Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025
Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (S.I., 2025, No. 737).
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for your guidance.
I am pleased to be speaking to these orders, the first of which was laid before the House in draft on 26 June and the second of which was made on 26 June and is subject to the made affirmative procedure. The Government are clear in our commitment to a free and pluralistic media whereby all citizens in all parts of the UK can access high-quality news and other information from a range of sources, enabling them to form their own opinions. The public’s continued access to diverse news, views and information is fundamental to the health of our democracy as well as our nation. That is why the Enterprise Act 2002 contains powers that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in media mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to public interest concerns —about, for example, the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion—and to take appropriate action to remedy any such concerns that arise.
Owing to the more limited nature of the news market in 2002, when the Enterprise Act became law, only print newspapers published on a daily, Sunday or local basis and broadcasters are in scope of the core media mergers regime. The media landscape has undergone significant changes in the intervening decades, and our laws need to keep pace with technology and evolving news consumption habits. The shift to digital news was clearly evidenced in the Ofcom report “News consumption in the UK: 2024”, which showed that 71% of UK adults now consume news via online sources. We need to reflect the fact that news is increasingly accessed and consumed online. That is why we are here today; these orders are designed to address that very issue.
In its 2021 statutory review of the operation of media ownership rules, Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State broaden the scope of the public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators. Ofcom set out its belief that that would better reflect the way in which people access news now. Between 6 November 2024 and 13 January 2025, my Department ran a technical consultation on proposals derived from Ofcom’s recommendations: to expand the scope of the media mergers regime from print newspapers and broadcasters to encompass online newspapers and periodical news magazines, and to extend the application of key media public interest considerations to this new definition of newspapers, and broadcasters carrying news programmes.
Those public interest considerations are: the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers; the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers; and the need for sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. At the same time, the Government proposed to extend the scope of the new foreign state influence regime to online news publications.
Having taken into account the views of industry, Parliament and the public, we are confident that our changes balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment. Two related orders—the ones that we are discussing today—are required to enact the policy changes.
First, the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 will amend the definition of “newspaper” in the Enterprise Act 2002 so that it encompasses print and online newspapers and print and online periodical news magazines. Provision has been made to ensure that the scope of the regime extends only to publications that are connected with the UK.
In effect, the amendments will expand and align the scope of the media merger standard and special public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime. All three regimes will now apply to acquisitions of print newspapers, news magazines and online newspapers. That will create a consistent and forward-looking public interest regime. Importantly, the draft order will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest grounds—subject to jurisdiction—in the acquisition of an online-only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so.
The second order, the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, will extend the application of public interest considerations in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to “news media”—a new term defined as newspapers or broadcasters of news programmes. Those public interest considerations include the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers, and the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers. Whereas the public interest considerations I have just mentioned can already be considered in the context of newspaper mergers, the changes made by the section 58 order will mean that the Secretary of State will now be able on any of the aforementioned public interest grounds to intervene in mergers involving the broadcasters of news programmes.
The order will also extend the public interest consideration on the need for sufficient plurality of control of the media in relation to every different UK audience. That public interest consideration currently applies to mergers involving broadcasters, but the Secretary of State will now also be able to consider its relevance to mergers involving print and online newspaper and news magazine enterprises. We recognise the challenging financial context for newspapers, and the importance of the balance between encouraging investment in the sector and being able to protect against market consolidation that might be detrimental to our plural and thriving news market. It is important to note in relation to the changes made by the section 58 order that the Secretary of State’s powers under the public interest regime continue to be discretionary. There is a range of possible outcomes to any investigation that she may commence, and in assessing an individual case, the Secretary of State would need to consider the facts of the case and the evidence at hand.
