UK Automotive Industry: Job Losses

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call Matt Western to move the motion, it might help Members to know that, at 11.30 today, the Division bells will ring and there will be a minute’s silence.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered job losses in the UK automotive industry.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate. I also thank you in advance for your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

“Precipitous” is not a word used very often; when it is said by the chief executive of a major global automotive manufacturer, it is time to listen. Why? Because such utterances from major industrialists are rare; such people prefer to keep out of the headlines and to get on with the day-to-day of running multibillion-pound organisations that employ hundreds of thousands of people.

In the UK, the automotive industry has been one of the great success stories since the financial crash of 2007-08. In the two decades before that crisis, the industry’s economic output was broadly flat, before it dropped sharply in 2009. Since then, we have been fortunate to witness a renaissance in this major industry, which was seriously damaged by the crash, but which managed to sustain itself, with some Government intervention, through that difficult period. In 2017, in real terms, the motor manufacturing industry was worth 25% more than in 2007, although growth appears to have levelled off in the last year. In 2007 motor vehicle manufacturing accounted for 5.4% of total UK manufacturing, but in 2017 it accounted for 8.1%—a 50% increase in its overall importance. That was the result of significant inward investment from all resident vehicle manufacturers and component suppliers. The industry has contributed to almost 10 consecutive years of steady growth. Just as importantly, that has translated into a 29% increase in direct manufacturing employment in the sector.

The headwinds are strong and many. As the industry meets the challenges of transitioning to cleaner fuels and to a super-low-carbon future, it has been disrupted by the uncertainty of Brexit and a Government policy that penalises the cleaner diesel-powered vehicles. It is one of the great paradoxes in business that, in seeking to improve air quality, the Government have managed the reverse the progress achieved over many years to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In my maiden speech last year, I stated that there were rising pressures on the industry and that action was needed to maintain its recent success. I warned of the slowdown, with falling sales, and that the industry represented an economic bellwether. It has become increasingly clear that, from trucks to cars, sales are falling as people decide not to replace their vehicles.

I have repeated those calls in many subsequent debates, and there have been many in recent months, including those held by my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Both of their debates reflected the rising concern about the real, clear and present danger to the sector, and sought the attention of the Government so that they would act.

That danger has become very real since the autumn, with the announcement of job losses all over the UK. To date, 2,000 jobs have been lost among car manufacturers, and planned increases in staff recruitment have been put on hold. More widely, when the component suppliers and related sectors are taken into account, it is estimated that between 8,000 and 12,000 jobs at least have been lost in just eight months.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this crucial debate. Given the numbers that he mentions, does he think we ought to return to the subject of the last debate we had here—business rates? The car industry needs a shot in the arm; is it not time that the Government gave it one?

[Matt Western]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The business rates situation handicaps the industry in this country and puts it at a significant disadvantage to competitors on the continent. Added to that are the energy costs that it faces: on average, there is a 74% premium on the energy costs on the continent.

Major manufacturers have told me that their greatest concern is that there seems to be little concern from the Government. It is disheartening that this apparent lack of interest flies in the face of the industry’s importance to our overall economy. The financial services sector is held up as the great driver of UK national wealth, but it is worth remembering the increasingly important contribution of the UK motor vehicle manufacturing industry. According to the Library, it generated £15.2 billion of value to the economy in 2017, which is 0.8% of total output. More relevantly, it represents 8% of manufacturing output. Likewise, it employed 162,000 people across the UK in 2016, equating to 1% of all UK employees.

In UK manufacturing, the automotive industry is the second most investment-intensive sector for total investment as a proportion of gross value added, although it is top in value terms, investing £3.6 billion in 2015. The west midlands has the largest number of people employed in the manufacture of vehicles in any UK region or country—perhaps that is why this subject is so close to my heart. The 54,000 employees in our region represent around a third of all motor industry employees in the UK.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this timely debate. Not only are there direct employees, but for every direct employee there are probably two or three indirect employees—we are talking about the supply chain. There could be a massive effect if the problem is not handled properly. We need a transitional period, with electrification on the one hand and diesel on the other hand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I met the trade unions about this issue some months ago, and there is a lot of concern that it could affect jobs. With business rates, the Government are shifting expenditure away from proper funding through the taxpayer to local government. That creates a major problem for local government and for the efficiency of these industries.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. He is quite right about the multiplier effect on supplier industries—component manufacturers and so on. I totally agree with him about the importance of establishing a very clear pathway for the transition between where we are and where we have set ourselves to be in future. I will speak about that at some length.

The employment statistics are significant by anyone’s measure. The concern voiced by the industry is that direction is needed from policymakers, in particular with regard to Brexit and the UK’s future trading relationships, as well as to support for the transition to clean fuels. Without that clarity, it is inevitable that investment decisions will be placed on hold.

People will cite recent announcements at Luton and elsewhere as great news about the future of the industry, but many of us will understand that those sorts of decisions are taken many years in advance—those were taken way before the EU referendum. Without clarity, there will be a recruitment freeze or job losses, as we have seen. One example of the recruitment freeze is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, where Dagenham has recently announced that it will have to put on hold 150 planned jobs.

Just over a year ago, in March 2017, Lloyds bank conducted a survey of the UK automotive manufacturing sector. It summarised that the vast majority—some 87%—of automotive manufacturers planned to create new jobs in the next two years. It estimated that, if those plans were replicated across all the UK’s automotive firms, a further 85,000 new jobs would be created. What a difference a year makes.

In the context of Brexit, there are concerns that there may be job losses in the industry in the long term. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee conducted an inquiry into the impact of Brexit on the industry and stated that, should the UK leave the customs union and single market, hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost. It reported that

“it is difficult to see how it would make economic sense for multinational volume manufacturers—the bulk of the UK automotive sector—to base production in the UK in a no deal or WTO tariff scenario. The shift of manufacturing to countries within the customs union and single market would be inevitable; the cost in UK jobs could be in the hundreds of thousands, and inward investment in the hundreds of millions. For the automotive sector, no deal would undoubtedly be hugely damaging. The Government should not seriously contemplate this outcome.”

Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of the PSA Group, which manufacturers Peugeot and Citroën vehicles, said:

“We cannot invest in a world of uncertainty. No one is going to make huge investments without knowing what will be the final competitiveness of the Brexit outcome.”

That sentiment was echoed by others, including the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, Dr Ralf Speth, who said:

“Uncertainty is really challenging us very much and not only us, it’s for the complete industry. You hardly see inward investment any more.”

Perhaps that should come as no surprise. Some have explained that job losses in manufacturing are an inevitability, and that we should embrace the loss of manufacturing in the post-Brexit era. One such voice is that of Professor Minford of Cardiff Business School, who has advocated “running down” the UK auto industry. In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2012, he said:

“It is perfectly true that if you remove protection of the sort that has been given particularly to the car industry and other manufacturing industries inside the protective wall, you will have a change in the situation facing that industry, and you are going to have to run it down. It will be in your interests to do it, just as in the same way we ran down the coal and steel industries. These things happen as evolution takes place in your economy.”

He echoed that statement in The Sun ahead of the EU referendum, writing:

“Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.”

Well, I am afraid it scares me, and I think it scares many of us—for good reason.

A while back, the BEIS Committee stated that

“it is difficult to see how it would make economic sense for multinational volume manufacturers—the bulk of the UK automotive sector—to base production in the UK…The shift of manufacturing to countries within the customs union and single market would be inevitable”,

and it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as I said. The Committee concluded:

“Overall, no-one has argued there are advantages to be gained from Brexit for the automotive industry for the foreseeable future. We urge the Government to acknowledge this and to pursue an exercise in damage limitation in the negotiations. This involves retaining as close as possible a relationship with the existing EU regulatory and trading framework in order to give volume car manufacturing a realistic chance of surviving in this country.”

The Committee is not alone in voicing its fears. The automotive industry’s trade body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, stated:

“There is no escaping the fact that being out of the customs union and single market will inevitably add barriers to trade, increase red tape and cost. Settling for ‘good’ access to each other’s markets is not enough as it will only damage the UK’s competitiveness and reduce our ability to attract investment and the high quality jobs that go with it.”

It is worth noting that in 2017, 86% of the UK’s imports came from the EU, while only 41% of the UK’s exports went to the EU.

Many say that the UK runs a widening trade surplus in motor vehicles with non-EU countries and a widening trade deficit with EU countries, and that leaving the EU and the customs union is therefore a positive thing. That is true, but the industry has responded by using its strength through the renaissance that I mentioned to reduce that deficit considerably. Importantly, the industry shows a determination to grow in other markets—it seeks to retain its strong position in Europe, but want to build elsewhere too. Other countries’ domestic manufacturers are doing that, and we can do so too. It is not a choice between one and the other—they are complementary.

Our remaining in a customs union is critical to the sector’s future. We must avoid at all costs losing tariff-free access to the EU. In the worst-case scenario, under World Trade Organisation rules, a 10% tariff on finished vehicles and a 2.5% to 4.5% tariff on components would be introduced. Those tariff rates would cost the automotive sector at least £2.7 billion on imports and £1.8 billion on exports. Just imagine what would happen to the sticker price of vehicles in this country.

Ford has stated that rules of origin would “add a significant cost” to its business if UK-manufactured products were no longer considered to have originated in the EU. Similarly, Vauxhall has stated that any rules of origin changes

“will have a drastic impact on UK trade with any countries outside the EU”.

It is critical that a future UK-EU trade deal includes provision for full bilateral cumulation, which would ensure that components produced in the EU were considered local UK content for the purpose of rules of origin, and that the automotive sector was able to benefit from preferential trading relationships established with not only the EU but third countries.

It is worth noting that the majority of Ford’s Bridgend output goes to the EU. Without a comprehensive UK-EU free trade agreement, engines sent to European assembly plants would attract a 4.5% tariff, increasing the cost to the consumer. In an industry where margins are wafer-thin, that sort of tariff may cause significant damage to the sector. The SMMT’s position is clear. It has stated:

“Should the UK and the EU no longer have a customs union arrangement, UK businesses exporting to EU27 countries would need to submit information about the origin of the product, the destination country, relevant commodity codes, Customs Procedure Codes, product value, a unique consignment number, as well as relevant safety and security information. This would represent a significant increase in bureaucracy, and undermine the competitiveness of British business. Compliance with these new requirements would be particularly challenging for SMEs that make over 90% of the automotive supply chain.”

The components industry and the highly integrated supply chain are crucial to this debate. Currently, an estimated 1,100 trucks from the European Union deliver components worth £35 million to UK car engine plants every day. The movement of those vehicles and the timeliness of their departure and arrival is crucial—every minute counts. However, about 78,000 people are employed in the supply chain here in the UK, supplying not just the UK but Europe. The sector is highly integrated with the rest of Europe in the case of both finished cars and component parts. For instance, the UK imported just under £14 billion of vehicle engines and other components in 2017, 79% of which came from the EU. Some may ask, “Why can’t we transfer more of that back to the UK?” The complication is in scale, the strength of businesses and where they need to be located, and the geography of supply.

The manufacturers’ trade body, and the automotive trade body, the SMMT, have both called on the Government to protect that close integration. The financial reality of the chain’s fragility is underlined by the fact that some manufacturers face costs of up to £1 million an hour if production is stopped due to a delay in the supply of components to the assembly line. The SMMT estimates that a 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost manufacturers just under £1 million a year.

