Miliband and Rayner join forces to save net zero
Gas boilers in new homes will be banned as soon as next year under plans being spearheaded by Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner.
The energy and housing secretaries have joined forces on new rules for housebuilders, which will require newbuilds to have heat pumps and solar panels.
The Telegraph understands the new rules will be announced by Ms Rayner this summer, and are likely to be in force by next year.
The fight for net zero is at the heart of a growing row engulfing Labour, exposed this week by Sir Tony Blair who warned Sir Keir Starmer that his current green policies were 'doomed to fail'.
Despite Labour MPs and unions urging Sir Keir to change course on net zero, Mr Miliband and Ms Rayner will drive their radical reforms forward this year.
The Cabinet ministers have been working together on net zero requirements in the Future Homes Standard, a change to building regulations first proposed by the Conservatives in 2019.
Insiders said the pair had opted for the most 'ambitious' version of the new rules, which would ban gas boilers as fast as possible in new homes by increasing the energy efficiency requirements on developers.
But housebuilders have warned that onerous new net zero requirements could increase costs, making it less likely that Ms Rayner will meet her target of building 1.5 million homes by the end of Labour's first term.
Industry sources said the boiler ban had been expected to come into force in 2027, after a 12-month period for the legislation to take effect and a further year to implement the changes.
Government sources now say the rules could take effect as soon as early 2026, giving the industry as little as six months to prepare.
Mr Miliband and Ms Rayner's new rules will also require solar panels on almost all newbuilds, adding up to £4,000 to the cost of the properties.
That plan, first floated in a Conservative-era public consultation, comes despite pressure from the housebuilding sector to make solar panels optional.
The latest report from Britain's fiscal watchdog estimated that Labour will fall 200,000 homes short of its 1.5 million target, even without the changes to building regulations.
On Thursday, Downing Street insisted the changes would not make it harder to hit the target.
The new homes standard was repeatedly delayed under previous Conservative governments, but has been quickly pursued by both Ms Rayner and Mr Miliband since they took office last year.
Officials at the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero are also working on plans to encourage homes with open fires and wood burning stoves to replace them with heat pumps.
Ministers have commissioned a Westminster-based research company to survey homes with 'secondary heating', including electric and gas fires, wood burning stoves and fan heaters.
In the company's contract, seen by The Telegraph, officials argued that 'reaching net zero by 2050 will require significant changes to how households heat their homes'.
The company was asked to find out whether the 'introduction of a heat pump would change households' use of secondary heating', noting that ministers wanted to 'minimise potential burden on the electricity grid and transition away from fossil fuel-based secondary heating'.
The Telegraph understands the report is designed to build understanding of how people use secondary heating, and no policy has yet been formed on whether or how to phase it out.
Labour has watered down other net zero policies, including a ban on new non-electric cars by 2030 that will no longer include vans, hybrids, or most British supercars.
Mr Miliband has clashed with his Cabinet colleagues over concerns that his net zero policies were unpopular with voters and threatened to hinder growth, despite his insistence that the drive for clean power will result in economic benefits.
On Wednesday Downing Street failed to guarantee that his job as Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary was safe for the remainder of Labour's first term.
Ms Rayner has also had her differences with Sir Keir, which sources close to her say have since been resolved since he tried to sack her in May 2021. However, earlier this week it was claimed that she threatened to resign over the Government's target to build 1.5 million homes, but was talked down by Sir Tony.
This week Sir Tony, who has been advising Sir Keir, criticised what he described as 'financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle' imposed on the public for the sake of a 'minimal' reduction in emissions.
The former prime minister later rowed back on that view, arguing that Labour's approach was the 'right one' following a conversation with Downing Street.
But Labour sources were furious with Sir Tony for his implied criticism of one of the Government's flagship policies just days before the local elections. One said the 'pretty incredible' intervention showed he had been 'out of the game for too long'.
Labour is bracing for a bloodbath at Thursday's local elections, with the party expecting to lose hundreds of council seats across the country.
Speaking on Wednesday a Downing Street spokesman insisted that the Government would try to 'tread lightly' on voters' lives when implementing net zero policies.
Sir Keir said last month that he would look for 'flexibilities' to reduce the burden on consumers and companies.
A Housing Department spokesperson said: 'The Future Homes Standard will be published later this year.
'We have always been clear that we want solar panels on as many new homes as possible, because they are a vital technology to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security, and help deliver net zero.
'Through the Future Homes Standard we plan to maximise the installation of solar panels on new homes, as part of our ambition to ensure all new homes are energy efficient, and will set out final plans in due course.'
A Downing Street spokesman said on Thursday that the Future Homes Standard would contain measures to increase the uptake in solar panels.
Asked if this would affect the Government's housebuilding target, the spokesman replied: 'No. We're obviously doing this in consultation with the industry, which is why we're working on the details of it which you'll see once the future homes standard has been published.
