Corporate Governance

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I agree with the noble Lord on the first part of his question, which is that this is a matter for companies, and it is right that they should get it right. On levels of trust, what I have been trying to make clear is that we have seen a growth in public trust in business. It is still too low, but the most recent 2019 Edelman global trust barometer shows a small increase, which is to be welcomed and something we would encourage. As the noble Lord says, it is too early for me to comment on the CMA.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to hear my noble friend’s comments about trust, but could more be done to enforce the existing rules of corporate law? There is a problem in that the bad eggs give business a very bad name, so good enforcement early on of the right kind, led strongly by the FRC, can be extremely helpful. Does my noble friend agree?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do agree with my noble friend. I think that she will agree that we have done a great deal on corporate governance ever since we published the Green Paper in 2016, and there is the work done by the FRC and others right up to publishing and bringing into operation the new code in January of this year.

Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

The time shown on the timer is not all mine.

With regard to employee engagement, I take this opportunity to suggest that it is worth looking at employee-owned businesses—that is, businesses where, alongside some share ownership, employees have a significant say through various different mechanisms. I commend to noble Lords the report The Ownership Dividend, launched at the end of July, which followed a year’s inquiry and, for the first time, substantial collection of UK data. I had the honour to chair the inquiry so I declare an interest. The inquiry showed that many governance problems are solved, including those around wider stakeholders, and that productivity increases when there is employee ownership. So embracing the formal involvement of employees is nothing to shy away from, even if it is not within a formal employee-owned structure.

I have spent some time on the Section 172 and stakeholder matters because they are key to culture. The fact that these regulations need more pages dedicated to executive pay than the other governance matters is itself a sad reflection on corporate and executive culture. I welcome the additional transparency and ratio comparisons; the truth needs to be told, and unfairness and mechanistic escalators exposed. Hopefully, some rebalancing will happen, whether that be through shareholders or shaming.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and as a director of companies over a number of years and as a chartered secretary. I will not delay the House, but I am doubtful of the value of some of these changes, which represent micromanagement and/or bureaucracy, and there is a decidedly mixed level of support for some of them, as can be seen on pages 49 to 51 of the impact assessment.

I am a huge supporter of good governance, but it should be geared towards long-term value creation, and in a responsible way. Good companies create value, and the tax-take from such companies—not only company taxes but all the taxes they collect: VAT, rates and income tax—finances our schools, hospitals and public services.

There is no sunset clause but perhaps the Minister can confirm that there will be a review of these arrangements in five years’ time. Further, does he agree that creating long-term value and companies’ contribution to our economy, including productivity, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, should form part of that review?

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I am conscious that Members of the House want to move on to other business, so I shall concentrate on two issues in the regulations that I think warrant being brought out and receiving attention.

There is a cross-cutting concern that, in referring to directors’ reporting responsibilities in relation to engagement with and having regard to the interests of their employees, the regulations do not refer to their “workers”; they refer only to their “employees”. This is a weakness in the regulations, as they do not encompass the reality of modern employment practices and business models, explicitly referred to in the Taylor review and the impact assessment. Reporting on a company’s impact on employment should be reflective of the entire workforce and not just direct employees.

A significant minority of the UK’s workforce is now not covered by the term “employee” and there is a correlation between indirect employment and low pay and insecurity. Excluding indirectly employed workers, some of whom are the most vulnerable, from the scope of these regulations contradicts a key rationale for statutory intervention—promoting equality and fairness. It will mean that directors’ reports will present an incomplete picture of engagement with the people whose work contributes to companies’ output and value. Therefore, do the Government intend to review Section 172 of the Companies Act to allow reporting on directors’ duties to address the workforce as a whole and not restrict it to employees only?

Another element of the regulations concerns me. Regulations that require reporting on the pay ratios of CEOs’ remuneration to employees’ remuneration are to be welcomed, but there is a risk that these regulations will fall short of what is needed. Again, they refer to employees and not the whole workforce, and that could result in misleading evidence on those pay ratios. The public interest is in the gap between wider workforce pay and executive remuneration. There is a precedent: gender pay-gap reporting covers both workers and employees, not just employees.

If evidence on pay ratios is to contribute to restoring public trust in business, it is important that there is integrity around the data collected and reported. Clear audit requirements need to be put on these pay-ratio exercises, and the lessons learned from the reported gender pay gap, highlighted by the Financial Times analysis, should not be missed. The Financial Times revealed that one in 20 UK companies that has submitted gender pay-gap data to the Government has reported numbers that are statistically improbable and therefore almost certainly inaccurate. Therefore, when do the Government intend to extend pay-ratio reporting to cover both workers and employees, and how will they satisfy themselves about the quality of the data provided on these pay-ratio reports?

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

7: Clause 7, page 5, line 3, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c)

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, our concern is to ensure as far as possible that the cap ends in 2020. Many people are unconvinced of the value of price caps, which are against most economic theory and can have unintended consequences. There is also a strong consensus that the cap should be temporary, as we discussed in Committee and as the Energy Minister, Claire Perry, noted in the Commons. Moreover, a price cap where the case is strongest already exists. This covers prepayment meters in 4 million house- holds and 1 million vulnerable consumers following action by Ofgem. This in turn followed recommendations by the CMA, which did not favour an overall price cap.

