09:54 Steve Yemm (Labour)

I am pleased that the new Government are currently reviewing the fuel poverty strategy for England to help everyone, whether they are pensioners, families or people living alone, to keep warm. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to help to reduce bills in the longer term, including through their warm homes plan, which will provide funding to enable property owners, including social landlords, to transition their housing stock to become decarbonised and more energy efficient.

[Source]

10:09 Andrew Cooper (Labour)

It has been great to see this Government committed to reversing that damage and to bringing energy bills down sustainably for the long term by improving the energy efficiency of our homes through the warm homes plan. This will not only help to tackle fuel poverty, but reduce carbon emissions, create green jobs and help us to meet our climate targets. I recognise that a significant part of the scheme will be delivered by social landlords, which will avoid many of the issues encountered with the previous Government’s programme. However, the boiler upgrade scheme operates on a voucher basis, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what the Department has learned from the previous Government’s rushed implementation of the green homes grant, and how those issues will be avoided in our plan.

[Source]

10:17 Ian Lavery (Labour)

What actually is fuel poverty? There are two definitions: the new one from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the pre-2015 definition. They are greatly different. The preferred definition of fuel poverty used by the Government until 2015 and still by some parts of the UK, is a household that is

[Source]

10:21 Richard Burgon (Labour)

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.

[Source]

10:29 Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat)

The subject of the debate is vital to my constituents. Fuel poverty has left thousands of people in Eastleigh and across the country in a terrible situation this winter. The Liberal Democrats are gravely concerned that Government delays in tackling poorly insulated homes have left thousands of people cold and living in fuel poverty. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe and it is among the least energy-efficient. The previous Government failed to commit to a meaningful renewable energy programme or a decent homes standard to bring down energy bills, reduce emissions and improve public health. As a result, an estimated 6 million households are in fuel poverty.

According to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero sub-regional fuel poverty data, 7.2% of households in my constituency, amounting to nearly 3,000 families, live in fuel poverty. Many pensioners are just over the income threshold for receiving pension credit, but still struggle immensely. Constituents tell me that they have resorted to using only a microwave to cook meals, because it is cheaper than an oven, while people living in park homes have told me that they have had to turn off their electric heating entirely, even though their walls are just two inches thick and not properly insulated.

[Source]

10:34 Nick Timothy (Conservative)

The challenge of fuel poverty affects people of all ages throughout the country. Rather than just creating new benefits and schemes to address the high cost of fuel, we need to resolve the root causes of energy costs more generally. Here, the Government are taking the country in a very worrying direction. The Energy Secretary promises to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and the Business Secretary wants to ban petrol and diesel cars by the same year. Tough standards on aviation fuel are being enforced; heat pumps are expected to replace gas boilers; expensive and intermittent renewable technologies funded by huge and hidden subsidies are favoured; and oil and gas fields in the North sea are abandoned, left for the Norwegians to profit from what we choose to ignore.

The Energy Secretary has made much of the National Energy System Operator’s report on decarbonising the grid. He says that report shows that he can do so by 2030 without increasing bills, but in fact the report does not say that—and even then, its calculations rest on a carbon price that will rise to £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide. It is no wonder that, in reply to a question I asked him last week, the Energy Secretary would not rule out having a higher carbon price in Britain than in Europe. That will be terrible for families struggling with the cost of heating their home, but it will hurt them—and indeed all of us—in other ways. As long as policy runs faster than technology and other countries do not follow our lead on climate change, decarbonisation will inevitably mean deindustrialisation. That will mean a weaker economy with lower growth, fewer jobs, and less spending power to help those who we have been discussing today—those who need support the most.

Of course, it is not just the NESO report that shows us the future consequences of the Government’s policies. The OBR says that environmental levies will reach up to £15 billion by the end of this Parliament to pay for net zero policies. As those levies will fall heavily on consumption, they will have a particularly regressive effect, as analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Cornwall Insight has confirmed. It is therefore no wonder that Labour’s election promise to cut bills by £300 by the end of the Parliament has vanished without trace, so I challenge the Minister today to do what she has not done since polling day—repeat that promise very clearly. I suspect she will not because, unlike the Secretary of State, she knows the reality of his policies. The Government are adding complexity and contradiction to our energy system and loading extra costs on to families across the country. There is still time for Ministers to think again and put the interests of decent, hard-working people ahead of the Energy Secretary’s ideological dogma.

[Source]