Let me give two examples. The manufacture of a single Delphi fuel injector takes more than 35 components, requiring 100 processes, and the elements for that come from 15 countries. The injector goes through 39 UK-EU border crossings and five UK-customs union border crossings. Another example is the Mini crankshaft, which crosses the channel three times in a 2,000 mile journey before a finished car rolls off the production line. The casting is made in France before being transferred to Hams Hall back in the midlands, where it is crafted into shape. Those pieces are then sent to Munich and inserted into an engine, which is then sent to Mini’s plant in Oxford, where it is installed in a car.

Related to all of that is the importance of type approvals, a much overlooked area that can add significant cost. One engine supplier—I will not mention its name—has estimated that, if we do not have harmonisation with Europe, it will cost between £300,000 and £500,000 per vehicle certification. In fact, the CBI noted that the two areas where convergence with the EU is of the greatest importance are the rules that determine how and by whom vehicles can be approved as safe for the road, and the Vehicle Certification Agency maintaining its ability to approve vehicles for the European market. It also mentioned maintaining pan-European rules on carbon dioxide and other air pollutants to ensure that international targets on clean air and climate change are met.

That brings me to diesel. In the early 2000s, the drive to achieve climate change goals led to the rapid uptake of diesel: from 17% of the total car market, it grew to 50% in just eight years. The manufacturers responded. Ford set up its Dagenham diesel centre, which I think employs 3,000 staff and provides for 50% of all of its global diesel production. Then came the Volkswagen dieselgate scandal and subsequently the demonisation of diesel, which has led to a 33% drop in diesel sales so far this year. Once more, manufacturers have sought to respond where they have seen a lack of leadership, in this case perhaps from policy makers. Ford introduced a diesel scrappage scheme, as certain other manufacturers have done, and since September it has taken 21,000 vehicles off the road. The programme has been so successful that it was extended beyond December, when it was due to close, and is still running.

A tax on diesel was announced in the November 2017 Budget, with an increase in vehicle excise duty by one band and on benefit in kind by an additional 1% for all diesel vehicles. Some would say that that is kicking an industry when it is already struggling. The taxing of vehicles based on such a legislative standard has yet to be finalised or introduced by the EU; it is unprecedented and unrealistic. I suggest that the measure is counter- productive and merely makes worse the problem it seeks to solve. People are holding off buying new diesel vehicles and keeping on using older, polluting vehicles. Of course, the reduction in—or lack of—support for the diesel industry does not take into account the many hundreds of millions of pounds that it has already invested in manufacture, responding to the Government’s policy direction of five to 10 years ago.

Today’s diesels are the cleanest yet, having the same nitrous oxide and particulate emissions as petrol and 20% lower CO₂ emissions. To put it into context, it would take at least six of today’s new diesel cars to emit the same nitrous oxides as one vehicle put on the road just two years ago. The focus should therefore be on getting older vehicles off the road, not on penalising customers who wish to buy newer, cleaner diesels. Of course, the swing to petrol means a collective failure to meet our carbon dioxide targets. Hon. Members will know that we are now seeing an uptick in carbon dioxide emissions for the first time in 15 years.

We see challenging issues in our deliberations over Brexit and the trading arrangements we face. That is best exemplified by the profound challenges faced by the automotive industry, one of our most successful industries. The industry has seen a renaissance, which was seriously damaged by the global financial crash, but it managed to sustain itself, and since then we have seen huge inward investment by various manufacturers, which has contributed to a 50% increase in manufacturing share, almost 10 years of steady growth and a consequent almost 30% increase in direct manufacturing employment in the sector, notwithstanding the growth in component suppliers.

The industry also faces the challenge of transitioning to cleaner fuels and a super-low-carbon future, and that is being disrupted by the uncertainty of Brexit and Government policy that seeks to penalise cleaner diesel-powered vehicles. It is currently one of the great paradoxes that, in seeking to improve air quality, the Government have managed to reverse the progress achieved over many years in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, put it:

“The industry shares Government’s vision of a low-carbon future and is investing to get us there, but we can’t do it overnight; nor can we do it alone. The anti-diesel agenda has set back progress on climate change, while electric vehicle demand remains disappointingly low amid consumer concerns around charging infrastructure availability and affordability.

To accelerate fleet renewal, motorists must have the confidence to invest in the cleanest cars for their needs, however they are powered. A consistent approach to incentives and tax and greater investment in charging infrastructure will be critical. Now more than ever, we need a strategy that allows manufacturers time to invest, innovate and sell competitively, and which gives consumers every incentive to adapt.”

That is all the industry seeks: a controlled, orderly, managed transition from one system to the other. Regarding Brexit, it simply wants both clarity and certainty urgently.

Many are calling on the Government to act now to reduce the effects of diesel taxation on the newest, cleanest diesel vehicles and amend the carbon dioxide bands to reduce the impact of new emissions standards on consumer vehicle excise duty. Failure to do so will threaten the future success and sustainability of businesses and the significant contribution that the sector makes to jobs and the UK economy. The orderly, managed transition I described is essential to enable the manufacturers to use their revenues today to invest in our tomorrow. Without that support, the sector could be seriously damaged in its need to compete with the likes of China who have the scale and state backing to invest in newer technologies.

We have grown used to having a successful industry that contributes greatly not just to our international trade but to our global manufacturing prestige. We would be fools not to support it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this wide, but clear and focused debate on such an important industry. This industry has been a phenomenal success for the UK and we should all be proud of it, but it is being handicapped. We have heard from around the Chamber how the industry faces great challenges, such as clarity and direction over Brexit and the transformation to cleaner energy. On both challenges, it is within the Government’s gift to set a policy to assist the industry—not necessarily to advantage the industry, but certainly not to disadvantage it as at present.

