16/03/2017 House of Commons

to be called only once, intervention should be questions that should be

brief, the front bench may take part in questioning.

I am grateful to the backbench business committee that providing

time they need to present our tenth report entitled Lesson Still To Be

Learned From The Chilcot Inquiry. The decision to invade Iraq has left

an indelible scorer in British politics. It continues to be as

controversial today as it was at the time, not least because it became

apparent after the invasion that it was to become a protracted and

bloody affair costing the lives of 179 UK servicemen and women as well

as those of our allies and thousands of people in Iraq. The consequences

of the decision to invade Iraq remain profound, not only for our

domestic politics but also for our foreign and Security policy and the

stability of the whole of the region. The Chilcot Inquiry was

established in 2009 to provide some closure to the controversy. This was

already far too late and I'm reminded that the House of Commons

first voted on the question of whether to have an inquiry in 2002

on a conservative opposition motion. However for many of the length of

the inquiry that was established has itself become subject to extensive

criticism. Most of the reporting discussion of the Chilcot Inquiry

has been preoccupied with the substance of the decision to go to

war and its legality of what happened in the aftermath of the

invasion. Yet there are also less and still to be learned regarding

the machinery of Government and how it operated and regarding the

conduct of public enquiries and this is what they agreed to focus on. The

report launched today examines the extent to which Government --

Government and decision-making was sidelined by the run-up to the Iraq

war. Significant decisions on Iraq pre-conflict were taken without

sufficient consultation of Cabinet colleagues. Chilcott concludes there

were 11 decision points prior to the invasion on which and I quote there

should have been collective discussion by Cabinet committee or

small group of ministers on the basis of interdepartmental advice

agreed at a senior level between officials. A worrying finding of

PACAC's report is a future Prime Minister can override the procedures

of collective decision-making without obstacle. Beyond making

representations to ministers, and the Prime Minister and to the Prime

Minister, short of resignation, Cabinet Secretary does not have any

formal recourse to object if the Prime Minister chooses to disregard

the procedures and decision-making as set out in the Cabinet manual.

PACAC is in no doubt that this absence of safeguards cannot persist

and this leads to our most important conclusion in this report. We

therefore recommend in line with the proposal from the better Government

initiative, that the Cabinet Secretary and or senior officials,

should be able to acquire a formal letter of direction if they are

being instructed to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister

disregarding the normal procedures set out in the Cabinet mandate. This

was both safeguarding the independence and clarify the

responsibility. It would make clear to ministers the vital importance of

following proper procedures. The second key finding of PACAC's report

relates to the establishment role and conduct of the Chilcot Inquiry

itself and builds on the work of PACAC's predecessor which carried

out a number of enquiries into the conduct of the public enquiries. It

recommends in future before and inquiry is established, Parliament

should set up an ad hoc Select Committee to take conclusions and

recommendations to the House. There should then be a full debate and

vote in parliament on an amendable motion setting out the precise terms

of reference and an estimated time frame and a proposed budget for that

inquiry. This should ensure expectations are much clearer at the

outset of an inquiry. To has not sought to reopen all the issues

explored by Chilcott, nor has it explored whether Parliament was

misled by the then Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Tony Blair. By

highlighting what the Chilcot Inquiry revealed about the

weaknesses in the Government's decision-making procedures and by

exploring what lessons can be learned from the Chilcot Inquiry, I

hope we can ensure the process of plays that may enable such

controversies to be avoided in future. I commend the report of the

House. On Iraq, the British Cabinet, the overwhelming majority of this

house, much of the media, the three Select committees, the civil

service, security services or came to the same false conclusion

resulting in a disastrous military adventure and the death of hundreds

of thousands of people. There has been the usual unpredictable

procrastination, prevarication and Ops location which has failed to

reveal the truth to the British people as to what happened. The

Select Committee is clear the Chilcott report has failed to allow

them of the committee, to ask questions as to whether Parliament

was deliberately misled leaving a gaping chasm right in the heart of

the credibility of the British establishment. What a damning

judgment after all these years. I welcome the recommendations in

today's report and the independence of the Cabinet Secretary the frankly

I see those recommendations are timid. Does the chair and his Select

Committee agree with me that it will require root and branch

transformative change in the whole of our political structures and

culture before we can answer say again to the British people that

there will never be such a failure? I am grateful to the right on the

wooden man for his question. I voted for the Iraq invasion and I still

don't know whether I would have voted the same way had we known much

more about it. I think the really salient part of that is the lack of

preparation and I would not have voted had I thought that there had

been so little preparation. I think the jury is still out on whether in

the long-term the invasion of Iraq will have been of benefit the global

peace and security. On the question of whether Parliament was

deliberately misled, we just did not feel qualified to make that judgment

and we do not have the procedures and their were with all to conduct a

fair trial of the fax there would need to be a very different kind of

committee with very different judicial procedures to do that. We

do suggest that have to be prepared to do that if further facts and

information emerges but on that point, Sir John Chilcott was clear

he did not hold the former Prime Minister culpable of deliberately

misleading the House. We have to accept that view. I would just add

that are our recommendations timid? They are limited to what we felt

able to make recommendations about. Whatever structures and however you

organise your politics, I'm afraid they're always going to be occasions

when things go wrong and I don't think any constitutional structure

can protect us from that though I think we have made recommendations

that would prevent certain things happen again. Being a member of this

Select Committee myself, I also come at it from a similar position as my

honourable friend who chairs the committee with such distinction. I

think it is reflected in the calibre of this report. I had my doubts

whether my vote would have been different had we had more facts but

again we take our votes in this house on facts that are presented to

us and then we move forward. We don't get our time over again to

relive our votes. In the report, one of the concerns that we were able to

cover of the length of time and the unacceptable delays associated with

its report. The Cabinet Secretary indicated the Government would

consider further the question of how the Iraq enquiry could have been

carried out more quickly. We have urged that this assessment comes as

a matter of urgency and I wondered if my honourable friend had any

indication as to the timescale on this or are we going to be waiting

for it over a longer period of time as we did for the inquiry itself? We

have until 35 minutes past to keep the answers completed. I thank her

for her participation and the contribution to this inquiry. The

answer is we are making recommendations. I very much doubt

the Government is going to like them because it would limit their control

over the process. Most governments establish public enquiries to look

at issue is not open them up. A report is as much addressing what

the House must take control of in order to make sure the inquiry is

conducted better in future. The jury has been delivered and the former

Prime Minister has been indicted and rightfully so. I would have liked to

have seen more per RA -- formal devices. I congratulate them on the

device of letter of direction. This is similar to financial direction.

Perhaps you could say more about that and why he thinks it will be

effective in avoiding the total absolute breakdown of collective

responsibility which was identified in the Chilcott report. The second

is Parliamentary accountability where the committee hasn't been able

to make as much progress. If someone like the previous Prime Minister

says one thing to be American President and something else or

doesn't say something to the House of Commons is misleading. You can

set up a series of enquiries -- inquries or you can spin it out to

get a big enough remit and people ask why we are we going over it?

There is no effective Parliamentary accountability and what I would like

to ask the committee chair is can he see that the nature of Parliamentary

accountability and our responsibility can be effected in

his committee report of a mechanism produced so we have the obligation

to take forward what our constituents demand and that is to

hold any Prime Minister who behaves in the way of the previous minister

to account in a proper and Timmy us fashion? The letter of direction

shouldn't be a controversial matter because we already have it in our

procedures with regard to financial matters. One or two former Cabinet

secretaries are in support of it. It doesn't interfere with this

substance of policy. It is Millie making sure proper processes covered

and what we recommend is not that the list of direction might be at a

sensitive time a sensitive issue, it should be made automatically public

but we should recommend it should be made privately available at the

choice of the Cabinet Secretary or to members of the Privy Council to

the Leader of the Opposition. It is another lever for a Cabinet

Secretary TQ is to secure their independence and to secure the

proper process that Prime have agreed to in principle set down in

the Cabinet manual. On the question of Parliamentary accountability and

the Prime Minister, it remains open to this house to set up a special

Select Committee, privilege committee, to establish proper

procedures, to provide fair representation that the prosecution

and the defence but this will be a complete new procedure. Nothing like

this has been done in the era when we expect natural justice to be

carried out to higher standards. We cannot have MPs who have known views

on these issues, acting as some kangaroo court to Varane a former

Prime Minister. It wouldn't do this house any good. With regards to the

inquries, the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport is we are

considering whether to reconvene the Levenson enquiry which has set fire

50 months at a cost of millions of pounds. I wonder what advice he

would give to the Secretary of State. I would suggest, as perhaps

should have been done with the child sex abuse inquiry, ask for a

committee to be set up, let's have an inquiry into the inquiry before

you get stuck on the tram lines of legality and appointing people. Look

before you leap, is the answer. Access that Government should not be

able to establish inquries to get them out of difficulties. The House

should be here to assist the scrutiny and here to oversee an

inquiry is conducted in a timely fashion.

