Oral Answers to Questions
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Perry
I am left in no doubt by my right hon. Friend and others about how anxious people are to see this review go forward. We want to get our future investment in renewable energies right. We continue to look very closely at this, and I hope that we will be able to inform the House shortly.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister will have seen the recent report by the Committee on Climate Change about the Government’s clean growth strategy in relation to the fifth carbon budget. Indeed, I know that she has seen it, because she wrote the committee a nice letter thanking it for its report. What plans does she have in place to rectify the shortcomings and omissions in that strategy, as identified by the Committee on Climate Change in its report?
Claire Perry
As the hon. Gentleman and I both know, the report basically said there had been a sea change in our ambition for future climate reduction actions. I was extremely grateful to the committee, as I always am, for its scrutiny and information. We were the first country in the world both to pass a climate change Act and to set up an independent scrutineer. As we all know, we have to do more, particularly on business energy efficiency and new homes standards. I am looking forward to working in a consensual way, cross-party, to bring forward those measures.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsTuesday 23rd January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Purpose—
“The purpose of this Act is to provide for a contingent arrangement for nuclear safeguarding arrangements under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the event that the United Kingdom no longer has membership or associate membership of EURATOM, to ensure that qualifying nuclear material, facilities or equipment are only available for use for civil activities (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere).”
This new clause would be a purpose clause, to establish that the provisions of the Bill are contingency arrangements if it proves impossible to establish an association with EURATOM after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
New clause 3—EURATOM: maintenance of nuclear safeguarding arrangements—
“No power to make regulations under this Act shall be exercised until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on his or her efforts to—
(a) seek associate membership of EURATOM, or
(b) otherwise maintain the implementation of nuclear safeguarding arrangements in the UK through EURATOM
after the UK has left the European Union.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on his or her efforts to maintain the implementation of nuclear safeguarding arrangements through EURATOM after the UK has left the EU.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that, in his or her opinion, it is no longer possible to retain membership of EURATOM or establish an association with EURATOM that permits the operation of nuclear safeguarding activity through its administrative arrangements.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify, before making any regulations to provide for nuclear safeguarding regulations, that it was not possible to remain a member of EURATOM or have an association with it.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations may not be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing his strategy for seeking associate membership of EURATOM or setting out his reasons for choosing to make nuclear safeguards regulations under this Act rather than seeking associate membership of EURATOM.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers under Clause 1 to set out a nuclear safeguards regime through regulations until a report has been laid before each House setting out a strategy for seeking associate membership of EURATOM or explaining why the UK cannot seek associate membership of EURATOM.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until—
(a) the Government has laid before Parliament a strategy for maintaining those protections, safeguards, programmes for participation in nuclear research and development, and trading or other arrangements which will lapse as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from membership of and participation in EURATOM, and
(b) the strategy has been considered by both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on the protection and trading arrangements that arise from membership of EURATOM, and his strategy for maintaining them prior to making regulations concerning nuclear safeguarding.
Dr Whitehead
The proposed new clauses and amendments appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who is the shadow Secretary of State, and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and others.
First and foremost, I want to set down a marker on new clause 2, because it represents the dividing line between us and the Government on membership, associate or otherwise, of Euratom. This purpose clause makes explicit that this is a contingency Bill. In other words, it is being enacted to deal with circumstances that may never arise—namely, that we as a country have no future association or membership with Euratom that would enable us to continue to reap the benefits of association or membership in a way that I think is almost universally agreed.
I think that it is agreed—the Minister has stated as much during the passage of this Bill—that Euratom has served well our purposes as a nuclear nation over the past 40 years, and nuclear safeguarding has worked very well in inspecting and representing our obligations to international agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Authority.
It is clear that our interests as a country would be best served by continuing our membership of Euratom, which was founded by a different treaty from that which brought about the EU. Indeed, during evidence to the Public Bill Committee, we heard strong arguments along those lines from eminent lawyers who had been called as witnesses. However, we appear to be in the position of assuming that our future membership of Euratom is not possible, because essentially the Prime Minister, as a matter of choice, included exit from Euratom in her letter to the Commission informing it that we were invoking article 50.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The treaty on Euratom membership is part of the set of treaties described in the treaty of Lisbon. Therefore, as we leave the European Union, we will, de facto, leave our membership of Euratom. It is as simple as that.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. A considerable body of legal opinion states that, because Euratom was founded by a treaty other than the treaty of Rome—it was, in fact, founded before the EU came together—it can and should be dealt with separately. Although arrangements relating to association with and membership of various EU bodies have changed over time as a result of changes in EU regulations, that has not been the case with Euratom. The articles relating to associate membership and arrangements are identical to those that were in place when Euratom was founded. There is no case to answer as far as separate arrangements for Euratom are concerned.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case for associate membership. He will recall a Westminster Hall debate that I held only last year, during which there was broad consensus on the issue, including among Conservative Members. I think that the Minister was the only Member who did not agree. The only reasons the Government have given relate to the legal position and the European Court of Justice. If Conservative Members were not whipped, they would understand the logic of the very sensible new clause.
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for making that strong point. I recall that even the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) suggested during that debate that associate membership of Euratom could be effective in continuing those arrangements, which have served us so well over many years.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the International Atomic Energy Authority. The Government have made it clear that we will be seeking new arrangements with it and that they will follow exactly the same principles as the current arrangements—that is, the right to inspect civil nuclear facilities and to continue to receive all the safeguards and reports. We should be confident that this Government are going about the issue in a serious, sensible and meticulous way.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Lady makes the case for our new clause. If the Government are going about their business in a sensible and coherent way—I note the Secretary of State’s statement on 11 January on how the Government intend to go about conducting relationships with Euratom—it would be a good idea to place that procedure into the Bill, so that we can be clear about what we are about, what we want to achieve and how we will do so.
After all, it has been stated that this is a contingency Bill. We want to know what it is a contingency against and therefore how it should be framed in terms of what we should be doing in contemplating whether to bring it into operation. If we had either membership of Euratom or an associate form of membership, which might be fairly similar to that enjoyed currently by Ukraine but with a number of additional factors, this Bill would not be needed. The arrangements with Euratom would continue to be in place, rendering the Bill superfluous. We need to be clear about what we are debating.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The shadow Minister knows that he and I often agree on stuff, but I wonder whether today he might concede this point. At worst, his new clauses would merely render the Bill superfluous if we manage to achieve associate membership of Euratom, but at best we are providing the contingency plan that gives industry the certainty that it says that it so much wants. The Bill is therefore relevant and necessary in that sense, even if it may ultimately prove to be superfluous because we achieve Euratom membership.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree substantially on this. We regard the Bill as necessary in the context of the possibility that, after Brexit, no arrangements can be brought about with Euratom, either associate membership or full membership. The Bill will then ensure that the nuclear industry is clear about its future and that the arrangements for our international obligations can be properly carried out in the absence of those arrangements. We have indeed been constructive and helpful during the Bill’s whole passage through Parliament. However, that does not detract from our thinking that a number of its procedural elements should be strengthened in relation to what we do while it is gestating and coming to potential fruition after the point at which the things that we are doing may not have had any success.
The hon. Gentleman will see that in some of our amendments we are also trying to make sure that Parliament is fully informed of what processes are under way while we get to the position that the Bill could, or could not, come into operation. That is important for Parliament’s sake. After all, we are in new territory with regard to this Bill, and we therefore have to do a number of new things in legislation that fit the bill for our future arrangements. That is essentially the beginning and end of what we are trying to do through this group of amendments.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am puzzled why new clause 1 is necessary. All its ingredients are issues that form part of the transition negotiations that our country is going through with the European Commission. It therefore seems bizarre to try to legislate that
“conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply”
during the transition. On that basis, we would be legislating for all sorts of things that form part of the negotiations to continue during the transition. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman has slightly got ahead of me, because I started by talking about new clause 2, and I am about to start talking about new clause 1. He thinks that new clause 1 may be superfluous. I would suggest that because this Bill is about procedure as much as fact, the new clause sets out a procedure that we need to undertake in the event of certain things not happening, and it is important that a number of those possible events are covered in the Bill. Should it not prove possible to remain a member of Euratom, for various reasons, it is important to consider the idea of a transition period after which we would then be in a position to fully carry out our obligations to the IAEA and other agencies separate from Euratom. That, indeed, is what the Bill is essentially trying to bring about. The Bill is predicated on the notion that membership or association with Euratom will not be possible, and it is therefore necessary to recreate the arrangements for nuclear safeguarding that have served us so well in a solely domestic form and thereby enabled us to negotiate separate voluntary arrangements with the IAEA and, indeed, separate bilateral agreements with a number of other countries, including the United States, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I accept that there was a vast amount of legal argument on our membership, or not, of Euratom. Indeed, it is not a simple point. However, we have now triggered our leaving Euratom. The treaties are uniquely joined, so it is a fact that we have left Euratom and will no longer be members. As we go forward with negotiations, putting the word “contingent” into the Bill would create uncertainty for our partners in the EU, given that the negotiations are two-sided. Those negotiations have yet to progress, so we need this Bill to be a clear signal or statement to our EU partners to achieve what we want. I fear that having the word “contingent” in the Bill will muddy the waters in our negotiations with our partners. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Dr Whitehead
I would have thought that the Bill, in whatever form it eventually emerges, demonstrates the opposite. Yes, there are a number of negotiations to be undertaken. We do not yet know the results of those negotiations. We have not left Euratom, which, it is generally agreed, has served our purposes very well. The new clause would enable us to signal, in the event of all those negotiations not working, that we are nevertheless still able to fulfil our obligations to the IAEA and to show it that we have a regime in place that does the business with regard to nuclear safeguarding from the point of view of the IAEA’s concerns. Putting forward this Bill as a contingency measure, as the Secretary of State said was the case, is important in the uncertain position we are in at the moment. Nevertheless, we will need certainty, over a relatively short period, with the bodies that are responsible for policing and organising the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the whole arrangements relating to nuclear safeguarding. I think, if I may say so, that that is the right way to do it as far as putting a Bill before the House is concerned. The Opposition do not dispute that: we think it is right to have the Bill as a contingency. Our concern, however, is whether there are sufficient elements to the process part of the Bill to ensure that it works as well as it could. That is really the point of difference on the Bill at the moment.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is incredibly important to him and several of his colleagues, and it is incredibly important to me, with EDF Energy’s operational headquarters for nuclear in my constituency and Horizon just down the road, so we are all coming from the same point. His specific proposal—I am talking about new clause 1 again—is very specific. It even mentions a period of two years, although the transition period that is being negotiated may well come to an end at the end of 2020. In effect, he is asking the Government to legislate on something over which they do not have control. Surely the better approach is to plan for the contingency, as he has already agreed, and recognise that the other elements—Euratom and other agencies—are all subject to a negotiation that this House cannot, by its nature, control.
Dr Whitehead
That is a little strange in that the Prime Minister referred to transition periods for the overall EU negotiations in her Florence speech, and the Secretary of State did so strongly in his written statement on 11 January. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be assured, as far as the nuclear industry is concerned, that there will be a seamless transition at the point at which we are no longer a member of Euratom, I would have thought he ought to be strongly in favour of aspiring to a transition period. As he knows and we know, the process of recreating in the UK all the things that have been done by Euratom for 40 years—we will discuss that later—will be extremely difficult, lengthy and problematic. It will certainly, in the opinion of many people, be extremely difficult to achieve in the period ahead if we corral those negotiations and are to complete them by March 2019. If he thought about it for a moment, he would recognise that the last thing we could conceivably want is a period of, in effect, nuclear shutdown, or of defaulting on our international obligations because we are not ready to carry them out on Brexit. That is why a transition period may be so important.
Richard Graham
Yes, of course we all want a transition period, which is precisely a part of the negotiations. What I struggle to understand is that the scenario the hon. Gentleman describes is in effect not within our control. The transition we are seeking is being negotiated—in fact, the Minister and other Front Benchers have made it absolutely clear several times that we want to continue the relationship with Euratom as deeply as possible—but I cannot see the need, in a legislative context, for his proposed new clause 1. In fact, I do not believe it would be possible for any Government conceivably to agree to it.
Dr Whitehead
I repeat my suggestion that, because the Bill is about process as much as content, it is important that it is guided by the sort of considerations we want to take place in order to achieve, as we are all agreed, the best outcome—[Interruption.] Indeed, yes, the best outcome. We must make sure that the negotiations not only proceed with the best outcome in mind, but cover the fact that it may be the case—again, this is out of our control—that if we stick to a position, with the provisions of the Bill, in which everything essentially stops in March 2019, that would be just catastrophic for our nuclear industry and our international nuclear safeguarding obligations. We must get this right, and we must have continuity of arrangements inside or outside Euratom. It is in those circumstances that a transition period is suggested.
The arrangements for the founding of Euratom and its articles suggest that a period of transition for negotiating our way out of Euratom may not be identical to the period for the arrangements for negotiating our way out of the EU as a whole. It is quite possible to conceive the circumstances in which we do not have a transition period beyond March 2019 for negotiating our general withdrawal from the EU, but we do have a transition period for negotiating our way out of Euratom. It is at the least strongly arguable that that may be the case in the future, and it is another reason why such a provision should be in the Bill.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I feel I must pull up the hon. Gentleman because he has twice referred to Euratom having been around for 40 years, but it began in 1957. It was born out of the civil nuclear industry that began in my constituency of Copeland when Calder Hall was first constructed. I thought that I should make it clear that this was from Britain and by Britain back in 1957. We have actually had it for 70 years, although there was the merger in 1967.
Dr Whitehead
I was referring to the length of time that we have been a member of Euratom, not the length of time that Euratom has been around. Indeed, the hon. Lady will know that when Euratom was founded, the UK was not a member of it. I am sure she will also know that the founders of Euratom, particularly one of them—Mr Spaak—wrote a substantial report at the time of the founding of Euratom that strongly envisaged, setting out in chapter and verse, how an associate relationship of Euratom with the UK could come about. The arrangements that Mr Spaak considered in the report for associate membership are identical to those that exist today. I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us that Euratom has been around a lot longer than the period during which the UK’s relationship with Euratom has existed, but I am sure she will agree that even at the outset of Euratom, an association with the UK was envisaged before the UK joined to facilitate nuclear exchange, nuclear development and—although the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was not around at the time—joint endeavours in civil and defence nuclear work.
I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have tested the patience of the House, particularly, given the number of interventions I have taken, because of the necessity of ensuring that I responded to them fully. I will end by telling the House that we need to remember that this Bill covers just one aspect of our relationship with Euratom over the period during which we have been a member of it. Our relationship with Euratom also includes participation in nuclear research, the transportation of nuclear materials, the development of nuclear arrangements, the trading of nuclear materials and a number of other arrangements, all of which will lapse on our exit from participation in Euratom and all of which will need to be secured for the future. They are not the subject of the Bill, but they will have to be dealt with at some stage if we are not to have a close association with Euratom after Brexit. Amendment 7 would provide for at least an understanding that we will move forward to secure working arrangements for a future outside Euratom, not just making provision for our treaty obligations concerning nuclear safeguarding.
The Opposition think that the suite of connected amendments to the Bill will strengthen it enormously so that it is a fully fit-for-purpose contingency arrangement. I therefore commend these new clauses and amendments to the House.
Richard Harrington
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, this quite amuses me, because last week I was berated for being a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry—something with which I was pleased to agree, by the way. The important point is that the language of whether we can have associate membership or not is not important; the important thing is what we come up with. People inside and outside the House can call it what they want, but effectively we all want the same thing. It is just not correct to call it associate membership, however, because there is no such thing. I have made that clear absolutely beyond doubt, as has the Secretary of State.
Dr Whitehead
In the light of what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that in his view an associated status in relation to nuclear safeguards would be distinctly possible?
Richard Harrington
I hope and believe that a very close association to do with nuclear safeguards absolutely will be possible, but I do not think it helps just to bandy language between one side and the other. We all know what we want, and I am delighted that everybody—it seems to me—on the Opposition and Government Benches wants exactly the same thing. We have all made our points about the language, but I think we all want the same thing. That is very unusual in this House and it really is a credit to everybody.
It is essential that projects and investments are not adversely affected by our withdrawal from the EU and can continue to operate in the certainty that nuclear safeguards arrangements will be in place. That is why we are putting in place arrangements for a new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, as well as negotiating new bilateral agreements with the IAEA and nuclear co-operation agreements with priority third countries. Those arrangements are not dependent on the EU negotiations and the UK Government’s work is well advanced.
The Bill and the regulations that will be made under its powers are crucial. They will enable us to establish a domestic nuclear safeguards regime to meet international safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply in the UK. As Members have noted, it will take time to develop and implement the new regime, so it is absolutely imperative that we maintain the momentum of the work needed to deliver it in the timescale required. However well meaning the new clauses and amendments are—I accept in good faith the reasons why they were tabled—the reality is that they could delay our domestic preparations and lead to uncertainty in our discussions with international partners. There can be no question of our waiting until we know the outcome of negotiations before we put in place our own arrangements. The implications of not having the right systems operating from when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply are too serious for the industry and for our position in the international safeguards regime.
On the implementation period, we intend to ensure continuity for the nuclear industry and to avoid the possibility of a cliff edge for the industry on the date of exit. Members will be aware—if they were not listening at the time, this has been mentioned several times already today, so they will be aware now—that the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech her desire for an implementation period after the UK ceases to be a member of the EU. If the European Commission agrees to an implementation period of around two years, the UK will not be a member state of the European Union during that period. None the less, the acquis will continue to apply, which means that, for the duration of that implementation period, the UK will expect to continue to pay into the EU, to be bound by its rules and to benefit from access to its market. The European Commission’s draft guidelines are explicit that, in its view, this acquis would include Euratom matters. The implication of that—I accept that it is an implication because it has to be tested in negotiations—is that the current Euratom regime could continue to apply during any transition period.
I have to reiterate that a transition period prior to our withdrawal, as proposed by new clause 1, is not a situation envisaged in the proposals for the implementation period. Both parties to the discussions agree that it would helpful to have the matter agreed as speedily as possible—again, there is no disagreement over that—so as to provide the certainty that we need. Whatever the outcome of the talks about an implementation period, let me emphasise that the UK’s overarching objective remains to maintain as close and effective an association with Euratom for the long term as possible.
New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, proposes not an implementation period after exit, but a transitional period before exit. That would delay the UK’s exit from Euratom, but that situation is not envisaged in the proposals for the implementation period, or in the article 50 notification that has already been passed by Parliament.
Let me briefly raise quarterly reporting, which I mentioned in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds West. It is very important to give Parliament clarity about the progress that the Government are making. That was why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a commitment in the written statement to provide quarterly updates on progress, which will include updates on the negotiations and progress made by the ONR on establishing the UK’s domestic safeguard regime.
I hope that those arguments will persuade Opposition Members not to press the amendments and new clauses to a Division.
Dr Whitehead
We will not be pressing any measure to a vote, except for new clause 1, which has been debated in a very unsatisfactory way this afternoon. We are not convinced by the responses that we have received, so we will be pressing it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) ensuring that inspections of nuclear facilities and materials for the purpose of nuclear safeguards continue at the level previously established by UK membership of EURATOM.”
This amendment would aim to ensure that nuclear safeguarding inspections continue at the same level subsequent to leaving EURATOM as they were when the UK was a member of EURATOM.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page 2, line 41, leave out from “must” to the end of line 44 and insert—
“(a) consult—
(i) the ONR,
(ii) the National Audit Office, and
(iii) such other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, and
(b) lay before Parliament a statement declaring that he or she is satisfied that the staffing and financial resource available to the ONR is sufficient for the purpose of assuming responsibility for nuclear safeguarding in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to declare that the ONR has the resources necessary to take on extra responsibilities for nuclear safeguarding in the UK.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose.
(1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power.”
This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 4, line 41, at end insert
“, but not before the Secretary of State has published draft regulations relating to each of the other provisions of this Act under which the Secretary of State may make regulations.”
This amendment would ensure that draft regulations specified in the Bill are published before the provisions of the Act come into force.
Dr Whitehead
In speaking to these amendments, I want to draw attention to further events that have taken place between the end of the Committee stage and today’s Report stage. I say “further events” because they are separate from the very welcome statement that the Secretary of State has made on what we may do about negotiating an association with Euratom, which I think has helped our proceedings considerably. Another matter that might have helped proceedings considerably had it taken place a little earlier was our having the impact assessment on the Bill that we have now received.
As I am sure hon. Members know, impact assessments should, under Cabinet Office rules, ideally be produced before Bills are discussed. To be honest, it is pretty bad that it has taken so long for the impact assessment to arrive, particularly as it arrived after our deliberations in Committee had concluded. I would say that it is particularly bad following an examination of what the impact assessment actually says—it might have helped our proceedings in Committee had we been able to look at it at that time.
Predominantly, the assessment works on the basis of costing various options relating to what a future inspection regime would look like. Indeed, there are or could be choices, as we have heard, about that inspection regime, which is, after all, at the heart of the Bill. How are we going to replicate in the closest possible detail the inspection arrangements that franked our probity as a nuclear nation in international agreements on non-proliferation and nuclear safeguarding? We have been signed up to those arrangements all these years, but we have hitherto engaged with them through the agency of Euratom, rather than independently. As we know, duties in relation to safeguarding ultimately end in agreements made between nuclear states and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The inspection regime we envisage for the future could vary, because the level of inspection—such as the number of inspections and the depth of inspection needed to satisfy the minimum criteria of the IAEA—could be at a lower level than we have been used to under the Euratom regime. We might envisage a bronze standard inspection regime whereby we scrape by in our future relationship with the IAEA, or we could ensure that the inspection regime, overseen by the ONR, will be as good and as thorough as that carried out by Euratom inspectors in the past. As the impact assessment says, that would be marginally more expensive.
I am pleased that the latter option is strongly advocated in the impact assessment, because it seems to me that we should not seek in future to get by on the lowest level we can get away with. Instead, we should assure ourselves of our own integrity on the matter, and assure others likewise—both the IAEA and the countries with which we will be making bilateral agreements—that we are doing it absolutely properly. That will entail seeking to continue with inspections at the high level laid down in Euratom’s arrangements. That is what amendment 1 is about. It is designed to place in the Bill exactly what the impact assessment states we should do—to ensure that we will go forward at that level.
The Minister may well say—I hope he does—that we are committed to maintaining that level of inspection regardless of whether it is written in the Bill. But there is a problem with that: when we go independent, will we have the resources to carry out inspections to that level, or will we need an extended period in which we are allowed to scrape by with the minimum, because that is all we will be able to do?
At the beginning of the Bill Committee we heard from an excellent witness, Dr Golshan, the deputy chief inspector at the ONR. She gave us a fairly stark statement of reality, which members of the Committee have shared this afternoon. Those hon. Members will all recall Dr Golshan indicating clearly that when we leave Euratom,
“we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 7, Q9.]
In amendment 1, we set out an aim for the Bill: that we cleave to the Euratom standards as soon as possible and assure ourselves that we have the resources to do so.
There is a wider context. What resources will the ONR have to enable it to carry out the substantial new tasks that we set it in this legislation? The ONR is mainly funded through charges to the nuclear industry. That is how it generally recovers the money for its operations, but it also receives some grant funding. Essentially, that funding pays for the nuclear safeguarding work, while the charges on the nuclear industry pay for the ONR’s other functions, which are not the subject of this Bill.
That distinction is important, because the Government intend to halve the grant to the ONR in the period to 2020. At the outset of the negotiations, we face the prospect of the ONR being able to do less work than it does at the moment. If it is to continue to do as much as it does now, it will probably have to levy substantially higher charges on the industry to make up for the loss of the grant up to 2020. At the same time, if the Bill progresses, we are plainly saying that the ONR will have to undertake a whole lot of new work that it has not budgeted for, that has not been in its terms of reference for a long time and that will clearly require a lot more resource. As we heard in oral evidence to the Committee, that is no mean amount of additional work for the ONR to undertake.
