Wendy Chamberlain MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I spent the weeks before the Budget talking to constituents about what they wanted to see, and I spoke to them over the weekend. I have to say that when I met them, there was sadness and a degree of anger, because they know that last week’s Budget was a missed opportunity. Yesterday was the first Sunday of Advent, and there is nothing like the start of the Christmas period to focus our minds on what really matters at home—as well as on what we need to buy. But this time is also about our communities. Every Christmas advert shows a buzzing high street, a glowing local pub and happy families safe together in their home. The Budget was the antithesis of that ideal. Our high streets have been caught in a perfect storm between increased national insurance contributions, increased energy costs and consumers with less money in their pockets to spend. Those main streets are vital because they give jobs, bring us together and create our communities. It is why so many of us across this House stand up in this place to bemoan the loss of banks and post offices. They are important for our local communities. They are the foundation of the high streets that bring people into our towns and make it easy for small businesses to operate, and I continue to be incredibly disappointed that this Government say that they are not minded to revisit the criteria for introducing more banking hubs. I know that my English colleagues have concerns about business rates going up next April, and there has been the ending of the 40% pandemic relief, but things were already worse for businesses in Scotland, where the relief was never passed on by the Scottish Government. The 5% discount to the multiplier announced last week could indeed ease the burden for pubs, shops and cafés in Leven, Cupar and St Andrews, so I am a bit disappointed that we no longer have any SNP Members here, and cannot get answers from them about whether the Scottish Government will do something to help Scottish hospitality in their own Budget. The energy company obligation is a short-term help to households, but if there is no replacement measure to tackle fuel poverty, energy costs will continue to soar over the long term. I have to tell the Government that scrapping ECO is not a solution to the complaints of poor workmanship—in some cases, homes were ruined—that we repeatedly heard about in relation to ECO4. All those homes still need resource—as yet unannounced—for remedial work, and the retrofitting and home improvement sector will improve only when there is long-term investment in its future. Yesterday was St Andrews day, and I am sure that people had a dram yesterday to celebrate it. I am the MP for St Andrews, and whisky is a vital employer in my constituency; over 41,000 people are directly employed in the industry. In North East Fife, we are acutely aware of the fragility of the industry, as one of our distilleries, Eden Mill, went into administration just last month. I am hugely relieved that job losses have been avoided in that case, but this Budget has failed to offer any support to prevent similar closures in the months ahead. To close, I do not know how the Government can justify reducing the digital services tax for people like Elon Musk while taking more tax from working people. Most importantly, we could have protected the personal allowance—that small but important amount that people can earn that is theirs to keep entirely—and we would not be asking young people dipping their first toe into the world of work, or those at the end of their careers who rely on the state pension, to pay tax. My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), spoke about the measure not mentioned in the Budget that would really create growth, and that is a renegotiated customs union with the EU. We have been left with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) quite rightly described last week as a hopeless Budget for too many.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Passing a private Member’s Bill is obviously more straightforward with Government support, which I had, so I am grateful to him and his colleagues.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this important debate in honour of carers’ day-to-day rights, and for her work in the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of Carers UK and a trustee of the board of Fife Carers Centre; both are incredible organisations. I also want to recognise other organisations that provide support in this area, include Sheffield University’s Centre for Care, the Carers Trust and Fife Young Carers, which provides support to young carers in my North East Fife constituency and beyond. Unpaid care is part of almost all our lives, whether we recognise it or not. I am no exception. When I started campaigning for the Liberal Democrats, and then became an MP under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who is a carer himself and a prominent activist—in fact, I almost once described him as my carer—I became truly involved with the fight for the rights of unpaid carers. As a newish Back-Bench MP, it was an incredible opportunity, and it was also quite fun and exciting to be able to get a law passed: the private Member’s Bill that became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Looking back now, what I remember most is the amazing people I met during that time in North East Fife, and throughout the country—just a handful of the 5.8 million unpaid carers, impressive in their resilience, love and thoughtfulness. I was moved by what was behind that resilience and humour: the tiredness, strain and financial difficulties, as well as the constant worry of thinking about someone else. I intend to use my time to reflect on the 2023 Act and what more needs to be done. It is disheartening that, in the two and a half years since the Act was passed, evidence suggests that things are still getting worse. Research by Carers UK, “State of Caring 2025”, which the hon. Member for Shipley referred to, shows that 49% of carers have had to cut back on essentials; in 2023, that figure was 34%, already elevated from 25% in 2022, and it was just 13% in 2021. This is not the result of bad luck or the same impact