I am a member of the Select Committee and supported the

publication report, but it was not in a spirit of enthusiasm. I have

some unease in a few phrases in the report which were subsequently

corrected. In particular would he agree that we have inserted the

possibility of a further enquiry, but not by Select Committee, but

possibly by others if the evidence comes to light? I personally believe

we were misled by the then Prime Minister on weapons of mass

destruction and the pretext of war. I was one of the 139 Labour MPs who

voted against the war and I stand by that decision and some of the unease

was expressed by my honourable friend on the front bench as well. I

wonder if the chairman would accept that I expressed some unease at the

time, in particular further enquiries in future might be

worthwhile. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman and he has been

a trooper on this committee for a very long number of years. I do

accept this was a difficult enquiry to agree on, though because we were

concentrating on process and procedures rather than the substance

of the issues, we had to accept some of the turn of the anxiety that so

many people feel about this issue in our draft. I hope he felt able and

comfortable to support this enquiry because the recommendations he fully

supports and I am grateful to him for that. Does my honourable friend

agree that the overriding lesson that most people will think we can

learn from the Chilcott enquiry is that these reports take too long and

cost too much? It is an extraordinarily thorough piece of

work, this enquiry. I think Chilcott should be commended for what he

achieved and the detail he went into and the seriousness with which he

approached it, but it was not what the public initially expected. When

you think the enquiry into the Crimean War which in some respects

was a far bigger disaster and was conducted in the space of a few

months, I think that is what the public hope for. There were various

top-level things. There is a tremendous sense of obligation to

provide people with fairness in enquiries which perhaps did not

exist after the Crimean War, but I do think we need to set down

parameters for this kind of enquiry and that is what a Select Committee

would do if it studied the enquiry before it was set up. I listened

with interest to what the honourable gentleman had to say. It is only by

accident that I found this discussion was taking place right

now and I have not read your report, but I have heard your statement and

I have listened with interest and I think nobody would disagree with due

process. I sent out a Twitter message two hours ago which said our

thoughts are with the victims and survivors of Saddam Hussain

genocidal campaign 28 years ago to this day. That is one of the reasons

I and many others and the majority in this house voted for the war. I

am most grateful to the right honourable lady and her kind

intervention. If I may say so, that is one of the reasons I think it is

important for us to make these statements because you engage more

members. I regard this as a very serious piece of work with some very

serious recommendations. I regard it as a piece of work that can be

embraced by right honourable members of all views on the original

conflict as a better way of making decisions in this government and as

a better way of conducting public enquiries. As a member of this

committee I would like to point out that Chilcott was there to identify

mistakes which led to the loss of life, military and civilian. Seven

years to come to conclusion is unacceptable. Those mistakes could

have been repeated during that timescale. However, the committee

wants to point out the Iraq inquiry reported that the Blair government

did not expose key policy decisions to regular review and cabinet was

when asked to confirm the decision that the diplomatic process was at

an end and the House of commons should have been asked. Given the

gravity of this decision the cabinet should have been made aware of the

legal uncertainties. It would appear to be that the evidence provided to

the Cabinet was designed to produce the result that the then Prime

Minister was looking for. I think that is an accurate comment and I am

also grateful to the honourable gentleman for his contribution to

the committee and this report. But it cuts both ways. The Cabinet went

along with being sidelined and Chilcott was quite clear about that.

There were plenty ministers in the Cabinet who were quite content to

make and to let others make decisions when they could have been

consulted. We address had the legal advice was taken and explored by the

Cabinet as well and we make recommendations about that. Our

proposals would make it clear what Cabinet ministers can expect and are

entitled to expect. It is not a favour to ask of the Prime Minister,

it is part of a proper procedure of Cabinet government. We have a

constitutional Cabinet government and that is what will be reinforced

by these proposals. I am also a member of the committee but I am not

supporting this report because I believe it has been interpreted by

the press as an act of absolution for the previous Prime Minister

involved and the others who were culpable and being led by him,

principally the three select committees of this house. This was

the worst blunder this house committed since sending troops into

the sewers war. We should be objective in dealing with our own

blunders and this report, whilst it has many merits, it does not deal

with the truth of the time, that we were led into an avoidable war by a

man of vanity whose messianic rule misled this house in a very serious

way. The honourable gentleman's report does contain the evidence and

there I two interpretations of the evidence before Chilcott and won the

report suggests that should be referred might lead us to a

conclusion that we did go to a war in vain. Of course we must remember

the principal need here and that is to avoid sending other soldiers into

war in future because of the vanity of this house, of the inflexibility

of this house in making fair judgments. We have that

responsibility. If we do not condemn the errors of the past, we are

responsible for them. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his

work to the committee and I respect we differed on this report and I

appreciate the emphasis he want to make by declining to support this

report. But it is open to this house at any time to reflect any matter to

the committee privileges and there is a procedure for doing that and if

he thinks there is a case for doing that, he should try and implement

that procedure. But I think the difficulty is, as the Chilcott

enquiry is self-centred, that there are two interpretations about this

and there is nothing definitive in terms of evidence to suggest there

was culpability in that the former Prime Minister deliberately sought

to mislead the House. I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned,

not least if I may say as an aside, that when it comes to a decision

like this for the House to make an informed decision, it relies

entirely on what government tells it. We are in a new era where the

House is consulted about these things when it never used to be. We

used to have rather more retrospective accountability for

these matters rather than forward accountability and I question

whether that works. I do not think is of commons is competent to make

strategic judgments on the spur of the moment in the heat of a crisis

in the same way that a government should be. As a new member in 2015 I

was struck by the Chilcott experience and the unacceptable

delay. But as taking decisions in this place is the honourable

gentleman just said, we want to take educated decisions based on

evidence. But more so for the families of the soldiers who died it

was unacceptable. Can I ask him about the recommendations he made

about a more strict re-met and timing for such enquiries? How can

we take that forward in this house? Do we need to have a vote on it or

is it the gift of the government to do so or not do so? Ultimately it is

in the hands of this has, subject to whipping and all the pressures put

on this house, but in the end it is in the hands of this has to decide

how and enquiry is conducted. If they do not like it, we can stop it

because we are a sovereign house. But I agree, the length of time this

took was unacceptable. Not only did it undermine the credibility of the

enquiry itself, it actually undermined the very confidence in

public institutions that the inquiry was intended to restore. It did not

serve the purpose that this house might have wanted it to serve

because it took so long and it was a grievous torture for those who lost

life and limb and the families of the bereaved. We come to the second

committee statement which will follow the same procedure as the

previous one. Sarah Wollaston. The scale of the bottom or loss of life

from suicide is unacceptable. 4820 people in England took their own

lives in 2015 and across the UK 6122 in 2014. But these official figures

underestimate the true scale of the devastating loss from suicide. It

remains the leading cause of death in young people between the ages of

15 and 24, and it is the leading cause of death in men under 50. It

is strongly linked to deprivation and a major contributor to health

inequality. But the key message we heard throughout our inquiry is that

suicide is preventable and there is far more that we can and should be

doing to make sure that we reduce that. That was the key focus for our

enquiry from the Health Select Committee into preventing suicide. I

would like to thank all of those who contributed to the inquiry,

particularly those who are from families bereaved by suicide and

those who themselves had experienced suicidal tendencies and who had used

the mental health services. Their evidence was courageous and

compelling. I would like to thank all those voluntary groups working

out there, and the volunteers, to provide support for people in crisis

and to all our front-line staff. I would like to thank my fellow

committee members and our committee staff. Moving on to what we found in

our inquiry, first of all, we welcome the government was back

suicide prevention strategy, but part of any strategy, the key is

implementation. We call on the government to go far further in

implementing the strategy and to re-sourcing it and to give greater

attention to the workforce in order to make the very important

considerations come forward. We also make further recommendations in that

we were disappointed in a number of areas in that the government has not

gone further. We know there are things we can do to reduce suicide

and there are a number of these we highlight in our report. Half of

those who take their own lives have self harmed and we feel it is really

disappointing that so many of those with experience of self harm, their

experience when they go to casualty departments means sometimes they are

made to feel they are wasting people's time. We know psychiatry

makes an enormous difference, but there are issues with liaising and

psychiatry. Patients should receive a visit within three days of leaving

inpatient services, but there simply are not the resources for that to be

put into place. We call on the government to go further in looking

at the workforce and resizing for this to take place.