To enable it to carry out all its functions, Euratom employs about 160 staff, 25%—or 40—of whom focus on UK installations. One can reasonably assume that the ONR would have to add a similar number of people to its complement of staff if it were to take on the work done by Euratom on nuclear safeguarding. The safeguards unit in the ONR comprises eight professional staff. Between now and March 2019, therefore, the ONR will have to find roughly 32 staff—qualified, highly skilled and trained nuclear inspectors—from somewhere to take over that responsibility. That is in addition to all the other things that the ONR will have to put in place, such as IT systems and administration resources, to allow it to take on that role.
Another excellent witness who contributed to our proceedings in Committee was Sue Ferns, from the union Prospect. She stated that training safeguards inspectors could take up to five years. We are faced with the prospect of needing 32 such people within 18 months. She said, of the role of an inspector:
“This is a warranted role; this is not just working in the industry. It is not just about knowledge, but experience and commanding the confidence of the companies and the organisations that you deal with, so there are very specific aspects to that role.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 35, Q69.]
She also alluded to the relatively small pool in which we are fishing. Not only do we have to fish in the pool, but we have to do so accurately, and we have to attract a good proportion of those people if we are to fill the gap. Consequently, she put a considerable question mark against whether it is possible for the ONR to be ready, as we would like it to be, for the tasks that we are going to give it.
I accept that a number of people in the nuclear industry have many of the qualities that could make them nuclear inspectors—indeed, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) said in Committee, there are many such people in the industry—so it may not be necessary to fully train everybody for five years. Nevertheless, it will be a very steep cliff to climb to get those 32 inspectors, at least, in place for whenever we take over inspections from Euratom. I sincerely hope, as I am sure all Members do, that those matters can be resolved. It may be a question of making sure that the ONR is funded to the extent that it can properly undertake that activity of fishing in a small pool—perhaps, as I mentioned in Committee, with pound notes attached to the end of its fishing line.
Richard Harrington
No. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s version of what I have said. We want a Rolls-Royce standard, the best possible standard we can have.
The negotiations on implementation are due to begin in the spring and, as hon. Members know, we will be reporting to the House regularly on progress.
Let me turn to the Henry VIII power. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has mentioned his dislike for Henry VIII powers. This is a tiny Henry VIII power—a Henry VIII who has been on a diet for a long time—that is limited to amending references in the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000 and the Nuclear Safeguards (Notification) Regulations 2004 in order to accommodate safeguards agreements with the IAEA. Those amended references will enable the IAEA to carry out its activities in the UK, including by providing legal cover for the UK activities of its inspectors. We have to be able to update that legislation so that it contains the correct references for new safeguards arrangements with the IAEA, which have not yet been made but will be in the near future. Without amendment, the existing provisions will become ineffective when the current agreements no longer apply, which would leave us in breach of any new international safeguards regime.
The detailed amendments will not be known until the agreements are in place, so the power that we are asking for is essential if we are to ensure that the UK has a safeguards regime that complies with its future international obligations when Euratom’s safeguards arrangements no longer apply. It is a very narrow power and I do not think that it is relevant to the general discussions that the House has had on Henry VIII powers. I hope that Members on both sides of the House are satisfied and that they will not seek to press their amendments.
Dr Whitehead
I have listened carefully to the Minister this afternoon and would like to thank him for the constructive way he took the Bill through Committee. My personal view is that that is how we should legislate in practice. He has played a substantial part in making the process as good as it could be. However, just as I do not blame him personally for the fact that his football team recently scored a completely illegal goal—it was hand-balled—against my team and deprived it of two points, I do not blame him for the way the Bill has been constructed. He has attempted to justify parts of it that he is unable to amend, but nevertheless their construction, in my view, remains deeply unsatisfactory.
I am happy to withdraw amendment 1 and not to press the amendments that relate to the staffing and funding of the ONS—the Secretary of State has committed himself to reporting quarterly on progress with Euratom, which was the subject of one of our amendments in Committee, for which I am grateful—but I will press amendment 5 to a vote, because it relates to the Henry VIII clauses, which are a fundamental defect in the structure of the Bill. We wish to put it on the record that we would not wish such arrangements to be proceeded with under other circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2
Power to amend legislation relating to nuclear safeguards
Amendment proposed: 5, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose.
(1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Financial Assistance to Industry
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, that this House authorises the Secretary of State (Greg Clark) to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to eligible energy intensive industries in respect of a proportion of the indirect costs of funding the renewable obligation (RO) and smallscale feed in tariffs (FIT) totalling more than £30 million and up to a cumulative total of £565 million maximum.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I hope not to detain the Committee too long, but it is extremely important that we consider this substantial and necessary motion.
The motion was laid before the House on 6 December and is being made under the Industrial Development Act 1982. I draw the Committee’s attention to the very helpful explanatory memorandum that my officials circulated ahead of time to enlighten Members about the more technical aspects.
Claire Perry
Well, it was unusual to have it, and it was rather a helpful process.
In order to meet our climate targets, we have implemented a number of policies designed to incentivise generation of energy from renewable sources. As we know, the costs of such policies are recovered through obligations and levies on suppliers, who pass those costs to end users, usually in their electricity bills. Such costs can put the most energy intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage. Indeed, as set out in the clean growth strategy, our industrial electricity prices for large consumers in 2016 were the second highest in the EU15, after Italy. That can place some of our most important strategic and productive electricity-intensive manufacturing industries at a competitive disadvantage and increases the risk of businesses relocating due to the costs associated with meeting our climate targets, which no one wants to see.
We have taken steps to reduce the cumulative impact of these policies on industrial energy prices for sectors such as steel, paper, plastics, cement and chemicals. At the Budget in 2014, the coalition Government committed to compensate energy intensive industries for the indirect costs of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs. The compensation scheme was launched in January 2016. It provides for eligible energy intensive industries to receive compensation for up to 85% of the costs of funding the RO and FIT. We have now paid more than £352 million under the scheme to 147 companies. That has been estimated to have reduced industrial electricity prices by £17 per megawatt-hour in 2016, or around 15% of an eligible company’s electricity bill. The scheme has played a significant role in supporting the competitiveness of these vital industries.
We have tried to focus our resources on sectors that are most exposed to electricity price rises—those that are both electricity-intensive and exposed to international competition. Committee members will agree that those are incredibly important strategic industries that offer highly productive jobs right across the UK.
Under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act, Parliament must authorise the amount of compensation we can pay to these companies for the indirect costs of funding the RO and FIT as the amount exceeds £30 million. In March 2016, we authorised spend up to a cumulative total of £371 million. The motion seeks authorisation to pay up to a cumulative total of £565 million. That is a maximum number—it is not a target—and is intended to enable Government to continue to pay RO and FIT compensation to eligible EIIs until replacement exemption schemes are introduced. I know that many Committee members served on the various Committees in which we introduced those pieces of legislation.
The spending review and autumn statement 2015 set out our intention to provide an exemption from the policy cost, to ensure that EIIs have long-term certainty and remain competitive. Those exemptions are intended to replace the current compensation schemes. I will not go back through the arguments for why exemptions are better than the compensation method; suffice it to say that they are quicker, provide much more certainty of cash flow and are welcomed by the companies.
Sadly, it has taken longer than originally expected to secure state aid approval from the European Commission for the move from compensation to an exemption. We have received approval for the renewables obligation scheme, which we will implement from 1 April 2018. State aid considerations for the FIT scheme are more complex and will take longer to resolve, which is why we need approval to maintain the current compensation system while we deliver on the state aid requirement. The compensation scheme will continue for a little longer, until we have state aid approval, and costs will therefore arise in excess of the £371 million that was originally authorised. However, as I said, they will be capped at £565 million as a result of the motion, which I hope the Committee approves.
It is crucial that we continue to provide compensation until an exemption comes in. The sectors that are eligible for the relief employ around 230,000 workers and have gross value added of more than £30 billion—2% of the UK economy—and turnover of around £115 billion. About 60% of the businesses have exported products in the past 12 months. Crucially, many of the companies that are eligible for the compensation are located in areas of relative economic disadvantage and are a vital and strategic part of our industrial base. As Members will know, we want to work with these industries through the industrial strategy to boost workers’ earning power, improve living standards and create jobs so that everyone across the country can share the benefits of our economic success.
Energy intensive industries need to play their part in reducing emissions. Eight sectors, including steel, chemicals, glass and cement, are responsible for around two thirds of industrial energy use and two thirds of industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. They have worked effectively with the Government to produce industrial decarbonisation and energy efficiency action plans, which we look forward to bringing forward with the various players in those sectors.
I am content that the financial assistance outlined in the motion will benefit the UK’s energy intensive industries, and that section 8 of the Industrial Development Act is the appropriate means by which to make such payments. I therefore commend the motion to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.
There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee. The principle that energy intensive industries should be compensated in some way for the costs they incur in meeting green and social levies that they would not incur were they non-exempt industries is clear, and we support it. Nor do we have a quarrel in principle with the idea that, because of particular circumstances that I will come to, the ceiling for the compensation that is paid to those industries should be raised from £371 million, which was the amount originally agreed back in 2015, to £515 million.
However, we have some concerns. The first is about the principle of moving to giving back 85% of the costs incurred by energy intensive industries in paying green and social levies by means of a levy for the future rather than a compensation arrangement for the present. We know from recent secondary legislation to effect that measure on the renewables obligation and FITs that that adds substantial costs to the energy bills of non-exempt industries and general consumers, over and above what they already pay in green and social levies. There is a plus-plus effect on their bills; they pay the green and social levies in any event, and an additional one as a result of moving from a general taxpayer-funded compensation scheme to a general levy scheme. For a medium-sized business, that puts £6,700 on to an average year’s energy bill. I am not making that figure up; it is in the impact assessment for the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) (Energy Intensive Industries) Order 2017, which went through recently. It is a substantial additional burden to bring about the levy arrangement.
The bad news, I guess, from the Minister’s point of view, is that we do not support in the long term the idea that the arrangements should be transferred from a general taxation compensation to a levy-based compensation arrangement. Certainly, were we in a position to make a change, we would want to do so in the long term. However, we are where we are for now, and it is important to get the compensation arrangement right. The other bad news, then, is that I have a couple of questions for the Minister about what exactly getting it right means in the context of the transition between a compensation arrangement and a levy arrangement.
As the Minister has indicated, there is a considerable gap between the date when it was hoped there would have been transition between compensation and levy arrangements, and the actual date. It was originally supposed to be the spring of this year. It will now be April 2018 at the earliest for the RO and FITs. At the time, it was intended that in addition to a transition between compensation and levy arrangements for the RO and FITs, there should be a new levy arrangement with respect to new contracts for difference coming on stream, to be put in place when CfDs were tenable.
The RO arrangement has effectively come to an end for new entrants as of March 2017 and, although the programme will run for a further 10 years, it is effectively a ghost programme. It will continue to carry out the obligations that have been entered into for their 15-year period, but no new ROs will come on stream. Instead, for larger renewable energy concerns there will be contracts for difference.
Some of those contracts for difference were entered into in 2016 or so, but they were not in existence at the point when the arrangements for a levy for contracts for difference were first entered into. Consequently the question did not arise at that point of whether to compensate energy intensive industries for the obligations they might have to pay for organisations that had received CfDs. No CfDs had been received at that point. That is not the case for the renewables obligation, because that started in 2002 and the tail of those ROs is running through the system and will continue to do so, as I have mentioned, well after 2018.
The question arises whether the motion before the Committee includes the possible consequences of energy intensive companies actually having to pay for CfDs, bearing in mind that originally it was considered they should not pay for them. When the changeover was originally determined, those CfDs would not have existed, whereas now they will exist, because we are a year behind essentially in effecting the changeover.
The figures in the draft regulations produce, as it were, a neat increase from the original control total of £371 million to the new cumulative total of £565 million—a difference of £194 million, which is almost exactly what the impact assessment on the RO and FITs levy changes suggested would be the annual cost of the central estimate of an exemption arrangement. In the impact assessment, £196 million was stated to be roughly the same as what would have been paid per annum in compensation before the exemption scheme was considered. The suggestion is that the £194 million pays for a one-year extension of the obligations that were there as far as the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs were concerned, and does not take account of any possible payments that might have to be made as a result of CfDs coming on stream and the scheme changeover being delayed.
My question to the Minister therefore is: has that been taken into account? If it has not been taken into account, should it be? If it should be taken into account, is there any sort of cost implication involved in making those calculations? My next question to the Minister is about the way in which the payments have been calculated for energy intensive industries under the compensation scheme. In the response to the consultation in 2016, on the idea of a new levy for ROs, FITs and CfDs as far as energy intensive industries were concerned, the Government stated:
“We are also considering options for a statutory mechanism to recover and redistribute any over-exemption that EIIs have received in error.”
The suggestion in the consultation was that a number of payments had been made to energy intensive industries under the compensation scheme that might well not have been accurate, might have well been paid in error and might have been overpaid. I have seen nothing yet, as far as I know, whereby a statutory mechanism can be introduced to recover those costs, if indeed they are still outstanding.
In the context of asking the Committee to agree a further £194 million in compensation payments, it would be prudent to make it clear what is being done to ensure that the first lot of compensation payments were accurate. If they were not, schemes could be set up to recover what had been taken—possibly in error—so that the original amount of compensation was right and that any new compensation should not be strewn with those errors as well.
If the Minister has any information on either of those points, I would be grateful, because they are important in any discussion of whether we have a complete solution to the problems of, as it were, the overrun of the period for changing from the compensation scheme to the levy scheme, and indeed whether we have a complete solution that allows us to leave the Committee Room happy that we have done all we can to ensure that the compensation scheme ran its course in the best possible way and translated to the levy scheme in the best possible way.
I cannot resist reminding the Minister of the response she gave to my written question the other day. I asked whether the changeover from the compensation scheme to the levy scheme meant that, as far as ROs and FITs were concerned, there would be a new levy. The answer she gave was that it was not a new levy, because there had been a previous arrangement in existence. My understanding of our discussion this afternoon is that there had been no previous arrangement in existence. In those circumstances, it might be a good idea for the Minister to provide me with an answer to my written question that reflects that.
Claire Perry
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their typically thoughtful comments about what we are trying to do.
I will try to answer all the points that were raised. I know that if I do not, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will write to me. I want to pick up his point about his parliamentary question, rather than asking him to resubmit it. It is not a new levy. These exemptions are adjustments to the existing scheme, so I do not think they are classified as a new levy, but if he wants to put that question to me again, I am happy to ask the Department to respond.
We are not debating the idea of a switch from compensation to a levy. Businesses absolutely appreciate the fact that this is much more cash-flow positive for them and much less hassle. It reduces the risk of potential overpayments, which the hon. Gentleman raised. It is about smoothing cash flow for them and giving them certainty. As we know, whether the money is coming out of consumers’ pockets as taxes or in energy bills, ultimately we are all investing in this renewable transition together.
I want to pick up the point about the maximum amount of burden being put on businesses and slightly correct the hon. Gentleman’s statement about medium-sized businesses. It is actually medium energy-using businesses. All sizes of business, from small and medium-sized enterprises to large businesses, are eligible to bid into the scheme. The test is whether the energy cost is 20% of their profits plus something—I should know that. Essentially, any size of business can bid into this scheme. That is important. In the round, this is a cost increase of less than 1% of energy bills.
Dr Whitehead
If I did not put my point carefully enough, I apologise. I was seeking to suggest that the effect of non-exempt industries and companies being liable for the costs of green and social levies and this new levy would add £6,700 a year to the bill of a medium-sized non-exempt company.
Claire Perry
To clarify, a medium-energy user could be any size company. It might be a very large company with a very small energy footprint. As I said, on average, because we do not know by what revenue the £6,700 is divisible, it is about 1% of the total cost for consumer bills.
The point is about who we get to pay for the investment in the renewables of the future, for which we have pretty much cross-party support; we know that we need to make that transition. The good news is that thanks to the policy frameworks put in place by the coalition and Conservative Governments, we are reaching a point where renewable energy is being delivered subsidy-free. I opened the country’s first subsidy-free solar farm a few months ago, and we purchased offshore wind at £57 per MWh in the latest auction. Renewable companies, having been subsidised to get to this point, do not now require subsidy going forward.
It is important that we communicate why we are doing this. To address the point about overpayments made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, it is obviously right and indeed required under state aid laws that we recover any overpayments, which are infrequent. That process is continuing. Of course, if there is an exemption scheme, it is far less likely that the Government will effectively overpay on that basis.
I also want to point out that given the critical nature of many energy-intensive industries, there is an extremely long supply chain of different-sized businesses that depend on the health and wellbeing of those industries. The key test for the sector deals that we are putting together with those industries is by how much they can drive up the UK content in their supply chain. By making them more cost-competitive, we are boosting the whole UK supply chain, which is extremely important.
It was asked how we had got to the numbers. Effectively, the increase that we are debating in the motion covers renewables obligation compensation for the final two quarters of 2017-18 and FIT compensation for the final two quarters of this year and all of 2018-19. That is how those numbers stack up. I was asked how the measures relate to the CfD point. Because that is an exemption scheme of its own, this will not combine the two. They are completely separate schemes.
I wanted to pick up the point about research and development, which is crucial. In both the clean growth strategy and the industrial strategy, we have committed to the biggest spending increase on R and D that any Government have ever made, with £2.6 billion going into innovation in the clean space. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I have had many conversations about carbon capture and storage technology in which we agreed that it was vital to bring it forward. I look forward to getting those projects moving.
In conclusion, we know that businesses want us to do this, and it is extremely relevant now. It appears that we have consensus on making the changes. On that basis, I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington
There is a lot of chuntering from a sedentary position, which I will not take any notice of. I would like to answer the question if Opposition Members will allow me.
My hon. Friend should know that the cost of renewable energy is coming down. The cost of electricity from offshore wind farms, for example, has halved in price since they were first introduced. The Opposition may interpret this to mean that my hon. Friend is wrong. I would say that he is not wrong but he needs further education on this subject, and I will be delighted to meet him at any time to discuss it.
Joseph Johnson
Our clean growth strategy is rightly ambitious, and the Climate Change Act allows us to be flexible in our means of achieving the goals that we have set out. As I have just said, we are ahead of our targets on the second and third carbon budgets.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
In the recent Budget the Treasury, I assume following consultation with the Minister’s Department, pulled the plug on all future support for renewable energy deployment except for the already allocated near-term support for offshore wind. Does the Minister himself support such action, and does it help or hinder the UK’s progress towards meeting its carbon reduction targets?
Joseph Johnson
As I have said, our position is that we have met our first carbon target, and we are on track to exceed the second and third. The Government are taking this agenda exceptionally seriously. In fact we are leading the world on it, having legislated with the Climate Change Act and put clean growth at the very heart of this country’s industrial strategy.
Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsTuesday 28th November 2017
(6 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2017 - (28 Nov 2017)
The Chair
Before we continue line-by-line consideration, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch your electronic devices to silent. If you wish to take your jacket off, Mr Freer, you may do so. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind Members that today’s selection list is available in the room and on the Bill’s webpage. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments when we reach them.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection list, but decisions are taken when we come to the clause that an amendment affects. Decisions on adding new clauses or making changes to the long title are taken towards the end of proceedings but may be discussed earlier if grouped with other amendments. Finally, I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debate on the relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Smart meters: extension of time for exercise of powers
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The provisions set out in subsections (2) and (3) do not allow the Secretary of State to remove any licensable activities presently enabled in respect of smart meter communications or other activities.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from using the extension of these powers to remove currently licensable activities.
The amendment is fairly straightforward and relates to a memorandum that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concerning the arrangements that the Department wishes to make through the Bill. Among other things, it justifies—or attempts to justify—a number of the provisions. I will refer to that memorandum on a number of occasions today.
The memorandum sets out what the Bill is expected to do, what the delegated powers taken in the Bill do, the justification for those delegated powers, whether they should be undertaken by the affirmative or negative procedure, and the effect of those powers on the wider considerations about smart meter roll-out. The amendment addresses the passage of concern in the memorandum relating to clause 1, which is about what powers the Secretary of State will have as a result of the smart meter roll-out extension to 2023. The memorandum states that the power taken in clause 1 also enables the Secretary of State to “remove any licensable activities” added by virtue of the power. It goes on to state that this Government have no intention of using the power in that way, and that at the moment the only licensable activity that could be removed is a revision of a smart meter communication service—the DCC’s service.
I appreciate the Government’s honest intention when they state that they do not intend to “remove any licensable activities”, but although the memorandum suggests that there is only one such activity, that could change over time. Paragraph 19 of the memorandum states that the Secretary of State could remove other existing licensable activities that have licences already agreed, given that they have the power elsewhere to modify licences over and above the DCC’s service. As the Committee has already discussed, that seems a power too far for the Secretary of State.
As Labour members of Committee have already indicated, we do not think for a moment that the present Minister or Secretary of State—both of whom are extremely honourable—would seek to do anything that would go beyond the proper exercise of power regarding the extension of time. However, as the Committee has discussed, we are supposed to be legislating for all circumstances. We are not legislating on the basis of our judgment about the goodness and honourability of present company; we are legislating for all time and all purposes. What we put into law must stand up against all intentions of future Governments of whatever colour.
I suggest that although the memorandum contains a statement about the Government’s intentions on the use of the power to remove licensable activities, the use of such a power is not actually prevented by anything in the Bill. It is therefore prudent to include in the Bill—this is what the amendment would do—a statement that the Secretary of State should not remove any licensable activities, which in theory they could do by virtue of the power. The amendment would clarify what the Secretary of State should not do, as well as what they can do.
Given our duties and responsibilities as legislators, that prudent course of action would ensure that the Bill is as clear as it can be, and that it gives the Government of the day the right powers on the extension of time, but does not enable them to overreach themselves with those powers and undertake activities that the Committee would not want them to do. I would think that everyone in the Committee could agree to putting this provision in the Bill, because it would in no way fetter the Government’s aims for the roll-out; it would simply clarify the framework within which the power can be operated. I think that would help rather than hinder the process, and therefore I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
I am not quite sure what that meant. I understand that at present, as the memorandum indicates, there is only one licensable activity that could be removed, and that is indeed the DCC service. The Minister rightly puts it to us that it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the Government would decide to remove that licensable activity, but that is not what legislation is about. Legislation is not about whether, on the balance of probability and taking all things into account, including the bona fides of the Government, something that one might legislate on should not be legislated on because it is unlikely to happen; legislation is supposed to ensure that, in all circumstances we can think of, those things that we do not want to happen should not happen.
Although I take on board what the Minister has said—I do not doubt for one moment his bona fides—I do not think that he has added anything to the debate this morning, other than to repeat what was in the Department’s memorandum.
Richard Harrington
The hon. Gentleman has been gracious in his comments about me personally, about the Secretary of State and, I hope, about most people who would do the job, but should there one day be an evil Secretary of State who, in the middle of the night, while plotting the destruction of society, realised that they could use this power, which in the scale of things is pretty tiny, how would they use it in so destructive a way that a future Parliament might think, “Oh, I wish we had been stronger in this Bill and that we had the power suggested by the then hon. Gentleman”? I hasten to add that I am not hoping that he will have gone to the great energy supplier in the sky, as we all will at some stage. The serious point is this: were that to happen, what is the bad way in which this power could be used?
Dr Whitehead
A future Secretary of State does not necessarily have to have quite the intents suggested by the Members making non-verbal interventions. I can easily envisage such circumstances. For example, bearing in mind that the present DCC is set up as the subsidiary of a private company—
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. The DCC was established in a deliberate way. In effect, there was an auction to decide who would run the DCC after it was set up and it was put into the realm of Capita, so the established DCC is a subsidiary of that company. However, if a future Government thought that it was a particularly bad idea for the DCC to be a subsidiary of Capita, or any other company, they might decide that it was worth enduring the hiatus in the roll-out in order to recast how the DCC operates. It is not beyond consideration that such a Government might think, “The easiest way to do this is by taking the licensable activities away from the DCC as it stands”—in its present arrangement—“and introducing new licensing arrangements.” Having done that under clause 1, to establish a DCC that would not be a subsidiary of Capita, there might be a different arrangement.
