Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Caroline Flint and Geraint Davies

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Today is a political lesson in never giving up. Despite all the lobbying noise of vested interests, constant denials of market failure and numerous attempts to persuade energy bill payers to shop around, the Government could no longer ignore the fact that the majority of energy bill payers were—and are—being ripped off.

The Bill has a virtuous purpose: to protect customers from unfair energy prices in a market which, sadly, has failed to deliver. Its greatest shortcoming is its timing. In October 2011, I first raised the failings of the UK energy market—the overcharging and the poor value for money offered by the big six. In that year, energy prices had risen by 20%. Data required by the last Labour Government had become available to those with an “anorak” interest in tracking what was happening to prices. It was becoming clear that they did not reflect wholesale costs, and that those on standard variable tariffs were paying over the odds.

The coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats attempted reform, but they had little to offer to affect the pricing structure of the failing retail market. They opposed Labour’s energy price freeze—a proposal to cap prices for 20 months while the energy market was reformed—but they knew that they were on the back foot as evidence of overcharging mounted. David Cameron’s agreement to a Competition and Markets Authority review in 2014 was an attempt to take pressure off the Government and kick the issue beyond the 2015 general election. That worked, but it delayed action further.

It must have come as quite a surprise to some in government when the CMA’s findings vindicated Labour’s concern about unfair energy prices. It took two years to reach a conclusion that some of us had already exposed: customers were being systematically overcharged. Between 2012 and 2015, people were overcharged by an average of £1.4 billion a year, and the detriment had increased to £2 billion a year by 2015. By the time the CMA reported the damage, overcharging since 2012 amounted to more than £8 billion. Delay has cost consumers dear.

Some may have thought that the introduction of a price cap for prepayment meter customers would lay the matter to rest, but that was never going to be the case. Ministers and others on the Government Benches were now keen to talk about market failure and systemic overpricing, using language for which my party and I had been condemned only a few years earlier. Progress has been too slow by half, but now the Government are taking action that has cross-party support, and we have an opportunity to serve notice on injustice and legislate for price protection for consumers, which I believe should take the form of a protected tariff. In fact, I argued for such protection after the 2015 general election. Consumers need nothing less than a regulated maximum charge based on wholesale prices, network costs, and an acceptable level of profit set by Ofgem.

To expose market failure is not to be against all markets. Despite privatisation, energy has always rightly been a managed market when it comes to changes in our energy generation, contracts for difference and capacity markets, and that is the case today. I believe that, across the House and across British society, it is recognised that certain products, such as energy and water, require a different level of Government intervention and regulation.

Even today, with record levels of switching—about 5 million people switched in 2017—many of the criticisms that I levelled at the energy market in 2011 still apply. The market is still dominated by the big six. Between them, they control 78% of the market. The biggest new entrant has just 1% of market share. Movements in energy prices bear little relation to the movement in wholesale prices. The majority of customers have little faith in switching and have not changed supplier for a decade or more, and, as we all know, the majority sit on expensive default standard variable tariffs. More than 5 million people have been helped with a safeguard tariff. The Bill addresses the 11 million households who are overcharged year in, year out.

So what should we do? Let us build on the cross-party support and, through the Bill, defend the principle of a short-term cap on a failing market. We should not be cowed by the self-interested propaganda that we have heard from opponents of the price cap. At the extreme end, we have Centrica linking its plan to shed jobs up to 2020 with the cap. That is outrageous. Centrica has lived off its nationalised legacy—a sticky customer base that it has treated badly. Business analysts observe that British Gas’s businesses supplying energy to business have been performing poorly and that Centrica’s US operation, Direct Energy, has underperformed. They note that almost 80% of those employed by Centrica are abroad—just one in five are in the UK. While those UK jobs are important, it is little surprise that trade unions representing Centrica employees—Unite the union, GMB and Unison—are rightly sceptical about why UK employees might bear the brunt of the effect of corporate failures internationally under the leadership of Iain Conn.

A cap does not mean an end to competition. A reasonably set upper limit on unit prices that is reviewed every six months allows lots of opportunity for competition beneath the cap. It is not a difficult concept. The cap is a maximum; it is not a requirement to charge prices at that level, and the industry knows that full well. It also knows that it will put a bar on unfair prices, and not before time.

