Budget Resolutions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
If we look at the average of bills in 2025 versus 2024, they are lower. I hope that the hon. Lady will support our cuts to energy bills in April, when they come in.
Ed Miliband
Let me make a bit more progress. My second point is about public spending. In the spending review and the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the crucial decision not to return to austerity. She could have made a different choice and cut public services—I think that is what Conservative Members would go back to doing—but we know the impact of that approach from the last 14 years. This is about the living standards of millions of people across our country who cannot buy their way into private health care or private schools. This can be hidden by the smokescreen that Conservative Members want to put up, but the Chancellor has made the incredibly important decision to invest in the future. That has enabled the Government to cut NHS waiting lists by more than 200,000, roll out free breakfast clubs in schools, expand free school meals, fund the expansion of free childcare, and announce the biggest boost to investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. Conservative Members are back to austerity.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we recently announced the small modular reactor fleet at Wylfa in north Wales, we saw the huge opportunities, not just for the areas where nuclear power stations are being built, but rippling across the supply chain. That is why I am so proud of the investments that we have been able to make. What is the result?
Ed Miliband
I will not, for a few minutes. The result is new jobs building wind turbines at Siemens Gamesa in Hull, new jobs making transformers in Stafford, new jobs making heat pumps in Derby, and new jobs at Sumitomo’s new factory at the Port of Nigg—some of the 400,000 additional clean energy jobs that we expect our mission to support by 2030. That is the difference.
What is the Conservatives’ policy? They want to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008 and abandon net zero by 2050, which was their legacy. As a result, they have been roundly condemned by British business. Energy UK says that abandoning that target will scare off investors. The Confederation of British Industry says that it is a “backwards step”, because the Climate Change Act is
“the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK”.
Baroness May—they do not like to talk about her—called it a “catastrophic mistake”. And get this: even Boris Johnson —rarely have I quoted Boris Johnson—says that
“in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on…saying what rubbish net zero is.”
Normally—I have experience of this—Oppositions stick by what they did right in government, and trash what they did wrong. The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is pursuing a novel approach to opposition: trash anything that they did right, and double down on everything that they did wrong. Nowhere is that more true than in our dependence on fossil fuels.
At this point, I express my sincere thanks to the right hon. Lady’s colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who sadly is not here. Last week, I was talking about the causes of the energy bills crisis of 2021. He shouted out—I checked Hansard—“Because Putin invaded Ukraine!”. Obviously, he is one of the finest minds on the Opposition Front Bench, and he is right about that, but he has given the game away. This relates to affordability and this Budget debate. The lesson from the worst cost of living crisis in generations is this: it came about because Putin invaded Ukraine. What was the cause of higher bills? Why were we worse hit than many others? Because we were so exposed to fossil fuels. It was not the price of renewables that soared; it was the price of gas, including from the North sea, priced and sold on the international market. That is what happens when we do not have clean, home-grown power, and when we are at the mercy of petro states and dictators. What is the strategy of right hon. Member for East Surrey now? To double down on the Conservatives’ failure. She literally says that we should cancel the allocation round 7 auction.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
With sky-high bills, unaffordable, cold and mouldy homes, and one in three children growing up in poverty, our country is in crisis. Life has become unaffordable for millions of people, and years of devastating cuts to our public services, from hospitals and schools to social care, mean that those who most need support are too often unable to access it. Every day I hear from my constituents in North Herefordshire, who are living through this crisis and crying out for change.
Instead of delivering change, this Government have repeatedly claimed that there is not enough money to go around. That simply is not true. Last year, billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by £35 million a day. Britain’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than half the population combined. A wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million and 2% on assets over £1 billion could raise nearly £15 billion. If we also aligned rates of capital gains tax with income tax and introduced national insurance on investment income, so that wealth is taxed at the same rate as work, we could raise over £30 billion a year.
This Budget needed to mark a turning point and an end to the politics of the past 18 months—a politics that has, sadly, scapegoated refugees and migrants while failing to tackle the inequality and the real issues that drive people into hardship. Of course, I welcome the long overdue scrapping of the cruel and counterproductive two-child benefit cap. That should have been done on day one after the general election. Instead of delivering a transformational Budget that confronts the cost of living crisis and taxes extreme wealth fairly, this Labour Government have, sadly, chosen to paper over the cracks —to tinker, not transform.