The industry has been extremely competitive, but it is being made uncompetitive as a result of contradictory policies from the Government, particularly the decisions of the Chancellor to further penalise a product that is critical to an orderly transition to a zero-carbon future, while achieving the international climate change obligations and reducing CO2. I simply urge the Minister to revisit both those areas urgently. Whether it is diesel or the transition, we are hampering and damaging the most crucial manufacturing industry in this country.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the current support for existing coal to biomass conversion will end by 2027. I am aware of many of the concerns about biomass, and we are looking at the issue carefully. However, sustainable, low-carbon bioenergy can help us on this transition, particularly away from coal burning.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

T7. The proposals announced at the weekend regarding a merger between Sainsbury’s and Asda will result—along with Tesco—in the most powerful duopoly in the UK grocery sector, accounting for 60% of the market. The Secretary of State will know that the likes of Terry Leahy, Justin King and Stuart Rose adopted the mantra that the consumer wants more choice, not less. Does the Secretary of State agree that this merger is not in the interests of producers, farmers and especially consumers?

Vauxhall Factory, Ellesmere Port

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the sector is too important to be left on its own. It directly or indirectly employs around 800,000 people and generates almost 10% of the country’s manufacturing output. Half of all the UK’s car production is exported to the EU, and that figure goes up to between 70% and 80% for the Vauxhall plant in my constituency.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). Does my hon. Friend agree that the statement made by the CEO of the PSA Group, Carlos Tavares, is a canary in the mine? It is the first warning about Brexit and the serious impact it will have on our economy.

[Justin Madders]

That is certainly a huge concern locally. We do not want to get into a game of pointing fingers; we want action, certainty and investment in the plant, but it will be a challenge. A report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recently concluded that

“leaving the EU without a deal would undoubtedly be hugely damaging to the UK automotive sector, more so than to other European countries… Overall, no-one has argued there are advantages to be gained from Brexit for the automotive industry for the foreseeable future.”

Now that we are leaving the EU, it is important to recognise that there is no upside for one of our most vulnerable and important sectors. We must do everything possible to safeguard jobs and investment, because history shows us that once manufacturing jobs are lost, they very rarely come back.

So far, the Government’s response has been denial. We need them to work tirelessly to reassure major international companies that their future competitiveness will not be fatally undermined by tariffs or regulatory divergence, and that they can invest with confidence. I want us to get into a position in which Brexit cannot be used as an excuse not to invest in UK manufacturing. A clear and unequivocal commitment to a customs union would help, so that the many parts that travel back and forth across the continent can do so without impediment and without the final product becoming uncompetitive. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has estimated that failure to properly cater for such issues in the negotiations could result in an increase of more than £1,500 in the average cost of a vehicle. What business can absorb that without a massive impact?

There is a school of thought that says that some sort of customs union will prevent us from striking up trade deals on our own, but as the BEIS Committee said, the reality is that there are no advantages for the automotive sector from Brexit. If asked to choose between preserving trade with up to 80% of existing customers or knowingly jeopardising existing trade in exchange for the chance of some new business with unspecified countries at an unspecified future time, I believe most people would go for the former and protect existing jobs.

All I have seen from Cabinet Ministers who have been pressed on the issue is bluffing, complacency and dangerous fantasies about a green and pleasant land. The automotive industry will survive and flourish only if we protect it now. I do not expect the Minister’s reply to provide the laser-like clarity that has been missing so far, so I will focus instead on matters that are wholly within the Government’s gift, that are not down to negotiations, that can make a real difference now, and that would still be key to securing the plant’s future even if a new model were announced tomorrow.

The first such matter is business rates, which can have a deterrent effect on investment and can mean that efficiencies have to be sought in alternative areas. Some 60% of the total property tax bill of the former Opel group came from the UK, even though the UK accounted for only 8% of the group’s total footprint. In Germany, significant rate reductions are provided to large companies that are intensive energy users.

Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Clearly, the scheme is an incredibly ambitious one; the scale of it as a consumer programme is virtually unprecedented. That is why the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, and others have said that we have to ensure that what we do is in the public eye, the public interest and the consumer interest.

The intention behind the reporting is clearly a good one, not just for us in terms of monitoring but also for raising the visibility and the importance of the programme. A public relations exercise almost needs to be done because there seems to be so much confusion out there, particularly among consumers. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak in terms of those metrics are critical, but it is also critical that we begin to understand the sort of behavioural change among consumers, in terms of that cost-benefit analysis for the whole programme and for individual households.

I do not want to spin the wheels and repeat what has been said. The only thing that I would urge is a little more ambition in the reporting. The annual report is not bad—it is a good idea—but like most businesses, which give quarterly updates, given those really important metrics and given that the ambition was set for 2020, arguably there are not many annual reports left between now and then. Perhaps a quarterly summary report would be valuable to see the progress that has been made and, critically, how the scheme has been adopted or accepted and how it is working with the consumer.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the shadow Minister—or should I now call him my protection officer? I have never had one of those before and thought that I was not likely to, but I am very pleased that he has taken it upon himself to appoint himself to that position, which I warmly endorse, I thank him for that.

The new clauses give me the chance to set out the Government’s commitments for reporting on the smart meter roll-out, which is very important and something that I have given a lot of thought to. Before I do, I want to mention a couple of points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made, because they are quite different. She said that consumers were being misled by their energy companies and bullied into getting a smart meter—which is really what she was saying. I reiterate that it is not compulsory for anyone to have a smart meter installed. Consumers have a right to decline them.

Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Gapes, but I was stressing the point that we would not need to know were it not for the fact that this is going to cost so much. If something that costs so much goes wrong—especially when that cost is borne by the consumer—we should fear a situation in which those who were instrumental in making all the decisions up to that point can be absolved of all responsibility, because the Minister steps in to offer a new regime to protect and safeguard the failed organisation without you, Mr Gapes, or me, or anyone in this room having any idea what happened, what will happen, who will pay for it, and what it will cost. That is the object of the exercise.

