Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Featherstone

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

There is no plot, my Lords. We are not trying to keep my noble friend Lord Grantchester away from the Dispatch Box but we find it more equitable to share the responsibility, so we are popping up as need demands. I am sure he will return to his commanding position as leader on the Bill very shortly.

It seems odd to have got to the third group of our amendments to find an amendment that, while ostensibly about the various types of cap that are envisaged in play, actually asks a rather deeper question. What is the Government’s intention behind the Bill and what is behind their intention to have Ofgem, as authority, introduce this within a reasonable time after the passing of the Bill? Is it to help vulnerable customers? Is it to help with fuel poverty? Both issues have been raised already in this debate. Or is it more focused on the market and its efficiency and is therefore unrelated to some of the issues we have already touched on, in terms of how people react to the provision of caps?

This issue was raised in the other place in Committee and on Report. What the Government were going to do about this was left open. At the heart of this amendment is a suggestion that the Government need to step up to the plate and tell us where they want to go on this. The discussion that took place in Committee in the other place on 30 April raised the points I shall make, at a superficial level. At the end, the Minister offered some assurances in summing up, but he did not bring forward amendments at later stages. Your Lordships’ House has not yet seen any from the Government.

At heart, there is common ground that it would be a perverse outcome of this price-cap Bill if low-income and vulnerable consumers currently protected by the safeguard tariff had their energy bills increased as a direct result of the introduction of measures in it. We are clearly looking for some certainty about this. Perhaps, when they are designing the wider cap, the Government could highlight that existing provisions require Ofgem to have due regard to low-income and vulnerable customers who are already protected by the safeguard tariff. I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, about this new cap needing a name; otherwise, we shall get into trouble over what we are talking about. There are, of course, other measures in place. There is a warm homes discount, which may be extended. To what extent does that interpose itself in relation to the cap in the Bill? There are measures to protect those who pay cash through prepaid meters in their homes. Where do they stand in relation to it?

To answer my original question, the Government see this more as a market-mechanism Bill than as anything to do with consumers, whether they are vulnerable, disabled, or fall into another category under existing measures. I think that is a mistake. A case was made in our first discussion this afternoon for making sure that we do not see the return of cold homes and the impact that illnesses have on the wider economy if people are not able to fund and maintain a warm and watertight home. However, the problem that needs to be solved for that to happen is not within the Bill but is raised by it. The current market allows for things to happen that are clearly inimical to consumer interests. We see a widespread use of what is called “tease and squeeze”. This is a technical term, which Hansard will want to look up. It is not found in any legal text but describes perfectly what happens to most customers of the big six and less so to those of the other 64 companies that make up the energy supply market, but it is still present. As was raised at Second Reading, it involves, in essence, the availability of extremely discounted initial tariffs to which people can switch, followed by a quick change to a much higher one, which is never really disclosed in any detail and does not appear on many price comparison sites. When you are signed up, you are squeezed. You are teased first with a chance to cut your energy bills quickly by moving to a wonderful new company that has sprung up. Within a year, however, you find that you are on a much higher tariff. If you pay by direct debit, as many people do, you may not notice that until the letter—probably not an email—arrives saying that you have suddenly built up huge arrears and have to pay them a large sum of money. I am not in any sense implying that any illegality or malpractice is going on in the marketplace, but it is certainly not in the consumer’s interest to have this tease and squeeze arrangement operating at will in a situation where the information flows are asymmetric and difficult to read and where the consumers themselves are not able to use effective mechanisms such as price comparison sites to identify exactly what their costs will be, both when they switch and, much more importantly, later.

Many noble Lords may have been approached by companies and others who have an interest in this area. It seems to attract a large number of people who have views on how this issue should go forward. Noble Lords will have been told that one of the major problems affecting it is that when you try to work out the actual costs of the deals that are available, and what they would mean to a consumer who is paying, the information is so opaque and difficult that people end up frustrated and unable to see it. They certainly do not get the most important information, which is the long-run cost that they are entering into.

Arguing back from where I had got to, if the Bill is primarily about improving the market, surely what we should be focusing on, given what I have been describing, is a better series of powers and regulations held by Ofgem to clean it up. We should ban “tease and squeeze” and make sure that consumers are offered clear and unequivocal information about what they are signing up to—now, a year down the line and further down the line, subject always to cost. We have to get behind the idea that this is in some sense a market, but to say that 70 companies compete openly and fairly for the consumer’s interest does not describe effectively what is happening. A group of small companies has been set up which are primarily concerned with issuing bits of paper called bills and getting money out of people. They do not have the sort of competitive marketing operations that we would expect in a fully fledged and operating market; I think the Government accept that. The Bill is only one very small part of what must happen next, which is a clean-up of the whole operation.

