Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Redesdale and Lord Grantchester

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the purpose of this order; it covers one of the problems that many in the renewable industry have faced, especially the problems associated with a sudden rise in the number of people wanting to claim FITs. However, will the Minister say whether this is part of a longer-term strategy to deal with renewable heat, which is very difficult, and ROCs was one of the main planks for dealing with it, or whether this is just a way of making sure that the subsidy cap falls within the budgetary requirements set? I declare an interest as CEO of the Energy Managers Association—so I quite understand my members’ need for lower bills. However, if we are to diversify the energy systems, we need to look at biomass quite carefully. I quite understand that ROCs is an expensive way forward on this. One final question: does this have any effect on the anaerobic digestion industry?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, which seeks to control the costs of supporting two forms of renewable energy generation under the renewables obligation scheme: in former fossil-fuel generating stations using as fuel biomass, or a mixture of biomass and fossil fuels—called co-firing. It also requires a declaration to be provided by certain stations when claiming support for combined heat and power generation, and clarifies the greenhouse gas emissions trajectories with which certain CHP stations must comply.

It must be said at the outset that although this RO scheme has not yet come to an end, it is now closed to new applicants and has been superseded with a contracts for difference scheme. It also needs to be said that, in 2011, the Government introduced the levy control framework to govern the budget for low-carbon electricity schemes, including the RO scheme, which are paid for through consumer bills.

The operation of the LCF has come in for considerable criticism for being opaque and disingenuous, such that in the Autumn Budget 2017, the Conservative Government announced the control of low-carbon levies to limit new levies until the LCF can be seen to be falling. The scheme here is set to achieve a further constraint on expenditure by setting a limit on the number of ROCs that can be applied for. It is fair to say that in the other place there was a long debate on whether this order would achieve the intention, as the amount of expenditure can vary according to the price of ROCs in the market.

The accompanying documentation to the order appears to confuse the process of creating a ROC, which is done by the generating station producing a certain amount of power and hence creating a ROC, and accounting for the value attached to that ROC, which is created and varies according to the demand for ROCs by suppliers which are obligated to purchase them from generators to meet their renewables obligation quotas. However, it does not follow that the reduction in the number of ROCs issued translates directly into savings in overall amounts paid for ROCs, and hence savings on customers’ bills—an amount set against the LCF—because ROC prices vary with supply and demand against the obligation level. The reduction in supply may send the value of a ROC up because more people are bidding for fewer ROCs to meet a fixed obligation level. The calculations attached to the SI do not appear to take this factor into account, but instead treat the estimated range of income as a fixed range determined by the number of ROCs.

As part of the consultation, several comments reflected that this could lead to discouraging biomass in a co-firing plant. This order could have a perverse effect and the proposals could potentially place more coal back on to the system, and do not properly account for the mechanisms behind ROCs. We therefore have great reluctance in passing the SI and suggest that the Government should take the measure away and recast it. It is a complex jigsaw that seeks to use the number of ROCs as a way of constraining expenditure, when the price of ROCs is not set but can vary. There are serious misgivings that the scheme will not do what it claims. However, as a scheme that is now replaced by the CfD scheme, the situation may be contained over time. With that, I can reluctantly approve the order.

Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Redesdale and Lord Grantchester

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, although we support these minor amendments, I have two questions for the Minister. First, there is talk of making sure that there is no contaminated feedstock for combustion. Is this as a result of a particular action, or is it looking forward to a potential breach of the rules? Secondly, CfDs have had one benefit, although they have often skewed the marketplace rather badly: they have shown, through the auction prices, that offshore wind is one of the most economic ways of generating, and that onshore wind is even better at generating power at the lowest cost to consumers. In the light of that, will the Government reconsider their position on onshore wind?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations, which in general we support. I understand that the Government are beginning to be congratulated on allowing onshore wind, in some shape or form, to finally compete in the marketplace for renewable generation. We note that the Conservative Party manifesto introduced a ban on onshore wind and are pleased to be able to welcome this small element of it coming on to the market, albeit in a highly constrained way. These remote islands must, by definition, be 10 kilometres off shore; over 50 kilometres of cabling must be used, of which 20 kilometres must be under sea. I was wondering how important it was that these so-called onshore wind turbines must not be seen and whether I would be able to see them if I went to the top of Blackpool Tower. I am teasing the Minister, but this seems to be a risible attempt to allow some kind of offshoring of onshore wind. I am sure we could all enjoy some of the programmes which could be made around these regulations.