I am grateful to you, Mr Gapes, for your guidance about not dwelling too much on the figures, but those figures are considerable and I will certainly seek an opportunity to share some of them with you later in our proceedings, if at all possible. I believe that the public have every right to know those figures, but I am grateful for your guidance on that point.

For the purposes of the amendment, I simply stress that it would be wrong to have a situation where the Minister was forced to take such an action, especially if there is any suggestion that that action could be taken behind closed doors and would not be visible, transparent and available to everyone. It should be open to the kind of scrutiny that I think all members of the Committee would believe essential were an operation of this size to go wrong, land the consumer with an enormous bill and require a special administration intervention.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I rise in support of what I think is a simple and honest amendment that seeks only to underline the need for transparency—that is something we should be stressing throughout the Bill. We could ask whether the words “efficiently” and “economically” really need to be included in the Bill, and of course they do, but likewise we also need the word “transparently”.

If I understood correctly, this process started some years ago and we are now legislating for it. A moment ago it was asked why we are doing this only now. That seems a little incredible to someone who walked into this place a few months ago, but be that as it may, we are where we are. What we are picking up from consumers is not necessarily distrust, but there is some confusion out there. Any means by which we can improve the transparency of the programme and provide clarity for consumer and suppliers is surely vital. I support the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

In supporting this amendment, will hon. Members cast their eyes across clauses 2 and 3 that set up the smart meter communication licensee administration, and the special administrative regime—the SAR? We must emphasise what a special circumstance this is. This would be where the body that had been charged with the whole roll-out of smart meters, which had millions of pounds under its guidance, had gone into administration—for whatever reason. As the Minister points out, traditional methods are available for dealing with a company that has gone into administration.

A special administration regime would, among other things, ensure that the special nature of the DCC and its complete centrality to the roll-out was not subsumed under that traditional method of administration, which might cause damage given what the administrator might decide to do with the company if there were not a regime that was carefully worded and sorted out. The administrator might decide that a number of functions that otherwise would have been carried out by the DCC would not be—indeed, we may debate some of those additional functions later. There would be the whole question of the administration of that company being brushed under the carpet, being put in the hands of the administrator and set aside from the public gaze.

A lot of company administrations take place in circumstances of some opacity—that is, it is difficult to ascertain exactly why the company went into administration, the intentions of the administrator or even where the appointment of the administrator came from. It is difficult to find out what the administrator thinks they are going to do with the company concerned. There are whole series of things that, in terms of general company law, ought to be a little more transparent but generally are not; that is how it works as far as company law is concerned.

However, this is a very different circumstance: the entity is an essential public function as well as a company, which might be placed into administration. It is therefore right that, in clauses 2 and 3, we do more than say that we want to make sure that the administration is in the right hands and that nothing happens with the administration that will cause damage to the passage of the DCC as the organiser of the smart meter roll-out. That is what all the paragraphs in clause 3, and some of those in clause 2, are about. They are concerned with the smooth transfer and running of the system. There is not one word about any light that should be shone on what would have happened to that company previously, and what is the public good of the company subsequently, once it comes out of administration.

Smart Meters Bill (Second sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Pawsey]

Q Are the Government just being prudent by including this clause in the document?

Derek Lickorish: I think it is a very prudent situation. There must be an anxiety, otherwise why have they done it?

Richard Wiles: Likewise, I am not able to answer as to the exact reasons, but bringing previous Acts together under one is a sound idea. With regards to how DCC would reach that situation, again, I have no absolute definition as to how that could happen now.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q This is not my specialist subject, but I am interested in the asset provider side. I am trying to get my head around this. Could you give me an idea of how many manufacturers are supplying to the industry?

Richard Wiles: There are different manufacturers for SMETS 1 and SMETS 2.

[Matt Western]

Q For SMETS 1, sorry.

Richard Wiles: There are probably about half a dozen different manufacturers that are providing SMETS 1 solutions, and it depends on the scale that they are deploying at. We are the two companies sitting at the top of the table; collectively we have the largest market share of the SMETS 1 devices going out there. We have supplied multi-millions of devices, smart meters, communication hubs and connected devices that hang off that through our communications hub and mini DCC head-end systems. There are other companies out there that have provided a smaller amount, but I cannot give you a definite figure on the volume of that.

[Matt Western]

Q These units are provided to the companies to install, and that is written down essentially over a lifetime. What sort of lifetime are we talking about for one such product?

Derek Lickorish: The old Ferraris disc meter had a lifespan on circuit starting at about 18 years. It came in, you put an airline on it, took the dust off it, and then put it out for another 18. We are now talking about a very sophisticated electronic device, and I do not think we know the long-term answer to that, but it ought to start with 15 years.

[Matt Western]

Q So where we are hearing about another provider possibly coming in, and this question of interoperability—if you have one supplier and you switch to another supplier, there is this, “We are going to switch the unit at the same time”—why can that other company not take over the asset? Is it simply about communications?

Derek Lickorish: No, there are two issues. There is the technical issue, and we are saying that you can deal with the technical issue.

[Matt Western]

That is what I thought.

Derek Lickorish: Then it comes down to commercial contracts.

[Matt Western]

That is the point I want to get to.

Derek Lickorish: This was an issue raised some time ago—in fact, probably two, but maybe three, years ago—over deemed rentals. You were getting enormous deemed rentals being charged by some meter asset providers to somebody who was going to use their meter, because they had inherited it on change of supplier. Some of those are not regulated businesses and people smell an opportunity on this sort of thing, in particular when it is in the state that it is—it is all relatively new—but then there are forces that will create anxiety about an asset’s longevity in that space, so the deemed rental will be high. It is rational to be high. That is because the framework that sits all around this is uncertain and, as we all know, markets like certainty. These people—they are financiers—want certainty, and if all the time we keep saying, “Well, SMETS 2 are just around the corner, no more SMETS 1 meters” it all creates a fog and a fuzz that will drive what I believe to be irrational behaviour on some of the deemed rentals. Ofgem is aware of it, BEIS is aware of it and this is another issue that the industry needs to galvanise around, because if we are not careful, if we do not get proper interoperability tested, which is in trouble at the moment, a risk premium will be attached to those contracts.

