Caroline Flint
Main Page: Caroline Flint (Labour - Don Valley)(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that soaring energy bills are driving up inflation, contributing to a cost of living crisis afflicting millions of families, and that the energy market is not serving the public interest; notes the motion passed by this House on 19 October 2011 calling on the Government to investigate mis-selling, simplify tariffs, increase transparency of trading data, require energy companies to use their profits to help with bills this winter and reform the energy market to increase competition and drive down energy bills; regrets that since then the Government has failed to deliver on any of these measures; further notes that consumer efforts to control their energy bills have been undermined by cuts to the Feed-in Tariff and Warm Front scheme, and that there are serious concerns about whether the Green Deal will be taken up by, and work for, consumers; notes that over 90 per cent. of eligible families will not receive the Warm Homes Discount in 2012; calls on the Government to require energy companies to provide the lowest tariff to over 75s and use their profits to ensure that all families eligible for Cold Weather Payments receive the Warm Homes Discount; and further calls on the Government to reform the energy market to make it competitive and responsible, to cut VAT on home improvements to 5 per cent. for 12 months and to ensure that the Green Deal is offered on fair terms to consumers which will deliver real savings in energy bills.
May I wish you a happy new year, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Less than three months ago, the Opposition warned that soaring energy bills were driving up inflation, squeezing household budgets and contributing to the cost of living crisis afflicting millions of families. We warned, too, that trust in the energy sector had fallen to dangerously low levels as people grew sick and tired of the energy companies’ sharp practices. We set out a clear plan to provide real help now, as well as to reform the way in which our energy market works. We called on the Government to investigate the scandal of mis-selling, and to ensure that people were properly compensated. We also urged them to simplify tariffs, in order to put an end to the disgrace of four out of five families paying more for their energy than they needed to. We asked for more transparency on energy companies’ trading data, so that the public could see for themselves how much the companies were paying for their energy, as well as how much they were charging for it. We argued for a radical overhaul of the way in which our energy market was structured, to break the dominance of the big six and increase competition in order to drive down bills for families and businesses. We also called on the Government to make the energy companies use their record profits to help people with their bills this winter.
The Government did something unusual—so unusual that the Government Whip on the Front Bench at the time seemed surprised by it. They backed our motion. They agreed to support our plans. Indeed, commenting on the Labour motion, the Secretary of State said that
“there is nothing we disagree with”.
He went on to say that
“sympathy from the sidelines is not enough. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to help.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 944.]
Today, however, the scale of the Government’s failure is clear. More families are in fuel poverty and struggling to heat their homes. Consumer Focus says that a quarter of all households in England and Wales—5.7 million in all—are now in fuel poverty. National Energy Action fears that the figure could be as high as 6.6 million. These are levels not seen since the dog days of the last Conservative Government. The number of households in debt to their electricity and gas suppliers is up, too, but energy companies’ profit margins are still in excess of £100 per customer per year.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
It is all very well for the right hon. Lady to lecture the Government, but in the last six years of the Labour Government, the number of households in fuel poverty rose by 2.8 million. Is she proud of that record?
Caroline Flint
I am proud of the fact that, by the time we left government, there were 1 million fewer people in fuel poverty. That included 500,000 in the most vulnerable households. The fact is that we took measures to tackle fuel poverty. Is there more to do? Yes. But what is happening now is that the figures are going up and, as I will demonstrate, this Government are not helping; they are hurting.
Confidence in the energy companies is at a near record low. Less than half of the public are satisfied with their energy supplier, yet energy company bosses have awarded themselves huge pay rises and bumper bonuses totalling millions of pounds. Complaints to the energy companies have soared, often over dodgy tariffs or incorrect billing or meter readings. There have been 4 million complaints in the past year alone, and the figure has gone up by 26% in the last three months. Today’s Which? report shows that one in five customers who have had problems with their energy supplier did not even make a complaint, and that nine out of 10 complaints are unresolved and never make it to the energy ombudsman. As much as £4 million in compensation is going unclaimed. There are real concerns about whether the watchdogs, the consumer groups, and organisations such as the energy ombudsman and Ofgem have the powers that they need to protect the public. We need to think clearly about the kind of infrastructure that is needed to ensure that those organisations do their job.
Time and again, we see a Government who are not just out of touch but completely unable to stand up to vested interests in the energy industry. Far from doing everything they can to help, this Government are making things worse, not better, for millions of hard-working families. Their failing economic policies mean that the average family faces the worst squeeze on income since records began in the 1950s, with families and children hardest hit.