Returning to the orders, the foreign state influence regime introduced in May 2024 already prohibits foreign states from acquiring control or influence over the policy of print newspaper and periodical news magazine enterprises. The regime will be extended by the definition of newspaper order such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control or influence over the policy of an online newspaper or news magazine enterprise. The benefit of extending the scope of the prohibition in this way is to protect plurality of views and to prevent potential editorial interference or censorship from foreign states in online-only newspapers, which form a large part of the UK’s news consumption. That expansion will also ensure alignment across the media merger regime for both print and digital news publications, creating a consistent, forward-looking regime.
The amendments to the definition of newspaper for the foreign state influence regime will apply with retrospective effect from the day that this change was announced: 15 May 2025. The Secretary of State will be required to intervene in any completed or anticipated mergers involving an online newspaper enterprise that completed or were in progress on or after 15 May. If she has reasonable grounds to suspect a foreign power is or will be able to control or influence the policy of the online newspaper enterprise as a result, all other changes will apply prospectively.
Both the definition of newspaper order and the amendment of section 58 considerations order will make the public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime reflect the various ways people access and consume news today. With those changes, we are modernising protections for our world-class UK news market, by enabling or requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in a broader range of news mergers that may operate against the public interest. The orders balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome these orders, and I hope it will please the Committee to hear that I do not intend to detain us I do, however, want to raise a few issues.
As the Minister said, a statutory review in 2021 conducted by Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State should broaden the scope of public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators to reflect changes in consumption. As many colleagues will be aware, the 2024 news consumption report found that 71% of UK adults consume news via online sources. It is therefore right that action is taken to future-proof our media regimes. The Government admit that their measures are narrower than Ofcom’s recommendations. Will the Minister report on any issues Ofcom may have raised with her about this approach, given that it does not cover the full recommendations?
The Government’s press release noted that they did not want to put any “undue pressure on businesses”. Is the Minister confident that the right balance has been struck? I accept that this is quite a narrow tightrope to walk, but it is important that we get this right. I also note that some respondents to the Government’s consultation shared the view that broadening the scope of the public interest consideration to apply to mergers involving enterprises involved in newspapers or broadcasting was unnecessary. The responses suggested that this could have a
“chilling effect on investment and consolidation”.
Will the Minister please reassure the Committee that this will not be the case, as we want to see as much investment as possible, especially given the current media landscape?
Can the Minister update us on the secondary legislation to further bolster the foreign state influence regime, to prevent multiple states acquiring 15% of newspapers? When will it be laid? We had to alert the Government to this seemingly a significant oversight in the drafting of the legislation. There is clearly a lot of concern out there, and while we want to see investment, we must safeguard against any state ownership of our free media.
More broadly, the Opposition will always support accurate news reporting, freedom of expression and the plurality of voices within the newspaper market, so I welcome the speech the Minister made and the action the Government have taken. None the less, I would be grateful for answers to those questions.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. The Minister presented these orders as a tidying-up job, but the Liberal Democrats believe they need to be viewed in the broader context of the recent SI allowing up to 15% ownership of newspapers by foreign Governments. We remain concerned about the sale of any portion of UK news media to foreign Governments. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry, raised the issue of cumulative ownership, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that later.
I do not agree with everything written in UK newspapers. Indeed, since my election I have been described by one commentator as a “drab clunker”, and more recently by another as a “pillock” and an “idiot.” I assure the Committee that I have been called much worse in my political career, but at least I can be sure that what is written in the UK press is not written by journalists under the influence of a company part owned by a foreign Government, including those who are hostile to British values, the UK Government, or Britain as a whole.
The Minister knows that my style as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson is firm but fair scrutiny, mostly with a smile, and we have a decent relationship on that basis. I have asked some very clear written questions of the Government on the broader issue of foreign state ownership of UK news, but I regret that the answers so far have left a large grey area and given us cause for concern.
Even if the Government are in favour of the sale of UK media to foreign Governments, the official Opposition are ambivalent about it or in favour, and the plastic patriots in Reform UK are actively in favour, the Liberal Democrats intend to stand up for the independence of our media as a crucial pillar of our democracy. We opposed the initial legislation on this issue a few weeks ago, and unless the Minister can provide the reassurances we seek, we will oppose the regulations today and in future.