For example, take the Chancellor’s decision to remove policy costs from energy bills. Nearly 3 million households in England were fuel poor in 2024—that figure could be more, depending on how it is calculated. This is a huge problem, especially in the west midlands and especially in my North Herefordshire constituency, where fuel poverty is particularly high because of the nature of our housing and low wages. It is therefore essential that we do everything in our power to cut bills. But the decision to lower bills by cutting vital funding for home insulation by a quarter is not a real solution; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Home insulation is one of the most effective ways to bring down bills: upgrading the average UK home to a decent standard saves households £210 a year.
Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that, because of the Government’s decisions regarding the energy company obligation and the warm homes plan, the poorest households living in the coldest homes have now lost two thirds of the support they were due to receive for energy efficiency upgrades. When the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in western Europe, we should be scaling home insulation up, not down, and using progressive taxation to pay for it. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is back in his place to hear me make these arguments.
Dr Chowns
I will not, because many Members want to get in.
Frankly, given that a typical energy bill in October 2025 was £478 a year higher than four years before, it is indefensible that this Budget does nothing to address the structural factors that keep costs high. In 2024, almost a quarter of the average energy bill went straight to the pre-tax profits of the major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers. If we are serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, we must stop private companies profiteering while ordinary people cannot afford life’s basics. Those basics should not be a luxury. We can have lower bills and more investment in affordable, warm homes, all while protecting our planet at the same time.
In ordinary times, a Budget that tinkers at the edges might be acceptable, but after the financial crash, a decade of Conservative and Lib Dem austerity, the pandemic and the fuel price crisis, the country is at breaking point. This Budget needed to go further and be bolder. That is what a Green Budget would do.
COP30
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will finish this statement in the next 10 to 15 minutes, so I would be grateful if Members and the Secretary of State could keep their answers short.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs?
Ed Miliband
On the second point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). On the first point, I think she is being a little unfair, to put it mildly, on the UK. We led the process of agreeing last year an ambitious NCQG on overall finance. We were part of an agreement that saw the trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, targeting those resources. She knows the fiscal situation that we face as a country. I say very clearly to her, and to all Members of this House who take an interest in these issues, that we absolutely have not ruled out contributing to the TFFF in the future.
Warm Homes Plan
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight. I hope to bring to the House the voices of people in my constituency, of campaigners across the country, and of the many families who wake up each morning wondering, “How will we keep our children warm this winter? How will we keep our grandparents warm?” Those are questions that nobody should have to ask.
The Government have committed £13.2 billion to the warm homes plan, which is welcome. It was very strongly implied that this would be £13.2 billion of additional funding, but there are rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation and paying for it with the warm homes plan funding. That would mean that the Government were, in reality, reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If that is the case, it is extremely disappointing—and that is the understatement of the year.
I am really disappointed that the warm homes plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago, has been delayed and delayed. We now find that there is perhaps a Government plan to reassign some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the warm homes plan, and in the face of what we need to do: upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm home that is affordable to heat. Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country, and we simply cannot let a long-term programme be cannibalised to produce a short-term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short-term tinkering in the Treasury.
We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The Government’s own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England were fuel-poor in 2024.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful case about fuel poverty. In my constituency, around 5,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty—about one in 10 homes. We know that three factors affect this issue: the energy efficiency of a property, the household’s income, and the cost of keeping warm. Given that last year alone, energy companies made a profit of £61 billion, does she agree that it is time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff, which would bring down bills for all low-income households and those living in fuel poverty?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the eye-watering profits made by energy companies—a subject raised during exchanges on the statement made just before this debate—and the irresponsibility of many of those companies’ actions. It is essential to ensure that when people pay their bills, the money goes towards keeping them warm, not filling the coffers of shareholders. Given those eye-watering profits, it is clear that there is capacity in the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices that has resulted from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is what has driven them through the roof; it has nothing whatever to do with levies and policy costs. We should be ensuring that those eye-watering sums are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, and enabling them to live in warm homes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In Northern Ireland we have a slightly different scheme called the affordable warmth scheme, run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem we have is that only a certain amount of money is set aside, and it is first come, first served, so some people in poverty do not receive the benefit, whereas others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that such schemes, whether here in England or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, must always make funding available to those who meet the criteria?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Gentleman may have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I was about to make exactly that point. We must keep the needs of the most vulnerable households front and centre.
I was talking about the fuel poverty statistics. According to the Government’s own figures, 3 million households were fuel-poor in 2024, but using the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number—about 6 million households. We live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and no one, but no one, should be struggling to keep their home warm.