A number of us are also concerned that the tariff cap could have an adverse effect on competition. Its existence might prevent or deter Ofgem or the Secretary of State from finding that the conditions for effective competition are in place and so the cap would have to be extended in 2020, frustrating the purpose of the discretion in the Bill. BEIS officials have helpfully suggested that this is not a risk. They know that the cap might in practice damage competition and say that the judgment to be made is that the Secretary of State considers that the conditions are in place for effective competition for domestic supply contracts—not that effective competition is in place.

Has the Minister been able to think further about these matters and how to respond to my amendment, which I am retabling following the helpful discussion in Committee and his helpful comments about the direction of travel on the cap? Can he agree that the cap will end in 2020, all being well; and, given the concerns expressed by many distinguished industry experts, which I have sought to summarise, can he also confirm on the parliamentary record the BEIS interpretation of the conditions for any extension? I beg to move.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. The first basis on which I do so is that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I regard the cap as an unfortunate necessity. The ambition and the emphasis must be to end the cap as soon as possible. Therefore we need to focus minds on the creation of that effective marketplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I was doing really well until the last sentence. I tried to follow my noble and learned friend. Of course, there will be a period leading up to the point at which the Secretary of State has to make the decision on whether to keep the cap. At that time, he will look at the information that is available to him and make a judgment on whether the conditions for effective competition are in place.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her full and helpful answer. I was very clear when she sought to sit down that all was well. I will need to read my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay’s intervention before we come back at Third Reading. My expectation is that we can find a way through this to meet my concern that, conditions permitting, the cap can end in 2020, and to meet the concerns that have been expressed by a number of learned experts from the industry on the correct discretion on the extension of the cap. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Energy Policy

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord much further in his accusations of lack of vision. I think that he would be one of the first to say that it would show a lack of straightforward common sense and financial honesty to go ahead with a scheme that was going to cost quite so much, and quite so much to the Welsh consumer and Welsh businesses in terms of their costs for electricity.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the Energy Minister at the time when the Hendry report was under way. The truth is that this is the most attractive of projects. However, sadly, it is dreadful value for money—so I agree reluctantly with the Government’s conclusion. What progress are the Government making with nuclear renewal, not only at Hinkley Point C—which has been mentioned and which is creating jobs and apprenticeships and helping us to fill the decline in the nuclear baseload—but with the new nuclear fleet, notably in Wales and Cumbria?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the announcement that my right honourable friend made about Wylfa the other day and of the work that is being done in Anglesey on the prospect of having a nuclear power station there. She will also be aware that work has started at Hinkley. We therefore hope in due course—in about 2025, I think—to see further nuclear energy coming on as baseload to assist with our energy security. I also hope that in due course we will see more nuclear energy at Moorside in Cumbria, which my noble friend is well aware of. As a Cumbrian, I too am aware of it. As I said earlier, I hope that we will hear more about the prospects of other work in due course.

Brexit: Creative Sector

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what risks they have identified to the creative sector, especially to the intellectual property it generates, as a result of Brexit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has one of the best intellectual property regimes globally. The creative industries’ concerns focus on copyright, where reciprocal protections are underpinned by international law, and unregistered designs, which the UK will continue protecting. Some EU-derived copyright provisions and the reciprocal EU-UK protection of unregistered designs will be a matter for our future relationship.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, copyright is of fundamental importance to the creative sectors. They range from music to TV to art to the written word and, indeed, increasingly to traditional businesses, as the digital revolution gathers pace. It has been established, for example, by UK Music that around 17% of music is accessed illegally. At present, the EU provides important protections for copyright. As the UK leaves the EU, could the Minister reassure the House that this protection will be maintained and, if possible, enhanced, for example by online services taking a greater degree of responsibility for clamping down on copyright infringement?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to highlight the importance of this sector, and I want to emphasise just how big the creative industries are as an exporting sector and in terms of what they produce in this country. I stress, as I did at the beginning, that much of our reciprocal copyright protection is underpinned by international law, but obviously there are parts that need protection that involve EU-UK law. That will obviously be a matter for our future relationship, and that is a matter for the ongoing negotiations taking place at the moment.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th June 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak, if I may, in favour of Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. At Second Reading, I referred briefly to my attempts to change tariff with my electricity and gas supplier. I think I described it as a parlour game on a computer system that did not always work. It seems to me that what we need to give the public is, first, clarity and, secondly, the capacity to compare one supplier with another.