Some Members might think that that Government would be pretty misguided, and possibly fairly reckless, in putting the roll-out in jeopardy. But the fact that I have set out a scenario in which a Government, acting on a reasonable and rational consideration, might do that—whether or not one thinks it is a reasonable thing to do—indicates that one could easily envisage circumstances, contrary to what the Minister says, in which the power accorded by clause 1 could be implemented for purposes that we might not think would be helpful to the roll-out of smart meters but could easily be undertaken. Therefore, although that scenario is not very likely, having a line in the legislation to prevent it from happening seems to me a prudent way to proceed.
Richard Harrington
I was going to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I will not now. I am grateful that I am not abusing the system, which I was going to.
I think we have to agree to disagree on this point, because I believe that, given the restrictions in the Bill and everything else, it is a minor point. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not doing it to bring down the Government or anything like that, because opposition is opposition. I respect him not just for his position but, much more than that, for the person he is. If he wishes to press the amendment to a vote, then I understand that I have not persuaded him. If he wishes me to ponder the matter further, or even to meet him and talk about it, I am perfectly prepared to do so. I think it is making a mountain out of a molehill.
He thinks changing the licensable activity is quite an important thing that needs to be brought before Parliament. Any decision to remove a licensable activity would still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, but it is ultimately a question of what discretion a Secretary of State should have in the consumer’s interest. We could politely agree to disagree on that, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss this further and withdraw his amendment for that purpose, I would respect both things. At the moment, I disagree with him not because we are the Government and he is the Opposition but because I do not see the significance of the points he is making.
Dr Whitehead
This is not a cosmically important thing, and I agree with the Minister that it is unlikely to change the course of the roll-out, but I say gently that that is not necessarily what we are supposed to do in Committee. We are not supposed just to grade the importance of the things in the Bill and then decide to act on them according to their relative importance; we are supposed to examine the Bill line by line and, between us, suggest ways that it can be strengthened so that it is as good as we can make it when it returns on Report and Third Reading. That means that things may be added to the Bill that are not in themselves important but could be regarded, in the context of the work we are supposed to do in Committee, as a result of our discharging our responsibilities properly.
I am in a bit of a dilemma. I agree with the Minister that this is not a really important thing, but I cannot see for the life of me why it cannot be placed in the Bill so that at the end of its passage it is as good as we, between us, can make it and that it contains things that, although they may not be that important, add to its overall strength. I simply have not heard any reason why that cannot be done. I have heard reasons why the amendment is not that important. The Minister might suggest—and he might be right—that if we put it to a vote we would over-emphasise its importance. However, I am—“annoyed” is not quite the right word—a little concerned that something that can be seen as reasonably obvious, if not as significantly strengthening the Bill, regardless of our party positions or of the position we take on the Bill overall, is rejected in this way. For that reason, I seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
There is not too much more to say on clause 1 stand part, inasmuch as we have undertaken a good examination of the clause. We have made a number of suggestions to strengthen it. Although we had a little fall-out just recently, in general the discussion has proceeded in such a way that we are satisfied that the points we have raised have either been taken into account, explained properly, or given rise to some undertakings about how matters might proceed not within the context of the clause, but perhaps administratively in backing up the clause. Therefore we would not want to oppose clause 1 stand part.
New clause 4 has been grouped with the clause 1 stand part debate. That is sort of the wrong way around, because the Minister has given his assurances about new clause 4 before I had the opportunity to say what I wished to have assurances about, but we will let that one pass and proceed as if it was the other way around. Just to explain to the Committee, new clause 4 is drafted very specifically, again, in the context of the memorandum in which the Department set out the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, where the Department states its justification for taking powers in clause 1. It says:
“We consider this extension was necessary so that the Government can remove any barriers to the roll-out of smart meters which emerged and ensure that benefits for consumers are maximised in the continuing operating of smart meters following completion of the roll-out”.
It then states:
“The Government has made public commitments to undertake reviews in the following areas of the smart meter roll-out…data access and privacy to ensure the regulatory framework remains fit for purpose in 2018…benefits realised during the roll-out to assess whether we can do anything to encourage greater benefits in 2019…overall effectiveness of the policy framework post-implementation for future smart metering operations in 2021”.
As hon. Members will observe, that is exactly what has been set out in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of our new clause. The commitments to reviews that the Department has already undertaken in principle for the extended period of the roll-out are transferred to the Bill. The Minister has already mentioned this morning his commitment to undertake an annual review that, I assume, would incorporate these particular concerns and considerations.
Richard Harrington
That is a perfectly fair assumption —that is our intention.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that clarification. A commitment to an annual report to be laid before both Houses goes a long way towards satisfying our concerns about whether these particular wider commitments should be placed in the Bill. I thank the Minister for his commitment and will not press new clause 4 to a vote.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I want briefly to add my voice and that of my party on new clause 4. I know that the Minister will agree that we need continually to reassure consumers that their data are securely and robustly protected in the course of this roll-out. I know that he will agree how important it is to ensure that meters currently installed are always to the highest specification of function and data security.
The Minister will also be concerned—like, I am sure, everybody else in the room—about the evidence that was taken that the smart meter network is being installed before its requirements as an internet-connected energy system have been fully determined. We would expect—I know that the Minister will feel this—that the Minister would do everything in his power to ensure that consumers are best protected amid this roll-out.
I impress on the Minister and remind him of the concerns raised in March 2016 in the Financial Times that GCHQ had intervened in smart meter security, claiming that the agency had discovered glaring loopholes in meter design. As we move forward with these considerations, I want to impress those concerns on the Minister.
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and am very pleased that GCHQ did that, because it shows how it was included in the process of getting to the security stage that we are at today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Smart meter communication licensee administration orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
We have talked about the extension period; the second part of the Bill is about administration orders. These might be made in the context of the DCC’s failure to operate either because it has gone bankrupt or because its supply of funds dries up or is diluted for any reason and it can no longer continue—it is entirely dependent on the resources it receives from suppliers to operate. A number of clauses in the Bill relate to setting up a procedure to enable the roll-out to continue by recovering the DCC’s procedures, if and when in administration, in such a way that the flow of the roll-out is not interrupted. At this stage of the legislation, therefore, we need to concentrate on whether the things put forward—what can and should be done by Government to make that change while at the same time continuing with the roll-out in the unlikely event of administration—are good enough to ensure the roll-out continues and we achieve the purpose of ensuring a smooth passage.
I want to make two brief points, to which the Minister may want to respond. The first is about provisions in the Bill relating to what are unlikely events that probably will not happen, but conceivably could. It might be prudent to legislate to ensure that we are in a position to do something in the unlikely event of that happening. We had a debate about that recently in this Committee. What we are doing in considering the second part of the legislation is roughly what we were doing in the first part to try and strengthen the Bill. We did not succeed in doing that, but we will not be churlish or childish about that. We will go along with the idea that this is an unlikely event, for which we have to make prudent legislation to ensure that catastrophe does not take place as far as the roll-out is concerned.
The second point is that we are legislating this morning for an event that could occur to an organisation that has been in operation for several years already without this legislation being on the statute book. One might ask, therefore, what was happening in the meantime. Were we operating over a period of time where there was no protection for the smart meter roll-out programme from the possible bankruptcy or administration of the organisation that was essential to the running of the whole operation? That seems to me to be a considerable omission on the Government’s part.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
We seem to have heard a lot in this Bill about these unlikely events that are never going to happen, but for which we have got to take precautions. I remember being told that banks were too big to fail as well. I wonder whether the point my hon. Friend is making is that we have got to a situation where we have a multibillion pound investment in the DCC—all of it coming out of customers’ pockets—and yet there is no protection at this moment if things were to go pear-shaped?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is right. That is the situation at the moment, and that is what the Bill, very late in the day, seeks to rectify. I am not saying that one should not take part in the rectification of that problem. Clearly it should be rectified, and we need legislation that protects us in those circumstances.
I wonder if, as a gateway into this part of the Bill, the Minister might share some thoughts with the Committee on why this has not happened before and why we have had these circumstances for several years. I appreciate that it was before the DCC went live, which was only relatively recently, but the DCC was set up and a lot of money was put into it. All the various arrangements went through, and it was by no means impossible for that problem to arise to date. I am pleased that we are taking this step, but slightly alarmed that we have not done it previously. Can the Minister shed any light on why that was the case? Did the Government simply forget? Was the legislation so difficult to undertake that it has not been drafted until now, or was it not thought necessary to have this protection prior to the DCC being in its present position? It would be useful to have some guidance on what thinking went on before the legislation appeared.
Richard Harrington
Before making a few brief comments, I will try to answer the two very reasonable questions raised by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak.
I will deal with the unlikely event point first. The Government have to try to gauge how unlikely an unlikely event is. I hope the hon. Member for Southampton, Test accepts that it is a question of judgment. We have to draw the line somewhere on the level of unlikeliness, and we drew it on the wrong side of what he thinks is unlikely.
Richard Harrington
Yes, that is very good. I wondered what the hon. Gentleman did his doctoral thesis on, and now I have discovered it.
It is a judgment call. I hope I made it clear in my previous comments that I do not think his amendment is unreasonable, mad or anything like that; it is just that we have to try to make a judgment, and it is on a different side of the line to his.
The question of why we have not done this before is, like many of the hon. Gentleman’s points, very valid. It is one of the first questions I asked officials when considering this. I have been given a note, which I have not read; I will answer from what I think, rather than what I have been told. I asked that very question. I understand that this was consulted on in 2011 by the Department. The official reason—genuinely—is that there is a lot of competition for parliamentary time, and this is the first opportunity we have had to deal with something that is reasonable, but at the highest level of unlikeliness on the unlikely-o-meter, if there were such a thing. There must be an unlikeliness app to gauge the level of unlikeliness.
I personally think this should have been done before. It was probably less important than it is now and going forward, simply because of the scale of use and the containability of unlikeliness. This was the first opportunity I had to introduce the clause on what to do in the event of these unlikely circumstances, and it is important. It is to stop other interested parties putting in administrators. There are always commercial administrators—for example, companies that have not been paid. There is a normal system to do this that still exists, but it does not have the level of control that the Department or Ofgem would have.
This is important. I could spend 10, 15 or 20 minutes of the Committee’s time going through the reasons why it is important, but those reasons will be debated later on in the Bill’s passage. I hope I have answered the points raised to the best of my ability.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I rise in support of what I think is a simple and honest amendment that seeks only to underline the need for transparency—that is something we should be stressing throughout the Bill. We could ask whether the words “efficiently” and “economically” really need to be included in the Bill, and of course they do, but likewise we also need the word “transparently”.
If I understood correctly, this process started some years ago and we are now legislating for it. A moment ago it was asked why we are doing this only now. That seems a little incredible to someone who walked into this place a few months ago, but be that as it may, we are where we are. What we are picking up from consumers is not necessarily distrust, but there is some confusion out there. Any means by which we can improve the transparency of the programme and provide clarity for consumer and suppliers is surely vital. I support the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
In supporting this amendment, will hon. Members cast their eyes across clauses 2 and 3 that set up the smart meter communication licensee administration, and the special administrative regime—the SAR? We must emphasise what a special circumstance this is. This would be where the body that had been charged with the whole roll-out of smart meters, which had millions of pounds under its guidance, had gone into administration—for whatever reason. As the Minister points out, traditional methods are available for dealing with a company that has gone into administration.
A special administration regime would, among other things, ensure that the special nature of the DCC and its complete centrality to the roll-out was not subsumed under that traditional method of administration, which might cause damage given what the administrator might decide to do with the company if there were not a regime that was carefully worded and sorted out. The administrator might decide that a number of functions that otherwise would have been carried out by the DCC would not be—indeed, we may debate some of those additional functions later. There would be the whole question of the administration of that company being brushed under the carpet, being put in the hands of the administrator and set aside from the public gaze.
A lot of company administrations take place in circumstances of some opacity—that is, it is difficult to ascertain exactly why the company went into administration, the intentions of the administrator or even where the appointment of the administrator came from. It is difficult to find out what the administrator thinks they are going to do with the company concerned. There are whole series of things that, in terms of general company law, ought to be a little more transparent but generally are not; that is how it works as far as company law is concerned.
However, this is a very different circumstance: the entity is an essential public function as well as a company, which might be placed into administration. It is therefore right that, in clauses 2 and 3, we do more than say that we want to make sure that the administration is in the right hands and that nothing happens with the administration that will cause damage to the passage of the DCC as the organiser of the smart meter roll-out. That is what all the paragraphs in clause 3, and some of those in clause 2, are about. They are concerned with the smooth transfer and running of the system. There is not one word about any light that should be shone on what would have happened to that company previously, and what is the public good of the company subsequently, once it comes out of administration.
Steve McCabe
The Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the Energy and Climate Change Committee have all expressed doubts about the operation of the programme, its transparency and the escalating cost. In such circumstances, if the Minister was forced to use the additional powers because of failure, surely it would be a complete dereliction of duty not to make what had happened obvious.
The Chair
Order. Before the shadow Minister responds, I ask Members again to focus their remarks, if possible, specifically on the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend underlines the importance of putting the word “transparently” somewhere in clause 3. An event may happen that the public would properly be interested in; they may be concerned about what might happen to them as far as administrative processes are concerned or about the effect on their bills of an event that caused substantial additional money to be spent over and above what had already been set aside. We must emphasise that all the costs that have been set out for the smart meter roll-out—be that the cost of the smart meter, the cost of the advertising campaign or the cost of the DCC itself—will, one way or another, be recovered from customers’ bills.
With that in mind, putting in the Bill a requirement for processes to be fully transparent would serve the consumer positively. I support the addition of that single word—“transparently”—to the Bill. I cannot see any downsides to that. It would not in any way impede the process of administration. All the objectives and procedures in clause 3 to ensure that the DCC runs as effectively as possible and protects the roll-out are sound. Inserting the word “transparently” would add to that protection and do nothing to undermine it, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider doing so.
Richard Harrington
I understand the purpose of the amendment well. On the surface, it seems to be a good thing. Transparency is good anyway, and I will argue that the provision would lead to transparency. It is reasonable to argue that this is an important matter and that we want everyone to know what is going on. We are all here because we are part of a democratic process; I do not think anyone could disagree with that principle.
However, I cannot agree with the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak because of what the amendment would mean in practice for the administration. Thankfully, none of us have experience of this kind of public, as opposed to commercial, administration—I know that is not quite the technical word—and I accept that. By the way, there will be plenty of legal requirements on the administration, which I will come to in a minute. It is just totally unrealistic for an administrator, given those requirements and all the complexities that it will have to deal with, unlikely though it might be, to spend hours ensuring that the public—I think this is what the amendment would mean—are kept informed of all the administrator’s moves, given that administrators have to meet plenty of requirements. I ask the Committee to bear that in mind; I cannot accept what the hon. Gentlemen said. That is not because we are secretly against transparency or anything like that.
Steve McCabe
It is a devastating blow to hear that the Minister cannot bring himself to accept the word “transparent”, but in the circumstances I do not think that we would gain very much by pressing this to a vote. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on what has been said, because the circumstances in which he would have to exercise this power would be a massive failure and, almost certainly, a massive loss to the public, and I do not think anyone would be comfortable thinking that there had been any attempt to hush that up or push it to one side. I hope that he will reflect very seriously on why it has been raised. I do not wish such a failure to occur at all, but I am very clear that if it did, I would be one of the first at the front of the queue saying, “What on earth went on here?” I do not think there would be any gain in pushing it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert “within the context of the full services offered by the DCC”.
This amendment requires that any regulations about prioritisation of activities following the DCC going into administration would have to take into account the context of the full services offered by the DCC.
The amendment refers to clause 3(6), which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the activities to be undertaken in a smart meter communication licence under administration, subsequent to the DCC having been placed in that administration. The circumstances set out in subsection (6) are essentially about the extent to which the Secretary of State may say to the administrator, “You are now in the position of administrating this failed company. Because of the arrangements necessary for the roll-out of smart meters, you should make sure that, at the very least, the minimum amount of activities are carried out to enable a smooth roll-out of smart meter services.”
As far as I understand it, the reason for the subsection is that as the DCC evolves it will undertake the initial core services provided in respect of the roll-out, but it may also undertake a number of additional elective services to facilitate the roll-out. It is those additional elective services that the Department mentions in the memorandum it placed in front of the regulatory Committee, stating:
“In the unlikely event that the DCC becomes insolvent, it may be necessary to prioritise certain activities of the DCC…We are not yet in a position to set out the prioritisation of the DCC’s services, so soon after the start of live services…and in advance of the development of elective services. We believe that this will be possible ahead of the completion of the rollout when demand from suppliers for DCC to provide other services could be expected to have materialised.”
The Department then states:
“Once we have determined the prioritisation and how it should be done, we would prepare a statutory instrument that would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
I will come to that particular point in a moment.
The point of those particular passages, concerning clause 3(6), is that the Department is not clear what the prioritisation of the DCC services might be under administration, because the Department is not yet clear, so close to the start of live services, what range of services it would face under administration—because those services have not yet fully emerged. The Department would therefore want to determine how the prioritisation should be done, and to prepare a further statutory instrument, which would give form to that prioritisation once that is clear.
That is all very reasonable, except that something does not appear in 3(6) as it stands, or within the policy intent section that the Department has put forward as far as the regulatory Committee is concerned: any provision requiring that the services that the administrated DCC carries out at that point be as close as possible to the full range of services that were there before. It is distinctly possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations that would, for example, remove all elective services that had been developed by the DCC and concentrate just on the core services—the minimum that would enable the roll-out to limp home under the terms of administration.
The amendment seeks to give a context for what the Secretary of State may do by regulation, as far as administration is concerned, and it states that that context should be the full services offered by the DCC. Obviously, those would be the full services offered by the DCC at the point it went into administration, including those elective services which we do not fully know about at the moment. Clearly, if the DCC, prior to its administration, had developed a wider palette of services than the very minimum, it would have done so for particular reasons. I imagine that those reasons would be to assist the roll-out. Therefore, as a desideratum, under the terms of the administration, the DCC should operate post-administration as closely as possible to how it operated prior to administration.
The Secretary of State should consider, under those circumstances, what might be impossible or very difficult to achieve under a process of administration, not a wish for various services to be discontinued or downgraded. Obviously, I imagine that the Secretary of State would want to make sure that the future regulation was indeed as close as possible to what the DCC was doing before it went into administration, but I would suggest that is not entirely the point. It is necessary to put in the Bill a framework for what the Secretary of State may do under regulation, and that should be to have serious regard to the services in place prior to administration and not to be tempted, as it were, to put forward regulations or give instructions subject to regulation that did not produce an outcome post-administration that was as good as it had been pre-administration.
Richard Harrington
As with the last amendment, I perfectly understand this amendment’s purpose: to require that any regulations that the Secretary of State lays down about prioritisation of DCC activities following administration
“would have to take into account the context of the full services offered by the DCC.”
I understand the purpose, but I will do my best in the next few minutes to argue that there would be no effect on the policy. The precise intention of the proposed regulations is to specify the activities carried out by the DCC to which the smart meter communication administrator must give priority, and how that should be done, taking account of the full range of activities that the DCC is carrying out under its licences at that time. That is exactly what we are trying to do; we are just trying to ensure that the functions of the DCC under its licences are performed efficiently and economically, as I said before.
The administrator may face a judgment on which DCC services to prioritise; it is quite normal for an administrator to do that. The most appropriate judgment will depend on the circumstances, but that may not be clear to the administrator on the day that they take over the administration, and there may be a trade-off, as there are in administrations, between prioritising different services.
The clause to which the amendment relates gives the Secretary of State the power to make the regulations specifying which activities carried out by the DCC under its licences must be prioritised by the administrator, and how that should be done. As the smart metering programme develops beyond the foundation stage—the stage we are fundamentally preoccupied with as the purpose of the roll-out—we expect the number of services provided by the licensee to increase. The licensee can, for example, offer bespoke services for suppliers and others, building on the smart metering programme. I know that is what we all want. As part of that, consumers may be able to choose to give third parties permission to access their data, allowing a much wider range of energy-related services to be developed: products, advice, switching suppliers, tariff choices and all that sort of thing.
Smart metering data may also be used, where the consumer so chooses, as part of taking that service—for example, in supporting home energy management services and even for non-energy-related services, such as smart washing machines that do the laundry at different times so it costs less. That is not directly to do with the supply of energy but with the consequences that matter to most people: “How much will it cost and how can I save money?” I suppose it could be used to identify faulty or inefficient appliances, or to support carers, through a service that allows family members to be updated about changes in routine. That sounds futuristic, but there are many interesting things that could come from the programme if we take the big picture for the future.
It might be in the interests of consumers and the wider energy market for the administrator, if that day comes—I do not think it will—to prioritise core services. If we keep smart metering working, the other stuff is all very nice, but for a time it could not be a priority, in order to keep the core system going. I believe it must be the role of Government to guide the administrator in that respect, because of the speed that must be taken into consideration within an administration. The precise aim of the regulations is to provide future flexibility to ensure the full range of activities carried out by the DCC at that point can be taken into account. That prioritisation will support the continuation of services in the overall interests of the public.
I believe the Bill delivers the noble aims of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. I hope he will consider what I have said and the explanations I have given, and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
In the context of the fact that what is set out in Hansard has some legal bearing, the Minister has this morning set out in terms fairly similar to the amendment the scope of clause 3 and the Government’s intention in regulations made under subsection (6). I do not want to press the amendment. I think it is agreed that we aim to ensure that the DCC’s circumstances prior to administration should be repeated as closely as possible post-administration for the general good of the roll-out. That is what I understood the Minister to say, and I hope he will confirm that.
Richard Harrington
I confirm that what the hon. Gentleman just said is precisely the case. I tried to be as clear as possible, and I am glad that he, like me, respects that things in Hansard are meant to be as they are said. I can clear that one up.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to regulations under Clause 3.
This is the bad bit of clause 3. As stated before, the clause envisages the Minister making regulations to determine which of the DCC’s services should be prioritised to continue after administration. We have already agreed that those services should, in principle, be as close as possible to what they were prior to administration.
The Minister has responsibility under subsections (6) and (7) not only to make provision about how the smart meter communication administrator gives priority to specified activities but to produce a statutory instrument to that effect. It is envisaged that the negative procedure would apply to the statutory instrument. Subsection (7) states that the instrument is
“subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
That means that the statutory instrument could be prayed against and annulled if a negative resolution is placed before the House. If no one objects to the instrument, it goes through.
I set out in a previous Bill Committee why, in general terms, adopting important regulations by negative means is a bad idea. It is important that the House has proper sight of regulations and a proper opportunity to debate them and decide on them. As I am sure hon. Members know, the negative resolution procedure is a source of considerable dissatisfaction in the House. Under the negative resolution procedure, if we wish to proceed subject to annulment, as the legislation suggests, we have to enter a prayer against the instrument, which is in the form of an early-day motion which suggests that it should be annulled; that it has been noticed, and we do not like it—or at least want to have it debated.
The prayer itself does not stop the passage of the negative resolution in the House. Indeed, there have been occasions when a negative resolution has gone into law and a number of months later it turns out that it is debated in Committee. The time lapse is sometimes because—not to put too fine a point on it—the Whips on the Government side have not conceded that there should be a time-slot available for a debate on that resolution. A prayer is essentially asking, “Please can we have a debate to annul this resolution?”
