Mortgage Market

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

In fairness, it is absolutely the case that these are largely international factors. The job of the Government is to control the variables within their control. The primary thing that they can do is not to come forward with greater unfunded spending promises as that would put more pressure on the public purse and would lead to interest rates and inflation being higher for longer. That is what is within our controllable domain and that is what we are focused on. I am not worried about where the credit accrues or otherwise; what I am worried about is trying to reduce interest rates for ordinary people at the earliest opportunity.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about Government support and bandies about some big numbers, but does he understand that the effect of that for people is like taking a watering can to the economic bin fire that his Government set alight? Does the Minister have the humility to apologise right now to my constituents who are struggling? The mortgage rate rises might be the straw that breaks their backs—some are already broken—following as they do on the Government’s endeavours in terms of the mini-Budget and Brexit, which have fuelled this economic crisis.

Cost of Living

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I have to say that my wee heart skipped a beat with delight when I saw that finally, in an Opposition day debate, the Scottish National party was going to talk about something that mattered to the people of Scotland: the cost of living crisis and the problems our constituents face. Surely few of us would dispute that the cost of living crisis being faced by our constituents is a constant and overriding concern for far too many households in this country.

I have often stood here and criticised the Conservative Government, on their energy price hike; inflation; interest rates; and the situation that faces our young people throughout the UK, where too many of them live with the fear that they will never be able to own the house of their own that they would like or that the ever-increasing rent rates in this country, which in my city of Edinburgh are outrageous, put too many options beyond their reach. We must then consider the fact that the Chancellor did not listen when the Liberal Democrats asked him to cut energy bills by £500 per household, which would have made a significant difference to so many families; that the growth in the economy in the first three months of this year was only 0.1%; that, according to the Office for National Statistics, average pay, after taking inflation into account, fell by 3%; and that the take-home salary fell by more than £1,400.

I was delighted when I saw this motion, because our economy in the UK is on its knees and so are far too many families, and not just in Scotland. My disappointment is that SNP Members do not seem to appreciate that they in a unique position, of which I, like many other Members, are jealous, as their party can do something about it in Scotland. By that, I do not mean independence, which it turns out this debate is actually about after all.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

rose—

[Christine Jardine]

I will give way in a moment. In Scotland, and particularly in Edinburgh West, I hear every week from my constituents. I hear from business people who managed to make it through the pandemic but are struggling with energy costs and with the burden of business taxes, which the Scottish Government could alleviate but choose not to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

The cost of living crisis is not really a cost of living crisis; in reality, it is a cost of greed crisis. It is greedflation driven by a lack of political interest in protecting ordinary people. As with any crisis, it is the most vulnerable in our society who suffer most, and there are few more vulnerable and more unsupported in our society than those with a disability. Disabled people are no strangers to poverty and crisis. Under 13 years of Tory Government, they have faced constant cuts and conscious cruelty at every turn, sharpened by punitive and pointless assessment regimes, conditionality and sanctions. We live under a Government who responded to the UK’s mass crisis of debt and hunger by suggesting that people should work more hours or take a second job to help with their finances, but many disabled people face huge challenges to work a single job, let alone a second, and they are even harder hit by the soaring costs of energy, fuel and other essentials.

As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has highlighted, according to research by disability charity Scope, disabled households in the poorest fifth spend twice as much of their household budget on energy bills, are twice as likely to have a cold house and are three times more likely to be unable to afford food. The heat or eat scandal is a mark of disgrace on this country, not just because people cannot afford to do both, but because disabled people suffer the worst of it. It shames us as a nation.

Again and again, for well over a decade now, the heaviest burden is placed on the shoulders of those least able to pay, while the wealth of the rich piles up. In a constituency such as mine in Leicester East, where we suffer some of the worst health and lowest incomes in the country, the evils of our unequal system hit especially hard. In my constituency, far more children—37% compared with 26% nationally—live in a family with at least one disabled member than live with none, piling yet more hunger, ill health, stigma and misery on children in a country that is already failing them.

The median annual wage for workers in Leicester East is £19,960, compared with an average of £25,837 in the east midlands and £27,756 in the rest of the UK. The level of poverty in my constituency is stark. My community is hurting. The level of suffering is deep. I am witnessing that daily, and it is painful, yet the Conservatives continue to offer at best a sticking plaster for the grievous wounds they inflict on the poor and vulnerable. In 2017, the United Nations condemned the UK Government’s treatment of disabled people as a “human catastrophe”, and it has only grown worse since then. The abuse and abandonment of our disabled people is an international disgrace and a stain on the UK’s standing among nations. Until this cruelty towards disabled people and all our millions of poor and vulnerable citizens is reversed, the UK cannot consider itself a civilised nation. Every day’s delay in putting it right means more lives lost and ruined.

The Government need to tackle prices and address the inequality of extra costs that disabled people face. They need to work towards the redistribution of wealth and establish a welfare system that provides an adequate level of support for disabled people. We need radical transformational change.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups will begin immediately after Mr Hendry sits down.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I thought you were going to give me an instruction to sit down there, Mr Deputy Speaker, but thank you for allowing me to speak in this cost of living debate.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I share an allegiance to a football team, and when we go to some stadiums, particularly for the big events, we often look across and see the empty seats, and go, “Did the opposition come dressed as seats?” I look behind him today, and wonder if the rest of his party have done the same. But no—they have not bothered to turn up because, as the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) has just pointed out, this is an issue about whether people can afford to heat their homes or to eat. In fact, it is worse than that, because in Scotland during the winter we had people who could not afford to heat their homes or to eat. This is an important thing that we should have seen the Labour party turn out for, but of course we did not.

When it comes to Brexit, what about the harms? We have heard about quite a lot of the harms today in this Chamber. My colleagues have covered a number of them—from the economy and trade to the impact on our population, education, rights and devolution, as well as on the cost of living and the cost of food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out, when food price inflation goes up, it disproportionately hurts the least advantaged in our society and the poorest. However, it is worse than that, because food price inflation on basic foods is actually higher than the headline rate. It goes up even more, and these are the basic staples that people rely on, yet Labour Members could not even bother to turn up to discuss that with us in this debate.

The Brexit that has been forced upon us is the gift that Scotland didnae want and that keeps on giving misery. It keeps on delivering misery across Scotland for people. I will just mention some of the things it affects. Of course, Labour Members now support Brexit. In fact, as we heard from the Labour leader, if that “sounds Conservative”, they just “don’t care” about it. Brexit has made sure that GDP is 4% lower across the UK. There has been an £800 per year increase, on average, in the cost of living. By the end of last year, according to the London School of Economics, Brexit had already cost nearly £6 billion across the UK in higher food bills, and some £100 billion in lost economic input. When it comes to business, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that more than half its members have faced difficulties because of Brexit. It quotes one of its members saying:

“Leaving the EU made us uncompetitive”.

That is the fairly standard comment that it gets from its members.

The cost in human capital has been tremendous for us. Before Brexit, 6% to 9% of care home staff used to be EU nationals, and now we are struggling to find spaces in care homes for people because we cannot get the staff. The UK Government are doing nothing—nothing—about getting that sorted out. They are doing nothing to solve the misery for people who need that kind of support. Of course, we have the unemployment rate at a record low in Scotland, at 3%, so where are we supposed to get the people? Brexit has starved us of the human capital we need.

We have heard the I-word, and I thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) was going to talk about Ireland—independent Ireland—which over the next two years will have a €27 billion surplus, but no, she did not want to do that. She did not want to talk about the success stories of those small independent countries with fewer resources than Scotland that have stayed in the European Union and grown as a benefit of that.

On energy, I want to reflect on an issue I raised with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about the higher energy tariffs we face in the highlands and islands of Scotland. I said that we needed to do something about that, and I offered to work with him to see what we could do. But no—the answer I got back is that geographic circumstances are the issue: the distances involved result in higher costs of distribution than in other places in Britain. Well, that is rich, because we export our renewable energy around the UK. The distances do not matter when that advantage is being taken, do they? It only matters that it costs us more in Scotland, and the Government are not willing to do anything about it.

Similarly, people are struggling in rural communities with the off gas grid regulations, because they pay a much higher premium for their energy than anywhere else and probably have to use more electricity at a higher rate than for mains gas, and of course face higher costs for liquid petroleum gas and for heating oil as well. The answer I got back on that from the UK Government was, no; their aim is to protect suppliers before people. It is not good enough for them to just wash their hands of a situation where people are struggling, particularly in rural communities, with exorbitant costs to heat their homes during the winter.

I am grateful for the mention earlier of my campaign on credit balances. People are struggling, but electricity companies hold on to their money, in credit, sometimes thousands of pounds—one pensioner in my constituency was nearly £2,000 in credit, yet the company was looking to increase her direct debit even though she had that money with them for safekeeping or use. That money should be returned to people—but, no, that is not going to be done either. What we get back is, “Customers can ask for that money back.” Some people are of course too frightened to look at their bills because of the costs they are facing, while others do not know about this or are intimidated, and some people are told by electricity companies that they cannot get that money back or they can get only a portion of it back. People have rights, and they should be fulfilled. They should be able to get their money automatically returned; it should not be kept on credit balances for companies to use for their own ends. That is exacerbating poverty for people.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for raising the issue of business rates. The small business bonus has been mentioned, and we have 100,000 businesses in Scotland that pay no rates whatsoever; if our aim is to help people in Scotland, including small businesses, we should realise that there are a lot of micro and small businesses across rural communities, and that directly assists them.

So too do the actions we take on child poverty. The child poverty rate across the UK is 27%: in Wales it is 34%; in England it is 29%; in Northern Ireland it is 24%; and in Scotland it is 21%. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that among the poorest 30% of households, incomes are boosted by around £2,000 per year in Scotland compared to England and Wales.

There are transformational policies to help people: free bus travel for young people in every part of Scotland; the expansion of free high-quality childcare to 1,140 hours, available for three and four-year-olds, and to two-year-olds from lower-income households; the best start foods grant, which helps with the cost of buying healthy food for families with young children; and three best start grants, which could be pivotal in a child’s life—for low-income families, £600 for the first child and £300 on the birth of a later child. There is also the Scottish child payment, the baby box, the free childcare extension, free school meals, free bus passes and much more from the Scottish Government to help out.

[Dr Whitford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with 13 years of austerity is that austerity may make the Treasury balance sheet look good in the first year but it starves local economies because people have no money to spend, so we see boarded-up high streets, and in the end that reduces the tax take to Government, so it simply does not work?

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is exactly right that it starves communities, and, worse than that, it starves families—it starves children. It starves people of the opportunity we could give them, because we do not have the advantages that we should and would have if we had the powers to make the decisions we need to make.

[Douglas Ross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No, I am about to conclude.

The supports that I have laid out are the kinds of policies that we put in place in Scotland to try to help and to mitigate measures such as the bedroom tax.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No, I am going to finish in just a second.

Those are the things that we try to do in Scotland to help to mitigate the harms from this place, but we could do so much more. We could do things very differently, but we need the powers of independence in order to do that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are moving on to the wind-ups. I anticipate Divisions in 20 minutes.

Cash Acceptance

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for securing this important debate. I thank the Petitions Committee, and most importantly the petitioners who allowed the debate to happen today.