Let me give two analogies, one good and one bad. The first occurred to me on Saturday when I was standing at a bus stop in central London alongside a hoarding advertising a new credit card deal. At the bottom of the advertisement, in big letters, it said, “Interest rate 57%”. On the face of it, that is quite a high interest rate, but the company has to advertise that interest rate so that it is really clear to the consumer. That is the sort of clarity we need. The bad analogy relates to train fares. Noble Lords who travel a great deal by train may, like me, go on to one of the internet sites that offer you the timetable and the train fares. With train fares there is absolutely no way of making a decent comparison between the different options available. Indeed, it is so complicated that, if you buy your ticket in Llandrindod Wells to go to Paddington, it may be a different price for precisely the same ticket if you buy it in Paddington to go to Llandrindod Wells.

If we are going to do this job now in the Bill, what is required is to ensure that consumers are able to make a proper comparison between the supplier they have and the alternative suppliers available. It does not mean that they will necessarily take the cheapest supplier. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, made a point about green suppliers. Some of us might decide that we are prepared to pay a few pounds extra for the purposes of a better environment, but at the moment we have no way of knowing what sort of value green suppliers present. We have to go on to their website and take their word for it, which is not necessarily good enough. Amendment 23 at least makes a start in achieving those joint aims of clarity and the ability to compare.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for setting off a discussion on this important issue of communication with consumers on electricity prices and the cap. I was going to add to the discussion from my own experience as a householder in Wiltshire. I have had a letter from SSE which is meant to tell me simply how my electricity prices are increasing, what I could do and how I might be able to pay less. I have to say that it is very difficult to understand, so there is a problem outwith the legislation that we are putting through. It is also wrong to suggest that energy companies are always trying to dissemble. How well they do depends on satisfying the consumer and the better ones want to be able to say clearly what is happening.

If we were to add to the system a requirement to communicate about the tariff cap provision, it would make the sort of letter that I have already described yet more complicated. My own experience is that these things can be costly to business. When the minimum wage came in, I remember being telephoned by the business department—I was at Tesco at the time—to ask whether we could put the minimum wage on our payslips. Having talked to our ICT people, I discovered that it would cost us an extra £1 million to put the minimum wage on the payslip. It was therefore agreed that the minimum wage could be communicated in other things. I worry that if we in this Committee put down requirements, it could have a similarly escalating effect on costs.

I have looked at the impact assessment—noble Lords will remember that I am always passionate about the usefulness of impact assessments—but this one does not go into any detail. It just suggests that there are savings to consumers. If we were to add extra provisions on communication, we would need to consider the cost of that because it would then get passed through to the consumer. That cost will apply to the small, new entrants to the industry as well as to the bigger suppliers.

That leads me to one final thought. When we took through the Consumer Rights Bill, in which we were also concerned about communication to consumers, the department worked with the industry to produce special communication. That was then used across the retail industry to inform shops as to the new rights that were coming in for consumers. I wonder whether some of the concerns raised today could not be met by voluntary action within the industry, dedicated to improving clarity for consumers in this important area.

[Lord Berkeley]

The noble Baroness cited a figure for the cost for communication but in terms of the total cost to the businesses we are talking about, that figure must still be very small. Given the example that I quoted of the banks being required to provide paper statements for anybody who wanted them, surely it is more important that anybody should have access by whatever reasonable means to the information, even at the expense of them paying a little more on communication. The people who will suffer are those who cannot fiddle with their emails, even if they can get the information by email.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I can understand that. Clearly, there may well be a case for requiring some communication to be online and some on paper because some people cannot manage online. However, what I am saying is that this will involve changes in systems across however many energy suppliers there now are—I do not know whether it might be 40, 50 or 60—and there is a cost to that, which we have not looked at or costed. How that fits in with suppliers’ information systems can make a big difference. Clearly, the Bill is going ahead rather rapidly. I have seen no analysis of this angle of things, which is why I support these amendments this afternoon, at least in the form of probing amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

What it will do, as I thought I had made clear, is make it easier to open the door to innovative third-party switching devices, such as the devices I referred to, I think, during the debate on the Smart Meters Bill. These will allow the consumer to find himself automatically shifted from one supplier to another if he says, “I always want the cheapest tariff”, or, “I always want the greenest tariff”. Such things are being developed and midata will help towards that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I now understand why the letter I received is so difficult to understand. It reflects the provisions that the Minister has explained that Ofcom has imposed about having to show how you could pay less even if you cannot in fact pay less, which is the situation in my letter. That leads me to make a small request. It would be great if the Minister were able, between now and Report, to look at how communication is actually decided in the Ofcom area. Is there proper communication with consumers who might be recipients of these letters? We tend to be policy-driven rather than customer-driven, and I heartily endorse what the Minister said about keeping it simple. Talking to consumers about what they are going to be sent might be very helpful.

[Lord Henley]

I am more than happy to consider that and to write to my noble friend so that we can perhaps consider this again on Report. As I was saying in winding up, we all have the same desire: we want to make sure that the consumer has the right information to make the appropriate decisions that they wish to make. With that in mind, we hope that Ofgem—not Ofcom—will continue to develop its work in that field.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

29: Clause 7, page 5, line 3, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c)

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 29 I will speak to linked Amendments 30 and 34. I should perhaps express my regret that I arrived too late to speak at Second Reading as a consequence of other commitments.

