I must inform the House that, owing to a misunderstanding, the two Opposition day debates today were put on the Order Paper in the wrong sequence. I am content that the order in the debate should be reversed, as the Opposition intended. The House will therefore debate the motion relating to energy company licence revocations first and the motion relating to infant class sizes second.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of your statement on Monday, I would be very grateful if you could clarify something, and that is the status of the letter that you sent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Given that there is a pause and we cannot anticipate the outcome of that pause, what are you going to do, Mr Speaker, about that letter? Will you be withdrawing it until after the pause has been completed and decisions have flowed from that, or will it just float around in No. 10 until some relevant point?

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is very straightforward. It is not for me to withdraw a recommendation that was agreed by a panel, but as I made abundantly clear on Monday afternoon, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, I am seeking a modest pause in the recruitment process. I am not pressing that recommendation, and that point has been—or will be—conveyed to the Prime Minister with crystal clarity; and I am sure that that clarity is something, in a spirit of good will, public interest and the pursuit of consensus, that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford will warmly welcome.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why were the recruitment consultants Saxton Bampfylde prevented from telling the advisory panel, which you referred to, that the candidate Carol Mills was under two investigations by the Senate? And is it not the case that Saxton Bampfylde did not—I repeat: did not—originally recommend that Carol Mills be considered?

Unfortunately, but fairly predictably, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is wrong on both counts. I set out the position very clearly on Monday afternoon. It was my responsibility and privilege to respond, with courtesy and in detail, to points of order on that occasion. Sadly, it was a disadvantage to the House that the hon. Gentleman was not present at that time—

I was.

Not during points of order in my recollection, but if he was, he chose not to rise to his feet. He has done so now; I have given him an answer. It is very clear; I think that the House will want to proceed with its business.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week in his column in The Guardian, Andrew Sparrow stated that a source close to you, Mr Speaker, said that most Members of this House do not understand the role of the Clerk and that many MPs believe that the Clerk is just a man in a wig who sits at the Table in the Chamber—

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. It is not normal practice to expect the Speaker to comment on any and every media report. I did not see the report, I am not responsible for the report, and I do invite the hon. Gentleman and Members of the House as a whole to rise to the level of events. I think perhaps we can leave it there.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my experience, if a democratic assembly is to function properly, it is absolutely vital to uphold the authority of the Speaker.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I simply put it to the House that there have been many questions, perfectly properly, on this matter, both on Monday and today, and those questions have been properly answered. There will be further opportunities—very properly so—for the House to debate this matter as and when it so wishes. Let us proceed in an orderly way.

Bill Presented

Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Tim Loughton, supported by Mr Graham Brady, Mr Frank Field, Charles Hendry, Caroline Lucas, Charlotte Leslie, Greg Mulholland, Mr Rob Wilson, Craig Whittaker and Mark Durkan, presented a Bill to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to provide that opposite sex couples may enter into a civil partnership; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 86).

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses; and for connected purposes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue once more. I am told that the matter was first raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) when he was chair of the all-party group on animal welfare in 1997. It was addressed by the last Labour Government when they passed the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which laid provisions to return to the issue, as we did in 2009 when we stated we were minded to introduce a ban but ran out of parliamentary time. As detailed by the former DEFRA Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), in a debate last year, in this Parliament, the issue had commanded 120 parliamentary questions, over 16,000 items of correspondence, five early-day motions and a Backbench Business Committee debate, ably led by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). That was based on last year’s summary of interests and statistics, and there has been continued interest this year.

I wish to place on record my thanks to Animal Defenders International, which has campaigned strongly on the issue in various countries, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Born Free Foundation and the British Veterinary Association, among others, for their encouragement to pursue the matter, which is unfinished business for many of us.

This is not a party political issue, as my list of sponsors and the early-day motion list of supporters show. Neither is it only a Back-Bench issue. I am grateful to the DEFRA Minister, Lord de Mauley, for meeting me yesterday to discuss it. He indicated that the Government would consider support for the Bill once seen. That should not be a surprise: as he will see when he reads it, it is his Bill, or DEFRA’s Bill. As the hon. Member for Newbury stated last year, he wanted to draft a Bill to survive “any challenge”. He wanted, he said,

“a coalition of the whole House”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2014; Vol. 556, c. 1214.]

I think that DEFRA officials, with Ministers, have succeeded in that regard, but to prove the point, we need to get the Bill into Committee.

Over the years, the measure has been blocked for various reasons: because of a lack of time, because it was considered to be too much about red tape, because it was subject to a legal challenge in Europe or because it was believed to be either unworkable or unnecessary. The Government thought that a licensing system might address the concerns raised in this place and in the country, but the solution is incomplete.

In answer to my parliamentary question of 4 November 2013, DEFRA reported that there were still 28 wild animals, including four tigers and two lions, performing for human entertainment in the UK. The animal welfare issues have been well documented, but for some they are not strong enough to warrant a ban. Most of us would say they are, but let us look at the ethics of performing animals and compare their conditions and treatment with what we expect for animals in our great zoos and wildlife parks. The contrast between their living conditions, the space they have and the environment they occupy could not be clearer.

Our zoos and parks engage not only in scientific research, but in preservation and conservation. It is well documented how much effort is applied by zoos and parks to recreate the natural habitat of the animals they keep so that they can display their normal and natural behaviour as much as possible. We should compare that experience with that of big cats, reindeer, zebra and other animals that have limited space, have to travel in lorries between sites and are afforded an existence that is in complete contrast to any natural or artificially recreated habitat.

Earlier this year, a written ministerial statement of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) introduced a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The foreword by the new Minister in charge, Lord de Mauley, says:

“For many years wild animals were an integral part of the circus experience: the only chance that most people would have to glimpse exotic beasts from distant lands. Today, by contrast, we are fortunate to enjoy world-class zoos, a wide-reaching education system and internationally renowned wildlife documentaries, which together give children and adults an appreciation and knowledge of wild animals and the environments they come from…This legislation will end the use of wild animals and travelling circuses in this country. It will also help ensure that our international reputation as a leading protector of animals continues into a new global era.”