This is about compelling the acceptance of cash. There have been some important points made about the fact that the issue has real implications for budgeting for many households. At its heart is the systematic reduction in the availability of cash, which has accelerated the refusal of cash. If cash is taken out of the system, of course that makes it more difficult for businesses to make that choice. That does not mean they should be allowed to make the choice to refuse cash, which should continue to be an important part of the system.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for making such an important point. The reduction in banking facilities, especially in rural areas such as his and mine, has accelerated the move to a cashless society, as he rightly mentioned. With banking costs, the depositing of cash for businesses is becoming even harder and more expensive. Does he agree that in this conversation, the Government need to ensure that banking services, including deposit services, are retained in rural areas to make it easier for particularly small businesses to continue to accept cash?

[Drew Hendry]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and his timely intervention. I will come on to that when I talk about the impacts on my constituency, which is largely rural.

Access to cash is vital for people across the communities in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I have been speaking to people out and about in my constituency, and I want to relate some of the issues in the villages and towns. Although I will focus on one item for each of them, all these things affect all of them, all the time. It is vital for people living in the highlands to get access to cash. The lack of availability has direct impacts on our communities.

For example, Aviemore is a popular tourist destination. Large numbers of visitors come throughout the year. Cash means additional spend, and the lack of it can restrict add-on sales. Not everybody wants to tap their card. If there is an opportunity to spend some cash, they will spend it on smaller purchases, as well as some larger ones. Impulse buying is also restricted in the same way. That is all vital in an experience-based economy like we have, where visitors come to enjoy the different activities that they can take part in.

Kingussie and Newtonmore, like Aviemore, are in the Cairngorms national park area. There is limited infrastructure. The closure of bank branches and the reduction in the number of cash machines have made life in those villages far more difficult than it was before. For example, with the increased cost of transport, the extreme inconvenience makes life challenging and difficult for many, especially those with no access to private transport and precious little access to public transport.

People in Grantown-on-Spey, also in the Cairngorms national park, rely heavily on tourism as well. They are directly affected by access to cash. I can relate a personal experience from last year. The Grantown show is the big showpiece event of the year; people come from not only miles around but countries around the world to experience it. It is a fantastic event. However, by the opening time of the show last year, Grantown-on-Spey had run out of cash. The paltry cash machines that were left in the village after the others had been stripped out by the removal of the banks had actually run out, and all the shops that were able to issue cash said that they did not have any more to give out. That was before the thing had got into its swing. It is immeasurable and impossible to judge the impact that having no cash had on that key day for the local economy.

Nairn has been badly affected by bank closures and the reduction in the availability of cash. Businesses—whether they are microbusinesses, or small or medium businesses—have all historically relied on cash. It has been really difficult for businesses there, particularly looking at the struggles on the high street. The locals have performed miracles in keeping up interest in Nairn as an attractive place, and the local business improvement district organisation has done its utmost, but there has no doubt been an impact on Nairn’s ability to thrive. It is restricted from achieving its potential, at least in part.

Fort Augustus is a fantastically picturesque village at the southern end of Loch Ness in my constituency. Many older and disabled people there tell me that they rely on cash. It is a serious issue that affects people’s mobility; it affects their ability to manage their financial affairs and participate in social and economic activities in their local area. We have not even touched on younger people who are not at the point of accessing a bank account by tapping their phone or a card. They often start off with pocket money given to them in cash so they can start to learn about money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, the ability to handle money and count it out is a vital part of financial education. There are unintended consequences to restricting the availability of cash because some people cannot access plastic.

The lack of access across my constituency is very noticeable now. It has had a significant impact on towns and villages. I cannot mention them all today, as it would take me ages to cover all the places in my constituency, but it is important to point out that these are real issues for real people in towns and villages. Other Members in this Chamber who have rural constituencies will have these issues in common. For many communities, this is an issue of sustainability, affecting tourism, businesses, young and older people and those with disabilities.

When we hear about a banking crisis the Government jump into action to protect the banks, but where is the same activity to support our communities who are in a banking crisis? They do not have banks or access to cash anymore. Where is the activity and energy for them? The Government need to step up and make sure there is continuity for people and a reversal of this journey to drain cash out of these communities the way that has happened.

There should be a move to increase cash machines. We hear about reasonable access, but what does that mean? They are just words without any meaning. What people in my communities want to know is where, how and when they can get access to the cash they need. Yes, I support the move towards more shared hubs, but let us make sure those hubs are available to all communities and that everybody can access them in the proper way. We should be requiring banks to supply cash, particularly in rural areas when there are events coming up. This should be about protecting cash payments and access to cash.

Finally, if we are to move to a situation where the Post Office takes the strain, that is fine, but post offices must be properly supported and recompensed for taking on this social need. They are next to breaking as well. If we are relying on post offices to pick up the slack, what do we do when post offices are no longer there? People are genuinely worried about that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for bringing this debate forward. We could have another half a dozen debates about the effect of lack of access to cash. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what he is actually proposing to do to help communities to maintain the cash in their communities.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing the debate.

When I was a child, scratching around in the earth in Somerset I happened upon what I thought was a stone—it was more like a flat pebble—but was, in fact, a Roman coin. Reflecting on that today, it strikes me that we have spent 2,000 years in this country handling real currency. Coins and, in more recent years, notes have been with us for such a long time. I am therefore alarmed that our generation might see the end of real hard currency.

Members have expressed many real concerns this afternoon. Thinking about rural areas like mine, I am most concerned about the plight of older people. Both my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and I get stacks of correspondence from elderly constituents who just cannot abide trying to remember the PIN for a card that they have no assurance works, and have no faith or trust is reliable. In October 2022, the Bank of England stated:

“Cash remains an important payment method in the UK, and a critical means of payment for many people.”

In addition I endorse what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said about children and educating them about money. We do not know what the consequences may be for a generation who are not schooled with tangible money, but they may not be able to budget quite as well as their parents’ or grandparents’ generations for that fact.

We should also think about how our small businesses are affected. In rural areas such as my part of Devon, small businesses are concerned about the closure of not only banks, but cash machines. The other day, I received correspondence from the secretary of the Axminster chamber of commerce, who pointed out that the town of Axminster lost its last bank last autumn, and the neighbouring town of Honiton is set to lose its last branch of HSBC this summer. This issue is affecting in quite a miserable fashion some of the small businesses that depend on being able to deposit and withdraw money locally.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about businesses in rural areas. When these facilities are withdrawn, businesses often face insurmountable challenges in terms of what they then do, where they travel to and how they staff their businesses when they have to travel to different places to carry out transactions or indeed take on new methods. Sometimes they just do not have the time to do that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a significant issue that is never covered in any of our discussions?

[Richard Foord]

I completely agree. It is great that we have an opportunity today to hear reassurance from the Minister on what the Government are doing to address some of these concerns. We have to ensure that nobody is locked out of our society simply because it is seen as easier for others to use electronic payments. Some people are more inclined to give to charity or leave tips if they can do so with notes and coins.

I am also curious to know what the Government think of tax evasion in relation to tangible money. When the Government think about phasing out cash, do they have one eye on how small and medium-sized enterprises pay VAT? Is that a factor when they think about how we will access money in the future?

As I draw my reflections to a close, I want to talk about another personal experience, this time of travelling in China. Before the pandemic, I was working in China, and my Chinese colleagues found it hilarious that I had brought notes and coins with me, because they were so used to using Alipay on their mobile phones. In some societies, it has become unfashionable—really passé—to use coins and notes. I am proud that we live in a liberal democracy that serves to protect the rights of minorities. One of those rights ought to be the continued use of tangible cash.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I commend the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this debate. I also commend the many members of the public who signed the e-petitions to rightly raise this important issue here, in the home of democracy, where it falls to us to resolve these matters. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has a long-standing issue with cash access and acceptance. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I will try to address as many of the points raised by colleagues as possible. As the hon. Member said right at the beginning, this is a complex issue.

It falls to me to inject some balance into the debate. Cash has many virtues, and I assure Members that the Government recognise the role played by cash when other technologies fail and the real concerns regarding privacy and the potential, in a cashless society, for states to control freedom of speech. One of the first issues that I dealt with as Minister was the withdrawal of certain account facilities from the Free Speech Union. However, we should also recognise that despite its many virtues, cash is expensive to handle, can be subject to theft and can make businesses—particularly small businesses in the rural areas we have heard a lot from today—feel vulnerable and potentially targeted by criminals. The physicality of cash means that it has a higher carbon footprint, and it can be less convenient when someone is fumbling around and does not quite have the right change.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He makes a fair point about vulnerability, with people feeling perhaps a bit unsafe with cash, but does he not agree that part of the reason why businesses are now feeling a bit more vulnerable with cash is because of the bank closures that have been allowed to go ahead? Now, they have to travel greater distances to deposit cash. Is the Minister willing to come up with a solution for businesses so that they can continue to have cash and use it safely?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member makes a good point. He talked a lot about his rural constituency, which is a little larger than mine but also very rural, and brought that to life by talking about the Grantown-on-Spey annual show. He is quite right, but if he will bear with me, I will talk about the solution to precisely the problem he raises. This is not just an issue of access to cash, or the use of cash, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, about how we can ensure that businesses and retailers have access to facilities to deposit cash. I will come on to discuss the legislative action that I assure the House we are taking on precisely that point.

I have followed this debate extremely closely so, to be clear, let me say for the Government that there is no plan, no drive and no conspiracy to eliminate cash. This Government continue to support the ability of citizens to use cash as an alternative to digital payments, and I am proud that the Government are taking legislative steps to support the use of cash well into the foreseeable future. It is this Government, for the first time, who are taking those legislative steps.

A number of Members have talked about the fact that the way people make payments is changing. We have seen that over time. Analogies have been drawn with the transition from analogue to digital television and with decimalisation—I do not remember that, but the Father of the House was not shy about his recall of going through that transition. Digital payments play an important role in people’s lives. We see that from our own experience in the Tea Room of this House and also from the data. The industry body UK Finance found that in 2021 non-cash transactions accounted for 85% of UK payments, up from 45% a decade earlier and 60% in 2016. That is a really fast rate of change. I do not say that to unsettle anybody in respect of the continued attachment to cash, but it does mean that we in this place have to contemplate very rapid changes in society and technology.

Cash remains important for millions of people across the UK. We are an ageing society, and many Members have talked about the vulnerable groups—my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) thought it was about 10 million people—who make up a significant part of society. We should rightly have great recourse to work out how we can protect them, whether that is through support with the convenience of managing their finances or with other vulnerabilities. Members made some great points about the importance of managing finances through the use of cash.

This is about striking a balance in society, which we have sought to do through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I want to offer reassurance and protection for those who seek it. I am conscious that not everyone will be as familiar with the clause-by-clause detail of the Bill as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and I am. That Bill, which has made its passage through the House, will mean that for the first time, not just since the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) scrabbled for coins himself but since ancient Celts first manufactured coins on this great isle of ours, there will be statutory protection of access to cash and the ability to deposit cash. It is important that we get that Bill on the statute book in this time of rapid change. It will cover access to deposit facilities on a similar basis as access to cash withdrawal.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk reminded us that this is the domain not just of the banks and ATMs, but also the extensive post office network. I know that postmasters—notwithstanding the loss to the profession of my hon. Friend—do a fantastic job in our rural communities. We should support them, and we do want to see that support. The provision of cash and banking services can be one way in which we underwrite their continued service to the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the principles in how we have approached the issue. Although we are taking powers in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to mandate access to cash and cash machines, we must remember that 95% of the population are within 2 km of a free cash machine.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will make some progress, because I have been relatively generous in taking interventions.