It is essentially in the gift, in this instance, of the Government Whips, to make time available for that to take place. It is not necessarily going to take place within the period of objection or even within a reasonable period after the objection has been made. So there are circumstances in which, before any light is shed on the negative resolution in the House, that resolution has been in force for quite a period of time. The debate that then takes place in the House is merely an observation on that negative resolution. It is not clear in House procedure whether even a vote for annulment at that point actually annuls that resolution, because it has already been enforced and is in operation.
Negative procedure should be used to place an instrument on the statute book only where the subject is purely technical in content and has no policy implications or wider concerns. In this instance, from the debate we have already had this morning, I suggest that regulations would do rather more than operate in only a very technical set of circumstances. There would be possible policy implications. As the Minister said this morning, Members would want to see that the Government’s intentions for the operation of the DCC had been carried out in regulations and would probably want to have a say on those regulations. An affirmative procedure seems to be absolutely the right way to do that.
I remain generally concerned about the extent to which legislation going through the House seems to allow for such negative resolutions. I am afraid that this looks like another instance of that. It is not necessary for the proper passage of a regulation through the House. What the Government want to do to make sure that the regulations work could be perfectly well achieved by a positive procedure; it would not hold it up, it would simply mean that it had to have some light shone on it and would be properly debated in Committee before it proceeded. For that reason, I suggest that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.
The Chair
I remind Members that we have to finish at exactly 11.25 am this morning, so, if there is to be a Division, it might be preferable to have it before then. However, I am, of course, in your hands.
Richard Harrington
I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about her consumer concerns, but I agree with your ruling, Mr Gapes, that what she has said is not relevant to this amendment, which is about technical considerations, and parliamentary scrutiny of those, in the event of the demise of the DCC and a special administration regime being put in. The point is not relevant to the amendment, but it is a valid concern. I am happy to discuss it with her informally, if not formally now.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has alluded to a particular point about regulations under this clause, which relates to the speed that would be necessary to act under the circumstances of administration. That is a defence of the idea that there should be a negative resolution; presumably, the fact that Parliament at that time did not want to proceed to an annulment would allow things to be done speedily. I understand that, so on that narrow point we will not press the amendment to a vote this afternoon.
I draw the Minister’s attention to our next debate about a similar set of circumstances that concern a negative resolution, and to which that defence cannot be mounted. I hope that he will take his own words from this morning into account when we return this afternoon to debate the relevant clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Freer.)
Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsTuesday 28th November 2017
(6 years, 12 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2017 - (28 Nov 2017)
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“(ba) in paragraph 33(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative”
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to the use of provisions of Schedule 20 of the Energy Act 2004 under this Act.
The amendment, which I alluded to this morning, relates to a further clause in the Bill to allow regulations to be made by the negative procedure, not the affirmative procedure that I think hon. Members would prefer in most circumstances. Clause 4(1) deals with the possibility that, as smart metering develops, the licence holder of the Data Communications Company could be a non-GB company. The clause sets out what would be the conditions of administration of the future DCC in the event that the company that was the ultimate owner was not a UK company; separate arrangements might have to be made for it. In the memorandum from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have mentioned previously, the procedure that is set out in the clause is described thus:
“We consider that the negative resolution procedure is justified for providing for what would be detailed modifications narrowly focused on particular provisions of insolvency legislation and their specific application to a non-GB company. Affirmative resolution procedure or new primary legislation is not considered to be appropriate given the nature of the changes.”
No particular reason is given for the fact that affirmative legislation is not considered to be appropriate. A further consideration that is new in this clause—it was not the case with the previous clause that we discussed in relation to affirmative resolution procedures—is that, as the memorandum states at the beginning of the paragraph, legislation on what would happen if the owner was a non-GB company would be undertaken using a Henry VIII power. We have not yet discussed Henry VIII powers in this Committee, although we discussed them in a previous Committee in which the Minister and I were involved. On that occasion it was generally concluded that the use of Henry VIII powers in legislation was a bad idea. As I am sure hon. Members will know, Henry VIII powers essentially allow primary legislation that is on the statute books to be amended by secondary means. As a general principle in this House, one would have thought that enabling the Government to do that—depending on what bounds have been placed on the procedure—is potentially a worrying development. Without recourse to the Floor of the House and a full debate on the legislation, a Government can, if that legislation contains Henry VIII clauses, use secondary legislation to alter what Parliament had previously discussed during the full process of Second Reading, Committee, Report and so on, through both Houses of Parliament. The Government can amend that legislation through a regulation that substitutes for a piece of the primary legislation that was discussed previously by the House. That seems a bad principle of legislation, and if it is to be used, it should be used extremely sparingly and only in emergency circumstances.
This Bill is generally quite benign and innocuous, but surprisingly it contains a Henry VIII power to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Energy Act 2004 and its schedule by secondary legislation. In this instance, the proposal to allow that is not only suggested in terms of providing detailed modifications on particular aspects of the insolvency rate legislation by secondary legislation, but it enables a Henry VIII power to be put through Parliament on the basis of a negative resolution which, as I said this morning, would give Parliament very little scrutiny of the whole process.
This morning we discussed the difficult conditions that might apply if the DCC became insolvent, and the need for speed and urgency might conceivably justify passing such a measure through the House by negative resolution. We cannot, however, really apply those arguments to this clause because this is not something that will need to be done as a matter of urgency. As the memorandum states:
“The earliest the licence is expected to be re-tendered and could potentially be transferred to a non-GB company would be 23 September 2025.”
What we are considering is not exactly an urgent process, and neither is it in parallel with the ideas put forward when we discussed the previous clause. This is a Henry VIII power that proposes to amend primary legislation by means of a negative procedure where no urgency is envisaged—it is as simple as that. In those circumstances, it seems to me, and even given the Minister’s own words, that there can be little justification for taking through these legislative procedures with a negative resolution. That is why the amendment substitutes the word “affirmative” for “negative”. Bad though we think Henry VIII powers are generally, if there is to be such a power, it should at least be passed by affirmative, rather than negative procedure, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Henrys were discussed in the Committee that considered the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, including under the illustrious chairmanship of the then Mr McCabe, whom we must now refer to as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. It was interesting to hear contributions from the hon. Gentleman not just about Henry VIII, but about Henry VII, the French king, I seem to recall, who I looked up on Wikipedia that very evening.
Dr Whitehead
I need to put a correction on the record in that case, Mrs Gillan, because I did mention Henry IX, the French king. It was, in fact, Henry IX of Bavaria. I was mistaken at that point, but there was indeed a Henry IX and he lived in Bavaria.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister tried quite hard, but did not actually say anything new, other than what is already on the delegated legislation memorandum that I myself read out to the Committee. That was essentially the Minister’s defence of the procedure he is seeking to introduce.
I might have anticipated some other, particular reason—in addition to it not being urgent—for putting this forward as a negative resolution. There apparently is not one, other than that it is fairly narrowly drawn and relates to the Insolvency Act 1986, but nevertheless it amends the Insolvency Act 1986 by secondary legislation and negative procedure. That is the point that I was making: it is not the narrowness of it but the procedure by which the legislation is amended. This is an important principle for legislation in general, and I am therefore afraid that I do not think we can withdraw the amendment this afternoon. We would like to see this an affirmative procedure. In the absence of any good ideas that might arise in the next few minutes—a bit like the EU negotiations on the border—we may have to divide the Committee on this.
Richard Harrington
I hope the hon. Gentleman knows that I do try to accommodate wherever I can. To disagree with the argument I have put forward—which is “the other ones are like that”—would be basically to say that the other ones are wrong. I cannot see any rationale—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me—why one should be different from the other energy one. To me that is the important point; to him, I do not think that it is.
I would ask him to reconsider. If it is really important to him, rather than put it to a vote—which he is welcome to—he could sit down and discuss it with me before Report, when he would still have the option to do what he wanted. I am very happy to do that, but it seems to me to be an administrative matter and, to him, it does seem to be a point of principle. It if is a point of principle, I cannot really accommodate him because I have to show the precedents, but there may be other things we could explore. If that were a suitable option, I would be very happy to do it.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that we must press the point.
The fact that there is some bad legislation on the statute book does not mean there should automatically be more. I am afraid that that does not take us much further forward.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Richard Harrington
I have discussed the clause extensively and will not repeat my points other than to say that the powers are absolutely necessary. Hundreds of pages of things, such as quorums of meetings, have to be dealt with in this way. We propose to extend the application of the existing power, for which there is plenty of precedent, in relation to the energy supply company special administration regime.
Dr Whitehead
There is a new clause that refers effectively to what we are considering here, but I am happy for it to be discussed separately, even though it has a substantial bearing on whether a non-GB company might be a successor to the DCC. As far as this stand part debate is concerned, I have no further comments other than that I will save my fire for later when we discuss the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Modifications of particular or standard conditions
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 6, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
“(aa) the public; and”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the public before making a modification to particular or standard conditions of gas or electricity licences when these powers are being used in connection with the smart meter communication licensee administration provisions.
No doubt you have observed, Mrs Gillan, as will have members of the Committee, that there are some similarities between this amendment and amendment 8 to clause 3, which we discussed earlier. They are part of the effort I have been making to ensure that the public have a slightly bigger voice in what happens in the programme, particularly in the event of something going wrong with it. I mentioned earlier the number of groups and organisations that have expressed anxiety, and these include the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the Energy and Climate Change Committee. I was particularly struck to see that Centrica itself had reached the stage where it thought the cost of the programme should be met from general taxation, rather than a charge on the customer. That led me to wonder.
As I hope I have indicated throughout, I do not hold the Minister responsible because I appreciate that he was bequeathed the current state of affairs by his predecessor—but I wonder if the Minister believes that, if this were a Treasury programme, it would have been allowed to continue in its present form for this length of time, with the escalating cost. I would be very curious to hear his response —if possible; I am not trying to put him in a difficult position. The Minister did tell us earlier about one of the first questions he asked when he arrived in the Department and he went on to explain that he had some doubts about the information he was being given. I am really curious to know what he felt when he first encountered the programme and whether he was confident that all was well with it, because it seems to me that there are grounds for some doubt. I want to refer to the cost-benefit analysis, on the basis that the 2016 analysis was significantly revised downwards. We have never had an explanation for exactly why that was the case. It is probably reasonable to guess that it is partly about the delay in the roll-out, but the way things are going at the moment, with delays in the roll-out and escalating costs, we could end up in a situation where the benefit for the customer turns into a big fat negative. It seems to me that it would be a bit remiss of us not to pay some attention to that.
I do not know if I have got this wrong, but it looks to me as if, every way we turn, there is only one person footing the bill for any aspect of the programme. The Minister tells us that the energy suppliers can be fined if they do not achieve the roll-out, but presumably that means another cost that gets passed on to the customer. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he envisages any protections to ensure that, were he to use his powers to fine the supplier for failing to comply with the roll-out deadline, that would simply not be, in effect, yet another charge imposed on the customer. Certainly, as a customer and as someone who represents lots of constituents who are customers, I would like to know if that is the case and if that is what I am being asked to support today. It would be reasonable to know. As far as I understand it, the power to fine is up to 10% of turnover. Perhaps the Minister can give us some clue as to what that works out at per customer—funnily enough, I would expect that it is quite a tidy sum of money.
In the past, the Government have said that they would intervene to make sure the benefits of the roll-out were realised, if they believed the costs were being passed on to the customers to an unacceptable extent. In the context of the amendment, is the Minister happy that the current escalation in the costs is acceptable? At what point does he think his Department might be moved to intervene?
We are repeatedly asked to recognise that the DCC is unlikely to fail and that everything we are being asked to undertake here is simply on the basis of extra protection in the event of failure, but what I am saying is—
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made a very good case for this amendment, to which I want to add only the question of what is happening throughout the roll-out process. My point relates to the cost of the process and the cost-benefit analysis. There will be a better opportunity in discussing a later clause to go into that in greater depth. For the purposes of this particular amendment, the act of funding an administration without knowing the amount involved, which will inevitably go on to customers’ bills, could result in a further deterioration of the cost-benefit arrangements in the context of the process as a whole.
We see already a number of areas in the August 2016 cost-benefit analysis. Page 15 of that analysis sets out how a whole series of areas reduced their net present value by substantial amounts, sliding away from the previously positive cost-benefit finding, with an overall reduction in net present value of some £500 million.
We may well be in for further considerations as more cost-benefit issues arise, and as the programme unfolds we could be in the position of considering the statements made about the benefits to the public of smart meters overall. Let us not forget that the initial cost-benefit analyses looked very rosy compared with the programme’s predicted cost. One could argue that although there may be higher consumer bills to cover the programme’s implementation, the benefits to the customer, consumers and the country as a whole would be considerable.
I will quote from an academic paper entitled “Vulnerability and resistance in the United Kingdom smart meter transition”: the authors describe the expected combined total cost of the programme as being “at least £11 billion”, or more than £200 per household. It adds:
“Even the marketing campaign inspires awe, with £100 million committed over a five-year duration of the program, convincing Barnett”—
an academic authority—
“to estimate that it is the biggest advertising campaign in the world in the ‘next five years.’”
All these costs will go on customers’ bills, one way or another, and will be subject to that cost-benefit analysis as it comes through. In the event that administration is required of the DCC, it seems essential for us to know the impact of that administration on total bills to the public, and the impact on the net benefit. There might be circumstances in which the DCC goes into administration, is rescued in the manner suggested in the Bill, is put forward on a different basis and ends up being a net cost benefit to the public. But, apparently, we do not know the likely cost in such circumstances or what the benefit might be, and we do not have any mechanism for appraising that against what else is in the cost-benefit analysis.
The purpose of the amendment, admirably crafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, is to do just that. It would not stop the Minister from doing anything in particular; it is simply saying, “Have a good mind to that overall cost-benefit situation. Make sure you are clear about the costs and benefits of that process. Make sure that that gets reported and sees the light of day as far as the public are concerned.” That seems to me to be a sensible coda to put in the process that does not in any way put a brake on it. I think the whole Committee could support the amendment.
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak for their contributions. Clause 6 grants the Secretary of State the power to make modifications to licensing conditions when he or she considers it appropriate to do so in connection with the special administration regime for the smart meter communication licensee.
The licence modifications envisaged under the power are already drafted and publicly available. They allow the costs of administration—however unlikely we agree such an event to be—to be recouped from the industry where there is a shortfall in the assets it gets back to meet the costs. As the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak have said, it is hard—indeed, almost impossible—to estimate the cost of administration up front, and I fully accept their point that there cannot be a blind process or an open cheque; a firm of accountants should not be able to do what they want, when they want, and then charge for it.
One reads about insolvency operations in the press and sometimes one gets the impression that the costs of the administration are more than the insolvency achieves. However, I think that is very unlikely in this case, simply because of the guaranteed revenue stream and all the things we have been through before. The point made in moving the amendment is right: we should try to understand what the costs would be.
It has been estimated that the DCC has cost billions, and that is basically everything aggregated over the period. To put the issue in perspective, it projects its annual costs to be £67 million in 2019-20. Obviously, a significant part of the administration costs would pay the ongoing costs while the business is kept going to get more revenue and find a buyer. Those are already planned for; they are not new costs. In layman’s terms, new costs would be the fees for accountants and lawyers to deal with the actual physical administration itself. Those new costs are not to do with the actual running of the business, and I believe them to be limited. On the issue of scale, I cannot see the administration costs being disproportionate to the annual costs or the huge amount of set-ups.
The key point of the amendment is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the shadow Minister feel that we should try to estimate the costs and that a lot more knowledge is needed and should be made available to the public. When the Government come to formally consult on the modifications, which they will in due course, the consultation document will provide an assessment of the potential scale of the cost that might need to be recouped from the industry. That can only be an estimate, because no one knows the exact figures, but there must be comparables. I suspect that the accountancy firms and other relevant parties, such as a regulator, will put in their estimates. I am very happy to provide that assessment in the consultation document. The responses that come in should be very helpful.
On the scale of cost, the assessment will need to take a variety of factors into account. Part of that is the running costs of the licensee and an estimate of the special administration cost. We will take advice from relevant parties—including the independent regulator, Ofgem—when providing the estimate of the potential cost. I undertake that the consultation on the licence modifications will be published and that we will invite comments from energy consumers as well as other representative bodies. One of the questions that we will expressly ask is whether the consultees agree with the assessment that we are laying out in the consultation. I undertake that, prior to the licence modifications being made, I am happy to make available to both Houses of Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation, which will report on the conclusions on the estimated potential scale of costs.
Having considered those points, I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will withdraw the amendment.
Steve McCabe
Again, the Minister has been quite helpful. We need to remember that we are talking about a circumstance where there has been a catastrophic economic failure of the DCC. That is why the Minister would be in that position. It would inevitably be—in part, at least—because of doubts about the system, resulting in escalating costs. It would be against a background of an ongoing dispute about SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 meters and the whole question of interoperability, and it would of course then feed into the question whether the meter asset providers were also adding to the cost because of the new role in which they found themselves. That is why we would be in that situation.
In such a situation, I certainly would not want to be the Minister putting my name to something without having some reasonable evaluation of what exactly had happened; how much the cost was likely to escalate; and whether or not this thing was turning into a white elephant. It seems to me that it would be pretty necessary to do that.
If the Minister is confident that the information he will glean from the consultation and that he will make public will be enough to provide him and his colleagues with the cover they might require if they ever find themselves in that situation, I am happy to accept his judgment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Modifications under the Enterprise Act 2002
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
We are overrun with Henrys again this afternoon: there are more Henrys in clause 8. I have not tabled an amendment because the question of amendments to Henry VIII clauses has been tested, but the Committee should be aware that clauses 8 and 9 are substantial Henry VIII clauses. Both seek to make regulations by negative procedure. The clause to which I drew attention earlier is therefore not an accident; it is part of a theme that runs right through this Bill and that theme ought to be looked at.
We could have a debate about the justification for the procedure in clauses 8 and 9. Frankly, I think they have been written to make the Government’s life easier. That is not a sufficient reason to justify the enactment of legislation. I hope that I can recruit the Minister on future occasions for what I might call a crusade—
Dr Whitehead
Different Henrys. I hope to recruit the Minister to drive such arrangements as far as possible out of our legislative procedure. I appreciate that there are circumstances in which they are necessary, but they do not apply to clauses 8 and 9. I want to register my concern about what is in the Bill, but I will not take the matter further at this stage.
Richard Harrington
I have carefully noted the shadow Minister’s comments. I would call this a minor piece of Henrying—not a Henrietta but a Henryette. I think we disagree on the scale. The powers are very limited and very necessary. I accept the good spirit in which the shadow Minister made his comments, but the powers are necessary for the reasons I have already given. We disagree, but I thank him for his good grace and his acceptance that I have made the arguments before, albeit unsuccessfully as far as he is concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Short title, commencement and extent
Richard Harrington
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there has been widespread consultation. The amendments are very well spoken about in the industry and they will not come as a surprise at all. In fact, the general reaction is that the industry is very pleased that we have managed to introduce them with an act of pure opportunism of getting them through parliamentary scrutiny—assuming that we do—not as a standalone piece of legislation but as an important amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am in some difficulty here, inasmuch as what the Minister said about the content of the Government amendments is sound and clear. Indeed, they make an addition to the Bill and take us forward on getting ready for some of the benefits of smart meters, such as half-hourly settlements. However, as he indicated, this is effectively a separate Bill that has been lowered into the Smart Meters Bill and attached to it as Government amendments. He quite candidly stated that he took his chance—fair enough—to put it in the Bill, but it creates problems, some of which are at the very least technical, and some of which are possibly of a far wider nature.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, none of this was mentioned on Second Reading. We went into Second Reading on the basis of the long title of the Bill, which was very restrictive. Indeed, I counselled a number of my colleagues who wanted to table wider amendments to the Bill that the long title prevented that. I said that it is a closely drawn long title, and we are required to stick to what it says. We have done that in this Committee. We have had a good debate about a number of issues within the terms of the long title, but there is a range of issues that hon. Members would very much have liked to discuss, and for perfectly proper reasons relating to the long title it has not been possible to discuss them in this Committee.
Once we got through Second Reading, we found that a procedure had been used that I am not aware has been used regularly—if at all in recent years—for a piece of legislation: changing the long title of a Bill during its passage. That is a very rare procedure in this House. I refer to the authority of Wikipedia—I say that for what it is worth. The Wikipedia people say:
“In the United Kingdom, the long title is important since, under the procedures of Parliament, a Bill cannot be amended to go outside the scope of its long title. For that reason, modern long titles tend to be rather vague”.
This one was not vague, but amendments have clearly been introduced that are outside the scope of the long title.
There are some precedents, albeit not from this Parliament but from associated Parliaments whose precedents nevertheless have some relevance to this Parliament through the processes of the Privy Council. In Australia, a Department wished to amend a Bill whose title was “A Bill to amend the XX Act, and for related purposes”. My note, which is a drafting direction from Parliamentary Counsel, states that:
“The proposed amendments were not related to the subject matter of the Bill, but would have amended an Act administered by the relevant Minister. The Deputy Clerk advised that if proposed amendments fall a long way outside the subject matter of the Bill, it could be considered a misuse of the House’s powers for a motion to be moved to suspend the standing orders. Accordingly, the amendments were not able to be included in the Bill.”
A version of suspending the Standing Orders has been undertaken in this House. Amendments 18 and 19 actually add some new words to the long title of the Bill, so apparently, by magic, things that were outside the scope of the Bill are now inside the scope of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. Dr Whitehead, may I just help you with your peroration? If any of these amendments were outside the scope of the Bill, they would not have been selected for debate. I hope that comes as some comfort to you.
Steve McCabe
I do not have any argument with what the Minister is trying to do, but I am intrigued by whether or not a precedent is being set. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding that if this can occur in this situation, there is no reason why in the future, on any Bill—Private Member’s Bill, or anything else—a Member could not seek to change the long title of the Bill and therefore introduce additional components to the Bill that were not part of the original intention of the legislation?
The Chair
Order. Before Dr Whitehead answers that intervention, I have taken advice and I understand that it is all in order to proceed in this fashion.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you for that clarification, Mrs Gillan. Indeed, in order or not, the conclusion we seem to have to reached is that my hon. Friend is right: this does appear to suggest ways in which Bills that have not been considered on Second Reading in a certain light can simply have their direction changed at a later date by the long title being widened by particular amendments that are forthcoming after Second Reading.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am sorry, but I am a new Member and slightly confused. I am hearing positive comments about what the Minister has proposed, but also concerns raised through Wikipedia, with mention of magic and all sorts. Is there not a worry—one that I would have—that this opposition from Labour Members might stop reasonable measures, such as those that the Minister has put forward, coming in the future because the precedent seems to be that Labour will oppose something even though there are good reasons for these proposals and they will enhance the Bill, as I think Members agree?
Dr Whitehead
It is not a precedent that Labour will oppose it; it is a precedent that this particular arrangement has been put before us. We are saying that we ought to be clear that this is a precedent. Whatever we may think of the merits of the amendments as they are described, the way of doing legislation in this House may have been significantly altered by what is effectively some form of precedent.
Douglas Ross
But it may have been significantly altered for the good of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman could argue that we can dispense with procedure and just get good things through this House. Clearly, that would not be a terribly good idea because of how we need to structure our legislation.
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is a little concerned about the relationship between what everyone in this Committee can agree in terms of the wording of the amendment—
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I believe the expression is, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, my hon. Friend puts it more succinctly.
It is important not only that we do good things in this House, but that we do good things in the right way so that, in those circumstances where there might not be such good things coming forward, we are protected from doing those less good things in the wrong way. Whether or not it is technically in order, my contention is that it appears to be a very strange way of taking a piece of legislation through the House.
Stephen Kerr
I am also a new Member and a bit confused. The hon. Gentleman’s objection seems to be not about the substance of what the Minister has brought forward, but that he does not like the way in which it has been done. On that basis, surely the shadow Minister is not prepared to sacrifice the substance of what is being proposed, on the basis of a procedural question of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.