[Geraint Davies]

I am listening fascinated to my right hon. Friend’s speech. She is aware that there has been a history of oligopoly abuse in terms of delays in changing prices for customers when world commodity prices change, meaning that there are excessive differentials. Does she think it is possible to have a relatively simple system that takes those two factors into account, but also takes the opportunity to encourage renewables?

[Caroline Flint]

Absolutely, and I am going to come on to renewables. Ministers should beware of any proposal to exempt green tariffs or low-carbon tariffs from the price cap, and let me be clear why. In 75% of days in 2017, wind power supplied more energy than coal power in the UK. Nuclear and renewables are central to our power output in the UK energy market and the generators are well rewarded for that. The notion that any energy provider should charge a premium for so-called green tariffs does not stand up to scrutiny. Consumer support for 100% green energy is welcome, but the idea that they should pay the most expensive tariff cannot be justified. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will rule that out and deliver a comprehensive cap.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Caroline Flint and Geraint Davies

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Caroline Flint]

I will make a bit of progress, then I might take a few interventions.

In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, she pledged that the UK would keep workers’ rights after Brexit. She also pledged to avoid a cliff edge by seeking a period of stability after we leave, while our trading arrangements with the EU single market are sorted out. She pledged to seek good access to the single market with no extra tariffs or bureaucracy. There might be some disagreements on my own side of the House about what all that should look like, but none of us should be in any doubt about the importance of our trading arrangements—not only for exports, but for imports.

This is not just about our cities; it is about places such as Doncaster and the other towns and communities around the country in which these arrangements are vital for jobs. When I did a survey of my constituents after the referendum campaign, I asked them what my three priorities should be. Jobs and investment came first. Tackling immigration came second. The £350 million a week that was apparently going to come back to the NHS came third. We heard about that in yesterday’s debate. I am not sure what I can do about that last one, but the first two are certainly going to get my full attention.

I believe that we have to look at freedom of movement. I have been saying for many years that immigration has not been attended to, by my party or by others, in the way that it should have been. The Prime Minister has said that she wants the negotiations to guarantee that EU workers currently living here can stay. I agree with that. Many of my constituents have particular issues about freedom of movement and they want them to receive attention in a way that they have not done before. However, the Prime Minister could lead her MPs through the Lobby today and vote to guarantee the rights of EU nationals here. As others have said, she could make it clear that they will not be used as a bargaining chip and could end their uncertainty. Likewise, we also want to safeguard the rights of Brits living in Europe, and by adopting a positive approach today we would make it more likely that Brits living in the EU were treated fairly.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Caroline Flint and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

Jobs and Growth in a Low-carbon Economy

Debate between Caroline Flint and Geraint Davies

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

Let me make a little more progress. We know that businesses will not invest, build factories or create jobs until the Government end the dithering, stop shifting the goalposts and get behind the industries of the future.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that very point, would my right hon. Friend be interested to know that literally dozens of people in and around Swansea are losing their jobs as a result of the withdrawal of the feed-in tariff? What is more, Tata Steel has just announced an opportunity for people to go home, not work at all and be paid half-pay, simply because of this ridiculous unilateral carbon pricing. On both sides—heavy industry and green energy—uncertainty is leading to less investment and to lay-offs; it is disgusting.

[Caroline Flint]

As I have said, the Government have confirmed that, based on their own estimates, 5,000 people in the solar industry alone will lose their jobs this year, including constituents in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Last week, business after business lined up to say that billions of pounds-worth of future investment is now on hold because there are serious question marks over the Government’s commitment to wind power. We are on the cusp of a new industrial revolution that is shaking up the old world order. We have to be leaders, not followers, in this revolution. It is about creating a new economy that is cleaner, leaner and more competitive and that provides the energy we need. We all know that the longer we delay action, the costlier it will become to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and the economic opportunities will slip through our fingers.