Stephanie Peacock
It has been an important debate, and I am grateful for the contributions—in particular, that of the official Opposition. It is a delight to see the shadow Minister in his place; I am used to calling him Minister, as I used to sit in where he is now. I appreciate his contribution, his questions and his support, as I do the always cordial approach from the Liberal Democrats.
The debate shows the wide support for protecting a thriving and plural news market that acts as the cornerstone of democracy, especially in this digital age. The debate also highlights the challenges of striking the right balance between encouraging a range of investment in the sector and safeguarding the public’s ability to access high quality news that they can trust. That balance is especially fine in the light of the continuing evolution of the digital and online space.
In answer to the point around investment, the Government have decided to take a proportionate approach that reflects the most important changes to the way in which the public consume news in the present day. The approach will balance not stifling or chilling investment and protecting the public. The Government are committed to supporting a financially sustainable press sector, recognising the financial challenges that many have faced over recent years. We acknowledge the role that consolidation can play; we are developing our local media strategy in recognition of the importance of this, and are working cross-Government with other stakeholders as the strategy develops. We agree that encouraging a range of investment in the sector is important, and the Government are committed to maintaining a thriving and pluralistic media landscape, but that obviously has to have a balance.
Moving on to the questions about the foreign state ownership regime, we of course debated that last month and it was passed by a vote of the House earlier this month. I committed to updating the House by the middle of this week, and I shall. Obviously, this issue emerged under the previous Government; it was very clear that we do not want foreign states having influence. The 15% cap balances the need to protect the sector from state influence with the reality that newspapers need to access new investment. Of course, if there is any hint that that is anything other than a passive investment, the Secretary of State is obliged to act. We have debated that. I will introduce a further SI and update the House later this week.
Question put.
Draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, anybody who feels the need to remove clothing—within reason—please do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. As the Committee will be aware, in December last year my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made a written statement to the House concerning the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which announced the Government’s plans to implement two of the review’s outstanding recommendations. In opposition, we welcomed Clare Wade KC’s approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides, while balancing the need to ensure that any changes do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of the review’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what today’s draft instrument is intended to achieve. Its measures are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls.
In case it is helpful to the Committee, I will set out some of the background to this issue. Our current sentencing framework for murder, as specified in schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced more than 20 years ago. Since then, multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it by Governments of all colours. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context. Clare Wade KC, an experienced barrister specialising in murder, manslaughter and serious sexual offences, was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases. She was tasked with establishing whether the law in this area and related sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose.
I pay tribute to Clare Wade for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of it. They include Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse, both of whom were tragically murdered by their former partners. Having met members of the Killed Women campaign to hear their harrowing experiences at first hand, I recognise just how important this legislation is. I know that colleagues will join me in commending their courage and commitment to campaigning for change.
Clare Wade KC’s review was published in March 2023, and the previous Government responded in July of the same year. Some of the recommendations were accepted and implemented by Ministers in that Administration, but a number remain outstanding. Today’s instrument implements two of them. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the cases analysed by the review, the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship, and in the majority of cases, this appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. The perpetrator was male in all these cases. As the Committee will be aware, a murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour, and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner.
Secondly, the instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare Wade KC involved strangulation, all carried out by a male perpetrator with a female victim. The intention of the instrument is to recognise those factors expressly in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework.
Alongside this important legislation, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes subject to thorough consultation. While Clare Wade KC’s review and today’s legislation go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to them.
We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take some time to complete. We will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law, but it is not a swift one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in the instrument. This is part of our crucial work to deliver on our missions to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. This delegated legislation follows on from legislation laid by the previous Government as part of their response to the independent domestic homicide sentencing review undertaken by Clare Wade KC.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations amend schedule 21 to add aggravating factors for when the murder is connected with the end of an intimate personal relationship, and when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. The previous Government, of course, gave consideration to introducing these measures, as they were determined to identify approaches to reduce the rate and nature of violence perpetrated against women and girls.