To be more serious, because of these definitions, we feel that we are looking at a more expensive offshoring of onshore wind being favoured over the less expensive contribution of near-to-onshore wind. Regrettably, the costs to the consumer will therefore be more than if the Conservative Party had been able to allow onshore wind to compete openly and genuinely in the marketplace. With that, I approve the regulations.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Lord Redesdale and Lord Grantchester

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

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 11was previously moved in Committee. It may be the last but it is certainly not the least of those being debated today. Perhaps it is the most crucial, because it proposes an on-going condition in the energy market that the electricity and gas suppliers will always operate fairly and proportionately between customers and tariffs.

Labour is in favour of the Bill. The energy market has been broken for some time. My right honourable friend in the other place, Ed Miliband, first proposed that price caps should be in place to protect consumers from excessive gas and electricity prices. Customers have been paying on average up to £300 more than they would have paid if the market operated more competitively. The excess weighs more heavily on more vulnerable households—those less able to bear it.

While it is flattering to see our policies recognised and implemented by the Government, they have to be implemented right, and preferably right first time. While accepting and applauding what the Bill achieves, it is nevertheless not quite there. It does not tackle the scourge of “tease and squeeze” by the utility companies. This amendment calls out the behaviour of energy suppliers where they tease customers to nominate a cheaper, more attractive tariff in the first instance, only to move them slowly over time to a higher tariff when the customer will be squeezed again.

This feature of the market has been operating for some time. The effect is that those customers who do not ceaselessly monitor and challenge what is happening, once again move back to being in a more disadvantaged position vis-à-vis the more nimble and fleet of hand and foot customers. Those whom the Government call disengaged are protected by the price cap mechanism on the standard variable tariff and default tariffs of the Bill, while it is in operation. Once these mechanisms are withdrawn, ultimately no later than 2023, this protection will fall away. The loyalty penalty is a self-perpetuating dynamic of the market. This is perverse.

The Bill is only a short-term measure. It professes that whatever happens, however competitive the market may or may not be, the price cap will cease in 2023. Clause 8 provides for this to happen at an even earlier date should the Secretary of State be advised that effective competition has returned to the market. However, the default mechanism of 2023 does not mean that competitive conditions will be operating at that date. Indeed, under amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the default date would be sooner.

It would be risky and optimistic to expect competition to return. We do not know whether the Bill will be enough. Notwithstanding that, Labour wants to outlaw tease and squeeze from the market, which could generate a more competitive market altogether hereafter. Under Ofgem’s determination of a relative tariff cap operating in relation to the lowest price tariff, this behaviour can be removed from the market.

This measure does not indicate that Ofgem must look both ways. By this I mean it cannot be claimed, if it is determined that the market is operating competitively and therefore that the cap may be removed in 2020, 2021 or 2022, that the amendment is contradictory—that the market is operating competitively. There is no contradiction as the competitive market would be operating within a relative price differential: the more competitive, the narrower the differential would be. It would be up to Ofgem to determine that differential.

The market could look very different by 2023. The House has just passed the Smart Meters Act, in which the Government gave strong assurances that the UK’s infrastructure will have been transformed by that date. The Government are on notice to make those changes. Here, we have the means to outlaw tease and squeeze for all time without the need for new legislation at some later date. It is a priority now and we cannot be sure that it will remain a priority under whatever market conditions might pertain at a later date, or even should the market move away again and back towards a less competitive environment where this kind of behaviour thrives. Not only must it be clarified that Ofgem will have the power through the amendment; Ofgem must act to underline that tease and squeeze behaviour will not be tolerated. It is an open goal for the Government to score. I beg to move.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, while I understand where the amendment is coming from, it is not one I can support. The problem is that while we are asking the authority, Ofgem, to set a maximum price, we are now also specifying that there must be a minimum price. It would then be almost impossible for the authority to have a competitive marketplace to operate with.

The second problem inherent in this—a problem with the whole Bill—is that, while I understand the problems the bigger companies have because they do not have some of the obligations of the small companies, it will be an issue for Ofgem to try to work out where the cap will be in the first place. That will cause problems. We are also in a period where wholesale prices are rising. Therefore, there might be a slight problem if the companies, for different financial reasons, have to raise their prices. Would Ofgem then have to set a date at which all the companies raise their prices at the same time so that they do not break the cap? At that date, would it also then say that the minimum price has to be raised at the same rate?

I understand the idea that vulnerable customers should be protected. However, we are ending up with a marketplace in which there will be one default tariff that every single supplier will have to put forward. If there is a vote, I will vote against this, which is very much against my views—obviously my Front Bench will have a different view on this. This, however, is an area where what we want to happen and the reality on the ground vary substantially.

