Lord Barker of Battle
Main Page: Lord Barker of Battle (Conservative - Life peer)
Luciana Berger
My hon. Friend raises a point we on the Opposition Benches have raised many times before about the challenges we face with our very opaque energy market, where we do not know the true cost of our energy and many of our generators are also our suppliers. We will wait for the secondary legislation to hear exactly what the Government mean by that term, but it is fair to say that we are dealing a lot in this Bill with a broken market, and it is a shame that the Government are not proposing legislation to fix it.
We accept that there is a relatively small chance of a compensation package exceeding 10%, but that is not an impossibility. If a case ever did exceed that amount, it is likely that an enormous number of consumers would have been affected. It would be irresponsible for the Government not to be prepared for that scenario. In Committee, the Minister said that if consumers suffer losses greater than the compensation they receive, they will still be able to seek further redress through the courts, but surely he acknowledges it would be better not to risk that happening in the first place by amending this Bill.
Surely that would be better than abandoning consumers and leaving them to endure a long and protracted court battle to get due recompense. We believe it makes more sense to guarantee that families will always receive pound-for-pound compensation when they have been mistreated, which is why our amendments specify that compensation would be allowed to exceed 10% of turnover if
“one or more consumers have suffered loss or damage greater than this value.”
The Department’s own impact assessment said that such a change would send a powerful signal to energy firms on consumer protection. That is our priority.
This Government claim that they are on the side of consumers and today they have the chance to prove it. Our amendments put consumers first, ensuring that mistreated families will not be short-changed, no matter when they were wronged or how much they are owed. Will the Government stand up for the many? The question for the Minister and his colleagues is simple today: whose side are they on?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The Opposition amendments seek to amend schedule 14 by removing restrictions on retrospective and unlimited liability. I understand the concerns and motivations of the Opposition, but I can assure them that this coalition is also committed not only to helping hard-working families and, indeed, all consumers with the rising cost of living, but to empowering consumers and protecting hard-working families from rip-offs and scams. So although I have some sympathy with the aim of amendments 2 and 5, which are intended to allow Ofgem to compel energy companies to pay redress for events that happened prior to the enactment of this Bill, I am troubled by the effect of setting a precedent by retrospectively applying powers in the energy market and by the impact that that would have on all consumers. There is a general principle that powers should not be applied by this House retrospectively. Beyond that principle, there is potential for very real, negative impacts on consumers.
The Government are committed to encouraging competitive pressure on the big energy market players, but the regulatory uncertainty these amendments would introduce would be likely to lead to an increase in the cost of capital for energy companies, and that, in turn, could push up bills for everyone. Furthermore, it could create investor uncertainty at the very time we are trying to encourage the necessary private sector investment required to move to a low-carbon economy and renew our energy infrastructure. More expensive finance would most heavily hit the smaller companies that are also covered by this legislation—the very small companies and entrepreneurs we want to attract into the sector. Under the previous Labour Government, competition in the electricity sector shrank to leave just six big supply companies dominating it. The last thing we want to do is accept amendments that could hinder new entrants to the market.
The amendments may also lead to increases in the cost of insurance premiums for companies, in order to cover the extension of liability for events that took place prior to the enactment of this legislation—again, that is likely to be proportionately higher for smaller energy companies. All these factors could push up the cost of living for hard-working families, at a time when, as we know, many can ill afford it. I understand the intention behind the amendments, but the unintended consequences could end up hitting the very people we are trying to protect, and so we cannot accept them.
Again, I have some sympathy with the intention of Opposition amendments 3, 4, 6 and 7, which seek to ensure that the amount of compensation that can be required through a consumer redress order is not limited. As I said at the outset, the coalition Government are absolutely committed to providing a fair deal to consumers. So when considering these amendments, we should look to balance the need for a redress mechanism that allows consumers timely and proportionate compensation, with an appeal mechanism that is proportionate to the potential liability faced by energy companies.
Under existing arrangements, consumers can obtain redress through the courts, but we recognise that the legal process is lengthier and does not offer a typically quick remedy for consumers who have been badly served or ripped off. That is largely because the courts offer recourse for consumers in cases where compensation may exceed the 10% limit set in this legislation. The legal process is necessarily equal to the potential sums at stake. The powers set out in schedule 14, however, contain appeal mechanisms, proportionate to the potential penalty, limited to 10% of an energy company’s annual turnover.
John Robertson
I ask the Minister the same question I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger): what is classified as turnover? Does it just include retail or does it also include generation?
Gregory Barker
I will correct myself if I am wrong, but I believe we are talking about global turnover—we are talking about very significant sums. [Interruption.] This relates to the turnover of the company under investigation. [Interruption.] That was very helpful.
John Robertson
Just for clarification, is “the company under investigation” the mother company as well as the subsidiary company, or does it include all the companies that that company is part of?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman asks a fascinating and timely question, one which deserves a proper answer. He may have misheard me, because when I said “global turnover” what I actually meant was UK turnover. Nevertheless, that is clearly a very significant amount.