In the west midlands, where my lovely constituency is, we face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in England. North Herefordshire far more badly affected than the national average. Adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more likely to be detached or built before 1919—that is certainly the case in North Herefordshire—and therefore harder to heat efficiently, and rural households face deep fuel poverty and high energy costs. Moreover, installers are known to avoid complicated homes, such as those in my constituency, because they are less profitable, which means that schemes such as the ECO often fail to reach rural locations.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, the charity Act On Energy gives advice and support on energy efficiency to residents, many of whom are in fuel poverty. Its work is particularly relevant in rural communities where properties are older and harder to insulate and, in many instances, rely on oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Does my hon. Friend agree that more must be done to help off-grid households to insulate their homes properly?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree that rural households such as those in my part of Cornwall desperately need the warm homes plan. Does the hon. Member agree that other sources of energy provision—for instance, ground source heat pumps and liquid fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil—could also be included, and would be a good addition to the plan when it arrives, which we hope will be soon?
Dr Chowns
I am not an engineer, and I must confess to having some doubts, certainly about HVO, so I would need to engage in a bit more conversation on that subject. As for ground source heat pumps—yes, absolutely, although I understand that air source is normally more efficient. In my constituency we have some water source heat pumps as well, so all sorts of wonderful technologies are possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) drew attention to the excellent work done by charitable organisations in this sector, but fundamentally none of it is a substitute for a decent, proper, national, strategic, well-funded and long-term programme of home insulation to tackle the problem at its root. If we have delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors, whole swathes of the country will be left behind. We have had problems, such as those highlighted by the National Audit Office recently, that are related to short-termism and profiteering by some rogue contractors.
Retrofitting homes is central to solving fuel poverty. Insulation and proper energy efficiency measures reduce bills and cut emissions. Upgrading a typical home from an energy performance certificate rating of D to EPC C— I recognise that EPCs are not perfect, but I will leave that aside for the moment—would save households around £210 a year. That is a significant amount of real money for families who need it, and it is also good economics for the country. Investments in innovation and home energy efficiency pay back in lower bills, reduced pressure on the NHS, health savings, which are related to better health outcomes, and, of course, jobs created up and down the supply chain. We want to be investing in these new green industries.
It is important to acknowledge that there is a history in this sector; we have been here before. Past retrofit schemes have been structured in ways that prioritised speed and profit over quality and need, allowing cowboy contractors to exploit the system. That was in significant part due to the short-termism of those programmes, which limped from year to year with single-year funding allocations. It was utterly counterproductive, and I saw that myself as I wrestled with such programmes when I was working as a councillor and as a cabinet member with responsibility for energy and environment. We need long-term policy certainty. The colleges providing the skills training, the businesses wanting to support apprentices and take them on, and the companies wanting to join the supply chain need that long-term policy certainty, which is in the gift of the Government.
The National Audit Office recently reported very serious quality failures in recent ECO4 retrofit installations, leading to significant health risks for thousands of households. The Government absolutely must not allow the same mistakes to be repeated in the warm homes plan. The plan must commit not only to making homes warmer and bringing down bills for the millions struggling across the country, but to ensuring that no one ends up in a worse financial situation through having used a Government retrofit scheme. That is why the warm homes plan must promise homes that are not only warmer, but retrofitted properly by those with appropriate certification, and must be subject to independent checks.
The Treasury is tempted by immediate headline reductions in bills, but if the Government reduce or eliminate the ECO scheme and use the warm homes plan money to backfill those losses, the result will be fewer homes upgraded, fewer people protected from fuel poverty, and a greater long-term cost to the public purse and to our national health.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because the two things are intrinsically linked. It is absolutely vital that we have a strategic plan that brings together the issues that cause fuel poverty, including poorly insulated homes. Does she agree that the Government need to have a strategic plan that looks at geography as well as degree of poverty, in order to ensure that people’s homes and their finances are insulated?
Dr Chowns
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who is a fantastic champion for health. She pays attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, and ensures that policy really addresses the root issues that people face. I agree, and that is why I am so deeply concerned that the Government are flying this kite, and suggesting that they will start plugging gaps in the cost of their energy bills policy by using the warm homes plan money. Instead, they should introduce a wealth tax; that could be another source of funding for this endeavour.