from the cost of living crisis as we all see; the rate of poverty among unpaid carers is 50% higher than in the rest of the population. This is clearly the outcome of structural inequalities that the Government need to address. There are some other things that the Government can do immediately to ease the financial burden on unpaid carers, particularly those in receipt of carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the long work of Baroness Pitkeathley on behalf of unpaid carers, both in the other place and beyond. On Tuesday, she asked the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions in the House of Lords when we can expect the publication of the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments. I would be most grateful for some further detail on that from the Minister and colleagues in the DWP, other than “by the end of the year”, given that it is only four weeks until the House rises for Christmas recess. When in that period can we expect the report to be published, and will there be time for parliamentary scrutiny of it? The overpayments scandal has affected thousands of people across the UK. The last thing that unpaid carers, and indeed the MPs representing them, want is a written statement hurriedly published in late afternoon on 18 December. As we are still awaiting publication of the review and the Government’s response to it, I will set out some of the reforms needed to end the financial inequalities experienced by unpaid carers. The carer’s allowance earnings threshold must be pegged to the minimum wage, so that no unpaid carers in work ever find themselves earning “too much”, simply because the Government made it so. The rules on what unpaid carers can earn must be made clearer, and DWP staff must be trained better to prevent future inadvertent overpayments. Of course, the Timms review of personal independence payments must make sure not to disadvantage unpaid carers. I should acknowledge that my constituents in Scotland are now in receipt of the equivalent carer’s support payments. Referring again to the Carer’s Leave Act, last night I attended the carers’ rights event in Parliament, where I was pleased to speak to a number of businesses that are already going above and beyond the provisions in the Act. They are doing that because they believe it makes good business sense. For them, it is about the psychological contract, improving employees’ loyalty and retaining them—staff retention is as important as recruitment. I am pleased that the Government have published their terms of reference for the review of the Act. That has, in some respect, answered what was going to be my first question to the Minister. The bad news is that I have some other reflections on the back of yesterday’s announcement. The terms of reference published yesterday give a timeline for evidence gathering that started over a year ago, in autumn 2024. That is quite a lot of time for the Government to have been doing engagement and commissioned research before coming to Parliament or even announcing the review and what it aims to achieve. Will the Minister update us on what evidence and engagement has been secured to date? There is a formal public consultation of 10 to 12 weeks to seek views. I know that unpaid carers, the networks that represent them and the organisations offering support will want to respond, but most of these structures are manned and run by volunteers or paid staff who are already stretched, and we know that unpaid carers have more than enough to deal with on a day-to-day basis already, and often feel guilty about the admin involved in their lives. Have the Government considered whether the 10-week consultation period will be long enough? What steps will they take to reach people and engage on the ground? On the findings of the review, I have my suspicions, which I have raised with the Government before, that not enough businesses were made aware of the new right under the Act. I fear not enough businesses trained their managers, HR teams and employees about it, and I fear that the Government gave insufficient information to employers and businesses about their obligations. Without adequate communications, not enough unpaid carers knew to see themselves as carers or that they were entitled to the support. If it is going to be a paid leave right, if that is the direction of travel, we need to get better at those things. I want to say in words the Government will understand that I firmly believe paid carer’s leave supports the growth agenda and will help the economy. One thing I have loved about joining the board of Fife Carers is seeing the impact on the local organisation and volunteers. The centre was shortlisted as a finalist for providing outstanding carer service at this year’s inaugural Carers UK awards. That is quite something for an organisation that started with just one part-time worker 30 years ago. The nomination recognised the value of the support the organisation provides, whether its hospital carer self-care kits or its carer support groups. I had the pleasure of attending one in Leven recently and people were not backward in coming forward to talk about the changes they want to see. Whether someone is working and caring or caring full time, they will inevitably be exhausted. The “State of Caring 2025” report says that 74% of carers feel stressed or anxious, and 42% say their physical health has declined. We all need a break sometimes; carers need and deserve it more than most, but how are they to manage that when they have someone relying on them day in, day out? The answer is funded respite care. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), my party’s spokesperson for care and carers, will mention that, given that she has a Bill before Parliament to ensure that unpaid carers are offered respite. I support that wholeheartedly. I hope the Minister can give us an update on that, too. I am conscious of time, so I will end my remarks there. Inequalities exist and we have a responsibility here in this place to address them.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  I want to express my thanks to Baroness Casey, who, although she has been appointed to this commission, is doing other work for the Government. I would not want that to go unrecognised when we are talking about the delays.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about plans in England, because in my constituency we were privileged to have an incredible ME specialist nurse, Keith Anderson, who helped countless people. Sadly, he passed away two years ago, and since then there has been no specialist support in Fife—indeed, there is no specialist ME doctor or nurse in the whole of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things any plan needs to consider is training, so that, no matter where someone is in the country, they can get access to a specialist?

