Rishi Sunak has confirmed he will be easing a series of green policies under a “new approach” designed to protect “hard-pressed British families” from “unacceptable costs”.
Delivering a speech from Downing Street, he said he is still committed to reaching net zero by 2050, but the transition can be done in a “fairer and better way”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:14
‘No rights to impose costs on people’
The measures have faced criticism from across the political spectrum as well as from businesses, environmental groups and even former US vice president Al Gore.
More on Net Zero
Related Topics:
Labour accused the prime minister of “dancing to the tune” of net zero-sceptic Tories and said the plans would actually add more costs to households while damaging investor confidence.
Explaining the government’s decision to delay the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars – currently due in 2030 – by five years, Mr Sunak said this would give businesses “more time to prepare”.
Advertisement
He also said people would still be allowed to buy secondhand diesel and petrol cars after that date and this would align the UK’s approach with countries across Europe, Canada and many US states.
In weakening the plan to phase out gas boilers from 2035, Mr Sunak said households would “never” be forced to “rip-out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump”.
This will only be required when people are due to change their boiler anyway and there will be an exception for households for whom that will be the hardest.
Mr Sunak also announced an increase to the boiler upgrade scheme, saying rather than banning boilers “before people can afford the alternative” the government is going to “support them to make the switch” to heat pumps.
He said: “The boiler upgrade scheme which gives people cash grants to upgrade their boiler will be increased by 50% to seven and a half thousand pounds.
“There are no strings attached. The money will never need to be repaid.”
Landlord efficiency targets scrapped
Mr Sunak has also scrapped plans to force landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties, saying some property owners would have been forced to “make expensive upgrades” within two years and that would inevitably impact renters.
“You could be looking at a bill of £8,000, and even if you’re only renting, you’re more than likely to see some of that passed on in higher rents,” he said.
“That’s just wrong, so those plans will be scrapped.”
Despite the “new approach”, the prime minister insisted the UK would meet its international obligations on climate change – such as those made under the Paris Climate Accords.
He went on to defend the UK’s record, arguing the country is “so far ahead” of other countries in the world when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
PM wants to portray himself as a leader prepared to take unpopular decisions his predecessors weren’t
For all the rhetoric about democracy and real political change – today’s speech was fundamentally about the Prime Minister giving into the concerns of many in his party about the costs of the green policies set out by Boris Johnson’s government.
Labour see these announcements as projecting fundamental political weakness: 20 points behind in the polls and struggling to meet the majority of his five pledges, Rishi Sunak urgently needs to find a way to connect with voters struggling during the cost of living crisis. He’s keen to win over the right wing Tory backbenchers concerned about the electoral danger of expensive environmental policies like the ULEZ expansion which was widely seen to have cost Labour the Uxbridge by election.
It’s an impression underlined by the hurried way the announcement was made – less than 24 hours after these controversial change in tack was leaked to the media, prompting a huge backlash from business and many in his own party. Making such a key speech in the Downing Street media briefing room – rather than to Parliament, also looks chaotic.
It’s sent the Speaker into a fury, earning a humiliating rebuke. “Ministers are answerable to MPs – we do not have a presidential system here,” Sir Lindsey Hoyle thundered. For a man like Mr Sunak, who prides himself on being a sensible pragmatist – the complete opposite to the cavalier Boris Johnson – it’s surely a criticism that will sting, though it’s hardly unexpected.
The irony is that Rishi Sunak opened his speech by pledging to put the long term interests of the country before the short term political needs of the moment. Climate campaigners, for whom nothing could be more urgent, will surely scoff at this.
But in the framing of his speech – as the first of a series of long term policy decisions in a ‘new kind of politics’ – the Prime Minister and his team are keen to burnish his reputation as a pragmatic reformer, prepared to take the kind of unpopular decisions his predecessors weren’t. Certainly many in his party have been calling for a change in approach, a new bolder strategy to set out a greater distance with Labour – and it seems he has been listening.
