Alan Duncan
Main Page: Alan Duncan (Conservative - Rutland and Melton)(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend has made an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), the shadow Transport Secretary, has suggested that we should compare what happens in the energy markets that I cover and what happens when it comes to ensuring that our cars and buses can run, along with all other forms of transport that rely on diesel and petrol. At the heart of debates such as this is the issue of how markets work and whether they are competitive enough. I hope we all agree that, in a truly competitive market of any kind, when wholesale costs come down those reductions are passed on to the consumer, but—as others have pointed out—that is clearly not happening now, at least in the markets that I cover.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady explain what she thinks a wholesale price actually is, and how she thinks supply contracts are priced?
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Populist posturing is a sick and cheap form of politics, and the motion pretends that if only Labour were elected, there is a quick and easy way of reducing energy prices. The Opposition are promising something that will not be delivered and they know it, and they are promising something which simply cannot be delivered in the way they say.
The policy of the Opposition is the worst conceivable combination of ignorance and deceit, and it labels them as ill equipped to look after the economy. Their ignorance of markets and their Canute-like pretence that they can control prices in the way they propose is pitiful in its fantasy and it is irresponsible. The Labour party is saying that the tide can go out, but that it has the power to stop it coming in.
Energy markets are complicated and multifaceted. None of them enjoys the direct, simple, linear relationship described in the Labour party’s policy and motion. Any such correlation is not the way of the real world. I have been involved on and off in the energy markets, principally in oil, for 35 years. Oil, gas and coal in their pricing are interrelated. They tend to move similarly. The only sector that enjoys a modicum of economic independence and segregation is nuclear, to which one might add, to a lesser extent, wind. But the dominant marker for these major providers of the source of energy, and hence utility bills, is oil. It determines in broad terms the cost of energy for power generation, heating and transport.
I started in the business over 30 years ago, and we now have the free market in oil that we did not use to have. When that changed, the nature of pricing also changed. Our own North sea oil Brent became a marker crude for contract pricing, so instead of fixed prices—30 bucks for everybody, going from one company all the way through that company to the end—we got a free market. That market means that here we are in January, but Brent crude is priced for March and April, and if it is a barrel of oil it has to be shipped and refined, so it takes time—perhaps four months—for prices to work their way through from the wellhead to the pump.
Albert Owen
My first job was as a galley boy on an oil tanker in the middle east, so I know a little bit about oil from a different perspective from the right hon. Gentleman’s. He says people are ignorant of the facts. Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said that the best way to deal with the issue is to
“give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made”?
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. Is he criticising us for repeating what the Prime Minister said? Does he agree with the leader of his party?
Sir Alan Duncan
I totally agree with the Prime Minister. What we want is a competitive market—I agree with him—not the control of prices by a regulator, whom the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) seems to want to be able to write every commercial contract throughout the industry.
Let me say to the right hon. Lady that in the case of gas, the stupidity of the motion is that there is no such thing as a straightforward wholesale price. When I put my question to her, she lamentably failed to answer it. There is no such thing as a straightforward wholesale price whose movement should be fully and simply reflected like that in retail prices. That is the fantasy and the ignorance of this proposal, because life is more complicated.
Let us take gas contracts. Some gas contracts have pricing formulae which do not simply follow the headline daily market price. They may be based on various averages or regional weightings. They may have locked themselves into a one-year or a six-month fixed price. They may face maximum and minimum parameters. Their costs may have been hedged to eliminate the risk of massive fluctuations and guard against another idiotic policy from the Labour party. This is a complicated business, within which suppliers and generators may be locked into various different pricing structures, so the idea that a regulator can suddenly say, “Oh, there’s the wholesale price, therefore there is the retail price,” is total lunacy and ignorance, of which the right hon. Lady should be ashamed.
Even if there were some sort of unshackled easy link to daily prices, the Opposition do not understand the distinction between price and volume. The price might fall in a so-called wholesale market, but if there is no business of any volume in the market, how can that price, as a tiny example of one day’s price, then be used as the determinant of retail prices under the right hon. Lady’s policy? This is folly of such total lunacy and ignorance that I am ashamed that anyone in this Chamber should want to stand up and pretend that it makes any logical, decent sense.
Labour Members started by proposing a freeze—it then became a cap, although they have got very muddled, but the leader of the Labour party called it a freeze—after which all the companies’ share prices fell and their pricing policies had to change to guard against this idiocy. Labour’s policy announcement hit share prices and utilities and was detrimental to the consumer, and its cost of living campaign is in shreds.
The clear point in this debate is that we have a regulator to oversee and police the dangers of collusion and uncompetitive conduct. That is where we should all agree, and that is where the influence of Government should lie. It is foolhardy for the right hon. Lady to pretend like King Canute, or rather Queen Canute, that she can stop the natural movement of prices. It is deceit and delusion of which Labour Members should consider themselves ashamed.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I agree with him that there has been, and is, an issue about the cost of energy for people’s homes, but I disagree with him about what we do about that. We need to ensure that we can get the best prices passed down to the consumer, not only in the short term but the long term. The Government have brought in measures to get rid of the tariffs that were adding unnecessary taxes to energy bills, increase the number of independent suppliers threefold, and reduce the 400 similar tariffs that existed to just a few. Those are all going towards protecting the consumer and getting prices down.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the cost of energy is a large proportion of the cost of living and the money that goes out of people’s homes. However, it is wrong to offer people the false hope that through just a simple black-and-white policy they will see their energy prices reduced. For the past two or three years, the Labour party has run campaigns in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, trumpeting Labour’s price freeze. There was a great big inflatable ice cube on the high street, which, I hasten to add, did not have an image of a cap on top of it. The Labour party put out leaflets in my constituency saying, “People tell me on the doorstep that they want an energy price freeze.” Of course people want an energy price freeze, but what they are telling me on the doorstep is that they want the lowest possible energy prices. If we had had that freeze, the price would have been stuck at that level. Now, at the very last minute, Labour is changing its policy around. Whatever words are used in points of order or in the debate by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the fact is that people’s perception of what has been said to them on the doorstep is that there would be a price freeze. Indeed, this very lunch time the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said on television that it is not a cap, but a price freeze.