What, then, are the Government doing to help people? What have they done for pensioners forced to choose this winter between heating their homes and having a hot meal? They have cut the winter fuel allowance, despite promising not to. We have been honest that under a future Labour Government that might be something that we cannot reverse, but let us be clear about the facts. Before the election, we warned that the Conservatives wanted to cut the winter fuel allowance. In response, the Prime Minister said:
“We would keep the winter fuel allowance. Let me take this opportunity to say very clearly, to any pensioner who is watching this or reading any of these reports, I know that you are getting letters from the Labour party saying the Conservatives would cut the winter fuel allowance…Those statements from Labour are quite simply lies.”
Our 12.7 million pensioners now know that we were not lying.
The Government, however, have tried to change the story. Now they like to say that the decision had already been taken by the last Government. Even today, the Prime Minister repeated that allegation. It is simply not true. When Labour left office, the decision had not yet been taken. It was perfectly within the Government’s power to continue with the extra payment, as Labour Chancellors had in previous years, but they chose not to. This Government took the decision in last year’s Budget—and they should take responsibility for it.
Caroline Flint
The difference between Labour Members and Government Members is that we do not just give up; we look to find other ways to help pensioners with their fuel bills. Nobody should have to pay more for their energy bills than they need to. This is especially important for pensioners over 75 who are more susceptible to the cold and least able to take advantage of online deals. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced yesterday that, to start with, we would ensure that all pensioners over 75 got the lowest tariff on offer, saving them up to £200 a year—on the Government’s figures, not ours. There might be less money around, but for those 4 million pensioners, Labour can still deliver fairness in these tough times—not by spending more money, but by saying to the big six energy companies that, at a time when people are struggling yet they are enjoying strong profits, they must act in a way that is responsible and fair to the public.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that whatever the situation with the winter fuel allowance, one thing that would have put a lot more money into pensioners’ pockets is the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings—something Labour promised in 1997. They failed to deliver that yet we delivered in our first Budget, which will bring about a record rise in pensions this year?
Caroline Flint
One of the first actions taken by the Labour Government after winning in 1997 was to look at the situation of the poorest pensioners in our country, many of whom were women who had never been able to earn enough to have a second pension. We had priorities in respect of what we were going to achieve—pension credit, the winter fuel payment, other support through the Warm Front scheme: we did more for pensioners than any Government for generations. What is happening is that we are now going backwards, not forwards.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not what people say, but what they do? The last Labour Government took pensioners and families out of poverty, while introducing help and assistance for fuel costs. This Government have cut fuel cost assistance and are putting more people into poverty. Is that not the difference—not what we say, but what we do?
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: actions speak louder than words. The actions going on at the moment mean that the number of people in fuel poverty is going up and there is less support coming forward to help the most vulnerable. We are heading for a car crash when the Warm Front scheme ends and we wait to see whether the green deal will happen in a way that will help people. I shall say a little more about that later, and I am sure my hon. Friends will want to make some points about it in their contributions.
Let us talk about helping low-income families with their energy bills. The Secretary of State likes to boast about the warm home discount scheme. He says it is a statutory scheme and that Labour had only voluntary agreements—never mind that those voluntary agreements secured £375 million to help almost 1.6 million households with their energy bills over three years. What the Secretary of State forgets to say is that the present scheme exists only because Labour legislated for it when we were in office. When the present Government decided to take it on, we warned that, on the basis of their plans, they could exclude hundreds of thousands of people from the help that they needed.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said
“there are concerns about the make-up of the broader group and the discretion given to energy companies to fund it.”
She asked for assurances
“that the Government will evaluate how effective the discretionary nature of the broader group will be and, if necessary, take steps to expand the core group if households are falling through the gap”.—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 28 March 2011; c. 6.]
The Government did not heed those warnings, and, as research by Save the Children revealed last week, only 3% of families who are eligible for help from the warm home discount scheme will receive the support to which they are entitled this year.
The Secretary of State may try to tell us that more people will be helped as the scheme develops, but those families need help now, not in three or four years’ time. This is not about spending more money or adding to customers’ bills; it is about standing up to vested interests in the sector, and telling them that they have a responsibility to their customers and to the public.
