Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. My constituent Samantha Panton opened the Roasters café on the high street more than 35 years ago. Recently, she received a demand from E.ON Next for £10,000, payable within seven days, with threats to disconnect her electricity and close her business, putting 10 jobs at risk. That debt arose because E.ON Next confused her day and night meter readings. Although she had agreed to a £500 weekly payment plan, the company abandoned the arrangement and instead chose to pursue the closure of her business.

Upon thorough investigation, including a review of her accounts dating back to 2017, I discovered that E.ON Next actually owed her £4,433. When I raised concerns about its mishandling of the credit notes and breaches of back-billing regulations, my communications were ignored. Without enforcement or penalties, there is little incentive for companies to change their behaviour. That situation highlights a wider problem: energy companies impose excessive charges on small businesses while routinely engaging in questionable practices under minimal regulation. Small businesses have limited resources when suppliers act unfairly.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. She is raising what sounds like outrageous treatment of a customer and consumer. Does she agree that the Ofgem report was very clear that suppliers should treat domestic and—particularly in this case—non-domestic customers fairly and give them support? It would appear that, in the instance she is outlining and some others that I have had experience of, they are not doing so.

[Sarah Edwards]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because that is exactly what the report found, yet I will go on to argue that not enough progress has been made to make sure that those business customers are treated fairly.

In response to this issue, I have launched a campaign inviting businesses across the country to share their experiences on my website, aiming to expose these harmful practices. I am confident that straightforward regulatory reforms could reduce energy costs substantially without imposing any cost on the Government. No one likes a bully; I certainly do not, and when I see injustice, I want to fix it. Today, I share not only my constituent’s story, but many others. Colleagues here will have heard similar accounts of energy companies refusing to engage, forcing MPs to intervene or send cases to the ombudsman, often without any resolution.

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have explored this issue through roundtables nationwide. Time and again, we hear that energy costs are the second biggest burden for businesses after staffing, with many driven to bankruptcy by the exploitative practices of energy suppliers. I thank the Committee for supporting today’s debate to shine a light on this problem. This is not just about one café; it is about thousands of businesses that deserve better.

From 2022 to 2024, Ofgem reviewed its non-domestic energy supplier sector. It found that 12% of customers had complained and identified four reform priorities: treat customers fairly; support small businesses; billing on tenancy changes and third-party intermediaries. It updated the supplier licence conditions to enforce fair treatment—but is that working? A freedom of information request shows that only two suppliers have ever been fined for licence breaches; many suppliers do not even report them. In my constituent Sam’s case, E.ON Next breached back-billing rules, but likely never reported it. I ask the Minister when the proposed review of those new licence rules will happen, and whether she can guarantee that it will be rigorous and effective. When will the review of Ofgem itself conclude? There is growing concern that Ofgem is not fit for purpose, acting more like a coach than a regulator. We need an enforcement body with teeth, not one that lets suppliers police themselves.

Returning to Sam’s case, my office referred it to the Energy Ombudsman. We were proved correct; E.ON Next had mishandled her account, and she was awarded £200 in compensation—but really, what does a firm have to do to get a meaningful penalty? Threatening to close a business after making mistakes in meter readings, back billing, failing to issue proper credit notes and threatening legal action are apparently not worth any more than £200.

Compare that with fines for a data breach—up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. That is a real deterrent. Why is it that, when the domestic energy market is regulated far more effectively, a blind eye has been turned to such appalling behaviour in the commercial market? Hon. Members may be interested to know that, until December 2024, the ombudsman could act only for microbusinesses, those with fewer than 10 employees—any bigger, and the business was out of luck. Since December, businesses with up to 50 employees can now be represented; but, again, the fine is only up to £10,000.

I met the Energy Ombudsman to ask how its powers were being used to protect businesses from this wild west of exploitation. Since December, it has dealt with 370 small and medium-sized enterprises in its scope, about half within the terms of reference. Of those cases, most complaints were about suppliers, customer service, billing, sales and back billing. It upheld between 40% and 73% of those complaints.