The explanatory notes could not be more explicit about the arguments in favour of a ban. They state:

“The use of wild animals in travelling circuses reflects a traditional but outdated view of wild animals...Captive wild animals have much the same genetic makeup as counterparts in the wild and retain their wild nature and natural instinctive behaviours. Their wild nature and innate value should be recognised and respected. Using wild animals solely for circus performance is unbefitting to their wildness and potentially harmful.

There is little or no educational, conservational, research or economic benefit derived from wild animals in travelling circuses that might justify their use and the loss of their ability to behave naturally as a wild animal.”

The notes also state:

“the Government does not believe it is appropriate to continue to use wild animals in travelling circuses because:

It is not necessary to use wild animals in travelling circuses to experience the circus; wild animals are just that and are not naturally suited to travelling circuses and may suffer as a result of being unable to fulfil their instinctive natural behaviour; we should feel duty-bound to recognise that wild animals have intrinsic value, and respect their inherent wildness and its implications for their treatment; and the practice adds nothing to the understanding and conservation of wild animals and the natural environment.”

I believe that the case has been made for a ban. I find it disappointing that, as Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was unable to complete that work, but, given that the coalition has done so much more on the issue—even publishing an excellent draft Bill—it is disappointing that time has not been found for it in the Government’s programme for this last year of the current Parliament. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is present and for whom I have a high regard, would be happy to lead the Bill into Committee himself.

The solution is for Parliament to have an opportunity to do what the last Labour Government and the coalition have so far failed to do, but we must get the Bill into Committee. Some Members may still be unconvinced, but I hope that a proper examination of the short clauses in the Bill and the explanatory notes will change that. I know that time is short and that important private Members’ Bills are on the Order Paper to be dealt with in the next three weeks, but I should like my Bill to move quickly into Committee, so I shall propose that it should receive a Second Reading this Friday. I know that it is unlikely to secure the House’s approval on 5 September. I should therefore appreciate it if Members who have other important priorities—the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for instance, has a private Member’s Bill, which is due on 17 October—would allow the Bill to be passed on a subsequent Friday. That would still allow more than enough time for the measure to be scrutinised properly, and to pass into law by next April if the House so chooses.

This issue has been around for at least 20 years. A minority, including circus owners, may not accept the welfare issues, but they are there, and most people do accept them. The world has moved on, and it is time to bring circuses into the 21st century, because wild animals have no place in them. We need to use this Bill to achieve that objective, and to ban further use of wild animals in travelling circuses.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Jim Fitzpatrick, Jim Dowd, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Philip Hollobone, Dr Julian Huppert, Caroline Lucas, Naomi Long, Paul Flynn, Kerry McCarthy, Hugh Bayley, Mr Russell Brown and Thomas Docherty present the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 September and to be printed (Bill 87).

I remind the House that, owing to a misunderstanding, the two Opposition day debates were put on the Order Paper in the wrong sequence.

The motions will be taken in the order that the Opposition intended: the House will debate the motion relating to energy company licence revocation first, and the motion relating to infant class sizes second. We shall begin, therefore, with the Opposition day motion relating to energy company licence revocation.

I beg to move,

That this House believes that consumers have a right to be treated fairly and be confident that energy companies will meet their obligations and provide good services; further believes that where companies breach these obligations, decisive action should be taken to put things right and prevent further breaches; notes that since 2001 Ofgem has imposed at least 31 fines totalling at least £90 million; further notes that despite these financial penalties energy companies face another 11 investigations with four additional cases at informal review stage; further notes that the regulator already has the power to revoke energy companies’ licences in certain limited circumstances, but not where energy companies comply with a penalty notice and then commit further breaches of their licence; and therefore calls on the Government to provide the energy regulator for Great Britain with a new statutory power to revoke energy companies’ licences where there are repeated instances of the most serious and deliberate breaches of their licence conditions which harm the interests of consumers.

The Minister for Business and Enterprise is not in his seat, but I do want to welcome him and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who is present, to their new posts and wish them well for what I hope and expect will be their remaining eight months in office.

This summer, while those who occupy the Government Benches succumbed to infighting and some introspection, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet set out the choice facing the British people at the general election in 2015. We set out a picture of a Britain where public service is valued, but reform is ongoing; where fiscal discipline is matched by fairness; where aspiration is embraced, while no one is left behind; where individuals can thrive and excel, but community solidarity is not forsaken; and where new businesses and new jobs are encouraged, in markets that have fair rules, obligations and rewards. It is to that theme, and to the announcement I made in my speech on the energy market in August, that I wish to return today.

The facts speak for themselves. Under this Government, energy bills have risen by over £300—twice as fast as inflation, four times faster than wages and faster than in almost any other country in the developed world. It is faster, too, than under the previous Government; in fact, the rate of increase since the last election has been three times faster compared with the period between 1997 and 2010. Now I know the Secretary of State likes to cherry pick the dates when he compares our record with his, but even when we only look at the final five years of the last Government, in real terms energy bills have still risen by a greater amount in each year under this Government. The reason why bills have risen—and will continue to rise, unless something is done about it—is that the energy market is broken.

Will not the right hon. Lady admit that one of the main reasons why our bills are higher than those in many other parts of the world and have risen more is the policies introduced by the last Labour Government to over-green our energy and leave us short with dear energy?

No, I do not accept that. We can clearly see that where wholesale costs have fallen the public as the bill payers have not seen a reduction in their bills—this has nothing to do with other aspects asked of these companies in terms of helping to tackle fuel poverty or helping to support the renewable sector—but when wholesale costs have gone up, the energy companies, and in particular the big six, are quick to remind everyone that is because their costs have risen. We expect the reverse to happen when wholesale costs go down.

As I said, the reason bills have risen is that the energy market is broken. We have already set out a number of proposals that we will put in place if we are elected in eight months’ time: an energy price freeze until 2017, saving the average household £120; all those over the age of 75 put on the lowest tariff; a ring fence between the generation and retail arms of vertically integrated energy companies; a pool for all electricity to be traded in, and greater transparency for trades in the gas market; and a tough new regulator with new powers to police the market and protect consumers, including new powers to protect off-grid households and small businesses, and to force energy companies to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall if they do not do it first. All of these proposals have been put before the House, but Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have voted against each and every one of them.

