Scotland Act 2016 and Wales Act 2017 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, of course I support the instrument, not least because, as the Minister said, it fulfils a pledge of the Silk and Smith commissions to transfer these powers to Scotland and Wales, but I have one question and a bit of context, because the transfer of these powers has generated a lot more heat than light in Scotland, where the Scottish Government claim that this gives them the power to ban fracking or any other form of onshore exploration, which the Court of Session says does not exist. In other words, the First Minister says that fracking is banned in Scotland, but the Court of Session says that it is not and is simply subject to normal planning considerations, so we are in a state of confusion, which is no responsibility of the Minister or the UK Government, having transferred that power.

This will become a significant issue only if there is a commercial desire to do significant onshore drilling or shale activity in Scotland, which Ineos has been preparing the ground for. It is entirely hypothetical, but it has been stated that if the future of Grangemouth, for example, depended on being able to extract shale oil that exists right underneath the plant, the issue would become politically more real, because you would be banning something that had a significant impact for Scotland, as opposed to current theological arguments about whether we should be doing that.

The only question I have for the Minister relevant to the regulations is on the section that says that everything is devolved except for the consideration—which is presumably the fee that might be involved. I completely understand that the administration and licensing of oil and gas energy is a reserved matter and therefore entirely for the UK Government, but I wonder, given the context that I have just outlined, whether adding to the pot the economic benefit of a licence—not only the commercial benefit but the revenue and royalties that might accrue to the Scottish Government—could change the tenor of the debate.

I have to make it clear that my party is not in favour of fracking and supports a ban. I personally do not agree with that; I think we should wait and look at the facts and the science rather than take a decision before it becomes a reality. Right now, it is purely theoretical; the whole thing is a power to do something that no one commercially is seeking to do and which the Scottish Government and public say that they do not want to happen. However, I can anticipate a situation in which reality will say that it is material and significant—that there are jobs and investment that matter—and the devolution of this power will become a problem, albeit one for Scottish politicians, not UK politicians. But I repeat what I said about transferring the consideration as well—not necessarily the licence, but the consideration. That would just be another factor that might realistically be put into the mix.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend has pretty well gone through everything that I might have said, except to say that from these Benches we fully support this extra act of devolution in an important area. It is about making sure that those in the energy field—in this area it is petroleum, but it can also be nuclear, renewables or whatever—such as energy developers and owners, put the environment or land back to what it was originally. Should be public need that, the Government or the devolved authorities are able to insist on a financial consideration. So we very much support these regulations.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanatory introduction. As he says, this instrument devolves Section 45A of the Petroleum Act 1998 to the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales. As obligations for plugging and abandoning wells are included in the licence conditions, Section 45A, relating to the financial ability of the relevant party, is a key part of the licensing regime that needs to be devolved.

I have only one curiosity to be satisfied in agreeing to the regulations. The territories of Scotland and Wales are defined in area according to the Territorial Sea Act 1987, which defines the onshore area to include up to 12 nautical miles offshore. Could there be a situation whereby an offshore activity could be undertaken under onshore petroleum legislation? I am sure the Minister may reply that up to 12 nautical miles offshore is, in fact, onshore territory. May I follow that up with a further question? Should there be a well or field that straddles the border both within and without the 12-mile limit, who would have to apply the wisdom of Solomon to adjudicate on whether it was onshore or not? While the Minister puzzles over the question, I am happy to approve the regulations.

Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, as this is a separate debate, I declare that I am still a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, as far as I am aware. I was going to start by telling the Minister that I very much support this but I am not sure that that is in line with my noble friend Lord Bruce’s contribution. I am sure we are agreed on this. The industrial emissions directive is generally an excellent piece of legislation. It is intelligent, in that it looks at best practice and varies its requirements according to what is possible and as best practice improves over time. Of course, it replaces the rather obsolete large combustion plant directive.

I have only a couple of questions about this because I welcome it. Coming back to one of my noble friend’s questions about cost, the medium combustion plant directive 2015, which is part of the EU’s clean energy package, says specifically that for new plant the directive applies immediately but for retrofit it does not need to apply until 2025 or 2030, which comes back to my noble friend’s point. My only real question on that is: is that the sort of timescale the Government are looking at in their understandable, correct and—lenient would be the wrong word—intelligent approach to getting these installations right? My other question is one I should know the answer to: what is the enforcing authority on this and how is it enforced—how are emissions measured—offshore? It is fairly straightforward onshore but how is that done offshore?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the House. This instrument widens the scope of the 2013 regulations to include both the industrial emissions directive, IED, which applies to large combustion plant over 50 megawatts, and the medium combustion plant directive, MCPD, which applies to plant with an individual thermal input of up to 50 megawatts.

Previously, the control of pollutant emissions from large combustion plant was not seen to be relevant for offshore facilities. Controls from the MCPD need to be extended to regulating emissions harmful to human health and the environment. The objective of these regulations is to control atmospheric emissions from offshore combustion plant that previously had been limited to onshore facilities under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Explanatory Memorandum explains:

“The amending of the existing Regulations and widening of permit requirements are already familiar to offshore operators, who will receive a single permit covering all the qualifying combustion plant for each installation”.


We welcome this rationalisation. The memorandum further explains that OPRED, the offshore regulator mentioned in the previous regulations, will have its duties extended to implementing the instrument and will be able to recover its costs through fees charged for permits. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I assume from the previous regulations that OPRED will have the sanctions we have just approved to ensure compliance.

I understand that there are two large offshore plants over 50 megawatts, as the Minister explained, and 13 smaller offshore plants covered by the MCPD. However, the memorandum explains that implementation will apply to plants covered by the MCPD according to a timetable, whether they are new or already in existence. Further expanding on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, new plants will need a permit from 20 December 2018. However, if they are already in existence, implementation is phased according to whether they are greater or smaller than 5 megawatts. Those greater than 5 megawatts will require a permit from 1 January 2024 and those less than 5 megawatts will require a permit from 1 January 2029—five years later. This begs several questions. First, for what reason are existing plants given this grace period of five or 10 more years? I would be grateful if the Minister explained. Secondly, why is a distinction made between plants over or under 5 megawatts? Of the 13 plants covered, how many will fall each side of the line? What is the significance of that, and does it lead to a discrepancy on costs or to competitive distortion between the various plants? The consultation did not give rise to any comments on this point.

The consultation merely gave rise to issues regarding the ease of monitoring and access to exhaust stacks on existing facilities. I am glad to see that the department is aware of this and that OPRED will be taking a pragmatic approach. However, there could well be issues regarding the monitoring of carbon monoxide for its effects on human health. Can the Minister assure the House that this pragmatic approach will not give rise to possible monoxide risks to human health? With the assurance that these issues are not material, I am content to approve the regulations today.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, as one whose name was on Amendment 3, it gives me pleasure to support the replacement of that amendment with Commons Amendment 3A. The Commons amendment supports the basic proposals that we put forward in the Lords amendment but is more detailed and will better ensure that, if adequate agreements are not in place 28 days before exit day, the Secretary of State must request the continuation of the present Euratom arrangements. Amendment 3A more tightly defines the request that the Secretary of State must make and the relevant principal international agreements, and seeks to eliminate other possible ambiguities.

I would also like to say how much I welcome the Government’s acceptance of other Lords amendments, particularly the one that specifically points out that civil nuclear activities for peaceful purposes include production, processing or storage activities, electricity generation, decommissioning, research and development—a particular interest of mine—and any other peaceful nuclear activities.

Overall, I observe that the way this Bill has been handled is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is constructive collaboration between the political parties, we Cross-Benchers and even between the Lords and the other place. Our parliamentary system has really worked well in this instance and it is my sincere, if naive, hope that this admirable spirit of collaboration continues throughout the consideration of all of the other Brexit-related Bills.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am also very pleased that we have come to a suitable arrangement. I support this amendment and reflect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Broers. However, the challenges in achieving this are still major. We know from the leak from the risk assessment of the Office for Nuclear Regulation that we have an IT system that has only just been commissioned and timescales are very short for that £100,000 programme. We know that training has not been fast or easy in terms of recruitment or giving skills to those people to ensure that we have the right number of people in the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We have already had a concession that the standards that can be met by Brexit day are best international, rather than the Euratom standards the Government originally wished for.

Also, I understand that we have not yet had ratification of any of those nuclear co-operation agreements. Although I recognise and welcome the fact that we have agreement with the United States, agreement is not ratification. As the Minister himself said in a Written Answer to me:

“Ratification in the US requires the agreement to remain in Congress for 90 joint sitting days, whereby the US Senate and House of Representatives both sit, and the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate. Congress also has the option of adopting either a joint resolution of approval, with or without conditions, or standalone legislation that could approve the agreement. UK officials have held detailed discussions with the US and both sides are satisfied that this process can be completed ahead of the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom”.


I am glad to hear that optimism, but I still believe that that is a very difficult timetable to meet. I will be interested to hear from the Minister where we are on the other three nuclear co-operation agreements as well.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, as another who took part in the earlier stages of this debate, my eye joined with my noble friend Lord Broers in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for listening to the arguments that were made earlier, and to the Government for showing that the dynamic relationship that sometimes exists between your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons actually improves Bills, even in the febrile context of Brexit. I hope that this result today on Motion A, which I certainly support, will be a clear message to those who are given to say glibly that your Lordships’ House is merely trying to wreck Brexit. That is just not true. What is happening this afternoon is clear evidence, which the Government should cite, that there can be constructive work between the two Houses to improve even the legislation on this very difficult issue.

Brexit: Energy Security (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: Energy Security (10th Report, HL Paper 63).

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, while noble Lords from the previous debate leave, I will declare my interests. I am a trustee of the Green Purposes Company and a trustee of Regen Southwest, both of which are non-financial interests. I am also a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, which has responsibility for licensing offshore renewable projects in English waters.

If one thing is clear, is it is that a robust, reliable and affordable energy system and network in a country are absolutely vital for its economic—let alone its social—stability. It is in that context that we wrote the report and I am bringing it to the Floor of the House today.

A key point to remember is that while imports of energy from electricity make up only 5% from the EU and 7% for gas—although when we include imports from Norway it is much higher at close to 46%—they are growing because of interconnectors in place and the need to be able share loads in terms of energy systems. For that reason, and because we will be connected to the rest of the European Union’s energy systems after Brexit, this is an area where we believe that government action will be important.

One of the ironies of Brexit is that the United Kingdom has been one of the leaders on energy policy development within the 28 and, indeed, at the time of the 15. The internal energy market was created at the behest of, and is in the image of, a market that the UK would want to see and has helped to evolve. How that evolution takes place after we have left is of course another matter, but we have been fundamental to securing the position we are in at the moment.

