Informs the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn).

Miliband emphasises the need for urgent action on rising energy prices, highlighting that April's expected price cap increase will drag an additional 1.5 million families into fuel poverty and affect small businesses severely. He argues that a windfall tax is necessary to address this crisis and ensure that profits from oil and gas companies are redirected towards those in need.

Huq supports Miliband's proposal for a windfall tax, pointing out that the Government is failing to act on issues like the energy price cap and suggesting they have made mistakes in addressing these crises.

Redwood suggests increasing gas production from the North Sea as a solution to high gas prices in Europe and the UK, contrasting it with Miliband's emphasis on windfall taxes.

Loughton questions the viability of Miliband's proposal given that Shell and BP reported substantial losses last year. He also notes significant investments by these companies in renewable energy, implying these factors should be considered when implementing a windfall tax.

Western supports Miliband's proposal, suggesting that the UK could create an oil sovereign fund similar to Norway’s model from past high oil prices. He advocates for using funds from a windfall tax to invest in renewables and other green technologies.

Brown reflects on missed opportunities by previous Labour Governments during periods of high oil prices, suggesting they could have created an oil sovereign fund similar to Norway's model for future investment.

The most vulnerable are at risk from inflationary pressures, especially in energy prices. We need a unique response just for this situation and this year to reset those levels to reflect the true cost of living in April.

The Conservative party has received more than £1.5 million in donations from companies and individuals linked to the oil and gas sector, suggesting that they are not prepared to stand up to vested interests.

Suggests that Labour's proposals for a VAT cut and windfall tax on profits are disingenuous as they would only amount to drops in the ocean of the problem, with no real impact on the energy price rises.

Responds by putting Tim Loughton's point about a drop in the ocean into context with reference to the £4.3 billion that the Treasury has just written off, suggesting similar sums of money are relevant.

The SNP Member expresses frustration with the Conservative Government's lack of action to support families struggling with rising prices. He points out that the situation is devastating for people in his constituency and across Scotland, and calls for urgent measures such as a reversal of the £20 cut from universal credit and a VAT reduction. Flynn criticises the government for not considering the impact of their proposed windfall tax on workers in the North Sea oil and gas sector, warning that it could lead to job losses and economic decline.

Questions the effectiveness of Redwood's proposal for domestic gas exploration, highlighting that North sea oil and gas production is exported, not used domestically. Criticises the ecological costs associated with fracking in the US, implying similar practices would be harmful here.

Highlights the impact of rising fuel prices on his constituents in Bradford, blaming the Conservative government for exacerbating a cost-of-living crisis through austerity measures. Calls for immediate action to alleviate energy costs and support vulnerable families.

Rises to speak against the motion proposing a windfall tax on oil and gas businesses. Highlights the negative impact this would have on the north-east of Scotland economy and the wider UK's energy transition. Acknowledges people's concerns about cost of living but notes that measures like the energy price cap, winter fuel payment, and household support fund are in place to help those affected. Discusses how cutting VAT on fuel disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals rather than low-income households. Emphasises the importance of oil and gas industry jobs for driving the transition towards net zero and the role of companies such as BP, Shell, Total, Equinor in this process.

The fuel bill crisis comes at a time when people are already being hit by rising food costs, and the least well-off face challenges with energy efficiency in their homes. Labour’s proposal offers additional help to 9 million households with up to £400 of support each, alongside a cut in VAT which would leave households with bills marginally higher than last year's. The Government dismantled gas storage facilities and sent mixed messages about investing in renewables, leading to lost time in developing renewable energy sources.

While recognising the challenges faced by many households in paying their energy bills, a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas production would have unintended negative consequences. The existing tax system is working well without needing such a tax. Previous increases led to the Treasury having to offer incentives to claw back investment into the UKCS, putting a cost premium on investments compared with other nations like Norway.

Over the past few months, constituents have expressed serious concern over fuel bill affordability. This cost of living crisis is driven by gas price increases and slow wage growth, squeezing millions of families' standard of living. Oil and gas companies have posted record profits during the pandemic while paying zero corporation tax in recent years. A windfall tax on these companies would redistribute wealth to relieve the burden for families and businesses.

I found myself agreeing with remarks made by colleagues, suggesting Labour is disconnected from the oil and gas industry. The windfall tax proposal would severely impact workers in this sector who are directly employed and support local economies. The UK's oil and gas industry has recovered due to fiscal stability offered by this Government, making it attractive for investment globally. Changing the tax regime could deter international companies from investing, leading to job losses and economic hardship for constituents. Labour’s proposal is short-sighted, ignorant of fluctuating energy prices, and bad for environmental goals as it may cause a halt in investments towards cleaner technologies.

