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

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496