Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Baroness Maddock and Lord Teverson

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

[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?

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Maddock and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I spoke on these issues in Committee. As has been said by both previous speakers, we managed to get such agreement across the building sector and all the organisations that care about these issues as to what the standard would be. When we came in as a coalition Government, we stuck to that. For some reason, we changed our minds. I would really like the Minister to explain what made us question the agreements we had and the standards we had wanted.

I know that two of my honourable friends who have been Liberal Democrat Ministers in the department have pushed to row back from where we were going, and we have now gone forwards again. However, we have not managed to get any farther. We are owned an explanation from the Minister tonight of why we have ended up in this position when we had such a good agreement back in 2010.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome both these amendments; indeed, they are very similar to amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate for pushing these further to see what response we get from my noble friend the Minister.

I will try not to repeat everything that I said in Committee. On the minimum number of houses to which this would relate, the Bill takes everything the wrong way. It is absolutely clear that smaller builders—whom this clause does not target very effectively, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—are more capable of building better-quality homes than the large builders. They are in no way constrained by technology. The clause somehow conveys a government view that small-scale builders are merely jobbing builders with no skills. That is absolutely wrong and sends completely the wrong message. They can deliver a high standard of homes as well as any other building business.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I certainly live in a very rural area. A number of the developments there are small scale, and they are all off the grid. I am off the grid. Local developments in villages around me are off the grid. We therefore have the problem that we institutionalise for another 50 to 100 years, or whatever the life expectancy of the property is, potential fuel poverty for those who live in those houses—that or we have an expensive retrofitting programme in the future, which we are already struggling trying to make work. In fact, DECC’s own figure for the cost of retrofitting the current housing stock to get it up to a proper level is £60 billion. That is quite a big sum. We should not be starting to add to that figure.

I welcome the proposal to keep a minimum number of houses; I suggested five in Committee, but 10 is quite reasonable. I welcome that fact that my noble friend the Minister, judging by our conversations, does not see the figure being any greater than that. Clearly, we are having a consultation process at the moment and I am sure that he cannot be specific until that is closed, but I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that that number cannot be too large. We certainly need a sunset to this clause. I hope that that will come out of this as well.

My noble friend Lady Maddock has gone through the questions surrounding the standards for zero-carbon homes very well, and how that issue appears to have moved backwards and forwards and backwards. I look forward to enlightenment in that area. I again come down to what the right reverend Prelate said about allowable solutions. I am not at all against them in concept, but wherever possible the targets need to be met within the building itself or very close to it. Once again, if we do not do that, the people who live in those houses will have increased energy bills for as long as they live there. We might neutralise carbon emissions globally—ensuring that is much more difficult on allowable solutions than actually on the property itself—but then you still have the problem that that property requires more energy to heat it and to keep it to the right standards.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Maddock and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on putting forward this excellent amendment. It would be very good if something like this appeared in the manifestos of however many parties we have in the general election next year.

This comes down to the stewardship of the proceeds of non-renewable resources. That is the point. My part of the world, Cornwall, was one of the richest mining areas in the 19th century. Over a period of about 60 years it had the equivalent of billionaires and some of the greatest exports. It was certainly one of the richest parts of the UK. Where is it now? It is one of the poorest EU regions and receives some of the highest forms of EU aid in the European Union. Not one penny of that income from tin, copper and arsenic was retained, so we have an example of how that generational opportunity was very soon dissipated and lost to today’s generation. Perhaps that is a very simplistic illustration, but it is a very real one. We have one small quasi-sovereign wealth fund in the UK: the Shetland Charitable Trust. There are issues around that, but that local authority has managed to keep some of the proceeds from North Sea oil.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made the point extremely well. As he said, the Norwegian fund is so large that for each citizen—some 5 million of them—it would be something like $200,000 within a three-year period.