We know that this is one part of that. It was probably a politically inspired decision to try to get some locus in this area, which was very much the opposition parties’ game before the last election. Nevertheless, that will work only if some serious effort is put behind the arguments by bringing forward proposals that people will listen to and act on. If, as we have heard, the main measure behind this provision is the smart meters programme, the Government are putting their money on the wrong horse. From all the information we have—we will probably have the advice of the NAO in three or four months’ time—this programme does not seem to be delivering on the aspirations the Government had for it. If that does not work and the information in the home is not available to consumers at the point of consumption, we will not have an effective, intelligence-led approach to how we may look at our bills and try to make sensible decisions about their cost.

That was a bit of a rant to get the Committee into this debate. The issue behind this amendment is whether we should look more carefully at the issues that have arisen from the ideas already in play to protect vulnerable consumers, while ensuring that they are not affected by the introduction of this price-capping Bill and that as a result consumers benefit, the market is cleaned up and the Government get what they deserve in trying to ensure that people have a fair and open market that works well for all concerned. I beg to move.

[Baroness Featherstone]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 12 continues that theme. It would ensure that wherever there is a vulnerable person, whichever supplier they are with and whatever tariff they are on, the Government would empower Ofgem to deliver the lowest tariff—the tariff for vulnerable people. It would also ensure that that lower tariff is not deleteriously affected by the Bill in any way whatever, and that there can and would be no unintended consequences that result in vulnerable people paying more. The Government need to clarify for the record that the introduction of the price cap does not, and must not, allow for Ofgem to remove or fail to extend the current safeguard tariff for low-income or vulnerable households. It would be helpful if the Minister could lay out how this will not and could not be the case, and demonstrate beyond doubt how the two caps—the one already in place for vulnerable people and the new energy price cap being introduced—can operate at the same time, without causing detriment to anyone eligible for a lower tariff for reasons of low income or vulnerability.

Amendments 27 and 31 relate to Clause 7, which we will debate later. It says that Ofgem,

“must carry out a review into whether conditions are in place for effective competition”—

to include, among other things, consideration of the rollout of smart meters—and must recommend whether the cap should be extended or lifted. Then, after considering the review, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on whether the cap should be lifted or extended. Amendment 27 requires Ofgem to take into account,

“the level of protection in place for disabled domestic customers”,

at that time as part of that review process. Amendment 31 requires the Secretary of State to,

“have regard to the level of protection in place for disabled domestic customers”,

as part of the statement setting out whether the cap should be extended or lifted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Featherstone]

My Lords, one of the concerns that I raised at Second Reading is that there is no requirement for the authority to exempt from the cap those who wish to pursue a more environmental tariff. Under Clause 3(2) the authority may exempt such customers but there is no obligation to do so. There was such an obligation in the draft Bill, and with Amendment 13 we would reinsert the wording that was used then into this version of the Bill. The BEIS Select Committee was worried that the wording was too ambiguous and would allow companies with tariffs that were not environmental to use it as a loophole to escape the cap. We have tabled this probing amendment to ask the Government why more has not been done to get this into the Bill. Clause 3 enables Ofgem to exempt green tariffs from a cap if a customer makes the choice to move to a tariff that provides energy from renewable sources only—but with no clear timetable for introducing those exemptions.

Earlier this year, the Government stated that they would seek an exemption for green energy tariffs from the price cap. They said that if the power was from a renewable source only, it would be exempt from the cap, but Ofgem is not required to consult on this before the cap is implemented. If this is not amended, there will be a chilling effect on what is still a nascent but vital industry. Taking the Government at their word, encouraging consumers to stay green or to go green should be built into the introduction of the cap from day one.

In March this year, Ofgem published an update on its plans for the price cap. At that point, it said that it was planning to issue a series of working papers on a whole range of aspects of the cap ahead of a policy consultation. One such paper was to be called “Our views on an exemption for tariffs which may support the production of renewable gas and electricity”. It issued a series of working papers, none of which related to that exemption. If we cannot get this in the Bill, the cap when instituted will not include that green exemption. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about how the Government might amend the Bill to ensure that consumers who choose to buy clean energy are not disadvantaged. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The amendments in this group are variations on the same theme, which is the question of how one can find in the Bill the right balance between the wish to encourage the drive towards reduced carbon and no-carbon generation of power as far as possible and, at the same time, trying to get out of what appears to be a cul-de-sac in which the more we propose exemptions from the tariff for those who exercise clear preferences for green supply and carbon-free generation, the more they will not feel the benefit from measures that are meant to reduce the cost of the electricity and power that they consume. I do not know what the right balance for that is, so this is a probing amendment.