Our earlier legislative changes introduced statutory aggravating factors for repeated controlling or coercive behaviour by the offender, and sustained and excessive violence towards the victim, but, as the Minister will know, the Government chose not to take forward these specific measures at that time. I am sure that he has been privy to the full range of official advice on these amendments, even if he has ultimately decided to move forward with them now. The Sentencing Council articulated the counter-argument to their introduction in its consultation response, focusing on the challenges of an approach that distinguishes through method rather than the impact of violence of one type or another. The Sentencing Council also expressed concerns that trials might face complex evidential questions about what constitutes an intimate personal relationship. It was not unreasonable to pause and give consideration to those concerns, but we recognise why the Government have now chosen to proceed with these measures.
As the Minister explained, in over a third of the murder cases studied in the Wade review,
“the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship.”
The use of strangulation was also frequently involved, a method of killing that is disproportionately used by men against women, and which has long been recognised as a marker of escalating abuse and lethal violence.
The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law on homicide and sentencing more generally. So if there is a residual concern about how all the different aggravating and mitigating factors interact, that review will present an opportunity for the Government to consider the matter in the round in a way that might assuage concerns about these individual measures.
In conclusion, for now, we respect the Government’s settled view that they believe these measures may on balance bring benefit, and we will not oppose them this evening. But I say to the Minister that the Government do need to make up their mind. The benefit of introducing measures such as these is somewhat muted, because at the same time, the Government are introducing a whole raft of other measures that make the efforts to tackle violence against women and girls and particularly the fight for justice for them harder.
The Government have committed to letting out offenders after serving a third of their sentences simply for not breaking the rules while in prison. They voted against our measures to allow victims to appeal unduly lenient sentences and to protect victims from having their impact statements unduly interfered with. They have introduced automatic release in relation to parole breaches, rather than keeping people in prison until it is safe to let them out. And last week, they welcomed a report that recommended even greater discount for guilty pleas, which, when combined with the Gauke recommendations, could see a domestic abuser serve just one fifth of their sentence.
Measures like these this evening are not going to change the situation, and victims will notice. They will know when they are being given something with one hand only to have twice as much taken away with the other, and we will hold the Government to account for that every step of the way.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am grateful that the spokesman for His Majesty’s Opposition recognises that the draft regulations build on the work of the previous Government in a right and proper way, taking those decisions forward. It is disappointing that he does not recognise some responsibility for the situation that we inherited in the prison estate with overcrowding, and in the courts with people having to wait so long to have their trial. That is why we are having to address these issues in the round. But that is not pertinent to this statutory instrument, which speaks for itself, and I am grateful for his and his party’s support on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Financial Assistance to Industry
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake, during the period beginning with the date of approval of this motion and ending on 31 July 2030, to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, grants to businesses as part of His Majesty’s Government’s project to support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK and the UK’s automotive supply chain, including to support the creation of jobs, private investment into the UK, the development of the automotive industry and emission reductions, up to an overall limit of £1 billion, and to pay during or after that period the grants that are undertaken to be paid.
As hon. Members will be aware, I am not the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), but she has duly authorised me to move and speak to the motion.
I hope hon. Members agree that the UK boasts a dynamic, diverse and fast-developing automotive sector, built on a rich industrial heritage. The sector is a significant driver of economic growth, contributing £21.4 billion in gross value added to our economy last year alone, and it proudly employs a workforce of 132,000 people. Those jobs are spread across the UK, mostly outside London and the south-east, with notable car plants and auto businesses in the west midlands, the north-east and Wales—and, I will add, because my officials have not put this in, in the north-west.