I have serious concerns, however. The ombudsman has never been out to tender and cannot explain how it decides on the maximum £10,000 fine. It appears to have a lack of resources and expertise to investigate complex commercial contracts effectively. Ofgem expects the ombudsman to do that work, but the extended remit has not come with extended expertise. Instead, the system seems designed for volume and profit, but not for protecting businesses from serious harm.

A Yorkshire packaging manufacturer was scammed by Renewco, which arranged a fraudulent energy deal with Emirati Energy. The business owner paid every invoice on time to his broker, but a year later Pozitive Energy, also known as PE Solutions, demanded tens of thousands in unpaid costs. It turned out that Emirati Energy had signed a fake contract with Pozitive on behalf of the business, pocketing the payments while Pozitive received nothing. Both Pozitive and the manufacturer were victims of fraud.

Who is Pozitive Energy? Its turnover rose by 13% to £1.18 billion in 2024, and its net assets were up nearly 500%. With only 30 employees and £139 million of retained earnings, this is a private company with little transparency. We must therefore assume that it is making around £4.6 million profit per employee. Yet Pozitive went after the small business owner and, despite clear evidence of hundreds of customers billed to one address and mismatched paperwork, it did not investigate until the debts piled up.

When the business owner turned to the Energy Ombudsman, he was told to pay the debt anyway. The ombudsman said it was his problem to chase the fraudster. Why should a small manufacturer pay for Pozitive’s failure to vet its brokers? Ofgem does not regulate third-party intermediaries, instead requiring suppliers such as Pozitive to work only with third-party intermediaries in approved dispute resolution systems, giving customers a route to redress if dissatisfied. Pozitive failed to do that—it failed its licence condition.

That is not an isolated case; the commercial energy market rewards suppliers for ignoring fraud, because it can demand payment from unsuspecting businesses once scams collapse. Meanwhile, the Energy Ombudsman lacks real powers and often fails to protect victims. I have heard multiple stories of these disgraceful tactics destroying livelihoods. One broker firm is tracking more than 1,100 complaints with E.ON Next alone. It is defending 80 of them in court, in what is effectively a group action over dodgy practices on deemed contracts. E.ON sold the debt on when the lawsuits loomed, and 13 cases have already been struck out as unenforceable.

Why is business energy so expensive? When a firm moves into new premises, it is put on a deemed contract until it signs a deal. Legally, those contracts should not carry excessive fees or profits, but in practice suppliers have used them to gouge customers. Some firms were charged £1.60 per kWh during the energy crisis, then locked into multi-year deals with no escape clauses. Even now, some are paying £1 per kWh, when a competitive rate should be around 20p to 25p.

Suppliers know exactly what they are doing. They profit by giving brokers hidden commissions: “You can add 1.5p and keep it, or maybe add 2p and give us back a kickback of 0.25p.” Those kickbacks incentivise brokers to push overpriced deals that hurt customers. One product currently offered by Engie has 5p added to each kWh, which the supplier knows is an incentive for brokers to sell its supply over others. Some brokers only work with two suppliers—hardly a broker business by most people’s definition. Suppliers know; Ofgem knows; but small businesses—left with unaffordable bills, faulty meters and unfair contracts—often do not.

If we want a fair market, we must regulate it properly. That means honest enforcement of billing, fair profiles on deemed meters, transparent broker commissions, and meaningful redress when things go wrong. Until then, small businesses will keep paying the price for a system that is rigged against them.

Suppliers such as npower have taken on small customers and used codes on deemed contract meters to extract higher charges because they knew they could get away with it. They should have chosen not to act for those businesses, but instead they have made huge profits. The Energy Consultants Association estimates that misclassification has generated up to £4.5 billion in excessive, unjustified profits since 2017. Small businesses were locked into unfair contracts from day one, paying inflated rates, with no meaningful correction in sight.