Argues against a windfall tax, stating that it would harm the North Sea oil and gas industry which is vital for job creation and economic stability. Highlights the recovery of the world economy as a reason for rising prices rather than political issues. Emphasises the importance of nuclear power in achieving net zero emissions.

Critiques the Government's failure to invest in energy infrastructure and decarbonise energy supplies, leading to financial challenges for low-income households. Argues against increased taxes on struggling families and workers, highlighting the need for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies that have profited from government policies.

The cost of living crisis is evident, with constituents facing soaring energy bills and food prices. The Resolution Foundation estimates a 50% increase in April due to the energy price cap changes, affecting more than one in four households who will spend at least 10% of their income on energy. Labour proposes a windfall tax on oil and gas companies to alleviate the financial strain on families. Shell and BP alone have distributed £147 billion to shareholders since 2010, far exceeding the cost of maintaining current energy bills. The privatisation of the energy system has not reduced costs but exacerbated the crisis, with household fuel poverty increasing as competition failed to drive down prices or transition to sustainable sources. Public ownership and investment in renewables are necessary for long-term solutions.

Faced with immediate and future energy crises, Leeds is experiencing a rise in fuel poverty affecting 57,000 households. Constituents face difficult choices between heating their homes or purchasing essential items like food and clothing. The transition to net zero requires addressing the cost of switching from gas boilers to alternative heating solutions such as heat pumps or hydrogen boilers, with a significant financial burden on families who will need assistance in affording these changes.

Energy poverty is spreading across the UK due to broken energy markets and monopoly suppliers, leading to rising bills and excess profits. The anarchy of global energy supply and mismanagement by the Conservative party contribute to this crisis. A windfall tax on oil and gas producers could help lower current year's bills. Public ownership of the energy industry under a national agency would fix security issues and decarbonisation efforts, ensuring social justice for families struggling with high energy costs.

The cost of living crisis is evident in my constituency, where a fish and chip shop owner faces closure due to fourfold increases in gas and electric bills. The UK's tax environment for oil and gas producers has allowed them to pay negative taxes in recent years, exacerbating the financial strain on bill payers. We need a long-term solution focusing on sustainable energy sources rather than increasing fossil fuel production. Labour proposes a £600 million contingency fund and VAT cuts on energy bills to support families and businesses hit by inflation.

Supporting the call for a one-off windfall tax, the Liberal Democrats propose doubling warm home discount payments and winter fuel allowances. We need detailed plans from the Government to transition towards net zero through proper insulation of homes and reducing demand for domestic electricity and gas. The planned increase in national insurance will further burden energy-intensive businesses already facing higher costs compared to EU counterparts.

There is a consensus on the cost of living crisis, but Labour's proposal for a windfall tax may not address immediate practicalities. It lacks clarity and strategic planning, potentially leading to decreased investment in the oil and gas industry. There needs to be a serious debate about long-term tax policies, particularly carbon taxes, instead of policy on the hoof. The UK currently has higher levels of fuel poverty compared to Norway, highlighting the need for better long-term strategic thinking. The Treasury is already benefiting from increased oil and gas revenues, which should be used to help households in crisis.

Labour has put forward a fully costed package of proposals to provide millions of UK households with needed support during the cost of living crisis. This includes axing VAT on domestic energy bills, ensuring no consumer covers supplier failure costs, and providing support for those most in need. While oil and gas companies are set to report near-record profits, Conservative Members must choose between supporting these companies or addressing human suffering caused by the crisis. The energy sector is not fit for purpose; public ownership may be necessary to ensure ordinary people's interests.

The cost of living crisis is a political choice enabled by the Government. Fuel poverty campaigners estimate that an increase in household energy prices will drive 2 million people into fuel poverty, affecting older households already seeing pension reductions. The crisis demands permanent solutions such as public ownership and control over water, energy grids, and the Royal Mail to save UK households £7.8 billion a year.

While acknowledging the cost of living crisis, Richard Thomson argues that a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers is not the best solution. He points out historical mismanagement of North sea resources by UK Governments and expresses doubt about the effectiveness and long-term benefits of such a measure. Instead, he suggests focusing on energy efficiency, reducing CO2 emissions, and using government finances wisely to address consumer bills.