In plain language, taking money out of the warm homes plan to fill a gap that would be created by abolishing ECO is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is completely short-sighted. We absolutely need to cut energy bills, and we need as much investment as possible—as much as is needed—in the home insulation programmes that will provide the long-term solution to the problem of fuel poverty. This is not an either/or choice. We can and must make bills more affordable, and must at the same time invest in home upgrades to create future savings. We do not need to choose between warmth today and efficiency tomorrow. I mentioned a wealth tax; a 1% tax on wealth above £10 million, and a 2% tax on wealth above £1 billion, would raise at least £14.8 billion. That is way more than enough to pay for the cost of electricity bills policy, and to scale up, not down, the warm homes plan.
I want to set out briefly what a responsible warm homes plan must contain. First, it must treat the worst affected first, as hon. Members from across the House have said. It must prioritise low-income and vulnerable households and the coldest and least energy efficient homes, and treat warmth as a basic human right.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that a well-funded warm homes plan is essential to insulating draughty homes and cutting bills. I wonder if she aware of the situation faced by my constituents in Letchworth Garden City. They have a separate scheme of management, so people applying for insulation have to go through two layers of regulation. That creates a real block to getting insulation for people who desperately need it. Would she join me in urging the Minister to bring together MPs who represent areas with such schemes of management, so that we can address that hurdle and ensure that those most in need, in all parts of the country, get the support that they need from the warm homes plan?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member is a fantastic champion for policies that address social and environmental justice. He raises the important point that in these schemes, far too often, people have to jump through umpteen hoops. We are talking about supporting the most vulnerable households; the last thing they need to do is jump through multiple administrative hoops, go through all the levels of a scheme, and then find that the deadline for the programme has been reached. We need to simplify and clarify, to provide long-term certainty to everybody working in the sector, and ensure that all households that need to access the warm homes plan can do so as easily and simply as possible.
I was talking about treating the worst-affected homes first; that was my first point. Secondly, a good warm homes plan must guarantee independent retrofit assessment and performance monitoring. We must not repeat the problems we had with ECO4. When public money pays for home improvements, the public must demand high standards. That means an independent public body with statutory powers to co-ordinate, monitor, evaluate and enforce, and to make sure that this stuff is done to the correct standard. It must be able to withhold payment until independent sign-off is achieved, and have a compulsory remedial fund that fixes, at no cost to households, any poor workmanship that somehow gets through. If we are to prevent a repetition of past problems, this body must create a publicly accessible register of any firms that fail to meet high standards.
Thirdly, a decent warm homes plan must include proper support and tailored delivery, especially for rural homes. North Herefordshire and many constituencies like it cannot be dismissed or overlooked because our properties are older and more challenging. We need specialist assessment teams, rural tailored procurement, and grant funding that recognises the additional cost of retrofitting hard-to-treat homes.
Fourthly, the plan must protect tenants. Retrofitting must not become an excuse for “retroviction”, in which landlords evict tenants to carry out improvements or unduly raise rents as a result. The warm homes plan must include a freeze on evictions and rent rises during any improvement works, and for a certain period after they have been completed. That would ensure that tenants felt the benefits of these improvements, and that costs were not passed on to them.
Fifthly, the plan must include an urgent programme to inspect and fix the homes affected by poor ECO4 installations. The victims of past Governments’ poor-quality schemes deserve an apology, compensation and a guarantee that this will never be repeated. The Government have to replace broken accreditation schemes and reform regulatory responsibilities, so that the system provides real accountability, not a paper trail of excuses.
Sixthly, the plan must be aligned with a clear energy affordability strategy. Real reductions in household energy bills mean reducing our dependence on volatile global gas markets, decoupling the price of gas from the price of electricity, expanding clean power capacity and tackling excessive corporate profits.
It is unconscionable that while millions struggle in cold homes, nearly a quarter of the annual average energy bill went to the pre-tax profits of major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers last year in the UK. That scale of profit demands scrutiny and a reconsideration of who bears the cost of our energy transition. Do we accept a system where families are priced out of warmth, while companies report massive profits, or do we invest in public goods that protect the vulnerable and create sustainable jobs?
The warm homes plan is a chance to change lives, lower bills, create good, skilled jobs and cut emissions. It is also, frankly, a test of this Government’s political will and our moral compass.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this really important subject to the House. Does she acknowledge that the Government have invested £13.2 billion, which is a long-term investment? Further, does she acknowledge that in my constituency, that has meant £11 million for the warm homes plan, which was match-funded by the council? The council tells me that this enables it to get on with delivering efficiency improvements to about 1,000 council homes over the next three years. That sounds pretty long-term and substantial to me.