I am calling for urgent reforms to protect businesses and ensure that fairness in energy bills is supported, with stronger regulatory powers for the Energy Ombudsman, including higher fines and a wider remit; outlawing back billing beyond six months for business energy customers and greater protections for small businesses against inaccurate and punitive billing. Energy companies must commit to fair and transparent billing systems. There must be a thorough review of debt collection practices within the sector.

I call for all brokers and third-party intermediaries to be fully regulated, for the adoption of a mandatory code of good practice to raise standards and for all brokers to become members of a dispute resolution mechanism to protect businesses. The Government must empower Ofgem or the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate brokers. That can only be done with regulation—but it must happen fast.

What am I going to do? I do not have those powers, but I have met passionate experts and trade bodies who want change. Together, we will launch a kitemark for responsible brokers, because there are many out there doing good work. It will be fair and transparent. We will publish data on energy rates, so that businesses know what a fair price is when reviewing a contract renewal, and create a directory of brokers who have signed up to a voluntary code of practice, giving power back to businesses.

I welcome the Government’s recent move to lower industrial energy prices for high-usage businesses. However, many smaller businesses—the heart of our communities and high streets—are excluded. Those steps are in the Government’s gift to bring down prices, stop fraud and obscene profits, and protect our small businesses. Added to my asks are simple, cost-free reforms such as capping deemed contract rates to stop bad deals being sold as good ones, and ensuring that SMEs get the correct rates on their market-wide half-hourly meters from day one. This Government must back our businesses and make those reforms now.

Hon. Members will be amused to know that E.ON Next sent me a final bill when I switched office supply. My monthly usage is around £300. The bill it sent me was £18,000—it mixed up the day and night meter readings, and no sense checks were done.

It is time to regulate the sector and to protect and empower businesses, the backbone of our economy. I hope the Minister will have some good news and progress to report on this matter.

Future of the Gas Grid

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Dame Siobhain. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for leading today’s debate. We were counting down the last 10 seconds before the debate and the hon. Gentleman walked in on No. 8 —well done! He may have been a bit breathless. I wish him a happy birthday and thank him for his contributions in this House during the time that he has been here. They are always on subject matter that we are all interested in.

If we want to be progressive and visionary in this House, which we do, we need to look to the future for the things that are important. All areas of the United Kingdom are adapting their own strategies to contribute to net zero. Northern Ireland has set a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and developing renewable energy will be a key part of those plans. It is very important that we play our part. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) referred a number of times to the whole of the United Kingdom. He is right, because like me and others in this Chamber, with one exception, we are committed to this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and what we can do better together—not that we are better than anyone else, by the way. We see the advantages and it is important that we look forward.

I welcome the Minister to his place. I always enjoy the Minister’s responses to our questions. He seems relaxed no matter how hard the questions are. I will not ask any hard questions; it is not in my nature to do so, but I do ask questions to hopefully progress the debate. The Minister knows that my questions will come from a Northern Ireland perspective. He has always answered in the past on what we want to do and what our strategies are back home. I look forward to his contribution. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), in his place and I look forward to his contribution as well.