Cash acceptance is an emerging issue that we contemplate for the future, but it is not a prevalent issue today, other than when people conflate it with the loss of bank branches. That is understandable, but we are seeing very rapid changes in society. I am clear that it is not the Government’s position—I think this is also true of the Labour party and, probably, the Scottish Executive—that we will mandate cash acceptance on retailers or public services. If anyone has done battle with a local authority parking machine, or the Mayor of London’s cashless transport system, they will know that it is often public services that do not take cash, while 98% of retailers are happy to continue to take cash indefinitely, particularly if the facilities can be made available. Public services are often the first to migrate to a cashless economy.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way one final time. I would love him to come to the highlands and take a 2 km walk around parts of my constituency and point out where the cash machines are. We always try to find things to agree on in Westminster Hall, so I agree with the Minister’s earlier comment that his Government have “no plan and no drive”. If the 70 hubs are to be spread across the UK, will the Minister tell us when my constituents in villages and towns will see hubs arrive near them?

[Andrew Griffith]

It would not be for me to promise any Member a hub; it is for them to make the case. I observe that many other Members have been able to make that case successfully, and the hon. Gentleman has proven very persuasive today, so I wish him well in procuring a hub for his constituency. I will now make some progress, in the interests of time.

It is important to have the flexibility to respond to changes in the market. What we are doing in the Financial Services and Markets Bill should not be underestimated. As I said, for the first time in law we are protecting the ability of people and businesses—businesses are in scope as well—to deposit as well as accept banknotes and coins. The Government’s position is that it is much better that we will the means to enable businesses to continue to take cash, rather than simply will the ends without addressing any of the means, as some would do.

Apart from the Bill, the Government work with the financial services regulators to monitor and access trends related to cash. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked if the work to track the accessibility of cash will be done; it will. As part of that, the Financial Conduct Authority has surveyed retailers and found that even of small businesses—this is not an issue for big businesses, by and large—98% would never turn away a customer if they needed to pay by cash. I extend an invitation to any Member to share with me, the Treasury and the FCA any specific examples of retailers declining cash. I am conscious of a number of examples in the public sector—local authority car parks, and even municipal transport run by executive bodies—but I am not aware of a high level of prevalence among retailers.

We must also recognise that technology is providing solutions. Big Issue salespeople are now equipped with tap readers, and report 30% higher donations being given when people tap rather than use cash. That was my experience when I joined the Royal British Legion to collect for poppy sales. There are a number of other examples of how technology can try to solve the gap, notwithstanding the fact that we will continue to ensure that we protect access to cash. We have talked about the good work of the cash access group and of Link, and it should be incumbent on any Government to continue to ensure that we put those important solutions in place.

Once we have passed the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we will provide the policy statement about the importance of access to cash, the prevalence of that across the UK and what thresholds will be appropriate for Government to take different decisions or possibly to look at mandating things. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about wholesale cash distribution, and the back end is important if we are to continue to ensure that businesses have the access to cash that they need. It is important that the wholesale cash infrastructure in the UK works and, in the Bill, again for the first time, we will take powers to regulate that, mindful that over time we expect to see the volume of cash decrease.

I have set out what the Government will do: the important step of taking powers in legislation that will soon be on the statute book, giving the FCA the ability for the first time to regulate access to cash. I have given our commitment to continue to monitor the situation, accepting that we all have constituents we are concerned about and that we are seeing fast-moving changes in society. I also give Members the reassurance that the Government’s desire or policy is not to eliminate cash. We have no such objective, but quite the opposite: the Government recognise the importance of the utility of cash in the system and will do whatever we can to ensure, practically, that our constituents continue to have the ability to use cash, as has always been their historical right.

Energy Suppliers: Customer Credit

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of customer credit retained by energy suppliers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. In this debate, I am not going to focus on what I have focused on many times in the Chamber, which is the myriad failures of the UK Government in dealing with the energy cost crisis for people in their homes and the cost of living crisis. That is well documented, and it was underlined by a poll yesterday showing that nearly 70% of people across the nations of the UK feel that the Government are failing on this. That is not what this debate is about. The issue that I want to highlight is something that affects many people in their homes and is manifestly unjust.

I want to start by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for graciously taking the time to discuss this with me before the debate; it says a lot that she was willing to be informed about the perspective that I want to bring to this. I am hopeful that she will work with us to try to sort this and that we will be able to work together to aid people.

I have been asked to feel sorry for energy suppliers. I have been asked by energy suppliers to think of them and their financial position, as they are keeping customers’ money in their bank accounts that they are not due through bills because it aids their business. I do not feel sorry for energy companies. I cannot imagine any other industry where companies are allowed to keep customers’ money without any accountability and think that that is okay or, indeed, that we should feel for them. I understand their wish to protect themselves. For example, Octopus told me that it holds £660 million of customers’ money in credit, but because of the outstanding balances, only £150 million of that is a cushion for them. I am sorry, but that does not cut it—it is not the company’s money to do that with.

I am more concerned about people facing the fear of the cost of living crisis. I am more concerned about people’s frustration over their household incomes and the hardship that they are expected to face in these times. People are turning off appliances and heating when it is cold to save money, because that is what they have been told they have to do, when all the time, energy companies are keeping vast amounts of their money in their bank accounts while people struggle.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does this not speak to a need for wholesale reform of how people are charged for and pay for their electricity? He is right that customers who pay by direct debit build up significant credit balances, and the energy companies can earn interest on that, but customers who pay by prepayment meters are paying up front for energy that they have not used, and they often pay a higher premium and higher standing charges. The people who can least afford it, which is often customers on prepayment meters, are paying the most. This is another injustice that has to be resolved.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It speaks to the way the cards are stacked against consumers and users in favour of the energy companies. The position that people find themselves in does not seem to be met with any sympathy across the industry—it is just a fact of life; they are collateral in the game of business. That is not the way we should look at people. As I said, people are turning appliances off even when they are in credit with the energy companies.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Customers have reported being made to jump through hoops to get their credit back, and the only rules for timescales implemented by Ofgem apply when accounts are closed. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofgem should have the power to be stricter with suppliers, in line with its purpose to protect customers?

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will spend a bit of time later talking about Ofgem and powers that the Government might take forward in relation to working with Ofgem.

As I said, people are turning things off even when they are in credit. I believe every Member of this House should be more concerned that the property of customers of energy companies is being held hostage, without the explicit permission of those customers; the money does not belong to the energy companies. Things should and must change.

I started this campaign in January. By coincidence, Alex Lawson, a Guardian journalist, did some research into the subject and uncovered the fact that

“suppliers had hoarded an estimated £9 billion of customer cash by November last year”.

In his investigation, he pointed out that Centrica had £400 million of customer deposits; Octopus Energy had £660 million; and E.ON, OVO Energy, EDF and ScottishPower refused to say how much money they had from customers whose accounts were in credit. It is not the energy companies’ money.

I contacted the suppliers in preparation for the debate. The response I received from Utilita about high credit balances defended its customer service and the way it looks after its customers, but I was struck by a paragraph in which it said:

“Other companies such as Ovo, Octopus and Bulb have significant customer credit balances in their accounts. Indeed Octopus recently published its accounts for the year ending March 2022 in which it shows £221 million—strange to have such high credit balances at the end of winter! Perhaps their ‘innovative practices’ are not working as intended. The article by George Nixon that appeared in the Times on Saturday 28th January 2023, ‘How to get your money back from your energy supplier’ mentioned virtually all the larger suppliers (all of which had either minor or no weaknesses in their direct debit processes according to Ofgem).”

I am not giving Utilita a free pass, but it is telling that it is willing to make that comment.

In the highlands and islands, a great number of people subscribe to what used to be called the hydro board. When Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks took that over, many accounts simply transferred, and OVO Energy recently took over all those accounts. Because of that, I may receive a particularly high number of complaints about practices at OVO, so I state that at the outset. At the start of the pandemic, OVO received an £8.9 million fine for communication and billing issues. As mentioned, OVO has declined to give an average customer credit balance. Again I state: that is not its money and it is refusing to tell us how much it has.

My inbox shows that constituents’ problems with OVO are manifest regarding billing and metering. I have picked a sample of messages from people who have come to me, one of whom has allowed me to use their name and details, for which I am grateful. To get through to OVO, many of my constituents have had to spend up to

“4.5 hours on hold on the telephone.”

This is a company that says there are simple things people can do to sort their accounts.

OVO will not send some customers monthly bills, insisting that “Total Heating with Total Control” bills are provided quarterly. One constituent received three bills in one month: one showed that they owed £680, which they paid; one showed £300 in credit; and another in the same month said that they owed £1,000. I will return to this issue, because it is an important factor in the way these companies work with people’s money. They have consistently failed to fix faulty meters, with 18 months of changed dates and timeframes in one case.

The constituent I mentioned, to whom I am very grateful, is Mrs Frances Raw, who is a widow on a state pension. The Minister will be aware that the state pension is £611.64 per month. She has been asked to pay more than £236 a month, and the company wants to raise her direct debit. It thinks that she is going to use more energy, which is the justification for putting up her direct debit, but Mrs Raw is sitting on a credit balance of £1,796.36.

By any measure, it is a disgrace to put somebody under that kind of pressure. It is a failure in a duty to care, and a failure to do good business; and it is a failure that it is not being properly regulated, as we need to prevent that happening to people such as Mrs Raw. She has been brave enough to allow me to use her name, and I thank her one more time. I know how difficult it is for constituents to come forward and say they have an issue, and that it is okay to talk about it. It is very rare for people to do that, and I am extremely grateful to her.

Mrs Raw’s problems do not stop there. OVO keeps delaying changing her Total Heating with Total Control meter as well. This is destined to continue. I met Mrs Raw and she asked me if it would be possible to get some of her money back. I said, “No, Mrs Raw, you are entitled to all of your money back.” That is what everybody should get in these circumstances. It should not be a matter of someone begging to get their money back; it should happen automatically.

[Patrick Grady]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The £,1000 or more credit balance on his constituent’s account is not just sitting there doing nothing. It is sitting in a company’s bank account earning interest, and contributing to the profits of that company. I wonder how the companies would feel if they were required to apply interest to customers’ credit accounts. Perhaps they would suddenly be incentivised to support the customers.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes a terrific point, which has been running through my mind. When these companies hold customers’ money, they are using it for whatever purpose they might have, rather than the customers being able to earn interest or pay their bills. These companies may well be using it for gaining their own interest. Some people might consider that theft. Some people might consider that using other people’s money to benefit themselves, without the permission of the people who own the money. That is not good enough. It is not their money; it is the customers’ money and it belongs with them.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. These companies are using that customer credit as spending capital. Does he agree that it could be propping up unstable or unsuitable business models? That is why they are reliant on that money, but at the end of the day it belongs to the consumer.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. There has been a great deal of debate in the industry about the practice of ringfencing, and whether that should be carried forward. I might touch on that shortly. The fact is that this money is being used in an incorrect way, whether it is propping up a company or aiding a company that needs it to survive, in a way that is not normal in business.