Dr Whitehead
Forgive me, Mrs Gillan. It is not about angels dancing on the head of a pin; it is an important issue about the procedures of the House. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is puzzling over whether we would “sacrifice the good” of what is before us because of concern about a procedure. That is not a position that the Opposition have put ourselves in; it is a position that we are all in because these amendments have all been grouped together when they refer to two different things, one of which is a procedure and the other of which is substance.
As far as the substance is concerned, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we think the substance is good and we do not wish the Bill to be sabotaged because we have concerns about how those good things came to be, but I think the hon. Gentleman will clearly understand that if that procedure is taken as a usual state of affairs in this House, without anybody drawing attention to it for the future, there may in future be circumstances in which someone wishes to introduce a much worse series of amendments than the one that we have today. We know, because the Minister was clear about it, that another Bill was effectively grafted on to this Bill. I can understand the reasons why the Minister wanted to do that.
Steve McCabe
Is it fair to say that my hon. Friend is seeking to guarantee that there is an accurate Hansard record that describes the doubt about the process, because it may well be a process that will be challenged in the future? This is not about the detail of the changes that the Minister is seeking to make, which I think there is broad agreement on and support for, but rather my hon. Friend has the parliamentary opportunity to get a Hansard record of what the anxiety is about the process.
The Chair
Order. Before I call you to resume, Dr Whitehead, may I try to be of assistance to you? The selection in this grouping was chosen by the Chair; it was made available to the Committee for comment and was capable of having amendments tabled to it. The reason why it is grouped in this fashion is that it was chosen by the Chair and notified as such to all members of the Committee. I do hope that is helpful to you.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, that is helpful, Mrs Gillan, but particularly in relation to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak I would further draw attention to the fact that the amendments that are grouped together are essentially of two different types. One set of amendments is, in essence, amendable because it is to do with the substance—and as hon. Members have seen, no amendments to those amendments have been forthcoming from the Opposition because, essentially, we agree with the substance of what has been put before us—but two other amendments, which effectively seek to pave the way for those amendments to exist, are not amendable inasmuch as if the Opposition were to seek to table an amendment to those amendments, the Opposition in turn would be trying to amend the long title of the Bill. That is something we do not want to do, and we do not think it is a terribly good way of proceeding with legislation in the first place, whatever we may think about the final constitutionality—one might say—in terms of the overall order and the scheme of things.
I think it is legitimate, regardless of whether these amendments are regarded as being in order, to draw attention to the fact that one would think, logically, that the procedure could, and perhaps should have been as I have mentioned: anyone seeking to change the long title of a Bill—this is important for possible future legislation—should first make a case for changing that long title, get the Committee’s agreement that the long title should be changed and then introduce amendments, or amendments that themselves are amendable, subsequent to that agreement having been achieved. The position that we are in at the moment, as hon. Members are spotting, is that if Opposition Members say that we do not like that procedure very much and we think it causes precedents, the only way in which we can express our concern is to chuck those amendments out, and that is not really a very good way to proceed as far as discussions in Committee are concerned.
I want to express my strong concern about the procedural implications of this particular way of doing things. My concern, in terms of how the Committee is proceeding with its business, is that we will not be able to carry out our business in the way that we would like to—
The Chair
Order. Dr Whitehead, may I again interrupt you in full flow? I have taken further advice on this. I think I made it very clear that the selection is a matter for the Chair. However, the decision on each of the Government amendments and new clauses happens separately. In fact, we will not be taking a decision on the long title of the Bill until the end, as you will see from the way in which the amendments are placed on the amendment paper. I hope that is of comfort and is good information for you at this stage.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you for that, Mrs Gillan, but I think you will appreciate that even in those circumstances—where we get to a position where we can conceivably vote in favour of the amendments this afternoon because we think they are good amendments—and then we get to the end of the process, whereby we vote against the extension of the long title of the Bill, that automatically, if it succeeds, invalidates the existence of those amendments in the first place, because the long title of the Bill will not have been changed at that point, and therefore those amendments will not have existed. That also seems to me to be a potential concern about procedure for the future.
The Chair
Order. Again, I hate to interrupt you, but I have taken further advice on this because it is unusual; I think you are right in saying that and I think the Minister acknowledged that earlier on. The amendments are in scope and the change to the title does not change that. We decide on the long title at the end of proceedings.
Dr Whitehead
I must confess that I am a little bit confused by that ruling. I take your point, Mrs Gillan, but my understanding is that we did have a long title of the Bill and that was the long title that we have been speaking to until this moment, and that was the long title that we spoke to on Second Reading. That was the basis on which all amendments to date, except these amendments, have been drafted into the Bill. So it does create a different series of circumstances, and one that I believe merits at least some kind of review for the future. Although I take your concerns very strongly on board, Mrs Gillan, I think it would be remiss of me not to express those points on the position we find ourselves in as far as the Bill is concerned. [Interruption.] I can see that I am not necessarily gaining the full acclaim of all members of the Committee in pursuing this particular point, but it is important procedurally to put it on the record. I hope we can have some further thoughts on that at a future date.
I turn to the substance of the amendments. What they do is a good idea and, had the Minister been able to bring the amendments on board by slightly different means, we would have had no concerns at all about what they say, what they add to the Bill, and why they are important in taking us to the next stage in terms of some of the benefits that smart meters may bring in the future. We would be happy to give those amendments, therefore, our wholehearted support. We are not going to press any of the amendments to a vote this afternoon, but I am pleased that our concerns are now on the record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak suggested. It may well be the case that we have not heard the last of the matter.
Richard Harrington
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I am quite a simple person. When I was looking at this bit of the legislation, I asked a very simple question of the experts in the Department—the parliamentary advisers and lawyers: is it acceptable, is it within the rules and within the scope of the Bill, to include the half-hourly settlement? The answer was, “It is the decision—many things are—of the House authorities and the Chair, but it seems to us that it is very much within scope.”
I would like to make it clear that the scope of the Bill has not changed with this Government amendment. It remains about smart metering and data from smart meters. As Mrs Gillan has confirmed, the House authorities have said that. As such, the amendments in scope would have been in scope then. Half-hourly settlements are not possible without smart metering.
I promise I am not making light of the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He means to get them on the record and he has explained that very reasonably. I thank him for his general support for the amendments, but at the same time I hope that he gives me the credit that this was not some charlatan move to slip something round the corner that was marginal in nature.
Dr Whitehead
Forgive me, but the Minister cannot proceed in this manner. The long title makes it evident to all those sitting here. It is to
“Extend the period for the Secretary of State to exercise powers relating to smart metering and to provide for a special administration regime for a smart meter communication licensee.”
It clearly and narrowly states two things. It does not even say “for related purposes.” It refers to extending the period for smart meter licensing arrangements, and to a special administration regime. That is it. As the Minister himself acknowledges, it has been necessary to move two amendments to change the scope of the Bill, essentially in order to omit those elements. So that is the basis on which we should discuss this, whatever the rights and wrongs of the amendments otherwise are.
Richard Harrington
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s right to discuss the matter, and I did not suggest for a moment that he was doing wrong in bringing this forward, or placing it on the record—far from it. I am just saying that, from my point of view, this was acting upon advice, that it was perfectly proper to get something that I felt was very important. I believe that it has the support of—I hope—most Members in the House generally, because we all think that it is a very good thing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, but I thank him for accepting that it was done for the right reason. I believe, as he does, that parliamentary procedure is important.
These rules have evolved over centuries for reasons, and—quite rightly—neither I nor anyone else on behalf of the Government can get things in round the side, or bring in things that should never be. When we decided to introduce the amendment, I did have a meeting with the hon. Gentleman to explain it to him, I suppose in an official capacity but obviously not within a Bill Committee capacity, and he did explain his support generally for it. His points have been noted on the record. I hope that my response—which I do not think he found satisfactory—is also on the record.
The amendments support the move to a smarter, more flexible energy system. Half-hourly settlement billed directly on a smart metering platform is a central aspect of the smart systems and flexibility plan that was published in July. The proposals will allow Ofgem to take forward the reforms in a more streamlined way, and I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the substance of the amendments.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 8
MODIFICATION OF ELECTRICITY CODES ETC: SETTLEMENT USING SMART METER INFORMATION
“‘(1) The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“the Authority”) may—
(a) modify a document maintained in accordance with an electricity licence, and
(b) modify an agreement that gives effect to such a document,
if the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied.
(2) The condition is that the Authority considers the modification necessary or desirable for the purposes of enabling or requiring half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information about customers’ actual consumption of electricity on a half-hourly basis.
(3) The power to make modifications under this section includes—
(a) power to make provision about the determination of amounts payable in connection with half-hourly electricity imbalances;
(b) power to remove or replace all of the provisions of a document or agreement;
(c) power to make different provision for different purposes;
(d) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional modifications.
(4) A modification may not be made under this section after the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(5) In this section—
“balancing arrangements” means arrangements made by the transmission system operator for the purposes of balancing the national transmission system for Great Britain;
“electricity licence” means a licence under section 6(1) of the Electricity Act 1989;
“half-hourly electricity imbalance” means the difference between the amount of electricity consumed by an electricity supplier’s customers during a half-hour period and the amount of electricity purchased by the electricity supplier for delivery during that period, after taking into account any adjustments in connection with the supplier’s participation in balancing arrangements;
“supply”, in relation to electricity, has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 4(4) of that Act);
“transmission system” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 4(4) of that Act);
“transmission system operator” means the person operating the national transmission system for Great Britain.”—(Richard Harrington.)
This new clause gives Ofgem power to modify documents maintained in accordance with an electricity licence, or agreements giving effect to such documents, so as to enable half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information obtained from smart meters.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Modification under section(Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information)
“(1) Before making a modification under section(Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information), the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“the Authority”) must—
(a) publish a notice about the proposed modification,
(b) send a copy of the notice to the persons listed in subsection (2), and
(c) consider any representations made within the period specified in the notice about the proposed modification or the date from which it would take effect.
(2) The persons mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are—
(a) each relevant licence holder,
(b) the Secretary of State,
(c) Citizens Advice,
(d) Citizens Advice Scotland, and
(e) such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate.
(3) The period specified under subsection (1)(c) must be a period of not less than 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is published.
(4) A notice under subsection (1) must—
(a) state that the Authority proposes to make a modification,
(b) set out the proposed modification and its effect,
(c) specify the date from which the Authority proposes that the modification will have effect, and
(d) state the reasons why the Authority proposes to make the modification.
(5) If, after complying with subsections (1) to (4) in relation to a modification, the Authority decides to make a modification, it must publish a notice about the decision.
(6) A notice under subsection (5) must—
(a) state that the Authority has decided to make the modification,
(b) set out the modification and its effect,
(c) specify the date from which the modification has effect,
(d) state how the Authority has taken account of any representations made in the period specified in the notice under subsection (1), and
(e) state the reason for any differences between the modification set out in the notice and the proposed modification.
(7) A notice under this section about a modification or decision must be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by the making of the modification or decision.
(8) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the functions of the Authority under section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) and this section with respect to modifications of documents maintained in accordance with electricity licences, and agreements giving effect to such documents, as they apply in relation to functions of the Authority under Part 1 of that Act.
(9) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (10) of section 5A of the Utilities Act 2000 (duty of Authority to carry out impact assessment), a function exercisable by the Authority under section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) is to be treated as if it were a function exercisable by it under or by virtue of Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989.
(10) The reference in subsection (8) to the functions of the Authority under section(Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) includes a reference to the Authority’s functions under subsections (1) to (10) of section 5A of the Utilities Act 2000 as applied by subsection (9).
(11) In this section—
“electricity licence” has the meaning given in section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information);
“relevant licence holder” means, in relation to the modification of a document maintained under an electricity licence or an agreement that gives effect to such a document, the holder of a licence under which the document is maintained.”—(Richard Harrington.)
This new clause sets out the procedural requirements that apply to the exercise of the power under NC8.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Date from which modifications of electricity licence conditions may have effect
“(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 11A(9) (modifications of electricity licence conditions not to have effect less than 56 days from publication of decision to modify), at the end insert “, except as provided in section 11AA”.
(3) After that section insert—
“11AA Modification of conditions under section 11A: early effective date
(1) The date specified by virtue of section 11A(8) in relation to a modification under that section may be less than 56 days from the publication of the decision to proceed with the making of the modification if—
(a) the Authority considers it necessary or expedient for the modification to have effect before the 56 days expire,
(b) the purpose condition is satisfied,
(c) the consultation condition is satisfied, and
(d) the time limit condition is satisfied.
(2) The purpose condition is that the Authority considers the modification necessary or desirable for purposes described in section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information)(2) of the Smart Meters Act 2017 (enabling or requiring half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information about customers’ actual consumption of electricity on a half-hourly basis).
(3) The consultation condition is that the notice under section 11A(2) relating to the modification—
(a) stated the date from which the Authority proposed that the modification should have effect,
(b) stated the Authority’s reasons for proposing that the modification should have effect from a date less than 56 days from the publication of the decision to modify, and
(c) explained why, in the Authority’s view, that would not have a material adverse effect on any licence holder.
(4) The time limit condition is that the specified date mentioned in subsection (1) falls within the period of 5 years beginning on the day on which section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) of the Smart Meters Act 2017 comes into force.”
(4) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 5A (procedure for appeals under section 11C: suspension of decision), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) In the case of an appeal against a decision of the Authority which already has effect by virtue of section 11AA, the CMA may direct that the modification that is the subject of the decision—
(a) ceases to have effect entirely or to such extent as may be specified in the direction, and
(b) does not have effect, or does not have effect to the specified extent, pending the determination of the appeal.’”—(Richard Harrington.)
This new clause allows licence modifications under NC8 to become effective before 56 days have elapsed.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Review of smart meter rollout targets
“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming in to force, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the progress of the smart meter rollout and lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The report under subsection (1) shall consider—
(a) progress towards the 2020 completion target;
(b) smart meter installation cost;
(c) the number of meters operating in dummy mode;
(d) the overall cost to date of the DCC;
(e) the projected cost of the DCC; and
(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” —(Steve McCabe.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish details about the cost and progress of the smart meter roll out, with reference to the 2020 deadline.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve McCabe
I am not sure this need necessarily take long. As we have heard, it is a legal obligation on the energy suppliers to take all reasonable steps to meet the 2020 target of every household being offered a smart meter. Both new clause 1 and new clause 11 outline some steps that the Secretary of State could take to ensure timely completion of the roll-out while protecting consumers and ensuring the benefits of the roll-out are fully realised.
New clause 1 is fairly specific in the information it asks the Secretary of State to publish, and includes the progress toward the 2020 target as well as information on the costs and projected costs of DCC and the installation of meters more generally. I listened to the Minister earlier making a commitment to publish an annual report on the progress of the roll-out. Most people, certainly on this side, thought that was a helpful and reasonable offer.
It is important to point out to the Committee that the Government’s commitment to annual progress reports has fallen by the wayside. What we actually heard today was an offer from the Minister to reinstate them, as far as I can see. In December 2012 the Government published their first annual progress report on the roll-out, which gave an overview of the programme and the progress to date. They subsequently published two further progress reports in 2013 and 2014, but since then there have been none. Obviously, we know that from 2014 the progress was not quite so good to report on; I do not know whether that is the reason, but my point is that we stopped getting the reports.
That is why I thought it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill a commitment for a regular progress report. I was pleased to hear the Minister say earlier that it is his intention to provide it anyway, and that is good enough for me, but I cannot guarantee that the Minister will be in his post even for the duration of the Bill, can I? I have no way of knowing what a successor might do. Goodness, I wish the Minister well and I hope he is in post much longer than the duration of the Bill, but I am simply recognising that, if I look around the present Government, quite a few people who were in post a few weeks ago are no longer there. These things happen, and they happen quickly in politics. We can never tell what is around the corner.
I am simply observing that the Minister’s word in itself is not sufficient for the purpose, because what the Government have previously done was publish reports and then stop publishing them when the information became less convenient. I thought it would make sense to make a request to have it on the face of the Bill, and that is what new clause 1 seeks to do.
New clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to commission an updated, independent cost-benefit analysis of the roll-out. Mrs Gillan, you will not want me to go over all this again, but we know that the cost-benefit analysis from 2016 showed a downward trend. Although I hear the Minister and I know his intentions are good, my concern throughout has been that we could reach a stage where those benefits turn negative. That is why I raise this matter.
We heard from Audrey Gallacher of Energy UK. She said that she thought it was time for a new impact assessment to ensure that the benefits case is still alive. The value of the assessment that I am calling for—an independently led assessment, as mentioned in new clause 11—is that it would bring confidence to all stakeholders. They would have a chance to consider independent information, so it would be good for the suppliers. It would be good for the Department and for the DCC and customers. If it were to show that the benefits case is no longer as strong as it was, it would give us the opportunity to look at other approaches that the Government might choose to pursue. It would take us back to the question of whether there is a different model—with the SMETS 1 and the mini DCC we heard the evidence about—as opposed to the elaborate DCC model that has taken up so much of the consideration of this Committee.
In the situation of uncertainty surrounding the roll-out, an updated cost-benefit analysis would be a sensible commitment to include on the face of the Bill. It would provide stakeholders with certainty and transparency and improve the credibility of the smart meter roll-out. For those reasons I suggest that the Committee considers adopting both new clauses 1 and 11.
Dr Whitehead
I want to speak in favour of new clause 7 and to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak says about the merits of new clauses 1 and 11, and taking into account the fact that the Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to produce publicly available annual reviews on aspects of the smart meter roll-out. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Will the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich turn her phone off, or leave the Committee and deal with it outside?
Dr Whitehead
I thought I was throwing my voice for a moment. I have other talents, but not that.
The content of new clauses 1, 7 and 11 can essentially be tucked into what the Minister has said about an annual report. The desired outcome of this debate might be to obtain an indication from the Minister on whether the concerns raised are the sort of thing he thinks might be in the annual report he has mentioned. New clause 7 draws particular attention to the relationship between the total number of smart meters that have been installed at the end of particular attainment periods and what is happening to the functionality of those meters in those periods. That relates to some extent to a concern about what companies are required to do, so far as their agreements with Ofgem are concerned, about each period that they have to report on for the purpose of the roll-out and what attainment they are expected to achieve as part of their legal requirements to roll out smart meters in that period.
Steve McCabe
My hon. Friend says he is offering protection for the public, which is true, but is he not actually offering a bit of protection for the Minister? As I said before, if this goes wrong, only one person will carry the can. My hon. Friend proposes a way of guaranteeing that the information provided—or filtered through BEIS—to the Minister is actually real information about what is happening, in terms of functional meters, as opposed to this fantasy information about cold calls or visits that have not resulted in any activity.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. As we have discussed, there remains a little bit of a discrepancy, one might say, between the ambition of those responsible for it for what the roll-out looks like and the Government’s claim that the target really is that everyone will have been offered a smart meter by 2020. It seems important to me that we reconcile those two positions as the roll-out progresses. In a way, Ofgem is actually reconciling those positions in terms of getting a picture of what is actually happening so far as the roll-out is concerned on the actual number of meters installed in homes after the end of the visits, but it is not quite yet getting to the position of whether the meters are operating as they should.
My hon. Friend is also right that I am anxious to make sure the Minister is as well protected as possible; I always am. It is a personal ambition of mine that the Minister should be properly protected under all circumstances, and the new clause will help him in that respect. It will give us, I hope—among other things in the Minister’s annual reports—an accurate depiction of the real picture, so that the defence of that picture can be undertaken by the Minister on the basis of accurate information that will not come back to whack him around the head.
I can think of no better protection for the Minister than being assured that he will not be whacked around the head by statistics at a later date. I am therefore sure that he will take the substance of the new clause on board in his response, if not the whole new clause, particularly in terms of what may well be in the report he has promised us for the future.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am keen to say a few words on new clauses 1 and 7, because I feel they concern matters that have to be put in front of the Minister at this juncture in the consideration of the Bill to remind him about the progress of the roll-out and the review of the installation of these meters.
The point I was trying to make this morning—I accept that it was perhaps an inopportune time—was that there is a difficulty because Energy UK and Ofgem agree that aggressive selling is not appropriate, but that will not give us comfort until it is properly and comprehensively addressed. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Ofgem has the power to fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover if they fail to meet their licence conditions. One of the licence conditions is for each energy company to install smart meters in consumer homes by the end of 2020. Failure to do so can result in a massive penalty for the energy company. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has already alluded to this.
The use of aggressive selling starts to make sense if the energy companies are under pressure to deliver these things into people’s homes. Will the Minister consider the balance between customer choice and meeting this target? I certainly have questions about that. I know from speaking to my own constituents that there is some suspicion of smart meters. Whether it is real or misplaced is not the point. The people into whose homes they go are not 100% on board. When we are talking about the roll-out and monitoring the progress of the installation, there is a job of work to do with consumers and energy companies. I am not making accusations, but there are allegations that energy companies go after customers quite aggressively to get meters put into their homes.
The Minister may be interested to know about work called “deemed appointments”. Energy companies tell their customers that they are going to be in their area on a particular day. They give a specified time and date; there is no consultation with the customer. The customer is merely informed. The customer is able to cancel or rearrange the appointment, but if the customer does not respond to the notification, the company will turn up prepared and ready to install a smart meter. We have evidence from Audrey Gallacher of Energy UK, who said:
“We have also had some feedback from Ofgem, the regulator, that companies should be taking a much more assertive approach,”—[Official Report, Smart Meters Committee Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2017; c. 10, Q14.]
That is quite worrying because already we are hearing of companies taking what many would consider an over-assertive approach. When we are talking about the progress of the roll-out, we have to be mindful of the need to put the customer at the heart of the process, and Ofgem should perhaps monitor how the smart meters are sold to the public and what the response might be. The Minister might already be aware that the Trading Standards Institute believes it has some grounds for believing that the energy companies may be committing offences under the Consumer Protection Act 2015. I think that should give us real cause for concern; we surely hope to roll out smart meters with the public fully on board. This does not breed trust between the energy companies and the consumers into whose homes we expect the meters to go.
We need to be very careful when talking about the roll-out and installation. Nobody in this room would not want that to go smoothly, but there are already difficulties. Citizens Advice has already reported difficulties in a report released in September. It said that it was not happy and had real concerns about the way in which consumers were being treated. Citizens Advice also believes that offences may be taking place in the way that this is being rolled out. I know that that will give the Minister some cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has set out new clause 11 very clearly and I do not want to add too much to what he has said. However, we have to remember that the cost is £11 billion and rising. That cost is borne by every single household. Smart Energy GB has previously referred to a Government cost-benefit analysis; of course there are cost benefits, but the figure of £11 billion is one to watch, because we really do not want that figure to rise. It is about consumer confidence; we do not want the consumer to feel that they have been financially imposed upon. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak set that out so well that I will not say any more.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause, as I flagged up to the Committee earlier, relates to clause 4(1) and to the circumstances in which a successor to a company that has gone into administration might be brought about, and the safeguards concerning the identity of that successor company should it take over the reins. My understanding of those circumstances is that, should there be a period of administration, a successor company would take over prior to 2025 when administration is determined. There could then be a retendering, as it were, of the process by which a company runs the DCC in 2025. At both of those points, there would potentially be a question about the identity of that company. We know the identity of the company at present: Capita is running the DCC, and the DCC as an organisation is a fully owned subsidiary of Capita.
I must say for the record that my ideal way of running the DCC would be for it to be a public body and not responsible to a company. The formation of the DCC, maybe at a future date should the circumstances be different, as a not-for-profit public interest body concerned with the proper administration of the whole smart meter arrangement, in the public interest and for the public good, would be the best way to organise things. That is not the position now, however, and it may not be for some while.
The amendment would look at how one might align the public interest and public good with circumstances under which a successor company might be called on, in the event of administration procedures. On this occasion it would give a power to the Secretary of State, since it would give the Secretary of State discretion to look at the circumstances of a tender or a post-administration arrangement—presumably also by tender—in circumstances where a non-GB company were to become the successor or putative successor company running the DCC.