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward): this is devastating news for Fife. Although the Mossmorran plant is not in my constituency, I know that I will have constituents who are affected. I note what the Minister said about this decision not being due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government, but his statement was pretty silent on the economic circumstances referred to in ExxonMobil’s public statement—in what I saw when this closure was announced, there was certainly an attribution to the UK Government’s failures in that regard. I am a bit disappointed that the first mention of the Scottish Government was at the very end of the statement, in looking forward. The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs, and taking an approach that does not involve the Scottish Government allows the SNP Government to blame the UK Government when such things happen. Although today’s announcement is not a surprise to the Government, will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government in advance of this decision?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As a former police officer, I have policed protests, and I know how important they are. On the issue of cumulative disruption, what evidence has the Minister gathered that demonstrates that a protest that is deemed safe as a one-off would become a public safety risk if it were repeated?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  We know—and I have sadly seen through my casework—that coercive control can continue for years after a relationship has ended through the manipulation of child maintenance payments by perpetrators. What steps is the Minister taking with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the systems work to support survivors rather than enabling perpetrators?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past decade there has been a stark absence of diplomatic efforts to address the core issues of the conflict, and the continued advocacy for a two-state solution. Civil society organisations have played a vital role during this time in entering that chasm. Will the Minister outline how the Government are providing help to those organisations? For example, will it be through the recently announced international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Cuts to spending in Afghanistan inevitably impact women and children disproportionately. They are more likely to be employed by NGOs forced to make cuts and more likely to need assistance. Does the Minister agree that we need to ringfence and protect funding to Afghanistan?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Next month, the UK will be co-hosting the Global Fund replenishment summit with South Africa, but it has been reported that the UK will slash its own funding by 20%. It is estimated that such a cut will cause 82,000 more deaths in Africa and cost over £5 billion to its GDP. Will the Government have a debate on the Global Fund replenishment, so that the House can scrutinise these decisions before they are made?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund · Hansard source

  More

  The East Neuk fishing fleet in my constituency may not be delivering what Shetland does in terms of tonnage, but it is critical, and it faces challenges around spatial mass and recruitment. I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in relation to how the fund will be distributed. May I query the Minister in relation to the 12-year span of the plan? Obviously it is linked to the EU agreement, but what guarantees can the Minister actually give us that the fund will last for those 12 years? Otherwise, what is proposed becomes meagre.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The Victoria hospital is not in my constituency, but it serves my constituents. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the proposed downgrading of the neonatal intensive care units in both Dundee and Fife will means that our constituents will have to travel much further for critical need, and that their premature babies will be far away from home?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a very strong and powerful point. Does he agree that, as a result of those quangos and the things he is describing, we have actually seen a loss of power to the Scottish Parliament, where MSPs are not getting the opportunity to put things forward? Often, that is because the Scottish Government are bringing forward framework Bills that do not have proper policy decisions, which is why the implementation of so many pieces of legislation ultimately fails.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Youth Services: Deprived Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Local charities would be better equipped to deliver youth services if they could maximise their income from sources such as the People’s Postcode Lottery, but in spring the Government refused to make the reforms that would enable more money to be available for good causes, despite supporting it in opposition. Given that this decision has proved quite controversial, will the Government agree to revisit it?