Notwithstanding the good point made by the hon. Lady, it is almost beside the point. The fact is that this money should not be used by companies, without the explicit permission of the people who have that money with them. Do not forget, they are not offering a shareholding to those customers. They are not saying, “Because you have a credit, as other people might have a credit with our company and have bought shares, we will give you back a dividend.” They are not applying any dividend. They are just keeping the money, and it is not their money.

I have some personal experience with OVO because, having started this campaign and looked into what was happening, I studied my own account, and lo and behold, I had a credit sitting on my account that I was not aware of, so I did some digging around. I have a smart meter that was installed and, despite several complaints and even a change of meter, OVO has still not been able to rectify the issue, so I have some sympathy for people who are not getting correct readings and are getting incorrect bills.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The absolute crux of this is, as he says, protecting customers’ credit. I have an example of the opposite thing. I went to switch supplier, then I got a bill for £1,000 because I had been inaccurately billed for so long. That could have tied me to that supplier for a long time, because I might not have been able to afford to switch. It shows another failure in the market and failure in the billing process. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to say this, but the point that he makes underlines the fact that in certain parts of this industry, these companies are behaving like it is the wild west. Almost anything goes; almost anything is okay for them to get away with regarding customer service, accuracy and the errors that they make. By the way, undercharging is not uncommon. It is something that constituents have brought to me. People suddenly finding that they have been undercharged is also an issue and it is just as unfair. However, I want to get back to the main thrust of the debate, which is the fact that companies are holding on to money.

Part of the problem is the confusion around billing. I mentioned my own experience. I wanted to check what was happening, because some of my constituents were saying that they were getting email bills and they did not tally with what was coming through on the apps that they were being encouraged to use. I want to touch on apps and other things in a moment, but I looked at my 15 January bill and, according to the email bill that I received, I was due £181.95 for electricity. That is fair enough, but I looked it up on the app for the same period, and I was due £215.03 for electricity. What chance do people have if that is the kind of information that we are allowing energy companies to deal with? I did not come as a constituent with a complaint; I did this after investigation on my own account. There are lots of people out there who are seeing this on a monthly basis or, as I said, on a quarterly basis sometimes; they are seeing that their bills are inaccurate or confusing. That confusion is a key point, because if there is a wish to avoid paying back money that people have paid into the account and is too much, in certain quarters it might be considered convenient that people might be confused about what they actually owe and what is actually in credit.

Centrica’s response was that it wanted to see customers’ funds that are paid in ringfenced and it was disappointed that Ofgem had rowed back on that requirement. It mentioned that customers can request a refund from companies, but again, I come back to the main point—it is not their money. Why should customers have to go begging for a refund? They should be entitled to get that money back as a matter of course.

ScottishPower does not pay back, but at least it adjusts direct debits downwards where customers have a credit balance. It says:

“Some…companies, while claiming that they provide credit back at the click of a button, may not be taking account of a customer’s credit balance when setting that customer’s monthly charge. If they had a customer whose credit was £500 and their annual energy bill was projected to be £2,000, they set their monthly payment at £167. This results in a £42 a month higher charge or £504 extra per year. This means the credit doesn’t go down and the supplier keeps it on their balance sheet”.

I am grateful to Scottish Power for that comment, but it is also guilty of keeping people’s money.

E.ON has also talked about favouring ringfencing, which means that customers’ money is kept in a separate place in their business, not in the main account, so there is some protection in case of bankruptcy, for example. E.ON says it refunds on request, and that it can flex direct debits by 10%. I am sorry—that is not enough. E.ON goes on to say:

“We are aware that a number of companies have used balances in the past to fund their own commercial activities.”

That should just simply not be allowed. They are using customers’ money.

Shell Energy says that all requests are triggered so it will pay them back; it talks about the licence conditions

“that ensure we don’t allow a customer to build up debt which guides us to set an appropriate DD to cover usage across the year and adjust if it won't cover usage”,

and about the option to choose a variable direct debit. There are some meagre attempts out there to try to smooth out this situation for people, but it is simply not enough.

We have to look at how Ofgem regulates. Ofgem was happy to respond to me on this issue, but its letter said:

“Unfortunately, Ofgem does not advise on or get involved in individual cases.”

It is my belief that Ofgem does not look at individual cases; it is not looking at the real lived experience of people in the energy market at the moment. It is just not doing that, and that is a view backed up by Christine Farnish, a former Ofgem board member, who says firms are collecting more than they absolutely need.

Ofgem suggests that customers who believe suppliers have amassed too much of their money contact the firm to ask for their money back—to ask for their money back! It is not good enough. The response from Ofgem is weak, and not good enough.

I hope I have laid out clearly today some of the problems out there. I am only scratching the surface of customer issues; I have not mentioned a number of people who have been in touch with us. We need a mechanism for returning automatically overpaid amounts. The energy companies should print credit balances in green at the top of bills, with a notice advising customers of their rights; there should be a mandate for direct debits to account for credits when being sent out; and there should be a duty on suppliers to declare their total credit balances openly to the public.

Finally, I repeat this point: this money is not the energy companies’ money. I tell everybody out there to check their bills: look at them carefully. If they do not understand them, make a call, or get in touch with an MP or anybody else—Citizens Advice, or anybody who can help. Check the bills. If there is a credit amount, the bill payer should alert the company to the fact that they want every penny of that back, because that money is not the energy company’s money. I say to all those people: it is your money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I reassure you that I will not take 20 minutes, which I am sure will please everybody.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing forward this important debate. As he said, the debate is about people’s money and their legitimate access to it. As you alluded to, Mr Betts, it is surprising that we are hearing from the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10 o’clock in the morning in this important debate. Given how many of us have been contacted by constituents who feel that they have been fleeced, and who are worried about turning on their heating and being able to eat, that is surprising. I suppose we can deal only with who is here.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey on how he set the tone for the debate. He said he would not list Government failures or attack the Government, and that he wanted to work with the Minister. That is commendable. I am not sure that I will be able to avoid criticising the Government, but we will come to that later. As my hon. Friend said, this debate is about people’s money; it is about people’s credit and what the companies do with it. I will turn to some of the examples he gave, particularly those in which people are in credit—effectively, companies owe them money—who should be secure, yet they are so frightened that they do not turn on their heating because they hear about the cost of living crisis. That struck me.

I pay tribute to the Wise Group, which works with vulnerable people. I was at an event last night, and heard an example of somebody the organisation engaged with. This individual was on a prepayment meter. They were so concerned about the cost of energy that they were scrimping on what they were eating so that they could put a £700 credit balance on their meter. They wanted to build up some form of insurance, as they saw it, by building up a £700 credit on their prepayment meter—a massive up-front payment. I cannot understand why that individual was not contacted by the energy company and asked why they had put so much money on their meter and whether everything was okay. It took engagement from the Wise Group to resolve the issue.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend’s point about fear is something that I perhaps did not cover enough in my remarks. The issue is not only that people fear not having enough to pay a bill. It has been in common parlance that we should be worried about energy costs, and people are really worrying. There is also the fear that, when people are struggling to get by—I do not know how many people in this room this will resonate with—and a bill comes in, they sometimes do not want to look at it or acknowledge that it is there; they put it away. People might panic about their bills without realising that they actually have money. My hon. Friend’s point about people’s fear is central to the fact that people should be getting their money back.

[Alan Brown]

I absolutely agree. That fear and the stress that comes with it were observed by the Wise Group in its report. Some 66% of people the group engaged with believe that their mental health has suffered because of the fear and concerns they have about dealing with the cost of energy. That has further detrimental impacts on individuals, but also consequential effects for the NHS and society.

In his fine contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned the struggle to get proper information about the companies’ credit balances and how that is not transparent. Why is that? Back in 2018, Ofgem estimated that companies would hold surplus credit balances of somewhere between £600 million and £1.4 billion. How can the regulator itself look into the matter and not get an accurate figure? It beggars belief. We are now nearly five years down the line, and we still have no idea how much money these companies are holding. It is outrageous. I call on Ofgem to fully get a grip of this matter.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, there should be transparent reporting, because we need a clear understanding of what these companies are holding. Had we had that understanding previously, we would not have had so many retail companies going bust because they did not have sufficient money and capital. Just reporting customers’ credit balances would give an indication of that, as well. It is concerning to hear about these companies’ performances, particularly OVO. I also pay credit to Mrs Raw for allowing that example to be given. Imagine a customer who is £1,000 in credit being asked to increase their direct debits.

[Drew Hendry]

I just want to underline the point that it is £1,796—nearly £2,000. That is nearly a year’s worth of bills. It is an absolute scandal.

[Alan Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that. It brings me to the two points: first, the credit balances; and secondly, the direct debits being increased. As The Times reported in December 2022, there is a real fear that companies were basically gaming the system by massively increasing the direct debits. I know this from anecdotal evidence from constituents, and I have tried to raise this with Ministers. I was afraid that when companies saw the Government energy support coming down the line, they were increasing direct debits and putting people on higher tariffs, because that would give them a bigger subsidy back from the Government. I really hope that the Government will look at that. It is commendable to give energy support to each household, but we need to ensure that householders, taxpayers and bill payers get 100% of the benefit of that, instead of companies gaming the system. That is another aspect to consider.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for doing the work up front, and speaking with individual companies to try to get details about individual policies. It is certainly concerning that ScottishPower has said, “Yes, we’ll adjust the direct debit, but in doing so we are actually still keeping that credit balance,” which is the company keeping money for itself. I disagree slightly on Centrica and E.ON, because it is commendable, at least, that they want a system that ringfences and protects customers’ credit balances, although that should be the bare minimum. Why should customer credit not be protected? That should not even be up for debate. Some companies do automatic returns at year end, such as EDF, which is probably an acceptable way to work.

Returning to the key issue, this is the basic principle: credit is customers’ money that they have paid in advance to the energy company. It is logical that their money should be protected, and that they should be able to access it if needed. However, we also have to acknowledge that a system that allows customers to build up credit does allow smoother, equal payments over the calendar year, equalising payments over summer and winter. There are benefits in such a system: it allows steady, monthly payments, so that people can understand what they are paying and—in theory, if the smart meter and billing system work properly, which is unfortunately not always the case—will not get sudden increases in bills landing on their doorstep, causing further concern. We have to admit that allowing customers to build up credit is also to the customer’s advantage, because it smooths out their payments. We should not lose sight of that.

To be fair, if every single customer decided to access their credit at the end of the summer, the system would not work properly either. If customers withdraw all that credit, and then build up debit in the winter, companies will need to capitalise more, which means borrowing more, which means actual bills will go up. There needs to be some sort of balance overall, whereby we ensure customer balances are protected and accessed, otherwise bills will unfortunately end up going up in the long run anyway.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I am taking advantage of the time that we have, Mr Betts—I apologise for the number of interventions, but this is an important point to clarify. The point he makes about having a fair mechanism in place to ensure that people are not being treated punitively over their credit balance is important. I hope the Minister will look at that to ensure that people are protected.