We know, as well, that there are serious issues in that around one

third of people who take their own lives are not in contact with

primary care or specialist services in the year of their death. Suicide

is everyone's business, we all have a responsibility to reduce the

stigma around mental health and make it easier for people to seek help. I

pay tribute to all of those working in this field reaching out to those

in non-health settings and making a real difference. Many of those

voluntary groups are coming under great financial pressure. We know

that it is welcome that the government has announced that there

will be 5 million for suicide prevention but this doesn't come on

until next year and we feel this is too little too late. Particularly in

the context of cuts to public health grounds and the cuts that we know

are happening in local authorities and with services that can reach out

to those vulnerable to suicide. We die to see the government give a

greater focus to adequately resourcing the measures they set out

in their rooms so his side prevention strategy. Particularly,

look at how those plans are implemented. It is welcome that 95%

of local authorities have a suicide prevention plan in place or in

development but there doesn't seem to be sufficient quality assurance

about those plans so what we would all like to see is a national

implementation board looking at how we can move these plans forward.

However good the strategy, if it is not implemented cannot be effective.

That was one of the key messages we heard from witnesses and I know that

the Minister will have heard that from the National suicide prevention

advisory board, very loud and clear. There are also things that we no

need to happen when people are in contact with services. It is

disappointing there hasn't been greater focus upon the consensus for

information sharing. There are too many occasions on which the first

people here that a loved one has taken their own life happening at

that point. Subsequently, it is found out that their relatives had

been in touch with services but no one had let them know. There are

issues of consensual OT and consent but if you ask people in the right

way they are much more likely to give that consent to information

sharing and we would like to see the government putting greater focus on

how we can increase awareness of how health professionals share

information with people's loved ones. We believe that will save

lives. Across the board, there measures that can be taken, both out

in the community and in health care settings, and in specialist

settings, but the minister will know that we also look at the role of the

media because irresponsible reporting of suicide rates. We know

this. There is far more that can be done within the broadcast media,

mainstream media, social media and the Internet to make sure that we

save lives. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed to

meet. I hope the Minister will liaise with them to ensure that we

can save lives in that way. Finally, the issue of data. There is an

increasing use of narrative verdict is that our hard to code. The

official data does under represent the true scale of the avoidable loss

of life. The issue is that because we have huge variation around the

country it makes it much more difficult to understand what works

best in preventing suicide. We would like the Minister to revisit the

recommendations on our report about how we provide better training to

coroners and how we also review the evidential standard and move from

beyond reasonable doubt to the balance of probability in recording

suicide because only in that way can we make sure that we are doing

absolutely everything possible to protect families and individuals in

the future. So, I commend this report on suicide prevention to the

house and call on the government to go further in implementation will

stop thank you. Can I say first that labour welcomes the recommendations

in this report. The committee visited the award-winning Salford

liaison team, a team which has halved admission rates of people

with mental health problems. The Royal College of psychiatrists

reminds us that only half of services provide liaison services 20

47 and they said it would be difficult to recruit enough staff to

provide a liaison psychiatry service in every hospital. The honourable

lady touched on that in her statement. Can she say what she

thinks the government must do to insure there are enough trained

staff to ensure there are sustained liaison psychiatry services in every

Acute Hospital to help deliver the strategy. We need to start right

back at medical school recruitment and what happens in medical school

and beyond to encourage more health pressure -- professionals to

consider psychiatry and mental health services as a career. One of

the key issues is the lack of a workforce. The government is trying

to improve and work with health education England to improve this

but we would like to see them go further and looking at resource is

really need to make sure that resources get to the front line. Can

I congratulate the honourable lady on her chairmanship of the committee

and the recent report. She will know that recent studies, particularly in

Sweden, have indicated that people with- shunning autism spectrum have

ninefold increase in suicide risk. Could she say something about what

more could be done to help these individuals and their families and

how we raise awareness with those who intervene with this group so

they are aware with this group of the problems. I would congratulate

the honourable lady for what she has done in her whole career in

highlighting the problems of autism and the families involved. The key

thing is to have an assessment in the first place, too often people

with autism fall between the gaps in the health service. That would be my

key message around making sure that they receive the services and

support they need and it is delivered in the right way. I would

congratulate the honourable member for Totnes in bringing this critical

issue to the house and speak in full support of this paper. I declare an

interest in the patron of Chris's House, the first 24-hour

interventionist suicide support service in Scotland. We set up to

offer a safe environment where people in crisis may have respite

from their current and wellness by finding refuge in Chris's house and

providing an individually tailored programme to offer support and

respite throughout their journey to well-being. I would urge others

across the UK to look at this more interventionist model and replicated

to the benefit of all UK citizens. I would urge all to joiners on the

26th of May in Glasgow as we walk from that list to light to raise

awareness of suicide prevention. I thank the honourable gentleman and

join him in pain should be to voluntary groups doing extraordinary

work to reach out to people in crisis. One of the key issues is the

level of variation in this kind of support and the financial challenge

that people face around the UK in supporting them properly. Can I also

thank my honourable friend very much indeed for the work that she and her

committee have done on this issue. The suicide rate among men is three

times that of that among women and that gap has increased since 1981.

It is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. One

particular problem is that of contagion where one suicide can lead

to a state of others within the same area. Does my honourable friend and

her committee Turing the enquiry identify how this particular aspect

could be dealt with? -- during the enquiry. We did mention this

specifically in the report. He will know that part of this is

irresponsible reporting that leads to this, we also know that where

local areas work closely together to identify suicides and identify

particularly where there are early clusters, there are measures that

can be taken to go into workplaces, schools, and colleges to provide

support and stop this but it does require noticing early. So we urge

coroners to work with local authorities and public health teams

to ensure they are aware of the high risk of this spreading. Many thanks.

I'd like to thank the committee and honourable lady for their report and

welcomed the recommendations in particular that we should commit to

rolling out crisis intervention teams and efforts to prevent suicide

so that people can be followed up directly. Suicidal individuals are

not always mentally ill and awaiting treatment and attendance at urgency

are are not always relevant. I would like to ensure liaison between

services because only when this occurs in a seamless way between

health, community services and criminal justice will we prevent

suicidal individuals from falling between the gaps. Thank you for

highlighting that important point about communication within families

and within services. One of the problems can be that you have what

happens in local authorities and what happens in the health service

and too often there is insufficient communication between the two. I

congratulate the honourable lady on her work and that of the select

committee. In the mid-to thousands there was a series of tragic

suicides in the Bridgend area that forms part of my constituency. I

wasn't a member of this house when they took place but it is a major

part of people's memories in those communities. I want to focus on the

media attention. There was a film made about the suicides that was not

welcomed by the various communities and I'm glad that she is pursuing as

part of the report tackling the glorification of suicide in the

media. If you could put it like that. I wonder if she would consider

sharing her select committee's report with the Welsh government

health and social care committee because I passionately believe that

where we can implement best practice from all sectors, whether in the

evolved assemblies, we should be sharing that to tackle suicides

across the UK. I would be delighted to meet with him and share that. I

agree that we should be sharing best practice across the devolved nations

and England. The point about the role of the media, there are really

clear guidelines that have been produced by Samaritans and I hope

all media organisations will look at that very closely and we should go

beyond broadcast and print media and look at social media and the

Internet as well. I would like to welcome the health select

committee's report into suicide prevention and congratulate my

honourable friend and her committee for their work on this very

important issue. I would also like to join her in my thanks to those

who bravely contributed to the work of the committee. Every death by

suicide is a tragedy which has a devastating effect on communities

and that is why the government is committed to reducing the rate of

death by suicide by 10% by 2021. We were particularly grateful to the

committee who published their interim report in December which

allowed us to address many recommendations in our update of the

National strategy and this did include driving local delivery,

addressing stigma, improving bereavement services and increasing

awareness of the consensus statement for information sharing for people

at risk of suicide but we do accept that we need to go further on

implementing the cross government suicide prevention strategy. That is

why we published the strategy to strengthen key areas including

implementation. It is why will continue to provide further updates.