Only last year Northern Ireland’s gas operators took their biomethane case to Stormont. There are two operators, but I want to focus on Phoenix Gas. It has been stated that adding biomethane to the gas network could cut Northern Ireland’s carbon emissions where we have ambitious, but very much achievable, targets. Doing so would deliver significant benefits and create hundreds of new jobs. It is where the potential is. Northern Ireland wants to play its part because the spin-offs for us all are quite significant. Arguments for that include that biomethane is almost identical to natural gas and can be transported through the existing gas pipelines, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned. As we have already seen, it has been successfully injected into the gas network at Granville Ecopark in Dungannon. There is a strategy in place and significant progress there, but there is still a lot more to do.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend talked about Phoenix, and the other company is Firmus Energy. Consumers want to see more competitive pricing. In Northern Ireland, there is some degree of competitive pricing, but because the two companies operate in separate parts of Northern Ireland, they do not compete directly with each other. Consumers want prices to be driven down, but it seems to take a long time for Phoenix and Firmus to reduce their prices—they do not always change rapidly—when international gas prices fall.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. Yesterday, in the hydrogen aviation debate, we talked about how costly energy is at the moment. In the past, we had the tidal wave and sea project in the Narrows in Portaferry in my constituency. The pilot scheme was successful in showing that it could be done, but it did not provide a cheaper price. Today, however, it could. I am quite confident that with a better understanding, and better offers for the supply of gas grid in Northern Ireland, we could ensure that prices would drop—I am confident that they will.

The operators pointed to research by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy Research, which shows that biomethane has the potential to supply 6,000 GWh a year, equal to about 80% of the current gas distribution network demands. That shows the potential, and that it can be done. It would reduce Northern Ireland’s CO₂ emissions by some 845,000 tonnes per annum, a fantastic contribution to net zero targets. That shows how Northern Ireland and the UK can work better together and contribute to net zero targets collectively, with advantages for us all. What is done here in England helps us in Northern Ireland, and vice versa.

Yesterday, I spoke in Westminster Hall on the potential benefits of hydrogen in aviation, as I referred to earlier. There are numerous sectors in which hydrogen could play a key role in the transition. The UK Government aim to establish up to 100 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The national gas grid is leading efforts to develop a hydrogen transmission backbone that will repurpose existing gas pipelines to transport hydrogen. Those visionary projects, which can deliver much for us all, are well in hand, but there is a lot more to do.

I look forward to hearing and witnessing how those developments play out in the future. There is so much that the devolved Administrations and institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can do to play a role in the transition to net zero, and this is one of those ways. I ask the Minister very kindly to engage, as I know he does, with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment back home to ensure that we can be leaders in our green and net zero plans together. Within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do that. Even our friends in Scotland can benefit and help us to benefit. That is the goal I try to achieve in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are working with Ofgem to put in place a debt support scheme to deal with the huge rise in energy debt that we saw during the energy crisis, which the Conservatives failed to deal with. That will provide much-needed support, whether through debt write-offs or debt repayment plans. It will mean that households that cannot afford their energy bills, are struggling, and will never pay that debt are provided with support.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The Government are targeting measures based on people’s income, but will they look at the issue of rural homes? Many thousands of people live in poorly insulated homes in isolated areas; families there are left in the cold in the winter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is absolutely the case. It was heartening to see so many countries and so many representatives from business come together at the conference last week. We are showing global leadership on this issue. We know it is the way forward in terms of our energy security, and not putting us at the mercy of dictators and petrostates. I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Given the sheer scale of the outages in Portugal and Spain over the past few days, is it likely that the conference will consider and possibly conclude that there is some correlation between the obsession with net zero and what happened in Portugal and Spain?

[Kerry McCarthy]

First of all, I am sure the whole House will want to send support to Spain and Portugal following the incidents yesterday. There were no effects in the UK, but we will continue to closely monitor the situation and any lessons learned from this event. I am not going to speculate as to its causes, but we do need to ensure that our own systems are as resilient as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I appreciate the uncertainty faced by people in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have Project Willow and the plan for the site’s future. A joint committee, which I co-chair, has just been set up with the Department for Transport looking at sustainable aviation fuel and other options to fund and support that, to ensure that we have that emerging industry.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The fund’s title is the national wealth fund. Will the Minister outline what she intends to do to ensure that industries across the nation of the United Kingdom will benefit from it?

