Energy Bill

Mark Reckless Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I shall make some progress first, and then I shall take some more interventions.

I pay tribute to the many people who have contributed to producing a Bill which, let’s face it, could not be described as having been rushed. Even before the pre-legislative scrutiny so ably undertaken by the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change—I thank it for its work—it was long, long in the consultation. Some have even argued that the fingerprints of the Leader of the Opposition can be found on the first designs for it, but in the event of a paternity test, I think that the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) would probably end up on the birth certificate. Its careful nurturing owes much to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). Indeed, Members in all parts of the House have played a role in its production, and it is a better Bill for that level of cross-party development and scrutiny.

The reason why members of all parties recognise the need for a major change is easy to explain. First, about a fifth of Britain’s existing power plants are scheduled to close during this decade, which will reduce supply. Secondly, even if we are heroically successful in terms of energy efficiency and reducing energy waste, overall demand for electricity is set to rise—partly because of population growth, but also because our transport system is likely to be more electrified over the next two decades, as are our heating systems. What with supply falling and demand increasing, we would have a real energy problem if we sat back and did nothing. Energy security—keeping the lights on—is a critical rationale for the Bill.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the key reason for the energy crisis is the fact that a vast amount of coal-fired generation is being forced to close down, not because of carbon dioxide emissions but because of emissions of sulphur dioxide, which, if anything, counters carbon dioxide. That is due to the European Union and its large combustion plant directive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Reckless]

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

[Caroline Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Twenty years ago this country led the world in creating a competitive electricity market. This Bill promises electricity market reform, but the reality is that the contracts for difference, the capacity payments and the emissions performance standard will put an end to that market in any recognisable form. Instead, we will have a market that is fixed by civil servants.

When we hear “contracts for difference”, what that means is that instead of the price being set by the market, prices will be set by civil servants for decades in advance, with different prices for different technologies and, potentially, different prices for different consumers. They will not even depend on how much CO₂ a particular technology emits; rather, they will depend on what civil servants happen to agree in their commercial negotiations with providers, who I fear will have them over a barrel. Our constituents will be ripped off, with tens of billions of pounds of their money being transferred to producers who manage to negotiate the best deal with civil servants, who I am afraid are not up to the job of running electricity in the way that a market could in the interests of our constituents.

We should consider the price that our constituents will pay. We hear Opposition spokesmen say airily, “It is only £100 a year: it is remarkably good value.” However, the DECC levy-funded spending is to rise from £2.1 billion last year to £9.8 billion in 2020, which is almost a fivefold increase. The Department’s spending is rising even faster than our contribution to the European Union budget. Moreover, our constituents will pay a great deal more than £100 a year. If we divide that £9.8 billion by the 27 million households in the country, the result is £360 per household.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. Will he expand on the implications of that £360 figure? Is it connected with EU regulation?

[Mark Reckless]

A lot of it is connected with EU regulation, but many of the costs of EU regulation are outside and in addition to it. It does not include the EU’s emissions trading scheme. It does not include our own carbon tax, which will rise from £16 to £70 a tonne. It does not include what is happening with the national grid: just two days ago it was announced that that would add a further £15 to each household’s bill, and £8.50 of it will kick in next year—on top of the £53 that the national grid is already adding to bills.

The depreciated investment shown on National Grid’s balance sheet is only £20 billion, yet over the next eight years £38 billion more will have been invested. I fear that much of the investment that has taken place is merely to link wind turbines and other renewables from remote parts of the country with major population centres in order to make the grid less unstable than it would otherwise be. Because of what we are doing with these technologies, all of which are subsidised and costing our constituents large amounts of money, my constituents will have to choose between heating their homes and buying Christmas presents. I fear we have got ourselves into a Westminster bubble.

The only thing that I can say for the Bill is that it is not quite as bad as it would have been if the other lot were in charge. Debating how many hundreds of pounds we should be adding to electricity bills when 6 million, 7 million or 9 million households are in fuel poverty, with more than 10% of their spending going on electricity, is simply wrong. Sooner or later the electorate will prick that Westminster bubble, and many of us will be faced with the reality that very few of our constituents think it acceptable for politicians to load hundreds of pounds on to their electricity bills for the purpose of what is essentially a political conceit.

We hear it said that because so many other power stations are shutting down, we have to replace all the coal. No, we do not have to replace all the coal. The reason we are replacing the coal is the EU’s large combustion plant directive. It is shutting Kingsnorth power station in my constituency, with the result that 300 workers are losing their jobs, and we are losing £7 million in business rates because of the rateable value of the station. It could perfectly well go on producing electricity. It emits sulphur dioxide, which if anything is a cooling rather than a warming agent. However, it cannot be replaced with a more efficient coal-fired station that emits much less CO₂ because of the emission performance standard that we are introducing, which basically bans any new coal-fired power even if it is much cleaner and emits much less CO₂ than what it would replace.

[David Mowat]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Reckless]

I will, for the last time.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend may know that Germany is about to build 23 unabated coal-fired stations. Perhaps those 300 people from Kingsnorth could find work over there.

[Mark Reckless]

My constituents work for E.ON, which is a German company, but I am not sure that they would want to move to Germany even if jobs were available. However, I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. We do not see the Germans, let alone the Chinese—or the Americans: we have just heard about the gas price there—applying legislation like the legislation that we are applying to ourselves. Although the Bill will constrict our industry and impose vast additional costs on consumers—on our constituents—we are going to vote it through tonight. I think that we need to care much more about the family budget, and minimise the costs that we, as politicians, are imposing on our constituents.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Reckless]

I do not think I should give way any more.

Why should we not just allow people to build power plants if they get local planning permission, thereby allowing them to support and pay the local community and sell into the market? Why do we want to ban some of the cheapest possible technologies for producing electricity? Why do we want to subsidise others, too—tens of billions of pounds might be transferred to an emanation of the French state? We should instead put our constituents first, and prioritise cheap electricity bills for them, and vote against this Bill tonight.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—