The Government are not only cutting help for people in need, however. They are also hitting families who want to do their bit—who want to do the right thing, to have more control over their energy bills, and to make their homes more energy-efficient. The Government’s disastrous and chaotic cuts in the feed-in tariff for solar power will be back in court on Friday. In defence of their plans, Ministers have been forced to resort to ever more outlandish claims about how much it is costing the public. First it was £26 a year, then it was £40, then it was £80. The actual figure—what it is really costing consumers—is just 21p per household per year, compared with average bills in excess of £1,300. What the Government do not seem to understand is that one of the reasons why so many people, especially pensioners, chose to install solar was the fact that it enabled them to control their energy use and cut their bills.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Today the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change heard some of my constituents give evidence on the issue of off-grid energy. May I ask a simple question? Is the Opposition’s policy to regulate it—yes or no?
Caroline Flint
We have had a number of debates on the subject. One of the problems with off-grid energy is that some of the schemes that the Government are coming up with do not help the people who are affected by it. I shall say more about that later in the context of the green deal. There are real questions about who will be excluded, but we are talking today about energy prices, and about what we can do to make the market more competitive and responsible.
I look forward greatly to learning what the Select Committee has discussed in relation to off-grid energy, and will think about some of its recommendations. We will make up our own minds about what we should do, but I acknowledge that there is a problem. During the three months for which I have had my present job, it has arisen many times in debates. I also acknowledge that there are insulation problems for many people in rural communities whose homes have solid walls. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse today, but he can be reassured that the issue is on my radar.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee made it clear that the statutory protections that exist under the licences for mains gas or electricity supply do not exist for off-grid gas customers, who are the vulnerable customers. Will my right hon. Friend at least consider committing the Opposition to regulation if the code of practice that the industry is seeking to introduce on a voluntary basis is inadequate to secure such protections for those customers?
Caroline Flint
I feel that the time has come for us to take stock of our position. The first line of the motion refers to an energy sector that works in the public interest. That does mean that we can still support competition, and I think there should be more competition in the sector. For all types of energy—on-grid and off-grid—it is time that we had another look at what is happening in the market. For me, energy is not like buying a phone or a car; rather, it is essential to life, and therefore a higher order of accountability is required. I will be very happy to look at the issues raised by the Committee. Select Committees are useful for the Opposition as well as the Government. I will be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and to see what the Select Committee comes up with, but I think the time for standing by has passed.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
In Blurton in my constituency, there was the fantastic sight of houses having photovoltaic panels erected on their roofs, but the project that E.ON had with Stoke-on-Trent city council covering thousands of houses across the city has now been cut short. E.ON said to me that it understands why the Government were looking at the issues of feed-in tariffs and the cost, but it cannot understand why it was given six weeks to complete projects that were going to take five weeks to bring in.
Caroline Flint
It is always very helpful to hear of real examples. We have listened to many smaller businesses in this sector of course, but even the big six energy companies have concerns about the way the Government have gone about changing the rules on solar. Sadly, about 100,000 social homes may not get solar in the future because of these changes. We all agree that the tariff should come down, but, aside from that point, if the Government’s plans go ahead, people will only be able to have solar if their home is a category C residence in terms of efficiency, and therefore about nine out of 10 homes in England will no longer have the option of having solar even under the changed rules and tariff. This is another example of bad management of a project that was clearly popular among the public and that has created jobs—the sector is one of the few that has experienced growth.
In the long run, we know that the most sustainable way for people to cut their bills is for them to use less energy.
“Energy efficiency is a no-brainer because it makes homes warmer and cheaper to run.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State from back in September, but what has actually happened on his watch? The number of families getting help to insulate their homes or make them more energy efficient has plummeted.
Let us take the month of April as a point of comparison. In April 2010, the month before the general election, more than 15,000 households got insulation measures through Warm Front. In April 2011, just six households got insulation through Warm Front—not 6,000, 600 or even 60, but just six. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), has said that this year he expects 50,000 households to get help with insulation through Warm Front, but so far fewer than 15,000 properties have been helped—not even a third of what the Minister promised. On the current trend, fewer than 20,000 households will get help with insulation this year, a fall of more than 90% on what we delivered in our last year in office.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady is making completely the wrong point. Warm Front does not deliver insulation; it introduces heating systems for people who do not have heating systems. Insulation is primarily the responsibility of CERT, the carbon emissions reduction target, and CESP, the community energy saving programme. Warm Front is not primarily an insulation programme. Perhaps she would like to try again.
Caroline Flint
Well, I have to say that some of my constituents have had help with things such as boilers, heating and also insulation.
Robert Flello
I am deeply troubled by the Minister’s intervention. If he visits my constituency, I will take him to houses that have had loft insulation put in through the Warm Front scheme, and to properties that have had replacement boiler systems fitted, not systems fitted for the first time. That is not the point he made a moment ago, as he will see if he checks Hansard.