The PM’s key arguments – that government shouldn’t impose unnecessary or heavy handed costs on hard working people, and relying on the market to drive change – are a return to classic Conservatism.
But his core argument that the need for action is less urgent than we have previously been led to believe, because of the UK’s success in meeting existing climate targets – is not one which will sit easily with green minded MPs.
And while he spent a key part of the speech concentrating on the importance of green technological innovation, and celebrating the power of the market in delivering progress – that will surely stick in the throat of companies who’ve spent billions getting ready to meet targets which have now been delayed. Many in his own party are concerned about the reputational damage to the UK as a centre of business investment.
He’s well aware that today’s message will be deeply unpopular with some – but promised to ‘meet any resistance’. Many Tory MPs will welcome that more bullish approach; but his promise to deliver ‘pragmatism and not ideology’ is pure Sunak.
The question now is in the hands of voters – do they buy into this argument that the country can reach Net Zero by 2050 without many of the policies designed to get there? Or in the midst of the cost of living crisis – will they be delighted to avoid the cost of paying for them?
‘Act of weakness’
Among the critics, Ed Miliband, Labour’s Shadow Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, said: “Today is an act of weakness from a desperate, directionless prime minister, dancing to the tune of a small minority of his party. Liz Truss crashed the economy and Rishi Sunak is trashing our economic future.
“Having delivered the worst cost of living crisis in generations, the prime minister today loads more costs onto the British people.”
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said: “This is a prime minister who simply doesn’t understand and cannot grasp for Britain the opportunities for jobs and our economy of driving forward with action on clean energy.”
There was also criticism from the car industry and energy industry.
Chis Norbury, the chief executive of the E.ON energy firm, said it was a “false argument” that green policies can only come at a cost, arguing they deliver affordable energy while boosting jobs.
He said companies wanting to invest in the UK need “long-term certainty” while communities now risk being condemned to “many more years of living in cold and draughty homes that are expensive to heat”.
Ford cars UK chairwoman Lisa Brankin said: “Our business needs three things from the UK Government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:48
Rishi Sunak is asked if his net zero policy climbdowns are a result of him panicking about the next election.
Tory MPs split
The announcement comes after last night’s leak of the plans sparked a major Tory backlash and even a threat of a no confidence letter.
Mr Sunak was due to give the speech later this week but brought it forward following a hastily arranged cabinet meeting this morning.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle reacted furiously to the announcement not being made to MPs, who are on recess for conferences, expressing his views “in the strongest terms” in a letter to Mr Sunak.
Tory MPs are split, with some seeing the row back on costly green policies as a vote winner and others fearing the impact it will have on business and the climate.
Senior figures who have backed the prime minister include his predecessor Liz Truss, who said: “I welcome the delay on banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars as well as the delay on the ban on oil and gas boilers. This is particularly important for rural areas.”
However Boris Johnson, who Ms Truss briefly took over from, said the row back would cause uncertainty for businesses, adding: “We cannot afford to falter now or in any way lose our ambition for this country.”
Mr Johnson’s ally and prominent Tory environmentalist Lord Zac Goldsmith went as far as to demand a general election over the “economically and ecologically illiterate decision”.
The UK’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050 was written into law in 2019.
Climate scientists say urgent cuts are needed to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions if we are to stop temperatures rising to a potentially catastrophic extent.
“The target was never particularly ambitious,” says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) about Labour’s plan to add two million extra NHS appointments during their first year in power.
In February, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced they had achieved the feat early. He recently described the now 3.6m additional appointments achieved in their first eight months as a “massive increase”.
But new data, obtained by independent fact checking charity Full Fact and shared exclusively with Sky News, reveals this figure actually signalled a slowing down in new NHS activity.
There was an even larger rise of 4.2m extra appointments over the same period the year before, under Rishi Sunak’s government.
The data also reveals how unambitious the target was in the first place.