Dr Chowns
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the earlier part of my speech, in which I explained that I absolutely do welcome the commitment to £13.2 billion, but I am deeply worried that the Government appear to be backsliding from that commitment; they are promising to use part of that in other policy areas, as a sticking plaster. That could significantly reduce the overall package of funding available for this vital work, when the Government should be increasing it. If the Government do good things, I will say, “Well done.” If they threaten to do bad things, I will be really rather cross, and will try to put as much pressure as possible on the Minister.
This House, the Minister and the Government can choose to protect that full £13.2 billion, make it additional to the other schemes to tackle fuel poverty, and make this work for the poorest and most vulnerable, or we can stand by and watch the plan be hollowed out for short-term convenience. We can measure the cost of inaction in ill health, avoidable deaths, poorer education outcomes, and long-term added pressure on our NHS and social services. The choice is clear: the Government must not let short termism steal warmth and energy bill savings from millions. Please, do not let the lessons of the past be the mistakes of our future.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
The hon. Lady rightly points out the importance of health in this debate. We face a crisis of warmth, but also a crisis of damp in our housing stock. In a building, ventilation and heating can often sit in tension with one another, yet it is vital that we think about the two together, and about how people dry in their homes, for example. Does she agree that we should look at fabrics, which I am very pleased she mentioned, as well as technology for heating, and should look to address in a conscious and positive way the ventilation of homes?
Dr Chowns
Absolutely, I completely agree. We need a long-term strategic approach that takes into account all the issues in houses, so that we do not repeat the problems of ECO4. That is part of the issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
I am literally on my final sentence. Let us make the warm homes plan the bold, high-quality, fair, accessible and accountable programme that the people of Britain deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on my liberation from the Government Whips Office. I know that he is a champion for his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am always happy to meet to discuss these important issues. He will know, as I do, that with wholesale gas costs 77% higher than before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we must get people off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices and on to clean home-grown power.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Nearly 3 million households in the UK live in fuel poverty. At the same time, a recent report from the Common Wealth think-tank told us that energy company profits average about a quarter of everybody’s bills. In the last few years, £70 billion has been paid to shareholders, instead of being reinvested or used to help tackle fuel poverty. Will the Minister commit to tackling those energy company profits by taxing them fairly and reinvesting the money in the urgent work that is needed—for example, through the warm homes plan—to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty in our country?
Martin McCluskey
The cost of energy has to come down, and one of my jobs as Minister for energy consumers is driving down the cost of bills, but we must also remember that the Government introduced a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, and we have the price cap on energy, which caps the profits of energy companies. We will continue to take that action.
Warm Home Discount
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Fuel poverty is an absolute scourge that we must work hard to eliminate. There are two things we must do to achieve that. On the one hand, we must deliver bills support. The expansion of the warm home discount is so important, because more households in fuel poverty will receive it. On the other hand, we must make sure that we are doing the job of upgrading homes. This year we have invested £1 billion to deliver 300,000 upgrades, but that is not enough. We have to massively increase the number of upgrades so that we are delivering millions over the course of this Parliament. We have committed to £13.2 billion, and we are now doing the work of setting out how we will drive the shift and change that we need to see across the country. We must ensure that the households that need it have insulation, solar panels, batteries and heat pumps so that their homes are warmer, and ultimately so that we can lower bills by up to £600.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Today’s announcement is very welcome and will make a real difference to many of our constituents. I am glad to hear the Minister reaffirm today that in addition to support with bills, the Government recognise the urgent need to ensure that every home is well-insulated and affordable to heat—a genuinely warm home—and are doing that through both hugely increasing standards for new homes and insulating existing homes. She has referenced the £13.2 billion Government commitment to the warm homes plan, which is welcome, though not enough, but why do the spending review documents show that more than a third of that money—£5 billion of the £13.2 billion—is money that the Government expect to get back, presumably to be repaid by households?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I think the hon. Member is referring to some of the financial transaction mechanisms. We will deliver the warm homes strand through Government support to some households as well as by working with energy companies, whether it be suppliers or distribution network operators, in order to ensure that we are driving upgrades. Part of that will involve the Government providing loans to suppliers, which they will pay back over time. I think that is what the hon. Member is referring to. We are very clear that we need up-front investment as a catalyst, and we are clear that we need to upgrade millions of homes and crack on with the job.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. I 100% agree with him about the role of community energy providers. I hope that he can persuade his Front Benchers to convert to supporting Great British Energy, because one of things that it will do—we will be happy to work with him on this—is unleash a wave of community energy across our country, doing precisely the things that he talks about.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I am delighted that the Government have seen the light on solar photovoltaics and recognised what an important step they are on the path to the sunlit uplands of homes that are genuinely fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State recognise that energy efficiency is a crucial part of energy security, and will he meet me to discuss how the future homes standard might ensure that every home is truly fit for the future, including by being zero carbon?