Caroline Flint
The truth is that the Government are not on the same planet as most of the rest of us.
What the Minister did not answer is why the number of homes being fitted with insulation went down from 15,000 to six within a year. That is the question the Government should answer today. Let us be clear: when Warm Front is finally abolished next year, this will be the first Administration since the 1970s not to have a Government-funded energy efficiency programme in place. That is disgraceful. But, it is okay, because they say, “Don’t worry, we’ve got the green deal.” However, real questions have to be addressed about whether the green deal will be offered on fair terms and will actually deliver real energy bill savings, and whether it will really work for the public.
Let us start with the interest rates. Time and again, Ministers have been asked what sort of finance will be available to households interested in taking up the green deal. Time and again, they have failed to provide a straight answer. The reality is that if the level of interest is too high, given all the other pressures that families face at the moment, they will just not be interested in taking it up. Polling conducted by the Great British Refurb Campaign found that only 7% of home owners would be interested in taking up the green deal if the interest rate was 6% or more. However, we are hearing that the rate could be as high as 8% or 10%, so I ask the Secretary of State again today whether he can assure us that the green deal will be offered on fair terms and at a fair rate to the public.
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor also announced £200 million to provide incentives for the green deal. We still do not know what that money will be spent on or how it will encourage take-up. Most important of all, the fundamental idea behind the green deal—the “golden rule”, as the Government like to call it—is that the savings from better energy efficiency should cover the costs of the green deal. That is the promise being made to the public, but on looking at the small print, it is clear that the golden rule is not so golden after all. There is no guarantee that bills will not be higher after the green deal. If there is no guarantee, there is a real concern about the potential for mis-selling. The danger of what might happen out there is obvious: people will say, “We’re a Government-backed scheme—we promise you this”, but down the road they will not deliver. This measure will not balance out the costs that people are having to pay. In the light of stories about people not saving money or unwittingly inheriting higher energy bills after buying a green deal property, any credibility the scheme had will be shot to pieces.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Will the right hon. Lady consider the fact that after a green deal installation, people might find themselves in a home that is at least warm, even if their bill is the same? They might not have saved any money, but they will for the first time be warm in their homes.
Caroline Flint
The warmth issue is not really part of the equation. The question of what this measure should mean has been discussed in Committee. The “golden rule” is about people saving money. With all due respect to the hon. Lady, the problem is that the scheme should be far further forward than it is. We already know from what has happened with solar that a number of businesses doubt whether they are going to enter the field to work within the green deal. For example, those involved in insulation are worried about the measure’s impact on the work they do, an issue I will say a little more about later.
So many questions have been left unanswered, and any Government scheme that allows anyone to go out and say that they are Government-backed has to stand up to scrutiny. We have to make sure, first, that the public are not priced out of taking part, but we must also ensure that they do not become the victims of cowboys involved in the scheme.
Caroline Flint
I am going to make a bit of progress. The Department of Energy and Climate Change website actually states:
“The Warm Front scheme provides heating and insulation improvements to households on certain income-related benefits”,
and it goes on to refer to grants for loft insulation and draught-proofing—I rest my case.
Perhaps the Government will also respond to firms, such as those I have met, undertaking cavity wall insulation, which provide a sensible, professional product under the carbon emissions reduction target—CERT—scheme. Some 6 million homes have cavity walls without insulation, and 10 million lofts do not have insulation. That provides enough work for a whole industry to do—work that is good both for the public and for the environment. However, I understand that, under Government proposals, if this work is to be undertaken under the green deal, a full assessment of the property will have to be made—the householder’s lifestyle and behaviour will be included in this. The assessment sounds as if it will have to be paid for by the consumer, yet the work that they wish to have done may be blindingly obvious. I hope that the Government will ensure that the public and businesses are still able to improve the energy-efficiency of homes without being forced through a bureaucratic and unnecessarily costly process.
With the end of the Warm Front scheme, and of the community energy saving programme and CERT, what will happen to families in fuel poverty, or in hard-to-treat homes, for whom the green deal might not be suitable? The Government’s solution is the energy company obligation—ECO—but only a quarter of the money from ECO will help households in fuel poverty; the rest will go to able-to-pay households. So the Government’s promise that ECO will do more to tackle fuel poverty than either CERT or the Warm Front scheme just does not stack up. In what way is ECO’s £325 million a year for fuel-poor homes greater than last year’s Warm Front budget of £370 million or the CERT spending of nearly £600 million on priority groups?