If Labour were to be elected at the next election, would it make the changes the right hon. Lady mentions ahead of the reporting of the investigation by the independent Competition and Markets Authority?

Of course some of the issues the CMA is looking at are the very issues we have been raising for the last two to three years, so I have welcomed the CMA review. As I have said in public already, it is working out quite well, because the CMA review is, in terms of when the clock started ticking, scheduled to finish around December 2015; it has 18 months in which to do its inquiry. If we get elected next year, our plan is to publish a White Paper, having taken through emergency legislation on the price freeze, and we can see a very good way that our White Paper and proposals can dovetail with the discussions happening with the CMA. In fact I am very open to the fact that the CMA may come up with further proposals that need to be addressed. So I do not fear the CMA; I welcome it. But what I do believe very strongly is that whatever reviews are being undertaken by the CMA, that should not paralyse politicians and those in government from doing the right thing.

If the CMA suggests the right hon. Lady’s proposals are not the right ones and it proposes other ones, will she ignore the CMA and just do what she thinks best?

I really think the Secretary of State is clutching at straws here. We believe very strongly—this is why we set out a Green Paper for energy market reform—that we have identified and tapped into some answers as to how to reform this market. I have to caution the Secretary of State. He may be surprised, if he asks his advisers, and perhaps speaks to some of the energy companies, how in a number of areas they welcome some of our reforms. So he needs to be a little more cautious about putting down Labour’s proposals. A number of them command respect across this House—even though it might not be said publicly—and, actually, in the energy sector as well.

Would the right hon. Lady not concede, however, that part of the problem with competition in the energy market was the creation of the big six energy suppliers, which of course took place under the last Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that it was John Major as Prime Minister who took through the changes that enabled those who generate and those who supply to merge their businesses. The result was we saw a number of companies—14, I think—decide they wanted to generate and supply and the big six arose out of that. However, whatever has happened under Labour or previously under the Conservatives in terms of privatising this market, I hope we can all agree that the ambitions for how that market would work after it was privatised have not been realised in the way some of the architects of privatisation perhaps thought they would. As I have said, we cannot let the past paralyse us from changing what needs to change. That is why we have put forward a number of very practical recommendations, which, sadly, have been voted down by the coalition Government time and again.

As to today’s motion, we propose one measure on which I personally find it hard to believe we cannot agree: a new power for the regulator to revoke energy companies’ licences where there are repeated instances of the most serious and deliberate breaches of their licence conditions which harm the interests of consumers. As the motion notes, consumers rightly expect to be treated fairly and to be confident that energy companies will meet their obligations and provide good services. Where companies breach those obligations, decisive action should be taken to put things right and prevent further breaches. So where the regulator has taken action, we have supported it, and where the Government have introduced sensible new measures, such as criminal sanctions for market manipulation and consumer redress orders, we have supported them. Indeed, in the case of consumer redress orders, we urged the Government to go further, because at the moment if any malpractice that happened before 2013 comes to light, the regulator will have no legal power to impose a consumer redress order.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition—I repeat, in addition—to strengthening the powers of the regulator, we need some simple consumer protection law so we can make reference to it and do not have to have 18-month inquiries? People are getting ripped off every single winter and these often long inquiries do not help those people.

I absolutely agree. One of the problems with the lengths of these inquiries, and a reason why we need greater clarity—and, I would suggest, greater deterrent factors within the conditions under which these companies operate—is that time gets lost. By the time all the lawyers have got together and everything else—and by the time, perhaps, that the company is found guilty of the offence—we lose momentum in making the change that needs to happen.

The timing of the inquiries is important, but a culture change is also needed. We need to address whether the inquiries are hampered by the energy companies responding too quickly by setting their lawyers on to the matter and deterring effective action and preventing justice from being seen to be done.

It is in a spirit of constructiveness that we present our proposals today. We believe that they are eminently sensible, and we hope that the Government will offer the same constructive approach as we have offered on numerous occasions in the past. The best way of protecting consumers is not to provide a redress framework—much needed though that is—but to prevent companies from ripping people off in the first place. At the moment, too many energy companies operate at the margins of what the rules allow, because they know that they will often not be caught. Even if they are caught, the penalties do not present enough of a deterrent. Too often, energy companies seem to view the regulator’s fines as a cost of doing business, and not as a warning that they should get their act together.

Information provided to me in answer to a written parliamentary question shows that, since 2001, Ofgem has issued at least 31 fines totalling at least £90 million. On top of that are the informal cases that the regulator has dealt with, in which, even though no formal fine or notice was issued, action was taken and in some cases financial measures ensued. If we were to add on those cases, the total would be in excess of £100 million. For companies with annual global turnovers running into tens of billions, that is still some way from the maximum fine that the regulator could have imposed. Nevertheless, it is clearly not an insignificant amount.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, no matter how large the fines might be, they are likely simply to be passed on to consumers through their bills and that they therefore do not act as a deterrent to the energy companies at all? In fact, fining companies penalises the customer, so we need to find an alternative to the fining regime.

I could not have put that better myself. There is no evidence that the shareholders or managers of the companies take a hit in terms of the benefits they receive; the cost of the fines is often absorbed back into the pot that the bill payers have to pay.

We have heard about the 31 investigations and about the fines that have been imposed. The Secretary of State might claim that this is a sign of success and evidence of a tough new regulatory environment, but that would be true only if there were evidence that companies had changed their ways and that the fines had deterred them from breaking the rules again. The evidence shows that they have not learned their lessons despite all the previous fines and penalties. Information that I have obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveals that those firms are now facing another 15 probes into poor customer service, incorrect billing and other bad practice. No company has a God-given right to be in the market, to charge its customers and to make a profit just because it has always done so—least of all, those that inherited millions of customers from before the industry was privatised and opened to competition.

