What steps he is taking to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable energy consumers.

We have no plans at present to introduce mandatory social tariffs, but as the Secretary of State has said, we do not rule it out, should it become necessary. In our energy white paper, we made it clear that energy suppliers should put in place social programmes to help the most vulnerable. Energy suppliers have responded by increasing the value of their programmes from £40 million to £56 million this winter, benefiting some 700,000 households and taking an estimated 70,000 out of Fuel Poverty. I recently had a meeting with all six major supply companies, which the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs attended because of his Department's concern about fuel poverty.

Is the Minister aware that the criteria that Powergen uses for its "stay warm" social tariff have recently been changed, with the result that many consumers are paying increased prices? The company spends £4.4 million a year on that social tariff, yet it spends £32 million a year sponsoring the FA cup. Does the Minister think that that is a good use of priorities, and of the profits that the company makes?

I am not going to attack a great working-class game, and make comparisons with football. As we made clear at our recent meeting, we welcome the social programmes and tariffs that are in place. Given rising public and parliamentary concern about energy prices we feel that all the supply companies have an obligation to do more for the most vulnerable, but of course the Government also play their part. Indeed, since 2000, the Government have spent some £20 billion on Fuel Poverty measures, benefits and programmes of different kinds. However, there is a role for private companies, too.

The measures that the Government have already taken are important, but if we are genuinely to protect vulnerable groups, perhaps the biggest single thing to do now is to stop the energy companies—the big six to which the Minister spoke, which have been accused directly of collusion and price fixing—effectively robbing the consumer. Is not reference to the competition authorities important, so that the public, and vulnerable groups in particular, know that they are not being ripped off and robbed by those energy companies?

All the independent analysis shows that we have the most competitive energy market in the European Union, and I can verify that through independent reports. However, I understand the public concern. Ofgem has announced that it will conduct an inquiry into the competitive market to make sure that it is functioning well. It is not complacent, and neither are we. If there is evidence of collusion, it should be presented to the regulator. The companies meet to discuss a range of issues, and I sometimes join those meetings, as does the Secretary of State. I do not feel that there is any evidence of collusion, but, if there is, it should be taken to the regulator.

The amount that energy companies spend on social tariffs differs vastly. Is the Minister aware that e.on and other companies recently announced that they are considering introducing guarantors or deposits for new customers before they will take them on? Will that not impact greatly on the most vulnerable groups and prevent people from switching suppliers?

All of us are concerned to protect the most vulnerable. The poor often end up paying more per unit of fuel because of prepayment meters, which is another matter that I have raised with the supply companies. My advice is that the hon. Gentleman should report his concerns to the regulator.

As the Third Reading and Report stages of the Energy Bill approach, does my hon. Friend think there might be a Majority in the House for an appropriately crafted Amendment that put a statutory obligation on energy companies to provide a minimum level of social tariffs?

Having just come from the Committee considering the Energy Bill, I like the idea of the Report stage almost being upon us. I only wish that were the case, as I listen to my speeches in Committee. Of course I recognise that there is widespread support in the House for greater action on social tariffs. My concern is to persuade the supply companies to move forward voluntarily. We are making progress, but there is more to do. There is a concern that if we mandated social tariffs, that might be the end of the matter: the companies would do that but no more. There would be no grounds for innovation, and that could be the downside of a mandatory approach.