The purpose of these amendments is to make it more difficult to extend the duration of a price cap and to ensure that it is temporary, if I may pick up the useful word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her amendment to Clause 2. As the helpful notes on the Bill say in paragraph 15:

“The cap applies until the end of 2020 but it may be extended, for a year on up to three occasions, if the conditions for effective competition in the market for supply contracts are not in place”.


The basic point is that I am unconvinced of the merits of price caps. Setting prices at a low level may seem superficially attractive but experience in many jurisdictions shows the problems that they create. For example, in California in 2001 retail prices were capped at levels that ended up being below the wholesale cost of energy. As a result, retailers found themselves $20 billion in debt and one of them went bankrupt. The state then had to step in. Price caps are against most economic theory and have unintended consequences, as we have discussed, so there is no need for me to labour the point.

If I may, though, I will share one personal experience of price regulation somewhat akin to what we are now discussing. As a junior civil servant, I was responsible for the milk costing system, administered with the help of a leading accountancy firm. In effect, we were responsible for setting the permitted retail price of milk. Unfortunately, a member of the departmental team unwisely agreed that a visit to an international dairy conference in Miami was a legitimate expense. As a result, everyone paid more for their milk. This was an early lesson in why it is better to avoid government interference in pricing.

Still, we are where we are and we need to improve the Bill. I believe it would be much better if the cap ended in 2020 and that, as drafted, it is far too easy for the Government to extend it. Indeed, there seems to be almost no prospect of ending it before 2023. Yet the Minister, Claire Perry, said in Committee in the Commons that there was,

“strong consensus in the Committee”,

that the cap should be temporary and that a proposal under discussion to extend it further,

“creates disincentives and uncertainty in a market where we have to have certainty to generate investment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill Committee, 15/3/18; cols. 86-88.]

I would add that price caps where the case for a cap is strongest—for those 4 million households with prepayment meters, and for a million vulnerable consumers—have already been introduced by Ofgem. I ask the Minister to update us on the impact of those before the Bill leaves Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made some powerful points about those very consumers and the complications of dealing with them. I hope his commission will come up with some simple innovative ideas that we can all support.

I heartily dislike needless regulation. I would like the Government to come back to Parliament and seek primary legislation if they want to extend these temporary controls beyond 2020. Clause 8 makes it far too easy to extend them, and my amendments would return this power to Parliament. I know from my wide experience of government as a civil servant, from working in business and as a Business Minister that getting rid of regulation is always a low priority in the modern world. This hurts competitiveness and is bad for our economy. I very much welcome the use of a sunset clause but it should be just that. As for the detail of what is proposed, my Amendments 29, 30 and 34 would remove the possibility of extending the cap by deleting most of Clause 8 and making related amendments to the review procedure in Clause 7.

I have to accept that there is a political dimension to the proposed price cap, and I know the Minister will have to support the Bill in the round. However, I would ask him to go away and think about whether we should really extend the cap beyond 2020 without primary legislation—that is, another Bill—and the process of review that always precedes such legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a somewhat complicated group of amendments because within it are points of view that are mutually contradictory and indeed on which we hold contradictory positions. So we are not going to agree on this, and I look forward to hearing the Minister trying to weave a way through that does not upset one side or the other too much. He does not normally care too much about whether he does that, but that is for another time.

Our amendments are probably based on the assumption that the rather high aspirations that you can read into the Bill in terms of how it might reform and change the basic market for electricity and gas supply will be achieved, and takes the sanguine view that they are not going to be achieved in time for the cap to be reduced at the appropriate time. If that is the case, it also has the benefit of making sure that vulnerable consumers are not caught by the other schemes referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which we discussed earlier. They would continue to operate and we would take that to be a good thing, but as we have discovered, that is of course not the primary purpose of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I hope that I can deal with this group of amendments in the two, three or four-dimensional manner that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has asked me to. Given that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe moved the first amendment, I should say that, like her, generally speaking the Government are not convinced about price caps. We have our doubts and we made it clear at Second Reading that we do not like to go down this route and we said that it had to be temporary, albeit with an ability to extend the cap for a short while, year by year, but no more than that.

The aim of my noble friend’s amendment is to end it in 2020. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, also has some sympathy with that, as she returns her party to classic, 19th-century liberalism—a wonderful development. We believe that it should be a temporary measure and that 2020 is the right time to end it, with the ability to extend it to a final, absolute sunset in 2023. I do not think that removing the possibility of extending would provide consumers with protection if the conditions for effective competition were not in place at the same time. As I said, we prefer to do it that way. I rather dread the thought of further primary legislation each year if we wanted to extend it or do it for another year. We have already had that with other Bills.