I believe that the report is measured. While it sets out the challenges it also looks at the opportunities, and I shall go through some of those because it is important to stress them as well as looking at the challenges. There have been a number of developments since the report was originally published and there are areas in which I am sure that the committee would welcome the changes that have taken place. The Prime Minister spoke in her Mansion House speech of wanting a close association with Euratom, which is key to the energy area. She also said that she wanted to ensure that there would continue to be a single electricity market in Ireland, a market that is absolutely unified, indeed more so than the wider internal energy market itself. She has also stated that she wants to see our continued participation in the internal energy market. As a committee we strongly endorse that wish, although how to do so might be rather more difficult. I shall come on to that.

Claire Perry, the Minister responsible for energy from renewables, in response to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who will speak later in the debate, told the committee that Britain would remain operational within the EU emissions trading scheme up until the end of the transition period. We welcomed that statement. As we discussed earlier today, we welcome the progress that has been made on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the various discussions not only with the International Atomic Energy Agency but with our partners worldwide as well. Lastly, we welcomed in their response to the report the Government’s continued commitment to the Paris agreement, which is fundamental not only to us and the European Union but to the global position in terms of climate change.

I will go through some of the opportunities that we set out in the report. Post Brexit, we can operate our systems and networks in a way that suits our own energy grids within Great Britain. We can set our own decarbonisation and renewables targets, something that has been a source of friction in the clean energy package legislation that has come recently from the European Union. We may have more flexibility on state aid for chosen projects and how the Government might want to take forward their own energy strategy. At the moment, the charging structures for interconnectors are highly regulated by the European Union and we could opt out of those. Moreover, we must have a 5% tax floor for VAT and we could remove that for consumers. That was our list, but I am sure that the Government will set out many other opportunities that we look forward to hearing about from the Minister.

However, our report clearly needed to concentrate on the challenges, whether on costs for consumers both industrial and retail, security of supply, influence and continuing participation in a system that we will still be closely connected to, investment levels whether in interconnectors or energy systems, and the whole question of labour supply, an issue which has been a theme in all my committee’s Brexit reports. Moreover, as we heard from speakers in the previous debate, it is a theme in other areas as well. The island of Ireland is particularly key in the energy area, but not on that list is the issue of tariffs. There is no substantial risk of tariffs. They are potentially possible on electricity, but at a minimal level and are very unlikely. They are not applied to gas, although there is a potential issue as regards tariffs on spare parts and machinery imported for replacement of energy systems, particularly in the nuclear area.

On costs, our key concern was that outside the internal energy market we will not have the ability to participate in what is known as market coupling or the network codes that drive European energy systems, particularly in electricity. Does that really matter? It matters in terms of efficiency of trading, and it particularly matters the more that we are connected to the continent, as we will be increasingly, and the fact that those interconnectors give us a good opportunity to share loads and to import and export according to the different peaks in various countries, as well as the ability to share loads to prevent and reduce the amount of capital investment that will be needed for our energy systems, which of course saves on costs. As a part of that, our current membership of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, known as ACER and one of the many acronyms used in this area, and its so-called subsidiaries, ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G for electricity and gas respectively, will come to an end. We will not be members unless we are inside the internal energy market.

Something that came over very strongly from our witnesses was that those inefficiencies in terms of trading will mean that upward price pressures in wholesale markets for gas and particularly for electricity will be inevitable. The answer to that is to stay within the internal energy market if that is possible, and indeed our witnesses almost universally wanted to achieve that. There is a real upward pressure on prices at a time when all of us are aware through the price cap Bill that energy prices are of considerable concern on all sides of the House and of course to the public and consumers.

I turn to security of supply. An area of the internal energy market that has grown in solidarity is in gas through the security of gas supply regulation. Where there are shortages in supply, there are requirements for individual nations within a region to help each other out. We will no longer be a part of that. However, the key area in security of supply is in the nuclear sector, which provides around a fifth of our energy. On Euratom, it comes back to our being able to trade in nuclear supplies, people, and in all the other areas where we enjoy flexibility at the moment. I will not go into detail on Euratom because we discussed those issues earlier. If we solve the Euratom issue and settle our nuclear co-operation agreements, we will be okay, but that is one area where we have an issue around security.

A stark point came from the energy ambassador for Switzerland—it has an ambassador just for energy issues. We wanted to explore as a third country, even though it is one that is very close to the European Union in all sorts of ways, what sort of influence it had. It was quite a shock to learn that, although Switzerland is literally at the centre of the European electricity and gas networks, its ambassador said that it has very little influence on European policy; sometimes it had some influence on regional policy for member states around it, but that was as far as it got. That again reinforced the need for us to find a way to stay close to the internal energy market; outside it, one has very little influence on European policy in this area, even when one is connected to those networks. Norway has a little more influence, perhaps, because it is a major gas supplier, but not a great deal more.

One of the other themes apart from labour was investment. As in many other areas, the European Investment Bank, which has invested some €37 billion in energy in the UK since 2000, is a major source of finance. This is about not just finance but expertise in terms of large deals and getting lower cost capital, hence evaluation expertise and being able to crowd in private investment. The Green Investment Bank is no longer a public sector body in this country. There is the challenge of where that investment, which is often the foundation of other investment—particularly offshore —will come from in the future. That is true in terms of both interconnectors and investor certainty once we leave the EU. In fact, programmes such as the Connecting Europe Facility, which has €5 billion available to it, and projects of common interest, where the UK has had €40 million for interconnectors, are also key areas that will no longer exist.

It was interesting that skilled labour was mentioned in the previous debate. One of the areas of concern for my committee is not just skilled, but less skilled labour or labour that would not be defined as skilled by the Home Office. In this instance, particularly in the nuclear field but also in the broader energy industry, there is a shortage of engineers and we rely very much on foreign labour. That is certainly the case in the nuclear industry: we have mentioned in this House the problem of feel-stixers—oh! steel-fixers—for EDF and Hinkley C, where such skills would not be included in a skills shortage list at the moment.

Lastly, I want to come on to the question of Ireland. We already have a single market there, which has become even more meshed and inseparable this year. It is vital that we maintain that single market in the island of Ireland. It is so impossible to pull it apart that a practical solution will have to be found. That will be key in the Irish negotiations.

How do we stay closer to the internal energy market if we keep our red lines? How do we keep our influence if we are not in that market? How do we remain an associate of organisations such as ACER that are critical in terms of energy and market efficiency throughout Europe? How do we keep investment? How do we find investment when the EIB and other European schemes have disappeared? How do we ensure our labour mobility for not just skilled but unskilled labour? How do we ensure that Ireland remains as one? How do we take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit as well? I am sure that my committee would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s reaction. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. First, I reflect the thanks expressed by a number of members of the committee to our clerk, Alexandra McMillan, and our policy analyst Jennifer Mills, who looked after this report so well. They are not here this evening, and one of the reasons for that may be that they are not in their offices this week because the energy security of Millbank House has totally failed. So, although Britain might not be in energy security mode at the moment, this House is. I have not been in my office this week for the same reason, but I hope that that will be put right next week.

I shall not thank all noble Lords individually but I thank everyone collectively for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who participated in the previous debate, although I was not here for that. I suspect that it had a very similar theme but I will not be checking it to such a great extent in Hansard. I am also very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Front Bench. He has obviously recovered well from his malady.

I thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan for mentioning prices. During his witness session, the Minister, Richard Harrington, was fairly relaxed about the whole subject. It is worth taking up the point about the importance of energy prices, in that we still have some 34,000 premature deaths over the winter and in England alone some 2.5 million households are still in fuel poverty. This is a real issue. I know that the Government understand that as well and they have introduced their price cap Bill, but this is an important area.

I shall say just one thing about the internal energy market, which many of us discussed. I do not see how we will remain a member of that market given the red lines that we and the European Union have in the negotiations, unless the conversation changes fundamentally. That inevitably means that we will not be at any table in any significant way with any influence whatever over EU energy policies post Brexit. The Government probably understand that but it is something we need to work on and we need to find a different basis for the discussions.

I challenged the Minister to go through the positives of Brexit regarding energy but I did not notice any in his speech. I listed the ones that the committee found but, in going through them, we found that they were minor and pretty pathetic. That internal energy market is the goal and I do not see how we can leave it at the moment.

We have come to the end of the evening. The very last thing that I want to say is that, as the negotiations go on and on, Europe is losing interest in Brexit. It has problems with Italy, eastern Europe and the rule of law, as well as migration and, potentially, the eurozone. Brexit will become more and more minor. Whether on energy or more broadly, if we do not get ourselves into gear pretty quickly, our negotiating position will degrade because there is a lack of interest in us as a subject. Regrettably, I think that that is true with regard to energy as well. However, I wish the Government well in the negotiations and I too look forward to their negotiating position, which I hope will have energy as a core part, as reflected in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech. I thank everyone for their contributions.

Motion agreed.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have been ambivalent about the Bill since it was published some months ago. However, I accept that it is a sticking plaster, as the Government rightly describe it, and that a huge problem needs to be solved.

We have heard some of the statistics: £1.4 billion of overcharging, as estimated by the Competition and Markets Authority, and 11 million households affected, many of them the most vulnerable. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, there were an estimated 34,000 excess deaths due to cold weather in 2016-17. I know it is an estimate but it is why this Bill is as fundamental as life and death to many households. People fear turning on their energy supply during winter because they cannot afford the bill, and being confronted by court action and cut off, even if that is not would happen if that occurred.

In a broader context, the title of the Bill refers to a tariff cap, not a price cap. In this country we are obsessed by prices and not by the total of the invoice or the bill. I am not arguing against this Bill, but invoices or bills are more important because our housing stock is so energy inefficient. It is one of the major problems and one of the reasons why we have this issue.

I am the first to agree that there is no option to change that between now and the coming winter, but I am seriously disturbed by the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday on science and modern industrial strategy at Jodrell Bank. She said that,

“in the clean growth grand challenge, we will use new technologies and modern construction practices to at least halve the energy usage of new buildings by 2030”.

Until the Chancellor of the Exchequer got rid of the target after the 2015 election, we were going to have zero carbon homes by 2016, two years ago, and zero carbon commercial buildings by next year. Now, we seem to have moved to a target—which the Prime Minister has crowed about—of halving energy usage only in 12 years’ time. That concerns me because the industry was set to achieve the 2016 target but it was taken away by the then Chancellor, George Osborne.

I understood from both the green growth strategy and the 25-year environmental plan that we were going to be more ambitious in this area and bring back some of those targets. However, if we are talking about half of homes being zero carbon by 2030, then, frankly, this is missing the plot completely. I re-emphasise that this problem cannot be solved overnight, but if we lose that focus I am afraid we will have tariff cap bills for the next 12 years and they will not end in 2020.

