Burnham asks Chancellor and Energy Secretary to review removing gas standing charges

Unbiased summary

At Prime Minister's Questions, Andy Burnham said he had asked Chancellor John Healey and Energy Security Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh to examine whether standing charges on gas bills could be removed and to report back to the Commons. Standing charges are fixed daily fees averaging about 29.7p for gas, or roughly £108 a year, and are set within Ofgem's price cap. Removing them would require recovering the cost through the gas unit rate, so savings would be limited; research group Nesta estimates a typical dual-fuel household would save about £27 a year, with poorer, low-usage households benefiting most. Burnham gave no timeline or detail. The same session also saw the government confirm the Jackdaw gas field and announce a £2bn Energy Wealth Fund.

Generated with deepseek-flash (DeepSeek)

Coverage by outlet

i Paper centre

Angle Consumer-focused explainer on how much households could save from abolishing gas standing charges.

Bias The i Paper stays close to the policy mechanics but frames the story primarily through household savings, giving prominent space to Nesta's £27 estimate and to which groups benefit most. It largely omits the political context covered elsewhere, such as the Jackdaw approval and the lack of a government timetable, and does not scrutinise Burnham's 'unfair' description. Its deviation is mainly one of emphasis rather than factual distortion.

How your gas bill could fall if Burnham removes standing charges

City AM centre-right

Angle Government economic policy and energy security story, linking the standing-charge review to Jackdaw drilling and investment announcements.

Bias City AM accurately reports the standing-charge request but gives substantial weight to the Jackdaw gas field, the Energy Wealth Fund and a forthcoming growth boost, framing the announcement within a pro-growth, energy-security narrative. It underplays consumer-savings detail, omitting Nesta's £27 figure and the distributional impact on poorer households. The overall account is factual but selective in emphasis.

Healey weighs removing standing charges on gas bills

Daily Mail right

Angle Sceptical political framing that casts Burnham as refusing to give details and highlights fears some people would be worse off.

Bias The Mail emphasises Burnham's lack of detail, Downing Street's refusal to give a timetable, and the risk that higher-use households could lose out, while also foregrounding the Jackdaw approval and Kemi Badenoch's attack on Labour's drilling ban. It reports the Nesta £27 saving and the 86% versus 24% distributional finding only in its second article, and its first piece omits them entirely, skewing toward a critical, process-focused narrative. The coverage strays from neutral by magnifying uncertainty and political conflict over the policy's consumer impact.

PM says he is 'looking' at taking standing charges off gas bills - but refuses to give details amid fears some people would end up worse off

Could gas standing charges be axed from energy bills? Burnham asks Chancellor to see if it's 'feasible'