[Matt Western]

So the costs go up.

Derek Lickorish: So the costs go up. Bear in mind, and forgive me for saying, that this is a £12 billion programme. DCC alone has seen its costs go from £1.3 billion to £2.1 billion. Forgive me, but every £1 billion will give you 10 210-bed hospitals. These are huge sums of money and we need to make sure that the framework that sits around them is accurate and fit for purpose.

[Matt Western]

Q There is a massive issue here, isn’t there?

Derek Lickorish: Yes, there is.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Q I am still enthusiastic about the potential for smart meters and there is still will behind it. I am trying to make a comparison and I come back to the 1970s, to the introduction of natural gas. They are two different technologies but a massive task throughout the United Kingdom. We mentioned two dates: 2020 was the desirable date and you wish that to be retained, although there was a fall-back date of 2023. At some time in this journey we are going to have to speed up the process. We are going to have to pull our socks up and get the job done. I have two questions in that regard. Do we have the production capacity for SMETS 2 meters to meet the demand when it is at its peak, and do we have sufficient human resources to install those meters commercially, hopefully to meet the target of 2020, but perhaps more realistically at a date beyond that? How are we for capacity: human resources and production capacity?

Richard Wiles: We manufacture SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 devices. We are prepared to ramp up our production line to make sure that SMETS 1 can run in parallel to ensure that any potential shortfalls in capacity can be overcome by our increased production. We can continue to keep the momentum and supply chain running in that respect. Regarding installers, by the end of SMETS 1, we are probably looking at around 12 million devices. If the current installation rate continues through to July next year, that equates to around 1.3 million smart meters per month that need to be installed.

Whether we need additional installers is something that Trilliant has not supplied services on, other than installation processes, but organisations are geared up to supply the installation requirement for SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 to meet that deadline.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Western: 20 seconds.

[Matt Western]

Q The confluence of “prosumer”—producer and consumer: do you think the Bill addresses that, or is there an opportunity to have gone a bit further with it, to change behaviour?

Dr Sarah Darby: The specification is already there to allow for prosumption, for people who are generating—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid I have no choice. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I am sorry to cut you off in your prime. Perhaps, as the question has been brought in, you will see each other after the Committee. I thank you both for being our witnesses this afternoon and, on behalf of the Committee, for giving us the benefit of your wisdom. Line-by-line consideration of the Bill will begin at 11.30 am on Thursday in Committee Room 12.

Smart Meters Bill (First sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Douglas Ross]

Q The 99.75% is a great ambition, but is it still the case that the more remote and rural areas will be at the end of the programme, when the suppliers must get to the 99.75%, because—I am told—it is more difficult to install the meters there than in those areas that will experience the benefits earlier on?

Rob Salter-Church: That might be a question for Angus, in terms of the roll-out and build-out of the network, and where and when it will be reaching different communities in the country.

Angus Flett: We use two technologies, north and south. In the south it is a cellular technology, and that is an established network. In the north it is a radio technology, which gives a higher percentage coverage, particularly for the geographical aspects of Scotland and some aspects of rural areas. You are correct in that the high percentage coverage does not get rolled out until the last part of the programme. However, we have been working with our customers to see if we could speed that up for particular geographic areas. We are also working with Alt HAN, an alternative organisation set up by the Government, to look at that last 1% or 2% and the technologies we could deploy to resolve that. One of the technologies we use is called meshing, which effectively picks up the signal from one house where it is strong and allows that to repeat. So we are reasonably comfortable and confident that we can deliver the coverage footage.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q I have some quick questions. I am concerned about what I heard in the previous session about the transparency to consumers. I sense that there is no consistency—perhaps you can correct me—between the different suppliers, in terms of information provided to the consumer about the programme, what the customer’s responsibilities are and what the provider’s responsibilities are, such as frequently asked questions and that sort of thing. Can you confirm the situation?

Rob Salter-Church: Suppliers have clear obligations in terms of what they have to explain to their customers. It really, really matters to us that customers get clear information about smart metering—indeed about everything—from their suppliers. It is important that they treat their customers fairly.

In relation to smart metering, suppliers work with the Smart Energy GB organisation to produce common materials and FAQs to make sure that there is clear information for consumers. That information is produced and the suppliers are working to pass that out to individual consumers. There would be potential unintended consequences if either Ofgem or the Government decided that we knew exactly how to speak to customers individually—every single one—and set out very prescriptive rules that suppliers had to follow to the letter. We place clear obligations on suppliers on what they explain to customers. They have clear licence obligations to ensure that they always treat their customers fairly. Suppliers have a programme of work going on, working through Smart Energy GB on common FAQs and information that can be shared with consumers, and they have to do that in a clear way that really engages customers and makes them understand the benefits of smart metering.

[Matt Western]

Q Have you withdrawn the licence from anyone so far on the basis of malpractice?

Rob Salter-Church: We have a range of tools if we see problems with licence compliance, including ultimately running an enforcement action and imposing fines. We have not had to use our enforcement powers in relation to smart metering as yet.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Q Matt just asked my question, but I will add to it. I could possibly be the only person in this room who has had to survive on a pay-as-you-go meter, and I have also lived through then being targeted with high tariffs by energy companies—they come to the estate and sell those things, knowing that they are going to make money out of the poorest in society. I struggle with the transparency of this. Data protection and customers’ privacy, in terms of information about how they are using their energy, is a real concern for me. I just do not personally buy the argument that it is all for the consumer, when there is money to be made out of people. So that is an issue.