We now know two million extra appointments over the course of a year represents a rise of less than 3% of the almost 70 million carried out in the year to June 2024.
In the last year under Mr Sunak, the rise was 10% – and the year before that it was 8%.
Responding to the findings, Sarah Scobie, deputy director of independent health and social care think tank the Nuffield Trust, told Sky News the two million target was “very modest”.
She said delivering that number of appointments “won’t come close to bringing the treatment waiting list back to pre-pandemic levels, or to meeting longer-term NHS targets”.
The IFS said it was smaller than the annual growth in demand pressures forecast by the government.
What exactly did Labour promise?
The Labour election manifesto said: “As a first step, in England we will deliver an extra two million NHS operations, scans, and appointments every year; that is 40,000 more appointments every week.”
We asked the government many times exactly how it would measure the pledge, as did policy experts from places like the IFS and Full Fact. But it repeatedly failed to explain how it was defined.
Leo Benedictus, a journalist and fact-checker at Full Fact, told Sky News: “We didn’t know how they were defining these appointments.
“When they said that there would be more of them, we didn’t know what there would be more of.”
Image: Leo Benedictus
Even once in government, initially Labour did not specify their definition of “operations, scans, and appointments”, or what the baseline “extra” was being measured against.
This prevented us and others from measuring progress every month when NHS stats were published. Did it include, for instance, mental health and A&E appointments? And when is the two million extra comparison dating from?
Target met, promise kept?
Suddenly, in February, the government announced the target had already been met – and ever since, progress on appointments has been a key boast of ministers and Labour MPs.
At this point, they did release some information: the definition of procedures that allowed them to claim what had been achieved. They said the target involved is elective – non-emergency – operations excluding maternity and mental health services; outpatient appointments and diagnostic tests.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:05
Why has Starmer axed NHS England?
However, we still did not have a comprehensive baseline to measure the two million increase against.
The government data instead relied on a snapshot: comparing the number of appointments carried out from July to November 2024 with the number from July to November 2023, and adjusted them for the number of working days in each period.
This did not tell us if the NHS had already been adding appointments under the Conservatives, and at what pace, and therefore whether this target was a big impressive ramping up of activity or, as it turns out, actually a slowing down.
Since then, a number of organisations, like Full Fact, have been fighting with the government to release the data.
Mr Benedictus said: “We asked them for that information. They didn’t publish it. We didn’t have it.
“The only way we could get hold of it was by submitting an FOI request, which they had to answer. And when that came back about a month later, it was fascinating.”
This finally gives us the comparative data allowing us to see what the baseline is against which the government’s “success” is being measured.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “On entering office last July, the secretary of state [Wes Streeting] was advised that the fiscal black hole meant elective appointments would have to be cut by 20,000 every week.
“Instead, this government provided the extra investment and has already delivered 3.6 million additional appointments – more than the manifesto commitment the British public voted for – while also getting more patients seen within 18 weeks.
“In the nine months since this government took office, the waiting list has dropped by over 200,000 – more than five times as much as it had over the same period the previous year – and also fell for six consecutive months in a row.”
Image: Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Pic: PA
We put this to Jeremy Hunt, Rishi Sunak’s chancellor during his last two years as prime minister, and health secretary for six years under David Cameron and Theresa May.
He said: “What these numbers seem to show is that the rate of appointments was going up by more in the last government than it is by this government. That’s really disappointing when you look at the crisis in the NHS.
“All the evidence is that if you want to increase the number of people being treated, you need more capacity in the system, and you need the doctors and nurses that are there to be working more productively.
“Instead what we’ve had from this government is the vast majority of the extra funding for the NHS has gone into pay rises, without asking for productivity in return.”
Image: Jeremy Hunt speaks to Sky’s Sam Coates
Edward Argar, shadow health secretary, accused the government of a “weak attempt […] to claim credit for something that was already happening”.