Without entering into any great conspiracy theories, we have to have some regard for the ownership and running of an organisation that holds a huge amount of information about what we do, who we are and how we work. That is vital information concerning not just our activities but our aggregate activities. Ensuring that the company running the DCC is working appropriately in the national interest with that information and that crucial role seems to me quite an important thing, which we ought to consider.
As things appear to stand at the moment—I do not wish to name any companies for fear that, outside the privilege of the House, they decide to deal with me appropriately—
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I was going to say to the Minister, who has gone on the record as having nudged people in his previous post, that I cannot offer him full protection if he carries on nudging people, particularly in pubs. My protection is conditional.
We ought to consider the issue seriously. I appreciate that under the present circumstances of our membership of the EU it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to exercise the sort of powers I am suggesting he might have. However, by the time 2025 comes around, one way or another we will not be a member of the EU. The Secretary of State could therefore exercise that power in the public and the national interest, unfettered by other considerations.
It would be prudent for the Secretary of State to have that power available to him or her so that we can put our affairs in order concerning what I agree continues to be an unlikely sequence of events. We ought to have it on our minds, however, in case those events occur. In that way, we can rescue not only the position of the administrator but what the company subsequently does in the national interest as far as keeping control of all this data and running a smart meter programme are concerned.
Richard Harrington
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. The important part of the amendment is valid. Again, it is “what if”, and we have to consider that. I have tried to assess those points. The new clause would give the Secretary of State a non-time-limited power to impose conditions on future smart meter communication licences as appropriate, which could include restricting future licensees to being British-owned companies.
The licences that are valid at the moment were granted to Smart DCC Ltd in 2013 for a period of 12 years, which is why 2025 has been mentioned quite a few times. That would be the earliest time at which they could be re-tendered. It is the intention that any competition to grant a new smart meter communication licence carried out after November 2018 would be conducted by Ofgem, the first one being appointed by the Secretary of State. That reflects our policy of transferring responsibility from the Government to the smart metering programme, from the Government to the regulator, and recognising that smart metering will eventually become business as usual for the energy industry after this period.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for his explanation. Perhaps I could seek a slight amount of further clarification on his confidence that, in these particular circumstances, he would be able, in principle, to intervene using the powers he has set out that exist elsewhere in Government. He appears to be saying that powers already exist that would allow him to address the issue, and that new clause 3 is therefore not necessary. Is he confident that in the specialised circumstances pertaining to administration and subsequent events, those powers would be fully applicable in terms of the concerns that I have raised?
Richard Harrington
Yes, I am satisfied, but subject to the fact that the legislation on the security aspect of it is evolving and currently under consultation. From what I have read in the Green Paper and all the work that has gone into it, it is precisely the security aspects of the circumstances the hon. Gentleman is describing that would be covered.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that clarification. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Review: Use of powers to support technical development
‘(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the technical development of smart meters, with reference to—
(a) alternative solutions for Home Area Network connections where premises are not able to access the HAN using existing connection arrangements,
(b) hard to reach premises.
(2) The Secretary shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers support technical development of smart meters.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am afraid, Mrs Gillan, that you have got me for the rest of the running. New clause 5 relates back to clause 1 and deals with the extent to which, as a result of the extension of time for the exercise of powers, the Minister may consider what licensing may be necessary over the period in respect of particular aspects of the roll-out: in this instance, the use of the home area network and wider area network. Hon. Members will know the distinction: the home area network is the communications that happen between the meter, the house and the immediate external data receiver. The second, the wide area network, relates to the extent to which data receivers can operate in certain areas where population is sparse, there are geophysical difficulties in getting coverage and so on.
In those circumstances, the Government reported in the documents that went before the regulatory committee:
“Smart meters make use of a home area network to link the smart meter to consumer devices such as the in-home display or smart appliances. The technical solutions already being delivered currently apply to approximately 96.5% of premises. In some premises such as apartments in high-rise buildings where there is a long distance between the smart meter and the premises, these solutions are not viable.”
Essentially, the Government are saying that they know that under the present comms arrangements, all but 3.5% of properties can reasonably reliably be considered as covered, but there are certain circumstances, such as some basement buildings or high-rise flats, in which the home area network cannot easily communicate its data properly and safely back to the external devices. The Government state:
“It is necessary to provide a technical solution to ensure that all devices in these premises are linked to the smart meter using the home area network. This work is currently being progressed through the Alternative HAN Forum”.
I am not sure whether anybody would get very far at parties by saying they were a member of the Alternative HAN Forum, but such a body exists and it brings together suppliers to develop and procure new solutions for those premises.
The Department then states:
“It might be considered appropriate to separately license these activities to provide a greater degree of regulatory control over them.”
It is considering whether there is a need for a separate licence arrangement, so far as those activities are concerned, to ensure that, when solutions for that 3.5% of premises come about, they should be properly controlled by licensing within the terms of the roll-out. Similarly, the Department considers that a little over
“99% of premises in Great Britain are capable of connecting to the DCC through the wide area network”.
That is the WAN. I do not know if there is an alternative WAN forum as well as an Alternative HAN Forum, but under those circumstances it would clearly be thinking about that 1% of premises that look unlikely to be able to connect through that wide area network. The Department states:
“A different solution may be necessary to provide coverage to smart meters in the remaining hard to reach premises which the wide area network does not cover. It might be considered appropriate to create a licensable activity that relates to arranging the establishment of communications to these properties.”
The Department has in mind two licensable activities that may arise when those solutions are under way. I certainly understand, so far as the wide area network is concerned, that technical solutions such as patching—essentially patching in areas that are not available to the wide area network to what is available—are in a reasonably advanced state.
The new clause essentially asks the Minister to consider these two particular issues relating to the licensing of those activities and asks the Secretary of State to commission a specific review to look at how the extended use of powers provided for in proposed new section 1 will support those two areas of development—alternative solutions to the home area network and hard-to-reach premises that the wide area network cannot reach. Rather than there being a feeling that it might be appropriate to create a licensable activity, the new clause will make it rather more formalised by requiring the Secretary of State to actually produce a report on those particular issues and how they can be sorted out as the roll-out progresses.
Clearly, the extension of time for the roll-out gives the Secretary of State the ability to consider the issue in more detail and get, at a reasonably early stage, licensable arrangements, or would-be licensing arrangements, in such a report that would cover those activities in those particular areas. That would also be a sensible addition to the Bill—either securely in the Bill or, alternatively, through an acknowledgement and understanding that this is an issue for the future that needs to be considered and which should come under licensing arrangements, and that work will be undertaken to ensure that that happens.
Richard Harrington
The new clause has two points, as I see it. First, the smart meter system establishes a wireless home area network—HAN—in a consumer’s home that links the gas and electricity meters’ in-home display and the communications hub; and the communications hub establishes the network and manages the data across it. As with any wireless technology, various physical factors affect the performance of the HAN, such as what the building is made of or the thickness of the walls, as indeed we find with mobile phones in parts of the Palace of Westminster—in some places it works and in some it does not.
Richard Harrington
The hon. Lady has been to my office. She is welcome again any time.
Those things do affect the signal strength in exactly the way that we are joking about—it is actually true. The distance between the various pieces of smart meter equipment will also affect the performance of the HAN—for example, where a meter is located away from the main residence or in the basement of a block of flats—but it is important that the HAN works, to deliver the benefits for consumers, such as the in-home display.
For the vast majority of premises the communications hub provides the necessary home network. In the small number of premises that it does not, some form of alternative will be needed to ensure there is a working HAN. If there is not, how can we ask people to take on smart meters? We have already used our section 88 powers to place obligations on energy suppliers to develop and deliver an alternative to this, which—to continue the use of expressions and abbreviations by the shadow Minister—I would call “Alt HAN.” The Alt HAN Forum, the Alternative Home Area Network Forum—believe me, there is one—has been established along with the Alt HAN Company and its board. This gives suppliers the framework to get on and develop the solutions they will need. The forum has developed a commercial strategy, which is being implemented, and a procurement exercise is currently under way, and we expect the pace of delivery to pick up next year. It is an important part of the roll-out and the Department has worked closely with the forum throughout the early stage of its setup, and we are continuing to do so. We are tracking progress through the smart metering implementation programme’s governance, and we will monitor on an ongoing basis and determine whether further regulation is needed—so it is ongoing work.
The second point mentioned in the new clause was the arrangement for the so-called “hard-to-reach” premises. Here we are talking about communication of data to and from the premises through the Wide Area Network—referred to so gracefully by the shadow Minster as the WAN—to energy suppliers via the DCC. There are some premises that it may be difficult for WAN communications to reach, due to the location’s surroundings, for example in built-up areas with tall buildings, but also in remote and mountainous areas. By the end of 2020, on the basis of existing solutions, we expect that 0.75% of premises will be without DCC WAN and reaching these will be disproportionately expensive, with costs likely to exceed benefits, but it is not a static solution. Through its licence we placed obligations on the DCC to take steps to explore other solutions, which could be used to fill any coverage gap. We have to look for ways to ensure that these premises are serviced, because otherwise they will never get full access to smart services, and we are pushing suppliers to innovate to find solutions that work for them and their customers. We have facilitated an industry-led group for this purpose, to consider possible solutions. Finally, customers without DCC WAN can still benefit from some smart services, such as consumption data shown on the in-home display.
Those are important areas, and I know they are quite technical and not of interest to many people, but I felt it was necessary to take the opportunity to explore them. As I have outlined, we are closely monitoring activity and development—we really are. That is very important and is part of the whole development. I do not consider it necessary to add a separate review process on top of the existing working arrangements, which are all very comprehensive. I hope the shadow Minister finds my explanation reassuring and on that basis will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I do find that reassuring and it is good to know that these processes are under way, albeit under circumstances where we are a little way from where we want to go. I hope that those processes can lead to a good result for what I appreciate are fairly small proportions of the population that one way or another cannot access the HAN or the WAN. Hopefully, we will be able to provide that reassurance that the roll-out really will be the roll-out that we want it to be in terms of the full connectivity of everyone who is being offered a smart meter for the future. That is an important consideration that we have on the table in the latter stages of the roll-out, and I hope that the current developments can reach that happy conclusion. Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Review: Use of powers to support rollout of smart meters
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the rollout of smart meters, with reference to—
(a) providing for efficient removal and disposal of old meters,
(b) reviewing the exemptions for smaller suppliers from a legally binding requirement to roll out smart meters.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers supports the rollout of smart meters.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think that the Minister’s defence may be that the new clause is not properly drafted and therefore he cannot accept it. It is not the case that it is not properly drafted in terms of being in order or making sense, but it states something about smaller suppliers that is not quite right. Nevertheless, I want to set out the sentiment of the paragraph that refers to smaller suppliers and seek the Minister’s view on what might be done. We have already had a substantial debate on the subject of paragraph (a)—the efficient removal and disposal of old meters—so I want to concentrate my thoughts and remarks on the second part of the clause.
Although it is the case that smaller suppliers—non-obligated suppliers that have fewer than 250,000 customers, including dual-fuel customers—are not as obligated as companies that have more than 250,000 customers in the smart meter roll-out, it is true that all suppliers eventually are obligated to get meters into homes by the end of the roll-out period. Smaller suppliers are not legally obligated in the way that larger suppliers are to reach the milestones and the attainment agreements in place, which I mentioned earlier and which are undertaken through a legal directive from Ofgem. Therefore, it would be quite possible for those suppliers not to install smart meters until the last quarter of the last year of the roll-out, and then rush and install them all, while still meeting their final obligations, because they are not subject to milestones in the way larger suppliers are.
It can be suggested that that non-obligation means that smaller suppliers, by and large, are not very advanced in smart meter installation programmes. Obviously, there is a question about arrangements that smaller suppliers have to make when dealing with their often dispersed group of customers—if, for example, they are responsible for installing five smart meters in Congleton, three smart meters in Biggleswade and six smart meters in Clacton, depending on the distribution of their customers. In those circumstances, they will clearly factor out the installation of those smart meters to a third party. We have already discussed what happens with third-party meter installation arrangements on occasions in this Committee.
Overall, there are a number of not exactly worrying incidents but incidents in which it appears that smaller suppliers are slow off the mark in getting smart meters installed. Clearly, as we approach the point at which we have to get those smart meters in—towards the end of the 2020 period—that could become a significant factor, even though small suppliers of fewer than 250,000 represent about 6.5% of the total market. That is not an insignificant amount, particularly towards the end of the smart meter roll-out period.
The new clause, or certainly its sentiment, indicates that the particular circumstances might be reviewed as the roll-out progresses. The smaller suppliers should be more closely bound into the milestones than is the case at the moment so that we can have reasonable certainty that we are progressing across the board so that, by the time we get towards the end of 2020, we will not have a bit of the roll-out jigsaw that is not in place, possibly to the detriment of the roll-out as a whole. Will the Minister assure me that he is actively considering how that particular problem might be resolved? That would in turn be very helpful in my considerations about the new clause.
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. His new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how the extended use of powers will support the efficient removal and disposal of the old meters that are replaced by smart meters, as well as to review the roll-out obligations applicable to smaller energy suppliers.
As the shadow Minister said, we have discussed the first one at some length. A meeting is being convened with officials from BEIS and DEFRA and, I believe, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I hope that the shadow Minister will also be available—I hope both Members will be because the purpose is to discuss fully the valid points that they made.
On the exemptions for small energy suppliers, it is true that the pressure is not on them as it is on the larger suppliers, for reasons that have been explained formally and informally. At the moment, the smaller suppliers are growing but they have a very fragmented customer base, as the shadow Minister explained well. That does not mean that they are being let off. In fact, Ofgem asked smaller suppliers for annual reports on progress and, ultimately, will take a view on it and whether it needs to be speeded up, noting that the progress has still to be consistent with taking all reasonable steps to comply with the 2020 regulations. They are not exempt; practically, however, the regulator has gone for the suppliers with the larger consumer bases first, to give the smaller ones a chance to get a mass of membership. In my area, I keep speaking to people who have basically followed the same thought process as me and gone for my smaller supplier, just on the internet. I can see that happening in practice.
In developing the regulations, the Government have been cognisant of the fact that the resources of smaller suppliers and big ones are different. That is a question—a point I have made—not only of the bulk of customers being concentrated but of the necessary IT systems and completion of the requisite security assessment to become a DCC user, which they can do six months later than large suppliers, for good reason.
We have also taken steps to manage the financial burden on small energy suppliers. The policy is to get as many smaller companies into the market as possible, for reasons of competition. The charges—the costs of the DCC data and communications services—are proportionate to an energy supplier’s market share. The larger suppliers pay the most and the smallest the least; it is not a flat rate at all. The Government have also made explicit provisions to facilitate an active market for a number of IT service businesses to provide the connection between the DCC and small energy suppliers, rather than allowing large companies to have a monopoly of it.
In conclusion, the design of the smart metering infrastructure means that, regardless of size, an energy supplier can access any smart meter enrolled on the DCC system and can therefore operate on a level playing field with all other energy suppliers. That is constantly under review by Ofgem. I repeat that their progress and their obligations are exactly the same, it is just a question of when and how. I hope the hon. Member for Southampton, Test finds my explanation reassuring and will agree to withdraw the new clause on that basis.
Dr Whitehead
I do find the Minister’s explanation reassuring. I hope, however, that what those smaller suppliers are doing is kept closely under review as the roll-out progresses. They are an integral part of the roll-out process, and they should not be able easily to evade their responsibilities to ensure that the roll-out is a success due to their circumstances. The Minister has reassured me that light that will be shone on that progress so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Title
Amendments made: 18, title, line 2, leave out “and”.
See the note to amendment 19.
19, title, line 3, at end insert “and to make provision enabling half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information obtained from smart meters”.—(Richard Harrington.)
This amends the Bill’s long title so that it covers the provision about smart meters made by NC8 to NC10.
The Chair
Before I put the final question, on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank everybody who has looked after us, particularly the members of the Committee, but also the Clerks, Hansard, the doorkeeper and the officials who have supported the Government Front Bench team.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Richard Harrington
I would like to thank you, Mrs Gillan, and Mr Gapes for chairing so well and for having such patience with the shadow Minister, me and others. I reinforce what you said about the Clerks and the House authorities who have equally behaved in an exemplary manner. I also take this chance to thank my Bill team, who have lived and breathed this Bill. I commend them for everything that they have done. I thank members of the Committee on both sides for their patience and for all their good intentions to try to make something of the Bill and to improve it.
Dr Whitehead
I add my thanks to the members of the Committee for the positive way in which our debate has been conducted and for the conclusions that we have reached at the end of the Bill, and to you, Mrs Gillan, for your superb chairing of our proceedings and for your patience with me when I no doubt tested you to some considerable extent on matters of arcane constitutional interest. You conducted proceedings with complete impartiality, fairness and concern for the welfare of all members of the Committee. I pay specific thanks to our outstanding Committee Clerks, who have been of tremendous assistance to Opposition Members in getting our material together for the Committee, and who went way beyond the call of duty in ensuring that that happened. I thank them for that considerably.
The Chair
After that joyful moment of consensus, I echo all those remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Smart Meters Bill (Third sitting)
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsThursday 23rd November 2017
(7 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 November 2017 - (23 Nov 2017)
Steve McCabe
The Minister may want to help the Committee with that, but my understanding is that he has an installation target. Clearly there will be people who refuse to accept smart meters, and that will inevitably affect any overall figure; but, as far as I understand the matter, the Government have an installation target. My point is that if they need to achieve a 70% increase in the daily rate, that does not seem to be likely or credible; it is not on the cards. However, the Government are adamant that the 2020 target is achievable—a sentiment that the Committee will remember was echoed by some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday. I think that we need to hear from the Minister how he will achieve that.
A recently circulated myth-busting document from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says it is a myth that the Bill
“is just a means of extending the roll-out until 2023.”
It states:
“Reality: Energy suppliers remain legally obliged to complete the roll-out by the end of 2020.”
If BEIS is right in its myth-busting, why does the Secretary of State need such an extension of powers to develop, amend and oversee regulations relating to smart meters? If the energy suppliers are legally obliged to complete by 2020 and it is a myth to suggest that the Bill is simply about creating an extension, and BEIS is confident about that, why are we here discussing an extension to 2023?
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend consider myth-busting the myth-busting? It is not the case that all suppliers are legally required to install smart meters by 2020: it is those suppliers who are under an obligation, because they have more than 250,000 customers, to pay and take part in green and social tariffs. Suppliers with fewer than 250,000 customers have a target to supply by 2020, but are not legally obliged to do so. That may be of use to my hon. Friend in considering the target itself. The fact that some companies do not have the same obligation may be cause for further thought about whether targets will be reached.
Steve McCabe
I simply say that my fear is that we could end up agreeing a timescale that does not have safeguards or an obvious justification, which in itself is an opportunity for further delay and is perhaps a recipe for failure. I ask the Minister: would it not be sensible, at this point in the roll-out of the programme, to send a clear message to the industry, consumers and everyone that an extension until 2023 is needed and to make it absolutely crystal clear why that date has been chosen and what will happen in that period—or whatever period BEIS picks? It has been interested in other dates in the past, but now it thinks it should be 2023. Would it not be sensible to send a clear message to the industry, so that we can ensure that the benefits of the programme that the Minister intends are actually realised?
If it is not possible in all conscience to do that and to convince the Committee that we are on track for that outcome, would it not be sensible to revert to the 2020 target and to actually develop a sense of common purpose that says to all those people engaged in the programme, “You said you could do this. We are telling you that 2020 is the delivery target. We are absolutely clear that that is where we are heading”? Would it not be sensible to stop the backsliding and to say that what we actually want is to deliver what we are telling the public we are capable of delivering? We simply cannot have it both ways; we cannot be emphatic on both points. There is either an achievable deadline of 2020, and all the statements from the Department are believable, or that deadline is unachievable and the Minister needs to set a new deadline, explain it and justify it and convince us that that one is deliverable.
Dr Whitehead
My understanding of my role, with regard to the amendments, is that I am not summing up on behalf of the Opposition but speaking in support of the amendment put very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak just a moment ago. Before I say anything else, I need to emphasise, as my hon. Friend did, what the Opposition think about the Bill as a whole and what we think about smart meters and their roll-out.
We need to be clear from the start that we are certainly not opposed to the Bill overall and we are certainly not opposed to smart meters. We think that smart meters are not only a desirable but a necessary part of the process of smartening up our energy systems as a whole, and that they will have considerable benefits for both consumers and the energy system as a whole when they are rolled out.
We are also anxious to see that that roll-out proceeds in a timely fashion and that we have a substantial coverage of smart meters at the earliest possible stage, so that those benefits can start to be realised. Indeed, as we heard in oral evidence, there are quite a few issues relating to how many smart meters need to be installed in order for those benefits to start rolling out. Getting those numbers in is an important part of the process of realising benefits for the future.
The amendments we are talking about, and indeed clause 1, are about the process of changing the date by which time licensable activities will have ceased from 2020 to 2023. Whether or not it was a wholly wise idea, the 2004 and 2008 Energy Acts and subsequent regulations specified a date for those licensable activities to end, so after 2018 the Government will have no control over what goes on. Everybody knows that in 2018 we will still be at a relatively early stage of the roll-out. It is impossible to conceive that it would be wise to continue with the original timetable, so we support the idea of specifying a more satisfactory date in the statute book.
The date specified in the Bill is 2023, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, that does not appear to coincide with the Government’s publicly stated ambition for the end of the roll-out. I say that with caution, because their statements about the roll-out have changed over time, but they have always revolved around the idea of ending it in 2020. There has been a lot of talk from the Government about 53 million smart meters being installed in homes by then. Indeed, the “frequently asked questions” page of the Smart Energy GB website states:
“By the end of 2020, around 53 million smart meters will be fitted in over 30 million premises (households and businesses) across Wales, Scotland and England.”
However, the Government have changed their position; they are now saying that by the end of 2020, 53 million customers
“will have been offered a smart meter”—
a very different proposition. We could interpret that as 53 million people being offered a smart meter by 2020, but only 10 million having them installed, although I assume that that is not what the Government mean. That statement may be meaningless or meaningful, depending on what happens before the end of 2020 and on a variety of issues that will appear along the road, many of which the Committee will examine in its consideration of the Bill.
Stephen Kerr
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the word “offering” really suggests something voluntary on the part of the consumer, any targets set beyond that level are fairly redundant?
Dr Whitehead
Not entirely. That is one interpretation of the word “offering”. If we adopt that theoretically interesting but practically difficult interpretation, what are we doing here, worrying about the roll-out? Provided that we can ensure that the chosen vehicles for the roll-out—the energy supply companies—can at some stage up to the end of 2020 tick a box showing that they have contacted Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue and Mr Bloggins of somewhere else, and asked them “Do you want a smart meter: yes or no?” and those people answered, “Hmm, I don’t know,” that is the end of it. Presumably we could end up at the end of 2020 with 20% coverage and a small number of meters rolled out.
Grahame Morris
I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments about critical mass and the number of people participating. Does he have a view about why Northern Ireland is not in the scope of the Bill? With regard to Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling pointed out that it was because of problems with internet coverage, and so on. Is there a similar issue with Northern Ireland and is that relevant to helping to achieve critical mass in the number of people who apply?
Dr Whitehead
I can only surmise that because there is an all-Ireland energy network system, which has different protocols from the UK system attached to it, there may be different circumstances for smart meter roll-out in Northern Ireland, so that what we are considering does not apply. Obviously it is proper for it to apply to the whole of the rest of the UK—Scotland as well as England and Wales—because energy is a reserved matter.