My noble friend asked if I could report a little on the prepayment meter cap and the effect it has had. The evidence seems to be that, since the cap, prices have come down to below it. There has been some bunching of prices, but there is competition below the cap in the prepayment market. That shows that these things can occasionally work. However, as I said to my noble friend, philosophically we do not like the idea of caps. I rather agree with her.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke to Amendment 32, the purpose of which appears to be to create a firm link between the price cap’s removal and the completion of the rollout of smart meters. It seems to suggest that the cap can be extended in circumstances where the smart meters programme has been completed, but the conditions for effective competition are not in place. The rollout of smart meters is but one of many possible indicators that define a competitive market. There will be other indicators of the conditions for effective competition. Ofgem’s consultation points towards other factors that might indicate that the conditions for effective competition are in place, including ways of improving customer engagement and increasing switching. I am sure that the amendment aims to be helpful, but I believe it is simpler and safer to leave it to Ofgem to assess the conditions for effective competition, rather than put provisions on the face of the Bill that would link statements about the future of the price cap to particular programmes.

The noble Lord also spoke to Amendments 33 and 35. The Government would not wish to see an inversion of this Bill’s policy intention by removing the price cap’s sunset clause. I repeat that we have no intention of delivering an indefinite price cap. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, this is a targeted and temporary intervention until the conditions for effective competition are in place. I think that is why the Bill achieved broad, cross-party consensus in another place and was endorsed by the BEIS Select Committee. Amendment 35 would also increase the risk of transforming this temporary measure into a permanent feature of the retail energy market. Again, we do not believe that that would be appropriate.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 37, which is a probing amendment seeking to understand the purpose of Clause 9. Clause 9 empowers Ofgem to modify the standard supply licence conditions following the removal or cessation of the tariff cap as specified under Clause 8. The clause allows Ofgem to modify the standard supply licence conditions as it considers necessary or expedient, but with the requirement that Ofgem publishes the modifications to alert all stakeholders as to the impact of the modifications. The publication of the Secretary of State’s decision will alert stakeholders to the cap coming to an end. This provision would enable the licence conditions to be tidied up to reflect the cap being lifted. Otherwise, they would remain in the licence but would be redundant.

We have been clear that the price cap is a necessary intervention in the market, but one that should only remain until the conditions for effective competition are in place. The decision on extending or removing the cap will be made in the light of the report and recommendation from the expert regulator. The Government are not prepared to enable this price cap to be a permanent feature as it could risk distorting the market, but noble Lords will wish to note that Ofgem has enduring powers to protect consumers and specific duties regarding vulnerable consumers. Indeed, Ofgem has indicated that it may be necessary to have in place price protection for a narrower set of consumers once the price cap under this Bill has ceased to be in place.

I hope I have provided the appropriate assurances. Though the amendments are coming from rather different directions, I hope first of all that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment with the assurance I have given and, secondly, that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will not feel it necessary to move his amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank my noble friend for his philosophical reassurance. Certainly, I would not want to add a link to smart meters because, as he said, it is only one factor that we will need to take into account. The extension power in Clause 8 gives the Executive too much power and I ask the Minister to give the matter further thought before Report, but I withdraw my amendment with great pleasure.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 36A. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for putting his name to it.

The discussions around the Bill have touched on the loyalty penalty and the tease-and-squeeze tactics mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, which are the root cause. In good consumer markets, competition drives down prices to deliver good outcomes for all customers—even those who shop around only every once in a while—because new customers see the same prices as loyal customers. In bad consumer markets, competition pits a small minority of highly engaged customers against the vast majority of those who, quite reasonably, engage only occasionally. These loyal customers cross-subsidise deals for a tiny minority of new customers for the first year of their deals. We know that those who can least afford it are disproportionately losing out under this broken market. To put it another way, our poorest citizens are subsidising the better-off in society. Currently, this loyalty penalty runs to hundreds of pounds per year being overpaid by millions of people to companies that exploit them. It is good that the absolute price cap will set an upper limit on the effects of this detriment, but it will still allow the behaviour to continue. It would be a wasted opportunity to allow this legislation to pass without also addressing the cause of the loyalty penalty.

Amendments 36 and 36A propose a relative price cap: a limit between a supplier’s cheapest tariff and its most expensive. In moving Amendment 36, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara set out the arguments for a relative price cap. I want to add my support to this for two reasons. The first is fairness. We must bring an end to the grotesque idea that markets must necessarily punish those customers who do not relentlessly police them. Britain’s consumer regulations are some of the best in the world. They embody the principles of transparency and fair play to ensure that customers operate on a level playing field with corporations, so that our citizens can use their collective consumer power to get a better deal for everyone. That means that shopkeepers who short-change us, or manufacturers that mislabel their products, can be brought to justice.

However, in this area, our regulations simply fail, and they fail our most vulnerable citizens the hardest. They must be updated for the modern era. We must send a signal to markets—and the companies that seek to operate within them—that a “divide and conquer” or “tease and squeeze” approach to customers is not acceptable. Our hard-working citizens deserve to buy a product from a retailer without having the price hiked up when they are not looking. We must banish the principle of tease and squeeze.

