Question
The Government’s use of the outdated council tax system to roll out their energy support package has led to an absurd situation whereby between 800,000 and 1.4 million people on low incomes will miss out on the £100, while a wealthy couple who have retired early and have downsized are set to benefit. There is absolutely no excuse for this. The Government could have followed our plan to use existing DWP and HMRC data to roll out a targeted essential energy guarantee, getting the most help to those who need it most, so why on earth did they not do so?
Answer
The hon. Lady disappoints me. Nine out of 10 of the poorest households will benefit from the £100 direct payment. Four out of five households in total—20 million—will benefit from this. She will have seen in the Budget that, for those who do struggle, I have also put an extra £100 million into the special fund that local authorities have to administer. They can make payments in hardship cases for those under extreme pressure, and I encourage her to point people to that.17% point-scoring
Verdict: AMBER (27/100)
The reply defends the council tax route by pointing to its reach and targeting, and mentions an extra £100m hardship fund. It does not answer the core of the question, which was why the targeted essential energy guarantee was rejected in favour of council tax, and it gives no comparison with DWP or HMRC data. Because the reply stays general and leaves the comparison unaddressed, a member of the public would likely need to ask again for the specific reasoning.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Why the Government did not follow the opposition's proposal to use existing DWP and HMRC data to roll out a targeted essential energy guarantee, instead of using the council tax system for its energy support package. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply defends the council tax route by citing reach and targeting (nine in ten of the poorest households and four in five households benefit) and points to the extra £100m hardship fund. It never mentions DWP or HMRC data, never describes the proposed targeted essential energy guarantee, and gives no reason for rejecting it, so the comparison the question asks for is left unanswered. Statement 1 is rhetorical with no substantive reason. |