Five questions answered on British Gas’s 2012 profit rise

"So no, I don't think customers will be celebrating."

British Gas today announced a profit rise for 2012. We answer five questions on the energy company’s rising profits.

By how much exactly did British Gas’s profits rise in 2012?

The company said it profits rose 11 per cent, with gas usage up 16 per cent.  

British Gas’s parent company, Centrica, also reported an adjusted operating profit of £2.7bn for 2012, up 14 per cent from 2011.

Where does British Gas say this rise comes from?

The company attributed the profit rise to customers turning up their heating in the cold weather and not to the 6 per cent gas and electricity prices rise it enforced in November of last year.

Chief Executive of Centrica Sam Laidlaw speaking to the BBC said that the firm’s profit margins per household were actually down and that the company had made just under £50 profit per customer household.

Have Centrica’s dividends to shareholders risen?

Yes, by 6 per cent. The company is also returning £500m to them.

What are the company’s critics saying?

Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at the price comparison website Uswitch, told the BBC: "Seven out of 10 of us actually went without heating at some point during this winter and over a third of us have reported that we feel it's actually affected the quality of our life and also our health.

"So no, I don't think customers will be celebrating. I think they'll be wondering why on earth British Gas had to take this move in November when they are making such high profits."

What is Centrica’s saying in response to this criticism?

Also speaking to the BBC Chief Executive Sam Laidlaw said he recognized that times were “difficult” for UK households but insisted British Gas couldn’t have done any more to shield customers from price rises.

He added that "a 5pc margin on the business is the sort of margin we require,” and that Centrica provided a “vital source of energy to the UK.”

"Centrica is one of the UK’s most important companies, employing around 40,000 people, keeping homes warm and well lit, securing future energy supplies, innovating and investing and paying substantial amounts of tax to the Treasury each year," Mr Laidlaw said.

"We also have over 700,000 individual shareholders, all of whom benefit from the dividends the Company pays. Through our larger shareholders, many of them pension funds, our dividends also feed into the retirement savings of millions of people. It is important therefore that the group continues to grow and invest." Laidlaw said.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.