Our solution—we are not wedded to it but I would be interested to hear the Government’s observations on it—is that a situation where a consumer has clearly and unambiguously signified their intention to always select energy provided from wind or other renewable sources might provide a break point in which one could exercise discretion on whether they obtained the benefit of the cap. That seems to play to my earlier concern that this would prioritise people who used carbon-based energy sources as the only ones to benefit from the cap and would therefore reduce their costs.

I am not entirely clear which way we should go on this. It seems unreasonable to take an extreme position one way or the other, but that seems the only way to find an equitable solution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Featherstone

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Featherstone]

I shall speak to Amendment 7, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Maddock. Much was and is made about the upside of the benefits, or the hoped-for benefits, to the consumer of the rollout of smart meters. In the other place, the Secretary of State Greg Clarke said:

“About a third of the savings come from the possible reductions in the use of energy. Just over 40% comes from the supplier’s cost savings, which is a result of not having to read meters … We expect those savings to be passed onto consumers as savings in their bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/17; col. 238.]


We want a new clause that makes that expectation of the Secretary of State into a reality by putting it into the Bill, and we do that by amending the Energy Act 2008 to put in a provision,

“requiring the holder of a supply licence to pass on any savings made by the holder as a result of the Smart Metering Implementation Programme to the consumer”.

I do not really feel that I need to labour the point—I think that it is clear. A promise has been made, and this is the methodology for making sure that that promise is delivered.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments and it is a bit hard to find the right balancing point to address it, so I am going to give up at the beginning and just go through them one by one—in a slightly different order, just to confuse everyone.

Amendment 5 is right on the money in trying to make us focus again on why we are doing this and what it is about. It will not be worth doing unless there is an impact on energy efficiency. As we were reminded in the first group by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the problem we face and the one that the Government have to open themselves to be honest about is whether this will be worth having in the sense that it will actually change people’s behaviour and therefore save us some of the costs that we have from our expensive use of energy. If that is not part of what we are thinking, we need to make it part of the process and, indeed, the plan, if we go that way.

I was listening hard to what the Minister was saying, but I was expecting him to say a lot about the industrial strategy, since it is seated in his department and it seems to me that this is part of the industrial strategy. Our energy efficiency should have a material effect on our ability as a nation to continue to operate as a net importer of energy and as we gradually try to be more effective and efficient in what energy we can produce and how we use it. Those things seem crucially the bedrock on which any industrial strategy, and therefore any chance of this country surviving in the long term, is placed. I would have thought that it would be important to the Government to put this at the heart of what they were saying about the future stages of this process, because that will be helpful in convincing consumers, both those in fuel poverty and others who are just interested in the overall economics and efficiency of the country. So the requirement to lay a report that focuses on that might help us to win the battle of hearts and minds to get people more to accept it, and we support the amendment.

Amendment 7 is a bit more on the money in real terms, because it says that, if there are economic and other efficiencies in the process, the consumer should benefit from them. Again, we would support that. You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist—well, probably you do, but you do not have to be a genuine conspiracy theorist—to sense that there is something a bit odd going here. In a curious sort of way, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said it. Here we have an £11 billion programme. It is not being financed out of general taxation; there is a money tree, and that money tree is consumers who are being asked to pay for this without actually knowing what they are paying for. This is being loaded on to their bills and recouped by the companies. It is not being passed on to those who are benefiting from efficiencies. Nor is it being used for useful purposes for trying to help those who are suffering fuel poverty. Have I got this wrong? If I am right in this, we ought to confess that this is what we are doing and think much more carefully about the £11 billion price tag. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, put his finger on it in saying that we ought to be certain about the benefits that will flow from this before we push the button, and his amendment, which we are coming on to, focuses on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, talked about real benefits to individuals. If we were interested in the consumer approach and in consumers buying this programme, getting behind it and saying that everybody should have one of these things because not only do they give you pretty pictures about what energy you are using but you get money out of it because it shows you how to reduce your costs and that benefit comes back to you, that would be an advantage to the Government, who might otherwise be struggling to get people behind this.

Amendments 12 and 13—effectively, Amendment 13 —take us back to our discussions on the first group of amendments and Amendment 4, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Amendment 13 sets as a condition of minimum confidence 500,000 SMETS 2 meters—still a very small number—which are so far really untested in operation. Going back to what I said earlier about the need to operate in the wider context of opening up for innovation and bringing in new ideas, new ways of saving money and new ways that consumers could try to do things differently in their home in their use of equipment and the internet of things, we know all these other things are there and should be part of this process and package, but they cannot be until this project goes well. This amendment might look like a simple delaying tactic, but it sets an important pausing point at which everybody who is concerned in this, whether there is a proper plan or not, can say that they have confidence to go ahead with this project because they know it works and that at least at the level of the first 500,000 of these SMETS 2 meters it is a going concern, it is terrific, we can talk it up and we can all get behind it. There is a lot to commend this amendment to the Minister and I look forward to hearing him respond to it.