Energy Prices

Debate between Caroline Flint and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

We have been campaigning for something to be done about that from 2016, but I understand that the Government do not intend to do anything until 2018, and that too is a disgrace. We must also look much more closely at what happens to housing benefit in the private rented sector, and ensure that that sector is not left behind. We should consider incentives, but we should also consider introducing a bit of stick where it is necessary.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

One in four children in Swansea currently live in absolute poverty, which means that every day a choice must be made between eating and heating. Should the Government not put at the top of their agenda the opportunities at their disposal to target support at those in greatest need, particularly households containing children in poverty?

[Caroline Flint]

I agree. There are measures that Government can take. However, they can also show leadership and exert moral pressure on the energy companies to be fairer and consider sharing some of their profits with those who are most in need, at the very least.

Defendant Anonymity

Debate between Caroline Flint and Geraint Davies

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the nub of this debate is the question of whether the police should be allowed the discretion to release the identity of people who they believe are serial rapists, with a view to getting more victims and more witnesses to come forward and provide more evidence to facilitate prosecution. That point was touched on in an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who obviously has a great deal of experience in this area. We have heard good debating points, but we really need to get to the nub of the issue, because I fear that if the anonymity proposal for rape defendants goes through, we will end up tying the hands of the police.

We are not talking about allowing all the names of all the people ever accused of rape to go out to the media before charge. Rather, we are talking about whether in certain instances, where people are known to be serial offenders but have not been successfully prosecuted, the police should be allowed—given the statistical background we have discussed—to facilitate the process of getting more people to come forward. I believe that if the anonymity proposal is pushed through, we will simply end up with more rape—particularly by serial rapists—less reporting and fewer convictions.

In my area of Swansea West, as elsewhere, there is serious and widespread concern about this issue. I know that some Members have said that it is not political, but I have encountered people saying, “Look, I voted Liberal Democrat, and I did not vote for hiding the identity of prospective rapists and increasing the number of rape victims. I did not vote for that.” This policy emerged, of course, from a Liberal Democrat conference resolution in 2006. To be fair to the Conservatives, in 1988 the veil was pulled and hidden identity was thrown away under pressure from the police, who said that anonymity was preventing women from reporting. That remains the case, so I hope that the Conservatives will go back to their previous position. I realise that some sort of deal has been done on VAT and everything else, but let us not allow it to get in the way of the rights of women and their protection. Disclosure generates confidence—confidence to stand up and be counted against serial offenders.

Most crime generally is serial crime. We all know that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by just a few people—and that is certainly the case with rape. Like other Members who have spoken, I have had the great pleasure of witnessing a presentation by the chief constable of Cheshire, Dave Whatton, who showed evidentially the relationship between disclosure, witnesses coming forward and subsequent convictions. The reality is that a person comes up for a rape trial, often on their own, but with disclosure, others might come forward. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, in some cases, evidence from the first victim might not be sufficient for conviction, but it might be with the collaborative evidence of others. Without that additional evidence, the case is likely to fall and more serial rape is likely to be the result.

[Caroline Flint]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the opportunity for the press to publish information about defendants, which could strengthen the case if more women come forward. Their cases might not get on the charge sheet, but even if it is the first time that they have come forward, it would help to give them closure, in that they would know who their attacker was and their additional evidence would hopefully contribute to a successful conviction and their attacker going to jail.

[Geraint Davies]

That is absolutely right. We talked earlier about the problem of putting things in boxes and isolated cases. Some women go through thinking that they have contributed to the incident or even that it is somehow their fault, but if they knew that the person had a consistent pattern of behaviour in raping women, they would no longer think like that. Sometimes a woman—or a man—does not want to stand in front of a court; a difficult case might fail completely because no one else comes forward and the evidence is insufficient. In those circumstances, the victim could end up being branded as a woman—sometimes a man—who makes false accusations. They have told the truth, but on the balance of evidence available from only one witness, the accused is found not guilty, and the woman then becomes “a liar”. What signal does that send when we want to encourage more witnesses to come forward?

I appreciate that the point was made seriously, but I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee—the point about Google raised by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was well made—that there is an equivalence between the psychological and reputational difficulties of the accused, although they certainly exist, and a lot more women being raped. There is no qualitative equivalence between them. Quantitatively, the number of malicious, false allegations is minute, whereas the number of unreported—certainly unconvicted—rapes is massive. On the balance of the argument, qualitatively and quantitatively, the case for anonymity is not made.