Perhaps I may go through some of the issues briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the Minister have mentioned a number of them. We have the broad outlines but we do not know exactly how the system is going to work, so Ofgem will have to invent it. What we certainly do not know are the outcomes. In some ways, I welcome the fact that this issue will have to be looked at again regularly because it is difficult to understand what the practical outcomes will be. As we know, interventions in markets tend to create all sorts of unintended consequences, so it is important to keep a close eye on this.

I turn first to the green exemption. I have a renewables-only tariff for my domestic electricity supply which I have just been informed will go up by 10%. The year is up and I have to do something about switching again. It seems that this is a particularly uncertain area in the Bill, and I wonder whether there should be a relative cap if we are letting renewable energy suppliers off the hook, if you like, as regards the price cap. Are we sure that there will be no cheating going on in this area? I am also concerned that decisions about the green exemption do not have to be made on the same date as the rest of the cap. Everything should be done at the same time.

I will reflect on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the safeguarding tariff. It may be absolutely straightforward, but perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the benefits which will come from that tariff continue for those consumers, despite what this Bill is going to do?

Unlike some others, I am less convinced that an absolute cap is entirely right. I am referring to “tease and squeeze” and how we get rid of that. It is the main problem with the way the market and pricing work: getting people on board for the first year and then hoping that they forget about you. I wonder whether having the fixed percentage that is allowed between the minimum or entry tariff and consequent tariffs is a better way to do this, but I could be convinced otherwise.

However, what I would like to see is price comparison sites being obliged to show what the tariff will be after one year if the consumer fails to renew. That would provide real transparency in the growing switching market. We could look at that issue in a potential amendment. The mortgage market is often held up as the example in that regard, but that may have more to do with Financial Conduct Authority rules; it may be that Ofgem needs to be given similar powers.

The timing of the Bill is absolutely crucial and I am sure that the House will not want to hold it up in any way. But my concern, as with all legislation, its implementation and consultation periods—all of which are important—is that we will be too late for a number of consumers, and that there will be excess deaths if the winter weather sets in early. I would like to know from the Minister when he expects the price caps to come in and the benefits to be available, and about the broader issue of improving the efficiency of our housing and commercial building stock. What is the vision after the Bill expires, because I am far from clear about that?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm, DAC Beachcroft LLP and as one of the Ministers who took through the Gas Act 1986. Introducing price controls into the energy market was indeed included in the last Conservative manifesto and codified in a draft Bill published last year. Today’s debate should therefore focus on how a price cap can be implemented in the most appropriate way, not on whether it should be.

The Bill represents a major intervention in the energy market with significant implications for competition and consumers. It is therefore essential that the Bill provides for strong oversight of how the cap is formulated and introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has already mentioned my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern; I know I am not alone in feeling that the Bill does not include the long-established precedent that organisations should be able to appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority against a price control set by a sector-specific regulator. This right exists in every comparable example of sector-specific regulation, including in the energy sector, and plays an important role in driving better regulatory decisions.

The Bill directs the energy regulator, Ofgem, to introduce a price control on default energy tariffs. It also states that the regulator must have regard to ensuring that the market remains competitive, incentivising switching and allowing suppliers to finance their operations while inducing them to operate efficiently. This will be an extremely complex balance for Ofgem to strike. It is clear that greater competition has been vital to improving this market; Ministers have indicated that this trend should not be reversed. There are now 60 suppliers in the market, compared with just six in 2010. Consequently, there is more choice of tariff than ever before, with 17% of customers switching supplier last year. On a historical basis, these switching rates are better than those of broadband, mobiles and fixed-line telephone markets.

Ofgem will also need to undertake a detailed analysis of the cost of major national infrastructure programmes when constructing the cap, including the smart meter rollout programme, which is central to innovation and future competition. Her Majesty’s Treasury estimates that there will be £100,000 million of investment in critical infrastructure between now and 2021. Ofgem’s approach must ensure that a cap does not impede these large investments. Recent regulatory interventions in the energy market show that meeting this balance of regulation and competition is difficult to achieve. Regulators occasionally err in their decisions. I remember that the CMA concluded in 2016 that Ofgem’s previous attempts to regulate the number of retail tariffs that could be offered by a supplier—the Retail Market Review —had damaged competition and should be removed. We have also seen that the introduction of a prepayment meter price cap led to prices bunching to within £15 of a cap. Like any major intervention in a competitive market, the introduction of price regulation therefore needs a strong system of scrutiny and oversight.

Appeals to the CMA are the long-established way of providing such scrutiny and ensuring that any errors can be corrected efficiently. The CMA is a specialist economic regulator, established to review regulatory decisions and ensure that they are well founded. Price control decisions in every other comparable sector—such as telecoms, water, aviation and post—can be appealed to the CMA, as can other price control decisions made by Ofgem. Price regulation for network companies can also be appealed to the CMA by third parties, including consumer organisations. An appeal to the CMA in 2015 on the level of price control imposed by Ofgem found that Ofgem had made an error. As a result, £105 million was returned to consumers.

There are currently 26 panel members on whom the CMA may draw for any price control appeals. There is also a specialist utility panel within the CMA. The CMA and its predecessor, the Competition Commission, have more than two decades’ experience in assessing such matters across any number of industries. My noble friend the Minister may say that there are specific examples, such as payday loans and the PPM price cap, where CMA appeals are not allowed. I do not believe that those are analogous. The FCA is not comparable to Ofgem and has not been tasked with the same challenges of setting a complex price cap that assesses the cost of the provision of service and maintaining competition. The PPM price cap was adopted by the CMA itself, so its scrutiny had already informed the process.

My noble friend the Minister may add that he has concerns that an appeal could delay or frustrate the introduction of a cap. Ministers have made clear their desire that this legislation should be passed by July and implemented by next winter, but there is no precedent for CMA appeals delaying the implementation of a price control. In the last 11 price control appeals, no delay took place. CMA appeals typically take place while the regulator’s original decision remains in place. Any remedies are then implemented prospectively. The Bill could easily make provision to ensure an appeal could not delay or stop the implementation of a cap—no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will have all sorts of ideas about how we might do that, particularly in Committee.

On stopping a price cap being introduced at all, this is not possible in practice, because the Bill imposes an explicit duty on Ofgem to impose a cap. No appeal process could override the will of Parliament. A CMA appeal would be less burdensome, more straightforward and less costly than the alternative route of legal challenge; namely, the judicial review. Since 2000, CMA appeals have taken on average a little under nine months end to end, compared to around 10 months for JR cases. The CMA’s procedural rules and the rules on costs deter litigants from bringing vexatious challenges.

Equally significantly, the CMA is able to make changes immediately, while a court would need to remit the matter to the regulator, potentially extending the process by a number of months. Based on my experience, judicial review does not seem the appropriate standard for an assessment of a price control. A judge would be focused primarily on the process through which a price control was set and not on the type of complex considerations relating to the level of the cap that should be taken into account. Additionally, judges are not adequately equipped to assess this type of decision. The CMA was established and equipped with the appropriate resources and specialist expertise to undertake such work. It must be better and more helpful in alleviating the burden on the courts to have a specialist body looking at these technical issues.

In summary, the Bill introduces a significant intervention into the energy market, and recent history shows that care is needed to support competition and consumers. Price interventions are complex and should not be taken lightly. It is our responsibility to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place to provide for a fair measure of legal and regulatory certainty, which is essential to underpin vital confidence and investment in the energy sector. I do not believe the usual mechanism for such oversight, CMA appeal rights, would delay, obstruct or frustrate the implementation of a price cap—on the contrary. I hope the Government will reconsider to ensure that a more proportionate, efficient and appropriate form of intervention is achieved.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, although it is a non-financial interest, I should have declared that I am a trustee of Regen SW.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I fear that the Bill is flawed. I accept that we may need to tackle the “tease and squeeze” culture and that this is a manifesto commitment, but price capping and rent controls often turn out to be ineffective or even counterproductive, especially with respect to the most vulnerable. They tend to treat symptoms rather than causes and in this case I fear that they pass the blame for energy costs from the Government to scapegoats.

The pachyderm in the parlour here is that the costs of government policies vastly exceed any aggregate saving to the consumer that might come about from a price cap. Policies deliberately introduced, mainly under the coalition Government, with the full knowledge that they would push up energy prices are now coming home to roost. Telling the industry to cap prices is like fattening a pig and then demanding that it weigh less. Like worrying that in crossing the Rubicon Julius Caesar might get his feet wet, it lacks a sense of proportion.

Even if we restrict ourselves to the official data from the Office for Budget Responsibility by consulting its Economic and Fiscal Outlook from March 2018 and go to tab 2.7 of its spreadsheet, “Fiscal supplementary tables: receipts and other”, we find that in the current year, 2018-19, environmental levies will cost £10.4 billion. That is more than seven times the “customer detriment” found by the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry on which the Government are relying. It is seven times as large as the sum that my noble friend the Minister described as huge. Subsidies to renewables account for £8.9 billion of that annual sum, or 86%.

The total cost of subsidies to renewables, according to the OBR, from the current year to 2022-23 is an almost unbelievable £52 billion, as the table that I referred to confirms. It is appropriate to look towards 2023 because, under the Bill, the price cap could be extended till then. Domestic households will pay for all of that £52 billion. About one-third of it, £17 billion, hits them directly in their electricity bills, but they will pay for the rest through increased cost of living. If a supermarket has to pay more to refrigerate milk, it must recover that cost at the check-out.

Remember: none of these subsidies for renewables is actually working very well. These technologies are not market ready; they are manifest failures, still begging for subsidy after decades of public largesse. As suggested by the Dieter Helm review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, referred, we are not getting emissions reductions at a reasonable price.

[Lord Teverson]

I will not argue with the noble Viscount, although I disagree with him. But one thing I would specifically point out is that a number of onshore energy companies are trying at the moment to operate subsidy free. They are being prevented in doing that largely by government policy, but they are looking for subsidy-free onshore wind.

[Viscount Ridley]

I shall come to that point in a minute.

The recent low bid prices for offshore wind were, frankly, a bad joke. They were a play on the optionality that the Government have created and tell us nothing about what is really happening in the market. Onshore wind, far from being the lowest cost generator, remains one of the most expensive when its systems costs are taken into account. That is the key point: going subsidy free, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, refers, did not include the systems cost of adding wind in remote areas. Systems cost contributes to these energy prices.

Here, the Government are proposing an ineffective and probably counterproductive price cap to save, at best, £10 billion on bills up to 2023. It is probably more like £3.5 billion and may even be a negative number, when their own failed policies are already stinging the consumer for £50 billion over that period. I am sorry, but I think this makes no sense. In effect, the Government have asked the energy suppliers to be their tax collectors and are now, in an incoherent gesture, forbidding their tax collectors from collecting the revenue. The energy suppliers would be acting entirely reasonably if they were to tell the Government to collect their own taxes and take the consequent blame.