“We need to see real and meaningful reform that will genuinely move the dial for patients,” he added.
Is the NHS getting better or worse?
New polling carried out by YouGov on behalf of Sky News this week also reveals 39% of people think the NHS has got worse over the past year, compared with 12% who think it’s got better.
Six in 10 people say they do not trust Keir Starmer personally on the issue of the NHS, compared with three in 10 who say they do.
That is a better rating than some of his rivals, however. Just 21% of people say they trust Nigel Farage with the NHS, and only 16% trust Kemi Badenoch – compared with 64% and 60% who do not.
Ed Davey performs better, with 30% saying they trust him and 38% saying they do not.
Ms Scobie of the Nuffield Trust told Sky News “the government is right to make reducing long hospital treatment waits a key priority […] but much faster growth in activity is needed for the NHS to see a substantial improvement in waiting times for patients.”
The government is correct, however, to point out the waiting list having dropped by more than 200,000 since it’s been in office. This is the biggest decline between one July and the following February since current waiting list statistics were first published under Gordon Brown.
The percentage of people waiting less than 18 weeks for treatment is also falling for the first time, other than a brief period during the pandemic, for the first time in more than a decade.
The latest figures show 6.25m people waiting for 7.42m treatments (some people are on the list for more than one issue). That means more than one in 10 people in England are currently waiting for NHS treatment.
There continues to be a fall in the number who have been waiting longer than a year. It’s now 180,242, down from almost 400,000 in August 2023 and over 300,000 in June 2024, the Conservatives’ last month in power.
But that number is still incredibly high by historical standards. It remains over 100 times higher than it was before the pandemic.
The government has a separate pledge that no more than 8% of patients will wait longer than 18 weeks for treatment, by the time of the next election. Despite improvements in recent months, currently more than 40% wait longer than this.
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim he is U-turning on cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners because he now has the money is not “credible”, Harriet Harman has said.
The Labour peer, speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, said the prime minister made the move as it was so unpopular with voters.
He and his ministers had insisted they would stick to their guns on the policy, even just hours before Sir Keir revealed his change of heart at PMQs
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
Winter fuel payment cuts to be reversed
Baroness Harman said: “It’s always been contested and always been unpopular.
“But the final straw that broke the camel’s back was the elections. The council elections and the Runcorn by-election, where the voters were saying, ‘this is not the change we voted for’.
“At the end of the day, you cannot just keep flying in the face of what voters – particularly if they’re people who previously voted for you – wanted.”
Baroness Harman is unconvinced by Sir Keir’s claim he can U-turn because there is more money due to good economic management by the government.
“I don’t think that’s credible as an argument,” she said.
“It really is the fact that voters just said ‘this is not the change we voted for, we’re not going to have this’.”
The challenge for the government now, she said, is deciding who will get the allowance moving forward, when they’ll get it, and when it will all be announced.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked into the government’s options after Sir Keir Starmer said he is considering changes to the cut to winter fuel payment (WFP).
The government could make a complete U-turn on removing the payment from pensioners not claiming pension credit so they all receive it again.
There could be a higher eligibility threshold. Households not claiming pension credit could apply directly for the winter fuel payment, reporting their income and other circumstances.
Or, all pensioner households could claim it but those above a certain income level could do a self-assessment tax return to pay some of it back as a higher income tax charge. This could be like child benefit, where the repayment is based on the higher income member of the household.
Instead of reducing pension credit by £1 for every £1 of income, it could be withdrawn more slowly to entitle more households to it, and therefore WFP.
At the moment, WFP is paid to households but if it was paid to individuals the government could means-test each pensioner, rather than their household. This could be based on an individual’s income, which the government already records for tax purposes. Individuals who have a low income could get the payment, even if their spouse is high income. This would mean low income couples getting twice as much, whereas each eligible house currently gets the same.