It continues with Jess is self harm as an issue in its own right which

is one of the most significant issues of suicide risk. We are

working with the advisory group and delivery partners across government

and other agencies and stakeholders to develop and improved

implementation framework. We are making good progress insuring all

local areas have suicide plan in place by the end of the year. We

have 95% of local areas with a suicide prevention plan in place or

in development but we are also going to work with local areas to assess

the quality of those plans building on guidance of good practice and we

have run a series of suicide prevention masterclass is carried

out by Public Health England to improve that quality. We have also

published guidance in January on improving bereavement services as an

important plank of the plan. Furthermore, we will publish a green

paper on young people's mental health and develop a national

Internet strategy which will explore the in fact -- impact on suicide

prevention and mental health to address some of the issues she has

raised around media and suicide. We have committed to all A having

core services to deliver this ambition and we will be publishing

our mental health workforce strategy which I am sure the committee will

carefully scrutinised and we will carefully consider all the

recommendations made in this report and respond. Does she agree that we

cannot think about suicide without considering the broader question of

mental health? Will she and the committee join me in welcoming the

wide range of measures set out by the Prime Minister in January with a

focus on earlier intervention and prevention in mental health

services? These improvements will be essential if we are to make the

progress of suicide prevention that all of us in this has want to see. I

had my honourable friend and agree with absolutely about the importance

of prevention and early intervention and I look forward to the strategies

she has referred to and to working with her to do all we can to improve

mental health and to reduce the terrible from suicide. We now come

to the backbench motion on energy prices. John Penrose to move. I move

the motion which stands in my name and my co-sponsors from Don Valley

and North Ayr and carrot. I shall start by thanking the backbench

business committee for finding the time to debate this important and

topical motion today, as well as banking my two co-sponsors, plus the

50 or so MPs from across the political spectrum who all feel the

way most energy customers are being treated is so I'm just so as to

raise it here in Parliament. Customer loyalty is hugely

important, an asset to be price, whether it is a supermarket's

loyalty card, an airline's airline scheme or a copy card that gives you

a free cup of coffee after they have stamped it ten times. Most

businesses reward their most loyal customers with special treatment to

keep them coming back. Except for energy. What other industry does not

give their most loyal customers any disk as ordeals, but charges them

higher prices than anyone else instead? Which company is believed

loyalty should be exploited, not rewarded? Who treat their longest

serving customers as chumps, to be switched on to expensive and unfair

deals when they are not looking and then ripped off mercilessly for as

long as possible. The big six energy firms, I'd Deputy Speaker, that is

who. The rest of the industry is pretty good. There are 30 or more

new firms snapping at the heels of the big six and they understand

loyalty matters if you want to grow. I am grateful to my honourable

friend for giving way. There has been a huge roll-out of smart meters

which is one way of keeping an eye on energy bills. But unfortunately

when people do switch providers they find that their smart meter often

has to be replaced at the same time. Does my honourable friend agree this

is why some people are unwilling to change providers? There are many

reasons why switching has not caught on to anything like the degree we

needed to if we are to transform this sector. One of the factors may

very well be this problem with smart meters, but there are others as

well. I will point at others as well later on in my speech. There are 30

or more newish firms snapping at the heels of the big six who understand

loyalty matters. Some are more impressive than others, but they all

have one thing in common. They are hungry, they know they have got to

impress and delight their clients because they cannot exploit a black

book of long-running customers to stay fat and happy. Roughly two

thirds of all customers, at least 20 million households, are on the

expensive, rip-off deals, the standard variable tariff. While a

minority of customers switched to a different energy supplier regularly,

most of us do not. The amount of switching has been creeping upwards,

but a lot of the change has been the same bargain hunters churning around

an ever faster circles between different energy firms. The number

of households who have never switched remains stubbornly high

which suits the big six just fine. What is the answer? How do we put

energy customers in the driving seat? Giving them the same powers to

choose a new energy supplier as easily as we switch a new brand of

toothpaste or coffee. Firstly, we have got to make switching a lot

easier. Choosing that different brand of toothpaste is easy, you

pick up a different tune of the shelf, but too many people find

switching to a different energy firm scary and stressful and they are

frightened off. Even the price comparison sites who have an

interest in making the process is simply and as easy as possible lose

huge numbers of customers who abandon their search the moment they

are asked something simple like what is your current energy usage? Some

people think switching will go wrong so they could end up cold and

shivering in a house without power if the move does not happen

smoothly. My honourable friend has already mentioned the fact that

smart meters have an impact in some households at least. Some of us have

not got time, leading busy lives juggling schools, child care, jobs

and what else. Switching our energy supply is one of those things we all

know we ought to do, but we never quite get round to doing. The

difference is that those other products do not automatically switch

you to a super expensive brand of toothpaste or copy unless you tell

them not to. They do not expect you to be on your toes all the time to

stop them changing use the terms of your deal and ripping you off. But

toothpaste, copy and everything else, loyalty and inertia works in

the customer's favour, but not with energy. If you relax, they will have

you. There are simple things that will make switching easier, less

stressful and not so scary. A main one is making your customer data

easily available to a new energy firm. That way we do not have to

fill in endless online pages with information we cannot remember we

have not got. At the moment the information can take days to come

through and the big six floating obstacles along the way. They have

no interest in making the process simple. We should just be able to

ask our new firm to get it from an existing supplier in a few seconds

with the tick of a box or the press of a mouse. Simple, easy and safe.

The number of people switching would go through the roof if we get this.

There are end to end services provided... The honourable member is

making a good point, but will he agree also it is more problematic

for example for people who live in tower blocks where the energy supply

is collectively made by the landlord who might not have any incentive to

switch to another supplier? My them Deputy Speaker, the honourable

gentleman is right. One of the things that might be improved by the

roll-out of smart meters would be to break down some of those collected

bills. The concern amongst many in the industry is that smart meters

may be overinvested in too many hopes and they will not produce a

lasting uplift in the levels of customer engagement in chess. They

would start off as an interesting and new gadget, but after a few

months that interest may die away. But he is right, there is an

opportunity there. In the spirit of making switching easier, there are

end to end services provided by terms like Flipper, which do the

donkey work for us, handling everything from finding a better

deal to organising the switch itself. They appeal to those of us

who think even the most convenient price comparison sites take too much

of our time as well. Would my honourable friend not agree part of

the problem with the big six and other generators is they are not

straightforward and honest with their customers and stakeholders?

Until they are straightforward and honest they will be this disquiet at

their conduct. That is I think one of the underlying concerns about

this industry and the way it operates. Because they have not

necessarily been asked at the moment when they are switched on to the

default tariff, they feel when they notice it, if they notice it, they

are being ripped off because those default tariffs are so much higher

and that leads to distrust in the suppliers and that is corroding the

underlying level of trust in the industry as a whole. It is

incredibly dangerous. Some forward thinking people in the industry

understand the brand damage being done not just to individual firms,

but to the sector as a whole. It is slow to gain that trust. The

honourable gentleman has a background in marketing and consumer

business and he will understand what I mean. If we can look at the

effects of these end to end services I was mentioning, introducing them

and rolling them out should introduce another new group of

customers who do not switch at all. But they will be persuaded to do so

in future, extending the number of people in that is that when two

thirds of the customer base who do not switch. These changes taken

together are essential steps to solve the underlying, fundamental

problems which make the energy market such a rip off. If the

government, Ofgem and even enlightened energy firms themselves

are willing to take them, the abuses will start to fall and customers

will finally be in the driving seat like we already are and expect to be

with everything else from toothpaste to copy to cornflakes and so on. But

how quickly will the rip-offs stop? Will there be stubborn pockets of

resistance left over? Given that two thirds of all these customers are on

those rip-off tariffs, there is an awfully long way still to go. Even

the most optimistic scenarios, an unacceptably large number of houses

will still be ripped off for a few more years yet. We need a stop gap,

a temporary solution whilst all those other ideas start to work and

take effect. The answer is a relative price cap, a maximum

mark-up between each energy firm's best deal and their default tariff.