Yet I believe the situation is even worse than that because the estimate of £1.4 billion a year detriment that the CMA identifies is almost certainly an overestimate. As the former electricity regulator Stephen Littlechild put it in a letter to the BEIS Select Committee in the Commons, Oxera argued that the correct figure could be anywhere between £0.7 billion, which is half of the CMA’s estimate, and minus £0.7 billion. Adjustments of £1 billion were made after the data room closed, so they could not be scrutinised by anyone. This point has not been rebutted.

Five former energy regulators—Littlechild, Callum McCarthy, Eileen Marshall, Stephen Smith and Clare Spottiswoode—have argued, in a strongly worded criticism of the detriment calculation, that:

“In our view this is a very misleading calculation. It is not, as might be thought, an estimate of excess profit. Rather, it is an estimate of how much lower prices could be if all suppliers in the sector were hypothetically more efficient than any actual supplier in the sector today. Such an approach seems to be without precedent in investigations by any UK competition authority”.


These former regulators warn that the Bill could result in increases in lower prices as suppliers remove offers from the market to offset the cost to them of the cap, and could be harmful to competition and customers generally, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. So even on its own terms the Bill might well be taking a non-problem and turning it into a likely one, and it ignores the real reason why Britain’s electricity prices are so high and are hurting our competitiveness.

What does the Minister propose to do about the real £10.9 billion a year detriment to customers instead of the specious £1.4 billion? What is his estimate of the cost of renewable subsidies to the British consumer over the next five years? What does he think is the risk that this price cap will drive prices up rather than down? What weight does he put on the criticisms of the five former energy regulators?

If I have failed to do so, I declare my interests in energy, including mainly coalmining.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I appreciate that that is the case and I have been on various websites that have offered me the choice of going either for a cheaper deal or what is termed a greener deal: that is an option for individuals to make. What we are looking at in this Bill is obviously to provide a cap to provide safeguards for people.

The Bill places a duty on Ofgem to consult on exemptions to the cap for green tariffs—those tariffs that support the production of gas or the generation of electricity from renewable sources. Having consulted, Ofgem will then have the power to implement exemption from the cap. That is for it; we are not opposed to green tariffs being exempt.

Moving on, network costs was another concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others. He asked, while being tougher in the future was all well and good, were customers being ripped off now? One could say that this is a matter for Ofgem: it is the independent regulator and responsible by law for setting the price controls. Ofgem reports that its assessment of network company business plans and the benefit-sharing arrangements in place in the price control is expected to save the consumers yet another £15 billion in the current price control Bill.

The seventh point the noble Lord raised was about timing. I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is important that we make good progress with the Bill, that we get it through to Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, and then we—or, rather, Ofgem—can get on with the process of bringing in a price cap, so that we will be ready with everything in place for the coming winter.

Lastly, I will touch on some of my noble friend Lord Ridley’s points. He referred to the “pachyderm in the parlour” and blamed the Government for putting up energy costs by imposing greenery, as I think he would put it, on household energy bills. I say to him that government policy costs make up only a relatively small proportion of the household energy bill—around 8% on average, according to Ofgem. Last year, as he will be aware, we published our Clean Growth Strategy, which outlined our commitment to supporting the growth of clean and renewable energy for all. Action to cut emissions can be a win-win for consumers: better insulated homes and more efficient vehicles mean less money spent on gas, electricity and other fuels. Our policies have helped reduce energy bills and costs overall: for example, my noble friend will be aware that we have seen the cost of solar cells come down by some 80% since 2008 and, as I said earlier, the cost of offshore wind has declined by about 50% over the past two years.

[Lord Teverson]

Does the Minister agree—I am sure he does—that when it comes to vulnerability and all the issues around keeping warm, it is important to note that the gas and oil that I have to use as a rural dweller to keep warm are not charged any environmental costs and so do not incur those additional costs?

[Lord Henley]

I am not aware of how the noble Lord heats his house—unless he was the Liberal who confessed the other day to having an Aga run on oil, which always struck me as a good Liberal policy: it is a thing others are accused of. I will find out about that in due course. I will look carefully at the noble Lord’s question and come back to him in writing in due course. I was trying to make clear that our policies have helped reduce energy bills for households in efficiency savings—

[Lord Teverson]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but I was trying to be helpful. I apologise that I clearly was not. Environmental charges are only on electricity: they are not on gas and oil. He can take it from me. I do not want a reply from him. I apologise for having put him off his stride when I was trying to be helpful.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is always helpful, as are the Liberal Democrats. I look forward to the help they will be offering and providing in Committee and at later stages. I will end by making it clear—as I was trying to do before the noble Lord interrupted me twice—that our policies have helped reduce energy bills for households as, on average, energy efficiency savings have more than offset the cost of supporting the low-carbon investment. The Bill will help consumers in due course. I look forward to an interesting Committee and Report thereafter, and I hope that all noble Lords will bear with me in what I said about the importance of timing in relation to the Bill. I beg to move.

Smart Meters Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I support this proposed new clause on the national plan for smart metering, to which I have added my name. As I said in Committee, I came to the smart meter table relatively late, far more recently than most of your Lordships, who seem to have been debating it in one form or another for some years. I was shocked at the seemingly piecemeal way it has evolved, as if it were not one of the major infrastructure projects of this century, which it is. As a consequence of this approach, I have seen a lack of vision, scale and form, which is why this project has been so poorly executed. I was astounded to find that the suppliers were to be the agents of change; I did not understand why it was not the distributors.

However, we are where we are, as they say, so this new clause is proposed to give the opportunity for the rest of the scheme to be conducted in a far more responsible and farsighted way. It would allow the Government and all the players to ensure the best way forward and to deliver certainty and security for consumers, who have been expected to change—we know how difficult change is—but then have heard conflicting and different advice at different times from different people.

The proposed new clause would make sure that all parties are involved; it puts in metrics, targets and incentives to maximise take-up. It makes tracking progress on those tasked with delivering the objectives of smart meters and details what that will require. It would make sure that everything is properly reported, measured and documented. At last, we might actually have a critical path and a critical path analysis from which to work.

The proposed new clause would put this massive civil infrastructure project on a certain basis; it provides certainty for the consumer and a more sure and stable critical path for providers and all those participating in the rollout and beyond. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, that is central to all our commitments on energy and energy efficiency in the future.

I very much hope that the Government will take a deep breath and graciously accept that they need help, and that the national plan would be a sensible and professional way forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lady Featherstone, and I should also like to speak to my Amendment 2.

It is important to remind the House that this is an £11 billion programme; it is one of our major national infrastructure programmes, started in concept when I joined the House in 2006. It is now 2018—12 years later—and all of 300 meters have been installed, but we are not sure whether they work. There are another 10,000 which do not comply with the final regulations that we are trying to achieve—that is another potential problem for the future.

The one person I have really missed in this debate is Lord Patrick Jenkin on the Government Benches. He was one of the great analysts who brought together the real facts of a case, and we miss his presence.

One concern I had in Committee was prompted by my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who spoke very cogently of how, when the congestion scheme in London was rolled out, huge testing was carried out to make sure that the system worked when it was launched and that it was effective from day one. Yet when I asked the Government about their tests for SMETS 2 meters and their systems to ensure that the machines were ready for the massive rollout of 50 million meters by 2020—it is almost amusing to say that date—I got no response. The Minister looked at me as if to say, “What are you talking about?” It seems that there is no bar that has to be crossed—there is no test before we roll out these additional 40 million meters, supposedly over the next couple of years.

Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said earlier on, I will endeavour to improve; I know that the noble Lord will keep a record on these matters.

The purpose of the draft orders is to implement reforms to the renewable heat incentive, or RHI. The reforms will deliver changes that will strengthen the focus on long-term decarbonisation, offer better value for money for taxpayers, increase protection for consumers and further support supply chain growth in the renewable heat sector. Heat accounts for around half of the UK’s energy use and one-third of total carbon emissions. Increasing the share of heat derived from renewable sources is a critical challenge, both to meet our renewable energy targets and to deliver the Government’s long-term carbon goals. Building a vibrant renewable heat sector is a key objective of my department’s clean growth strategy and the industrial strategy. The RHI is the main programme to deliver those goals over this spending period. Before the RHI started, only 1% of our heat came from renewable energy sources; that figure is now around 7% of total heat.

This type of tariff-based support for renewable heat is the first scheme of its kind in the world. Inevitably, there are lessons to be learned, and these reforms are a response to some of the lessons from the early years. The National Audit Office published a review of the RHI in February this year, which we were pleased to receive. Many of its comments related to issues covered by the draft regulations, which I hope will go some way towards addressing some of the issues raised by the NAO, which were also noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The draft orders will deliver a series of important reforms that will help us to deliver a more strategic mix of technologies and improve value for money over the next three years until the scheme closes in March 2021. I will highlight the main ones.

We will increase the tariffs available for biogas and biomethane technologies while introducing new restrictions on the feedstock that those plants use. That will encourage the increased use of food and agricultural waste and will reduce the use of energy crops, making better use of farmland for food production. Alongside changes already made last year, this will rebalance deployment away from biomass in favour of heat pumps, biogas and biomethane, which will all play a much stronger role in the scheme over the long term.

Another important change is that we will bring in tariff guarantees that will allow RHI applicants to secure their place on the scheme in advance of construction. This will support investments in larger plants that deliver better value for money. We will cap the amount of heat covered to 250 gigawatt hours per year to protect the scheme budget.

In the domestic scheme, take-up to date has been dominated by owners of larger homes. To promote wider uptake, we will introduce the assignment of rights. This will allow third parties to finance renewable technology and to be repaid directly from the RHI. Crucially, that will open up access to the scheme for those without up-front capital to pay for a new heating system.

Following consultation last year, we will limit the eligibility of certain heat uses. These provisions will remove most instances of wood-fuel drying and waste processing or drying. In addition, we will remove the use of heat for drying digestate in anaerobic digestion facilities as an eligible heat use. We consider that these processes are poor value for money and that many would not exist without RHI support. We will also remove support for heating swimming pools on the non-domestic scheme, unless the pool is for commercial or municipal use.

We are also introducing changes to allow more than one heat pump to use a common or shared ground loop. This should facilitate greater deployment of that important technology. The introduction of electricity metering for heat pumps across both schemes will allow participants to better monitor the efficiency of their plant and build confidence in the technology.

Following consultation, another change will be to increase the power efficiency threshold of combined heat and power technology from 10% to 20% to reduce the risk of overcompensation and to encourage plants to run more efficiently. There is also a whole series of mainly administrative changes to tighten cost control, reduce the risk of gaming and improve Ofgem’s delivery of both schemes, including by tightening its enforcement powers.

