Home heating oil up in price in Northern Ireland for second week
But the rate of increase in the cost of the fuel, the predominant means of heating homes here, has slowed down.
A ceasefire between Israel and Iran has been holding, with markets now hoping that the worst impact of the conflict on oil markets is now over.
The Northern Ireland Consumer Council's weekly price check for the fuel showed the average price of 300 litres this week was £201.07, up nearly £13 on the week before.
The price of 500 litres had gone up by around £22 to £315.15, while for 900 litres, the average price was up around £41 to an average of £551.75.
However, the level of increase was much lower than the week before, when prices were up by nearly £30 for 500 litres and by £70 for 900 litres.
In percentage terms, the price of 300 litres was up 7%, while for 500 litres, the price was up 7.6%. And for 900 litres, the price was up 8%.
That's much slower than the previous week, when the cost of both 300 and 500 litres had risen by 18%, and 900 litres was up 16%.
Last week's increase had been the first week-on-week rise in average prices since early January.
Raymond Gormley, head of energy policy at the Consumer Council, said last week: 'As we import all our home heating oil, Northern Ireland is at the mercy of volatile global oil markets and the price that consumers pay is impacted by a complex range of factors which can result in price fluctuations.
'It is very difficult to predict if this is the start of home heating oil prices going up for as long as this escalation in the Middle East lasts or just if it is an initial spike due to the recent attacks on Iran.'
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer addressed the impact of the Iran-Israel conflict on UK energy prices at the annual conference of the British Chambers of Commerce on Thursday.
He said: 'The impact of international affairs on us domestically has never been so direct as it is at the moment. So you saw an oil price rise, to take the other obvious example.
'In the three-plus years of the Ukraine conflict, energy prices have gone up considerably as a result of that conflict.
"So we have to recognise that's why diplomacy matters on the global stage to try and de-escalate and resolve situations, which is what I've spent a lot of time doing. It's also why we need to insulate ourselves here as best we can.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
9 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump-Iran live: Senator claims Trump 'deliberately misled public' over Iran strikes
As debate continues in the US over the effectiveness of its strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, one senator has claimed Donald Trump "deliberately misled" the public over his assertion Tehran's nuclear programme was "obliterated". Follow live and listen to Trump 100 below.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform, prime minister
One of the more unexpected aspects of the prime minister's performance in recent months is that he seems to find much more success in negotiating with the likes of tricky characters such as Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron than he does with his own backbenchers. Many of them, he must reflect, owe their seats in the House of Commons to his Herculean efforts to make the Labour Party electable again after the debacle in 2019. There was nothing preordained about the landslide last July, even if the Conservatives did all they could, inadvertently, to ease Labour back into power after a 14-year wait. That so many Labour MPs now seem to yearn for the kind of policies Jeremy Corbyn fought and lost on can only be a cause for dismay for Sir Keir Starmer and his closest advisers. In its century and a quarter existence, Sir Keir is only the third leader of his party to have ever won an overall majority. Attlee, Wilson, Blair, Starmer; this is an instructively small club. Politics is indeed an ungrateful business. At this juncture, the prime minister might be well advised to reach for Occam's razor, whereby the simplest explanation is often the best. The range of political options, policy adjustments and permutations of possible parliamentary outcomes as the vote on the welfare bill approaches is dizzyingly complex. The chances of success are vanishingly thin. There is simply insufficient time to recast the reforms in such a way that would preserve the best intentions of policy, deliver the savings needed by the Treasury, and secure the support of an increasingly febrile parliamentary party. The good news for Sir Keir and his colleagues is that, when treated as an objective policy challenge, the path ahead is more straightforward. The obvious mistake made by ministers since they took office is that reform of social security also became an exercise in 'tough', performative politics, and a crude if not panicky way for the Treasury to cut public spending. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was rushed to meet unrealistic fiscal deadlines set by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves (as with some of her other policies), and, for want of a better word, botched. With such a hurried timetable for such a sensitive set of changes affecting vulnerable people, it is little wonder that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, was unable to win the arguments. A pause is essential, and inevitable. What is to be done? Just as the 'reasoned amendment' put forward by more than 120 Labour MPs suggests, the first thing the government must do is complete the essential work that should have been done before bringing the bill to parliament. That means the consultations with groups representing people with disabilities must be properly completed and taken into account. We already know that, on the government's own estimations, some 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty, and that seems very much at odds with the declared intentions of the changes – to improve the living standards of people with disabilities by getting them into the good jobs so many of them want. Will the reforms do that? We do not know. MPs, and the public, are waiting for the Office for Budget Responsibility to publish its impact assessment on the employment prospects of those affected, with the improved job-finding support and the 'right to try' safeguards in place, alongside the alterations in the criteria for personal independence payments (PIP). If, as the Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden attests, more than 1,000 people a day go on to PIP, why is that so high? Why have economic inactivity rates not recovered to pre-Covid levels? Conjecture, surmise and speculation are a poor basis for policy. This might also therefore be a moment for an overhaul of the points-based system for assessing people's needs. The mathematical nature of such tests feels insensitive and deeply impersonal, and may take insufficient account of individual circumstances. There should be a better, more dignified, more holistic way of working out need than 'scoring' a person according, for example, on whether they can wash their whole body themselves (zero points), need 'supervision' (two points), assistance for lower body (two points), upper body (four points) or whole body (eight points). There should also be an objective review of how far mental health is being 'over-diagnosed' and affecting the numbers claiming benefits. Some, such as Nigel Farage and the health secretary, Wes Streeting, opine that that is the case – but there seems inadequate data to draw a firm conclusion. It would also help the credibility of the reforms if the government had organised time-limited but full pilot schemes under the new arrangements in one or two regions of the country. Under the DWP's Pathways to Work programme, there have been such trials and work coaches and specialist one-to-one help have proved successful – but there's no evidence or research to back the argument that the proposed reforms to benefit eligibility will indeed produce better outcomes. That is why the Labour MPs are left unpersuaded. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Backbench MPs are not AI-driven automatons whose only role is to unconditionally back the party leadership. When they are asked to do so, an appeal to loyalty and the horrors of the opposition ('Prime Minister Farage') are perfectly legitimate. But members of parliament are also entitled to have evidence-based, well-developed policy before they are asked to approve it. The public is also right to expect that, and parliament has an obligation to respect the needs and vulnerabilities of those subjected to fairly sudden changes in their personal finances – in this case, people with extremely varied disabilities. If there is to be a Commons vote on welfare reform next week, then the bill would need to be gutted, taking out the contentious, under-researched provisions on eligibility, and leaving only the useful and proven new schemes that are likely to help people into work, where it is available. It's a rare opportunity to get social security reform right – and for it to command the wide public support needed as spending on an ageing population increases the cost. Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform.
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Joy Reid defends Iran during CNN appearance
Published: Updated: Fired ex-MSNBC host Joy Reid mistakenly blasted the US for trying to stop Iran obtaining nuclear energy during her latest CNN appearance. Speaking on Newsnight earlier this week, Reid defended the country following the attacks on their nuclear sites by President Donald Trump over the weekend. The left-wing commentator said: 'Why on earth is the United States bombing a country that did not attack us, what on earth are we doing there at all. 'Why is it there is this arrogance in the west and in the United States to say that we get to decide who can have nuclear energy .' Trump's bunker buster bombing campaign was actually aimed at stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. CNN host Abby Phillip interrupted, saying: 'Joy, this is not just about nukes. It's also about Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism and chaos and violence and death around the world.' The panel then decided into chaos over her remarks, with attorney Arthur Aidala slamming her for backing Iran. He said: 'Joy the fact that you are backing a country that slaughters homosexuals, that slaughters people for their religious beliefs. It's crazy, it's nuts.' In response, she said that LGBTQ people weren't allowed to serve in the US military under President Trump. Clearly angered, Aidala continued: 'But they can live, they can get married they can have children. We're not killing them!' U.S. stealth bombers dropped 12 deep penetrator bombs, called bunker busters, on the Fordo nuclear facility and two on the Natanz site over the weekend . Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the attack as a success, but a US intelligence report has since emerged that seems to discredit that. According to the preliminary report, it was found that Iran's nuclear program had been set back only a few months. At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, defense officials laid out details that bolstered their argument that the attack had wiped out the key sites .