We know that as well as coming up with policies, even in these tough times, to help families with spiralling energy bills now, we must also reform the energy industry to secure a new bargain in the future. I have said it before and I am going to say it again: to start with we have to deal with the sheer number and complexity of tariffs on offer. We have 400 tariffs, with about 70 new ones in the past year. They are confusing and unfair, and they must be reformed. At his infamous energy summit in the autumn, the Secretary of State implored people to switch. Perhaps he could tell us today exactly how many people took his advice and switched, and how much they have saved. The problem is not that people are not shopping around enough; the real problem is that there are too many tariffs on offer, that they are too complicated to understand and that even when people do switch, they do not always get a better deal.
Mr Watts
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the energy companies have made the tariff system as complicated as they can? Is it not a fact that even when people do switch and take the Prime Minister’s advice, they often find that they get a worse deal than the one they started with?
Caroline Flint
I am afraid that that is the case. I have met a number of the energy companies over the past few months and they are obviously hurting as a result of the public criticism being directed their way. However, when we examine today’s Which? report, we find that 4 million people complained in the past year and that the number of complaints rose by 26% in the past three months, so something is seriously not right. The real problem is that there are too many tariffs on offer. Having more than 400 tariffs is not about competition or choice, and it does not serve the public interest; it serves only the interests of the energy companies. So we need, as we have said before, a simple new tariff structure that is clearer and fairer, and that will help all customers to get a better deal. I know that consultations are going on at the moment, but the Government really need to step up the pressure. We should not be unable to knock a few heads together, and we need to do that sooner rather than later. We must keep the pressure on as that is the only way to make the companies change. The Which? report has highlighted the terrible situation with bills that were overestimated or incorrect as well as the mis-selling that went on in the past. We need a proper investigation and proper compensation for people who have been ripped off. Only then will we start to rebuild trust in our energy companies.
As well as a more responsive energy industry, we need a more competitive energy market. The energy market is dominated by just six firms that supply more than 99% of electricity and gas. Today we heard that EDF will cut its gas prices by 5%, but the public will ask why energy companies are still so quick to put up people’s bills when wholesale prices go up but slow to bring them down when they fall as well as when the other big energy companies will follow suit.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I have in front of me a copy from the EU website of the gas prices for every country in Europe and it would appear that the UK has the fourth lowest gas price of the 27. What is the right hon. Lady’s analysis of why that has happened?
Caroline Flint
First, that is not about the point I was making, but is the hon. Gentleman defending the way in which prices have soared in the past year? Is he defending the companies’ atrocious record in dealing with people’s complaints? I would not stand in his shoes and make that case. The truth is that prices need to be transparent and we need to know how they are arrived at. It is quite clear—it has been proved by an Ofgem report and the Secretary of State might back me up on this point—that there is evidence that when prices go up the bills go up far quicker than they come down when prices fall.
Caroline Flint
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
The bigger issue is how we carry out a root-and-branch reform of the energy market for the future.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, and she is making a very good point. Rather than asking EDF why it is reducing the price by 5%, should we not be asking why it is doing so two months after putting it up by 15%?
Caroline Flint
It was actually 15.4%, but I do not want to be churlish. I am pleased that the prices have come down, but part of what we are seeing from the energy companies is due to the fact that they are starting to smart from the criticism levelled at them. The problem is getting worse and, as I have said, complaints have gone up and prices, which went up steadily over the past few years, have soared in the past year. We are not the establishment—the Government are, they are in the driving seat and they have the tools to do something about it. I only wish they would.
We must ask the fundamental questions, and the fundamental problem in defining whether prices are reasonable and fair and considering the other pressures on those prices is the fact that we are hampered by the lack of transparency in the market. The energy companies that generate energy sell it on to themselves and then on to customers. If the few big dominant firms were forced to sell the power they generate to any retailer, companies such as supermarkets and other independent retailers—like Good Energy, which came top of the poll for customer service in the Which? report—could play more of a role in the market. There would then be more competition and the upward pressure on prices would be eased.
