Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Register of interests
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Date
Category
Entry
Declared value
Sitting for
Source
4. Visits outside the UK
International visit to India between 02 October 2026 and 09 October 2026Mina Travel Ltd
The measures in the Budget to help with the cost of living through cuts in energy bills were welcome. The Chancellor also said that he would adopt one of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s recommendations not to add further policy costs to bills, but can I encourage him to look at one of our other recommendations, which is to move policy costs from electricity to gas? That would help people take up electric heat and batteries, which will enable them to take advantage of the tariffs that are available now.
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). He gave a very thoughtful analysis—when he was not selling his book, but I am not going to accuse him of that being his primary reason. He mentioned breathing space. I do not think he was saying that it was not important to people, and he acknowledged that. The breathing space gives a direction of travel and, to answer some of what he was saying, that is the context for the Budget.
It was very much a Budget for energy and cutting bills. It was very much a Budget for tackling growth challenges and for showing how important growth is, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), who has left his place. That is for a very good reason: we are in the middle of the second big energy shock in a few years. To the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash’s concern about mortgage rates, I add my concerns about the impact of inflation if we do not tackle the costs of energy and the impact on prices more widely. That is true for consumers and it is true for businesses and the wider economy. Bringing down the cost of energy had to be a fundamental part of this Budget, and that is exactly what it was.
Progress has been made and will continue to be made. I note in the Red Book that gas now sets the price of electricity 60% of the time. Just two and a half years ago, that figure was 98%, so huge progress has been made. It is also the case that opportunities are available for people to switch to electricity. It is up to nine times <span id="344" class="column-number" data-column-number="344"></span>cheaper to drive an electric vehicle compared with diesel, and not all of that is due to the exceptionally high prices that we have at the moment.
However, these things point in the same direction: that the energy transition is in our interest, through ending our dependence on the uncertainty, the danger and the threat that we face from having to import oil and gas. I know there are people who will claim later in this debate that it can all be got from the North sea, but it simply cannot. There would not be enough of it, even if we were to increase production. The announcement on Jackdaw is welcome. It will increase by a relatively small amount the amount of gas coming ashore to the UK to be used here, but it is a welcome amount. As well as the challenges around costs, there are huge challenges on how we move on from here, including challenges around how to build out the grid further. The Budget’s announcements mark the start of how to address the challenge, and I will come back to one or two of them later.
The Budget contained a range of measures on bills, and I think they are about more than breathing space. They include the VAT cut that was confirmed by the Chancellor today, and the council tax cut of £100, which will benefit 32,200 households in my constituency alone. We should be welcoming these proposals. The ending of standing charges for gas will help some of the people in the greatest fuel poverty around the country, and I welcome the announcement of something similar to come on electricity standing charges. It must be right that, at this time, in this scale of crisis, the priority is to help people with their energy bills and to use the bank surcharge for a year to do so.
It is also welcome to see no more policy costs on bills, and the announcement of a longer-term commitment there is very much in that vein, too. We heard earlier in the week about the use of loans in the warm homes plan to make it easier for people to take advantage of the technologies in moving to electrification. To the point about the reduction in the amount of time gas sets the price on the system, the increase in renewables on the system is, as the Red Book sets out, closing the gap between electricity and gas prices. It is crucial that it is made as attractive as possible for people to move to electricity, in transport and in home heat, and that is one of the things the warm homes plan will help with. The more people can take advantage of these things, the cheaper it will be for them and the greater will be the opportunities for industry.
The warm homes plan is a confidence builder for industry to invest in the installation of technologies such as solar, storage, heat pumps and other forms of electric heating and, potentially, hybrid heating. My Committee will be looking at that in our inquiry on the subject, which we are about to start. This builds on the £150 off from scrapping the energy company obligation scheme and the moving of the renewable obligation to the Exchequer, as well as the £50 million of help for homes that rely on heating oil for their heating.
On the subject of energy security, there are good commitments in the Red Book on the expansion of renewables, and also on nuclear. I welcome the statement on the need to review and reform the institutions—the National Energy System Operator, Ofgem—the way the Department operates and the uncertainty and confusion over where the networks fit into the picture. This is <span id="345" class="column-number" data-column-number="345"></span>absolutely essential if we are to roll out the grid faster, to make the most of the opportunities in the new technologies, and indeed to move ahead with nuclear.
I note the recommitment in the Red Book to the application of the findings of the Fingleton review. This is something my Committee has called for, because we need to have certainty on the siting of the next large-scale nuclear power stations after Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, and also on what comes next after Wylfa with SMR2. There will be good support from the British industrial competitiveness scheme, with 10,000 energy-intensive businesses benefiting. My Committee will also be asking about the cost control framework and the reforms to the market. We certainly need to know more about what they are. As has been pointed out, more detail is needed, and my Committee’s role will be to try to identify exactly what is going to come next.