The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2018 also consolidate all previous revisions to the original regulations, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The RHI plays a central role in the Government’s programme to decarbonise heating. These regulations are an important step in refining the scheme and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, in general, I welcome this secondary legislation, in that the National Audit Office report from February certainly needed some reaction from the Government on the way that the scheme operates. Just to put it in a bit of context, the audit report included some very interesting figures: between 2012 and 2017, there have been some £1.4 billion-worth of payments, which should lead to commitments of some £23 billion. To me those sound like big numbers but, as we know from smart meters, they are absolutely piffling. There have been 78,000 installations already and there were expected to be 500,000 by 2020. It is estimated that we have got to about a fifth of that original target. To give the Government their due, they have responded to reality in this area and moved some of those targets.

Although the Minister made a strong point about this being a major contributor to our carbon targets, the point I want to make is that, in many ways, it is a small drop in the ocean of what we need to do to meet our carbon budgets in future. The renewable heat incentive is certainly nothing like sufficient to meet those budgets in the heating sector, nor was it ever meant to be. That sector is so important, but it is one in which we still have so few solutions for meeting our targets. In electricity generation, we are well on our way; in transport, we at least have the solutions on hand; but in space heating, we do not yet, and the RHI is never going to get us there. There are big challenges for this scheme.

I was quite surprised to see in the audit report that Ofgem, which is the manager of the scheme, had not really managed to tackle some of the gaming issues and was uncertain on the overpayments side. I guess that all auditors have to find something. Certainly, the report praises the GB scheme in comparison with that in Northern Ireland, where clearly the scheme got completely out of control and caused the political difficulties that we now have there. However, it is estimated that we still have some £3 million-worth of overpayments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as always, I make the offer of a letter to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, because obviously I will not be able to pick up all the points. I am grateful for noble Lords’ general welcome for the regulations and our response to the NAO report.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about this being a drop in the ocean given the large sums of money that are involved—we all know that a billion here and a billion there soon adds up to quite a large sum. Take, for example, AD, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. We know that AD will never solve all our problems, but it can deal with a certain amount of waste. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the important thing with any AD plant is to make sure that you have adequate waste as feedstock for the future. We do not want people producing waste for the sake of waste just to go into a plant. We want to use only genuine waste or, on occasion, to top it up with a certain amount of crops that are grown for that purpose. Principally, however, plants would be designed to deal with waste.

In my former life as a Defra Minister, I saw quite a number of AD plants taking in waste from very different sources. Where they were attached to a supermarket, one would see bucket loads of old yogurts or whatever else had gone past its sell-by date being tipped in. That was a good way of using it, and we want to devise schemes that will, as the noble Baroness rightly said, prevent that waste going to landfill. I saw excellent small schemes also. I remember one used by a salad producer, which took the waste from its own products—the stalks from tomatoes are actually rather difficult to break down—and used it to produce both heat and power to grow more tomatoes in due course, and used the digestate that comes out in the end to fertilise those tomatoes. It was, wonderfully, almost a closed loop. There are terrific advantages to AD, but, as we all know, it will not solve all the problems.

RHI will be an important step in helping to reduce carbon emissions and—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—make progress towards the legally binding renewable energy targets that we have. As I made clear, we will certainly look very carefully at ensuring that there is suitable waste feedstock and that the scheme ensures current and future supplies to anaerobic digestion. If the noble Lord has a local problem in the south-west, it is important that he, and those in that world, brings it to the attention of the department when it is reviewing this matter. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that my right honourable friend Claire Perry and the department will look constantly at these matters to make sure that there can be further tinkering to get it right.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about solar thermal. My understanding is that it is eligible for both schemes, so it is already supported by RHI. If he wants to look at that for his own domestic arrangements, he is welcome to do so.

As I said, I very much welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, had to say. I made it clear that we will keep these matters under review. I cannot give a precise date for when and how my right honourable friend will respond. I will certainly respond to some of the noble Baroness’s more detailed questions, particularly those relating to electrolysis and other matters, most of which I shall make a complete hash of if I try to respond to them now. I think all those taking part in this debate would be far more grateful for a written response.

The noble Baroness is right to raise the whole question of detecting abuses and gaming—something touched on by other noble Lords and which the NAO was wary of. As she pointed out, with any changes that we make, there are always potential unintended consequences, and we keep that under review. It is a large and varied scheme, and the non-domestic scheme in particular has huge variation in size, heat and use and the technology used between projects.

Despite all those challenges raised by the NAO, the department—the former Department for Energy and Climate Change, which noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will know well because it was one of their great Secretaries of State who sat in that department, which is now within BEIS—is working with Ofgem and, I think, developing a better approach to identifying gaming. We will certainly respond to the NAO in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also welcomed the changes, and I am again grateful. He particularly welcomed the assignment of rights, but was concerned that it might lead to a lack of access to loans or other finance for a number of businesses and that that could be a barrier for them. I can only say that we have no plans to widen the assignment of rights beyond the household sector at the moment, but we would always want to keep all matters under review.

[Lord Teverson]

What is the logic to that? The issue for small and medium-sized businesses is exactly the same as for domestic users: it is about high capital outlay, which is equally difficult for SMEs as for private, domestic householders. This has really got in the way. The Government have a great solution there now for the domestic sector; if the principle is being breached, I do not see why it is a difficulty to extend it to the SME sector.

[Lord Henley]

I appreciate what the noble Lord says about there being no logic to it. It is just that there is no evidence at the moment that lack of access to loans is a barrier to business. If the noble Lord thinks otherwise and can produce evidence, it can be looked at.

As I said, the order has largely been welcomed, and I am very grateful for that. These changes are necessary as a result of the NAO report. I think that we would all agree that there have been considerable successes this year. It is only part of the whole scheme of trying to decarbonise the system—again, we wish to pursue that even further.

I want to pick up on one final comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. If I could persuade her and some of her Liberal friends of the benefits of what she referred to as fracking and of pursuing greater domestic production of gas—of which there is potentially a great deal in this country—in that it improves both our chances of a degree of decarbonisation and our energy security, I would feel that I had achieved a very great thing. That will no doubt come in the future. In the meantime, I will give way before I finally put these regulations to bed.

Swansea Tidal Lagoon: Hendry Review

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I think that the noble Lord is trying to put the wrong interpretation on that. As my right honourable friend made clear in responses earlier today in another place, she is still open on this matter, no decisions have been made and she still wants to continue those cordial relations with colleagues in the Welsh Government. I have not got a transcript of what she said but no doubt the noble Lord can look at Hansard tomorrow.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister could take this matter forward by telling us when the decision will be taken.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is slightly more of an optimist than I am.

Smart Meters Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

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

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

I support Amendment 4. Compared with other noble Lords present, I came late to the smart meters table. They have participated in a number of debates leading up to where we are now and during that process they have obviously met a number of bodies associated with the smart meters programme. I have to say that I have been somewhat shocked at how what should be an energy revolution, welcomed on all sides of this House and beyond, has turned into a shambolic mess. As was mentioned, the cost—much higher than was ever envisaged—will no doubt end up with the consumer. This could and should never have happened.

I was a member of the London Assembly when it was formed in 2000 and I was chair of the transport committee. When we introduced in London the biggest civil engineering project since the end of the Second World War—the congestion charge—a great deal of planning and work went into making sure that on the day it went live, it was so well thought through that nothing went wrong, despite the Daily Mail circling the perimeter of the charge to, it hoped, see it go wrong. I do not really understand why the commissioning of such a major infrastructure project has not been treated in that fashion. This is an absolutely huge change and an infrastructure priority, heralding a better future for all when energy is very important to this country. It seems to have involved a kind of piecemeal bun fight over which companies will deliver which meters to which people under what circumstances and for how long, with no co-ordination, no collaboration and nothing bringing it together.

Everyone has made it quite clear that the deadline will be missed. I am afraid that I have not met anyone, other than the Minister, who thinks that this deadline will be reached. That being the case, rather than move the programme to 2023 or whatever, it would be far better to grab hold of it now: otherwise, consumer confidence, which is vital to this project, will be completely undermined. I hope that the Government will grasp hold of this and take up the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, coming back with a similar suggestion for halting the project and promoting a national plan. Not only does what needs to be done to whom, by whom and at what cost need to be thought through but there is a great need for a new communications programme to market the project. There is possibly also a need to incentivise consumers and to find a way not to put them off but to bring them back into the fold after they have become somewhat disillusioned.

The opportunity to make the project work is there, but at the moment we are in danger of the absolute opposite happening, with diminishing returns and diminishing confidence, shooting ourselves in the foot over what should be a fantastic programme for the future. The project has been piecemeal, inadequate and not thought through. If the Minister will excuse me, I believe that he should bring it together, do the necessary and bring back an amendment on Report.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on this major amendment in terms of a plan. I have been searching to find a way in which this project can be put right. The difficulty is in making it deliverable and coherent without going back to where we were 12 years ago. This programme started in 2006 and it has taken since then—the time taken for the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, plus a bit more—to get to 300 SMETS 2 meters. That is what we have achieved over that period of time. That suggests to me that it has not been good. Obviously, a number of Governments have been involved during that time. We all understand how important this is. This programme is not just about people not having to read the meter any more, as one of my colleagues said over lunch, but about how we manage energy in the whole economy and our nation for decades ahead. We should be leading a cultural, technical and economic change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Again, I do not know about this year. I understand that the NAO still plans to undertake a review. It has not confirmed its timetable. Obviously, that is a matter for the NAO. When there is a new cost-benefit analysis, obviously we will look at it—but I cannot go into the NAO’s timetable.

[Lord Teverson]

Perhaps it might be useful if we could meet the NAO and go through this and make sure that the audit is broad enough in scope without it taking longer. I realise that this question is not completely to do with these amendments, but I did ask the Minister about the transferability of SMETS 1 meters, which is different from interoperability—SMETS 1 meters are surprisingly interoperable generally—and the problem of taking one out and replacing it with one that is almost identical but is from a different supplier. Is the Minister aware of that? Do his officials see that as a significant problem? Is there a solution so that we can stop this almost immediately, if it is happening?

[Lord Henley]

I think I had better take advice on that and possibly write to the noble Lord, or deal with it in any meeting that we have. I understand that some SMETS 1 meters can be upgraded. But I do not want to put on the record anything that I might have to make a personal statement about and correct the following day. Perhaps we could leave that to a letter or a discussion with the noble Lord.

[Lord Teverson]

I am very happy with that. I stress that it is an asset and financing issue, rather than an interoperability issue.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I am grateful for all the comments made around the Committee today. It has been very helpful. I am not trying merely to tease the Government in offering them more time, I thought that the Minister might come forward with evidence to show that all this is going to be achieved well within the 2023 timeframe, and the different steps that are going ahead, such that we could be shown to be completely erroneous in our impression that the Government may need more time. I put it to him that we are trying to be constructive and trying to get the right solutions done in an effective way for smart metering to be well accepted, so that when consumers are offered a smart meter they are only too keen to go ahead because of the state of the technology, the benefits that can be shown to them, and so on, and we can all look forward to an early resolution of all these problems for a successful outcome. So if the Minister is happy to take it in that timeframe and does not see a critical issue in the 2023 deadline, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

One is the consequence of the other, as I understand it. That is the problem. When you change your supplier, I understand that on occasion you have to change the meter. Am I not correct?