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I stand here as a friend of Ming’s, but also as the current representative of his seat. I know how much he felt the privilege of being elected to this House for 28 years as the representative for North East Fife. I also know the very high regard in which he was held in the constituency. All I have had—both myself and the MSP for the constituency, Willie Rennie, who was previously a Member of this place—are very kind thoughts from constituents and stories about Ming that we have taken to our hearts. He first stood for Parliament in Greenock in 1974. Greenock is my hometown. I was quite reassured, when I was first engaging with Ming, that we at least had something in common. What the Prime Minister said was right: he had the opportunity to switch to other parties, but he chose not to. Although he first stood in 1974, it took until 1987 before he was elected in North East Fife. That shows the spirit and determination he had as an individual, but also the work he did to build the constituency and build the local party. I have had lots of thoughts from the local party, too. One of them I thought would be worth sharing with the House. Shortly after his election, which was a close contest against the sitting Conservative MP, they decided to take a celebratory boat trip out to the Isle of May to see the puffins. Unfortunately, the boat broke down on the way. Ming and Elspeth kept everybody calm. It was interesting that even people who did not vote for him came out and rescued the boat. [ Laughter. ] That was the respect with which he was regarded. In his tribute, my constituency colleague Willie Rennie said that Ming had had three careers: politics, law and, obviously, sport. He was a parliamentarian, he was a KC, he was an Olympian and he was a Companion of Honour. If any of us can aspire to the great heights that Ming reached, that is worth aspiring to. The Prime Minister also mentioned his chancellorship of the University of St Andrews, which he held for 19 years. I know that those at the university are very sad at his loss and passing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I visited the university last week to meet them and discuss Ming. I will finish with some personal memories. He was a great support to me, but I do remember, when I was running for the selection in 2018, that there was a constituency lunch in North East Fife. One of the members who was supportive of my candidacy made sure that I was sat at the same table as Elspeth, because I was assured that if I could get Elspeth onside, Ming would surely follow. Since I was elected, we would meet every so often. Every month, we would have a cup of tea and a scone in the Pugin Room, and he would tell me all the things that I needed to be doing. The Secretary of State for Defence is not here, but Ming would always ask me, right up until the last time I saw him, about Leuchars and what the strategic defence review meant, and talk about how important defence was for him and the constituency. There is no doubt that the loss of Elspeth was devastating and he was never quite the same. I think everybody would accept that when we saw him here, but really up until those last weeks, he, although very frail, was absolutely still there and we had many great conversations. I saw him just the week before he died, and it did feel like a “goodbye” conversation. I know that he will be much missed across this House, and I am very grateful for all the tributes that have been paid to him.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on economic growth.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The national insurance increases in last year’s Budget not only increased national insurance, but impacted on part-time workers, many of whom the hospitality industry relies on. Hospitality companies in North East Fife have written to me directly, but they have also started to share with their customers the real impact of the cost increases they are seeing. Does the Minister agree that there has been an impact on hospitality, and will he commit to ensuring that the Chancellor delivers a hospitality-friendly Budget come the autumn?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  We all deal with Department for Work and Pensions casework through our teams, but in North East Fife we are seeing a transition to universal credit that means that vulnerable constituents—often those with dyslexia or learning disabilities —are really struggling. They are not being offered the enhanced support journey, and all are suffering due to departments not communicating and miscalculations. Can we have a debate in Government time on this issue, which I am sure affects MPs from across the House?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge to restore full accountability to the Government’s relocation schemes, but I am saddened that this is the first opportunity that we have had to talk about the closure of ACRS and ARAP on the Floor of the House, given that they were announced by written statement at very short notice only two weeks ago. May I ask a couple of specific questions? On the ARR, which we have only found out about today, the Secretary of State mentioned 600 invitations that will be honoured. For those who were not accepted and are part of the breach, are they aware of that? ARAP has been closed to new applications, but, again—I have asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about this before—what is the communication strategy for updating them? The ACRS was never open to vulnerable women and the civil rights defenders it aimed to protect. Again, what communication will the Government have with those individuals who are in hiding either in Afghanistan or in third countries?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am already being contacted by constituents who are worried about affording their energy bills this winter, but do not feel that the service they get from the energy companies is properly supporting them. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that energy companies provide the support that they need?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday, a written statement was published at 12 noon that announced that three hours later, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy were to close with immediate effect. That comes six weeks after an assurance that the scheme would continue for the present, so that we could keep the promises made to the people of Afghanistan. Can we have a statement in this place, so that we can properly understand the reasons for the decision being made so quickly; how we are communicating with Afghans in hiding, often in third countries like Pakistan; and what will happen to those applications still in the system?