There is a strong link between the new generation of electricity and cutting bills. There is also a commitment to continuing to break the link between the price of gas and the price of electricity, especially by fixing the price for new renewable projects, which will provide protection against volatile gas prices and the uncertainty that we all face now. I see this Budget as an important next step in the commitment on energy. I see energy as a fundamental part of the growth agenda, as well as recognising the importance of delivering energy security.
The Government have taken a pragmatic approach. We heard an intervention earlier about the energy wealth fund. It is a huge shame that the then Conservative Government did not set up a sovereign wealth fund in 1990 like Norway did, because had they done so, it would now be worth over £1 trillion to this country. However, we now have an energy wealth fund, and it is part of the economic opportunity of the 21st century. We have seen success in the latest auction rounds, commitments on nuclear, rapid progress on renewables and the warm homes plan. Alongside the announcements on procurement and more widely, these present an opportunity to support the economy and develop jobs and growth, as well as keeping down bills. This is a Budget for energy bills and for energy security, but it is also very much a Budget for growth through investment in energy.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the commitment to going ahead with Jackdaw. The Select Committee has heard evidence time and again about the damage done by the chaotic deindustrialisation of the ’80s, and the failure in the 2010s and early 2020s to take action in the North sea. The phrase “North sea energy wealth fund” has striking echoes with what Norway did right to avoid disastrous consequences of deindustrialisation.
The Committee has heard just how important supply chain companies and North sea oil and gas workers are, and how important they will be, when working with renewables, in the future. The Minister announced the fund and the North sea transition deal. Does he agree that the fastest, most effective way of delivering the energy transition is to support existing operations, supply chains and workers in North sea and oil and gas, so that they are available as we gear up on renewables and nuclear?
<Question HRSContentId="{D5C5C862-DC31-4928-8E52-D3EAC4A09B47}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{7A746DA0-3B09-4EA9-ACB1-95A7D190B17C}">What steps he is taking to help protect consumers from rogue traders. </QuestionText></Question>
My constituent Joanne paid £11,000 for a new kitchen. Her house was left in a terrible state and she was unable to get the builder to return to rectify the substandard work. It also turned out that he was associated with 21 other companies mostly in the building trade, many of which have been dissolved. The Minister mentioned quite rightly the new code for the home improvement sector, which will give confidence to consumers and support to reputable traders. Is more not needed to go after the cowboy builders to ensure that constituents such as Joanne can get the remedy that they so need?
In Canada, Prime Minister Carney has taken a more pragmatic approach to the energy transition than his predecessor, notably by designating the west coast oil pipeline as a project of national interest. In this country, the Prime Minister says that drilling in the North sea is something that he is <span id="165" class="column-number" data-column-number="165"></span>pragmatic about. Does the Minister agree with continued drilling in the North sea, and does he see us taking a similar approach to Canada, and securing agreement to emission reductions in return for that drilling?
The Prime Minister quite rightly mentioned in his statement the fact that 90% of Russian oil production is covered by UK sanctions. I very much welcome what he had to say about joining international calls for a ceasefire on attacks on energy installations. When he is discussing this matter with President Trump, will he remind him that the biggest reason for high diesel prices here and in the United States is not the war between Russia and Ukraine, but what is going on in the strait of Hormuz and in Iran? Will he remind the President that the action he is taking will not cut the diesel price and that all it will do is fuel the Russian war machine?
As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> The shadow Secretary of State says that it was; if that is true, why was it possible to challenge that in the courts? That is why it is really important that the Government get it right this time around.
On North sea oil and gas, it is really important that we recognise the importance of the supply chain, the workers, their companies and their communities, because we need those people if we are to make the energy transition that is so critical to our future. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we support them while we gear up on renewables, so that they are available to contribute and can make that transition happen as fast and effectively as possible?
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to. I encourage him to read the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s report on the cost of energy, which includes our recommendations on how to bring down the disastrously high costs that are crippling the competitiveness of so much of British industry.
Last week the Committee heard from Claire Dykta, the director of strategy and policy at NESO, who told us:
“Operational decisions are taken by authorised, trained personnel only.”
Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, the chief strategy officer at Flexitricity, who, in the same session, said:
“I do not think the idea that the head office at NESO told the control room what to do is plausible.”
Does the Minister agree that it is important for public reassurance, especially at a time of threats to energy security, that the line is not crossed in any way between <span id="940" class="column-number" data-column-number="940"></span>properly evidenced scrutiny on one hand and conjecture on the basis of rumour, which is verging on scaremongering, on the other?