Despite our many well-established strengths, the UK and indeed the global automotive sectors are facing real economic pressure while also transitioning to a zero emission vehicle future. With those challenges come a wealth of opportunities, however. Last month, the Government fulfilled a promise to publish our long-term, modern industrial strategy. That plan unites the whole of Government behind a single purpose, tackling issues across skills, regulation, energy prices and infrastructure. Crucially, the strategy will promote investment and growth in advanced manufacturing sectors, at the heart of which is UK automotive.
Targeting ambitious growth requires strong Government action to support businesses and guide that progress. The advanced manufacturing sector plan sets a vision for the UK automotive sector. In addition to a range of other growth driving measures, it commits £2.5 billion via the new DRIVE35 programme to accelerate research and investment in vehicle electrification through to 2035.
As part of DRIVE35, we propose today to commit £1 billion through section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to support zero emission vehicle manufacturing in the UK. This will be an inclusive and wide-ranging support offer for our automotive sector, and it will be available for businesses of all stages, sizes and maturity, supporting growth in every corner of the UK. DRIVE35 will serve a broad spectrum of technologies, from established high-volume vehicle manufacturing and multibillion-pound gigafactories all the way to start-ups, prototypes and cutting-edge automotive innovation. It will build on the successes of the automotive transformation fund and Advanced Propulsion Centre research and development competitions, which have unlocked more than £6 billion in private investment.
This intervention will ensure that the UK automotive industry can grow and thrive. It will provide the resources for it to move from strength to strength and remain the high-innovation, high-productivity sector that it is today. By cementing strategic technologies and bolstering regional manufacturing clusters, we will seek to leverage a minimum of £6.6 billion of private investment.
This really matters, because without new investment, the sector risks losing out to fierce competition from abroad. That in turn means fewer car sales, a loss of economic activity and a risk to jobs in parts of the country.
That is why we are taking a strategic approach to UK automotive investment. The Government and our delivery partner, the Advanced Propulsion Centre, will engage proactively with potential investors. This comprehensive support will help businesses with all aspects, ranging from expertise on technologies and scale-up to site selection, planning and energy infrastructure, and facilitating introductions with trade bodies and other businesses. Of course, we will also consult vehicle manufacturers directly to identify their supply chain needs and preferences for local sourcing. These insights will guide our approach and remain aligned with the evolving automotive landscape.
To summarise, the Government seek authority to make this intervention, because it will secure the UK automotive sector’s position as a leader in the clean energy transition. It will help us to protect jobs and create new ones in our car plants across our manufacturing heartlands. The intervention also directly supports our plan for change and our mission to kickstart economic growth by backing the industries of the future. It will help us to deliver a new decade of national renewal for both our automotive sector and our wider economy. I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House in this endeavour.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have spoken at length on this subject, in the last Parliament as a member of the Transport Committee and from the then Government Back Benches, and since the last general election as a shadow Minister.
I begin with a simple concept: politicians should never ask someone to do something they are not willing to do themselves. I will put on the record that I am not willing to buy an electric car, and therefore anything that essentially uses taxpayers’ money to produce electric vehicles that so few people in the United Kingdom actually wish to buy—including, it seems from the weekend’s media, the Transport Secretary—is something that we cannot support.
With fleet sales removed, new EV registrations prove that this is just not a technology that people trust, desire or are willing to spend their hard-earned money on. The Conservatives previously pushed the zero-emission vehicle mandate transition date back to 2035, but this Government have brought it forward to 2030. The need for this subsidy––let us call it what it is––is a clear indication that the Government are struggling to persuade consumers to switch to electric vehicles.
That failure stems from two fundamental issues: the high cost of electric cars and their lack of reliability in terms of both range and charging infrastructure. The Government will say, I am sure, that we formerly had a subsidy scheme—and that is true: we did, but it was used to create an EV industry in Britain, supporting it to overcome the barriers of entry into the UK market. When that EV industry was created, we ended the subsidy. But now, to cover their mistakes and the unrealistic nature of their targets, Ministers have been forced into using taxpayers’ money to pay for EV adoption and to mask the consequences of their own policy failures. In effect, taxpayers’ money is being used to subsidise a transition that the public are not willing to make.