Secondly, the role of legislation should be to bring lasting, meaningful reform that addresses the root cause of the problems facing our society. The loyalty penalty is a self-perpetuating dynamic. Efficient suppliers who want to offer good-value prices to their customers and not inflict tease-and-squeeze deals on them are disadvantaged in a market in which competition is purely driven by their position on a price comparison website. We have already seen this happen with some of the early challenger suppliers, which have started to ape the behaviour of the big six so that they can succeed in the market. Unless we break this cycle, the market will continue to be dysfunctional. The absolute cap will partially mask the symptoms for a couple of years, but the core detriment will continue and return with full force once the cap is lifted.

Introducing a limit on the gap between a supplier’s cheapest tariff and its most expensive will force companies to compete equally for new customers and loyal customers. This will reveal once and for all which companies are genuinely driving costs down and which companies are masking the real cost all along through pricing trickery. Some well-meaning people have warned that a relative price cap could lead to the big six removing their cheapest deals from the market, but we know that these so-called cheap deals are anything but, as 95% of people will roll on to an expensive tariff at the end of their first year, and end up paying more overall. Losing these deceptive deals would be good riddance to bad rubbish.

What is more, once we make pricing transparent, we will unleash the forces of the dozens of newer, more efficient suppliers. Once they are able to compete on a level playing field, customers will see a daily price war for their custom, as we see for groceries. By cleaning up energy pricing, customers who switch can be confident of getting a cheaper supplier, not one that is simply dangling misleading offers. Switching will be worthwhile, instead of being a merry-go-round, and we will restore consumer trust in a market that currently does not deserve it.

In moving Amendment 36, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara has already proposed that a relative price cap should be implemented after the price cap, but why wait to introduce meaningful reform to a market that has already been failing customers for two decades? If something is worth doing, it is worth doing now. What is more, we are going to see a full-scale rollout of smart meters in the next two years. That gives us an imminent deadline to clean up pricing and restore trust in the market. Otherwise, we face a real danger that people will reject the opportunities that smart energy can provide.

Amendment 36A proposes that the relative price cap should be introduced immediately, alongside the absolute price cap, and be ongoing. Amendment 36 will therefore give customers the choice to stay where they are without fear of being exploited and remove the need to hunt every year for a fair price. It could be a step towards reducing the number of tariffs on the market, making buying energy even simpler for customers. Introducing a fair mechanism into the UK energy market is long overdue and benefits everyone, from those who buy energy to their suppliers, who are forced to improve their efficiencies to compete. That is why a relative price cap is a good idea for everyone and why it should be implemented at the same time as the absolute cap and be ongoing. I hope the Minister will see the benefits in both these amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Noble Lords will know that I am not in favour of extending the cap, in whatever way. However, I am interested to hear about the relative tariff differential and would like to understand further how that works. I think the proposal here is that it should be imposed as well as a cap—it seems to me that that gives you a double regulation and I am not convinced that that is necessary. It would, however, be good to understand—the Minister may well be able to comment on this—what the advantages are of a relative cap in relation to the end I think we all seek, which is a more competitive market.

The noble Baroness mentioned retailers. As I was a retailer, I know that 19% to 20% of customers changing their supplier annually is quite a high figure, but the key point is that the underlying dynamics in the market are encouraging players to reduce prices and to innovate. That is what we want to see in energy. It would be good to hear from the Minister how he sees that happening in a situation where we have a cap, whatever its nature.

[Lord Henley]

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, to our discussions. Amendments 36 and 36A are broadly similar in asking the Secretary of State to develop an ongoing relative tariff differential. However, Amendment 36 says:

“The relative tariff differential shall take effect on the termination of the tariff cap conditions”,


while Amendment 36A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, to which a Liberal, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has joined his name—it must have good free-market credentials—says:

“The relative tariff differential is to take effect on the commencement of the tariff cap conditions and to be ongoing after the tariff cap conditions cease”.


They are broadly similar but would come into effect at different times. They would cap the most expensive advertised variable and default rate tariffs as a proportion of the cheapest, and Ofgem would set the differential.

There may be a need for further protections once the cap has ended, particularly for vulnerable consumers. Ofgem has indicated as much and has enduring powers to operate protections but I do not think it would be sensible to seek to determine the precise form that any protection takes, if it is needed at all. The energy market is likely to change significantly between now and then. Smart meters are just one part of that. The new clause inserted by these amendments would seem to introduce an indefinite relative price cap. It is not the intention of the Bill or the Government to put in place such a permanent cap.

We have come back again to tease and squeeze, which the noble Lord mentioned earlier. I briefly responded to that. I appreciate that the aim is to get rid of the practice of tease and squeeze. However, there is the risk that under the amendments suppliers would raise their least expensive standard variable and default tariffs, rather than decrease their most expensive. That is the Government’s fundamental concern about any kind of relative price cap. The Government and others, including the BEIS Select Committee, believe that a relative price cap would not work. I do not see how the outcome of a relative price cap would be any different, whether it was in place alongside an absolute cap or after the absolute price cap had been removed. A relative cap as a permanent feature of the market risks undoing the work of the temporary absolute cap.