The roll-out is also an issue. We have touched on the fact that it is obviously delayed. Is it going to happen or is it another initiative that is going to cost an awful lot of money? Who is going to end up paying for that? Will it ultimately be the consumer once again? Those are my two main points, before I get on my high horse.

Rob Salter-Church: You talked about having a traditional prepayment meter and some of the poor quality of service that results from that. One of the most important things that the smart meter roll-out will do is end the prepayment disadvantage, in terms of both cost and quality of service. That is absolutely key and there are real benefits for consumers.

You talked a little bit about privacy. There are very clear rules in place for suppliers; they must obtain customers’ consent if they want to have any data from them.

Smart Meters Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s speech introducing this Bill. He set out very clearly the benefits of the smart meter programme and what the Bill’s two main provisions will do. First, the Bill will extend the Secretary of State’s powers by five years, from 2018 to 2023. It is interesting that the legislation gives such powers in five-year batches to ensure that the powers are not unlimited. There would be plenty of objections from the Opposition if there were unlimited powers in the Bill, which takes us to 2023. It is entirely appropriate that it should be brought before us, because the very ambitious pace originally set has not been achieved, and the programme is running rather more slowly than we anticipated.

We also heard, secondly, about the introduction of the special administration regime for the body—the data communications company—managing the communication between the smart meters and the energy companies, as well as about the need for resources and facilities to provide protection and rescue given the rare possibility of financial failure. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) say that the Opposition will support the Bill and that they welcome and value its measures.

I want to touch on the status of the data communications company, because the programme is running behind schedule and the company is involved in handling rather bigger sums than previously expected. The costs are now expected to run to £900 million, and the project has become more complex than originally anticipated. The energy companies are under pressure from the regulator to increase the rate of installation, which has led to more of the SMETS 1 meters—the first generation meters—being installed. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified when he sums up what will happen when we move to SMETS 2 meters. There is some concern that SMETS 1 meters may need to be replaced. I think the Secretary of State said that there would be an upgrade, but will the Minister talk the House through that process. I will come back to that concern later.

The cost of proofing the technology against cyber-attack has increased. This place has been affected by such an attack, so we all understand the importance of that. We will need to look at the DCC’s cost and revenue. The provisions relating to protection and rescue are very important. Will the Minister comment on the likelihood that those provisions will be needed?

This debate gives us all the opportunity to talk about the aims and objectives of installing smart meters. I am pleased that we have now upped the rate, with 370,000 now being installed per month. The principle of smart meters is fantastic and brilliant: the information about usage is sent to suppliers by the network that is being created. There are real benefits for the utility company. It already knows rates of usage, but this will tell it specifically where the demand is coming from, how much demand there is and at what times of day. All that will enable utility providers to predict demand better, which will in turn give us all the benefit of security of supply.

There are also real benefits for the consumer. By being informed about their energy usage, the consumer can decide to use energy when it is cheaper. They will have a greater awareness of their usage, and they will be able to manage their bills better and reduce their consumption. I am struck by the analogy with the computers we all find in our cars these days.

Our car’s mileage per gallon will vary according to the speed at which we drive on the motorway and how we drive—how much of a hurry we are in. It is possible to modify the mpg. I always find it interesting to note how I might be able to get an extra mile per gallon by modifying my behaviour. I see a real parallel between that and the usefulness of smart meters.

The other principal advantage I see is that of accurate billing. Many people pay for gas and electricity on the basis of what they estimate they may need, so in many instances they pay for more than they use. That is great, because it sometimes allows them to build up a credit and they do not have a debt to the energy provider, but as one person put it to me, that is not great for the family cash flow; so paying their bills on the basis of the amount of energy used rather than an estimate provides a real benefit.

The fourth advantage, which we have not yet seen but is a matter of concern, is that with smart meters, switching between suppliers ought to be easier because anyone looking to switch would have much more accurate data on which to compare suppliers’ tariffs. That should enable them to make a more informed decision. The technology within the meter should enable the switch to be made more easily. There is a real link here—the Secretary of State referred to it—between that ability and the need for some control and management of prices.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I have not done this before. There is a huge amount of sense in everything that the hon. Gentleman is describing, but I was surprised to hear—and maybe he would be—that more deprived households have not been prioritised for the introduction of smart meters. Given what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, it would be a real advantage to their household economy if they were prioritised. Would he welcome that?

[Mark Pawsey]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his remarks. Of course, the issue is the use of the second generation of meters—the SMETS 2 meters—and we need to get them into as many places with prepayment plans as possible, so that those households too can get the benefits of seeing when their electricity is cheapest and using their appliances when they get maximum advantage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I agree. There is an issue with connectivity, and a problem with gas meters on external walls. Flats and tenements quite often have banks of meters installed in communal areas, and there is not yet a solution for the installation of smart meters in those cases. Frankly, the 2020 deadline is dead in the water.

As I said, the consumer pays for any increase in labour costs and recruitment to try to hit a deadline, so that is an additional cost that eats into savings and is probably not yet projected. I am a wee bit unsure about the Government’s estimate of the financial benefits of the smart meter roll-out. I am not saying that the roll-out is not a good thing, but I do question some of the figures attributed to it. The only guarantee that consumers have is that they will have to pay for the £11 billion installation costs. As we have already heard, those costs are increasing.

There is an estimated direct consumption saving of £5.3 billion, which is only half the installation cost. There is also an assumption about long-term behaviour—that customers will continue to operate a reduced energy usage. I have a concern about human behaviour. It may be the natural instinct of many customers to modify their behaviour and turn down their electricity usage when they get smart meters, but bad habits may creep in over a long period and the savings might not be realised at the same level.