[Lord Teverson]

Unfortunately, probably after the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War, the phoney war bit during the coalition Government was around the whole process more or less coming to a halt because this whole security issue came up, which was a major delaying factor at the time. I do not want to talk on behalf of the Government of that time, but security was given huge focus. From a personal point of view, I feel that that area has been dealt with enough at the moment. It clearly needs an ongoing security look, but it was one reason why the whole programme pretty much ground to a halt during part of the period of the coalition Government—if that is at all helpful.

[Lord Henley]

We will get on to “helpful” again later on. I do not know whether I can take the noble Lord much further. We have talked about security, and I have made it clear that we must give the public as much assurance as possible. I think that the noble Lord is happy about that and the involvement of GCHQ and others.

The noble Lord raised the question about consumers in effect losing functionality when switching supplier. When installing a smart meter, it is necessary for energy suppliers to take reasonable steps to inform the consumer that they may lose some of the functionality when switching supplier—but only some. There is also the question of whether those with SMETS 1 meters can switch supplier. The noble Lord’s question started on one level and moved to quite different levels at different moments, but I think that that was what he was talking about. Consumers with the first generation of SMETS 1 can still switch energy supplier, and they are often in a better position to do so. That is a matter for them, and they can continue to do that.

I shall now move on to the second in this block of amendments—the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, Amendment 6, which suggests that there should be a review of the code of practice by the Secretary of State. Receiving a positive installation experience that leaves consumers satisfied and well informed is vital to ensuring that they can engage with their smart meter and take control of their energy use. Energy suppliers were required by their licence to develop and adhere to an installation code of practice when installing in domestic and microbusiness premises. In developing this code, energy suppliers were required to ensure that it both supported the delivery of overarching objectives and, in a number of key areas, met detailed requirements. Those requirements include providing energy efficiency guidance, not charging consumers up front for the installation, and meeting the needs of vulnerable domestic consumers. Energy suppliers were also required to take into account the views of consumer groups and other interested parties when developing the code.

The code was consulted on in draft in 2013 and subsequently approved by Ofgem in its capacity as the authority in this area. It is overseen by a code governance board composed of representatives from large, small and microbusiness energy suppliers. It also includes representatives from Citizens Advice. Any of those representatives has the ability to propose amendments to the code, which are then presented to Ofgem for consideration. This governance framework ensures that consumer interests are represented on an ongoing basis across all elements of the code’s operation.

Energy supply licence conditions supporting the code of practice also require energy suppliers to put in place monitoring arrangements and procedures for reviewing and updating the code. As part of this activity, energy suppliers are required to obtain views from consumers on the installation process and conduct of their installers. To achieve this, the code requires all energy suppliers installing more than 5,000 smart meters a year to undertake a survey of their customers. These surveys are conducted regularly, the results are anonymised, and reports are provided to the code governance board on a quarterly basis, enabling any areas of concern to be identified and rectified, including through amendment to the code.

As a further backstop, in the event that significant concerns are raised regarding the suitability of the code, Ofgem also has the power to require energy suppliers to review specific features of the code and can direct modifications if necessary. The amendment here would require a one-off review of the code to be undertaken, but I hope that in outlining the governance and monitoring requirements already in place I have demonstrated that the code is already subject to ongoing review and continues to evolve to meet consumer needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5—I hope I have got the right number this time and I apologise if I confused people before.

This is a probing amendment. I have raised issues with the Government before about the interoperability and the joining-up of the different policies that we have. Fuel poverty is an area in which I take an interest and the Bill impacts on fuel poverty strategy and affects those in fuel poverty. It also impacts on energy efficiency, which, as the Government have made clear, is one of the reasons for the programme. However, I am never quite sure how good the Government are at joining everything up. The amendment therefore asks the Government to review how this programme is affecting the fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes and how it can benefit them.

On fuel poverty, the ability for people on low incomes to get an accurate bill and save energy is important. We know that shock bills can create a sense of fear in people and quite often that is why they end up going into debt. Inaccurate bills can sometimes have the same effect and we recognise that part of this development is to prevent people receiving inaccurate bills. Any delays in the programme will have a greater adverse effect on those who are in fuel poverty or are vulnerable in some way or another.

The pre-payment meter price cap, to which we will come later, is still closely linked with the smart meter rollout. One area of the rollout concerns me. Smart meters have been of great benefit to people on pre-paid meters but I understand there might be problems later when the SMETS 2 come in. Could the Minister reassure us that the Government have this in hand, because some people are concerned about how it might work out?

I learned today something that neither I nor my colleagues had heard of before. Photovoltaics on roofs is one of the energy efficiency programmes that we have introduced in the past, but when one of my colleagues in the House who has such a system asked for a smart meter she was told that she could not have one. However, she might be able to when SMETS 2 comes in. So there are two questions about the SMETS 2 meters: are people who pre-pay going to suffer and what are we doing about people with solar panels? Do the Government know how many houses have solar panels? That is a whole chunk out at the moment. If that is the case, they should be the first people to get SMETS 2. Somebody should try to target it in that way.

The other issue is one that I have discovered, I think from the briefings we got from Smart Energy GB, which is the fact that not everybody has an in-house display when they have their meter fitted. I was quite shocked by this because I thought that was the whole point. As it said in the briefings I received from it, some people have meters in very strange places—in cupboards under the stairs and all sorts of places. I cannot understand why the programme was not insisting that, when you have a smart meter, you have an in-house display, otherwise many of the benefits that we hope smart meters will bring are somewhat negated if you cannot read it very easily.

I am not going to prolong the Committee much longer, but it is important, whenever the Government review what is going on with the smart meter rollout, that they think carefully about the other areas of policy. As I said, and as I raised before, I am particularly concerned about those in fuel poverty. I know that the smart meter rollout companies are working quite carefully with other people to help those in fuel poverty. I declared an interest at Second Reading because I am a vice-president of a fuel poverty charity, National Energy Action. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister can answer a couple of the questions I have given him. I urge that, whatever reviews we have, we must sometimes refer to how it is impacting on other government policies. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 12 and 13. One of the things that has exercised me most about this programme is how, in the transition from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2, we assess that we are sufficiently there to fire the gun to roll out what is an £11 billion programme. That is not an insignificant amount of money. My noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed to the congestion charge. I do not know what it cost to roll out; it was expensive, but I suspect it was not anywhere near £11 billion. That is why it is important, before the rest of this happens, that we make sure we are in the right place.

I understand that we currently have some 300 SMETS meters out there being tested. I also understand that there is still a further software upgrade to happen in September—I would be interested to know whether that is the case—yet we have a deadline of October, which is only some six months away. That is why I am saying in the amendment—it is rather a blunt instrument and probably would not be absolutely correct for the final Bill—that there should be some 500,000 SMETS 2 meters out there to make sure that this market works. That seems like a huge number, but I remind noble Lords that it is 1% of the total number of meters that have to be smart by the end of this programme—some 47 million to 50 million. That is why, in terms of the size of the programme and the length of time we have already taken in getting it right and getting consumer confidence, I am trying to understand from the Government and the Minister what tests they have and what threshold they are expecting to see before they say that the programme is fully fit for purpose, they have confidence and they are going to roll the rest of it out as SMETS 2—SMETS 1 no longer, although we have 10 million of those meters already. What is the threshold that says that they have the confidence to roll out one of the most expensive projects? I am not sure that it is as expensive as Hinkley C, but it probably will be by the end of the Hinkley C programme. It is a huge amount of money and a huge national investment that is really important for the future, so what is the threshold test before we roll it out with confidence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, may I correct something I said about Hinkley Point C? EDF’s latest estimate is actually £19 billion to £20 billion. Preventing that sort of capital expenditure on energy generation is what this programme should be about. I apologise to the Committee that it is a rather larger sum than even I thought.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, £1 billion here, £1 billion there and pretty soon we are talking real money. I will deal with the amendments in the order they came: that is, Amendments 5, 7, 12 and 13. Amendments 12 and 13 go together. Actually, all three go together, but there was some confusion.

Starting with Amendment 5, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on energy efficiency and fuel poverty, I ought to say in passing that I very much support the spirit behind these amendments but I am concerned that they could undermine the efficient delivery of the rollout and could lead to unintended consequences and costs for consumers. But I will deal with the amendments one by one, starting with Amendment 5.

One of the main objectives of the smart meter rollout in Great Britain—it does not apply to Northern Ireland—is to put consumers in control of their energy use so that they become more informed and efficient, and save themselves money. Smart metering will reduce the costs for prepayment customers and enable remote topping-up, meaning that some of Britain’s hardest-pressed energy consumers will have access to more competitive deals and more convenience in paying for their energy. I was grateful for what the noble Baroness said about people with prepayment meters and the price cap. We will get on to the price cap for others more generally, but it is already in existence for people with prepayment meters and I think that it has been working with some success.

If I heard her aright, the noble Baroness said that she had heard that SMETS 2 meters posed a problem for some prepayment customers. We believe that SMETS 1 meters provide significant smart functionality to consumers, but SMETS 2 will provide them with additional benefits and will allow consumers always to retain smart functionality when they switch suppliers. SMETS 2 meters will also allow consumers, if they choose, to share data with third parties, and those third parties may be able to offer, for example, tailored energy-efficiency advice, which could be of use to certain customers.

Amendment 5 would introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review to consider how the extended use of powers would impact energy use in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on the impact on fuel poverty and energy efficiency.

With in-home displays offered to households as part of the installation, low-credit alerts are more visible, giving consumers an early warning. The ability for consumers to set a budget and to see exactly how much they are using, in pounds and pence, is giving prepayment consumers control over their energy use and contributing to greater levels of satisfaction among prepayment consumers. Certainly, the research that we have done shows that 84% of smart prepayment customers are satisfied with their smart meters and 88% are likely to recommend them. Government research shows that eight out of 10 would recommend them to family or friends, and 82% of people with a smart meter have taken at least one step to reduce their energy use. British Gas is reporting that its dual fuel customers with smart meters are making sustained 4% annual energy savings.

To some extent, that brings me on to the question about accessibility of meters raised by the noble Baroness. As she is well aware, the accessibility of existing meters can be pretty difficult, as I discovered in London the other day as I lay down on the floor trying to read a meter. I realised that I did not have my reading glasses with me but then realised that reading glasses would not help as I was wearing my contact lenses. It is a minor problem for someone in a reasonably fit state, but we accept that reading meters can be difficult for certain people, depending on where the meters are put.

