Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[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—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

A cartel.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Clive Lewis]

It is not so much that the administrator would need to keep the public informed of every step they were taking, but that if the public, MPs or parliamentarians or others were interested, they would have access to the information to ensure that lessons could be learned in the future, if they felt that that was a requirement. Rather than the administrator giving out the information, it would be for the public or others to access the information; they would be able to access it.