I should also declare an interest as the CEO of the Energy Managers Association. We represent all energy managers. It is rather unfortunate that while we are looking to protect vulnerable customers, we are not doing the same to protect SMEs and micro-businesses. There is an enormous amount of bad practice in the industry, with TPIs that have no code of practice, and Ofgem failing to enforce or even to have the power to protect SMEs in this marketplace. We are looking at protecting one sector of the marketplace while non-domestic customers will be hammered under bad practice. I raise this as this is the tail end of the Bill, although I spoke at Second Reading. I hope the Government can bring forward a Bill further down the line to regulate the whole third party, intermediary and energy broker marketplace for the non-domestic, but obviously it might be beyond the Minister’s ability to bring that forward.

Dog Control Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Redesdale and Lord Grantchester

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, before we pass the noble Lord’s Bill to the other place, I am reminded that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Report in June stated that he might have some more to say at Third Reading. Seeing the new Minister in his place, perhaps I may ask him if he would like to say a few words more.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I think the House knows that it is not customary for the House to debate the resolution that the Bill do now pass. Given my noble friend Lord Henley’s commitment to say something at Third Reading, I will briefly update the House.

I hope that I can reassure all noble Lords that I understand their concerns about dog control. However, the Government cannot support this Bill. My noble friend Lord Henley had been working on a comprehensive package of measures to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership. I continue to carry on his good work, including meetings with key stakeholders, and I hope to announce this package shortly.

Dog Control Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Redesdale and Lord Grantchester

Friday 4th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, before I answer some of the points that have been raised I want to say that the purpose of this Bill, as has been set out already, is that we have a major problem with the control of dogs in this country. While I am devastated by the Minister's response, I have brought forward so many Private Members’ Bills that I am hardly surprised at the position that the Government are taking at this stage. The reason for bringing this Bill forward is that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has created a situation in which people own dogs for the wrong reasons.

Some dogs are now owned by young men purely for the status that they give and to cause fear among other people. Many people will have heard stories about people feeling threatened by dogs that they suspect might be pit bull-type dogs that are off the lead and out of control. The purpose of the Bill is to try to look at that serious problem. The problem has massive cost implications because of the number of people who have gone to hospital with dog bites and the number of dogs that have been attacked. I was at a reception the other day with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which said that the number of guide dogs that are attacked by other dogs has risen year on year. That is unacceptable, and is the purpose of the Bill.

I will deal with the amendments and then come to the accusations that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and why they were brought about. The Bill has the support of most of the major dog organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that the RSPCA and ACPO are against this legislation. I noticed the other day that the noble Lord was being briefed by the RSPCA. I can answer his accusation very simply because the RSPCA originally drafted the Bill. It supported the Bill and then on the intervention of ACPO changed its position, as opposed to all the other dog organisations that carried on with their support.

I am particularly concerned about the position of ACPO. I talked to the organisation and was shocked to be hear, “Is it the role of the police to deal with dogs?” Anti-social dogs are a major cause of concern on the streets. It is incredible that ACPO has taken this position. Rather than try to say why the RSPCA should be listened to on this issue, I would ask why the RSPCA, having drafted this legislation and having worked with me over a number of months when I originally tabled this Bill, has suddenly changed its position. Nothing has changed except that it has decided to go down a different route.

I am sure the noble Lord will have noticed that the RSPCA lobbied him on dog licensing. Dog licensing has failed almost everywhere. There is dog licensing in Northern Ireland, but only a quarter to a third of people take it up. This is not about making more legislation for the people who are responsible; it is about targeting people who are irresponsible. I am glad that the noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment and that he will not press it.

On the second point, this Bill was unfortunately, as were many Private Members’ Bills, held up by the AV Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that I acted improperly. However, when the Bill was last scheduled to be heard on the Friday, the noble Lord had not tabled any amendments. I was going to talk to him about that, but no amendments were tabled until 5.30 on the Thursday night before the Friday sitting. It was quite clear that business time was stretched. Noble Lords had been sitting throughout the night and were unhappy about sitting late on a Friday, so the Whips Office felt that it had no option but to cancel the business. It was not my decision; it was taken by the Whips’ Office, and I think it was perfectly proper.