Once your existing deal comes to an end, if you forget to switch, you

will not be ripped off too badly. But there will still be plenty of

money you can save when you get round to switching again, so it will

be worth your while to become engaged and take that additional

action. Energy firms will still be able to compete on price, they could

still decide if they want to be the Waitrose, the Marks Spencer or the

Lidl of the industry. They could still have as many tariffs as they

wanted so there could be plenty of customer choice. If you wanted a

Green energy tariff, that would be fine. If you do not want an ink

deal, no problem. I am delighted to confirm that this idea for a

relative cap is supported by three of the largest challenger brands.

They cover hundreds of thousands of customers between them and I hope to

persuade others to join them in due course. Crucially, a relative cap is

rather better, a lot better, than a normal price cap. The relative cap

means each energy firm can still adjust their prices when the

wholesale price goes up or down, but a normal one means Ofgem has to

approve any changes which will be slower and create work for lawyers

and lobbyists. A relative cap also means energy firms still have plenty

of incentives to innovate, finding new ways to please groups of

customers in whatever way they want without needing Ofgem's approval

first. Putting customers in the drivers

seat means fewer fat fees and lunches for the lobbyists. If

customers can switch their supply as easy as changing their cornflakes,

the customer and the regulators will matter a lot less than we did in

this area. A relative cap means we can deregulate, striking out reams

of other regulations, red tape and other issues that complicate the

market stopping energy firms from thinking about their customers first

and thinking about their lawyers and compliance directors instead. A

relative cap reduces red tape rather than adding to it. The people who

will hate the relative cap the most will be the big six. It will force

them to treat consumers fairly and reward loyalty rather than exploit

it. To find it hard to keep long-standing customers rather than

to take it for granted. In other words, to be a normal business

thinking about the customer first. The secretary of State and Prime

Minister have been trenchant of their criticisms of how the sector

is not delivering an economy that works for everyone. So I hope they

will accept the thrust of this motion that the time for action has

come. We simply cannot argue, as others have tried to do, that even

though two thirds of the country are being ripped off, we aren't going to

help protect those victims because it is their own silly fault if they

are not savvy enough to switch. Yes, we need to make switching easier and

safer so that most of us do it most of the time, that's clearly the

right long-term answer. Until that glorious day, I hope this does will

accept that we cannot sit back and allow consumers to be harmed on this

scale for this long and nothing. We need to do more. The question is as

on the order paper. Point of order, Alex Salmond. We raised the point

about a prime ministerial statement on the Scottish contest you

shouldn't that was -- on the Scottish constitution. That

statement has been made as interpreted as being to bounce a

vote next Tuesday. The Prime Minister seems to be dictating the

timing of any referendum. These points were put to the pro Minister

at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday and she had full and fair

opportunity to give her answer. You understand that the act of

Parliamentary accountability is if that there is a change of policy,

members of Parliament can prepare to ask questions about it. Questions

like what if the Scottish parliament is not bounced and votes for a

referendum next week. Fundamentally, the arrogance that says to the

people in Scotland that they shall not have the right to have an act of

self determination, or say to the parliament that we do not have a

right of examination. Have you had a request from the Prime Minister to

come to this dispatch box and, for Parliamentary accountability or does

she feel that Scotland is some sort of county rather than the country

that it is. I will thank the honourable gentleman for that

contribution. I was not here when he made his previous point of order and

the speaker made his response to the honourable gentleman. I have not

seen or heard any statements from the Prime Minister but he has now

put all of his questions and concerns on the record and we now

move on to Ian Wright. Thank you very much. Can I congratulate the

honourable gentleman, the member for Weston-Super-Mare. An honour to

follow his speech. He is passionate and knowledgeable and very measured

about some of the things with regard to the energy market, so I pay

tribute that he and his colleagues have been able to secure this

important debate. It affects all of our constituents, millions of people

up and down the country. I thank the backbench business committee for

agreeing it take place. It's very clear that the energy park it is not

a market which is working in the best interests of customers. That is

not to say that there is somehow some degree of collusion between the

energy companies. Far from it. There are quite different price strategies

between the major energy companies to the point that there is a

difference of about ?140 for dual fuel customers between the major

suppliers. As the honourable gentleman said, there have been

welcome new entries into the energy market, disrupting in a positive way

the energy oligopoly we have seen for far too long. Bringing in

innovative companies offering better choice, services and value to the

customer. Ten years ago, the big six customers dominated the entire

market. 100% market share. Last year, that move to 85%. Good,

positive news. New entrants are taking market share and offering

competitive fixed term deals. I said earlier, there is no evidence of

collusion between the energy companies but there are marked

similarities between their business models and they do not act in the

best interests of their customers. They actually punish customer

loyalty. Their business models are predicated on a sizeable proportion,

if not the majority of their customer base will be and will

continue to be indefinitely on the standard variable tariffs. Of the

big six companies, British Gas have 74% of its customers on its STB, the

others have similar or greater proportions. -- SVT. These are in

the main the most expensive of all the tariffs are available. Yet, half

or more of all customers have been with the same supplier for five

years or more. It's almost guaranteed that those households

will be overpaying for their energy. The CMA estimated that the lack of

competition in the market means that customers are overpaying for their

energy to the collective Choon of about ?1.4 billion. Despite all of

that, despite the very clear evidence that the market is not

working in the marketplace, energy companies continue to penalised

loyalty. The more you are with a company, the more you are likely to

pay. Which of the market could possibly state that? Now, Ofgem

stated categorically that they did not see a case for a significant

rise. Wholesale costs have risen by about 15% in the past year, however,

the overall cost of energy was marginally below what it was three

years ago. The big six and Veolia behave in a culture of entitlement.

We need to address that culture. These companies need to address that

culture. I think the honourable gentleman is absolutely right. A

market has to be dynamic and companies should be nervous of

customers moving away. They are not doing that at the moment. Their

business models are predicated on the fact that people for a variety

of reasons stay on the expensive tariff, not moving, and because of

that they can provide loss leading deals for new customers but, in

terms of customer loyalty, they simply scoff at that. That is not a

market that is working in anybody's interest. It's not dynamic,

efficient, or effective and it is ultimately not benefiting our

customers. It is the way these companies treat their regulators and

this place and there will elect a representatives. -- and their

elected representatives. It is about the teeth that we provide in

regulation to provide a dynamic market. Wholesale costs of energy

are big part of an energy bill that ultimately goes to the customer.

But, as I said, the actual cost of energy is marginally below what it

was three years ago. Companies hedge their risks when it comes to

purchasing energy and that should flatten price spikes they experience

when they are buying on the global market. That might mean that we tell

prices to customers might not fall as quickly and sharply when

wholesale fall but it should stop price hikes when wholesale prices

rise. We have seen no evidence of that whatsoever. In announcing the

big price rise, the biggest for many years, last month, Npower stated, I

quote from their website "Over the past few years the cost of supplying

energy to your home has increased, as has the amount we need to pay to

government schemes." Allow me to defend the government here. Quite

robustly. I think that phrase, from Npower and other companies, about

the cost of government schemes, is simply wrong. The Committee on

Climate Change have published its analysis on energy prices and

household costs and it shows that 9% of the average dual fuel bill for

domestic customers is made up of moving towards a low carbon

electricity supply and support for energy efficiency home improvements.

