposals would require landlords to upgrade their homes so that tenants can benefit from warmer homes through insulation, cavity wall insulation and double glazing first, and then through other measures such as solar, batteries and smart meters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth asked about the impact on renters. I would say two things. Our analysis suggested that if we get this right, it could save renters about £240. We know that there is a risk of landlords potentially hiking bills, but when we have upgraded homes in the past, we have found that landlords have not increased bills, so we do not expect them to do so this time. Critically, we have also been surveying landlords, and the feedback is that the majority would cover the cost of the upgrades, which they know is the right thing to do. I should add that 50% of landlords have already upgraded their homes up to EPC C, so they will pay for this through those savings. We are therefore confident that renters will not be penalised, and we believe that the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill will provide enough safeguards to ensure that renters can benefit from £240 off their energy bills and the security of knowing that their rents will not be increased.
Does the Minister recognise that many landlords are not in a sound financial position themselves, and that the challenge of getting the energy performance rating of their rental properties up to C can therefore be incredibly costly and sometimes unachievable, given the old housing stock? Will she outline what support will be available to achieve the Government’s ambition of upgrading to an energy performance rating of C?
We have estimated that the average cost of upgrading homes to C is about £6,000. To protect landlords, we have put in place a cap of £15,000 and created mechanisms to provide exemptions for those landlords who we know will genuinely struggle. Alongside that, we are already providing support through our boiler upgrade scheme and warm homes local grant, which landlords can access, and we will be setting out more measures in the warm homes plan to support landlords on this journey. I should say that the vast majority of landlords want to do this—50% have already done so. We need to level the playing field for renters, so that all landlords are delivering homes to a standard that will ensure that they are warmer and cheaper to run for tenants.
A big plank of what we know we need to do to tackle fuel poverty—alongside what we are trying to do on minimum energy efficiency standards in the rental sector—will be our warm homes plan, which will transform homes across the country to make them cheaper and warmer. The idea behind it is simple and will mean upgrading homes with insulation, solar and heat pumps. In response to the points made about delays in rolling out the warm home plan, I would say that we are running at this. This year alone, we have massively increased the number of upgrades that we are expecting to 300,000, backed by £3.2 billion-worth of investment, and we will come forward in the spring with our plans to ramp that up.
The key thing that we are trying to achieve is moving from the hundreds of thousands of upgrades that we have seen—the inheritance of the last Government, who frankly slashed home upgrades, despite knowing their huge impact on bills and the comfort of consumers —to upgrading millions of homes. That will mean taking a comprehensive look at how we increase demand for home upgrades and deliver at scale in different places, working with regional government and suppliers, and, critically, how we ensure that when people go on this journey of upgrading their homes, they have the confidence to know—to the point made earlier—that the work will be done to a quality standard, and that if things go wrong there will be redress and protection. The current system that we inherited was far too fragmented and ad hoc. Consumers are not at its heart, and we absolutely must turn that around.
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of energy.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. The cost of energy is a problem that impacts all areas of our lives, from the homes we live in to the businesses we work for.
For far too many, high energy bills are an immediate daily concern. A recent poll published by Opinium highlighted that, on average, 88% of all adults thought it was important that the Government focus on reducing the cost of energy over the next two years, while 90% remained concerned about the increase in energy prices. The cost of energy has become a key strain for most households. For households in Bath and across the country, bills continue to rise at unprecedented rates, and many struggle to keep up.
Those rises will heap considerable pressure on millions of people who are still feeling the pressures of inflation over the past few years. That is simply unacceptable, and it is a crisis that we cannot ignore. The effects of high energy costs extend far beyond the immediate financial burden; the cost of electricity in the UK is also holding back our efforts to decarbonise the economy and to address the climate crisis, and we must not shy away from that debate.
At present, UK households pay roughly the same for both gas and electricity bills—around £850—despite using more than four times more gas than electricity, making electricity in the UK four times more expensive than gas. That price imbalance is not only creating financial hardship for consumers, but actively deterring them from making the switch to cleaner, more efficient heating systems. The UK currently relies on 25 million fossil fuel boilers to heat its homes, accounting for 16% of the nation’s entire CO2 emissions. Decarbonising our heating sector is a significant opportunity for the UK to cut down on carbon emissions.
Take heat pumps, for example, one of the most advanced and environmentally friendly ways to heat our homes. Heat pumps are four times more energy efficient than gas boilers and could reduce CO2 emissions by 75%, yet just 1% of UK households have a heat pump. Why? Because the UK’s electricity prices consistently undermine the financial incentive to install them. With the current cost of electricity, running a heat pump can be more expensive than running a gas boiler for larger households and as expensive for medium-sized homes, even though heat pumps are far more efficient.