The Government have a rather uncomfortable choice. It would be very sensible for them to accept either this amendment or Amendment 4 because without some sort of overall bringing together of the consumer interest, the supplier interest, the regulator interest, Parliament, which needs to have a role in this, and the Government we will not get this working properly. That will be suboptimal for the country and for everyone in the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Featherstone]

Clause 3 seeks to protect the consumer from any costs that might ensue following a failure of the DCC. How could the DCC fail? It is a new service and there is a change in the top management at this critical point. No aspersion is intended but it is a change right at the top, and of course there are questions about the financial security of the DCC, should the parent company, Capita, run into problems. That is a timely point to make, given that my right honourable friend Vince Cable has secured an Urgent Question which is being debated right now. This afternoon Capita has revealed losses of £500 million last year, it has launched a £700 million fundraising effort to reduce its vast debt pile and its share price has plunged by 47.5%. At Second Reading it was mentioned by noble Lords across the House that Capita had issued a profit warning. They were right to do so.

We are all nervous since the collapse of Carillion. Is Capita too big to fail? What will we do if it does? Clause 3 is about insuring against the unknown, because the costs of any failure should not be a liability for the consumer. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in this group we have Amendment 10, which I think takes the debate a little further forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made the case very well about the immediacy of the problem that now faces the Government and how they make progress with a company which has given a profits warning and has had to raise funding. Although it says that it might have access to many billions of pounds in borrowings and other things, it obviously raises questions of an order similar to those in the Carillion episode of a few months ago. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that, which I hope will cover the question of whether the Crown’s official involved in checking out companies that have major contracts with the Government has considered its longer-term prospects, making sure that any contracts placed with that company are satisfactorily secured in terms of delivery.

Our amendment fits in very neatly with this, at least in the sense that the reality of an administration is that it is a failure not only of the operations but of the possible costs. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we do not wish to see those costs passed on to the consumer. However, it also raises wider questions about what is going on here. In a sense, this is relatively familiar territory in that the Government are achieving a social objective using private sector activities. As was said in the other place only this afternoon, this is not new to Governments; Governments of all shapes have for the last 20 years or so increasingly used the private sector. Indeed, it is a long and distinguished history: Governments do not do very much on the ground in terms of buildings or roads. They may well carry responsibility for them and pay for them but the physical work is done by others. Outsourcing can deliver benefits. However, at a time when margins are being decreased and there is a bit more concern about whether these companies will be able to survive, we have to be very careful in what we do.

The thinking behind Amendment 10 concerns not just the mechanics of what happens in a default but whether the Government can think a bit more widely about how the company operates. Obviously, the new company, the DCC, is crucial to the delivery of the SMETS 2 programme. It is wholly owned by Capita; it has a ring-fenced arrangement with Capita but is nevertheless entirely under the control of that company. Although there are independents on the board, and everything else, do the Government really feel that that is sufficient at a time when so much is riding on it? We are talking about £8 billion worth of investment and work going forward, and everything that we have said this afternoon in relation to the future of our energy policies and initiatives and to consumer interests is certainly part of the whole operation.

When we were considering the green bank—I am waiting for the head of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to snap up at this point—we came across a similar problem, which was trying to make sure that the body that was being set up in the private sector, which we knew at that time was to be sold, had imposed within its structures a set of conditions under which the Government retained a golden share, to make sure that its original purposes, and green purposes in particular, were not polluted or changed by subsequent changes in the operational management of the company when it was set up or in its eventual sale. It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and I pay due credit to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for pursuing it to the point where we found a solution, which was not one that the Government ever thought we would come up with. But it was possible to come up with something that met the requirements that the Treasury set, unrealistic though they were, that the arrangements should not leave the Government in a direct power relationship to the company, because that would require any costs and everything else to go on to the balance sheet, but still retained the ability of the company to operate so that the green objectives were retained and operated. I am simplifying to make the point.

Does not this arise also with DCC? Is there not a worry here that we are talking about an organisation, a structure, a delivery function and an operation which suggests that we really ought to be thinking harder about the overall structure here? If the narrow question about what happens in an insolvency is insufficient to probe it, should not the wider concerns about all the companies that are going through difficulties with their delivery of public service obligations? The newspapers will be full of questions about what is happening to recruitment to the Army, because Capita is not performing very well on that, and what happens to other areas of activity. We may find that, £3 billion into the programme, the main structural body responsible for organising the network for our safety and data and all the operations that will lead to customer buy-in to this is unable to fulfil its objectives because of other financial constraints, and we do not have the right regulatory structures in place to ensure that it carries on the way it does. This amendment gives the Government at least some incentive to look at that, and I hope that they will respond positively to it.