The notion that energy companies can justify price increases on

government action and policies is simply disingenuous. My honourable

friend is making an important port and it's worth reading that report

from the Committee on Climate Change. Would he also accept that

part of that 9% is to help people reduce their bills by the

introduction of energy efficient measures to help some of the poorest

in our communities to keep their bills down. So it is a worthwhile 9%

investment. Absolutely. As well as tackling things like fuel poverty

and the carbonisation targets it means that energy efficiency

measures are a key plank of that. Everybody wins when energy

efficiency is prioritised. Very grateful to my honourable friend who

is making a very good case. Would he agree with me that energy efficiency

measures when introduced, for example in tower blocks, or

sometimes in low-rise properties, can become Piketty to use and if not

used properly can be more expensive to the consumer? Would he agree that

there is a powerful case, I had two examples in my constituency over the

last few years, where people have ended up paying more for a lower

standard of heating. Is there a case for the government to issue guidance

to local authorities and registered social landlords about how to

install these systems and how to inform tenants about how they are

supposed to be used. My honourable friend has made a very powerful

point. I was in the chamber when he made an earlier intervention about

switching supplies and how people in tower blocks are often unable to do

that. It is another vivid illustration that the market is not

working in the interests of consumers. Often those could be

low-wage, vulnerable households. It's a case that the government and

the regulator need to put steps in place in order to make sure that

this market works. Now, Ofgen told us that companies largely hadn't be

successful in controlling costs. Efficient companies have been able

to absorb the cost increases and have passed on those benefits to

consumers in eliminating the risks of rising graces. Others have not

done so. They feel that they don't have too consider customers because

customers will not switch and will continue to stay on the most

expensive tariffs. Customers are literally paying the price for the

failure of energy companies to manage their businesses and control

costs. I said it not just being about cost.

This is about customer service and a lack of trust in energy companies.

There are huge examples. Every honourable member has cases in their

inbox with regards to this. Citizens Advice Bureau told us the companies

are getting the basics wrong. Late bills, missing bills, inaccurate

bills and failing to provide customers with redress when

companies have got things wrong. This is a market that is not

working. What is the solution? The current policy response seems to be

a jewel approach, which is to encourage companies to engage with

the customers in a more efficient way and to communicate widely the

benefits that come from switching. Switching should be encouraged and

customers could make savings of hundreds of pounds if they switch.

On the back of recent price rises from energy companies are switched

for our house and we saved ?249. There are big savings to be made and

I would encourage customers to switch, switch and switch again. It

has to be encouraged. As the honourable gentleman for

Weston-Super-Mare did say, a small proportion do switch and base which

often. These are savvy customers who know the market and want to get the

best possible deal, but that is relatively rare. The vast majority

do not switch and that is for a wide variety of reasons, whether it is

thinking can I switch? Am I not still with the local electricity

board? Will it be too complex? I am frightened of switching. People lead

busy lives. In terms of a central utility like this people do not

consider it. I do not think it is efficient to say the energy market

will be fixed by encouraging more engagement. There needs to be a fair

deal for all customers, those two thirds who do not switch, not just

those who do. The government often talks a good game when it comes to

tackling the energy crisis. When it was revealed in the autumn energy

companies were making high profits, the Secretary of State hold them in

for an explanation, but nothing materialised. When NPower raised

their prices last month, a spokesman said we are concerned by these

planned increases and are committed to get the best for ourselves.

Suppliers have been protected in wholesale energy prices which I said

two years in advance. We expect them to treat customers fairly. Where

markets are not working, we are prepared to act. This week in answer

to a question from me the secretary of state said time is up, but no

action has been taken. Customers will have to endure in the next

days, weeks and months high-priced rises with no action taken

whatsoever. The regulator says the price rises are not justified.

Number ten says they are concerned. The department has had energy

companies hold in, but nothing has been done. This does not seem to

reflect the urgency that should be given to this issue. The key point I

would like to say is for the minister when he responds, how is

the government going to act and act now to ensure customers get a better

deal? The honourable gentleman for Weston-Super-Mare has an important

policy response suggestion when it comes to a restricted price cap.

This could be an important means of providing customers with some

respite. He mentioned a number of energy companies that have put

forward this idea. Some of the quotes from the people who run these

energy companies are quite striking. Stephen Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive

of Ovo said the energy market was failing because companies were,

quote, free to charge whatever they think they can get away with at the

expense of disengaged or confused customers. The time has come for the

government to step in and take bold action to protect consumers'

interests. Greg Jackson, chief executive of Octopus Energy. Energy

customers are being robbed in broad daylight, he says. Robbed in broad

daylight. It is time for decisive action to end the misery for

millions. Will the government look favourably upon the general idea of

a price cap. At that time of crippling price rises from companies

seemingly indifferent to the plight of customers there needs to be a

fundamental change to ensure that the market works for all. In his

response the minister must set out the detailed steps he will take both

immediately and in the longer term to act in the interests of customers

and set out a timetable. The time for strong words, for green papers,

for future legislation, is over. If the regulators say there is no

justification for price increases and the Prime Minister is saying

action needs to happen, why can't we have action now? Customers are

facing price rises now. We do not have to wait for a green paper in

the months to come, we need to act immediately. What is the government

going to do now? I want to congratulate the member from

Weston-Super-Mare for this debate today and the backbench business

committee and Mike honourable friend from Don Valley. I also want to pick

up where my honourable friend from Hartlepool left of and that is in

regards to the government. The party opposite has changed their leader

and in the process they seem to have changed some of their policies and

thought we would not notice. To be honest it is not good enough. Many

members had campaigned very hard on this issue of energy and the pricing

of energy, however the former Prime Minister David Cameron said his

government would legislate to ensure customers receive the lowest

possible tariffs. That was the words of the Prime Minister. The current

Prime Minister, Theresa May, has refused to honour that pledge. I do

not understand why. Even after standing on the steps of number ten

she promised to look after vulnerable people which must include

those people who suffer from fuel poverty, older people, people with

English as a second language, those who cannot switch easily, these are

vulnerable people who are not being vulnerable people who are not being

protected by this government. It is proving to be all talk from the

government which is a real shame on this important issue. The government

must stop and must act to stop the jump in energy prices or they could

adopt one of Labour's policies, again they are used to adopting our

policies, and renationalise the energy companies, or they could

listen to the Mayor of London. He has innovative ideas in regards to

providing energy to people in London. At the end of the day the

price hike is a bitter blow to millions of families. It will add

more than ?100 to the typical bill. When people are struggling to make

ends meet this is not good enough. This is one of the largest ever

increases we have seen and it is unacceptable. Fuel poverty awareness

day, quite recently, brought home the reality of the situation of fuel

poverty across the country. Families were faced with an agonising

decision on whether to heat or eat. We have seen a rise in food banks as

a result. Last year we had the first ever fuel bank based in my

constituency. It was to help residents especially on prepayment

meters get through the winter and get through difficult times. How the

food banks came to this conclusion that it was necessary was they found

people were approaching them and asking for only food intends, food

that could be eaten cold because when they were given food that

needed to be cooked they did not have the money on their meter to do

that. Lots were surviving on baked beans for instance. You think more

should and must be done. I have been campaigning on energy prices for

many years now, my constituents have struggled with energy bills. More

and more people came to my surgery problems and hardest-hit would those

on prepayment meters. The House of commons library figures show they

pay 15% more on their gas bill and direct debit customers. I launched a

campaign which lots of members participated in across all sides of

the House I must say. I called on the government to ensure that their

tariffs were made for all and following this campaign the

competition 's markets authority recommended a cap on prepayment

meters must be implemented. This was a significant victory and I was

really pleased because it will reduce the cost of prepayment

customers, but not by enough, only about ?80. The price penalty on

prepayment customers can be as much as ?320, so there is still a lot

more that needs to be done. One in five families are being hit by the

prepayment penalties and they are often do just about managing

families. These are the people that the Prime Minister often talks

about, that very same people that the party opposite's PR machine goes

into overdrive, saying they are the party that represents these people.

If they are, surely they would do something about this? This lack of

being able to heat homes means that people live in damp homes and it is

reckoned cold related ill-health costs the NHS around ?1.36 billion

each year. If we want to help the National Health Service, if we want

to help just about managing families, this is one step that can

be done and can be done very quickly if there is a will on the opposite

benches to do that. Fuel poverty is a massive problem. It affects over 4

million UK households and in my constituency one in eight households

are classified as fuel poor, higher than the national average of one in

ten. The Labour Party will continue to work towards ending fuel poverty

and when in government we will put energy efficiency back on the

agenda. Struggling families need more than warm words from this

government, they need warm homes. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy

Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my honourable friend from Brent

Central. Can I congratulate her on the work she has done serving those

families overreliant on meters? Also listening to her contribution,

whilst I have a number of people living in the private rented sector

in my constituency, I am sure it is far higher in her constituency and

it is a big problem for tenants were landlords are not doing enough to

make sure where their homes are rented out are not decent homes with

proper energy-efficient measures in them. I know she will continue

campaigning on that work. I would like to thank the responders to this

debate. We helped to secure the support of some 50 other honourable

and right honourable members to attend this important debate. My

thanks to the backbench business committee, Parliament was my own

Dragons Then. It was only 45 minutes before going in that I realised it

was going to be broadcast. We were successful to secure this debate for

today. It is well known to family and friends that I love the movies.