Having spent the income from North Sea oil, I do not see that within a European context overall we are wildly ahead of some of our neighbours because we had that asset. Clearly it is a challenge to government, and I suspect that the Treasury is not so keen in this area, particularly when we are tackling a £90 billion per annum deficit. It may be that this is a difficult time to persuade the Treasury that we should start banking it rather than paying off the mortgage. However, I think this is an important area. It is intergenerational. We think more about those issues these days. You have to start somewhere with something like this. You start when you start to explore and use a new non-renewable resource, and unconventional gas or oil is one of those. The start may be modest but I hope that as we reduce the deficit in our public expenditure such a sovereign wealth fund can take up the slack and be of benefit to future generations.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to support this amendment. It is probably two weeks ago today that I was in Norway on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. We were privileged to have a presentation about the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund: how it started, where it was and the fact that during the recession we have all suffered, the sovereign wealth fund did not suffer. It was interesting to see it from that point of view, but we need to be aware of two things that are very different there.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Maddock and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I have one question for my noble friend. She talked about making environmental costs clear to customers on their bills. In the past few weeks, we have had lots of discussions about eco and green taxes, and it has become quite clear that the big six, in particular, have sometimes not pointed out to their customers, or admitted in their discussions, that some of those costs are social costs. Everything is in a bit of a state of flux at the moment but, depending on how things work out, it is also important that we are quite accurate on the bills about what is a social cost and what is a so-called green tax. I will also just say that I am very sorry that I was not here for the previous stage of the Bill when the noble Baroness accepted my amendment about the clarity of bills. I hope that the point that was raised by the right reverend Prelate will be covered in the amendment that was passed on Report concerning the clarity of Bills.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I very much welcome this government amendment. However, I have a concern which is similar to the concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Maddock about how these numbers are produced. When the price increases came through from the energy companies, a bill that I saw, to family members, bullet-pointed the green energy costs as being at the top of the list, giving the impression that this was the most important thing. We all know that numbers are subjective. Numbers in company accounts are as objective as they can be but they are subject to how things are interpreted to some degree; as we know, for example, in terms of the lack of tax that is paid by some multinational companies. Do the Government have any view about how these numbers should be somehow independently audited or at least be auditable, if we feel that they fall below standard?

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Maddock and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, put down Amendment 153 and I added my name to it, but he is not in his place. I spoke to this amendment at some length in Committee so I will not repeat what I said then.

I do not have the cynical view of local government that is being expressed by the two previous speakers. My experience over the years of local government is that it has been very effective in trying to deal with poorly insulated properties in its areas under the Home Energy Conservation Act, which is now going to be removed. I know that my noble friend the Minister is keen for local authorities to be involved in what is going on, but I also support the fact that we do not necessarily give new duties to local authorities. We have a Localism Bill coming that includes a power of general competence. However, it is clear to me that, in spite of all that, local authorities have a major role to play in this.

As I said, I know that the Minister agrees with that. I hope that he can set out some of the roles that he sees for local authorities as the Green Deal is rolled out, and give us some idea about what sort of rewards they might get. I do not mean rewards from the public purse; it is not necessarily from there that they will get rewards for being involved with this. I know that he understands what I am talking about.

I hope that, if not tonight then at some point, he will be able to set this out in a little more detail to reassure us—including local authorities, many of which are asking to be involved. Some of them are actually asking for carbon budgets, which Amendment 100 mentions. I have had a letter, as I am sure have other noble Lords, from a group of local authorities that want to have local carbon budgets. The situation is not anything like as clear-cut as the two previous speakers said.

I hope that my noble friend can go at least some way towards setting out how he sees local authorities being involved. Maybe this is something else where, when the Bill gets to another place, we can be more specific on how local authorities have been involved. Their record on doing things such as rolling out energy efficiency street by street is fantastic. People in local communities trust their local authority more than they trust the people who provide their utilities, so we need to take full account of that. I know that my noble friend understands that, and I look forward to what he has to say.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Maddock about the involvement of local authorities. I know from conversations with the Minister and other Ministers that this is very much in the Government’s mind. I welcome the fact that, as I hope they will, local authorities will be integrated into the process.

I want to talk about carbon budgets. Reducing carbon, as we talked about with regard to the Climate Change Act, is fundamental, but I just do not think that local carbon budgets are the right instrument to do that. There is huge pressure on local government finance at the moment, so I would agree that because of that—I declare that I am a member of a local authority—local authorities are starting to concentrate on activities where they have statutory obligations. Where they do not, they are having to consider rather more. If there were a more perfect way of doing this, I would like to see some statutory obligation generally in terms of climate change in a broader sense. However, I fundamentally believe that it should then be left to local authorities to decide how they implement and deliver that, and that they should have the powers to do so.

