Energy Bill

Debate between Caroline Flint and Mark Reckless

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Instead, we must shift our economy away from its dependence on fossil fuels and build a new low-carbon economy. But the hard truth is that the UK is now falling behind with green growth. Research by Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that investment in renewable energy was half in 2011 what it was in 2009. Unless there is a remarkable upturn in the final quarter, investment will be lower this year than last year. The respected Pew Environment Group agrees. According to it, when Labour left office the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in clean energy, but today we are seventh. Figures published only last month from Ernst and Young paint the same picture. Its research on attractiveness for investment in renewable energy suggests that we have now fallen to sixth place, slipping below France, a country that generates nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear.

The challenge for this Bill was obvious: to provide a clear policy framework to encourage investment in new, clean sources of energy. We know—this is very positive—that there is money out there to be invested in renewable energy, but unlocking it requires clear signals about the long-term direction of public policy. What the Bill needed was a commitment to decarbonise the power sector by 2030, because that is not only the most cost-effective way to meet our climate obligations, but the best way to protect our economy and consumers from volatile international gas prices and to attract long-term investment in new jobs and industries.

Of course, we have the levy control framework and the EU renewable energy target, which are already in place, but both will come to an end in 2020. For firms such as Vestas, Siemens and Areva—major energy and engineering businesses with operations all over the world—investment horizons extend well beyond 2020. For a business considering opening a new plant or factory, to justify the costs and the lead-in time they need to know what the order book will look like in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.

So why have the Government failed to include in the Bill a commitment to decarbonise the power sector? Three reasons have been provided, so let me deal with each in turn before taking another intervention. First, the Secretary of State claimed that he did, in fact, want to set a target next year but was blocked from doing so by the Conservatives. Last month he told the Guardian:

“I wanted to set the decarbonisation target in 2013-14. The Conservatives wanted to wait”.

But the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), told the House last week that there is

“a unanimous view among DECC Ministers”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 437]—

on the Government’s decarbonisation policy. Both statements cannot be true.

The second reason that has been given is that it would not make sense to set a target until 2016 because that is when the fifth carbon budget, which covers 2030, is set. That is a smokescreen. The view of the Committee on Climate Change is absolutely clear: decarbonisation of the power sector by 2030 is not only crucial to the 2050 economy-wide emissions target, but the most cost-effective way of achieving it. That was its view in 2008 and that is its view today. The suggestion that for some as yet unknown reason that will not be its recommendation in 2016 is not only wrong, but disingenuous. It is disingenuous because we all know the real reason why the decision has been put off—because the coalition wants to have it both ways. The Liberal Democrats want to insist that a target is just around the corner, and the Tories do not want to have to admit that, if they were ever elected on their own, they would have no intention of setting a target to clean up Britain’s power sector by 2030.

As I said in the House last week, if I am wrong and if there are good reasons for waiting until 2016 before setting a target for 2030, there is nothing to stop the Government setting an interim target before then. The third and fourth carbon budgets have already been agreed and they run until 2027. Why not set a target for 2027, 2025 or even 2022? There is simply no good reason for putting the decision off for another four years. Ministers have to understand that any delay in setting a target does not just fail to reflect the urgency of the situation that we face, but will make it more difficult and expensive to achieve.

The third excuse that we have been given is that we already have too many targets, but the exact opposite is true. Between 2020 and 2050, there are no more targets for cleaning up our power sector—no benchmarks or staging points along the way. For investors, there is no certainty about what contribution the Government expect renewables to provide for the overall energy mix beyond 2020. If there is no certainty, why would firms choose to invest here when plenty of other countries are competing for investment?

[Mark Reckless]

Under the Government’s proposals, one thing that is pretty certain is that, on average, electricity bills will go up by about another £100. Will the right hon. Lady explain how much more electricity would go up by if she tried to ensure that electricity was produced without any carbon at all?

[Caroline Flint]

I could not have had a better intervention; I am just moving on to how we can reform the market to get fairer prices.

At a time when we are asking consumers to underwrite tens, if not hundreds, of billions of pounds to pay for the investment that we need, we must have an energy market that delivers fair prices. For the first time ever, the average annual energy bill has now hit £1,400—up by nearly £300 since the last election. Just this week, the Government’s own advisers on fuel poverty warned that unless Ministers change course, another 300,000 households will fall into fuel poverty this winter and up to 9 million people could be in fuel poverty by 2016.

From what the Secretary of State has said today and in the past, I think there is agreement across the House that Britain’s energy market needs to be more transparent, competitive and liquid if it is to work in the public interest. Having identified the problem, however, the Bill fails to do anything about it. As far as I can see, there is no provision to increase transparency; of 126 clauses, only one—clause 34—even addresses the issue of liquidity in the energy market, and even that clause does not propose concrete action. All it provides is a back-stop power, a measure of last resort, with no information about how or when the Government would actually use it to encourage market participation or improve liquidity.