Today’s motion proposes a new power for the regulator to revoke energy companies’ licences when there have been repeated instances of the most serious and deliberate breaches of their licence conditions that harm the interests of consumers. Of course, any decision to revoke a licence would have to be subject to due process and to be consistent with the regulator’s overriding objective of protecting consumers and promoting a competitive, transparent and fair energy market.

This proposal would build on best practice from regulators overseas. In some parts of the United States, energy regulators already have the power to revoke an energy supplier’s licence. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, for example, has the power to revoke a supplier’s licence if it breaks consumer protection law or transfers customers without their consent. That sends out the clearest possible message to energy companies that if they carry on mistreating their customers, their licence will be on the line. That strikes me as a pretty common-sense measure.

I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to support our motion today. I say that because when I announced this proposal in August, it was telling that the Government did not put anyone up to discuss it on television or on the radio, and that no Minister commented on the proposal. All we had were anonymous quotes from a Conservative spokesman and a Liberal Democrat source, and between them they could not muster a single good reason not to support the measure. All they seemed to suggest was that Ofgem already had this power, which is simply not true. I have discussed the issue of non-financial penalties with Ofgem and written to it about our proposal, and it has made it absolutely clear that this would be a new power. Indeed, the statement that it issued on the day of my announcement began

“Ofgem is always interested to work with government on any new powers or refinements to existing powers which would help to further protect consumers.”

As today’s motion notes, the regulator has limited powers to revoke licences in certain specific cases, but they are largely of an administrative nature—for example, if a company goes into administration, if it gets a licence but does not supply any gas or electricity in the following year, or if it does not pay a fine.

The right hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I will respond in detail to her proposal. Does she think that any energy company in the British market has done anything that would warrant its licence being revoked?

I will come to that in the next part of my speech, and I am sure that I shall be able to answer that question. That would be a matter for the regulator, given its present powers to revoke a licence. At present, it can revoke a licence only in certain conditions, and I do not believe that those conditions are sufficient to meet today’s challenge of making the market more consumer-focused and more competitive.

Crucially, at the moment companies can break the rules and get punished for it—in the form of either a fine or an order to change their behaviour in some way—and as long as they comply by paying the fine or following the order, the slate is effectively wiped clean. At no point can the regulator say, “Enough is enough; you’ve broken the rules too many times and now your licence will be revoked.”

Is this not precisely where the Secretary of State is missing the point? My right hon. Friend will know that since 2001, 31 fines totalling around £90 million have been imposed, and that another 11 investigations are in the pipeline. Is this not precisely the reason that we need to give additional powers to the regulator—to stop this bad practice?

Absolutely. As I have said, the regulator cannot at any point say, “Enough is enough.” That is the key difference between what we are proposing and the status quo. Our proposal would deal with the problem that we have seen in the past, wherein companies are allowed to get away with repeatedly breaking the rules in slightly different ways, or breaking different rules, without fear of losing their licences.

Clearly, the intention behind this policy is to encourage companies to treat their customers better, and the best outcome would be if the power never needed to be used. But if the regulator did decide to use it, the provision would need to have a clear legal basis, almost certainly set down in legislation, in order for it to be exercised with confidence. Otherwise, the threat of legal challenge would probably prevent it from ever being used. That is why it is important that this new power should be clearly put into law, just as the existing power to fine a company up to 10% of its global turnover has a clear basis in law. This would undoubtedly represent a significant addition to the regulator’s powers, and there are important questions about how it would work and about its implications, which I want to address before I finish.

I want to make it clear from the outset that the regulator would remain operationally independent and free from any interference from Ministers. Any decision about whether to revoke a supplier’s licence would be made by the independent regulator alone, but, like all economic regulators in the UK, its functions and powers are defined in statute. What we are debating today, therefore, is not whether any particular company deserves to lose its licence, but whether the regulator should have the power to make that decision, if it thought it necessary. We think that it should have that power.

The process itself would also be very similar to the existing enforcement process, except that, at the end, the regulator would have the power to revoke a supplier’s licence. In practice, an investigation of an allegation of a breach of the rules would begin and the normal process would follow, with a period of information gathering, investigation and notification of the supplier concerned. If the regulator believed at the end of the process that there had been a breach of the rules that had been serious and deliberate and had harmed consumers, and if there had been repeated instances of such behaviour in the past, under our proposals it would have the power to revoke a supplier’s licence in the same way as it has the power to impose a financial penalty or make a consumer redress order. Within the existing enforcement framework there would be clear guidelines for energy companies and a system for appeals.

In the event that a supplier lost its licence, it would mean in practice that it was no longer able to operate as an energy supply company. Let me make it clear that at the moment, companies wishing to supply and generate energy or supply and distribute energy require separate licences for each activity. We have already proposed that vertically integrated energy companies would have legally to separate their generation business from their supply business, and that as a result any decision to revoke the licence would apply only to the licence in question and not to other licences the parent company had. There would be a notice period between the decision to revoke a licence and its coming into force that, by law, must be no less than 30 days. During that period, the company would have to arrange for a trade sale for another supplier to take on its customers.

Energy companies already market and compete to win new customers. Acquiring new customers in such a way would represent a valuable commercial opportunity and avoid the normal acquisition costs. Small suppliers might wish to expand, and if a significant number of customers were available, new entrants might enter the market. In the event that a trade sale is not arranged, the regulator has the power to appoint a supplier of last resort and the rules are in place to ensure that any consumers who are moved to another supplier are protected. Either way, the supply of energy would continue as normal.

This is what I mean by a tough new regulator overseeing a market that works for consumers, not just the companies in it.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She is explaining her policy and asking the House to say that this is needed because of things going wrong in the market and because energy companies keep treating their customers badly. I have some sympathy with that observation and shall make some comments about it. However, as she is asking for a new power, surely she has to give an example of where the power would have been used in the past. She is saying that the power is needed because companies are getting away with things at the moment and that the power would have been used in certain circumstances, but can she give us an example?