The technical specifications for IHDs require them to be designed to enable the information on them to be easily accessed and presented in a form that is clear and easy to understand, including by consumers with impaired sight, memory, learning ability or dexterity. Energy suppliers, led by Energy UK, have been working together to develop a fully accessible IHD, and we expect that device to be available shortly. If it can be made available to those who have problems, the noble Baroness and I will also find it a great deal easier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I do not necessarily take all claims from France as seriously as the noble Lord does. I will certainly have a look at that claim being made by the French, but I believe we are doing reasonably well. Obviously, I will have a look at what they are doing and, if there are things that we can learn from that, we should do so. Just as we will continue to monitor delivery in this country, we will study and look at what is happening abroad. I have received advice about what is happening and whether we are sharing our experience with other countries and whether other countries have shared their experience with us. We have looked not just at what is happening throughout Europe—we have met representatives from Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Malta and, I understand, France—but we have looked further afield to India, Australia and the United States. Lessons we have learned include the importance of consumer engagement. That is why I emphasised earlier what we have done on consumer engagement.

On the actual costs, the advice I have received is that the EU average comes in at £181, compared with our figure of around £155 for a single-fuel electricity installation. So that is somewhat lower. On that front we are doing better. If there is anything further I can add about gas distribution grids in Malta or Italy that might be of use or even of interest to the noble Lord, I will pass it on. Another matter that came up was a concern about privacy, which is something that the noble Lord is concerned about and we discussed earlier.

In conclusion, we will continue to monitor the delivery of the programme and will continue to provide updates in annual reports and an updated cost-benefit analysis. I do not think the amendments add much. They risk duplicating those processes and could result, as I said, in unintended consequences that might delay getting the benefits to the consumer. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

The purpose of my amendment—I accept a lot of what the Minister said about its effects—was to get to understand what the test will be. What criteria will the department use to say, “SMETS 2 meters will work, they will integrate with the systems they have to integrate with, so we will give them the green light”? How will the assessment be made that SMETS 2 works—not just the individual meters but as a system—before we invest the other £8 billion?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have started. The noble Lord gave his figure for how many SMETS 1 meters have been installed—I think it was about 10 million, which I do not dispute. I do not have the precise figure in front of me. We feel it is likely that we will be ready to cease to count the SMETS 1 meters towards the target in about October and therefore the suppliers will move on to SMETS 2, which brings further benefits. Over this year, we will see a growth in the number. I am not going to give a precise figure now for how that will grow, but we are likely to see the benefits from that. There is no point sticking with SMETS 1 when we can move on to SMETS 2.

[Lord Teverson]

I agree entirely with that, but it is not the point I am trying to make. SMETS 2 operates through DCC in a different system. It has different software and capabilities; otherwise, there is no point in doing this. SMETS 1 machines work on different systems. They work through the suppliers in bespoke ways. I understand the difference between the two. We need to stop operating SMETS 1 as soon as possible and we want to roll out SMETS 2. What is the test so that we can be happy that SMETS 2 functions correctly and confident that it is all systems go? I do not understand the test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Featherstone. Indeed, I agreed with many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned. The structure of the company in terms of green shares or golden shares is an interesting point that may be well worth pursuing.

Perhaps I should know this, as it is a factual question, but how long is the contract with Capita for DCC? What are the arrangements at the end of that contract? However long the smart metering programme goes on for—and one hopes that smart meters will be there for many decades before the next technology comes along—what are the arrangements for selecting the next incumbent? Does the DCC remain, or does it transfer to the new contractor, or is there a new corporate structure at that time? I am just trying to understand the length of commitment that we have with DCC at the moment. I am sure that, if I had done that research, I would already know, but perhaps the Minister could enlighten me.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

In these circumstances, I suggest to the House that the only responsible action the Government could take is to remain part of Euratom until new arrangements can be guaranteed to be in place. If the Government are unwilling to do this, it is in the national interest for the House to pass this amendment and ask the Commons to think again.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to have added my name to this amendment. I am chair of the House’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, which looked at the subject of Brexit and energy security. Regretfully to some, we did not come out with any great headlines that said that the country was going to grind to a halt on the energy side, although we did say there was probably going to be an increase in prices because of increased electricity trading inefficiency. However, we made one exception, which we thought at that time was probably unlikely, but the evidence since might push this the other way. If the UK did not manage to replicate the agreements that Euratom has with the rest of the world and the IAEA, then there was a real risk of our current fleet of nuclear power stations coming to a halt, Hinkley C not being built and various other problems in terms of our deep work in nuclear research.

That is why this amendment absolutely puts its finger on the issue. It goes through the three things that have to be agreed for the United Kingdom to be able not just to fulfil its own obligations internationally but to be able to trade in nuclear material, people and spare parts even, post Brexit. What are they? We clearly need our own Office for Nuclear Regulation to be approved as a safeguarding authority by the IAEA, which is clearly essential; we need a voluntary offer agreement with the IAEA; and we need to replicate a number of our nuclear co-operation agreements with the rest of the world. I have certainly not heard, anywhere, even any attempt to try to give confidence that we will be able to roll over any of these NCAs following Brexit. But there are a large number of hurdles to achieving these aims, and this is going to take time.

In terms of the approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency of a safeguarding regime, they include recruitment, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has talked about many times and was covered in the evidence that came to the House of Commons Select Committee. There is the training of those personnel. There is the retention of those personnel, which has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on previous occasions, as once they are qualified, there is a very strong international demand for them. There is also the issue, which I raised in Committee, of IT systems, and I thank the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his reply to my Written Question, which very carefully went through the new systems that are required for us to be able to function as a safeguarding authority. Those systems are quite substantial, and we will come on to that—on my Amendment 9A—later today.

Of course, we also need to negotiate an agreement with the IAEA itself. When it comes to nuclear co-operation agreements, these are absolutely essential to us for our nuclear fissile material for power stations, for repairing, for spare parts and for nuclear intellectual property. It is very difficult to replicate those agreements so, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, absolutely showed far better than I could, two of our key nuclear co-operation agreements—one with the United States, a legal requirement, and one with Australia, as the Minister highlighted in Committee—would expect us to be full members of the IAEA and to be able to have nuclear co-operation agreements in order to trade those materials. Even just in those two countries, we have major hurdles.

Turning to the voluntary offer agreements, these agreements are only necessary—or only made—by the five nuclear weapon states, or those that have declared as such; India, Pakistan and Israel have separate arrangements. I cannot imagine, however, that as a country that is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and that stands for the upholding of international law and for the importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we would allow ourselves to go ahead without having concluded such an agreement with the IAEA.

That is why this amendment is so important. If we cannot fulfil these three criteria, then we should not go ahead: we should postpone leaving Euratom. Why is the date of 1 March 2019 there? Clearly, it is four weeks before we are set to leave the European Union. Like others, I have looked at the agreement that was made yesterday, and there is a separate article and chapter on Euratom. Paragraph 2 of Article 76 of that agreement—which is in green, meaning that it has been agreed by the European Union and ourselves in detail—says very starkly:

“The United Kingdom shall have sole responsibility for ensuring its compliance with international obligations arising as a consequence of its membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency and of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.


When you look to the transition chapter, there is no mention of Euratom, or of paragraph 2 of Article 76 being postponed in any way. This ties up with the Government’s own view. We will be leaving Euratom on 29 March next year unless we make other arrangements, and the EU 27 and the UK are agreed on that position. That is why this is a matter not just of energy security but of national security.

[Lord Hutton of Furness]

I want to say a few words in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Broers. I draw the House’s attention to my interest in the register: I am currently the chair of the Nuclear Industry Association.

None of us in this House or outside who has been following this debate really has any doubt at all that the Government are seized of the significance of the challenge that we face. Having made the decision, which many of us regret, to leave the Euratom treaty, the Government have to do two things against a very tight deadline. The first is to replace the existing Euratom safeguarding regime, which, as other noble Lords have said, is a very important part—in fact, the central part—of one of our obligations as a nuclear weapons state: to ensure against the risk of nuclear proliferation. That is a big challenge. We have not exercised that function, which is currently done for us by Euratom, and building up the capability under the auspices of the ONR is a difficult challenge. The ONR itself has said, in evidence in another place, that it probably will not be ready to fully discharge those responsibilities by next March. So the Government—rightly, in my view—have come to the view that they need a little more time, once we have left the EU, to ensure that the ONR can step up and do that job, but it will be touch and go.

The other thing that the Government need to do, although, with respect to the Minister, they have come to this a little late, is to put in place all the machinery necessary for the continuance of the nuclear co-operation agreements that exist between ourselves and Japan, the US, Canada and Australia, our principal nuclear friends and allies, for the continuing exchange of information, goods and services in the nuclear sector. Of course, unless we are able to move seamlessly from the current NCAs to the new arrangements, the trade in goods and services will come to an end at the end of the implementation period at the end of 2020—assuming that the implementation period is agreed—unless in that period we have successfully put in place alternative nuclear co-operation agreements.

The fundamental reason why your Lordships’ House should pay close attention to the amendment is that it is good to have a default or a back-up. Suppose we do not get to the point at the end of the implementation period where these nuclear co-operation agreements have all been agreed, renegotiated and put into legal effect. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, drew our attention to some of the issues of complexity around renewing the NCAs. The process is not in our gift; we do not have control of the process whereby these replacement nuclear co-operation agreements will take legal effect, because in many of those countries they are international treaties—and will require the consent of, in the case of the US, the US Congress.

Any student of US politics knows one thing: that international treaties progress very slowly in Congress. Something that we have come to see in the US repeatedly, under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, is the extraordinary process that we in the UK do not understand at all where the US Government shut down because of, for example, a failure in Congress to agree budgets. We have no say in or control of that. Suppose there is a prolonged shutdown in the government machinery of the US at the very time when we want the US Congress to renew the nuclear co-operation agreement. What do we do then?

Fundamentally, the amendment poses that question: what do we do, all of us, if, with the very best of intentions and the absolute commitment of the Government, which I do not doubt, to renew these nuclear co-operation agreements, the implementation period comes to an end and we have not succeeded in putting into place the nuclear co-operation agreements? It seems pretty obvious that, despite all the difficulties of trying to construct a default or backstop, we have to give attention to the risk that we come to the end of that period and we have not renegotiated successfully—through no fault of our own but simply because we do not control all the processes that are involved in moving pieces of the jigsaw—and we do not find ourselves in the situation, where we all want to be, where these NCAs can be seamlessly renewed.