The Bill could have scrapped the old model of unaccountable markets and secret deals and created a new, open, competitive market for energy by introducing a pool. I know that the Secretary of State has been hostile to the idea of a pool, simply because it did not work in the past, but the market has changed. When the pool was last in operation, there were effectively just two generators and the pool was one-sided with only generators placing bids. Today there are many more generators, so the issues we saw with the dominance of National Power and PowerGen in price setting would be much less of a problem—particularly if the pool were two-sided and both buyers and sellers could bid into it, as happens with the Nord Pool in northern Europe.

A pool would have three clear advantages over the current market arrangements. First, it would increase transparency. At the moment, no one really knows the true cost of energy because most of it is bought and sold through bilateral trades that are never made public. If all energy had to be traded through an open pool, those secret over-the-counter deals would end, companies would no longer be allowed to self-supply and we could establish a robust market reference price. If energy companies tried to blame wholesale costs for putting up bills, we would be able to see for ourselves whether that was true. When setting strike prices and reference prices for contracts for difference, as proposed in part 1, we would be in a much stronger position to set the right price, which will be vital to ensure that consumers get a fair deal.

The second advantage of a pool is that it would increase competition. If energy companies had to sell all their generation and buy all their supply through an open pool, anyone could compete on price to generate power or sell it to the public. This would encourage new entrants to enter the market, provide fairer access for independent generators and community and co-operative energy schemes, increase competition and put a downward pressure on prices.

Thirdly, a pool would increase liquidity. We hear a lot about liquidity, but all it really means is whether the market is providing the things that people want to buy. While there have been some improvements in liquidity on the day-ahead market, one of the biggest barriers to effective competition is the lack of liquidity in the forward market. In order to compete, firms need to be able to buy energy a week ahead, a month ahead, a year ahead, or even further, to ensure that they are not over-exposed to sudden changes in the price of energy. However, many smaller suppliers struggle to get access to these longer-term contracts. The big vertically integrated companies are in a better position because they can, in effect, hedge their supply against their own generation. By introducing a pool, we would effectively ban self-supply, whereby energy companies can generate energy and sell it to themselves. If any company wanted a longer-term deal, it would have to secure it through the open market. What better way is there to improve liquidity than to insist that everything is sold in an open marketplace?

Alongside reform to the energy market itself, we must put in place a regulatory system that protects consumers. The views of the Opposition on the existing regulator, Ofgem, are well known. In our view, it has failed to use the powers that it already has to enforce its own rules. It has turned down new powers—on trading, for example—and time after time it has ducked the opportunity to get tough with the energy companies. Today I reiterate our policy: the next Labour Government will abolish Ofgem and create a tough new watchdog with the teeth to protect the public.

I recognise that that is not, unfortunately, the policy of this Government. Let me contrast their proposals on Ofgem with ours. Clause 117 will enable fines levied by Ofgem to be paid directly to consumers rather than going to the Treasury, as happens now. In itself, this is a perfectly reasonable change to make. Consumers who have been mistreated, not the Treasury, should receive redress. Over the past 10 years, the Treasury has received just over £30 million in fines from Ofgem. Evenly spread across all households, that works out at about 10p per household per year. However, according to research by the independent price comparison website, energyhelpline.com, the mismatch between the prices that energy companies pay for the energy they buy and what they charge their customers for it means that last year alone consumers could have missed out on savings of over £1 billion pounds—more than £50 per household.

The real issue is not about a redress framework for when companies get caught out misleading their customers or putting people on the wrong tariff but about creating a fair market in the first place. The first solution is to make the market more competitive and transparent, which our proposal for a pool would do. Given the dominance of the big six energy companies, their huge regional market shares, and the low numbers of people switching supplier, the second solution must be to create a regulator with the power to correct the existing market failure and force the energy companies to pass on savings to consumers when wholesale costs fall.

This Bill must provide a pathway to the world we hope to pass on to future generations. It must put the consumer first, providing the fair prices and fair dealing that they have demanded for too long, with a guard dog for a regulator, not a poodle. It must stand up to the energy giants, providing the means and the will to make the energy producers the servants of our nation, not its masters. It cannot be a fudge to hold together disparate factions of the coalition until an election; it must be a roadmap for our nation’s destiny beyond our own lifetimes. I urge this House not to pass a law that is forgotten in a few years but to pass the legislation that we need and of which future generations will be proud—legislation for one nation, but for many generations ahead. I commend our amendment to the House.