• 2 Jul 2025 · ECO4 Scheme Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her response. It appears the Government do recognise the scale of the problem. Does she have anything to say about the worrying reports I received when preparing for this debate of people being forced to withdraw complaints before remedial work is carried out by companies? Is there anything we can do there?

• 2 Jul 2025 · ECO4 Scheme Redress · Hansard source

  More

  It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He illustrates that, although this is a GB scheme and not applicable in Northern Ireland, consumers and more vulnerable residents in Northern Ireland face the same challenges regarding energy efficiency. The Government have a responsibility, working with the Northern Ireland Assembly, to improve the situation there. We need to get this right, not just so there is faith in the schemes—although that is vital—but so works under them do not end up costing people even more in lost energy costs. It is clear that some things are going badly wrong under the ECO schemes as they stand. The Government need to address them for the remainder of properties that might do upgrades under ECO4 and for future iterations of the scheme. First, there is a complete lack of transparency in how households are driven to the scheme and, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation either. I have talked about how Jackie and her husband felt railroaded from wondering if they would be entitled to anything for upgrades, to their home being pulled apart. She is not a vulnerable person, but she thinks that the company she dealt with was totally unprepared for being challenged over what was happening. Another constituent who had a terrible outcome under the scheme has described themselves as vulnerable and feels that the system was set up to target people like them. As my team and I have gone further into such cases, I was surprised that more MPs are not shouting about this issue. Clearly, it is not limited just to one company or to North East Fife. When I spoke to Fuel Poverty Action this week, it told me that it is seeing only the most determined victims complaining—the rest are highly vulnerable people. From what I have seen, if companies offer to pay any compensation at all after months of fighting—even if it will not cover the cost of the remedial works—it is on the condition that all complaints be withdrawn. I therefore cannot help but wonder how many people have felt that they had to accept, and now are not in a position to tell us about their experiences. Secondly, the funding model for ECO4 places incentives on companies to upgrade rural homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I understand the logic of that, but rural homes, as he said, tend to be a lot older and less uniform than urban ones, so we would ideally want a proper survey to be not only done, but carried out by a specialist retrofit co-ordinator. The fact is, however, is that we do not have anywhere near enough of them. TrustMark data indicates that although more than 2,000 individuals have completed the retrofit co-ordinator qualification, just 612 are registered with the quality mark and only 230 are actively lodging work in the data warehouse. Of the 230 active co-ordinators, around 30% are lodging the majority of those projects. That means around 66 specialists are overseeing the vast majority of retrofit works. We clearly need more, and the Government need to worry about that skills shortage. According to Ashden, the UK will need up to 50,000 retrofit co-ordinators in coming years if we are going to reach our goals for making homes energy efficient. In the meantime, what requirements are there for works to be properly overseen by a specialist? Do contractors have to employ one and risk cutting into their margins? Are there requirements for co-ordinators to actually visit a property, provide plans, speak with the owners and review works as they go? I wonder if the mysterious middle man I mentioned earlier was a retrofit co-ordinator—it is just not clear. What is clear is that none of these steps took place in that case. Similarly, the short-term nature of the scheme means that we are not skilling up the workforce—the plasterers, electricians and plumbers—that we need to do these works. ECO4 is the longest iteration of the schemes and has been running for almost four years, but it is due to close next spring, and we still do not know what will replace it. Short schemes with short-notice changes do not allow businesses