Our approach would allow for a relatively straightforward resolution of relatively simple cases. Accepting amendments to remove the cap would require us to make changes to the appeal mechanism, which could deny consumers access to the timely compensation they are due, as it could result in a far lengthier resolution of cases if the stakes are much higher. In considering whether such a trade-off is justifiable, we should take into account just how unlikely it would be for consumers to lose out on this scale. Exceeding a 10% cap of annual turnover would mean penalties and compensation of over a £1 billion for the very largest domestic energy supplier. The largest penalty imposed to date by Ofgem has been £15 million and under our legislation the cap for the largest would be set at £1 billion. A cap on redress is therefore unlikely to hinder Ofgem’s ability to impose appropriate redress orders.
In addition, there are unintended consequences of removing the 10% cap on penalty and redress, as that could also increase the costs of capital and insurance premiums for energy companies. Again, that would particularly affect the smaller companies—the very ones we are trying to attract into the sector—with all the adverse impacts on consumer bills that I mentioned earlier.
Energy companies should be in no doubt, however, that these powers are designed to ensure that consumers receive appropriate compensation. The combined 10% cap on penalties and redress will apply to each separate regulatory breach. If companies flout the rules on a number of occasions, they will therefore face correspondingly larger payouts. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will, on balance, agree not to press their amendments to a Division.
Mr Weir
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a lot of what those on both Front Benches have said. I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments and, unlike the Minister, I do not find any difficulties with amendments 2 and 5. If a company has been doing over consumers, whether it has been doing it the day before the Act comes into force or the day after does not seem to make any difference. If we are seriously considering making such companies pay such large sums for their misdemeanours, I would be happy to support those two amendments. That would send a clear message that we are fed up with some of the things that have been coming to light in recent years and with how the consumer has been mistreated, taken for granted and, frankly, milked, by some companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), if I may call him that, made very good points about turnover.
Gregory Barker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have only just sat down. Let me be absolutely clear on this important point. For investigations by Ofgem that are already under way, Ofgem will continue to negotiate compensation on behalf of affected consumers. Companies that fail to negotiate and agree satisfactory redress can expect Ofgem to reflect that lack of co-operation in the penalty it sets.
Mr Weir
I accept that, and I understand what the Minister is saying, but he said in his speech that the maximum penalty to date had been £15 million. Under the Bill he is talking about £1 billion. There is a massive difference between the two and my point stands: if consumers have been ripped off, it does not matter whether it happened just before the new system was introduced or just after that. The same should apply, in my view, and I do not have any great problem with that proposal.
However, I have a big problem with amendments 3, 4, 6 and 7. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), I have a worry—the same sort of worry as the Minister—about the effect that the amendments would have on the company. It seems that one aspect of the Bill is about trying to get investment into the energy industry. For far too long there has been insufficient investment; a lot of modernisation and new investment is needed to get our energy system up to scratch. The figure is 10% of the turnover, whatever that turnover will be—I am still not clear what the word covers. That takes me back to the days when I served on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and we had the big six in one day and asked them about their profits. We asked whether they had made their profits selling to the consumer and they replied, “Oh no, we didn’t do that.” We asked whether they made them through generation, and heard, “Oh no, we didn’t make it from that.” We asked, “Where did you make those profits? You have large profits,” and no one could answer the question. There is great difficulty in pinning down what is meant by profit and turnover. In a time when we have six big energy companies, five of which are effectively multinational companies—we have seen in recent weeks what happens with the tax of multinational companies—we need a bit more clarity about what is meant by turnover.
Although the sums involved in 10% of turnover are significant, my bigger worry is that a company could be under investigation for an alleged breach for a considerable time. If there is a set limit, whether it is 10%, 20% or whatever, anyone thinking of lending that company money for infrastructure projects—most of them borrow from large financial institutions or other lenders—will know the contingent liability and what they are dealing with. I grant that if the liability is absolutely unlimited the sums involved are unlikely greatly to affect the big companies, given their size, but the uncertainty might well affect them. As we all know, those lending sums of money of such magnitude will consider the state of the company. A potential unlimited liability going into many billions of pounds, if there has been such an incident, could seriously undermine the company’s ability to borrow the money for much-needed infrastructure in our energy supply system.
I have a great deal of sympathy with those four amendments and understand what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree is trying to do, but I have a difficulty with them. Perhaps when she winds up she could expand on them and reassure me on the points I have made.
We must also remember that the provision would affect not only the big six energy companies but all regulated persons. If I understand correctly, that would include the small companies that are trying to get into the market. The Government say that they want to bring new entrants into the market, including the smaller companies that are beginning to nibble away at the edges of the big companies. If they were faced with such a penalty—let us hope that none of them would be—it would be the death knell for them.
Gregory Barker
I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no “get out of jail free” card.
John Robertson
That is a very good answer, but the Minister gave an answer earlier that was found to be wrong, so I will wait for a note to come over to him.