We warned the Government that that would be the outcome. However, driven by an ideological approach to net zero, they ignored those warnings. This is yet another example of how the Government’s unrealistic climate targets are contributing to the rising cost of living for ordinary British families. Many other countries have opted for a 2035 target, recognising the economic and logistical challenges of any earlier deadline. In contrast, the UK’s 2030 mandate risks placing an undue financial burden on families here, forcing them to purchase more expensive vehicles while others abroad can wait and benefit from falling prices.
We on the Opposition side believe in a demand-led transition to cleaner vehicles, one that respects consumer choice and understands the whole range of technologies available, following a genuine whole-system analysis—not just the tailpipe. Families should have the freedom to choose whether they want to drive petrol, diesel, hybrid, electric or other new technologies, and to make that transition when the market and infrastructure are ready, and when prices are more affordable.
The Government’s approach has already had real-world consequences. We have seen the closure of Stellantis in Luton, in part due to insufficient demand for electric vehicles. That should serve as a warning.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I should declare that Ford’s UK headquarters is in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend also reflect that there is a real issue here for not just cars, but commercial vehicles? I am thinking particularly of the Transit, Ford’s best-selling international medium-sized van, which is known the world over and is a real staple of the UK. Is it not the case that we need to look at this issue in the round and that, when it is down to tradesmen what they want to buy, they need to be confident and comfortable in purchasing the product? At the moment, that is the only element providing significant profitability for Ford in the UK; removing that and essentially replacing it with a subsidy seems the wrong way around.
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the marketplace out there for both private and commercial vehicles—particularly vans, heavy goods vehicles and larger vehicles—those who have to take a personal financial risk on them are not choosing to do so. Particularly in the HGV sector, they prefer to look at transitional fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil to keep their fleets on the road. That choice genuinely cleaner, but does not cost them two, three or maybe even four times the price for the same vehicle in an electric format—which, of course, comes with a lower payload, because the batteries are so heavy that it cannot legally take the same weight of goods.
Those choices that real people in the real world are making should drive what the Government do to ensure that they get the transition to a greener form of transport right, rather than just flogging the dead horse of a failing technology that nobody seems willing to buy unless heavily bribed to do so with their own taxpayers’ money through fleet sales and the like—and, in this case, through this motion that seeks to spend even more of that taxpayers’ money on propping up a product that just does not have the consumer demand underneath it. It is for those reasons that the Conservatives will oppose this motion.
Justin Madders
I acknowledge the shadow Minister’s consistency: he opposed his own Government’s policies in this area and now he is opposing ours. Clearly he disagrees vehemently with the direction of travel of the drive—pardon the pun—for electric vehicles. He rightly referred to some of the challenges, such as range, but I disagree with his analysis that this is a failing market. EV sales in the UK last year were the highest in Europe and the third highest in the world, a 20% increase on the previous year. There is a capacity and an appetite for moving to cleaner and greener modes of transportation.
We have responded to some of the concerns raised by industry about the rigidity of the previous target and there have been flexibilities added in as a result of discussions with the automotive sector. This is about levering in private investment; it is about £1 billion of public money supporting the automotive sector. Although the shadow Minister might disagree with the overall policy intent, voting against this motion does not change that—all it will do is to prevent £1 billion of support to the automotive sector, with the effect that that will have on jobs, on investment in R&D and on the confidence that we need to send to the industry about our support for the sector.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is very supportive of our policies and wants us to get on with DRIVE35, which underpins this motion. I understand why the shadow Minister is not happy with this motion, but his vote against it, if carried, would have a direct impact on jobs and investment in manufacturing in this country, and that is something the Government cannot support.
Question put.