Sir Alan Duncan
Have not Labour Members trapped themselves by gambling that prices would continue to rise? They announced a freeze, but, sadly, global markets are falling.
Alec Shelbrooke
As my right hon. Friend will know, Labour Members would make very poor oil traders. If they were in the business, the consequence would be losses that would eventually be passed on to the consumer in higher prices.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck is right: this debate is not flippant, but about the costs of the energy that people need to live. The Government should do all they can to try to reduce those costs, but they cannot do it with gimmicks, or by coming up with a hare-brained scheme for prices that is immediately altered by a change in world markets. The Opposition have called this debate purely to clarify points that they did not advertise or make to people on the doorstep. They are offering false hope, and they are wrong to do so.
People are suffering from high energy costs, but those costs are now starting to come down. Notably, energy companies are offering deals to fix prices for the next few years. They would not do so if they thought that energy prices were about to rise; they are doing so because they can foresee that their costs will drop on energy markets. Some people like to control their finances by entering into a deal with set prices, and they may achieve a better deal, but others want to ride the market—just as people do with mortgages—and see where it takes them. The fact is that we have increased competition in the sector. Competition decreased under the now Leader of the Opposition when he was the Energy Secretary and, for all the trumpeting about, they the big six gained their power during that period.
My point is that we must not be flippant in this debate. This important debate means something to people in their homes. Those watching this debate to see what will happen to energy prices do not want flashy gimmicks that, in reality, would not lower their energy prices or give them a better standard of living. It is disingenuous to say that to people who want something to be done. We need to do what has been outlined by this Government—[Interruption.]—with whom I am glad to have voted in the Division Lobby to reduce the cost of energy bills.
From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Don Valley asks, “What is it?” I will tell her what the Government have outlined. It is the reduction to single figures of the number of tariffs, which under her Government expanded ridiculously, confused the market and prevented people from being able to find the best deals. It is the trebling of the number of independent market suppliers, making the best energy deals available to people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who said he has reduced his energy costs by 25%. It is the reduction in the number of silly tariffs brought in by the Labour party. All those factors are having an impact. [Interruption.]
Labour Members are chuntering from a sedentary position because they do not like the truth. They want to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public by saying that they will sort out the mess that they in many ways created. Once again, they have come up with stupid, silly gimmicks, which, to be quite frank, the public can see through. This is a serious debate, and it needs to be taken seriously.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Listening to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) was a rather curious experience, given that more or less the entire policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change under the current Government, particularly as it relates to such matters as contracts for difference and the levy control framework, is based on the assumption of inexorably rising energy prices. In fact, the policy is rather falling to bits, because the Department can no longer make that assumption. The Opposition’s proposal, on the other hand, is based on the reality of the regulator as we now find it, and the reality of what will continue to be a volatile energy market over the coming period.
I smile a little at some of the assumptions made by Members about what the regulator actually is. It has always been the case—or, at least, it has been the case during recent periods—that the regulator has done a great deal more than the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) believes that it has. As he said, he believes that the regulator simply prevents collusion, but it performs a number of other functions, relating to, for instance, the close of market, cash-out and balancing, which are integral to the energy market as it stands. At present, however, the regulator is itself regulated asymmetrically when it comes to its ability to intervene in that volatile market. Our proposal, which is very simple, is to remove some of that asymmetricalness, if such a word exists—
Dr Whitehead
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We propose to remove some of that asymmetry. While we would not expect a regulator to have a knee-jerk reaction to every change in a volatile market, we would, in the event of a considerable drift between those changes and what energy companies are doing, expect the regulator to be able to do what the public would expect it to do: we would expect it to be able to intervene on behalf of the consumer and bring those arrangements into line. That seems to me to be a straightforward and laudable proposal, not only from the point of view of the consumer, but because it constitutes a recognition of the reality of markets.
The objections to the proposal that have been expressed also make me smile a little. We are told that hedging and purchasing strategies would not put up with it. On the basis of what I have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon, I think that he has done for utility hedging roughly what Edward Scissorhands did for real hedging.
The operation of hedging in energy and utility markets is not the same as it is in a number of other areas. That hedging, those purchases and that trading must take account of factors such as securing the right amount of energy for the customer—not too much and not too little—at the time when the customer needs it, at the time of gate closure. If the outcome of that hedging turns out to be wrong, the regulator will fine those who are undertaking the process. On such occasions, hedgers will weigh the cost of the cash-out fine against the cost of getting the balance wrong. So a range of other factors are involved in that hedging, over and above the simple question of buying long and hoping that some money can be made out of it.
One of the strategies of the larger energy companies will, in fact, be to buy long—rather more than they can conceivably hope to provide for their customers—and shape the amount as gate closure approaches. If the markets are volatile, they will adopt strategies which get that right. The ability of the regulator to undertake those changes is compatible with the process leading up to gate closure, notwithstanding what has been suggested this afternoon.
Finally, I smiled a little at the haste with which the Secretary of State, in particular, talked of reducing energy prices, given that, as I said earlier, the recent capacity auctions have potentially raised prices by £11 per customer. I may have inadvertently said 11p in an intervention. The sum is in fact £11 per customer—I thank Tim Probert for that proper figure—and that gives the lie to the idea that this is all about price reduction. It is about disguising price increases in the context of regulation which should be in place to ensure that these things work properly in the future.