Instead of just those receiving pension credit getting WFP, the government could extend it to pensioners who claim means-tested welfare for housing or council tax support. A total of 430,000 renting households would be eligible at a cost of about £100m a year.
Pensioners not on pension credit but receiving disability credits could get WFP, extending eligibility to 1.8m households in England and Scotland at a cost of about £500m a year.
Pensioners living in a band A-C property could be automatically entitled to WFP, affected just over half (6.3m).
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has committed to just one major fiscal event a year, meaning just one annual budget in the autumn.
Autumn budgets normally take place in October, with the last one at the end of the month.
If this year’s budget is around the same date, it will leave little time for the extra winter fuel payments to be made, as they are paid between November and December.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told the Electoral Dysfunction podcast the economy will have to be “strong enough” for the government to U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts.
He also said the public would have to wait for the budget for any announcement.
Before that, there had been calls for festivals to reconsider booking the band over their political stances, and several have done, which prompted artists like Brian Eno, the Mystery Jets and CMAT to sign an open letter accusing Westminster and the British media of a campaign to “remove Kneecap from the public eye”.
They put their names to wording that said “in a democracy, no political figures… have the right to dictate who does and does not play at music festivals.”
So what’s the reality like for artists who are outspoken at a time when the world is so divided?
As some of the biggest names in music gathered in London for the Ivors, an annual celebration of songwriting, Self-Esteem – aka Rebecca Lucy Taylor – said the level of scrutiny can be “terrifying”.
‘The problem with the internet’
She told Sky News: “The problem with the internet is you say one thing, which gets scrutinised, and then you shit yourself, you really do… then you’re advised not to. And then you’re like ‘don’t advise me not to!’
“You second-guess anything you want to say any more… but any time I do that, I think ‘well that’s why you’ve got to say it then’.”
She said it can be frustrating that focus turns on to pop stars’ opinions instead of “the people doing the bad things”.
Former Little Mix singer Jade said: “To be a pop artist these days, it’s not just about music, it’s: ‘What’s your political stance?’
“I’ve always been quite vocal about those things, but in doing so you have even more of a scary spotlight on you, constantly assessing what your thoughts are as a human…it is scary.”
Trinidad-born London artist Berwyn, whose songs depict his struggles with UK immigration, says: “Silencing freedom of speech… is a road we don’t want to walk down.
“I’m not a politician, this is a very complicated issue, but I do absolutely believe in a human’s right to express themselves freely.”
But is that freedom of speech dependent on what side you’re coming from?
Image: Berwyn speaking to Sky News
‘Unethical investments’
Soon, an event called Mighty Hoopla will take place at Brockwell Park as part of its programme of six festivals this summer.
Artists performing at that are coming under increased pressure from pro-Palestine groups to quit because it’s owned by a company called Superstruct, which has links to an American investment firm called KKR.
Critics argue that any KKR-affiliated events should be a red flag to artists as campaigners claim it “invests billions of pounds in companies” that do things like “develop Israeli underground data centres”, and they say it has shares in companies that “advertise property on illegally occupied land in the West Bank”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Mighty Hoopla itself has said while it “cannot control investments made in our parent companies”, it wants to “state its clear opposition to KKR’s unethical investments”.
And Superstruct – which puts on over 80 festivals around the world – says while horrified by the crisis in Gaza: “We are aware that there is a significant amount of debate… around our festivals.
“Our owners, made up of our promoters and several investment firms, support us to achieve the highest standards… fans and artists rightly expect.”
They insist that operationally, Superstruct is independently run and all its “revenue and profits… remains entirely within our business… towards the ongoing development… of our festivals.”
Even deciding where to perform can have political connotations for musicians these days.
As Tom Gray, a founding member of the rock band Gomez, now chair of the Ivors, explains: “The amount of commercial interest required to get a young artist into the public eye means they have to keep their head down a lot and that’s a terrible shame.
“It’s not just artistic expression, but personal human expression is one of the fundamental things that allows people to feel they have agency.”