It is already on the statute book that the regulator has the power to fine up to 10% of the global turnover of any company. I might need to go back and check, but I believe that nobody had to prove that that had been used anywhere else before the power was put on the statute book. The Secretary of State is following a ridiculous line of argument. In recent years, a number of instances have led to investigations and fines and have shown repeated evidence of ways in which customers have been let down. We are saying that that is not good enough and that there has to be the ultimate sanction of companies losing their licence. That is the proposition. The detail needs to be discussed before it is put into law. I have been up front and honest about that, but I find it hard to believe that the Secretary of State has seriously set his face against the proposition.

Is my right hon. Friend as perplexed as I am about why the Government seem to have a problem with the ultimate sanction that we can impose against any company, which is to take away its licence? There is no point in asking what examples we can give, as the Opposition are saying that the power should be there so that if the regulator finds that the breaches are sufficient, the ultimate sanction is available to it. I am surprised, and I am sure that my hon. Friends are, too, that the Government are resisting.

I absolutely agree. I can hear the Secretary of State saying over and over that it is already available—[Interruption.] Obviously, he has his brief and has not been listening to my speech. As I have outlined clearly and as has been confirmed by Ofgem, the regulator can revoke a licence when a company is going into administration or is insolvent or when it fails to supply gas or electricity, but what is missing at the moment is the ability when there are repeated offences that act against the interests of consumers to take the ultimate sanction and revoke the licence.

I want to try to assist the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has rightly said that this will very much be an option of last resort—an ultimate sanction—that we hope will never be used, but the fact that the sanction is available should influence the behaviour of the companies and their investor backers. When an investor community sees that the credit rating of a company that has to gear itself appropriately in the market is jeopardised by a series of serious breaches, we can bet our bottom dollar that they will be banging on the doors of the corporate boardroom saying, “Get your act in order.” It is not a case of when the sanction will be used, as we hope that it will not be. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is important is the deterrent effect, the cooling effect on reckless decisions in the boardroom, and the good behaviour that that will drive through the investor community into those companies?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The question we should be asking the energy companies is, “Why would you be afraid of this?” The question we have to ask the Secretary of State is, “What is his problem?” [Hon. Members: “What is he afraid of?”] What is he afraid of? It is quite ridiculous.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way and applaud the concern for the investor community shown by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). Apparently, in the past 10 years the venal behaviour of energy companies has not been sufficient for this power to have been exercised. For the purposes of clarity, will the right hon. Lady give an example of what behaviour she believes should cause a licence to be revoked? I am sure that the investor community, which we are so concerned about, will be interested, and I and others would be interested in examples of the sort of thing that would cause this power to be used.

Of course, Ofgem already has codes of conduct in which it outlines ways in which it would investigate a company. For example, let us consider some of the investigations over the past few years. We have had investigations of mis-selling, billing systems, predatory pricing and disadvantaging certain customers, such as those who have prepayment meters, and situations where people had been inhibited from changing supplier. Ofgem already has set thresholds and codes of practice that enable it to launch a formal investigation and set out clearly what areas it is considering, but the problem is that if a company is found guilty of any of the examples I have just given, that can basically result in a fine or some sort of consumer redress order. What Ofgem cannot do is revoke the licence. When there are repeated examples of companies failing to take action, when they might have been fined, and when they have put their hands up and said that they would do the right thing only for it to happen again, Ofgem cannot say, “I am sorry, the slate will not be wiped clean. You must account for your activities and that includes when you have repeatedly undermined your customers.”

As I said earlier, and I repeat this sincerely to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), it seems to me that the problem is that when we look at the fines—£90 million over the past few years is no small amount of money to most people, but it is a pittance by comparison with the overall amount of money these companies make—it sometimes comes across as though paying the fines is just the cost of doing business. That is not good enough.

Surely the real deterrent for any company operating in the energy market is the loss of customers. We should be encouraging Ofgem to up the fines and increase the publicity, because the loss of customers will have an effect on investors.

I think there has been quite a lot of publicity about the fines, but what the hon. Gentleman says is interesting. The rules currently allow Ofgem to fine up to 10% of the company’s global turnover, which is a lot of money. I am not against Ofgem looking at whether it should be increasing the amount it fines, but I do think the ultimate sanction is about revoking a licence, because in such circumstances customers would have to be found a new supplier for their energy. Currently, that is exactly what Ofgem can do if a company goes into administration or if it fails to deliver gas and electricity to people’s homes. Is it not bizarre, however, that it cannot do this where there have been repeated offences against consumers through harmful customer practices that not only undermine trust in the energy market but, more important, make customers pay a heavy price?

I commend my right hon. Friend for her leadership on this issue, because that is what this is about: leadership in shaping the future, not looking back to the past, as such an approach is failing our business and domestic energy customers. I commend her for the way in which she has set out this case so clearly, and I am looking forward to the answer from the Secretary of State.

I thank my hon. Friend for his support on so many occasions when we have tried to put forward common-sense, constructive solutions to some of the problems that all in this House know exist in this energy market. Some will wrongly try to characterise our proposal as somehow anti-business—it is not. For one thing, businesses, especially small firms, have often been as much on the receiving end of the energy industry’s sharp practices as households. For another thing, if energy companies do not want to be at risk of losing their licences, all they have to do is treat their customers fairly and properly. More importantly, there is no such thing as a market without rules. It is difficult to think of a more vigorously free-market capitalist economy than the United States, but regulators there understand that a free market works only when there are proper rules to ensure competition and fair play. As Matthew D’Ancona said recently in his article in The Sunday Telegraph, capitalism must be

“tempered by the recognition that markets exist within a structure of laws and a social order.”

That is what I want for households and businesses in Britain.

I compliment my right hon. Friend on an excellent speech. I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), in that this is about the past. When the landed aristocracy of the Conservatives in the 1860s were controlling the bushels of wheat, it took a Mancunian MP, Richard Cobden, to form the Anti-Corn Law League, which eventually brought in free trade and a free market so that working Mancunians and working people across this country could afford bread to eat. I also remind Government Members that that eventually led to Peel falling.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I have two points to make. First, I have found it incredibly helpful, in undertaking this brief for the Leader of the Opposition, to take a little time away from the day-to-day things and have a look back at some of the decisions made over many decades, both before and since privatisation. That is why I believe our proposals in so many areas meet the test of what we need today, learning from both what worked and what did not work in the past. That is good politics as far as I am concerned.