Draft Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The regulations were laid before the House on 19 June 2025. In February, we consulted on expanding the warm home discount scheme, which provides vulnerable households with a rebate of £150 off their energy bills; it goes to all bill payers on means-tested benefits. Today we are discussing the regulations that will allow us to implement those changes and bring energy bill relief to 2.7 million additional households.
Let me begin with the context and why we are doing this. Since we took office, the Government have been committed to alleviating fuel poverty and addressing the cost of living crisis. When we reviewed the 2021 fuel poverty strategy, it was clear that progress had stalled under the last Government and that we needed a new plan to accelerate our progress towards tackling fuel poverty.
There are two primary ways in which such progress can be accelerated: upgrading homes, to make them warmer and cheaper to run; and making energy more affordable, through expanding direct bill support. The first will be driven through our £13.2 billion investment in the warm homes plan, which aims to upgrade homes across the country and transform our housing stock. But while we do that, some households are at risk of being left behind before they can feel the full benefits. Energy bill rebates such as the warm home discount can reach families immediately; they are easy to deliver and consumers do not need to take any action to receive them. As a result, while we tackle the underlying issues that are driving up energy bills through our warm homes plan and our sprint to Clean Power 2030, the warm home discount provides a vital short-term means of mitigating fuel poverty and providing support to the households that need it the most.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped around 3 million low income and vulnerable households each year by reducing their energy bills at a time of year when that is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low income pensioners in receipt of guaranteed pension credit received the £150 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills. Over 2 million low income and vulnerable households also received the rebate.
This statutory instrument would amend the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 to allow amendment to the eligibility criteria for this coming winter, so that more rebates are provided to households. It would also extend the period during which rebate notices can be issued to suppliers, ensuring that as many rebates as possible can be issued by suppliers before the current regulations expire on 31 March 2026. The SI also amends the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022, to increase suppliers’ non-core spending obligation by an amount considered to be commensurate to the expected increase in England and Wales.
The SI is a result of a consultation in February 2025 in which we proposed to remove the “high cost to heat” threshold, which can mean that families in almost identical circumstances are treated differently, with some receiving the rebate while others miss out. The current system also excludes many households in smaller properties because the home is not classified as “high cost to heat”. Removing the “high cost to heat” threshold will make all energy bill payers who receive a qualifying means-tested benefit eligible for the warm home discount. It would bring around 2.7 million additional households into the scheme, pushing the total number of households receiving the support to around 6 million—one in five households in the UK.
Before I conclude, I must draw Members’ attention to the correction slip published on 4 July. It corrects a typo on page 3 of the draft regulations, from “Her Majesty’s” to “His Majesty’s”.
In conclusion, the regulations will make the necessary legislative changes to expand the warm home discount so that it reaches an extra 2.7 million households at a time when families are struggling with their energy bills and absolutely need that vital support. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to respond to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me start by saying that if the Minister thinks that progress stalled under the last Government, this Government’s abolishing and then reinstating the winter fuel payment has been a funny way of getting around that.
By expanding the warm home discount scheme, the Government are broadening its reach to 6 million households across the UK, up from the 3.4 million households that currently receive the annual £150 energy bill rebate. We should do everything that we can to tackle fuel poverty, but we must ask ourselves what the best way is to resolve the root causes of the energy bills crisis.
Under the warm home discount scheme, the Government are funding support for people who cannot afford their bills by pushing up green levies on everyone’s bills. The impact assessment for this legislation clearly states that the scheme expansion will increase everyone’s bills by £15. The Minister did not mention that when the expansion was announced, but the Government should be honest with the public that they have deliberately take a decision that will increase everyone’s bills. Higher green levies will pay for an increase in the overall cost of the scheme from £600 million to £1 billion.
It is hard to see how this expansion will achieve the Government’s solemn manifesto pledge to cut energy bills by £300 before the end of this Parliament. We are seeing this approach play out across energy policy: the Government raise the cost of energy with their unrealistic decarbonisation policies; energy-intensive industries then suffer under the highest industrial energy prices in Europe; and the Government step in with subsidies to help them cover the cost that they created to begin with. It is madness, and we are now seeing the same thing done for families.