Times are tough, we all know that, and we know that it means difficult decisions must be made. When times are tough, fairness is our first priority but, unfortunately, for the Government fairness is the first casualty. Millions of families and pensioners across the country are struggling with their energy bills and a cost of living crisis, but the Government are so out of touch that they are making things worse rather than better. They are cutting the help people get with their energy bills and scaling back on energy efficiency. By failing to stand up to the energy companies, they are letting down the public. We know that people need real help now and a more responsible and competitive energy market for the future. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One of the first things I did on becoming Secretary of State was to ask for a serious look at the issue. It is unfortunately much more complicated than one might suppose at first glance, not least because there is such an enormous variation in energy use in different income groups. For example, among the poorest people measured by income, the variation in energy use, off the top of my head, was as much as a multiple of six. There could be dramatically different effects from a rising block tariff, which do not correspond neatly to what the hon. Gentleman and I would want.
We want the companies to take more account of the wholesale market. Up like a rocket and down like a feather—that was the old days, and it must end. I agree with the right hon. Member for Don Valley in her points on that, although I note that Ofgem did not find evidence that that was the case. We are helping, through greater competition, to get the consumer the best deal and we have done a great deal to defend the consumer interest over the past 20 months—rather more, I would say, than the right hon. Lady’s Government did in 13 years.
Caroline Flint
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? How many consumers have switched since the energy summit?
Chris Huhne
I will let the right hon. Lady know the information as soon as we have it. When it is available, I will write to her.
It is important to get the message across that households can save money not only by switching supplier, but by using less energy. Insulating lofts and walls can cut energy bills. The six largest energy suppliers all offer free or cut-price insulation, yet many households still have not taken up the offer. That is why the Government are writing to 4 million of the most vulnerable energy customers to tell them that they are eligible for free or heavily discounted loft or cavity wall insulation, and I am pleased to say that the initiative has been funded by suppliers.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure and honour to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), whose defence of his constituents is always reasonable and valiant. I think he is right to this extent—that appealing to people to switch supplier will not be the entire cure for problems in the energy market. The reason for that is that the energy market is broken, so competition will not work entirely. It can work to a certain extent, but not entirely, if the market cannot deliver what the consumer wants.
To understand how to fix the market, we have to look at the history of the market and why it went wrong. If we look at energy prices, we find that they have moved since the privatisation of the late ’80s. They fell consistently beneath the retail prices index every year from the late ’80s and the early 2000s. They did so over a longer period than at any time since records of energy prices began. Then, from the mid-2000s they levelled out, and from 2005 to 2007 they increased further than RPI until 2010 when the last Government left office.
I am fully aware that this is often not a moment to talk about the previous Government’s record, but they had a fundamental hand to play in the reasons why we are in the position we are in now. It is also incumbent on us to point out that much of the responsibility lies with the man whose name stands at the head of the motion who seeks to lead the British public as Prime Minister after the next election. He is responsible for the complete lack of action taken to do anything about the broken energy market, which has caused the problems from which our constituents, including those of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, suffer today.
In a debate earlier in the Session, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—who is now shouting from a sedentary position—said that reform of the electricity market was
“what my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has been calling for ever since he was Energy Secretary, including now, as leader of the Labour party.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 931.]
A Secretary of State does not call for a reform of the energy market, or of the electricity market. The right hon. Gentleman’s purpose should have been to do something about the situation, but far from doing something about it—or even calling for something to be done about it—he issued the following warning to the then Opposition Front-Bench team during a 2009 debate on the Energy Bill:
“I have to say that the alarmism... is of no help at all.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 43.]
It was not alarmism, however. We understood that the market was broken, and we understood that fundamental changes were needed. That is why we are introducing the changes that need to be made now that we are in power.
My first problem with the proposals in the motion is that they do not have the agreement of even small energy providers, who say that the right hon. Lady’s pooling mechanism would not work.
Ben Gummer
I can tell the right hon. Lady, in answer to her sedentary question, that even the small providers have put that on record.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady alluded to a series of reforms that she believes would combat fuel poverty. That suggested that the last Government’s attempts had somehow been successful, or would be successful were they to be continued. In that earlier debate, the right hon. Lady also said:
“we had the most ambitious programme to help people in fuel poverty deal with their bills”. —[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 932.]
Let me remind her of that policy. Between 2000 and 2008 the last Government spent £20 billion on abatement of fuel costs, and what happened to fuel poverty during that period? It increased by 333%. That was indeed ambitious. It was ambitious to the extent that for every household the Labour party put into fuel poverty, the taxpayer paid £5,700. The taxpayer paid £5,700 to reduce a household to fuel poverty, yet Labour Members have had the cynicism to come to the House and claim that their policies would work again, and that the brave and principled position of Her Majesty’s Government is somehow misguided. It is a hypocrisy which lays bare a party that has no ideas of its own, and is reduced to attacking its own record.