Quick fixes won’t stop rip-off Britain

Profiteering by the Big Six isn't to blame for the huge rise in energy prices.

It is cheap to reform, could help bring down inflation, increase household income and it's a vote winner. So reforming the energy market should be a no-brainer for the government, right? Wrong.

Energy bills are the number one financial concern for the public, ahead of the cost of food and housing. The average dual fuel energy bill has increased by 75 per cent since 2004, energy companies received four million complaints last year and overcharging of loyal (often poor and old) customers is still widespread. But as with that other current target of public anger, corporate excess, the political debate is failing to make much headway with public opinion.

David Cameron's attempt to make the running on this was an energy summit held back in October last year. The only tangible outcome from the summit was action to make it easier for people to switch suppliers to get cheaper bills. Yet despite the hard times, even less people are switching now than five years ago. Over 60 per cent of people have never switched, many have no intention of doing so and those who most need to - the elderly and those on low incomes - are least able to. The coalition and now new Energy Secretary Ed Davey need to have an answer beyond simply trying and failing to increase consumer engagement in the market.

Right-wing think tanks continue to lay the blame for price rises on policies to develop renewable energy, while failing to compare this with the cost of replacing our ageing high carbon power stations, as well as the high costs of doing nothing at all. But there are blind spots on the left too.

A campaign to end energy profiteering was launched yesterday by Compass in the Independent backed by a host of leading political figures. It rightly calls for action but puts forward quick fix solutions rather than a basis for lasting reform. A windfall tax is called for by the campaign as the way to claw back excessive profits from the Big Six and price caps to prevent the costs of this being passed onto customers. But it is not clear what, if anything, a one-off regulatory intervention like a windfall tax will do to prevent underlying problems in the market.

The blame for the huge rise in prices is pinned solely on the Big Six's profits, when we know that wholesale and distribution costs have driven over 80 per cent of the price increase since 2004 and social and environmental obligations seven per cent of this. The real issue is where the profits are being made. Regulator Ofgem's own research shows that between 2005 and 2008 the Big Six's total net profits came from just 48 per cent of their customer base - largely those still with the same supplier since before market liberalisation. These customers are being overcharged to subsidise cheap offers for customers who switch suppliers in the more competitive end of the market. Though some suppliers have stopped this, others continue.

IPPR analysis to be published this spring will show how removing some of the more inequitable and anti-competitive practices in the energy market could remove barriers to new entrants, extend competition and improve market efficiency to help exert downward pressure on prices. If after this the market is still failing to deliver the benefits of competition to the vast majority of the public, there would be a strong case for more fundamental review of the market.

The London mayoral elections show how quickly the electorate can respond on cost of living issues. Ed Miliband's Rip-Off Britain campaign may not be original but it could be effective if it can set out a clear route to reform that cuts through to the public. Above all the opposition should establish a strong pro-competition stance that it would be hard for the government not to follow. The 1 in 4 households who can't pay their energy bills need action soon. Until then, they'll believe it when they see it.

Clare McNeil is a senior research fellow at IPPR.

Clare McNeil is a senior research fellow at IPPR.

Twitter: @claremcneil1

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.