It is a real honour to speak in the debate. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that the Labour party is not the party of business, and I refute that and disagree with him, considering that many businesses up and down the country are very worried about the increase in energy prices and how that will continue to affect them. In my constituency and across the borough of Lewisham, we have among the highest numbers of self-employed people in London, and they are well supported by the local council. I support the motion, which is all about the cost of living and how it will affect families. We have seen a global rise in wholesale energy prices that has already led to 27 energy suppliers going bust last year. Energy prices are at their highest levels for the last three decades. Customers have seen increases in their bills that have largely been protected by the energy price cap. The chair of the Lewisham Pensioners’ Forum, Bridgit Sam-Bailey, recently spoke on BBC News about her personal experience of rising fuel prices. She explained the misery of suffering in her home due to increases in fuel prices that she can no longer afford from her pension. She said that she often stays in bed to keep warm and only heats one room. She no longer has the financial freedom that she used to have. We have heard other such stories today, and they are indeed heartbreaking. Her situation is not unusual. So many other people are experiencing a diminished quality of life. Surely the Government do not wish that for our older generation. Older people should be treated with respect and dignity. Do the Government really view such experiences as acceptable? Energy bills are due to rise again, and that will affect mainly older people, vulnerable people and low wage earners. Recently, I met a lady in her home who was wearing a winter coat and a blanket to keep warm. From the outside of her semi-detached house, nobody could identify the misery and deprivation that she was experiencing from poverty and lack of heat. As for children and young people, the Government need to consider how being cold can affect children’s development and their ability to learn, play and grow. It does affect them. It is harmful to them to be cold and it is a sign of poverty. The rise in fuel prices is driving people and families deeper into poverty. When a child is in poverty, they experience deprivation. If that continues, their family becomes a family in need and they will go on to need support from social services and other public services, perhaps leading to a cascade of situations in which they will need support. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the most basic needs are food, water, warmth and rest. People’s most basic need for warmth is not currently being met. For some people suffering illnesses such as sickle cell disease, lack of sufficient warmth can bring on a sickle cell crisis and lead to hospitalisation, organ damage and, at worst, death. Other problems arise from damp and rot after prolonged loss of heat in the home, and those can also affect children. The Government must not bury their head in the sand. Deprivation of warmth is a serious issue. Our country faces a cost of living crisis and a growing strain on businesses, with petrol, food and energy bills sky-rocketing. What will the Government do about that? What will they do to prevent further hikes in gas prices, as those can be prevented by the Government? According to the energy sector specialist Cornwall Insight, bills could rise by 46%, from £1,277 a year under the current price cap to £1,865 a year. When faced with a crisis, this Government shift the brunt of the burden on to the most vulnerable. To fix the social care crisis, they decided to increase national insurance contributions, which will disproportionately hit working families, young people and businesses trying to create more jobs. Despite pressure from those on his own Benches, the Prime Minister will not halt those plans. Faced with an energy crisis, the Government now have an opportunity to break that trend and find sensible solutions rather than dipping into the pockets of those only trying to get by. As energy bills soar for consumers, natural gas operators in the North sea will rake in their biggest profits in over a decade. UK-based natural gas companies such as BP and Shell are expected to record profits of $20 billion. A one-off tax on those companies makes sense. This is not unheard of; Thatcher introduced a windfall tax on North sea operators, as did Blair. Will the Secretary of State for BEIS do the same? Wales has stepped up to help those who are struggling, and France and Denmark are likely to follow suit, but we have seen dither and delay from this Government. I remind the Secretary of State that this all reveals how deeply unreliable fossil fuels such as natural gas are. Even natural gas in our backyard is tied to global prices. We need a safer long-term plan. A green industrial revolution guarantees greater home-grown energy, decreasing our dependence on unreliable fossil fuels and better protecting us from external price shocks. Will the Secretary of State therefore also promise to increase capital investment in renewable technology in order to keep my constituents’ energy costs down, now and in the future?