There are other estimated savings in the Government’s cost-benefit analysis that are, frankly, quite spurious. The Government estimate £8 billion of supplier benefits, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the £8 billion that suppliers are predicted to save will be passed on to consumers. The Secretary of State intervened earlier to suggest that the market will dictate that these savings will rightly be passed on to consumers, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that market failure is the whole reason that we agree on energy price caps. There is no way that we can guarantee that future savings for suppliers will be passed on to consumers.

Other spurious savings estimates include carbon-related benefits of £1.3 billion and £98 million in air quality savings. Now, reducing carbon emissions is a good thing, but I question how we can quantify those reductions as savings that will go direct to the consumer. The Government estimate savings for each household of £11 per annum by 2020 and £47 per annum by 2030, and £16 billion of savings were estimated overall. However, as my colleagues have touched on, the bottom line is that these estimated savings of £16 million are completely dwarfed by the £30 billion project that is called Hinkley Point C. That wipes out any projected savings from this programme.

Other hon. Members have mentioned that all consumers are paying for this programme, so surely the fuel poor and prepayment customers should be targeted first and given assistance. We should ensure that these vulnerable customers get the smart meters they deserve. Smart meters are supposed to end estimated billing, but it is acknowledged in the Government’s own factsheet that accompanied some briefings that if somebody with a first generation meter changes supplier, it is quite possible that they will lose the functionality of the smart meter. Even if they retain some functionality, they will end up back with estimated meter readings. That is counter- productive and the opposite of what the smart meter roll-out is supposed to achieve.

It was said that the second generation roll-out will start in July 2018. Well, we need the Minister to confirm how certain that is. Will the energy suppliers be forced to move on to the second generation meters, or will they be able to use up the backlog of 2 million first generation meters or whatever the number is? What if the initial companies are doing cheap deals on the first generation meters to get them out the door? Are we still going to be stuck with them?

[Matt Western]

I have spoken to a major energy supplier in my constituency, and it is clear that suppliers are seeking clarity from the Government on not only the timescale in which they are supposed to install these meters but what are deemed to be all reasonable attempts to get them installed. So, overall, there seems to be a lack of clarity, even for the suppliers.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I agree, and I hope we will get more clarity when the Minister sums up.

I agree that properly functioning smart meters can bring consumer benefits, but it is clear that they are not a silver bullet in reducing bills for energy users. To properly reduce costs, the Government need to look at their wider strategy. Nuclear commitments need to be scrapped. All renewables need to be able to bid in future contract for difference auctions. Much more also needs to be done to manage the smart meter process, and I look for confirmation on that when the Minister sums up. At the moment, the Bill will not achieve that, but it will extend the Government’s powers, and I hope we will hear how those will be used to better implement the roll-out of smart meters.

Finally, the Secretary of State mentioned the smart grid and the use of smart meters for demand management. If we are going to get to that, the future upgrades need to be much more efficient, and I look forward to that happening in due course.

Vauxhall (Redundancies)

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I was not at the Dispatch Box to answer questions about Monarch, but I understood that it was a very troubled company that was burdened with debt, and other airlines have reported record passenger numbers over the summer. The statement that we made last week about BAE Systems concerned the delay in landing some important overseas orders, and I hope that the House recognised how committed the Department was to ensuring that those orders were delivered.

Let me say again that this is not about Brexit. It is about a lack of sales of a model that is sold both in the United Kingdom and in Europe, which is having a near-term impact on the shift pattern at this port.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Chair. Let me begin by saying that I feel very much for the people and families who are affected by this announcement.

Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister sought reassurances about safeguarding jobs. Clearly that was all a bit “peace in our time”. This is not actually about petrol, diesel, electric or C-segment; otherwise, why has the plant in Gliwice, in Poland, not been affected by similar closures? Carlos Tavares, the PSA chief executive, has said that it is hard to decide on the group’s strategy owing to a lack of clarity over the UK’s plans to leave the European Union. The jobs—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands. In these situations, what is needed is a short question, and the Chair—as the hon. Gentleman generously described me—needs evidence that a question mark will appear before long. It is not an occasion for a series of observations; it is a question to the Minister.

[Matt Western]

Thank you for clarifying that, Chair. [Laughter.] Sorry—Mr Speaker.

May I suggest that the Minister speak to Professor David Bailey of Aston university, and find out more about the impact on the components business, which underlies the reason for seeking to reduce the number of jobs in the UK? It is about the supply chain and Brexit; it is not about the C-segment.

[Claire Perry]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. I chair the Automotive Council for the Government. The council brings together vital representatives of the manufacturing companies that are based here and of the supply chain, as well as technology leaders and union representatives. I spend a great deal of time talking to representatives of the industry about what is affecting their businesses. This is exceptionally disappointing for all the families who may be having conversations over the tea table tonight, but it is due to a failure to deliver on the sales projections for the Astra. It is our collective job to ensure that the industry has confidence in the UK when it comes to investment in the future.

Energy Price Cap

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I said, the poorest 10% of households spend 10% of their household expenditure on energy, whereas the richest 10% spend 3% of theirs on it. We need to look particularly at the conditions of more vulnerable consumers to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. My right hon. Friend mentioned one of the ways in which they are.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Are we not tinkering at the edges and doing a little bit of window dressing? I think that we all agree that the energy market appears to be dysfunctional. We saw that best at the beginning of this year when there was an increase in tariffs across the board that bore no relation to wholesale prices, but had everything to do with the exchange rate, particularly that with the euro, as most of our domestic companies are actually based in France or Germany. The big six are essentially operating as a cartel, not in the interests of the consumer.

[Greg Clark]

I am not sure that I would give them the excuse of exchange rate movements. The Competition and Markets Authority has said that suppliers have unilateral market power over this part of their customer base. This is a regulated market. Ofgem has the powers to introduce and extend the price gap, and my view is that it should use those powers now.