to invest in training or properly plan for the future. Even for the best-intentioned companies and tradespeople, that is not commercially viable. That was all underlined by evidence from across the sector in the recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report. The industry needs a 10-year plan so that it can invest in upskilling, take on apprenticeships knowing there will be work for them after their training, and be prepared to take on the challenge of making our homes future-proof. Finally on ECO4, there desperately needs to be some clarity over how works are certified and payments are made. These are not just individual contractual disputes; the fact that Ofgem is administering the scheme tells a very different story. As I understand it, to get paid, an installer needs to register the works with TrustMark, providing photos, energy performance certificate ratings and so on. That is then validated before Ofgem releases the funds. Considering the hundreds, if not thousands, of homes being damaged around the country, what precise validation is happening? Is money being released for those ruined homes? What requirements are there on traders not just to say, “Sure, we installed a heat pump,” but to actually prove they have put a home back to the way it was? Where else is the money going in the supply line of referrals that I talked about earlier? Who is getting paid, by whom and for what? I have talked a lot about ECO4, but I want to touch briefly on the wider consumer protection landscape because, now that things have gone wrong, that is where my constituents and many others are battling. I do not think it is controversial to say that it is a bit of a mess. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed that in its 2023 report on consumer protection in green heating and insulation sector. It was reiterated by Citizens Advice in its “Hitting a Wall” report last year, and again by the ESNZ Committee in its “Retrofitting homes for net zero” report in spring. I am aware—as I am sure the Minister will reference—that the Government are currently considering responses to a consultation on requiring the microgeneration certification scheme to be the sole certification scheme for clean heat installations. Having seen constituents, and my caseworkers on their behalf, battle through a maze of different accreditation and oversight bodies to try to find someone to take responsibility for this work, a single body seems incredibly sensible, but I still have some questions. How would that one body sit alongside TrustMark and Ofgem? Would it replace TrustMark and, if so, how would it be better equipped to accredit and oversee retrofit contractors? Would it solve the problem of traders being able to say they are accredited, and showing that they are accredited, when complaints have already started coming in? At the moment, it is far too easy for them to chop and change logos, or to continue to display a logo that they should not be able to. How do we make that new, single body sufficiently powerful and reactive so that it can be trusted by consumers? Policy specialists recently suggested to me that local authorities could be trusted to keep a list of accredited local traders. I had to tell them that some already do. Indeed, in North East Fife, a contractor just told constituents that they were not displayed yet due to a delay in the application process. That is very believable, given how stretched local government is. What happens to consumers when their homes are left ruined, with works poorly carried out, and the companies have lied about being certified or have now dissolved and vanished? What will happen to people stuck in the original system, whose works were carried out under the current failing scheme, who are being pushed from pillar to post with no end point in sight? Those are the experiences of my constituents and many others. To keep fighting for someone to be on their side is breaking them. Where is their solution? Failures in consumer protection clearly go beyond the ECO4 scheme, but there are particular problems for consumers funded via ECO4. So many people, often vulnerable, are pushed into having work done, and the nature of the schemes increases the chances of being allocated an unskilled or rogue trader. Some of the people I have spoken to in the run-up to today have said that this is a scandal that no one takes responsibility for, and they are very concerned about speaking out about it. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns this morning.