In Sweden, more than 50% of single-family homes have heat pumps installed, while 95% of all new homes are now heated by heat pumps. The success of Sweden’s heat pump adaptation hinges on the country’s price ratio between gas and electricity, effectively incentivising electric heating systems compared with fossil fuel ones.
A range of other heating technologies can work alongside heat pumps. Alternative technologies such as heat batteries are another example where the price of electricity is significantly hindering the UK’s ability to move away from gas. Heat batteries have become a proven solution for about 20% of UK homes for which heat pumps are not suitable. Modern heat batteries can operate at equivalent temperatures to fossil fuel systems; they can make use of the existing pipes and radiators in the home, at a similar running cost to a heat pump, and embed valuable flexibility in the electricity system. Despite having such innovations at our fingertips, the Government continue to drive consumers into the arms of gas boiler manufacturers, because more often than not it is still cheaper to buy a gas boiler.
The disparity in energy prices between gas and electricity is not just a domestic issue; it is part of a broader trend in which the UK is falling behind other nations in the transition to low-carbon heating. In the first half of 2024, gas prices in the UK were 22% below, while electricity prices were 27% above, the EU average. In fact, the UK had the highest ratio of electricity to gas unit prices in the entire EU at that time. That pricing imbalance places the UK at a competitive disadvantage in terms of decarbonisation.
As the rest of Europe steams ahead with its effort to electrify heating, the UK is lagging behind due to our higher costs of electricity, something that not only affects individual households and businesses, but significantly undermines the UK’s position as a world leader of climate action. To achieve our statutory net zero goals, we need to make sure that the transition to clean energy is as affordable as possible for everyone. The current energy pricing structure is holding us back, and that must change.
The first and most urgent step is to reform the policy costs currently placed on electricity bills. The regressive and incoherent stack of levies on electricity bills has inflated the cost of electricity for consumers to the point that it is uncompetitive with gas. The Government’s current energy policies are therefore working against their own objectives, making clean technology more expensive than its fossil fuel counterparts.
As things stand, policy costs and levies currently account for 11% of a typical household’s total energy bill, but they are not allocated evenly. Policy costs account for 16% of a typical electricity bill, but only 5% of a typical gas bill. There is widespread industry and political support for reforming those policy costs and levies, but the argument over how to do so has been going on for far too long. The simplest options for reform would be to remove all levies from electricity and put them into general taxation. That would lower energy bills for every household in Britain, but at a very high cost to the Exchequer, which is currently not realistic.
Another option is to rebalance the levies by moving them from electricity to gas. This option would be good news for the 4.5 million households that do not use gas heating, but for the 22.5 million gas-using households, of which 2 million to 3 million are in fuel poverty, bills would rise by between £15 and £100 a year.
Some 17.6% of those who live in Keighley are in fuel poverty. Right now, Labour-run Bradford council wants to raise council tax by 10% and, with the removal of the winter fuel allowance, 64,000 pensioners across the wider Bradford district will be impacted. Does the hon. Member agree that, for the most vulnerable in our society, there needs to be more support not just with the cost of energy, but with making sure that they can keep warm during this winter period?
The hon. Member predicts my next point: it is important to emphasise the Government’s responsibility to look after the most vulnerable in our society and protect them during any efforts to rebalance gas and electricity prices. However, I cannot comment on the council tax bill to which he refers; that is, of course, a local matter.
It is imperative that any policy changes prioritise the needs of those vulnerable households, ensuring that they are not left behind as we look to electrify the UK’s heating system. A more focused way to adjust policy funding could be to collect revenue from levy-funded programmes through a single levy control system. Such a system would have two straightforward rates—one for electricity and one for gas—set by Ministers at an appropriate level. These rates would be based on the cost per kilowatt-hour, so more energy-efficient technologies would have lower taxable amounts, making them comparatively more affordable.
Unlike other rebalancing methods, this approach would allow the Government to directly manage the impact on households. As electricity is always more efficient than fossil fuels, its price would go down, encouraging more people to switch. Policy reform is an essential step towards addressing the unacceptable price disparity that currently exists in the UK between gas and electricity. I hope the Minister has listened very carefully to the proposal that I have just put forward.
The impact of Brexit on our energy system has been somewhat brushed under the carpet. The turbulence of covid and the shockwaves from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have dominated the conversation and masked the quieter, but significant, effects of our departure from the EU’s energy framework. One of the most pressing issues is passive divergence: not following new EU regulations simply because we are no longer a part of the system.
That is not always a deliberate choice, but it is already creating challenges, particularly in electricity trading. The UK was once part of an integrated, efficient energy market with the EU, where electricity flowed freely, reducing costs and improving security. Now, without alignment, we risk inefficiencies, higher prices and reduced energy security. We need strategic decision making. Not all divergence is bad, but it must be a conscious, informed choice, based on clear evidence, not ideology.