In public policy, the simplest solution is often the best. In the case of fuel poverty, the Government can help everyone afford their bills by delivering abundant and cheap energy, but they are piling on costs through their Clean Power 2030 plan. That will increase the price of carbon to £147 per tonne, which will, in turn, increase bills for every family in the country. We have already paid £700 million so far just this year to turn off wind farms when there has been too much wind. We now hear that we are going to pay solar farms just the same to turn off in certain circumstances. The National Energy System Operator forecasts that these constraint costs will hit £8 billion in 2030 because of Labour’s plans to build more renewables than ever before.
Instead of rushing ahead to build a system entirely dependent on unreliable and expensive renewables such as wind and solar, we should be going further and faster with nuclear and expanding oil and gas exploration in the North sea. Instead, we are importing fossil fuels from Norway, drilled from the very same seabed that we could exploit, while insisting that we are too good and too green to do that for ourselves. All of this is a choice. The Labour party chooses to increase energy costs, including for people on low incomes, with reckless targets and arbitrary mandates. We will abstain on these regulations, but the unavoidable fact remains that this Government are increasing energy bills for the poorest when we ought to be making energy as cheap as possible for everyone.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to this debate. He is nothing but consistent, which is about the only upside that I can speak about. He and the Conservative party have some cheek trying to lecture the Government on energy bills being too high, given that they oversaw record energy bills and an anergy crisis. I will address his points and then talk about this important intervention that we are taking forward.
Clean power and our drive to sprint to clean power is not ideological. It is a recognition and a response to the fact that energy bills reached sky high prices because of our dependence on global fossil fuel markets. We saw that during the energy crisis that the Conservative party presided over. Families and businesses across the country have been paying the price of that. That party was happy with that reality, but it is not one that we are willing to confront.
Nick Timothy
I will go first, then, and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) to ask a superior question.
The Minister is talking about fossil fuel prices and how the Government want to take us away from them. We have had an exchange in the past couple of weeks about when the price cap was lowered because of the fall in wholesale gas prices. When that happened, the Labour party put out literature saying, “£129 off your bills, delivered by Labour”. When I put that to the Minister, she disowned that language and used her own words. I understand why; she is an intelligent and principled person, and that poster from Labour was neither intelligent nor principled. Will she apologise for that and say that it was wrong?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have had this conversation over and over again. What I would say is that we are very clear that we are on a rollercoaster, with fossil fuel prices driving energy bills up and down. We are absolutely committed to dealing with that. We are also absolutely committed to reducing energy bills, which went up and up under the last Government. We will not allow that to happen: we have made a commitment to reduce energy bills by £300 by the end of this Parliament and we are doing the job of making that happen.
I come back to the fact that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The proposition from the Conservative side, to the extent that it is a proposition, is completely wanting and unrealistic. Families and businesses across the country would be saddled with high prices that were a function of our being on this rollercoaster. We are not willing to contend with such a reality, so we are taking measures. The shadow Minister says that he wants to see more nuclear, but there was not a single expansion of nuclear under the last Government: 14 years absolutely wasted. We are doing the job of getting to clean power in order to reduce energy bills—
The Chair
Order. We are slightly getting off the topic of the regulations, I am afraid; they are about the warm home discount, not the general issue of fossil fuels. I have given enough latitude already.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Thank you, Mr Dowd, for bringing us back to sanity and the regulations that we are talking about today.
We all came into politics to make sure that vulnerable people were not left behind. We know that people are struggling with energy bills and that progress on fuel poverty stalled under the last Government—a complete shame. We are committed to responding to that. The regulations are an important first step. They mean that we can expand the support to 6 million people—one in five households—at a time when we know they absolutely need it. I am incredibly proud that the Labour side of the House is taking this action. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.