However, the issue that I am slightly perturbed about is that Private Members’ Bills are a way of expressing an interest in a situation. I had to cancel a large number of radio interviews and the organisations concerned had to cancel the press releases that they were doing to get the message across to the public.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord briefly. I did say that I had made several attempts to have a word with his office. I even had a word with the Defra officials to see whether I could contact him in order to explain our position, debate our approach to the Bill, and see whether we could find a way forward together. However, that contact was not forthcoming, so we were left in the position of having to go straight ahead. I might also say that it is not unusual for amendments to be tabled rather late in the day, as indeed some of the noble Lord’s were last night.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, if they cause fear that is a situation. However, we should take this in context. If noble Lords would read the Bill, its purpose is not to go down the route of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that any offence leads to the dogs being taken away and destroyed. If a control notice is given, it might be that it implies only that the owner should keep the dog on a lead in public places. It might imply that the owner should muzzle the dog or that the owner should undergo training. Many of these notices would stop all the problems that then go forward. Many of the dogs that attack children have a reputation for being out of control. Many dogs that attack other dogs go on to attack people. The purpose of this Bill is to bring about an early intervention at that point so that a control notice can be introduced which is appropriate to the situation.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, this group of amendments by and large improves the drafting yet there may still be one or two problems, as have been raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. From our Benches, we wish only to draw attention to Amendments 3, 6 and 7. Would Amendment 3 cover adequately the situation where gang members may encourage dogs to be intimidating perhaps only by their presence, by being with the dog and exhibiting the body language of aggression? We wonder whether that would take account of that situation. Would Amendment 6 criminalise every incident, however minor? We have concerns there. Amendment 7 clarifies that guard dogs could still be used, but would that leave the postman as a potential casualty?

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, on the issues raised we believe that these would be proportionate responses. The issue of postmen is covered in a later part of the Bill, especially regarding private land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asks me to tread on difficult and prickly ground. That is beyond my pay grade on these Benches. There has been much discussion about the Security Industry Authority’s roles and responsibilities. It is one of the organisations that will be carrying on for a while, and I am sure that its responsibilities will be passed on to another organisation. It might not have to be regulated to deal with this role.

[Lord Grantchester]

Amendment 8 would allow for guard dogs with adequate safeguards to be outside the scope of the noble Lord’s Dog Control Bill. Is that enough? He mentions that the RSPCA has swung behind the police, as if the RSPCA had not come forward with concerns about other areas in its briefing. This is one such area where it has expressed concern; it could lead to a flood of “Beware” signs going up all around the countryside, as if that would somehow allow due defence for dogs undertaking aggressive actions in people’s gardens and properties. The society draws attention to possible situations involving children. What would be the definition of adequately maintained boundaries, when we all know that fences between one person’s garden and another can become very insubstantial? Would the amendment now also allow guard dogs to be held by doormen in front of establishments such as nightclubs? Would that now be a permitted defence and use of dogs?

On Amendment 9, also in this group, the RSPCA has also drawn to our attention its concern that the Bill, particularly Clause 2(3), allows a lot of leeway whereby responsible dog ownership is somehow being neglected while the Bill merely focuses on attacks. Perhaps the noble Lord could comment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, under the present enforcement of dog legislation, there are a number of different bodies in different parts of the country. For example, in London there is a status dogs unit in the Metropolitan Police. That is not replicated in the same way anywhere else, so I do not think that you could say that one appropriate authority is taken on by a number of different organisations.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, this area highlights the very nature of dog legislation to encompass all the technicalities. It has only highlighted the very great difficulties that we have in trying to get control of the situation. These amendments are redrafted amendments in light of the criticism that this Bill was transferring dog control from the police to local authorities. The noble Lord has sought here to try to share the responsibility in some way. However, it is not entirely clear where responsibility will lie between the police and local authorities and who will be the appropriate supervising overall authority in this situation.

We understand that ACPO is not generally in favour of repealing Section 1 at the moment. It wants to get control of the situation, as it is concerned about the large number of dogs which are in the wrong hands and about public safety. So how exactly the responsibility between local authorities and the police will be divided is still largely unclear to me. Will the change be to local authorities, keeping present police officers as merely dog wardens? How will they be funded when given this new responsibility? The noble Lord spoke about the pressure on local authority budgets. We are far from convinced that there will be the savings that he suggests.

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, the approach of the Bill is not to bring about savings, and I am rather surprised by the position taken by the Opposition on this. Anybody who has ever been in a situation when an out-of-control dog has caused them fear would find it unacceptable that there is a lack of ability for enforcement in many situations. An attack actually has to take place for anything to happen. I was contacted by letter by a very concerned person who said that down their street was a Rottweiler that was out of control on many occasions; it had been reported to the police, who said that they had no powers to act until the Rottweiler had actually bitten somebody. They wrote to me later and said that, now the Rottweiler had actually bitten somebody, the police had taken it in hand. We should be in a position to act at a much earlier stage, so that the police can deal with these situations before they become far more serious.

On the point about savings, Section 1 has cost the Metropolitan Police £10 million over three years by taking the dogs off the street so that they have then to be kept in kennels, where they become even more desocialised. Many of those dogs, because it is so difficult to prove that they are pit bulls, are returned to their owners. I find it incredible that we are taking the dogs off the street and then nobody points out that they are going back to their owners. The legal costs are enormous. If that £10 million was spent not on enforcing Section 1 but on the provision of this Bill, it would pay for the measures in this Bill and bring about a saving.