'These proposals aren't new… We'll obviously also introduce it in a way that industry has time to deliver, deliver the new standards and that's exactly what we're working on as we speak.'
Rayner using Miliband to flex her political muscles
By Gordon Rayner
On Wednesday, No 10 insisted the Government would 'tread lightly' on people's lives as it implemented net zero policies.
A day later, we learn that Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband are pursuing the most radical possible net zero reforms to house building. So what exactly is going on?
A disconnect between Downing Street and Mr Miliband's department for energy security and net zero has been plain to see almost since Labour came to power, but the fact that Ms Rayner has teamed up with Red Ed smacks of factionalism.
No matter how hard the various parties might try to insist that they are all getting on swimmingly, Ms Rayner is canny enough to know how her latest move will be perceived, and in the eyes of voters perception is reality.
As the former Labour MP Tom Harris wrote earlier this week, speculation is rife among Labour MPs that Sir Keir Starmer might not contest the next general election as Labour leader. A bad set of results in this week's local elections and Runcorn and Helsby by-election will only turn up the volume on that Westminster gossip.
Currying favour
You might, then, speculate that Ms Rayner is hedging her bets by standing with Mr Miliband on his net zero agenda. Regardless of whether Mr Miliband has any chance of succeeding Sir Keir as leader and prime minister (a chance that is slim but not zero), Mr Miliband remains hugely popular with Labour members – the people who will choose the next leader.
Despite his disastrous previous crack at the Labour leadership, he remains more popular with the members than his Cabinet colleagues, and Ms Rayner may well want to share Mr Miliband's umbrella if bad news continues to rain down on the Starmer premiership.
What else could explain Ms Rayner's decision to back a policy that might scupper her chances of hitting her target of 1.5 million new homes by the time of the next election?
By speeding up a gas boiler ban and insisting on heat pumps and solar panels in new builds, Ms Rayner is increasing the cost and regulatory burden for builders at a time when she is already predicted to fall 200,000 homes short of her goal.
However, the new net zero rules are also a way for her to flex her political muscles by driving through changes that might not be popular with Sir Keir or Rachel Reeves, but which they can do little to stop.
Ms Rayner, directly elected as Labour's Deputy Leader, cannot be sacked from that role by Sir Keir, meaning he would hardly dare to remove her from her other job as Housing Secretary.
Sir Keir has watered down other net zero policies, including the ban on non-electric cars by 2030 that won't now include vans, hybrids or most British supercars.
There is also a suspicion among some Labour figures that Sir Tony Blair's curious net zero intervention this week, in which he said the current policies are 'doomed to fail', was designed to prepare the ground for a further downgrading of net zero policies by Sir Keir, who is desperate to stem the flow of voters to the net zero-sceptic Reform UK.
There are even those who believe Mr Miliband will be used as a scapegoat for poor election results this week, and could lose his job in the next reshuffle as a result.
Much has been read into the fact that Downing Street refused earlier this week to guarantee he would still be in post by the time of the next election, unlike Ms Reeves and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, who have been assured they will keep their jobs throughout this Parliament.
If Mr Miliband were to be sacrificed by Sir Keir, Ms Rayner would at least be able to produce evidence to Labour members that she did not dip her hands in the blood.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Anglesey and Celtic freeports job hopes 'downgraded'
Plaid Cymru's Luke Fletcher criticised the pace of change at the Anglesey freeport as well as the Celtic freeport based around Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire. Mr Fletcher said people were promised transformative economic benefits, tens of thousands of jobs, billions in investment and a green revolution – "but years on, we are still waiting". "That's a fact, that's a reality," the shadow economy secretary warned. "Now, if freeports are meant to be a cornerstone of our economic strategy, then we need to actually understand exactly what we're getting and, right now, there's a huge lack of clarity and credibility." Freeports, originally a Conservative UK Government policy, offer tax breaks in an effort to boost business. Mr Fletcher said an initial promise of 20,000 jobs by 2030 was revised down to 17,000 on the Welsh Government's website, a decrease of 15 per cent. He added that the Celtic freeport was downgraded by 31per cent from a promise of 16,000 jobs to nearer 11,000 today. "All we've seen from the Celtic freeport so far are strategies, frameworks and meetings: no clear delivery, no major employment, no visible change," he said. Rebecca Evans, Wales' economy secretary, told Senedd members it remains early days with "an awful lot" of work going on behind the scenes and the freeports only open for business for a matter of months. Samuel Kurtz, the Conservatives' shadow secretary, welcomed the Celtic and Anglesey freeports but raised concerns about sites in England such as Teesside being further along. He also hailed "significant" progress at Wales' two investment zones – based on advanced manufacturing in Wrexham and Flintshire, and semiconductors in Newport and Cardiff. In her statement, Ms Evans said the Welsh Government has agreed full business cases for both freeports and the final agreement with UK ministers was close to completion.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
