With permission, I will make a statement on the Government response, which was published yesterday, to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report, “Tackling the energy cost crisis”, which we published in October.

This issue is very much at the heart of what families up and down the country are dealing with. I stood in the last election on a commitment to bring down energy Bills, and I welcome the Government’s decision to reduce them by £150 from April. That £150 is a start on the road to the cut of £300 that was mentioned before the election in July 2024. We should be honest, however, because the solutions to high energy costs are often presented as easy—they are not—although the underlying truth is very simple indeed: bills are too high, which is in large part the legacy of years of under-investment in infrastructure and the lack of long-term planning.

The warm homes plan, which was also published yesterday and which the Government refer to in their response to the Select Committee report, gives encouragement that many people will see their bills fall through the adoption of clean technologies. Insulating homes delivers warmth and health co-benefits in addressing cold, damp and mould, offers security and is an effective way to lower bills. Perhaps the success of the gas safe model over many years provides an idea of how to ensure confidence in the insulation of homes, following the well-documented failures of the energy company obligation scheme. In the Government’s response to our report on retrofitting last year, they promised to update us once the warm homes plan was published. Hopefully, the Minister is preparing—or, probably more accurately, his colleagues are preparing—to do just that.

Our report, published yesterday, offered the Government recommendations on how energy costs for consumers and businesses might be reduced in the immediate term. The inquiry into the cost of energy continues, pressing for answers on why electricity prices in the UK remain stubbornly higher than in countries such as Germany and France, and what energy reforms are needed to help with industrial competitiveness. In our report, we made a number of recommendations about supporting those facing Fuel Poverty. We recommended that the warm home discount be targeted using a tiered approach, so that funding is allocated based on household need and energy usage, and that value of the rebate be linked to wholesale prices. We recommended that the cold weather payment be reformed so that the £10 payment is made to eligible households every day that the Met Office forecasts that the average temperature will be 0° or below the following day.

The key to helping those in real need is enabling energy companies to identify properly those customers who need support and relief. We called on the Government to work out how data might be used to target support to those who need it. The Government agreed with us on the importance of data sharing, but believed that their taskforce was already making progress in this area. Sadly, the Government rejected our call for better targeting of the warm home discount and for a social tariff, claiming that the warm home discount was already a social tariff—which is not the evidence that we heard. They also rejected our calls for a fairer approach to cold weather payments.

The level of consumer debt is alarmingly high and growing. We noted that the network companies have recently benefited from flaws in the price control system that overestimated the impact of inflation on their borrowing costs. We recommended that the Government recover the excess profits made and use it to clear much of the debt. We regret that the Government rejected our recommendation, not least as by doing so, they admit that consumer debt will continue to be added to everyone’s bills. According to one retailer we took evidence from, that figure is £160 a year. We called for Ofgem to limit the back billing period for customers with a smart meter to six months. The Government referred us to Ofgem and indicated some broad support. We heard that bills fall 3% when households have a smart meter that works, even before trying to maximise the benefits. I am pleased to say that we had agreement from the Government about the importance of a better, more ambitious smart meter roll-out.

We recommended that the ombudsman’s job would be more effective if it was placed on a statutory footing and better enabled to enforce its decisions. The Government agreed with us. We also recommended that the ombudsman should cover small and micro-sized businesses, with the ability to make awards up to £50,000. We thought that energy companies should not be able to pursue customer debts that were currently being considered by the ombudsman. The Government told us that they were content to rely on Ofgem rules that companies should only pursue debt in a proportionate manner. It was clear to us, from the evidence we heard, that a complaint before the ombudsman is sufficient to suggest that the retailer is not currently being proportionate in its actions.

Our main recommendation for businesses and industry follows a suggestion from Make UK to provide an opt-in scheme that would provide businesses with certainty about costs, as uncertainty is almost as damaging as the high prices themselves. I hope that the Government will act on these recommendations, which they say that they will keep under consideration. We also heard about businesses being put on to contracts where the costs might not be as transparent as they should be. We also think that businesses should be allowed to exit energy contracts up to 14 days after their first bill.

My Committee colleagues are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face with energy bills. The Secretary of State spoke yesterday about the potential to use tariffs to cut bills. We identified other opportunities to cut bills. Over time, we will recommend more. I would just make a plea: that the Government take a look at the evidence behind the recommendations in our report and consider whether they might want to adopt more of what we suggested. It would not be the first time that a Government had rejected Select Committee recommendations only to adopt them quietly later.