The second point relates to what is so exciting about the future of the energy market. There was a time when many local authorities were more involved in the delivery of energy, and the exciting thing is that as well as having new entrants from other parts of the business community, there is the opportunity to open up much more the roles for local authorities and other community organisations to supply and generate energy in the future. To get that right, we have to sort out the corporate problems that we are facing today. That is the choice today’s motion puts before the House.

We have debated energy prices and the energy market many times in this Parliament. There have been times when we have agreed across these Dispatch Boxes and others when we have disagreed, but I hope the Secretary of State will put aside the areas where we do not agree and do us the courtesy of engaging constructively with this specific proposal. If he does so, I believe he will see that it is worthy of support and would be to the benefit of consumers in this country. I commend the motion to the House.

I thank the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for calling a debate on an important subject: how best can we protect energy consumers from unfair treatment by their suppliers? Although there are examples of good customer service—energy companies that are treating their customers properly—it is hardly controversial to say that there are far too many cases where energy firms have let their customers down badly—the mis-selling, the poor complaints handling, and the poor billing. This is not new; it has been going on for many years and can just take different forms. Right hon. and hon. Members who have served in this House for a few Parliaments will recall all the scandals of doorstep mis-selling. I recall an elderly constituent coming to my local surgery in 2003 having been appallingly treated and conned by a representative of one of today’s big six. So this is a serious matter and, despite efforts by the previous Government, this Government’s focus on this issue and the work of Ofgem, it is clear that there are still energy firms that are treating their customers unacceptably.

The right hon. Gentleman gave the examples of mis-selling and the mistreatment of customers. Are they not the type of repeat offending by energy companies that should mean that their licences could be revoked?

I will explain to the House that under current rules licences can be revoked, and I will deal with these issues. I am admitting that this a good debate to have, because there is a problem—nobody is suggesting otherwise. But, as always, the question is: what is the best way to deal with that problem? What is going to work? What is the best way to crack down on this to punish firms that get it wrong? In essence, we can use three tools: competition; regulation; and technology. The right hon. Member for Don Valley has focused on regulation, and I want to address her proposal in detail, for tough regulation certainly has a vital role to play in holding companies to account. However, I regret that her motion and her speech totally failed to mention competition and technology—those were not even mentioned once. That is a serious mistake, which the Opposition keep making. For many of the smaller suppliers now competing—

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in different ways the Opposition have put forward motions for debate in this House where we have engaged with competition? In my speech I mentioned a number of our proposals to create a pool to separate the energy generation and supply side. Today, we have tabled a motion that tries to identify a particular problem. We have done that because we think it is the right thing to do, and we find it hard to believe that we could not get the full support of the House on this one issue.

I am going to deal with the right hon. Lady’s proposal, as I have said. However, she failed to deal with one of the comments made by a Government Member about the importance of competition. Competition does drive good customer service, as I hope she will recognise. I wish she had done so in her intervention on me, but she did not.

The Secretary of State has given himself the power to change the contract for difference allocation framework, which is part of his regulation on competition, and the budget notice as close as 10 days before an allocation round begins. Can he assure the House that the European Commission regards 10 days as a sufficient period to determine whether the round is state-aid compliant? If he cannot, what assurance can he give that delays will not result from this? Crucially, what impact might this likelihood of change and delay have on investor confidence to create the very competition he is talking about?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting that question into this debate. I say gently to him that on CfD and state aid we have clearance, so presumably the Commission has examined that matter. I have not specifically asked it that question, but it has given us state-aid clearance. The way we have proceeded with the allocation proposals for CfD is to ensure that we get just that investor confidence, and the fact that we are seeing such interest and such investment is tantamount to showing that we have it right.

Failing to focus on competition is a serious mistake by the Opposition, because many smaller suppliers competing against Labour’s big six are doing so not just on price but on the basis of better customer service. If we talk to the independents about their business model, we hear some of them say that higher quality customer service is their main competitive edge. The growth of competition since 2010 suggests that they are right and that competition has a key role to play here. From less than 1% of the market, the small suppliers now have more than 7% and it is still growing. Customers now have more choice than ever, with 25 suppliers competing for their custom.

Small suppliers provide electricity to 2 million customers, and they have gained more than 1 million customers in the past 12 months. Clearly, customers are voting with their feet when they are not happy with the service they are getting. Yes, we need to make the competition rule work more effectively, which is why we support the independent Competition and Markets Authority in the most profound investigation of British energy markets ever seen.

It was telling to hear that the right hon. Lady does not intend to wait to hear the result of the Competition and Markets Authority investigation. She will prejudge the authority’s report. That is quite a revelation, which is worthy of more debate. We are not simply waiting for that report from the Competition and Markets Authority. We have already done so much to encourage new suppliers and to make switching easier, simpler and quicker. We believe that we must continue to sharpen the competition tool for consumers, so that when they are poorly treated, they can vote with their feet.

I am acutely aware that competition has not always worked for the most vulnerable in society, such as elderly people who might not be internet savvy. During my time as Secretary of State, I have placed a focus on new business models and new ways of helping such people—from collective switching to developing, with the voluntary sector, citizens advice bureau, Age Concern and so on, new forms of advice with the big energy saving network. Ofgem is also increasingly focused on how we can ensure that energy markets better serve the fuel poor and the less well off.

The implication of what the Secretary of State is saying is that he accepts that competition is imperfect at the present time. If we have a situation in which competition improves and there is better service all round, is he saying that when an energy company behaves in an appalling fashion they should be able, in all circumstances, to continue to supply energy to consumers and that there should not be the ultimate sanction of saying, “Your behaviour is so appalling that you no longer have the right to deliver gas and/or electricity in this country”?