The best way of ending the practice of tease and squeeze will be the detailed work, as I said, that Ofgem is undertaking to test better ways to secure customer engagement; the work to make switching quicker and more reliable; and the many other programmes to make the market work better. Recent changes mean suppliers can now make their default tariff a fixed-rate rather than a variable-rate deal, and many have done so. The Government believe that better engagement and better switching that leads to more effective competition is a proportionate and sustainable solution, rather than concurrent and permanent relative price caps. I hope that my explanations will satisfy noble Lords and my noble friend. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Product Safety: Freezers and Refrigerators

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, all fires are potentially disastrous and it is right that the noble Baroness should highlight that point. The number of fires that have been caused by fridge freezers is very small indeed—something like 2% of all domestic fires—and the number is declining. We are aware of the concerns, which she rightly highlights, about products with plastic rather than metal backing. That is why we are looking at strengthening standards in that area. As I made clear, I think that our standards are already very high, and all the fridges meet those standards. The Which? report, rightly highlighted by the noble Baroness and her noble friend, said that we should possibly look at strengthening those standards. That is what we are doing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, in view of what has been said, I am very glad that the Government have set up a new Office for Product Safety and Standards, and am grateful for my invitation to visit it. On from fridges, what is being done with the many hundreds of thousands of outstanding Whirlpool tumble driers, which also pose a fire safety risk? I believe that the Minister must be on the consumer’s side in these matters.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I think I have used the expression, “The consumer is always right” on other occasions. We are on the consumer’s side. My noble friend will be aware that my honourable friend Andrew Griffiths has already had discussions with Whirlpool and made his concerns clear. This question is related not just to fridge freezers but, as my noble friend is well aware from her experience as a Minister in this department, and I am grateful for the work she did, to other items as well. We want to look at all the standards and make sure that we continue to have the right standards and that they are as stringent as possible.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I support this and the other amendment in the group. One of the concerns we have, as expressed on the first day in Committee and at Second Reading, is about disclosure of the actions and steps that have been taken by the Government to meet the undoubtedly genuine, real and merited concerns that have been expressed about the process of leaving Euratom and this Bill.

In that context, I thank the Minister very fully for the letter he wrote to me on 28 February, which has been placed in the Library, relating to the activities that have taken place between the Government and the IAEA, the European Commission and various third countries, which he named in the letter. He has provided a wealth of information which enables us to understand more about the part of the process with which it deals. The amendments seek disclosure about other parts of the process.

Although I support the amendments, I do not regard it as necessary for statutory provisions to be created to provide the information that is set out. What I do regard as essential is a similar generous and helpful approach by the Minister in which the items set out in the two amendments are the subject of an undertaking that the Government will keep the whole of Parliament fully informed about the process and progress of discussion of the items referred to. That is not an unreasonable demand, but is the least the House can reasonably expect.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I agree about the importance of consultation, as noble Lords will know, and also about the proper resourcing of the ONR. However, I am nervous about the precedent set by proposed subsection (9)(b) in the amendment. It would be very difficult if this was established as a new approach to SIs. As the Minister knows, resources are sometimes constrained when you bring in new legislation, but that is not a reason not to proceed with regulations. I recall milk quotas, where a vast amount of administrative work was involved—but that did not mean to say that it was not right to proceed with that part of EU policy at that time.

It is also not clear how many people will need to be involved in resourcing work. I accept that this is a problem in the nuclear area, but I would guard against putting that sort of provision into legislation—although it might be that the amendment is purely exploratory. I very much agree that we need comfort on resourcing for the ONR, and I thought that the Minister gave us some comfort when he last spoke.

I have another question for the Minister about transition. The draft withdrawal agreement published yesterday covers Euratom—slightly to my surprise, because I believed and hoped it would be in a separate instrument. But that is as it is; it is in the draft document. I am interested to know, since the document also covers transition, whether that means that Euratom will be part of any transition agreement likely to be agreed in the coming weeks and months. Confirmation of that would be helpful because it bears on some of the other concerns we have had about the process of bringing nuclear safeguards into UK law—and of course the resourcing and the time for the ONR to do a proper job are critical.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I discern from the letter sent on 20 February by the Minister to the Lords who have participated in the various stages of the Bill so far that the Government intend to impose most of the costs of a nuclear safeguarding regime on the civil nuclear industry. It is clear that the regime will deal mainly with matters that are remote from the everyday concerns of the civil industry. Therefore, it seems inappropriate that it should be asked to bear most of the costs. Be that as it may, it is appropriate that it should be consulted regarding provisions of statutory regulations. This is not what is being called for directly in the amendments. However, unless the Government signal clearly that they intend to consult the industry, this is something they should be enjoined to do by an amendment to be brought forward on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Obviously the noble Lord is right that assets belonging to Euratom are in there. I do not think I am giving away any secrets if I say that on my visit I saw physical things that were Euratom assets; there will also be software and other things. I am sure that deals will be done as part of the negotiations, and some of those will be transferred over. I do not think I can go any further at the Dispatch Box and I would not want to, but if there is anything more that I can say in a letter then I shall. I will make sure that my letter goes to all noble Lords by whatever means in this inclement weather—we will get it to the noble Lord—and place copies in the Library, which is where people like to find them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Email is also very useful these days.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have discovered email. I can use all possible methods.