Thank you. It is still on my bucket list to be an extra in one. I am

putting back out there today. Thank you. One of my favourite comedy is

Groundhog Day will stop the character has to play a single day

all the time. We are replaying the energy issue again today. They are

points I have been making for the past six years. The ministers keep

changing but I am still here and I hope today the minister, like Bill

Murray in the film, will break this spell. Not for the first time

headlines have been filled as honourable members have mentioned

already with price hikes, hikes that I believe are completely

unjustified. But that is not the principal reason for this debate.

The reason we sort this debate is to address the fact that energy market

is not working. It is failing Britain's consumers in almost every

respect. The energy market does not promote effective competition. The

regional giants remained the dominant players in their home

region is some 30 years later. We talk about the big six but for

many regions it is the big one. The energy market does not promote

transparency. In 1986, and 1989 there were a succession of mergers

and takeovers. This led to the companies being both conservatives

and generators of power. So we are left with pretty much the same

corporate structures. One consequence is a lack of

transparency over the price these companies sell energy to themselves

before retailing to the problem. That is something that Labour's

reforms advanced in 2015 would have resolved. The market does not

promote consumer confidence. The issue is not whether superficially a

company offers a fixed-price deal for ?150 less than another, the

issue is why 88% of customers refuse to switch from one supplier to

another. When a survey was done on 7000 consumers, 56% had never

switched supplier or did not recall switching and 72% had never switched

tariff with an existing supplier. This is a long-standing crisis of

consumer confidence. The vast majority seem to want little or

nothing to do with the energy companies. This is not a sign of

millions of satisfied customers. Quite the opposite. The CMA have

found that the amount of comp points rolled sixfold from 2008-14. The

proportion of domestic complainant who were very dissatisfied with how

their complaint was handled significantly increased over a

two-year period. Npower 67% of very dissatisfied. ScottishPower 64%.

Even the medium and small companies were not immune. We cannot let them

off the hook. First utility firms worst, 63% dissatisfied. So, the

government presides over a domestic energy market that is not

competitive, lacks transparency and has a lot of dissatisfied consumers.

Those factors alone should ring alarm bells in Whitehall and

Westminster. It is the outcome for consumers that ensures that the

government must act. The outcome of all the secrecy, the dominance by a

few uncompetitive companies and disillusioned, and trusting customer

base, largely disengaged, all leads to one certain outcome. A consistent

failure of the market to offer fair prices. It should be no surprise to

any others regional monopolies, both secret and inefficient, low customer

engagement and unresponsive pricing, that is why this debate is so

important today. I said this market does not offer fair prices. Let me

illustrate this central criticism. First, the big six energy giants

account for 85% of the market and treat their long-standing customers

worse, those customers without exception will be paying for energy

on the most expensive default tariff. The only group treated worse

are the customers with a prepayment meeting either because the landlord

requires it or they have a poor credit history. This group has risen

to 16% of all households. Even the CMA could not ignore that... As well

as paying in advance for their energy. I am looking to provide a

cap on the charge for these customers. That does not count those

customers who are overcharged year after year. Even the CMA could not

fully explain the overcharging. Their best estimate was that between

2012-15 the average amount overcharged was something like ?1.5

billion per year, reaching almost 2 billion by 2050.

This is before any of the current price hikes came into effect. They

concluded that in any one year, the detriment, the amount overcharged,

was made up of about ?600 million, a year, in excess profits and the

remainder, about ?850 million, was down to inefficiencies. Whatever

they may be. What it points to is bad management by some very highly

paid individuals. The honourable lady is making a very compelling

case. She also did in the Dragons Den pitch for this debate with me.

She's absolutely right about the CMA figures showing such horrendous

levels of customer detriment. Not only is it that bad but the gap

between what the standard variable tariff price charged and the

wholesale price charged has been getting wider over the last four

years at so it's a bad and getting worse as time goes by. Exactly. We

have the historical evidence and month by month people are still

paying far too much for their energy bills. It is astonishing that this

is happening in what is meant to be a competitive market. It's clear

that the excessive profit margin made from standard variable tariff

customers provides no encouragement to move these customers to a better

deal. I believe it's a bankrupt business model. Because if were all

admitting and even the energy companies have to face up to this

that they are paying over the odds, they have a model based on that. If,

for example, all these customers miraculously moved to a lower tariff

tomorrow, where would these companies the left? The inertia is

compounded by a management approach that doesn't seem to want any form

of effective change. The more government has publicly urged

consumers to switch to save the mother companies are absolved of any

responsibility to move customers to a better deal. A sticky, passive,

unengaged customer base suits these firms down to the ground. When EDF

automatically back in 2012 moved vulnerable elderly customers onto

their cheapest tariff, sadly, other suppliers did not follow up with

what I think was some evidence of ability to inform themselves of

better practice. This CMA's final report concluded that to eliminate

the overcharging, prices would have to fall across the board by an

average of 3% per year between now and 2020. It hoped that measures to

promote switching would create more competition in the market and have a

downward effect on prices but they were reluctant to say how successful

they expected that to be because the problem that the CMA faces is that

the UK has an energy market with unhappy consumers, a dysfunctional

pricing mechanism and companies that are largely immune to competitive

pressures. Ofgem reported that the highest level of switching for six

years has occurred but it is still less than 12% of households and I

worry that we have a two tier energy market. On the one hand, an active,

informed class of consumer energy conscious, Internet savvy, shopping

around, managing their account online and a far bigger, less

informed, less engaged, less Internet savvy discontented

majority. She is second to none in her knowledge of energy policy. I'd

be interested to get her thoughts in terms of policy fixes. Does she

think the regulator has powers but not use them all as the regulator

need more powers to help fix this broken market? I know that there are

powers the regulator has in its back pocket. It can intervene if it

thinks the market is uncompetitive, it can actually, if necessary, from

what I understand, actually take, if you like, customers from a company

that is failing and hold them up to get a better deal elsewhere. That is

within their powers already but I think we need government to take

responsibility and part of the debate today is to look at whether

it is the relative price cap, or what I would suggest, as well,

similar to it, a protective tariff for these people, if not permanent,

temporary to fix this market. Let's be clear, more reform is needed in

this market and the regulator while I wish it would use its powers and

was very slow to do this, it's beaded up in recent years, there's

more they could do but there's more government could provide them with

to do a better job. We have heard that one of the CMA proposals is

that data on customers should be shared so that other energy

suppliers can send their offers to customers. The problem is, people

would be bombarded with leaflets, e-mails, from operators in a sector

where trust is so low, will they trust this marketing any more than

they do already. It is the very people immune to direct mail,

annoyed by calls from would-be suppliers, and mistrustful of the

whole industry who are not being held by any of the measures put

forward since the CMA report. By encouraging switching and a shared

database for companies to market new tariffs to each other's customers,

the CMA believed that price competition can be made to work but

I'm afraid the shared database seems to be a new label for an old

solution. We've had six years of trying to be of consumer benefit by

switching, six years of abject failure. I have to say to the

Minister, is it really realistic to assume that for 28 million

households, they will be able to reduce their average bills by 3% a

year, as the CMA have indicated, for every year between 7017 and 2020. --

2017. Even if it eliminated the detriment it would not repaid 1p of

the money already taken from consumers. I see no mechanism in the

CMA's prescription that could achieve the objective they have set.

Customers who have remained on a standard default tariff for other

companies to prey on will not in itself make this market more

competitive. In March, Ofgen publish that the cheapest available tariffs

was 22% cheaper than the average, but it does not identify how long

that tariff lasts. What if it wasn't widely available, what if everybody

switched to the new best value tariff? What if 12% of customers get

a saving of 20% on their bills. That might notionally cut average bills

by 2%. But it would not reduce the detriment by 1p for the 88% of those

who don't switch. The penalty incurred by the vast majority would

remain. Also among the CMA's recommendations, price comparison

websites will no longer have two display every deal available on the

market. Those websites might only display those companies that give a

commission. The majority will see no gain. The vast majority pay the

default standard variable tariff and enjoy prices going up and down as

the energy provider chooses, are left at the mercy of their supplier

in the CMA has already identified as consistently overcharging. They

cannot rely on wholesale charges to save them because there is no

obligation to pass on wholesale price the creases to customers.