No, I am not saying that. If the hon. Gentleman waits for a second, I will put a lot of emphasis on tough regulation, but there needs to be a balance. There needs to be competition as well, because it can often work more quickly and more effectively, and it really hits the firms that are losing customers. Some of the big six have lost tens of thousands—in some cases, hundreds of thousands—of customers because we have enabled competition. I accept that things are not perfect yet, which is why we are working so hard.

The right hon. Gentleman is making a good point in that competition can drive improvement in a number of areas. But badly regulated competition leading to market failure is an issue not just with the big six but with potential new entrants, which could be doing well at the moment but they could fail or overstretch themselves. May I suggest to him that there is a straightforward analogy that any football or rugby supporter will understand? As rules are imposed on that game, players know that if they do something stupid, they will end up in the sin bin for 10 minutes on a rugby pitch. If they do it again, they will be off the field. If they do a spear tackle, they will be red-carded and could be banned for months. If they assault somebody on the field, they could end up in jail. We are not saying that these things should not be used. Companies will want to avoid them being used. The fact that they are there drives good behaviour.

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intended to be brief.

When a Welsh MP gives a rugby analogy, one should be careful. However, I will address that point, because I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am grateful that he at least recognises that competition has a role to play. Technology also has a key role to play. The smart meter roll-out, for example, will be crucial in tackling some of the issues that consumers complain most about, especially inaccurate bills. Smart metering will help us to address even more problems faced by prepayment meter customers and it will enable 24-hour switching. So technology and competition are important in addressing these matters, and we need to have them on the table.

Despite those differences, there is no disagreement between parties over the importance of the regulation tool. Strong regulation has a vital role to play in protecting consumers. The previous Labour Government recognised that, and set up Ofgem. Indeed the Leader of the Opposition, when he was doing my job, reformed Ofgem to give it more powers to protect the consumer. He chose not to give it the power that the right hon. Lady wants, but we will leave that aside for the moment. This Government recognise the role regulation has to play for customers, which is why we have strengthened it. We have ensured that when an energy firm is fined and punished, the money does not just go to the Treasury. Customers who have been wronged are now properly compensated; we have put money in their pockets. We are even introducing criminal sanctions into the regulatory armoury. In the future, if an individual is found guilty of manipulating the energy market, they could go to prison.

Will the Secretary of State admit that even when fines are imposed, the money does not always go back to the victims? In some cases, it has gone to other groups of customers. Will he now correct himself and say that it does not always go to the victims of the problem under investigation?

Before the implementation of the powers in the Energy Act 2013, some redress schemes were on a voluntary basis and the money did not always go to the individual customers who were wronged. The real intention of the new powers is that money will go to the customers. There will be proper consumer redress. That did not happen before. Under us, it is now happening. I repeat what I was saying before the right hon. Lady intervened. This Government are passing rules that stipulate that people who manipulate energy markets could go to prison. No one can accuse this Government of being unwilling to use the regulatory tool in the toughest way possible on behalf of consumers.

The right hon. Lady’s motion is focused not on regulation in general, where there is agreement, but on one new regulation. No, that is not quite true. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Her motion states quite clearly that it is focused on reforming an existing regulation—changing an existing power. Currently, Ofgem can remove a company’s licence. In other words, the regulator can now shut down a company. The regulator already has the power effectively to say to a company—its employees, customers, suppliers and shareholders—“What you have done is so bad that you can no longer trade.” It is a tough power, and rightly so. It is what we might call the “nuclear” option, because the consequences are severe for the customer as well as for the company.

Let us imagine that the nuclear option is taken by the regulator. It does not matter whether we use the current carefully designed system, which I will describe later, or the more arbitrary system being proposed by the right hon. Lady. The time spent preparing to use this nuclear option will be critical. Under the current situation, because of the ratcheting up, contingency arrangements could be put in place. If things are done more quickly and directly, as the right hon. Lady wants, there could be chaos. It would be bad for the staff, as there would be a significant loss of jobs. It would be bad for consumers, as they would have to be switched to another company or companies very quickly. That is not easy, not even in 30 days, without real difficulties and challenges. If it were a large firm that was being closed down, it is likely that only other large firms would be able to absorb that number of customers quickly. The result is that Labour's big six would become Labour's big five—genius!

Does the Secretary of State agree that the grounds on which Ofgem may revoke a licence do not contain any mention of consumers, or even the word “consumer”, or tackle the issue of repeated offences of harmful, abusive behaviour in customer practice?

I am going to describe the current system. On the law, the right hon. Lady might want to look at the point where it says—this is where Ofgem may revoke a licence—

“if the licensee fails…to comply with a final order”.

I am going to explain that process.

Does the Secretary of State remember that I said that of course Ofgem can revoke a licence if there is a failure to pay a fine? The problem is that, once the fine is paid, there is nothing in the revocation terms to enable Ofgem to find against the company if there are repeated offences. That is the clarity that we need in law—not to wipe the slate clean.

The right hon. Lady should allow me to explain the current system, because I think she will find that a failure to comply with a final order can result, in extreme circumstances, in revocation. It is the process leading up to the issuing of the final order that she does not seem to understand, so let me deal with it.

Under the right hon. Lady’s proposals, the nuclear option has considerable—potentially large—negative consequences for competition. Just think how the customers would feel. Would the confusion and hassle of a forced move make them feel any better? Other companies would need to take on those customers, and that means changing tariffs, with consumers possibly paying more. All those issues would need to be worked through at a chaotic moment. It is quite right that the current rules limit the circumstances in which the nuclear option can be used, and the process that Ofgem would effectively have to go through before it can be invoked. Indeed, Parliament, under the previous Government, set the bar for the nuclear option quite high. The list of circumstances in which the power can be used includes a variety of things, from the failure of a company to comply with a final order from the regulator, to a company’s making false statements when applying for a licence, to a firm’s not paying a financial penalty.

The right hon. Lady is proposing to lower the bar for the nuclear option. Labour now wants to amend the existing power, so that the regulator can close down a company for—I quote from the motion—

“repeated instances of the most serious and deliberate breaches of their licence conditions”.