I spent a huge amount of time in this House two or three years ago on the Climate Change Bill. We spent a huge amount of time working out how national budgets could work. We looked at all the difficulties regarding air transportation, imports and exports and—maybe more esoterically, but importantly—whether carbon consumption was more important than carbon production. We looked at the transfers of budgets between years and at all the other sorts of mechanisms that there are. We considered what happens in terms of the EU ETS, transfers of that in or out and how it worked. We gave particular thought to air and shipping.

If you bring that down to local authorities—many parts of the country still have not one tier of local authority but two, so you have to add them up and they will not come to the national budget anyway—you have the issues of transportation, such as motorways being major emitters. The easiest way to mitigate those would be to stop industry coming into your local authority and get it to go the other side of your local authority boundary. If you took this seriously, you would have all sorts of weird incentives whose outcomes would be perverse.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Maddock and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

That is a very good question. It is because, as a result of a lack of forethought, I did not think to include them. They would be an excellent addition to the list. Housing associations and social landlords would be the right types of organisations to be involved in such a scheme.

Finally, I turn to incentivisation. In talking about how we involve households in these schemes, I should mention that a couple of the more successful schemes that arose under the CERT programme involved a rebate through participation, particularly to do with council tax. I know that British Gas has successfully operated a couple of these schemes. Households will know that the Green Deal will mean that their energy bills will come down and that they can invest in their house in the long term without there being an immediate cost.

Nothing attracts people better than a bargain and something off the price when they sign up on the deal. I would like the Minister to use his imagination to think what we might do to ignite excitement about the Green Deal. Much as I support local government, I have to admit that there are few better incentives than knowing that you are going to have to pay less council tax. This has a track record as an incentive and I think that, if that sort of scheme could be included in some way, it would work well.

I realise that there is a problem about this and that I have solved it in a very imperfect fashion. The Green Deal is clearly self-financing through private finance rather than through other ways. To achieve the participation with local authorities and maybe the council tax rebate, which needs to be found from somewhere, I have taken the easy route and suggested the energy company obligation, which I am sure the energy companies will not thank me for. That is roughly how the CERT system works at the moment and it could potentially be a way through this as well, although I realise that that itself would effectively add to household energy bills.

Those are the areas about which I would be very keen to hear from the Minister. I very much look forward to this Bill finally passing and to the start of this scheme. It would be good to involve local authorities more and it would be good to have a community aspect to this. I believe that using incentives, however much we might look down our noses at them, are a way in which to ignite this plan, make it work and make it successful. I beg to move.

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, in rising to speak about local authorities and to support my noble friend, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like my noble friend, I am concerned about the role of local authorities. If we are going to succeed in all our efforts around climate change and reducing our energy consumption, we have to involve citizens and their local communities and councils. The purpose of the new clause proposed in Amendment 31, which is grouped with my noble friend’s amendment, is to do just that. It is not specifically about the Green Deal; it is about energy plans and local authorities. Although it would be placed later in the Bill, for the purposes of our debate it is about the role of local authorities.

I am particularly concerned about the role of local councils, as Clause 102 of the Bill repeals the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, an Act that, as I said at Second Reading, I was successful in getting through when I was a Member of another place. I believe that that Act has successfully driven a lot of local authority action since 1995. It has had very good results. Involvement, for me, means the active empowerment of citizens and of their local authorities; it is not just about consultation.

Noble Lords may ask why this is so important. I think that it is because local authorities have been seen to have very good ideas. Indeed, it is probably what is driving the localism agenda, which is something that I and my colleagues have believed in for a long time and which now nearly everybody seems to believe in. It has become clear that not everything can be driven from the centre and that the centre is not the only place where there are good ideas. I believe that, unless we involve and empower people—my noble friend touched on this in talking about his amendment—we are not going to succeed. If people do not understand what they are doing and do not feel that they want to be involved, this whole thing will not work.