I accept that, but I think the consequences, practically, of what you are proposing would go far deeper than that, and if I have time, I will touch on those.

I don't talk about this lightly. Energy prices are high and they are difficult to understand, and perhaps there's a place for better co-operation between the state and the private sector. So, reform in this area is certainly required. I'm not sure if I'll be permitted to quote Will Straw—but I'm going to try, anyway—now the associate director of the centre-left IPPR think tank. He argues for more local authority involvement, promoting

'a market that is far more competitive and transparent than the one we have now.'

And he states, and I quote:

'We need a series of market reforms to improve transparency, reduce the market power of the big six and encourage new competitors to enter the market.'

And he continues:

'This could include an important role for local authorities and community groups competing at a local level by generating, offering energy-efficiency services to bring down demand and even providing local supply consortiums to get the best deal for consumers.'

That could certainly be part of a healthy energy market, it seems to me, and I think it's much better to have these more moderated approaches.

This point about local energy generation is an important one, and I do believe that we need to be providing more resources and support in this area. Can I quote Archie Thomas, the energy spokesman for the Green Party? Shall I do that first before I give way, Jenny? He also thinks that: 

'local energy generation is the key—and that it supercedes the issue of whether the power giants are publicly or privately owned.'

And I quote:

'The real future for energy is not private or nationalised energy companies but low-carbon energy owned and managed by local communities.'

People need power over their own energy, and you don't get that in a nationalised system, necessarily. I will give way.