When it comes to energy, the benefits of co-operation with the EU are overwhelming. Shared markets bring stability, common rules ensure fair trade and joint planning strengthens resilience against global energy shocks. The EU and the UK share the same fundamental energy challenges in securing affordable, clean and reliable power for the future. Our interests remain aligned and so should our approach. We must ensure that divergence, where it happens, is a decision and not an accident.
In addition, we need to focus on policies for community energy. We Liberal Democrats have long championed the idea of community energy. Community energy currently accounts for less than 0.5% of total UK electricity generation capacity. However, according to the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, with the right Government support, the sector could grow 12 to 20 times by 2030, powering 2.2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year.
I welcome the Government’s inclusion of the local power plan in the Great British Energy Bill, which marks a welcome step forward for the community energy sector. The plan intends to deliver an ambitious target of 8 gW of renewable energy projects by 2030, in partnership with local authorities and communities across the country. To achieve that target, significant scale-up of local and community-owned energy will be required and we will need a support programme in place for community energy organisations in England, drawing on successful models from Scotland and Wales.
Bath and West Community Energy, a community benefit society, has reduced carbon emissions by an average of 3,300 tonnes per year with its around 31 renewable energy projects. Let us make sure every community across the country has something like Bath and West Community Energy in its patch. As we have repeated many times, community energy reduces bills, creates local jobs and accelerates the transition to a low-carbon future.
Home insulation is another key area to reduce energy costs, particularly in my Bath constituency, where much of the housing stock is old and in dire need of insulation. Insulation remains one of the most effective ways to reduce energy demand, lower bills and cut emissions, but the Government have significantly delayed the implementation of their warm homes grants. The scheme was not implemented this winter and will only operate from next winter. The Government must tackle the efficiencies of these schemes head-on, ensuring that residents receive retrofit measures that provide value for money and stand the test of time. The Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero will look into those issues tomorrow, and I hope people will listen very carefully.
To accelerate and de-risk delivery of the warm homes plan, the UK Government should create a national expert advice service for England so that households have the confidence to receive tailored advice to upgrade their homes. Doing so would deliver consistent outcomes across the country and end the postcode lottery in advice services.
I hope the Government consider the points outlined today. We need long-term solutions that will make clean energy affordable for all, meet our net zero targets and lift the pressures on families of rising energy costs.
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberIn the spirit of Christmas, I thank the hon. Lady for all the engagement and discussions we have had—[Interruption.] The Conservative Front Benchers groan, but I have joy for their party at Christmas as well. We are absolutely committed to community energy, which was in our manifesto. At every stage of the Bill, we have committed to community energy being right at the heart of what Great British Energy will do. If their lordships make any amendments in their consideration of the Bill, we will of course consider those amendments when the Bill comes back to this place. However, I say gently to the hon. Lady that her party did not support Great British Energy, so it cannot now claim credit for the things that Great British Energy will deliver.
We have made clear, through the clean power action plan that we announced last week, that where communities host clean energy infrastructure, we will ensure that they benefit from it. There are many options in that area, including community funds and direct support for households, and we are exploring all those options to ensure that communities can benefit from the clean power mission.
There is a proposal to build 65 wind turbines on protected peatland in the neighbouring Calderdale council area, which I am staunchly against. To make matters worse, if the development is approved, my constituents will not benefit from any community benefit scheme, despite being on the periphery of the proposed location. How will the Secretary of State ensure that my constituents get their fair share of any community benefit scheme should the proposal be approved?
I cannot comment on the specific details of the case. However, I would like to know more about why the hon. Gentleman’s community might not benefit, because the aim is for all communities affected by hosting infrastructure to benefit in different ways. We are looking at the options—be they money off bills, or the community benefit funds that exist at the moment—as we work through the answers to the consultation launched by the previous Government. However, we are clear that if communities host infrastructure that is nationally important and benefits the whole country, they should benefit from doing so.
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but I have to say that the Government’s disastrous decision to industrialise our highly productive, good agricultural land by approving three huge solar farms clearly demonstrates their unwillingness to listen to the concerns of local rural communities; it runs roughshod over them and their ability to have their say. It is also hugely detrimental to food security. Can he explain to the House how he will look the farming community in the eye and explain his decision, as well as the Government’s lukewarm words on food security being national security?
I am afraid that we have to conduct these debates on the basis of fact, not myth. Some 0.1% of our land, and around that amount of agricultural land, is being used for solar panels. We cannot proceed on the basis of myth. The hon. Gentleman talks about the farming community. Farmers want this. The National Farmers Union has supported this decision. Of course we will work with local communities, but every time an Opposition Member gets up and opposes clean energy, they are saying to the British people, “We are going to make you poorer. We are going to make Britain more energy insecure, and we are not going to tackle the climate crisis.”
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend will be interested to hear that the Government provided more than £7.4 billion of support to businesses—more than £35 million a day—through the energy bill relief scheme last winter.