How does that differ from the existing situation? Well, at the moment Ofgem cannot explicitly close down a firm for persistent behaviour; that is true. It cannot go quickly or directly to the nuclear option, as the right hon. Lady wants. Ofgem would instead have to ratchet up its sanctions: first, higher fines, and regulatory orders requiring specific improvements in performance by specific dates—ever-tougher, and increasingly damaging for the firm.

Is it not financially attractive to these energy companies to rip the customers off, as they have been, and take the rap on the fingers from Ofgem, pay the fines that Ofgem imposes on them, wipe the slate clean and start all over again?

That may have been the case in the past, but increasingly it is not because the companies are losing customers, the fines are getting heavier and Ofgem is getting tougher. I wish it had been tougher in the past. Just look at the fines that have been levied and can be levied. We have seen fines of £3 million, £4 million, £10 million, £15 million. Indeed, under the coalition we have seen Ofgem fine more companies than ever before, and by higher amounts. In the nine years after Ofgem was established, it took enforcement action in just 10 cases. Since 2010, in four years, we have seen 27 cases, with fines totalling nearly £51 million. Moreover, because the current Government wanted to ensure that it was not just the Treasury that benefited from enforcement action against energy firms that misbehaved, there is now money for consumer redress as well—since 2010, nearly £60 million has already been paid out directly to consumers, the people who have suffered. Nothing like that happened under Labour. So under us, as the fines on a persistently poorly performing firm went up and up, so could consumer redress; so could the consumer compensation.

What is the maximum that could be levied? Well, if a firm continually failed to comply, the fines and redress could be increased up to 10% of a firm’s turnover, as the right hon. Lady said. For a huge energy company such as British Gas, that could equate to a whopping £1 billion —not a figure that any company, however large, can take lightly. That is what the law currently allows for, and these fines are being used, under this Government, far more than they were under the softies opposite.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if Ofgem investigates a company and the company pays the fine, and later the company breaches again the rules relating to fairness to customers in the way that I have outlined, what Ofgem cannot do is revoke the licence? It has to do another investigation, which may result in a fine, but what it cannot do is take into account past history on these issues and revoke the licence where there is persistent abusive behaviour to the customers. Does he support the recommendation that we are making or not?

When Ofgem has another breach put to it, it has to look at that breach; it has to look at what has happened in that breach. It does not, as I am about to say, only have the fine/penalty option; it may issue improvement orders, as we are seeing. Let me come to the process, because I think the right hon. Lady’s policy will not stand up, and she will see that we have lots of powers to help consumers.

rose—

I am going to make some progress.

In fact, the current law allows the regulator to do more than just fine a company. Let us take an example. Ofgem can issue provisional orders that require a range of things, including banning a company from taking on new customers and setting specific behaviour that it must meet so that it is no longer in breach of licence conditions, including the standards of conduct. A final order can be issued when Ofgem believes that the same licence contravention is likely to continue, and in doing so Ofgem can look at the pattern of behaviour of previous breaches. Breaching a final order could then trigger a licence revocation, even if that remains an extreme circumstance. The powers that the right hon. Lady is talking about already exist in the form that I have described, where orders happen and improvement orders are required and they are not complied with.

This looks like a regime that is working today and it was not working under Labour. If the Opposition are proposing to lower the bar for a nuclear option, it is incumbent on them to explain exactly when that would be used, because consumers and businesses need to know exactly where the line is drawn. Perhaps the right hon. Lady wants to clarify her position now; she failed to do so, despite being intervened on by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat).

Let me give the right hon. Lady an example. Would she have expected Ofgem to have closed npower down by now? More complaints have been made about npower than any other energy company. It is under investigation. Does she think her new power should have been used to revoke npower’s licence? A simple yes or no would suffice, if she is willing to give us an example. She is not, and the House will have noted that.

rose—

I will not give way. The right hon. Lady is seeking to allow Ofgem to close down a firm more rapidly than it can now. She wants to lower the bar for the nuclear option.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

The right hon. Lady really must tell the House, would she have pressed the nuclear button yet? Is there one example of energy company bad behaviour that she thinks would have merited her policy?

Ofgem could close an energy company down, but it would have to give that firm the chance to improve. If a company ignored improvement orders, Ofgem could then issue a final order, and if that was ignored, it could then close the company down under current law. But the right hon. Lady seems to want the regulator to be able to intervene before an improvement process has been gone through—before a final order.

indicated dissent.

Well, if the right hon. Lady does not want that—if she is still expecting a process of orders and final orders—the House should be clear: she is proposing absolutely nothing new of substance. This whole debate is a fabrication. But if she does want Ofgem to be able to close a company down earlier—if she does not want Ofgem to go through an improvement process with a firm that has behaved badly, as now—she really has to tell us how her proposal will work, and how it will be different in substance to the current system, and she has failed to do so.

I do not question the right hon. Lady’s motives or commitment in initiating this debate; I agree that there is a problem, and we both want the same thing. We want a consumer-focused market in which bills are kept as low as possible and the energy companies provide a high-quality service. The question before us is, what is the right way to achieve that? The Government favour a balanced approach of competition, technology and regulation, giving people the choice to move to new suppliers with better service and better deals. Under this Government, the new independent suppliers that we have encouraged regularly top the best-buy tables and the tables for best customer service. People are voting with their feet thanks to our increasing competition and punishing bad service. The new independents are growing rapidly, with more than 2 million customers, and the big six are losing market share every day.

We can improve services for customers with technology, bringing the digital revolution to the energy market so that information is more accurate and easier to understand. Smart meters could do for energy what the smartphone has done for mobile communications. Regulation is vital, and we are making sure that we have an active and engaged regulator with the right balance of powers to effect change. There is a basket of powers that we have strengthened, such as criminal sanctions where appropriate, powers to fine companies and compensate customers directly, and the ability to work with companies with poor customer service and help them to improve. As a very last resort, with the bar set high, we have the power to revoke a licence where there has been a serious breach of conduct. That is the picture under this Government.