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.
The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them.
We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.
We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter.
The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.
The Chair
Order. We are nearing the end of the time allotted for this panel. These shall be the last questions.
Ellie Chowns
Q
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
You have spoken about how you think that there will be improvements. Are you absolutely confident that that holds, and that there is no way in which the Bill could result in a reduction in environmental protection—for example, in relation to irreplaceable habitats?
Marian Spain: I am trying awfully hard not to say that that is something for Parliament to be keeping a close eye on as the Bill goes through. There are risks. This is a very different system, and it will be embedded in legislation—theoretically, in perpetuity.
Again with our colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are watching issues that are being raised by others, including by parliamentarians and the third sector. We are conscious that the Bill needs to have those robust safeguards, and there may be drafting amendments that make those even more robust. The basic premise of the Bill is clear, as I have said already—that basic idea that the plans can be approved by the Secretary of State only if he or she is satisfied.
The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Q
Marian Spain: We are confident that the model works. The detail will come as we work through which topics and which situations we actually apply the environmental delivery plans to. It is perhaps also a version of the answer to a previous question; the plans themselves can rule things in and out. We may decide, for example, that a piece of ancient woodland cannot be replaced and would therefore not be subject to these measures, so that is another safeguard.
Fuel Poverty: England
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(10 months, 1 week 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
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important and timely debate. I thank all the constituents who have written to me, not just in the run-up to this debate but over months and months, to share their concerns about fuel poverty, and in particular the winter fuel payment, which I will discuss later.
This is an incredibly important issue in my North Herefordshire constituency, where 22.9% of households live in fuel poverty, according to the latest data from the Government’s low-income, low energy efficiency measure. That is far higher than the national average of 14.4%. As the measure indicates, fuel poverty is due to both low income and the lack of energy efficiency in the property—and, indeed, high fuel prices, as the hon. Member said. The number of detached houses in my constituency is nearly double the national average, and a far lower proportion of houses are on the mains energy supply. All those factors make fuel poverty a particular issue in a rural constituency like North Herefordshire. We also have a far higher proportion of over-65s— 50% more than the national average. All those contributory factors mean that fuel poverty is an incredibly real and presenting issue in my constituency.
In the emails constituents have sent me in recent days, weeks and months, they have talked about living with only one radiator on, and the fact that the lack of winter fuel allowance means they can no longer buy any coal in the winter—coal is the only source of heating for some of my constituents.
Freddie van Mierlo
Like the hon. Lady, I represent a rural constituency in which the number of residents who use heating oil and gas is more than double the national average. Will she comment on how we can transition those residents to more sustainable and cheaper sources of fuel?
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member, and I do plan to comment on that topic.
A lady wrote to me saying that she now lives wrapped in blankets. Constituents have shared with me their particular needs relating to their health conditions and just how damaging it is not to be able to afford to keep warm.
The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth talked about the outrageous profits made by the energy companies, and I share his extreme frustration and distress at that situation. The Government could go even further to ensure that we do not see what is essentially price gouging. Constituents struggling in fuel poverty are the ones who are basically bearing the costs, and at the same time the big energy companies are making profits in the billions each year. It is absolutely extraordinary.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Far be it from me to intrude on the grief of elected Members in England and their constituents, but this is Westminster, which is currently responsible for energy laws across the UK. Although devolved Governments have a role to play in reducing fuel poverty, the biggest levers of change, as the hon. Member would surely agree, are in the remit of the UK Government. I am thinking of the coupling of electricity prices—when electricity is increasingly generated here, on this island—with the global gas market; the nonsensical decision to cut the winter fuel payment; and the ongoing failure of the Government to reduce fuel bills, which are going up for the third time since July.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and agree that we must see the decoupling of electricity prices from gas. That situation currently contributes to the problems that people face.