[Alan Brown]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and it will be good to hear the ministerial response. I said that I did not think I would be able to get through my speech without criticising the Government, so here it comes: companies using customer credit as working cash flow is what caused the market failure. That market failure was on the Government’s watch, and Ofgem was asleep at the wheel. Since the retail energy market has failed, we still have an inadequate response on how the Government and Ofgem will deal with this. It is outrageous that these companies went bust having used customers’ credit and then walked away, but then there is the double whammy of all the other bill payers paying the next company to restore the customers’ credit. We are paying twice, with other bill payers footing the bill.

I am also a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Initially, we had a one-off hearing when companies started to go bust. The then Secretary of State and now former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), appeared in front of the Committee. His attitude was that, “Companies come, companies go. It is a free market; that is what happens. We know that some companies tend to go bust when it is time to pay their renewables obligations.” That laissez-faire attitude that the free market knows best is just ridiculous, and it shows that he was unsuited to be the Chancellor. It is funny how he did not like how the free market operated when he saw the effects of his policies. That meant he was putting his hands up and saying, “It is okay. We don’t mind companies going bust, owing customers money or owing money for renewables obligations”. The renewables obligation is supposed to fund energy-efficiency upgrades, help us towards net zero and help lower people’s bills. It was a dereliction of duty, and what he said in front of the Committee genuinely shocked me.

It was crystal clear at that time that companies must have sufficient capital and a robust assessment must be in place for any new entrants to the market. There needs to be an ongoing assessment, especially as we have seen the cost of buying energy increase, and Ofgem needs to clearly and periodically check that companies still have access to enough capital. I am trying to be balanced, though. There is another benefit to companies having some customer credit on the books, and that helps in the advanced purchase or hedging of energy—for looking ahead—which smooths out risk. Again, as long as companies are not overly reliant on customer credit balances and there is a robust system in place that assesses how much customer credit is being used for that hedging and that look-ahead, that is okay but, again, this is unfortunately another failure of Government. When Bulb, the seventh biggest energy company, went bust, it was too big to go through the normal process of another company picking it up, so it was the first company to begin the supplier of last resort administration process. The Government did not allow them to hedge ahead, costing taxpayers up to £1 billion more. Companies must be able to operate and hedge ahead, but that comes back to having the right capital in place.

It is unfortunate that Ofgem has flip-flopped on customer credit and how to deal with this since 2018. Of course, in that period from 2018 to 2022 30 companies went bust, while Ofgem was still dithering and wondering what to do. It is time that Ofgem came up with a solution. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for what he has proposed. As he says, this is customers’ money. I refer the Minister to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report published in July 2022 called “Energy pricing and the future of the energy market”. Key recommendations 117 and 118 address customer credit, particularly 118, which is about Ofgem coming up with a system that manages these complexities and reporting back to the Committee and Government to agree a way forward. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response because there has not been a suitable Government response to the report as yet—I look forward to hearing more. The point is that customers’ money should be protected. To throw in one last request, it is high time we got a social tariff to protect those that need it most and a much fairer system of paying for our energy.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing the debate. I share hon. Members’ disappointment that the Chamber is not more full this morning, because this issue is really important as regards the overall life of energy companies. Most importantly, as the hon. Member said—I am happy to repeat it—it is not the companies’ money but the customers’ money that is being used in such a way.

We know from the record what the large sum floating about in energy companies’ bank balances is used for—we cannot get an accurate picture, but £9 billion is probably not too far adrift—and we know how disastrous that is on occasion for the overall operation of those companies. Between the middle of 2021 and the summer of last year, we had the unfortunate experience of 28 energy companies going bust. Some research was done into what those bust companies had been doing with credit balances. A company called Oxera, commissioned by Ofgem, did a research project on seven failed energy suppliers that found that most of the companies did not just use credit balances, but were reliant on them for their business models.

Oxera stated that the companies,

“relied on receiving customer balances prior to the provision of services. Suppliers used these prepayments to fund the ongoing costs of the business and to act as a buffer against any short-term shocks. They then relied on growth in the customer base to keep ahead of future liabilities, making the strategy unsustainable in the long term during times when growth slows down”.

This was not just an accident of balances appearing in companies’ accounts because they had not accurately worked out what to do with direct debits. It was an integral part of the companies’ business model—or so they thought at the time—to accelerate their progress by using customers’ money to borrow ahead and fund their expansion, and of course they came horribly adrift as a result of the slowdown in the market.

The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), underlined the other part of that dreadful arrangement. When those companies went bust, the credit balances that they held had gone. The companies that took over through the supplier of last resort arrangement looked at the books and found that there were no credit balances in the books because the companies had borrowed and then gone bust, and they had to restore the balances to their new customers. That is what they did in most instances, but they then billed Ofgem for the work they had done to restore credit balances to those customers after the companies had gone bust, and they were paid for doing that. Guess who paid for those companies to restore the credit balances? The customer. It was socialised across their bills, so bills went up as a result of companies borrowing money, going bust and having to have those credit amounts restored.

The system is not just thoroughly rotten but systemically rotten. I do not want to resort to anecdotes, but I will talk about a recent experience I had—a small straw in the wind—when I changed my parliamentary flat. It is a one-bedroom flat that I inhabit now and again. I went to set up a direct debit, and the company quoted me £350 a month to start. I am sure it is a coincidence that it is exactly the sum that the Government have put up for the average household bills. I said, “This is just not right. You can’t start a direct debit at £350 on a small flat like that. I think I would prefer a smaller sum of £150.” We had a long argument on the phone, and the person eventually agreed, but I found when I went into my account that they had stuck with the £350. I had to have further phone calls to say, “I am not paying that amount of money in a direct debit per month. Can you put it down, please?”

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is talking about his personal experience. I looked into this on a personal basis and found that what my constituents were saying was true. What he has just relayed is the real difficulty in communicating with companies that are setting these arbitrary figures, and of course in the process building up credit balances. Does he agree that this poor communication and confusion is a far more common problem than perhaps even we in this Chamber expect?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Had I not had a reasonably informed view of how direct debits work, I may well have just said, “Okay, I’ll go with that,” with the inevitable result that I would have built up a huge credit balance. That would have been good for the company’s working practices. I do not know whether it was an instruction from the company that the person should start with a high direct debit and then argue down, but it looked to me like they should not have been engaging in that practice.

After various companies went bust, Ofgem started looking at companies’ financial resilience, and that process is continuing. There have been a couple of reports and processes. Among them, Ofgem suggested a couple of arrangements that might help with this scandal of how much is in credit balances—money that is not for companies to use. It proposed that credit balances should be restored to nought at the end of each contract year, even if customers had not requested it. I take the point that, in general, it is often in the customer’s interest to smooth payments out over the year, so that higher bills in certain parts of the year are countered by lower bills at other times, and the overall account can be smoothed out, but there is no justification for a large ongoing credit balance in the company’s books after the end of the contract year.

That seemed a good plan from Ofgem, but it decided not to proceed, on the grounds that quite extraordinarily—guess what?—a number of companies responded to the consultation saying, “We would really like to keep the credit balances because it is very helpful to us.” Ofgem concluded that the proposal might be a bit complicated, so it has not been proceeded with, so the situation of rolling credit balances in companies’ books continues.

Another financial resilience proposal from Ofgem was that a company’s customer accounts should be ringfenced. The company might hold the credit balances on its books for the purposes of smoothing customers’ accounts, but they should be in a separate account, since that was not the company’s money; the money should not be usable for other purposes. The company may get some interest, but the money should not be used as working capital.

Ofgem consulted on that proposal. Again, a number of energy companies responded and said, “No, we don’t think that is a good idea, because that might cause us some problems with our working practices.” So Ofgem decided not to proceed with that proposal either, and there is no ringfenced money—except where, and I am finding it hard not to laugh, a company is thought by Ofgem to be in some financial distress. Then it might decide to ringfence the balances so that they could be rescued when the company went bust and not be used to pay further bills in cases such as those when the supplier of last resort took over the bust company only to find that all the money had gone. Presumably, thanks to Ofgem’s intervention, all the money would not be gone in these cases. That is perhaps a sort of progress, but it is not exactly the sort of progress anybody in this Chamber would see as a serious attempt to address the issue.

My concern is not that the matter has not been looked at by the regulator; it is that the regulator has failed to implement the more or less common-sense measures necessary to ensure that where there are credit balances, they are used for the purposes for which they are intended—smoothing over accounts and nothing else. After all, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, this is not the companies’ money. The companies should use it on the basis that they have permission from the customer to keep it on trust for the customer, for their bills, and not for the company’s own purposes. That should be the central principle of this whole arrangement in the future.

I congratulate the Minister on her good practice in talking to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I hope that that good ministerial practice will wash over into good practice on energy companies. She might have a quiet-ish word with Ofgem and say, “Maybe your consultations and discussions on financial resilience did not work out quite as we all hoped. Could you reopen the matter and have another look?”

The principle on which we all agree is that people’s money is there in trust. It is not there for the companies to use; it is there only for the purpose of smoothing out bills. That is the principle that Ofgem ought to apply to protect customers, but I am sorry to say that in this instance that has not happened. It would be great if the Minister addressed that. I hope that she will respond positively and get on the phone to Ofgem to see what can be done.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)]

It is a pleasure to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing the debate and for meeting me yesterday to discuss the matter. That was important for me, because I am new in the role and it is important to have our eyes wide open when we take such a role on. I want to make it clear that the customer has to be at the heart of all we do. If there is any point to which I am unable to respond, given my newness in the role, I am happy to write to hon. Members.

The Government welcome steps to increase customer awareness and engagement. We believe that energy suppliers need to ensure, now more than ever, that customers do not build up large credit balances. Suppliers should not be sitting on money that is not needed to pay for the energy that a customer is using. An account might move between credit and debit over the course of a year, in line with energy demand, but accounts should not build up an excessive credit balance. I concur with the hon. Member: it is the customers’ money.

The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero wrote to the energy suppliers in November and urged them to ensure that their IT systems are more responsive to changes. I note the point about the app; I had not heard about that, but we will look into it. The Secretary of State called on suppliers to ensure that direct debits are more accurate and that customers do not end up with large credit balances on their accounts. He has also urged Ofgem to ensure that suppliers are complying with the rules.

Ofgem requires energy suppliers to review their customers’ direct debit arrangements at least once a year. Most review them twice a year. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has mentioned and has noted in his campaign, it is important to have accurate and regular meter readings. That is easily done by having a smart meter fitted so that readings are sent automatically to the supplier and stored electronically. I note, and will look into, the comments about smart meters not always being fit for purpose.

With the combination of a smart meter and an online account, customers and suppliers both have an accurate and up-to-date record of energy usage to hand. That is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that direct debits are at the right level, but I note the examples of customers not finding it to be the easiest of things. I have been reflecting on my father, who will not like my admitting to his age of 88; it is certainly a problem for older customers and others who will not necessarily have access to the app or the IT, so I will look at that. Elderly customers and those who are less able to engage have a dedicated helpline run by the supplier or the citizens advice bureau. However, I understand from my conversation yesterday with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that customers might not always know that, so we need to look into that.