• 2 Jul 2025 · ECO4 Scheme Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of redress under the ECO 4 scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir John. This debate is about a lot of things. It is about the need to retrofit UK homes to improve their fuel efficiency, training the future workforce and the consumer protection landscape, but it is also about the Government taking responsibility for policy failures. Most importantly, it is about people. Therefore, before I cover the issues with the ECO4—energy company obligation 4—scheme and the wider consumer protection landscape, I want to set out the experience of my constituent, Jackie. Jackie and her husband live in a gable end cottage. They have worked hard and done well, and are meant to be enjoying their retirement, but they are not. It all started to go wrong just more than a year ago, when, out of curiosity, they filled in a small quiz about rural homeowners without central heating on the Energy Advice Helpline website. They were contacted by a representative by phone and email very quickly, and found themselves put into a pipeline for works to be carried out. They described that period to my team as dizzying and said that they felt under pressure. Jackie and her husband had checked that the Energy Advice Helpline seemed to be a genuine not-for-profit advice service, but they had not been advised that the project had been given to a company called Central Eco Solutions. Now, some 12 months later, we have just found out that there was a further middle company—a surveyor based in Leeds, who my constituents had never spoken to until yesterday. The workflow that he described was that the Energy Advice Helpline adviser supplied work to him, and then he supplied work to installers. The work was carried out hurriedly in three weeks at the end of July and start of August last year. Alarmed at the poor quality of work being done in their property, Jackie and her husband started questioning the contractors about who was employing them and what instructions they had been given. It was only at that stage that they found out that Central Eco Solutions was involved. There was no project management, contract or design proposals, and when they asked for technical surveys, they were carried out by someone who was not a surveyor. Problems became obvious with the works immediately. No care was taken with the preparation. Floors were taken up and cupboards removed without notice. They described a small bookcase being ripped out with a crowbar, and the promises of it being replaced transpired to be completely false. The insulation and plastering had to be redone three times. The team attempted to insulate around a radiator, until they were stopped, but they did manage to insulate over a double socket, making it unusable. One insulation wall was put in at a very non-vertical angle. A joiner was sent to repair the woodwork, but he was instructed only to use MDF in place of pre-existing solid wood, and clearly, did not have the skillset to do the job in hand. Those are just the snags. The air source heat pump was originally installed on the outside of the gable wall, causing such bad noise and vibration in two bedrooms that they became unusable. Jackie investigated and found it had been bolted directly to the wall, whereas others she had seen were bedded on insulation. When she suggested that as a remedy, the heat pump was removed and placed apart from the building, but pipework was left running at waist height over the pathway to the garden. Most of the snags have still not been resolved. There are uncovered pipes, ruined woodwork, excess pipes creating energy waste, and a slanting kitchen wall. My constituents have had a terrible year dealing with these issues: chasing Central Eco Solutions for the work to be finished properly, trying to find some sort of guarantee scheme, making complaints, and escalating those complaints with no clear route for doing so. They are not alone. I am telling Jackie’s story, but there are many others in North East Fife and around the country. It is not a problem with just one installation company, because I have heard cases with others; I have been contacted by people all around Great Britain since my debate went on to the Order Paper, who have named different companies that have ruined their homes and left. This is a Government problem that must be solved. I have questioned the Minister in the House about it previously, and I think she knows that it is a Government problem because she announced in January that she would review the consumer protection landscape, particularly in relation to solid wall insulations under ECO4. However, I have had sight of a letter sent by her team in response to a complaint by a company outwith North East Fife. I was disappointed that the letter makes it clear that, as the Government do not directly fund ECO4, they do not get involved in private and contractual decisions between the parties involved. That somewhat misses the point. ECO4 may not be taxpayer funded, but it is a Government-backed scheme. For consumers that is the same thing, because that gives the scheme a stamp of Government approval. The Government surely would not, and should not, be backing something that allows traders to carry out unreliable and unsuitable work on somebody’s property. The Government would not be backing something unless they were really sure of what it was—right? In any case, ECO4 is taxpayer funded in some ways, because it is funded by a Government-backed levy on energy customers’ bills. Just because those public funds do not go through the Treasury’s coffers does not mean that there is not a public interest in getting their use right. I am happy to put on the record that I support ECO schemes: it is incredibly important to upgrade properties so that they are energy efficient. Our constituents need to do that to save money on their bills, and energy efficiency is a must-have in the face of a climate crisis.