Wholesale gas prices fell while prices rose. This could only happen

in the dysfunctional market. Where can consumers get fairness? The only

avenue the majority have is the government. The one agency with the

powers to change the game at a stroke. How long will the public

have to wait before the government acts as the public champion. In

October 2011, the Prime Minister convened an energy summit they were

going to write to millions of consumers about switching, it didn't

work. In 2013, Mr Cameron tried a different approach, getting rid of

all the green rubbish, as was reported. The big six like to

disperse prices onto green levels even though it is exerting downward

pressure on prices. It's ironic the amount of energy we consume as

domestic users has gone down per kilowatt hour but we're paying more.

When he said get rid of the green numbers, he did. Mr Cameron always

ridiculed Labour's energy price freeze, a proposal to cap prices for

20 months whilst the market was reformed. Instead in 2014 he

announced a CMA investigation and its final report in June 20 entirely

vindicated Labour's concern about unfair energy prices. We now have it

on the record from one of the government's regulators. Britain's

consumers were ripped off year after year for four years, that we know.

It is an ?8 billion scandal and every month that financial

punishment on customers grows. What do we want? My plea to the

government is simple, recognise the scale of the problem. Recognise that

what has now become like a gimmick, switching campaigns can only scratch

the surface and will never get to the problem. Recognise that this

industry needs reform and until it is reformed, the government needs to

produce price protection for consumers. I first argued for this

after the general election in 2015. Consumers need a regulated maximum

charge that companies can levy and an acceptable level of profit. I do

not believe it can be left to the companies to do this. Any voluntary

measure is welcome, but it has been too piecemeal. We need the

government to act. We know Ofgem is capable of a protective tariff

calculation. They have just done it for the 5 million prepayment

customers. We still have price regulation in Northern Ireland.

Majority of countries in the European Union still have price

controls of one sort or another. This is not thwarted by the EU, we

cannot blame the EU Brexit for the government's failure to address this

injustice. This problem lands at the doorstep of Number ten and the

government department which the minister represents today. The

government has the power and the means to end the fairness in our

energy market, or at least to offer a temporary respite as they have for

prepayment customers. In November the Secretary of State said,

customers who are loyal to their energy suppliers should be treated

well, not taken for a ride, and it is high time the big companies

recognised this. I have made clear to the big firms this cannot go on

and they must treat customers properly or be made to do so. I say

to the Minister, now is the time. This problem will not go away and I

urge the government to listen to voices on all sides of this house

who believe the current energy market does not receive or serve the

British people well. The time to act is overdue. It is a pleasure to

follow my right honourable friend, the member for Don Valley, if I feel

a little bit daunted to speak after that tour de force. She is second to

none in her knowledge of this issue. I would like to congratulate the

honourable member for Weston-Super-Mare. It is good to

join a cross-party platform in urging the government to do

something to stop these companies from ripping their customers off.

They have been getting away with it for far too long. The right

honourable member for Don Valley has been campaigning for fair energy

prices for the past six years. If adopted determination was enough to

secure victory, it would have paid off long before now. Despite talking

big on energy reform, the government has failed to act. They quietly

dropped in a promise in 2012 to force companies to switch customers

to their lowest tariff and despite the rhetoric about cutting the green

rubbish, failing to ensure reductions it made to environmental

and other obligations resulting in lower energy bills. It is true they

have cut prices on prepayment meters, but I agree we need action

for all standard variable tariff customers. In recent weeks we have

seen NPower and SSE raise their prices by 15% and another three of

the large companies have increased their bills for jewel energy

customers. Wholesale prices only increase from a low base. Many of

these rises have been piled onto electricity to ensure that as people

start turning their heating bills will remain high over the summer.

This is grotesquely unfair that the current structure penalises the most

loyal customers and those who are the most vulnerable. Almost ?200

difference between a company's cheapest tariff and its standard

variable rate, and 15% war for customers on gas only than on other

tariffs. The Observer newspaper estimated this is the equivalent to

a halfpenny rise on income tax. With 70% of big six customers on standard

variable tariff is this means the companies are making record profits.

Their profits increased tenfold between 2007 and 2013. Rises are

hitting the poorest households particularly hard. Those households

are far less likely to switch. Energy bills now account for 10% of

spending in the poorest House of Commond compared with 5.5% in 2004.

Citizens Advice estimates low income families are ?241 worse off every

year. If I can speak about my own constituency and Bristol, we have

some of the worst instances of fuel poverty in England. People always

think of Bristol as an affluent place, but just because the cities

and towns are thriving, it does not mean to say there are not other

people who are not living in poverty. In Bristol we have over

25,000 people living in fuel poverty, 30% of the city against the

national average of 10%. Some neighbourhoods have nearly a

quarter, more than 23% of households in fuel poverty, sitting within a

mile of ones with only 5%. Food banks are helping people who

rationed their energy use to save money. People too often have to

choose between heating and eating. To those suffering long-term health

conditions the effect of living in a non-heated home can cause suffering

and even death. One third of the death last winter I simply estimated

to have been caused by cold homes. I was contacted awhile ago by one

woman whose husband was extremely ill. They're called home was making

his condition words, but was denying them the most basic of conflicts.

She said, all we would like is to be worn in our home. I do not think

that is too much for anyone to ask in this day and age. Other MPs will

have in their localities some of the new breed of municipal energy

providers which provide a very different offer from the big six but

with fair rates and cleaner energy. Bristol Energy was set up very

recently by Bristol City Council. It is a national company, so anyone can

switch to it, but there is a special tariff for people with a Bristol

postcode. It was set up to help people pay less for their energy and

provide a new way to raise funds for the city. All the profits would be

reinvested back into the city. Its standard variable tariff is on

average ?105 cheaper than the big six. It is currently trialling a

warm homes plus tariff to bring households in Bristol out of fuel

poverty which would be a nonprofit making fuel tariff, only available

by referral. They are working with the Citizens Advice Bureau, the

Council, on those proposals and they are looking for a thousand people to

start with to put onto this tariff. The profits will be invested back

into the city and in the long term we want to be ambitious, tying up

with the waste sector. On one visit I had to waste plant on the

outskirts of the city they reckoned Bristol's waste alone could generate

enough energy to heat 250,000 homes and that has got to be the way

forward, a local solution to a local problem. However welcome new

entrants are to the energy market, they seem to have had little impact

so far in putting pressure on the big six to reduce prices. Despite

better practices from some companies wishing people to switch or telling

them they have that option is clearly not enough. An independent

energy experts said, although I believe in competition and when it

works it can result in fairer prices, we have to face the fact

that not everyone can and will engage in the market. A spokesperson

for the Department for business, energy and industrial strategy set

they are ready to react when the market is failing, but it is clear

the market is failing for a majority of people, so I am not sure when the

department will decide it is time to react. If the case had not been made

before today's debate, it is being made very powerfully today that the

market is failing. 66% are customers who have never switched supplier,

the so-called sticky 66. We need an approach that keeps a full switch in

open but ensure the sticky customer does not become disadvantaged by

remaining on the standard variable tariff. Much greater transparency as

a first step to include a breakdown of costs behind each of the tariffs

to include the wholesale energy costs, transition costs and green

energy with an improved annual renewal notice along the lines of

motor insurance would encourage more switching. I believe we need to go

further. We need some kind of price control for those on standard

variable tariffs. I would urge the government to pick up on proposals

put forward by the right honourable member for Don Valley. If we wait

for the green paper on when government should intervene in the

markets this spring, then it will be too late to effect energy prices

next winter and we will again see people suffering because of having

to pay above the odds extortionate energy bills. As the Observer

newspaper said, the government must reinstate price regulation until

there is convincing evidence of market forces will provide value for

consumers, rather than unfairly enriching corporate profits.

Consumers have been exploited for too long and it is time now for the

government to act. I am delighted to be involved in this debate and I am

grateful to the honourable gentleman for Weston-Super-Mare and the right

honourable lady for Don Valley. One of the disadvantages of speaking so

far down the list, this debate is long overdue and it is a debate

about how we can empower consumers as they face the injustice of energy

prices. The average annual domestic gas and electricity bills in