We have established that the problem of fuel poverty is related in part to prices, which the Government have levers to control, but also to Government policies. I would like to talk in particular about three areas: targeted support to households in fuel poverty; insulation policies and how we deal with the housing stock that we already have; and how we ensure that future housing is future-proofed so that nobody who moves into a new house has to pay through the nose for energy.
On targeted support, I have criticised in the House a number of times the Government’s nonsensical decision to completely cancel the winter fuel allowance for all except a small number of people. Very large numbers of people in my constituency have written to me and still do, expressing great distress at the impact of that decision on them. I cannot urge the Government too strongly to reconsider and ensure that next winter we do not have thousands of people in my constituency, and millions of people throughout the country, facing increased fuel poverty because of the Government’s decision to stop the winter fuel allowance for so many who still need it. We also need there to be targeted support—I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth about a social tariff—and help to repay for those in energy debt.
On the fundamental structural question of the quality of housing, the problem is essentially that our homes leak heat. People are paying money for energy that is going out the windows, up the chimney and out of the roof. It is a total waste. What will the Government do to tackle this? The previous Government destroyed the energy efficiency programmes. We need a nationwide, house-by-house, street-by-street home insulation programme to ensure that the energy that people buy stays in their homes. I really hope that the Minister will make concrete commitments to go further and faster to insulate homes.
Lastly, new homes must be built to the highest possible energy efficiency standards. If the cheapest time to insulate a home is at the point of construction, why are we not ensuring that all new homes are built to zero-carbon standards, to ensure that all the heat in a home stays in it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
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.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for giving way and for her comments so far. On the point about tackling the fragmentation and ad hoc nature of the previous system, does the Minister agree with me that home insulation upgrades are a win-win-win policy. They are good for people’s warmth and health, they are really good for jobs and they help to save the climate as well. One key barrier in recent years has been the stop-start, year-on-year type of policy that means that nobody in the supply chain is able to plan and have the strategic direction that they need to make the investments, build the labour force and so forth. Will the Government provide the long-term certainty about the policy direction and level of investment required so that everybody can pull together in the same direction?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I absolutely agree that home insulation is a key part of how we tackle the problem of fuel poverty. Unless we have homes that are insulated, whatever energy we put into people’s homes, at whatever price, is going out of their windows. That is why it is so important to what we are trying to do through the warm homes plan. We seek through the plan to provide long-term certainty: for consumers, so that they know there is a programme that will support them through a journey, and, critically, for the supply chain.
I have spoken to many installers who tell me they are living hand to mouth. The ability to build, to plan, to recruit apprenticeships and to build up capacity is constrained by a stop-start approach. We are clear that the plan needs to be long term. We are working to make sure we can underpin that with long-term certainty on funding, so that we can see the level of ramp-up and scale-up that we need to insulate and upgrade millions of homes, rather than hundreds of thousands of homes.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I suggest that the hon. Lady actually reads the report. On page 77, the NESO sets out in black and white the system costs of a clean power system, and then what it calls
“Bill components resulting from clean power pathways”
and “Other bill changes”. The total impact in 2030 is to reduce electricity costs by £10 per megawatt-hour. Of course, as the NESO says, it is for the Government to make the policy choices to reduce energy bills—which we will—but it is absolutely clear that our clean power plan will reduce system costs.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Citizens Advice has found that more than a third of private tenants could not afford to heat their house to a comfortable temperature last winter, and in research published a month ago, it found that 80% of private landlords have no plans to invest in the energy efficiency of their properties in the next five years. Can the Minister explain what the Government will do to support and incentivise private landlords to drive up minimum energy efficiency standards in their properties, and when they will do it, so that tenants can stay warm all year round?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know that the quality of too many of our homes in the private rented sector is not high enough. That is why we are moving forward to introduce minimum energy efficiency standards, so that we can raise those standards, lifting 1 million people out of fuel poverty. We are running in order to get that done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, I will agree to meet to discuss the range of things we can do.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I very much hope the Secretary of State and his Ministers agree that if we are serious about energy security and net zero, we must be serious about energy efficiency. What steps are they taking, in addition to working on insulating existing homes, to ensure that the promised 1.5 million new homes are built to net zero standards, have solar panels on the roof, and are fully insulated so that every new home is a warm home?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have an ambitious plan to build more homes. We want those homes to be fit for the future. We will put out information in due course on the standards we want across those homes, but we have an opportunity to do insulation, energy efficiency and homes that are fit for the future, at the same time as building the homes we need.