John Robertson
Main Page: John Robertson (Labour - Glasgow North West)(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
In a debate for which we have two and a quarter hours, the Secretary of State has spoken for half an hour. He spent his time attacking what the Labour Government did six years ago. That is outrageous. Once again, we have seen the reinvention of history. The Secretary of State is so out of touch with the people of this country that it is a disgrace that he is still in office. If he had any decency, he would throw the towel in and go and get a job that he can actually do something in.
We are here today to talk about prices and costs. That has nothing to do with the reinvention of history and nothing to do with the previous Government—although the previous Government gave the Secretary of State the job he has today. If it had not been for the previous Government, we would not be talking about energy and climate change. It was the previous Government who set that up with, I have to say, help from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition at that time. His own party, the Liberals, were against having a balanced energy policy, because they did not like the balance. Let us put everything in perspective: if the Liberals were honourable, they would not take up a post in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, because they were totally against what the Labour party and the Conservative party wanted at the time. Our parties worked together to meet the needs of the nation. It seems now that the agreement we have had over the years has gone out of the window. I blame the Secretary of State for that. Until he came into the job there was still a friendship between the parties to ensure that energy was in place to meet the needs of the nation.
The cost of electricity and gas has gone down. That is a fact, otherwise Ofgem would not be trying to get in touch with all the companies to ask them what they are going to do. We have been in this position before, and companies were fined for not bringing down the price quickly enough. I have a lot of constituents in fuel poverty. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who asked questions from his party brief, might not have any people in fuel poverty in their constituencies, but I have plenty. I have to support them and look after them, and I want prices down to where they should be. The Minister of State laughs and says we are out of touch. I am sorry Minister of State, but we are so much in touch with the people we represent. It may be time for those on the Government Front Bench to have a reality check.
On prices and the amount of money that has been, shall we say, siphoned off by energy companies, the Secretary of State talks about transparency. There is no transparency in the energy companies. He talks about having a look and seeing where the money goes. The Select Committee has tried that. We asked experts to try to look at the books and understand what energy companies do with their money, but they cannot work it out. At a meeting with EDF yesterday, I told them that until such time as they get their act together and become totally transparent—showing the books for us to be able to read and understand—people will not trust them. Until they do that, we will still be calling for price reductions. To prove that they do not deserve to have their prices reduced, they will have to open the books and make them totally transparent to Parliament. We have to be able to say, “Yes, they are right and they should not have to have a reduction.” They deliberately do not do that. I have to conclude from that that they do not want it to happen and are hiding something. This is for the Government to pursue, but they have not done so.
Ofgem has done a particularly poor job—let us be honest. I agree that it is not as bad as a lot of people think, but, having said that, it has not done a particularly good job. It is so slow at doing things it is not true. Perhaps a stick of dynamite somewhere might be helpful, but I expect that stick of dynamite to come from the Secretary of State—not from me and not from the Opposition, but from the Government. It is time the Secretary of State got his act together and sorted out Ofgem. He still has some time left before the general election. When the Labour party wins the election we will obviously have to sort it out.
Let me give the House an example. A reduction in wholesale prices managed to give the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, Alistair Phillips-Davies a £2.7 million annual salary. That is obscene, and it does not include his bonuses. That is the kind of thing we are subsidising. We are subsidising chief executives receiving lots of money. We are subsidising money being invested who knows where. At one stage, ScottishPower was taking £800 million from Scotland through Spain to the United States. We should not allow that to happen.
If the Secretary of State stands up and has a go at Ofgem, I will be right behind him to help him, but with the best will in the world, he does not seem to be looking after the needs of the nation at this time. I want him to do so—it is important that he looks after the needs of the nation. If that means that energy companies have to tighten their belts, they can join the rest of us doing so Everybody else has to tighten their belt, so why should they not cut back a wee bit on their profits for the needs of the nation, rather than siphoning money away from the UK to Germany, Spain or France? That is not right and I expect our Government to look at it.
The companies have tried to blackmail us. They said that if we freeze energy prices, all hell will be let loose, but then one company said it will freeze its prices. The idea of freezing is to sort the problem out. The idea is not to put prices up or down, but to stop people getting ripped off the way they have been over the years, and to ensure that our Government look after the people who are important.
John Robertson
I am not interested—I have only a few seconds left.
It is important that the Government remember the people who are in fuel poverty instead of attacking people because of policies that happened years ago.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Indeed, and across Europe those very same telecoms companies are now coming to Governments saying they are not investing as much as they used to, because they have not got as much money as they would have had otherwise.
A direct effect of price ceilings is a shortage of supply. In an unhampered market, especially in energy where supply and demand are balanced by the free-functioning price mechanism, if the Government were to impose a price ceiling below the market price, as is proposed, the quantity of energy supply would fall as it would make less financial sense for companies to produce, while demand for energy would increase as a result of the lower prices. The result would be a shortage of energy, with consumers unable to find satisfactory supply.
In addition to the direct negative effects of price control, a series of indirect effects would emerge from the Government manipulation of prices proposed by the Opposition. While price controls do legally change the price, they cannot overcome the fundamental economic issue of deciding how to allocate scarce resources among an array of feasible alternatives. In the absence of the ability to use prices to ration scarce goods, alternative mechanisms emerge. Shortages, for example, would lead to long queues, as happened in the United States in the past because of gas prices, and backlogs, which tend to lead to subsequent Government interventions such as rationing schemes.
Most people understand that the controlling of energy prices, which has been tried before in the UK and elsewhere, has conclusively failed. For proof, we can look west, to California’s experience with price controls on retail energy, which led to shortages manifested in rolling power cuts throughout the state.
Even more importantly, price controls would discourage energy companies from making new, long-term investments, which is precisely what is needed to increase the supply of energy and improve standards of living. What this means is that, at best, the Opposition’s strategy might provide short-term benefits in the form of lower energy bills for a few, but with the associated cost of some form of deterioration in quality and quantity of supply in the immediate future. In the long run, prices would have to go up because the universal improvement in supply would fall away completely. The Opposition policy would have the exact opposite effect on prices from what they intend.
All economic knowledge and sense dictate that the Opposition idea is wrong-headed and misguided. If their goal is to improve standards of living, policy must focus, as it currently does, on incentivising and improving the quality and quantity of supply. Price controls serve to achieve the exact opposite, lowering the standard of living of many while providing political gains for few. The proposal must be dismissed as an uninformed fallacy.
However, we should not be surprised that the Leader of the Opposition and his party are focusing on a price freeze and the cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman is essentially just watching his own back, for it was he, in his previous guise of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who drove through policies that he knew would drive up prices for consumers and drive people into fuel poverty. He was happy for that to happen—there was no concern at all about a cost of living crisis. Indeed, back when he was Energy Secretary, the Labour leader gave the LSE Ralph Miliband lecture. On 19 November 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:
“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
In January 2010, the Labour leader was even more candid:
“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty; but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”
Chris Heaton-Harris
There was no concern about a cost of living crisis then whatever: no concern for the poor—no concern for the people living in fuel poverty in Glasgow, I would suggest.
These policies are a fallacy; they are directly wrong. I hope the British people will be sensible and make sure that they are rejected fully at the next general election.