If we get to that point where the NCAs are not in place with our key nuclear trading allies, we have a major problem. In my view, it would become impossible for the vital exchange of goods and services in the nuclear sector to continue beyond that point legally and lawfully, and if it cannot be done legally and lawfully then it will not be done at all. The noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Teverson, have referred to the problem which that might create for the energy security of the UK. I am sure I cannot be the only person in this House to say, “I don’t think any of us should take a gamble or a risk with the energy security of our country”. Given the important role of the nuclear industry, that is precisely what we will be doing if we do not find the wherewithal in this Chamber today to find a way of constructing a backstop for the “What if?” moment if at the end of the day these nuclear co-operation agreements cannot be brought into effect at the time when we want them to be. That seems to be the issue that the amendment has raised, and it is not going to go away. We have to have an answer somehow to that fundamental question, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

8: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Freedom of employment for specialists
(1) Article 2(g) of the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty, ensuring freedom of employment for specialists, continues to have effect in UK law in relation to those who work in nuclear safeguarding, after the United Kingdom leaves Euratom.(2) In this section “specialists” includes those staff essential to the United Kingdom’s nuclear safeguarding.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I remind Members of what the Euratom treaty says in Article 2(g)—that, in order to perform its tasks, the community shall,

“ensure wide commercial outlets and access to the best technical facilities by the creation of a common market in specialised materials and equipment, by the free movement of capital for investment in the field of nuclear energy and by freedom of employment for specialists within the Community”.

I have not taken the whole of the article, or of part 2(g), into the amendment, but rather the important post-Brexit part, which concerns the free movement of nuclear specialists. I will not make a long speech because I believe that this is self-evident. The Government have an industrial strategy around the nuclear sector: to expand it and for it to be part of where this country goes economically.

We have heard in previous debates that our most important need in the short term is to have a functioning safeguarding authority, whether that is Euratom or—as soon as that stops—our own Office for Nuclear Regulation. We need those bodies, and that body in particular, to function. We have a shortage of qualified people in this area and a shortage of specialists in the industry more generally—although the amendment is, because of the Bill, primarily around safeguarding. Therefore, it must be in the interests of the Bill, and of the country at large, to ensure that we maintain the mobility of those specialists in the nuclear industry and the nuclear sector, so that we maintain this benefit post Brexit and post our membership of Euratom. That is why the amendment is absolutely appropriate to the Bill and is of great importance not just to this sector but to our national security.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give a greater reassurance—perhaps higher up on my noble friend Lord Fox’s Richter scale of assurances—than we have received so far that this area will be looked after by the Government, that we will not be browbeaten by the Home Office into having a minimal circulation of specialists, and that this country will benefit from those with the experience and skills that will enable us to perform in this sector, not just in safeguarding but in the nuclear sector more broadly. I beg to move.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I remain concerned about the industry’s access to the workforce that it will need once the UK leaves Euratom. I suggest that the free flow of essential specialist staff could well dry up unless the Government are reasonably energetic in the guarantees that they give them. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, this is not just a safeguarding workforce issue; it affects the whole sector, as was very well brought out in the Nuclear Industry Association’s briefing. I shall not go into detail on that but it is clear that we need a very skilled workforce coming to this country to help both in maintaining existing reactors and, even more significantly, in building new ones, as well as in the safeguarding area.

With regard to the regular reports that the Government will give to Parliament on progress in the safeguarding area, it is a bit disappointing that we did not manage to get into the Bill a specific reference to the need for an essential specialist workforce. I hope that the Minister will take this suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered, and perhaps he might encourage his officials, when they are producing these reports, to say something about the progress that is being made, particularly with the ONR getting the specialist staff that it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

As I remember, the last time we debated this, by chance—I may be misremembering—a Home Office Minister was sitting next to me. I can confirm, however, that the Home Office is fully aware of the concerns expressed in debates of this sort, and we will make sure that it continues to be so. It is important to us that we continue to—as I put it—access the best talent. As the noble Lord will be aware, we have already doubled the number of available visas in the tier 1 exceptional talent review, and will be looking at changing Immigration Rules to enable world- leading scientists and researchers under the tier 1 route to apply for settlement after three years and to make it quicker for highly skilled students to apply for work in the United Kingdom after finishing a degree. We are, therefore, relaxing the labour market tests where appropriate.

The crux of this amendment, which relates to safeguarding staff—the Bill has been drafted in that way and so the amendment must be too—attempts to ensure the freedom of employment of specialists employed in that field. This is clearly a matter of particular interest in the light of the Government’s preparations for establishing a domestic nuclear safeguards regime, which, among other important work, means securing the right quality and quantity of appropriate safeguarding staff in the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Given the importance of attracting the right staff to work in this specialist field, the Government are committed to ensuring that the ONR has the right personnel. I can give the House a bit of information: in the most recent recruitment round for two further posts in this field there were 112 applicants for the ONR to look at. We will continue to work with the ONR to ensure that it has the right staff to regulate the UK’s new civil nuclear safeguards regime. Those figures show that there is no shortage, certainly in the world of recruiting and training the appropriate inspectors and building additional institutional capacity.

The noble Lord will not be surprised if I do not go into this, because he will then ask for further details. If I give him an assurance that the amendment is possibly itself defective and not suitable for inclusion, and he accepts that in spirit there is no need for it—since the Government are committed to ensuring that we have the right specialists and the Home Office continues to work in this field—I hope that he will feel able to withdraw Amendment 8.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for his reply. It is good to have some figures: can we have more of them in these interactions around groups? I also remind the Minister that he regularly mentions the highly skilled and the talented. That may, I agree, be the case in nuclear safeguarding, but in a lot of Brexit areas, perhaps including some areas of the nuclear industry, the need is far broader. However, I take his point in regard to this Bill.

I also recognise that this issue will inevitably be fought out during the immigration Bill that we will eventually get. I am delighted that we will have another opportunity to debate Euratom in another Bill, to pursue sanity and perhaps get some change in this area. I therefore accept the noble Lord’s challenge—as it were—and his assurances about taking up these issues in the future immigration Bill, which we continue to await with interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

9A: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on information technology systems necessary for nuclear safeguards
(1) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each reporting period, prepare a report containing information about the progress made to provide adequate information technology systems necessary for the United Kingdom to operate a nuclear safeguarding regime to international standards.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include the progress on, and the estimated cost of, developing the following systems—(a) a State System of Accountancy for and Control of Nuclear Materials;(b) a Safeguards Information Management and Reporting System; and(c) any other technology system necessary for the United Kingdom to operate an effective international nuclear safeguarding regime.(3) A report under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament after the end of the reporting period to which it relates.(4) There are four successive reporting periods, each of which is a period of 3 months.(5) The first reporting period is the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, in Committee I raised an issue that I do not think has been raised before, about the information systems required for the Office for Nuclear Regulation to perform its tasks acceptably as a safeguarding agency in the international system. I subsequently submitted a Written Question to the Government on this matter, and I thank the Minister, very genuinely, for a comprehensive and interesting reply—a very good one. In that regard, I almost feel that I have to apologise to the House for the long names in subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the amendment: the State System of Accountancy for and Control of Nuclear Materials and the Safeguards Information Management and Reporting System. The Minister informed me that these were needed to fulfil our international obligations.

I also asked what those systems would cost, less to understand the cost than the size of the task that needed to be completed within the next 12 months. I will quote from the Minister’s Written Reply:

“ONR has estimated that it will cost £10 million to establish a UK SSAC and SIMRS”—


the two systems—

“is included as a part of this overall estimate. An initial tender opportunity in relation to the SIMRS is currently being advertised on the Government Digital Marketplace and responses to that tender will provide more certainty on estimated costs”.

I do not know whether we already have the other system—I do not think so—but what concerned me particularly about that reply was that we are only tendering for one of those systems. It is clearly a significant cost—£10 million for both—but we are only just getting around to advertising them. From both my corporate career and my role in this House in scrutinising what the Government are up to, and government systems, I know that it is not the easiest thing to predict when IT systems will be ready, let alone functioning. We had a debate last week about the Smart Meters Bill and all the IT needed for that, and it is 12 years later that we have come to those particular systems.

My real question is a serious one. Clearly, from the Minister’s reply, the ONR cannot function properly without these systems, but we are only at the stage of advertising just one of them. The size of them is at least £10 million and I feel very nervous that these systems will be ready when we need them to be ready on 29 March next year. That seems to be quite an ask. Therefore, with the amendment I am looking for some substantive reassurance from the Minister that this is under control and that it will be part of the Government’s reporting mechanism between now and our leaving date for Euratom, so that we can understand the progress in this critical area—an area where, to put it lightly, the Government do not have the greatest reputation in terms of delivering such systems. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for moving his amendment. He and the House really want two things. They want substantive reassurances and details of further reporting. I asked to have this amendment grouped with Amendment 6, which to some extent deals with this matter. We propose to put such reporting on the face of the Bill, and progress with the information technology systems required for the safeguarding regime will fall within that reporting duty. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does in due course get sufficient information. In the meantime, I will give an update about what is happening. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, I might have to write with further detail later on, but let us see how the quarterly statements take place to see whether they provide sufficient information. If not, noble Lords can come back to me.

The overall system of safeguards is generally referred to as a state system of accountancy for and control of nuclear materials. The noble Lord referred to that in my original Written Answer. That is also known as an SSAC. The last time I came across SSAC it was the Social Security Advisory Committee, but that was in another world and another place. We will not go there now. As part of this, the ONR plans to put in place an IT system which it refers to as the safeguards information management and reporting system. I do not know how you pronounce “SIMRS” so we shall refer to it by its initials. The SIMRS is aimed at enabling the ONR to obtain and process the information necessary to ensure timely submission to the International Atomic Energy Agency of the reports required by any future safeguards agreements with the agency. The SIMRS will also enable submission of any specific reports required by supplier states as part of nuclear co-operation agreements.

The ONR has estimated that it will cost some £10 million—the figure I gave some weeks ago in Committee—to establish a UK SSAC, and the SIMRS is included as a part of this overall estimate. A pre-qualification questionnaire in relation to the SIMRS was recently advertised on the Government’s digital marketplace. Sixteen suppliers responded, of which six have been invited to respond to the invitation to tender by 6 April. Responses to that tender will provide more certainty on estimated costs, and the ONR expects to let the contract in early May.

I of course take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, warned about IT systems from his experience with the health service and the Home Office. We are all aware of problems that new IT systems can have. I do not think that what we are proposing here is on the scale of what the National Health Service needs, but I accept that there can be problems. We and the department have a duty to examine that as carefully as we can. I give an assurance that we will do that as far as is possible.

Put very simply, that is where we are at the moment. We will keep noble Lords updated. We have accepted my Amendment 6, as amended by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There is no need to further complicate the Bill’s proceedings by adding this amendment, which duplicates what we already have. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome his undertaking that the IT systems will be included in the regular reporting. It would be useful if the Minister could answer my noble friend Lord Fox’s question about whether they are starting from zero or whether we are effectively modifying existing systems.

[Lord Henley]

I give an assurance to write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Teverson]

I welcome that and on that basis beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9A withdrawn.