In August 2022, Ofgem changed the licence conditions on suppliers to ensure that direct debits are based on the best and most current information available in all cases. The tightening of the licence conditions should reduce the likelihood of suppliers accruing excessive credit balances. Ofgem requires suppliers to explain the reasons for any changes that they make to a customer’s direct debit arrangement and to inform them of any change at least 10 days in advance. A customer may challenge a proposed increase and ask for a revised level. However, as has been acknowledged in today’s discussion, that option is not always readily available and the customer may not always recognise that it is there, so we need to reach out to ensure that they know how to ask for it.

A customer can ask their supplier to refund a credit balance at any time. Suppliers must do so promptly. If a supplier refuses to give the customer a refund, it must explain why it is unable to do so. If the customer is not happy with the situation, they should lodge a complaint with the supplier. I am aware that there are often complaints about suppliers increasing direct debit amounts; I have said as much to the Secretary of State, who has urged improvement. We must ensure that refusal by suppliers is not allowed. My understanding is that suppliers have so far not refused to refund a credit balance. I discussed the matter yesterday with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but I am happy to look into it more fully.

If a customer remains unhappy with the outcome of their complaint to their supplier, they can reach out to the energy ombudsman. Ombudsman Services, an independent body that provides dispute resolution and is free for customers, can investigate and where appropriate oblige the supplier to rectify the situation. Customers can also contact their supplier at any time to request a review of their direct debit arrangement. The review should be based on their annual consumption, using actual data or, where that is not available, estimated data. Customers can often change the direct debit themselves via the supplier’s website, over the phone or via their bank. However, it is much better for the supplier to get it right in the first instance, and that is what I want to see.

As has been acknowledged, the advantage for customers of paying for energy with a fixed direct debit or standing order is that they pay the supplier the same amount at regular intervals—usually monthly—irrespective of how much energy they have consumed. Customers typically build up a credit balance on their account over spring and summer because they use less energy for heating during those warmer periods. The credit balance is then drawn on during the colder autumn and winter periods, when more energy is consumed. Actual energy use will vary and is dependent on weather conditions. We must be mindful that this is the customer’s money we are talking about.

[Drew Hendry]

It is important to clarify one thing. There is no dispute that energy suppliers, if pushed, will return credit balances, but “if pushed” are the active words. Many of my constituents have told me that there are sometimes barriers to getting their money back. “You don’t want to do that, do you? You should really take a smaller amount”—that is the message. As I commented earlier, Ofgem seems to be missing on the issue.

[Amanda Solloway]

I noticed that point in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Maybe we should look at whether there could be some automatic repayment. I believe that that has been looked into before, but I am certainly prepared to do so and to give an assurance on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Once again, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I will not speak for long, but I want briefly to cover a few points from the debate.

I thank the Minister for the open and helpful way in which she responded. Such a response is a breath of fresh air in this place. I look forward to working with her to solve these problems for people who are struggling in their homes. I thank the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for his comments, which were spot on.

All hon. Members in this debate have shown—perhaps more diplomatically, in the Minister’s case—that Ofgem is not stepping up to the plate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for their comments, which were helpful in underlining the plight that people face. People’s money is being held captive. It is their money and they should have it back.

May I again be clear about some of the asks? An easy ask is for a clear, printed credit balance at the top of bills so that people can see their credit. That is easy to solve right away so that people can understand their bills. We need plain language billing. A click of a button is not the answer for everybody out there, because not everybody can do it. I have constituents who do not have email, let alone a computer or a smartphone, so that is not the answer for everybody.

The Minister talked about helplines. She is absolutely right that helplines should be available, but the problem is that often they are not. If they are available, they can be quite obstructive and there can be enormous delays getting through. There has to be a better system.

The Minister referred to having the best available information for direct debits. She is right that that is how it should be, but the system is clearly not working. There are many examples of information not being taken into account.

The debate has been helpful in raising the issue, and hon. Members’ contributions have been welcome. I hope we can go forward, working together as a group to ensure that we solve the problem and make it clear to people that the money that is being held by companies does not belong to those companies. I say to every consumer, “Check this out, because it is your money.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered regulation of customer credit retained by energy suppliers.

Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Despite the Minister’s gymnastics on this issue, it is clear that there are still serious and systemic links between the UK Government and Russian political elites. In 2021 the operations, tactics and human rights abuses of the Wagner Group were well known, and the EU and the UK imposed sanctions on Yevgeny Prigozhin, as the Wagner Group leader, for that reason. These revelations present a serious and immoral disregard for human rights obligations and due process at the heart of the Minister’s Government, and all this took place on the current Prime Minister’s watch, as he was Chancellor at the time.

Will the Minister tell us what advice, legal or otherwise, prompted the Treasury to make Prigozhin’s activities possible? It is not beyond his capability—legal or otherwise—to tell us who made the decision to override that. What actions will his Government now take to ensure, as a result of these revelations, that the Prime Minister’s promised

“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”

will be followed through?

[James Cartlidge]

I think that the hon. Gentleman submitted a similarly worded urgent question this morning, and obviously I respect that point, but there are no gymnastics here; I am merely setting out the position.

The hon. Gentleman asked about legal advice and so on. Within the sanctions regime broadly, because we are a country with the rule of law and everyone has a right to legal representation, it is possible for frozen assets to be used to pay for that legal representation. This is about sanctioned individuals. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation grants licences to allow sanctioned people to cover their own legal fees provided that the costs are reasonable. I should make it clear that decisions on the issuance of licences for legal fees are not, and should not be, political, and are largely taken by officials in line with standard practice. As I said a few moments ago, we are not aware of a case relating to legal fees under any of the sanctions regimes in which a Minister took the decision.

Non-domestic Energy Support

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I do not agree about the level of support. I cannot speak for what is happening in Germany, but this remains significantly more generous support for the energy and trade-intensive industries. The hon. Gentleman is right about the figures for this country: the price threshold for the scheme is £99 per megawatt hour for gas and £185 per megawatt per hour for electricity. To be clear, about 60% of the up to £5.5 billion that we have allocated for this scheme would be for the energy and trade-intensive industries. That is more than half of all the funding. It is a significant commitment and includes major manufacturing sectors such as steel.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about financial prudence, but when any business goes out of business this Government lose the tax from pay-as-you-earn and all the other income from them. His own Government have described the hospitality sector as a vulnerable industry. We have heard in the Chamber today that increases of 400% and 500% are common. Energy costs of £5,000 to £15,000 a month are not uncommon. Does he think that a maximum of £191 per month will make them feel any less vulnerable?

[James Cartlidge]

We do see the importance of the hospitality sector in every part of the United Kingdom. That is precisely why we have the current six-month scheme—£18 billion. Let us be clear about something: if a Government wanted to raise £18 billion year on year, that would require an increase in the basic rate of income tax of 3p. That is enormous and puts into context the scale of that cost.

Yes, we want to support hospitality. To give one example, because of freezes or cuts to the duty on whisky and spirits, that duty is now at the lowest level in real terms since 1918. Alongside that, next August, for the first time ever in this country—something not possible when we were a member of the EU—we will have a differential duty with a lower rate on a pint in a pub compared with a can of the same beer in a supermarket. We are supporting hospitality but we are balancing that against the need to run a tight fiscal ship.

Energy (oil and gas) profits levy

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I do apologise—Alba.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It’s a stock answer.

[James Cartlidge]

It is not a stock answer. How could it be a stock answer when I have not taken an intervention like that before?

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) will I am sure forgive me but, on his substantive point, we have delivered a significant windfall tax, but with the investment allowance that balances the interests of investment in the sector against needing to raise revenue. I repeat, where is that revenue going? It is to help families throughout the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, because we are stronger together when the support of the Treasury, at the heart of the United Kingdom, helps everyone in every part of this country.

The final issue to address with regard to taxation is business rates, which I know many colleagues feel strongly about. We believe that bills for business rates should accurately reflect market values, so we will proceed with the revaluation of business properties from April 2023. However, we will soften the impact on businesses with a £13.6 billion support package over the next five years. Nearly two thirds of properties will not pay a penny more next year and thousands of pubs, restaurants and small high street shops will benefit. Furthermore, we are extending and increasing the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme from 50% to 75% in 2023-24, showing that this is a Government committed to protecting the businesses that make our high streets and town centres successful.

These are not easy times to bring in these sorts of measures, but that does not mean the Government will shy away from difficult decisions. Our priorities, expressed through the autumn statement, are stability, growth and public services. Today, we are debating specific tax measures and the importance of sustainable public finances, but what the Government are delivering is much more comprehensive than that—an integrated response to what the Chancellor last week called

“a global energy crisis, a global inflation crisis and a global economic crisis”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 855.]

The bottom line is this: because of the difficult decisions that I have outlined today—the decisions this Government are not afraid to take—the OBR confirms we will see less severe inflation and a shallower recession, but perhaps most importantly, unemployment is forecast to be 70,000 lower than would otherwise have been the case. That is 70,000 real families who will benefit. At the same time, when growth returns, we will be in a better position to pay our debts, ensuring those are not simply passed on to future generations. That is the promise of this autumn statement—a statement that is balanced, honest and fair—and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Opening yesterday’s debate, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that this was not a return to austerity. That made me wonder what the Government call a forecast drop of 7% per person in household living standards. Over the past 12 years, we have had Tory Prime Minister after Tory Prime Minister after Tory Prime Minister—I could go on, because there have been quite a few of them—telling us that this is the end of austerity, but in that time what we have seen is growing inequality and mortgages rising, and now we have record inflation and energy costs are skyrocketing.

This Tory Government have presided over nothing but austerity, and they offer people no hope of anything else. They have presided over the continued chaotic mismanagement of the UK economy that forces ordinary people to pay the price. That view is shared by many people. When preparing for this speech, I looked at all the different resources—people who have made contact to comment on the Budget statement and the events of the past few months. It was really difficult to narrow them down, because so many people representing so many organisations across business and charities have been critical of the way the Government have handled and are handling things. I will pick out just a few. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:

“The truth is we just got a lot poorer. We are in for a long, hard, unpleasant journey…that has been made more arduous than it might have been by a series of economic own goals”.

He went on to mention the disastrous mini-Budget of course, but he also stated:

“Very clearly, Brexit was an economic own goal. Economically speaking that has been very bad news indeed”.

I notice that no one else dares to speak of Brexit in this Chamber, but the damage is real and has been done. Scotland voted resolutely against Brexit; we voted to remain in the EU and were ignored, and now we are paying the price. In a very impressive speech, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) made a lot of persuasive arguments, but I noticed again that Labour dares not go there, because when it comes to Brexit, they have taken the clothes off the beach and put them on themselves. It is not good enough.

Let me go further and quote the UN Human Rights Council, which includes nations such as Brazil and which has urged the UK Government to implement an energy poverty strategy that addresses the impact of rising costs on child poverty targets. It has gone further still and asked the UK Government to

“improve food security, in particular for children, adolescents and persons with disabilities”.

Does that make the Tories feel proud? It is almost unbelievable. Scotland deserves much better than that.

The Food Standards Agency consumer insights tracker points out that the proportion of people who cannot afford to eat a healthy balanced diet rose to more than a third in October. More than a third of people cannot afford to eat a healthy balanced diet. A quarter of people reported eating cold food because they could not afford to cook. About a fifth are turning off fridges and freezers with food inside them because they reckon they cannot afford the energy to run those appliances. That is a disgrace. All the nations of the UK deserve better. The people I represent in my constituency and across Scotland definitely deserve better.