I have given the assurance that I will ensure that noble Lords are kept informed. As I think I have made clear, I do not think the amendments are necessary or, for that matter, particularly helpful, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that we will do our bit to keep all noble Lords appropriately informed of these matters and will make the precise Written Statements that are necessary at the appropriate moment. With that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the questions raised in this debate and I start by associating myself with support for the nuclear industry and for nuclear R&D. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, the nuclear industry was founded in this country.

I support the Bill, as I think that we need to plan for the withdrawal from Euratom in a responsible way. The Bill is relatively clear, and we have seen the draft implementing regulations, which are very helpful—I thank the Minister for that. As in other Brexit areas, the Government need to put EU provisions into UK law because many people in this country have told us that that is what they want. I believe that, as a scrutinising Chamber, we need to progress matters technically and that we should provide the powers that the Energy Ministers need to negotiate the necessary nuclear agreements and to strengthen the ONR.

However, I want to make one point which perhaps builds a little on what has been said by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. If we crash out of the EU in March 2019 or, alternatively, at the end of an agreed implementation period, will the Minister consider informing the EU at that point that we would like to reverse the bespoke Article 50 for Euratom and put up with a little bit of potential ECJ involvement—at least until an association agreement with Euratom is arranged or a relevant trade agreement with the EU is finalised? Once the air clears, the two sides will be bound to return to the negotiating table and will no doubt start to agree things on important areas such as nuclear.

I am not sure that my concern calls for an amendment to the Bill but we must avoid any risk of enhanced nuclear non-proliferation and the industry disruption and damage that would go with it. Therefore, if we could find a way of retaining some flexibility in the event of a bad outcome, that could be helpful, and I shall be grateful if the Minister has anything to say by way of reassurance. I had thought that perhaps we should not go ahead with this Bill but, by looking at it carefully, I have been persuaded that we need to get on with it.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments propose an associate membership of Euratom. In effect, they propose a deferment of our severance from Euratom and possibly even an indefinite deferment.

There is a marked contrast between the bland assurances we have received from the Government that everything regarding nuclear safeguards will be in place by March 2019 and the anxieties expressed by other parties, including, in a professionally restrained manner, the ONR, which is due to assume the duties of nuclear safeguarding. It has indicated that it is struggling to meet the deadline. The regime that it might have in place by March will be decidedly understaffed, and surely the danger that the deadline will be missed fully justifies the provisions of these amendments.

There are also anxieties regarding the ability to establish the necessary nuclear co-operation agreements with third parties in a timely manner. Such agreements depend on the existence of a nuclear safeguarding regime that is compliant with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it will take some time to achieve this. We are fearful that the requirement that a nuclear co-operation agreement with the USA be ratified by the Senate will give rise to a lengthy hiatus during which our nuclear industry may be deprived of some essential supplies.

There is also the matter of medical isotopes, which it is appropriate to raise at this juncture. The Minister has told us that the Government take their continued availability most seriously and assures us that this issue is quite distinct from nuclear safeguarding. Well, it is not a matter that is separate from our membership of Euratom. Euratom appears to have played a significant role in ensuring their continued and timely availability when they have been extremely scarce. By leaving Euratom prematurely we shall be prejudicing the security of our supplies, and this is a good reason for deferring our departure.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, underline the desirability of an implementation period in this area as in other Brexit areas. For clarity, I want to ask a question arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. Are energy officials and Energy Ministers able to get on with this? The assumption that I have been working on is that the timetable is tight in this nuclear area and that discussions therefore need to go ahead with the IAEA, Euratom and the other nuclear states. Is that work in hand? Is there a plan for it? It would be helpful if the Minister were able to respond on that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I want briefly to speak in support of Amendment 14, which bears my name. While avoiding repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, I want to pick out subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause, which refers to, “relevant research projects”. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, spoke eloquently in a previous debate about the importance of research in this area. As your Lordships and, I am sure, the Minister know, the UK benefits enormously from the long-term research funding and its membership of the Fusion for Energy programme, which flow through the Euratom relationship. I think the supply chain has been awarded some £0.5 billion to date and expects more, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority receives significant sums—around £50 million. On a broader level, as a leading participant in Euratom and the research element of it, the United Kingdom has been able authoritatively to drive research priorities. What does the Minister envisage our authority being following this process? Will it have risen or sunk as a result of our ability to drive and influence research in the nuclear field?

My noble friend Lord Teverson illustrated how hard and tough the Table Office has been on the wording of the amendments. In many cases—certainly, in other conversations—the Minister has ruled out of order a lot of what we have talked about. However, on Amendment 14, which covers some of these areas, the Table Office has been clear that this is in spec with the Bill and our debate today.