To return to the question of what it means for everyone to be offered a smart meter, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify matters this morning, but we surely cannot mean that the whole obligation for the roll-out will be discharged by doors being knocked on and someone saying something. From the outset, we cannot mean that, because of the whole twofold purpose of smart meter roll-out. Yes, the smart meter goes into the home, but additionally the data that comes from the installation has, to a considerable extent, a life of its own. In aggregate it drives, to a substantial degree, the future energy system, in terms of how smart the system becomes and the use of the aggregate data to inform decisions about grid strengthening, local network arrangements and all sorts of things to smarten up the whole system—a system that smart meters are only a part of.
If the smart meter installation programme is pursued on the basis of just making a desultory offer, the result will be way below the critical mass necessary for the overall aggregate data to work properly and lead to decent decisions. At that point £11 billion or some such amount would have been wasted on nothing much.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman making the case, then, that consumers should have no choice in the matter, and that the installation of a smart meter in everyone’s home should be obligatory?
Dr Whitehead
No, I am not making that case, and I am deliberately not making it, because, as has been emphasised in the evidence sessions and on a number of other occasions, the smart meter programme is voluntary. People do not have to have a smart meter in their home if they do not want one. By the way, in the future that will create some difficulties and expenses for energy supply companies inasmuch as they may have to run a dumb meter inspection programme, as it were, alongside a different meter management programme for smart meters. Nevertheless, that is the position that all of us have taken from the beginning. The smart meter programme is not compulsory.
I am reminded of a visit I undertook some while ago with the then Energy and Climate Change Committee, where we talked about smart meter installation in the US. In some states, they had sheriffs and marshals on hand to ensure the installation of smart meters in particular people’s homes.
The Chair
Order. That is very interesting, and it is enlightening in many respects, but I will be minded not to permit a clause stand part debate if we spend so much time discussing this amendment and the clause generally. It is very interesting, but I hope we can focus a little more narrowly in order to have a wider clause stand part debate later.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Mr Gapes. I am happy to follow your guidance. In my defence I can only say that I think I was led by an intervention into an interesting anecdote about what happens in the United States as far as meter installation is concerned. I will endeavour not to go any further on that.
We have a smart meter installation programme that is voluntary and, at the same time, we need a proportion—not 100% but quite a lot—of smart meters installed in order to make the programme work by having worthwhile aggregated data, so we clearly need to put a lot of effort into ensuring that the benefits of the programme are explained to the public. The evidence suggests that the public overwhelmingly like smart meters when they are introduced and that they want to have them in their homes. We therefore need to make a lot of effort over the period to ensure that the two ends—the voluntary nature of the programme and the need for substantial roll-out—can be reconciled. That will constitute much of our debate over the next few sittings. What is it that we need to be doing and should be done, but perhaps has not been done to ensure that the roll-out programme gets its output properly organised and smart meters installed?
The first question is about what we mean by an offer for everyone to have a smart meter. We have gone over that for a little while, and I am sure the Minister will have something to say on that. We then need to consider what we mean by the 2023 date in the Bill. I have four possible explanations as to the thinking behind that date.
The first is that we may not actually meet the roll-out date of the end of 2020, so we may need Government control to continue up to the end of 2023. Let us remember that this is about Government control of licensing arrangements for the whole roll-out. We may need that control to continue to deal with the eventuality that the roll-out date is changed. We may, at some future date, say that the new target is 2021, 2022 or whatever, and that we still need that control in place. We do not want to be here in 2023—I probably will not be here, but other hon. Members may be—going through this whole thing all over again and saying that we would like to have that control extended to whatever date.
The second is to do with the remedial action that may need to be taken if smart meters are just offered up to 2020 and the offer proves to be just that. Conceivably, given what the Government have said is their aim for the roll-out, we may reach the target date for their offer to be made—the end of 2020—and it may turn out that it is not really a roll-out at all and that we need to do various other things. Perhaps the 2023 date is there so that we can consider what to do in the eventuality that the offer turns out to be not very good at all.
There is also the question of what is happening with the specification of smart meters. We will look further at that, but it is pertinent to the roll-out date. As we heard in evidence, the Data Communications Company is supposed to control everything as far as smart meters are concerned. It will receive and organise data, it will communicate between the centre, the smart meters and the many networks, and it may well be responsible for further patching networks to ensure that wide area networks work. All that will be done through the DCC. It was always necessary for the DCC to start its roll-out to enable smart meters that have been installed and those that will be installed to connect with it and therefore go live at the earliest possible date. However, the DCC systematically failed to go live when it should have done. It repeatedly announced delays in going live. It eventually went live in autumn last year, under circumstances in which most of the industry raised substantial eyebrows.
Grahame Morris
We are dealing specifically with dates and with whether we have a justification for extending the roll-out period by three years. As my hon. Friend indicated, we are talking about huge sums of money. That may not be public money from the Treasury, but the consumer will certainly bear the scheme’s cost, which is of the order of £12 billion. It is relevant that the DCC, which is the company responsible for delivery, and the framework and arrangements that sit around it—the Minister seeks to amend some of the terms of those, particularly the dates involved—are fit for purpose. Is the DCC a stand-alone company or a subsidiary of a larger group or company?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend asks two questions, one of which I fear is a little outside the scope of the Bill—
Dr Whitehead
—as you indicate, Mr Gapes. I would very much like to expatiate on what is happening with the costs of smart meters, but I think I would not be able to continue down that path very long before being guided kindly away from it. There is certainly an issue about the extent to which costs are transparent and manageable—and stand-alone or controlled by an outside source. The DCC is not a stand-alone company. It was set up in order to run all these things, and was then effectively auctioned out to a company that could run it, and the successful bidder was Capita plc. As far as running the systems is concerned, DCC is effectively a subsidiary of Capita plc. Again, that may be an issue that we want to return to later.
The Chair
But not now. Any interventions should be on the specific issues in the amendment, not on Capita or anything related to it.
Grahame Morris
I am certainly not going to challenge your patience, Mr Gapes—
Grahame Morris
That is certainly not my intention, Minister. My point relates to the amendment, the justification for extending the date by an additional three years and whether the delivery vehicle is fit for purpose. Was my hon. Friend surprised, as I was, when the witnesses told us that only 250 units had gone live to date? Does that imply that the company is fit for purpose?
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which is absolutely bang in scope.
Dr Whitehead
As my hon. Friend points out, and as I was suggesting before I was slightly diverted down a different route, DCC went live last autumn, but in the going live report, there were about eight pages of workarounds—things it had not sorted out yet. It only went live in part of the country, and was fully live in all parts of the country after autumn 2016. If it had not gone live at that date, the company would have suffered considerable penalties, so that was as late as it could be within the window of when it could go live without going into default. That, among other things, has caused considerable difficulties with SMETS 2 meters replacing SMETS 1 meters as the main kind of meter deployed up to the end of the roll-out in 2020. The SMETS 2 meters have a marginally different specification from the SMETS 1 meters and are allegedly much better at interoperability and intercommunication—
The Chair
I remind the hon. Gentleman that amendment 12 on that issue is to be debated after this one.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I will want to say one or two things on that amendment.
As we heard in evidence, only 250 SMETS 2 meters are fully operational, and we are supposed to have 39 million SMETS 2 meters up on walls by the end of 2020. That does not strike me as a terribly good start. The years are concertinaing into each other and we are running up to 2020.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I hope the Minister will say something reassuring about that, and I am sure he is fully ready to do so.
The final important issue to do with the date is the number of appointments that energy suppliers are making—due to expressions of interest or otherwise—to put a smart meter up on a wall. We heard in evidence from Smart Energy GB about what it calls a pan-supplier customer funnel. That is a fancy way of saying that there is an enormous difference between people who say they would like a smart meter and people who actually get a smart meter at any stage of the installation proceedings. The number of installation appointments booked by energy companies looks very different from the position at the point of interest being expressed and people saying, “I would like a smart meter in my home. When are you coming to install it?” It is not a question of whether people want a smart meter, but whether they get the smart meter on the wall after they have said they want one. That appears to be a continuing problem in the roll-out.
Indeed, if hon. Members look at page 19 of the cost-benefit analysis from the end of 2016, they will see how considerations are changing with regard to the installation profile of smart meters up to the end of 2020. We may need another cost-benefit analysis in the not-too-distant future. As new cost-benefit analyses emerge, and as more information on the ground comes to light, the profile changes. I do not wish to repeat the theory of the four cups on the table from our evidence session, but hon. Members can see from a graph in the cost-benefit analysis the change between the profile of the roll-out and the profile in the cost-benefit analyses of 2014 and 2016: the mountain gets steeper and steeper as we come to the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019.
It is suggested that a roll-out of some 15 million a year will be necessary in 2019 to get the programme on track in the way we all want and hope. A number of people think that that roll-out profile—a roll-out by the end of 2020—verges on the improbable. That is the fourth—and last, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Gapes—reason that I put forward for why 2023 has been decided on. The question is how that reflects on the roll-out, the communications, the offer and the ability of the whole system to work properly as far as future energy systems are concerned.
As the Minister is itching to tell us which one of the four is the actual reason—or perhaps it is all four or something else; I do not know—I will give him the opportunity to do that, but I hope that we can start the Bill with a very clear idea of what we are talking about as regards the 2023 date, because that will inform the rest of our discussions.
Richard Harrington
The shadow Minister took my “itch” comment correctly. I was, as Mr Speaker would call it, mumbling from a sedentary position.
Mr Gapes, I understand fully your rulings on scope. There are points from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and particularly Opposition Members, that I would like to speak about, but the issues raised are not within the Bill. If they would like to meet me separately, either formally or informally over a cup of tea, I would be very happy to do that, because I am absolutely obsessed with smart meters, and that is my job; the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who spoke so eloquently, and I have met to discuss the subject. I took on this project quite recently, and I am determined to make a success of it, as are the officials. In my admittedly short and less than illustrious ministerial career, I have never come across people with such enthusiasm and energy for the project. We want to get it right, and I accept fully hon. Members’ statements that the amendments are not designed to wreck the Bill. The expression used is “probing”. We have heard very genuine comments and questions, and I will do my best to answer them.
I was going to make a longer speech. I thought that in the first bit of it, it would be better to put on record what the whole Bill and smart meter programme is about, but in the spirit of your ruling that Members’ contributions have been outside the scope of the Bill, Mr Gapes, I think I would be pushing it, but I would have liked to have done that; I would like to put that on record, anyway.
Richard Harrington
Actually, concentrating the mind in the Nixonian way, the next couple of years will surely lead to reduced costs because of economies of scale, but we can discuss that another time. I will be happy to.
The shadow Minister said that small suppliers have a weaker obligation in relation to 2020. That is not quite true, although he did not intend to mislead us with the wording he used. It is exactly the same obligation. The only flexibility the small suppliers have been given is that they can deliver their programmes in line with their broader corporate strategy. We are allowing the smaller ones to be later in the programme because, unlike British Gas and others that have been mentioned, they have not got the bulk.
Richard Harrington
The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me. I am being told to make progress.
Amendment 1 relates to the Secretary of State’s power to modify the relevant electricity licence conditions and industry codes, which relate to the detailed regulatory framework, covering the activities of energy suppliers and network operators, and the data and communications licensee. It would cause those powers to expire at the end of 2020, which, again, has nothing to do with the target. I do not think anyone would argue that they should just disappear. I oppose amendment 1 because it removes the Department’s ability to conduct an effective post-implementation review, which, as I said earlier, we will need to do. The aim is for that to happen in 2021. The extension of powers until 2023 allows us to complete that exercise and implement the recommendations.
I know that this is a probing amendment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, but I do not think he took those things into consideration. He concentrated his comments on whether to extend the target, which I hope I have covered. In contrast, in the absence of the power we are asking for to modify the energy licence conditions and industry codes beyond 2020, we would have to bring the review forward. For it to be consulted on properly, and to provide the appropriate parliamentary process, it would be necessary to conclude the evidence gathering the year after next at the absolute latest, which as far as I can see would completely reduce the robustness of the assessment and exclude valuable evidence from the final stages of the roll-out. It would also prevent the consideration of longitudinal research exploring the impact of smart metering on consumer behaviour, which is what this is all about, and energy saving over the course of several years. If it were carried out before 2020, there would not be enough evidence. I believe smart meters will be absolutely revolutionary, and will change the way people use their energy bills. If hon. Members believe in smart metering—I am sure you have been persuaded, as the rest of us have, Mr Gapes, that this is a really good thing to do—and think it is not just a short-term thing, it is right that the Government can ensure that the regulatory framework is there and is fit for purpose for decades to come.
Amendments 2 and 4 would limit the period to which the Secretary of State can veto Ofgem’s proposal to give consent to the transfer of the whole or of any part of the communication licence. Again, if the amendments were passed, the Secretary of State could prevent the transfer only up to the end of 2020. DCC’s smart meter licences were awarded in 2013 for 12 years. The curtailment of that power would create an imbalance in the Government’s arrangements of the smart metering programme, undermining our leadership role within it.
I know it sounds like we want it both ways, but the Government’s role is absolutely central to this. We have to provide the leadership that we have been asked for. I do not want to risk having a situation in which a smart meter communication licence was transferred in a manner that conflicts with activities undertaken by the programme as part of its post-implementation review. It is necessary to extend the power to 1 November 2023 to retain coherence in the Government relating to the smart metering programme and to ensure that these activities are appropriately co-ordinated.
Amendments 3 and 5 would limit the Secretary of State’s ability to introduce new licensable activities in relation to the smart metering roll-out. The power we are talking about was used to set up the provision of the smart meter communications service, which led to the granting of the DCC’s licences. I want to make it clear that we have no specified or defined plans to use the power. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will still argue that if the scenarios change, primary legislation will be needed to go through it again, and I understand that. However, I can see scenarios that could develop where we will need the ability to introduce new, licensable activities quickly, in order to overcome barriers and to ensure that the benefits are realised. Such situations can arrive relatively late in the roll-out or in the immediate post-implementation period.
Smart Meters Bill (Fourth sitting)
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsThursday 23rd November 2017
(7 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 November 2017 - (23 Nov 2017)
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
This is the first opportunity I have had to express my pleasure at serving under your chairmanship in this Committee, Mrs Gillan. I am sure we will have a great Committee under your chairmanship for the rest of our proceedings.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on an excellent presentation of the problem at the moment with SMETS 1 meters being effectively rolled out in a way they were not originally intended to be. Because of various events, some of which I have alluded to, those meters have been rolled out in substantial numbers—in the millions—to date.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the roll-out of SMETS 1 meters is supposed to stop by July 2018. The ordering process, the supply chains and everything else that has gone into SMETS 1 meters will be effectively extinguished in July 2018. At that point, theoretically, SMETS 2 meters should take over. Those are manufactured by different people and have different supply chains. In theory, those new supply chains and new meters for installation should be in place by July 2018, for the transfer between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2.
As my hon. Friend states, the issue is not quite as simple as that. Originally, SMETS 1 was a foundation model of smart meter, and SMETS 2 was supposed to be the final item that would be the basis for the whole roll-out of smart meters, and the two meters were supposed to have very different properties. When SMETS 1 were first conceived of and introduced, they were not thought to be interoperable. If we wanted a long-term system whereby our meter would retain full functionality if we switched suppliers, we would need a SMETS 2 meter, because that could not be done with a SMETS 1 meter. Indeed, we saw in some of the early switching of SMETS 1 meters that switching does not allow for full functionality, and the meter then effectively acts as a dumb meter—that is to say, it produces the data and the material, but the in-home display and various other things do not happen.
Since that original clear distinction between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 meters, quite a lot of work has been undertaken on the software arrangements of SMETS 1 meters. Indeed, with later iterations of the model, it now appears that SMETS 1 meters can be made effectively interoperable, as far as overall systems are concerned, through enrolment in the DCC or the mini DCC systems and their enrolment in the DCC. On an immediate basis, it is between the meter, the mini DCC system and the final DCC that is established.
In effect, one of the main issues that divides SMETS 1 meters from SMETS 2 meters may be in the process of being resolved. Indeed, that was the basis of some of the evidence we received earlier this week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak rightly said, it appears that a number of issues arise from that. Do we continue to say there is a complete cut-off date concerning SMETS 1 meters and assume that SMETS 2 meters are coming on stream, or do we, taking that information into account, look at other ways in which SMETS 2 meters—which, by the way, have other advantages in addition to being interoperable—can eventually be rolled out?
I would add two complications to that scenario. First, the Government are already in the process of consulting on whether the July 2018 date should be moved. A consultation document was issued recently with that aim precisely in mind. The consultation document suggests that suppliers—this is out for consultation, so it is not a final agreement—could for a limited period, I think it is three months after July 2018, continue to install SMETS 1 meters up to a number based on how many SMETS 2 meters they had already installed. They would therefore not be bound by the July 2018 date. That is, among other things, to make sure that the stocks of SMETS 1 meters in the pipeline can be used up properly.
There are problems with that. If the roll-out of additional SMETS 1 meters is allowed after July 2018 based on the number of SMETS 2 meters the suppliers have already put into place, it may not make much of a difference at all, given what we have heard about the number of SMETS 2 meters already installed. It may not make too much of a difference for another reason. As I mentioned this morning, because the DCC was so late in going live—there are still concerns about whether the DCC is live to the extent that we want—one of its central functions has yet to be put into place: the ability for a full end-to-end field testing of SMETS 2 meters, so that we know they really are going to work. That can be done only by installing a number of SMETS 2 meters, testing them against a live DCC and looking at how that all works in practice. That is not just one theoretical meter on the wall, but a whole range of SMETS 2 meters installed in different circumstances in different parts of the country so that we understand how that process actually works. To date, that process has not been undertaken, as far as I understand.
We are saying that in July 2018—or three months afterwards, subject to the consultation—there will be no more SMETS 1 meters and they will be replaced by a meter that is yet to have any field testing at all, regarding its operation. We are then saying that we are sufficiently confident—I hope the Minister will be able to advise us on this—that by that particular date, a large number of SMETS 2 meters will be available for installation, so that that handover can take place.
The problem, as I mentioned this morning, is that if that is not the case, the programmes to install smart meters—already underway, and ramping up considerably —will grind to a halt, because there will be no meters in the vans to go out and install. Even though people want a smart meter, have asked for one and have an appointment for one to be installed, it will not be possible to install that smart meter. The smart meter installation programme may well just pause because of that particular issue. Unless that issue is resolved, all the targets and milestones being put in place for supply companies could be completely overthrown; if the companies do not physically have the meters, they cannot meet the milestone requirements for a complete roll-out by 2020.
As the consultation alludes to—inadequately, I think—there has to be some kind of solution to that potential impasse. Either we have to be clear that SMETS 2 meters will be available in volume, reliably and tested, so that they can get into the vans, or we look further at the position of SMETS 1 meters. That is at the heart of the amendment.
As we have established, SMETS 1 meters were originally supposed to be only part of the foundation programme, but they have had a use far beyond that, and people have been working on their development far beyond what was supposed to be the case. We have therefore developed a substantial supply chain and manufacturing base for SMETS 1 meters that was never supposed to be. There was supposed to be a limited manufacture and limited supply, with a small number rolled out that would be replaced by SMETS 2 meters, and that would be the end of the SMETS 1 meter. They were never supposed to be on the walls of millions of households. People were never supposed to potentially have to rip those smart meters out at some stage to put new ones in, if some of the fixes had not been put forward.
Indeed, I suggest that the development of those fixes and programmes to make those smart meters interoperable arose precisely because of that hiatus. If the people manufacturing those smart meters and concerned with their roll-out had not done that work, we would be in a desperate place. All the smart meters rolled out to date would effectively have to be junked, and we would have to start all over again, several years down the line, with the 2020 roll-out date looming. It looks like that will not be necessary, but the consequence is that SMETS 1 meters have taken on a different dimension as far as the whole roll-out is concerned.
Does the Minister have further intentions for the use of SMETS 1 meters in the instance that SMETS 2 meters are simply not ready and available for installation? If he does have plans for further installation of SMETS 1 meters beyond the July cut-off date, is he confident they will work as well as he might think? If he does think they will work in the eventual scheme of things, does that not suggest there is a further potential role for SMETS 1 meters up to the end of roll-out, over and beyond what the Minister has considered so far? That is to say, is it possible to think about a much longer-term roll-out arrangement for SMETS 1 meters? SMETS 2 meters would come on in the future, as meters are replaced by new ones by the end of the roll-out date overall, but the bulk of the heavy lifting in the initial roll-out would be done by SMETS 1 meters.
This needs to be considered in conjunction with all the other issues we will discuss in Committee about the difficulties and problems to overcome leading up to the end of the roll-out period. Are we not creating an additional hurdle to get over in the roll-out by how we are doing the SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 changeover? Might we not lower the height of that hurdle by furthering considering what we do about SMETS 1 meters over the next period?
Richard Harrington
The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of sense, but not in a technical way. I cannot answer him in a technical way, other than to say that my understanding is that the software is remotely operated—in our day we might have called it via the lines—through the air to the meter, so it is not a question of people coming out to revisit them to make them nearly as good as SMETS 2s. The SIM card on the dumb ones is reactivated remotely.
One of the good points about SMETS 2s is that they allow energy suppliers to roll out smart meters to premises that just have gas customers. They allow distribution network operators to view maximum electricity demand for a premises in order to plan their network investments. There are a number of specialist types of smart meters, for example, polyphase meters for large electricity users, and smart meters that can be used to replace traditional Economy 7 and 10 teleswitches, which we may have come across in our constituencies, and they can only be SMETS 2. But when upgraded—if I may call it that—with the DCC software, SMETS 1s do most of the smart things that SMETS 2s do. It is just how things move on. We must accept the fact that the foundation stage of the programme was based on SMETS 1, which was infinitely better than the previous option of different companies manufacturing different types of meters for their own customers, perfectly properly, with the technology that there was. This system has replaced that anarchy—although it was legal anarchy—in terms of national organisation.
I accept the point about timing, but the foundation stage was always intended to be different from the main installation phase. We have to see this transition from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2, because it is the latest technology and we want as many people as possible to have it. I feel it is fair to say that the foundation stage has provided real benefits. We are seeing savings. Mr Bullen, in particular, spoke about his 600,000 prepayment customers with the key system, which is very old fashioned and difficult for elderly people and vulnerable people. Anyone can recognise objectively that that has been a very good thing; had we waited for SMETS 2 to be developed, those people would not have had the benefit of smart meters. It is fair to say, like with any new technology, that we want to see the industry move from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2 as soon as possible, for the reasons I have explained.
The witness from the supplier company, Secure Meters Ltd, was basically arguing very much for SMETS 1, presumably because that company is a big supplier of SMETS 1 meters. I do not mean that in any sarcastic or improper way; that is what the company does. It was said very clearly that at the moment 250 SMETS 2 meters have been connected. I hope that in the two days since then, it is a lot more than that, but it is a small number. [Interruption.] Well, at least 251, if I may say so to the shadow Minister. Anyway, they are being installed.
Richard Harrington
I will try to come on to that.
Secure Meters was saying that its kit can offer interoperability; why do we need the DCC? I state again that via the DCC network operators can access meters to provide a lot of system benefits. All suppliers are required to use DCC for SMETS 2 meters, which allows full interoperability for enrolled meters; we are not talking about just one company. Several hon. Members have mentioned fear about the DCC’s price control. DCC offers opportunities to enhance security arrangements. The main point is that the DCC systems have been future-proofed. This is not one company providing a system that, with the best intentions, works but is not part of a national system and is not future-proofed in the same way as we expect DCC to be.
In answer to the question that was asked, DCC has published an approved plan, which was agreed by BEIS, for this system to begin in late 2018, so that consumers can keep their smart services when they switch supplier. That will be done. There is, if I may say so, some cynicism—I mean that in a polite way—about whether it will work or work quickly. It has been suggested that it is untested and so on, but it is being done in phases, batch by batch. We heard evidence from the chief executive officer of DCC that this is a very serious operation. Some could say that it is a very expensive operation, but it is not a wing-and-a-prayer type of thing, as much as any software roll-out is not—I am perfectly prepared to accept that. From big Government projects all the way through, I accept that recent history is littered with disappointments in the efficiency of these roll-outs, but the DCC was very carefully appointed and has very carefully been tested. BEIS is monitoring very successfully, and we are happy with what we have produced. Subject to a cost and security assessment, we expect all SMETS 1 meters to be enrolled in DCC. As I have said, that will make them similar but not exactly the same as the SMETS 2 meters.