The Resolution Foundation points out that, far from the Government taxing the rich, as we have heard in this Chamber—taxing those who can most afford it—it is the people in the middle who will be squeezed by a near 4% hit on their income, which is a bigger hit than high earners will experience. The Resolution Foundation warns that the statement means nearly 20 years of wage stagnation between 2008 and 2027 due to the weak forecast for pay and the effects of inflation, hurting people in their homes, hurting families and hurting children. The foundation further points out that households living in harder-to-heat homes with larger families are particularly hard hit by energy bills—nearly a quarter of them are affected. It is worse for people who live off the gas grid—a large number of people in rural communities of the sort that I and many others represent. Look at what they have been offered. Yes, it is great to see a doubling from £100 to £200 in the support for off-gas-grid households, but that is nowhere near enough. Are Ministers living in the real world? At the moment, the minimum oil or kerosene delivery is £500. The amounts offered will not touch the sides, and people living in off-gas-grid households will pay far more than £4,000 for their average energy bill.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

In mainland UK, heating oil can be bought for 82p per litre, but we in Northern Ireland are paying £1.08 per litre. Fuel poverty is a major problem in Northern Ireland.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Member makes a good point about affordability for his constituents. This is a major issue for people in rural communities across the nations of the UK, especially Scotland, although Northern Ireland fares similarly in having a colder climate. These are big, big issues for people. There is no real acknowledgement in the autumn statement of the difficulties for people living their real lives in that type of accommodation in those areas.

The OBR pointed out that Westminster’s Brexit

“will result in the UK’s trade intensity being 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU.”

The Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said the UK has suffered a “dramatically” worse recovery than the US or the EU. Government Members like to pretend that the only things that have happened are the war in Ukraine and the global pandemic, but they must take responsibility for the economic self-harm they have imposed on people across the UK and in Scotland through their Brexit ideology, which is resolutely failing and being proved to fail on a daily basis. Scotland deserves better than that.

The CBI director general says of the situation:

“There was really nothing there to tell us that the economy is going to avoid another decade of low productivity and low growth”.

On labour shortages, he called for a practical approach to immigration and urged the UK Government—he might do the same for the Labour party—to be “honest” with people over the UK’s “vast” labour shortages, and said:

“we don’t have the people we need, nor do we have the productivity.”

Scotland deserves better than this.

Business after business ignored. Organisation after organisation ignored. Expert after expert ignored. The UK Tory Government ignore them all. We have seen non-doms protected. Bankers’ bonuses are now unlimited. Many companies are still avoiding their tax responsibilities and public services are facing their most brutal cuts. The Health Foundation pointed out that the whole health budget amounts to only a 1.2% increase in real terms over the next two years, which is well below the historic average of 3.8%. For Scotland, that means having to draw back on the services we can provide. We are focused on trying to support people with fair pay settlements, so they can navigate the cost of living crisis. The Health Foundation also shows that if spending per person had matched the EU average, the UK would have spent £40 billion more than it has done.

On the climate, where have all the good promises gone? Where have all the warm words gone on taking the global climate crisis seriously? In fact, the autumn statement undermines Scotland’s climate change goals and underlined the dangers of Scotland being held back. The UK Government are pushing ahead with nuclear, which is the most costly and the slowest form of energy to deliver, and has the highest environmental impact. The UK already has the most poorly insulated homes in western Europe. There is nothing to change that situation. They still have not delivered, after a number of betrayals, the Peterhead carbon capture and storage project. They have put a higher—higher!—windfall tax on renewable energy producers than they have on oil and gas. That is quite incredible. They have deterred and deferred the uptake of electric vehicles. At a time when momentum was growing for people to invest in an electric vehicle to be better for the climate, what do this Government do? They introduce a pretty high tax to put people off doing that. People will persevere with their petrol and diesel for a bit longer, and burn more carbon-intensive fuels.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have been working to protect people, despite a real-terms cut of 10% since December due to inflation. Any Westminster increase as a result of the autumn statement will more than be wiped out by inflation. We prioritised public sector fair pay and are prioritising funding to help households, businesses and people to get through this period, but we are reaching the limit. In fact, the limit of what can be done, without borrowing powers and the powers we need to look after our people properly, has already been reached, in sharp contrast to this place. Under Westminster, we continue to see growing inequality, mortgages rising, inflation rising and energy costs skyrocketing. When we compare countries of Scotland’s size or smaller, we find that, for them, independence works. Compared to the UK, those countries are wealthier and more equal, and have higher productivity, lower poverty, lower child poverty and lower pensioner poverty. They have higher social mobility and higher business investment.

Scotland has not voted Tory for nearly 70 years, yet we are saddled with this. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and we do not want it. Scottish people, families and children are bearing the brunt of Westminster’s legacy. Scotland is being denied the people it needs to strengthen its communities, its businesses and our country. Scotland has voted time and time again to have its say on its future. It cannot be denied. The choice is between the toxic approach here in Westminster, or a normal independent country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because we should be looking at an excess profits tax across the board. It is quite right to mention the oil and gas companies, but they are not the only ones who benefited from the pandemic. We now seem to be being told by the Government that tax avoidance and evasion somehow disappeared during the pandemic. That is the only conclusion we can reach when we look at the figures in these documents.

In addition, the Government seem to be making no attempt to discuss how we tackle energy prices. People have a very real perception that the regulators are on the side of the energy companies, not the consumers. That is exactly what the people on the streets believe when they talk about energy. We should start giving the regulators more teeth and encourage them to use their powers to go after the energy companies that are making excess profits, as well as to bring prices down for consumers, because that has to happen.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the absolutely crushing effect that energy costs are having on families and communities. Does he agree that off-gas grid supplies should be regulated as well? For too long they have been ignored, and people are paying substantially more to heat their homes than people on the gas grid do.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and my hon. Friend made powerful points earlier about costs, as did the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). Poverty is a real issue across the UK—it is not just an urban, but a rural issue—and it affects all the communities across these islands.

As much as I welcome the fact that benefits were uprated in line with inflation, it has always been regarded as a political fact that that should happen anyway, so we should not give the Government any kudos just for following what should take place. However, as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) rightly argued, food inflation has gone up by 16%, and we are seeing a rise in the use of food banks and affordable food projects, which are the next level above food banks. Pantries and larders are opening up in many of our communities to help people move away from food banks, and I am involved in many such projects in Glasgow South West.

[Drew Hendry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I will in a second, but I want to talk about poverty and the Department for Work and Pensions—I am on the Work and Pensions Committee.

The DWP is closing offices and laying off its workers. Incredibly, the Department that is responsible for employment and social security is saying to its workforce, “You are no longer required,” because it is closing offices. That position is absolutely risible, and it is made even more risible by its refusal of home working for people who are under threat of redundancy. One thing that did work during the pandemic was home working; it helped people to get into the workplace. As we heard in my exchange with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), when we encourage home working, we encourage people into paid employment.

It seems daft that Government Departments are telling their workforce, “Come into the office, come into these workplaces, but you can’t work from home.” The Government have to show a bit more creativity if they are serious about dealing with long-term unemployment, turning around people’s lives and getting them into work. It seems completely contradictory for them to say to their workforce, “You cannae work from home.” The position they find themselves in is completely and utterly risible.

I hope that the Minister will answer this question: of the 6,000 additional employees that the state is going to employ, what will the ratio be between the DWP and HMRC? I will make an educated guess: the overwhelming majority will end up in the DWP chasing social security fraud and error, not in HMRC tackling tax avoidance and evasion.

Finally, there was nothing in the statement about public sector pay policy. So many workers have taken the view that they have no alternative other than to withdraw their labour because of the low pay offers that they get from employers, including many in the public sector. The overwhelming majority of civil servants are not covered by pay review bodies, yet we do not know the Government’s policy on public sector pay. Public sector workers spend that money in the economy and there could be an economic boost if we give public sector workers the pay rise that they deserve. I hope that we will get an answer to that, because public sector workers deserve better than to be treated as the Government are treating them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the OBR—the independent OBR—again confirms that because of our plans the recession is shallower, and inflation is reduced because of these very difficult decisions we have taken. Unemployment is also lower, with about 70,000 jobs protected as a result of our decisions.

[Drew Hendry]

The Minister is very keen to lay inflationary pressures globally, but how does she explain the OECD figures showing that, for market interest rates, the UK is at the very top of the tree?

[Victoria Atkins]

As the Governor of the Bank of England has explained, disruption in the markets has subsided, and the impact of that has flushed through the system. I would emphasise to the hon. Member the evidence we are seeing in other countries. I do not shy away from that; I offer it as an example of the pressures we are all facing internationally. It is precisely that international picture that the Government are addressing.

The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) laid down in, if I may say so, a rather loud speech that there was no help for his constituents with the cost of living. It was passionate, I am told. It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) expressed astonishment at his passion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) said that some Opposition Members were living in a different galaxy.

On a serious note, I do want to help colleagues across the House understand the help that is available, because I know that hon. Members will be responding to their constituents’ worries. Any constituent who is on benefits or paid pensions will have them increased by 10.1%. Any constituent on means-tested benefits will have a one-off payment of £900. Any constituent on pension credit will have a one-off payment of £300 on top of their winter payment, and those who are living with disabilities will have a one-off payment of £150. Any constituent on the national living wage will see an increase to their salary, with the hourly rate going up to £10.42. Every single one of our constituents will see help through the energy price guarantee, which is worth on average £900 this year and will be worth £500 next year, and it helps to lower inflation by 2%.

Economic Responsibility and a Plan for Growth

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

A report out today shows that 60% of people across the nations of the UK are worried about their household financial prospects. The same report shows that nine in 10 people have delayed putting on the heating due to concern about the cost.

Members across the House will have received emails and calls from people who have never before been moved to contact their MP and who are now feeling those concerns for themselves. When those who have felt relatively comfortable start feeling the pinch, imagine what it means for those on the rungs of the ladder below. Then imagine what it means for those who were not getting by at all, who were already suffering from poverty and who had £20 a week cut from their universal credit. It is crushing them. It is destroying families. It is clearing out food banks. It is moving third-sector and support service staff to tears with the feeling of futility. And it is destroying the health of children.

The actions of this Westminster Government have left vulnerable households abandoned, betrayed and cast aside. This Government laid bare their ideology during the chaotic period of the so-called mini-Budget. Make no mistake, while they were doing that damage, they simply pulled back the curtain on their core ideology. Their error was being so obvious, so blunt, that political spin could not cover it. Their focus has always been on making the rich richer. When their key policies result in poverty but mean £40,000 extra each year for those earning £1 million a year it is a bit of a giveaway, is it not? Only those earning more than £155,000 a year were net beneficiaries of the mini-Budget.

Of course, this month’s Chancellor has had to scrap this unfunded giveaway to the most well-off, not through genuine contrition but because he was forced to do so. Limp and clearly insincere apologies do not fool anyone. The parachute Chancellor has dropped in to try to close the curtain and return to the drip, drip of chronic austerity that is the usual modus operandi. People now see through it.