[Sarah Jones]

The national wealth fund makes decisions on what it funds and what it does not, but our plan is for the whole country. For too long, this country has been held back in every corner, and the national wealth fund is a really important part of the future growth of this country in Northern Ireland and everywhere else.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is a national scandal that so many homes across the country have an EPC rating that is below C—a failure of the last Government to deliver the scale of home upgrades that we need. We are determined to end the injustice of people living in cold and draughty homes. I completely agree that we must do everything we can to support vulnerable households with their energy bills this winter. That is why we are providing 3.3 million households with the warm home discount, why we are working with energy suppliers to provide additional support, including through charities, and why we have extended the household support fund.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that we particularly need a comprehensive warm homes plan in rural areas in order to identify very old homes and ensure that insulation is targeted to maximise reduction in their energy usage?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will ensure that we see upgrades in every part of the country; we will be working with combined authorities, local government and the devolved Administrations to make sure that we are delivering the scale of upgrades needed across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises such an important issue. Across the House, we can have different views on ground-mounted solar, but we need to do more on rooftops and to ensure that tenants, for example council tenants, benefit from such technologies. That is a huge priority for us and we are working on it with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government regarding the major planning application for an offshore wind farm between Scotland and Northern Ireland, which may well have significant implications for the Giant’s Causeway world heritage site?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have to be careful in what I say about planning issues, but he should rest assured that I have frequent conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government and, no doubt, that is one issue we will be discussing.

COP29: UK Priorities

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Southall for introducing this debate. Last week, she talked about waste; this week she is talking about COP29, and it is pleasure to hear her speak on both those matters. I look forward to many more contributions from her in Westminster Hall.

The COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, will be the first “COP of peace”. We hope that will be the case and we will see how it goes, focusing on the prevention of future climate-fuelled conflicts and using international co-operation and green issues to help to heal existing tensions. In terms of our climate, and green success, there is still much to be done, so it is great to be here and talking about that subject.

Hon. Members who have made contributions have grasped that. I thought the balance that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) aimed for in his contribution summed up where I am as well. I hope to develop the idea of balance in my thoughts.

One of the themes of COP29 is that of an inclusive process for inclusive action, which is one of those statements we need to think about for a wee minute to see what it actually means. It aims to encompass the host’s plans to engage with international stakeholders to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On international stakeholders, does my hon. Friend agree that in taking the balanced approach which he and others have recommended, we need to ensure that the major polluters—those who are polluting more than all the other undeveloped nations together, such as Russia, China and so on—are persuaded and pressurised to reduce their emissions, because if they do not, many of the actions that are being promoted among developed countries are going to be of little or no effect?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and his as always wise and salient words. The big countries in the world, such as China, Russia and others, have a disregard for fossil fuel pollution and seem to wish to pollute the rest of the world from their own countries. There is a real need for them to do something.

I am really pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in her place. She sat on the Opposition side of the Chamber in many debates; she and I would have been alongside each other on many things, supporting the same objectives and the same targets. It is a real pleasure to see her today and I wish her well. It also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), in his place.

I always bring the Northern Ireland perspective to debates, because it is important that we understand—perhaps appreciate is a better word—things that are happening in Northern Ireland and how they contribute to policy at Westminster. In Northern Ireland, as a smaller nation of the United Kingdom, we are not shy to the feeling of being left behind, so it is important that efforts are made to engage with international stakeholders, which my hon. Friend referred to.

I will give an example. Climate Northern Ireland brings together members from the key range of sectors to share best practice and enable positive action to address the impacts of climate change. It is funded by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and aims to support the development and implementation of climate policy—it is really important, and core to the Department’s policy—by enabling the exchange of expertise and advice between Government Departments, public bodies and civil society. It brings them all together under one umbrella to pursue a policy that coincides and works alongside the one at Westminster.

I live in Greyabbey in Strangford and am a farmer there. I was saying to some people I met earlier this morning that I love to come here for the history, but I do not enjoy the concrete. I like to get back home to where the fields are green and where I can walk out and breathe the fresh country air, but that does not take away from where we are. Numerous neighbours of mine own farms themselves. It is really important that we have balance in this debate.