I say this in the spirit in which the amendment was meant—I say it in good faith; it is not some political point. I believe that the amendment could undermine delivery of this project, for example where changes to the regulatory framework are needed after the current expiry date of October 2018 to ensure that the process for enrolling the meters into DCC runs smoothly. Were the amendment to apply, such changes could not be made. That would risk delaying or even preventing the benefits of an interoperable service for energy consumers. I state again that I know that that is not the intention of the amendment. That would be irresponsible, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is anything but irresponsible about this project; he cares for it as much as me or anyone in the Committee or, indeed, in the House generally.
In addition, the amendment would mean that any new consumer protections or other obligations on suppliers introduced after our powers’ current expiry date would not be applicable to SMETS 1 meters or consumers with those meters. Again, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend that. I know he wants to ensure that relevant consumer protections extend to consumers, whatever type of smart meter they happen to have.
I hope that my explanation reassures hon. Members that we recognise the benefits of moving to SMETS 2 as soon as possible and have established a clear end-date for SMETS 1. We are delivering a solution to resolve the interoperability issues that may be experienced when a consumer with a SMETS 1 meter switches energy supplier. We have thought about this issue, and I am very happy to discuss it with individual Members if they feel that I have missed something out. I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
Will the Minister say something briefly about the consultation that is under way on extending the period after which SMETS 1 meters cannot be installed? Will he perhaps inform us of the intention behind the consultation, and whether it has any bearing on our discussion today about the interface between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has tabled an amendment that is not only interesting but timely and important. As he says, it would be overwhelmingly helpful to the roll-out procedure and would not force anyone to do anything. It would give the Minister the opportunity to consider what should be done, perhaps by secondary legislation or something similar, to confront the issues raised by what we might call reverse meter logistics, which the industry is beginning to talk about.
The amendment is particularly helpful, because this problem is not a theoretical problem for the future, or something that we can think about during the extension period; it is happening now. Indeed, the problem is not only happening now, but its extent and complexity will inevitably increase hugely as the number of new meter installations ramps up, and it will increase even more if we have any further issues with replacing SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 meters as we go through the roll-out process.
There are several aspects of the problem. First, what about malfunctioning and existing smart meters that are no longer installed and are now redundant? Secondly, what about the huge number of existing meters that will be removed and need to be disposed of as smart meters are installed? It is a combination problem. However, it is joined together by the issue of the status of meters generally—not just smart meters—in the firmament of electricity and gas supply.
Indeed, my hon. Friend has pointed out the existence of the MAPs, and it has been a long-standing arrangement in the industry that the meters are not owned by the suppliers; the meters are merely read by the suppliers. The supplier will contract others, even, as happens currently, when a dumb meter is being replaced by another dumb meter. The normal thing is that the supplier will contract with a MAP to put a meter in. The MAP has a very secure asset, inasmuch as they put the meter in, get a charge for the operation of the meter and they carry out a contract for the supplier, but they always essentially own the meter in the last instance.
When we pursue a programme of removing old meters, whether they are dumb meters or previous generation smart meters, we have a problem that is precisely the reverse of the situation when the meters go in, namely that the meters being removed by suppliers—because they are the people putting the new meters in—do not actually belong to them. So as I understand it, we now have a situation where, in warehouses up and down the country, there is supposed to be a process of reverse meter logistics taking place. That consists, essentially, of triaging those old meters, deciding who the actual owner of a meter is, and then inviting the owner of that meter to come and collect it, in order to dispose of it. The suppliers themselves do not have the ability, in their own right, just to dispose of the meter, because it is not their meter to dispose of.
The consequence of that is, first, one is not entirely sure who the owner of the meter is in some circumstances, when a meter has been taken off a wall. Unless there has been careful archiving and, as it were, archaeological numbering of meters, to determine where they need to be taken, and unless there are absolutely first-class systems of triaging, inevitably the system of getting those old meters out becomes jumbled up.
We could have meter mountains across the UK. The meters are potentially valuable assets. They are worth having, with their rare earths, rare metals and all the rest of it; they can be recycled well. However, if there are warehouses full of meters whose provenance is not known and nobody is coming to claim them, and the meters cannot be processed, the only solution is to go and tip them into landfill. Then we will get a terrible outcome to what should be an entirely different process as far as meter re-provision is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak touched on the reason for that; it is because of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. In case hon. Members think that directive will no longer apply once we leave the EU, I remind them that it has already been implemented into UK law.
The WEEE directive introduces producer responsibility for disposing of electrical and electronic goods. In principle, that is a good thing: when someone needs to dispose of their fridge, freezer or hi-fi system, the company that produced it should have a hand in that. Quite sophisticated systems have evolved for sending electrical goods back to their producers for disposal. That is fine for goods labelled “Panasonic” or “Electrolux”, but I am sure hon. Members can see that it is much more difficult for redundant meters.
If we are not careful, this issue will overwhelm the roll-out or at least have a significant negative effect on the overall atmosphere of it. After all, before the directive was implemented we had fridge mountains in this country, as the Committee may recall.
Dr Whitehead
That is because the WEEE directive operated properly, but before it was implemented there were a number of small alps of electrical goods around the country. It will reflect badly on the smart meter roll-out if we end up with Dolomites of old meters as a memorial to it.
We must sort this problem out. Amendment 6 gives the Minister a golden legislative opportunity to do so; we may not get another, so he should be anxious to grasp this one with both hands. I hope he will.
Richard Harrington
I will try to deal separately with supply and disposal, just as the hon. Members who spoke to the amendments did. The Government are clear that we support free markets and the benefits of competition generally. However, we have also shown that we are quite prepared to regulate where necessary to protect consumers.
We have done a lot to regulate energy suppliers. Their licence conditions require them to use smart electricity and gas meters that meet the SMETS standard. All energy suppliers must install smart meters that conform to minimum common standards, including ensuring that they are, or can become, interoperable and can be used by competing energy suppliers.
The supply of the meters themselves is a competitive market. There are quite a few suppliers, and they compete with each other; some manufacture both SMETS 1 and 2 meters. The Government set the technical standards, but it is up to the market and the suppliers to compete for the best price. Competition from other energy suppliers would mean that if smart meters supplied were unreliable, incompatible or unduly costly, suppliers would risk losing customers. I do not mean risking losing consumer customers—the wholesale supplier of the product rather than the end user. There is strong competition. Energy suppliers and meter asset providers have plenty of choice.
Smart Meters Bill (First sitting)
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsTuesday 21st November 2017
(7 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 November 2017 - (21 Nov 2017)
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
Audrey Gallacher: It is important that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Government maintain sufficient routine oversight over the programme. The extension is to allow that programme to be delivered so that consumers get the benefit. We know that the scheme is due to finish in 2020. There is clearly a question about whether that will happen fully, so it is important that that oversight is retained. We would be concerned about how any future powers are used and that due process is followed, and about all the other attendant requirements around any regulated area.
Bill Bullen: We do not think that the 2020 deadline is realistic, and I reiterate the need for continued administrative powers post 2020. The deadline will not be met, so it is essential that those powers are continued.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Bill Bullen: I just do not think that the programme is anywhere near the level of completion that it needs to be. The DCC was originally intended to be up and running in 2014, at which point 2020 was perhaps a realistic timeframe. We are now nearly at the end of 2017, and the DCC is clearly not up and running at anything like full capacity. It will just not be possible to deliver the remaining 40 million–plus meters in three years. It is logistically impossible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
Q
Bill Bullen: Business is completely focused on the prepay market. We have nearly 600,000 prepay customers now, and more than 85% of those already have smart meters installed. The prepay market in total is something like 20% of the market—5 million households in the UK use prepay, and about 20% of those already have smart meters installed. There is a very simple reason for that: it completely transforms that product and service for those customers. It has huge value benefits for prepay households, which is why they have adopted the technology more quickly. Until the price cap came in, there were also significant price reductions because prepay smart meters allow people to cut their cost to serve ratio, and therefore they deliver a better price as well as a better product. It is a bit of a no-brainer, to be honest.
Audrey Gallacher: I echo that. We know from a lot of early research done on the Government’s smart meter programme that the customer service benefits go beyond improvements and engagement in reducing consumption. The sheer customer service benefits have been massive. Right now, people have to go outside the house to top up their meter, but with a smart meter they can do that in their home. As Bill says, that has proved massively popular.
Laura Smith
Q
Rob Salter-Church: That is a good challenge. We gather regular information by engaging with Citizens Advice, which is a good source of information if people are raising concerns or complaints about their smart metering installation. As I mentioned before, we also gather information from the smart metering installation code of practice survey. We gather information from a wide range of sources. If we thought there was a systematic problem and suppliers were not being clear to customers about information consent, we would absolutely do something about it and use all the powers that we have to crack down on those suppliers and make sure that consumers are protected. I hope I can reassure you that we have both the practical arrangements in place to get the data and the will to do something if we see that there is a real problem.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Angus Flett: I can reassure the Committee that DCC is fully operational and ready to scale. If we look at the facts, DCC was born in 2013. Our first release was due in December 2015 and was actually delivered in October 2016—the following year. The latest release, which was due in November, we delivered bang on track. There are subsequent releases to unlock functionality such as prepaid and so on.
We run regular “ready to scale” forums with our suppliers and customers. The forecasts that are coming through from my main customers indicate that I will be doing well over 200,000 installs a week next year, and that number is growing. In fact, one of my main customers issued a press release saying that it was the first to go live with the installation of SMETS 2. We are also putting in place incremental measures to ensure that, as we cut over from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2, we carry a buffer stock of communications hubs so that my customers can ramp down their old stock and ramp up the new stock. We are confident that we can deliver against the scaling requirements.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Angus Flett: Testing is essential. This is a UK national infrastructure project and we will not go live without full integrated testing. We use a range of emulators to simulate testing. As I said, the evidence I have from the main customers that are driving installations is that we are on track. The volumetric forecasts that they are delivering to me indicate well over 200,000 installs a week. I do not have concerns in that sense.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Angus Flett: There are just over 250 out there at the moment.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Angus Flett: At this stage it is an acceptable number, as each of my main customers gears up its volumetric installs. As I said, if the forecasts that come through—
Smart Meters Bill (Second sitting)
Alan Whitehead ExcerptsTuesday 21st November 2017
(7 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 November 2017 - (21 Nov 2017)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
Q
Thank you for coming today, gentlemen, and helping us. As you probably know, the evidence you are giving today is the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill. May I ask you both to comment on the interop—I cannot pronounce it—on how the Data Communications Company system will help the SMETS 1 meters to be operable throughout the whole system? We keep hearing about it and my shadow and I have discussed it at different times, but I would be very interested in your comments.
Derek Lickorish: I think that interoperability for SMETS 1 meters will come about in two ways. But first, what is interoperability? At the moment, SMETS 1 meters have their own mini data communications company. They have their own communications infrastructure, and it is generally all made by the manufacturer who supplies the meters. There are several of those systems out there. The initial interoperability can come about by making SMETS 1 meters interoperable through their communication systems. That is already available technically, but it requires the participation of the big six to make it happen.
You asked specifically about how the DCC deals with enrolment and adoption—those are the terms used. In the case of Secure Meters, it will take the output from its smart meter service operator system and plug it into the DCC. That, on the current timeline, is due to take place next October. That is based on a whole range of assumptions, and I think it is more likely to come about at some time during 2019, subject to all things here on in going very smoothly for the DCC. So there are two options to make interoperability work.
Richard Wiles: Likewise, at Trilliant, with our meters we offer integration into third-party systems that allow interoperability and for the devices to remain smart. We do that through one of our clients. We also offer a cloud-based smart meter systems operator—SMSO—solution ourselves, and we can provide that interoperability for people who take up our service. That enables them to put meters on the wall pretty quickly, using a similar platform to that of our larger suppliers from the big six energy companies.
We also provide that service through an aggregator that can do secure file transfers that allow even quicker adoptability and the ability to get meters on the wall, but we adhere to the same standards as the DCC for enrolment and adoption as to how we would build that development interface to communicate to our existing infrastructure and make sure that the service requests that come through the DCC path meet the criteria of the DCC, similarly to what happens with SMETS 2.
Derek Lickorish: So SMSO interoperability could be achieved now.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
Derek Lickorish: We are kidding ourselves if we think that we are about to have a mass roll-out of SMETS 2 meters any time soon. As we heard this morning from the gentleman responsible for DCC, there are 250 SMETS 2 meters connected to DCC, and they are electricity-only; that is 200 more than I thought were connected to DCC. If we were about to have a mass roll-out, we would have at least 200,000 fully interoperable SMETS 2 meters connected to DCC to facilitate end-to-end testing of that system. That is currently not the situation.
The July 2018 date is predicated on the fact that SMETS 2 meters are going to roll out very soon. For that to happen, those meters need to be declared interoperable. Interoperability is essential not only now but in the future. What does that mean for people who do not follow all this stuff at the molecular level? We decided at the outset of the smart meter programme that we would have many world firsts. There are about seven or eight first-in-the-world developments in this programme, one of which is that every meter must be interoperable with other meter manufacturers’ meters so that, should a meter fail, it can be replaced by another meter manufacturer’s meter without the in-home display being replaced. That is a key tenet of the programme.
A process known as smart meter design assurance is supposed to be up and running to prove that SMETS 2 meters are interoperable. That is not up and running, and it has some technical difficulties. Yesterday, a letter arrived to say that one SMETS 2 meter manufacturer has a problem with compatibility of the hub. That is not to say that that will not be solved, but that was only yesterday. Is it just that manufacturer’s SMETS 2 meter or is it all of them? In theory, it should be all of them, because they have all been made to precisely the same specification.
This programme is the first in the world for device-level interoperability, it is the first in the world to separate out the communications system and it is the first in the world to get all the people involved in the SMETS 2 roll-out designing to a 6,000-plus page specification. I hope you can see from that that I do not think we are going to be going very quickly very soon. Having said that, I do not think that the 2020 date should be changed. I believe that the industry should be galvanised into action to solve the problems and then there should be a reflection on what the 2020 date should be. We should not have a date that nobody believes is possible.
Richard Wiles: Trilliant’s view is that there needs to be some coexistence between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 beyond 14 July next year. Our response to the consultation is that we are concerned that smaller suppliers, which may not have done any SMETS 2 installations to date, may be in a position where they are not first in the supply chain for meters, communications hubs or other parts of the end-to-end system testing. We believe there should be coexistence and that SMETS 1 should run with SMETS 2 until SMETS 2 deployment has been proven at scale and can take over the quantity of SMETS 1 meters that will be deployed.
From our supply chain, we are concerned that if we are forced to turn off our supply manufacturing chain and then we get the go-ahead to recommence production, we will then have to ramp up. For the products that we develop, we have specialist components to ensure that the security is maintained. We need to ensure that other key, core aspects of the supply chain are readily available so that, should the call come to bring SMETS 1 up again at a date beyond 14 July, we can serve and make a credible difference to the actual roll-out and then achieve the 2020 planned deadline.
Dr Whitehead
If, as we have heard, SMETS 1 can be made fully interoperable with software upgrades, what is the purpose of SMETS 2 meters?
Derek Lickorish: What is the purpose of SMETS 2 meters if we can make SMETS 1 interoperable? To be able to answer that question, you would need to have a review and some evidence on which to base that decision. At the moment, it is beyond my sphere of full knowledge on everything to give a clear-cut answer to that question.
Richard Wiles: SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 need to run in coexistence. I believe that some clients are in prepayments mode, and prepayment is available in SMETS 1 now. I am talking about some specific instances where SMETS 2 is required: for aspects such as high-rise buildings or dual band comms hubs, when that comes into effect, when greater interoperability is required. Certainly from our position, we believe that we can deploy a larger volume of SMETS 1 meters and still help the Government meet the 2020 deadline.
As to SMETS 2, there are specific advantages around interoperability that have been touched on. While each individual SMETS 1 provider creates mini DCCs, as Derek mentioned earlier on, that will be avoided with SMETS 2. However, with enrolment and adoption, we are working with DCC at the moment, and that will allow the interoperability of our estate to be absorbed into the wider continued operation of the smart meter system through DCC.
Derek Lickorish: Can I add to my answer to Alan’s question and build on a point Richard made about interoperability? Although SMETS 2 has some advantages on the one hand, it is not at the data level. If you take mobile phones, they can keep on being produced because they are data interoperable with the network. SMETS 2 meters have to be identical not only for the meter installed today but for those in 15 years’ time as well. This backwards compatibility requirement is built into what we have. SMETS 1 meters are data interoperable, which is why we can make SMETS 1 interoperable relatively easily from the mini DCC position.
I know that all these things are grindingly complicated. We are trying to explain them in a way that I hope is straightforward.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Q
Richard Wiles: There have been publicised delays within the go-live period. The go-live date of November last year was when we had a release of DCC that allowed devices to be installed and to be made interoperable. A statement was made this morning that there are 215 meters on the system. It was envisaged that there would be a considerably higher volume than that now.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Sacha Deshmukh: The final analysis to which you are referring was conducted by energy suppliers over the summer. I believe that over 90% of the market share of energy suppliers contributed the data to that exercise. One part of the data that they submitted gives you the number of installations at the bottom of the funnel along with their predictions, or their desired number of installs, for next year. I know they have to discuss those plans with the regulator Ofgem, so I cannot take a view as to whether the regulator thinks that those plans are adequate, or on any of those dialogues. As far as I am aware, the data that went into that analysis is the most up-to-date data.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Sacha Deshmukh: Our organisation’s responsibility lies in consumer demand for the product, so it deals with the top of the funnel, as it were. Consumer demand for the product is very strong. In respect of the consumer demand within that funnel, the top is measured by the number of consumers stating that they want to have smart meters within the next six months, so it is a hard measure of demand. There is demand there. I am not able to comment in much detail on the conditions that might improve the lower parts of the funnel. I apologise if it was not as clear as it could have been in the written evidence, but the figure in the evidence to which you refer related to the six-month period before November, rather than the whole of that year. Those are the latest predictions from energy suppliers, which may be different from the ones to which you referred in the most recent cost-benefit analysis of 2016.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Sacha Deshmukh: The factors taken into account in that particular analysis, when energy suppliers submitted their data, included their predictions. Some of the issues that I heard the Committee discussing with the witnesses today included their predictions of meter asset availability, and of their ability to actually deliver the installs in question to the expected quality standards. They may have changed their predictions of the number of installs that they would be expecting to deliver from a year ago.
The Chair
Ms Vyas, did you want to add anything to that line of questioning?
Dhara Vyas: No.
Richard Harrington
Q
Dr Sarah Darby: I am not sure we can yet say that there is a prototype smart grid. The beginnings of smart energy tend to be different in every country and smart metering in this country is different from smart metering anywhere else. In fact, more attention has been paid to the consumer engagement side of smart metering in this country than anywhere else. This is the only country where a fairly intensive effort is put into customer engagement at the time of roll-out of the smart meter, when everyone is offered an in-home display, and all the installers are trained in communication skills to explain what is going on, what can be done with the display, what the smart meter is about and how customers can use it as a tool, if they wish to. This country is a bit special in that way, and we are seeing, on average, modest positive effects.
In the US, where smart metering is widespread, the emphasis has been very much on using it to try to control peak demand, and as an instrument to introduce time-of-use pricing and whack up the prices at peak times to keep peak demand down. They have special problems there, particularly in the hotter states, with air-conditioning in the summertime and very high peak loads, which is an expensive problem for them to manage. The earliest roll-out of smart meters was mostly, in my understanding, to overcome serious problems with fraud.
Dr Richard Fitton: I agree with Sarah, the UK is very strong on smart meters. If you speak to anyone in Europe, a lot of them are envious of the technical standards of the smart meters that are being rolled out. As we have heard from all the sessions, it is a very complicated issue and it is not getting any less complicated, certainly for the consumer.
Our research group’s angle is everything from the consumer side of the meter. We are looking at how to diagnose problems with buildings using the data and systems that are available. We are also developing appliances that will work with smart meters. A big piece of the puzzle that is missing from some of the discussions is the fact that the consumer should be able to engage with the smart meters. As it stands now, they cannot engage with the smart meters. We can log on to the energy supplier’s portal and get a half-hourly reading. But a magic black box called the consumer access device is the gateway to the occupiers having access to their real-time data. This is not a box on the wall that tells them how much energy is costing. It is a consumer access device that streams real-time data to things such as smart appliances and smart heating systems for homes.
That is the whole aim, as far as I can see, of the smart and flexible grid that we constantly talk about. To attach one of these devices is exceptionally difficult and I have never had one successfully connected personally, nor have colleagues or associates. So a big piece of the puzzle is missing in using this data for something that is really smart, rather than just for billing. Billing is clearly important, but the use of the best-value data for the consumer appears to be the missing part of the puzzle. I think that would also push some buttons to help develop the interest in smart meters and get them into people’s homes.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Dr Richard Fitton: I think it is the same with any technology. The greater the penetration geographically across different types of people and property and heating systems, and the greater the spread the better. It is a very difficult question to answer. My thought has always been, when is the roll-out complete; when do we say it is complete? Is it at 90%, or 80%? It may be that 10% of people—I have just made that figure up—will not let you through the door. When is it complete; when do we rubber stamp it?
Dr Sarah Darby: Yes, I think there will always be a section of the population who do not stand to gain very much from having a smart meter; the demand is perhaps very low and there would not seem to them to be a great deal of point. Their impact on the system would also be very small, so I would say yes, we are probably talking in the region of 80%. You would have garnered pretty much all the benefit by then.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Dr Sarah Darby: I guess that would depend on what you wanted to use it for.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Dr Richard Fitton: I could not give an educated answer to that. I simply do not know the penetration level that would be needed, but I would say 80%.
Dr Sarah Darby: Who would account for a lot more than 80% of the actual consumption or the actual amount of electricity being fed in?
Clive Lewis
Q
Obviously, the cheapest and greenest energy is the energy that we do not use, so that is fantastic on the demand side, which we do not focus on enough in this country. You are saying that that is not really working. I wonder whether this legislation is the place where this will happen. Is there anything in this legislation that you feel is sufficient to give you encouragement that that will happen in the future, or are there holes in it that mean that those data and that potential will never be realised?
Dr Richard Fitton: There is nothing in the Bill that would cover that element. There is guidance around the periphery of the Bill and the licensing Acts and things like that, but there is nothing specific.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Dr Sarah Darby: If you really want to see how heat is leaking from your home, you want thermography. When people are shown thermal imaging of their homes, it can have quite a dramatic effect, because you can absolutely see where it is leaking out. That is the most powerful way of doing it. A smart meter can just tell you, “This is what you are using now; this is what you used last week.” You remember, “Oh, yes. Last week we had the whole football team round having hot showers,” or something like that. You can link cause and effect to some extent. This is what you used, compared with several months ago. You can see seasonal effects and so on. You can work things out.
Ideally, you need to be able to put all that together with other sources of information. Another thing we find is that when people get their feedback from different sources, that has more effect than if they are getting it from just one. Ideally, you would see the smart meter information as part of a rich mix that people get gradually more familiar with and that they talk about with other people; they can find out what to do with that information and try to find ways of using it.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Q
Dr Sarah Darby: I have not heard of any serious push-back on this. I have heard one or two accounts anecdotally that people are feeling under a bit of pressure from their supplier that they really ought to be getting a smart meter now. One woman said to me she was holding out for as long as she could. She was not particularly against a smart meter but she was curious to see how long the supplier was going to keep pushing her.