With inflation above 10%, the poor are facing the hardest choices. Food inflation is higher than 10%, which means they have really tough choices. The Chancellor has taken away the two-year energy price cap. Although the cap is welcome, it still means a doubling of prices from last year. Ominously, there will be a review in six months. There is no certainty for increasingly desperate people, while rich bankers will still see their wages rocket, as the cap on their bonuses has been removed.

[James Cartlidge]

On the subject of banking, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that current SNP policy is that Scotland, were it to become independent, would have a currency with no lender of last resort?

[Drew Hendry]

Let me deal with two issues. First, no amount of deflection by Conservative Members will take away from the fact that they are punishing the poor and they have trashed the economy in recent weeks. Secondly, on the prospectus for independence, people in Scotland should have a choice: to have those questions put before them and to vote on them. It is the hon. Gentleman’s Government who are denying democracy in that case.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The Chancellor has ominously set that cap up for a review in six months, providing no certainty for increasingly desperate people, while rich bankers will still be able to see their wages rocket, as I said, with the cap on their bonuses removed. The energy crisis is even more galling for my constituents, and many more across Scotland, as they see their energy being produced from their backyards, yet folk in the colder climate of the highlands pay more per unit for electricity than people anywhere else in the UK—renewable energy suppliers are charged more to connect to the grid than those anywhere else in the UK, and the picture is particularly bleak for those who are off the gas grid.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that even on the Government’s own estimates heating oil has gone up by 147% since January, and in constituencies such as ours it is costing more than £1,200 to fill a tank, and sometimes this is with a minimum delivery of 500 litres. Does he share my concern that in these colder, rural and more economically fragile areas of the UK not everyone has £500 to replenish their oil tank? This will not be a choice of turning their heating on or not; they simply will not have the choice, because they will not have the oil or the means to replenish the tank when they need it. This is a crisis.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is completely right and he represents a constituency with many off gas grid constituents, as I do. He makes a telling point about the cost of that. What support are the UK Government giving to these people who face twice the bills that other people will? They are giving a measly £100.

[Imran Hussain]

Even today, the Minister refuses to give us figures on the expected windfall revenue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the simple fact remains that this Government always side with the energy giants as opposed to ordinary British people?

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government’s ideology is that the rich will get richer while the poor will suffer. That has been underlined over the past few weeks like at no other time in this place. The scales have fallen away—

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I tried to intervene on the Minister on this broad point. Both he and his friends refer continually to growth, but I do not think I have heard any indication from him this afternoon, or elsewhere, as to how that growth will be spread beyond London and the south-east. Is that not a gaping gap in the Government’s policy? It will certainly affect the constituents of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), as it will my constituents and those in Wales, the north of England and Scotland.

[Drew Hendry]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point. The growth we are seeing from this Government is the growth in poverty and in inequality. That continues to rise and the Government are very good at driving it forward.

As I was saying, those off gas grid consumers are being given £100. Scotland is energy rich and a net exporter of energy. Renewable energy is six to nine times cheaper than the gas-fired power our prices are linked to. In Scotland we have the energy, but until we have the power our people will continue to be ignored over their basic needs and their potential.

After the Chancellor’s statement, the Scottish National party, through my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), tried to introduce some certainty for households terrified by the rising energy prices by tabling an amendment to the Energy Prices Bill that would have required Ministers to outline within 28 days how support after April would be provided to households. Labour failed to support that amendment. The Chancellor says that more difficult decisions will have to be made, which means cutting the funding for things that ordinary families and the most vulnerable rely on. We should note that the threat for those struggling by, many of them working people relying on universal credit, has not been lifted; there may be further reductions, on top of the fact that inflation has been three times higher than their last increase. Common decency demands that benefits must be fully uprated. Are the Government capable of that?

We should also remember that this Government still have not reversed the pernicious £20 a week cut to UC, yet the Chancellor had the cheek to say—this has been repeated today—that the Government’s priority will always be the most vulnerable. Does that include pensioners? This week, he was briefing journalists, including Robert Peston, who said this today, that the Government were abandoning the triple lock. With inflation rampant—today’s figure is 10.1%—this means further hardship for Scotland’s older people. Yet today, the Prime Minister says no. Is this another U-turn? Or is it like when she says that the energy cap will mean no family would pay more than £2,500 per year? Is it just—let me find some parliamentary language—questionable?

If the Government really mean that they care, they would reinstate the £20 a week to UC, scrap the bedroom tax, get rid of the odious rape clause and uprate benefits in line with inflation. They could choose to follow the progressive lead of the Scottish Government, who have brought in, among a wide package—[Interruption.] The Minister is laughing. The Scottish Government have brought in the Scottish child payment, which has risen now to £25 a week. That is helping to mitigate the callous cut made by his Government. They could choose to follow that progressive lead and to follow what the Scottish Government have done in doubling the December bridging payment from £130 to £260, at a time when families will need it most, in the depth of winter and at Christmas. The Government could pay for much of this by taxing the excess profits of companies that are clearly making them.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend was talking about the Tories not keeping their pledge to protect the most vulnerable, and he has highlighted some awful policies that are making people more vulnerable. In addition, under this Government fuel poverty has increased by more than 50% and now affects 6.7 million households. So to say that the Government are protecting the vulnerable is, unfortunately, a sick joke.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend has said it all there—it is clear. To hear laughter this afternoon from Government Front Benchers about measures to mitigate poverty is shameful.

The Government could have taxed some of the excess profits, and companies are daring them to do so. Sometimes, as with the boss of Shell, they are asking the Government to do this. The Government could do this but they will not, because protecting the vulnerable is not what Tories do. It gets worse, because now the Bank of England will react with further interest rate rises, pushing mortgages to unaffordable heights for some homeowners and prospective buyers. As we have heard again today, the Government want to lay all the blame on the illegal war in Ukraine and on global conditions, but everybody knows that much of this is Tory-inflicted. A big part of that is Brexit. It has hamstrung businesses by starving them of vital staff; it has pushed inflation higher through import prices; the UK’s shocking balance of trade has been exposed; and it has ushered in a raft of new tax costs for businesses across the nations of the UK. As the former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney pointed out:

“In 2016 the British economy was 90% the size of Germany’s. Now it is…70%.”

That was before the clusterbùrach of the mini-Budget. Labour, with all the backbone of a squid, joined at the tentacles with this Tory ideology, is trying to pretend that somehow it will make Brexit work. Most Labour Members do not believe that, and it flies in the face of all the logic and informed opinion.

All this chaos is a timely reminder for the people of Scotland about why they should choose a different path. I say to people back home: look at what the Government are doing to you, to your communities, to your businesses, to your families and to your children’s futures. Let us make comparisons with the UK. Other countries similar to Scotland are wealthier and more equal, and have higher productivity, lower poverty, lower child poverty and lower pensioner poverty. Democracy can and will triumph. Scotland has the right to choose a very different path from this one, to build a better future as an independent nation and as an equal partner in the European Union—one that seeks to lift people up, not keep them down, and to live by the values of a welcoming, diverse and compassionate nation.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Since I was first elected in 2015, I have seen things go from bad to worse for struggling people and families under the Tories in this Chamber. I used to say that people should not have to choose between heating and eating; I did not expect the Tories to take away even that option from people. We hear today that people are self-disconnecting from gas and electricity, or storing food outside their refrigerator to save money by switching it off, in dangerous circumstances. This is a dreadful time and people are facing dreadful conditions. They are unable to wash clothes or wash themselves, use cookers, or even switch on the lights. People are struggling. They are seeing energy companies put up their bills, sometimes increasing direct debits by hundreds of pounds per month, even though there is little evidence that that is required.

All this is happening, yet this Government and a complacent Ofgem are doing next to nothing. They should be doing everything in their power, yet their inaction can only lead to the conclusion that they just do not care. They ought to step in to help off-gas grid customers and businesses, because they face an even heavier burden: unregulated liquified petroleum gas and heating oil prices are rocketing, and they face cost rises three to four times greater than everyone else. Businesses off-grid are hammered, as are small and medium-sized businesses in general, who have no cap to protect them. What is the point in having a regulator that will not regulate and a Government lost in their own rhetoric?

At this time my constituents are noting a £20 per week increase in their weekly shop, which is another £80 a month that families can ill afford. Was it lunacy that this Government, knowing that people were facing rising inflation and rocketing energy prices, moved to cut the £20 a week from universal credit, or was it ideological cruelty? I will leave that to others to decide.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have already been mitigating the imposed costs on families, spending £350 million to nullify the bedroom tax and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), spending four times more per head on insulating houses and properties. When the UK Government took away £20 a week from families, the Scottish Government gave them the Scottish child payment of £20 a week, soon to rise to £25, providing real help through very limited powers.

What does this Chancellor do? He gives a tiny council tax cut and a payday loan. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, the UK Government do have choices. Norway, for example, an independent country similar in size to Scotland in terms of resources, will reimburse households for 80% of all their electricity costs above an affordability level. Why are the UK Government not using their powers, reserved to this place, to take meaningful action? It is because they just do not care.

Scotland is at the moment stuck with the bad choices that this place makes. The people of Scotland can now see even more clearly that when the powers lie in Scotland their Scottish Government will make the choices to protect and support them, in contrast to what happens in this place. There is a hope, however: they can see that the change our people, our families and our communities need is coming. The powers of a normal independent country are needed more than ever, and they are coming soon.

Cost of Living Increases

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and he is absolutely right. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change is present and I am sure he will address those remarks if he comes to the Dispatch Box later, as I see that he will.

It is not just the money towards the council tax rebate that the Government have put forward, of course, because they have gone so much further: they have given people a buy-back loan for their energy bills—buy now, pay later. That is the best they can do in this time of crisis, and of course that was predicated on the basis that energy prices would reduce over time but the situation has changed and many experts and analysts now suggest that is not going to happen. So the Government need to get real on this matter.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a point about energy price increases, which will be devastating for many families, but people who live in off-gas-grid areas will be crucified by the price increases, because they rely on bottled gas, oil or wood, all of which are going up in price, and they are of course currently using more of that expensive energy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government need to take action now to adopt regulation for people who live off the gas grid, so that they are treated more fairly and before there is a crisis for rural communities?

[Stephen Flynn]

Absolutely—I could not agree more wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend on that. He makes an extremely important point, which he has been making for many months, and it is time the Government listened and took action in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

It is interesting to hear that we are short of gas when I regularly hear the opposite from the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change. That is the important point: Government Members can try to disagree with their own Government on these matters, but in real terms we are self-sufficient. Scotland is self-sufficient when it comes to oil and gas, but we can and must go so much further on renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to hang around, he will hear me speak about that in due course.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for generously giving way again. Is it not the case that Scotland, which is a net exporter of energy—I think we produce around 153% of our needs over the course of a year—would have been able to do much, much more had this Government not stood in the face of more cheap, reliable and green renewable energy by standing for many years against allowing solar and onshore wind power when it came to the contracts for difference? We could have been much further ahead. Is it not now this Government’s responsibility to help people with the cost of living crisis, which they and the energy price increase have caused?

[Stephen Flynn]

Yes, absolutely. The reason why we are in the current situation is that the Government have not planned ahead. They have chosen to sit on their seat when they should have been looking to where we could go in future. I hope the Minister will address that point when he sums up the debate.