Before I start, may I say gōng xı̌ fā cái—happy lunar new year—to everybody celebrating today? When we were kids, we used to cheekily add the phrase “âng-pao gia lái”, which means, “Where’s my packet of red money?”—and boy couldn’t ordinary people do with some pounds in their pocket after more than a decade of Conservative government. That is why I am pleased to speak in this incredibly important debate about a windfall tax to help consumers with energy costs. We are here in the mother of all Parliaments discussing the issues that matter and, importantly, the solutions—solutions that Labour has put forward, which would save people money and help them with the problem of skyrocketing energy costs. This debate is so very important because it is the same discussion that people are having up and down the country—“Why are our energy bills going up so much, how are we going to afford them, and why aren’t this Government doing anything to help?” A family in Luton North came to see me last week, absolutely terrified about the real impact of the cost of living crisis—and it is a real crisis. The cost of their rent, their energy bills and their food costs, all things that they were able to cope with not so long ago, are now becoming a struggle, to the extent that this wonderful family—who are working, before anyone wants to come at them on that point—are struggling so much that they came to their MP for help. Throughout this entire energy crisis and the debates we have had about Labour’s plan to cut the cost of people’s energy bills, we have heard a lot of tone-deaf attacks from those on the Government Benches—particularly from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who sadly is not in his place. Shamefully, they even voted against our plans to cut VAT on energy bills to help people get through these difficult times. It is as if they do not know the value—the breathing space—that an extra two hundred quid would give a household who were struggling. They just do not get it at all. During the pandemic, children told the charity the Food Foundation that their parents skipped a meal so that their child could eat. One child said: “Mum is receiving those school meal vouchers because she tends not to eat so she has enough for me.” Another kid confided that they were worried about their mum’s job, saying that “she only eats a little.” Last week, when I raised the issue that women were 36% more likely to struggle with housing costs or be in arrears, it was met with utter disdain. But this is the very real and very horrible reality that thousands of people are living day in, day out under this Government: having to choose between eating, heating and keeping a roof over their heads. There is another way. Labour’s fully costed package to help keep energy bills low would scrap VAT on home energy bills for a whole year, alongside focused and targeted support through increasing and expanding the warm home discount to 9.3 million people. That would not only help the average household with around £200 off bills; it would also deliver targeted and focused support to those who need it most, including low earners and pensioners. That targeted help for pensioners cannot come soon enough. Rising inflation is already hitting pensioners hard. That, combined with increased food costs and this Government’s retrograde decision to scrap free TV licences for all over-75s, means that the unprecedented hike in wholesale energy prices will be totally unmanageable for those living on low fixed incomes. Age UK has reported that the latest Government figures show that around 1 million pensioners—8%—said they could not afford an unexpected bill of £200. The charity also warns that if nothing is done to tackle rocketing energy costs, that 1 million older households that will be struggling with their costs will be added to the 150,000 households who already fell into fuel poverty this winter, yet the Government are still taking a hands-off approach, saying that they cannot do anything to help. That is simply not good enough. There is plenty that can be done to help; they just need the political will to do it. So why are the Government still on the side of big businesses instead of consumers, despite clear evidence that oil and gas producers are reported to have near-record incomes for this past year? The Government have still so far ruled out that windfall tax—why? Because they lack the political will and backbone to do it, and the understanding of why it is so necessary. A simple, straightforward solution is staring the Government in the face today; one that is carefully costed and clearly laid out. But they will reject it again, and the British public, and the ordinary people who play by the rules, will be all the worse off for it.

The planned rise in energy bills will be devastating for tens of millions of households, reflecting a widespread understanding that is not mirrored by the Government. The proposed windfall tax aims to redistribute profits made by energy wholesalers and retail companies back to consumers facing this crisis. This tax could also fund a home insulation programme to increase energy efficiency and support the green industrial revolution through an £11 billion just transition fund. Furthermore, public ownership of poorly run energy companies is proposed as a long-term solution if windfall taxes are insufficient.

Supports the motion for a windfall tax on oil and gas company profits due to estimated £50 monthly increases in household utility bills. Emphasises the need for greater renewable energy generation and export opportunities, advocating for an increase in contracts for difference to accelerate renewables deployment. Highlights unfairness in consumers paying higher electricity prices despite using no gas-generated power, urging urgent measures to fix market regulations benefiting gas companies.

In closing this debate, I want to respond to the points that have been raised and to say why I believe the interventions that we have put forward and the windfall tax we would use to pay for them are fair, proportionate and necessary. Many Members have lamented the fact that we were in this position to begin with, and I acknowledge that. A decade of poor Government decisions has left us particularly exposed to global gas prices. This Conservative Government were wrong to reduce our gas storage capacity, they were wrong not to proceed with their original plans for better home energy insulation and they were wrong to prevent the further development of some of the most cost-effective renewables, such as onshore wind.