Energy Social Tariffs

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I will not go into great detail this afternoon on behalf of the Opposition on the background and the need for a social tariff, or a similar instrument, because the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have made the case for one excellently. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who introduced the debate, not only on the debate, but on the comprehensive way in which she presented the case for social tariffs and urged the action that needs to be taken.

I very much commend the contribution—thoughtful, as always—from the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). On other occasions, I have said that he is virtually an hon. Friend on these issues. I commend him for the forthright and detailed way in which he not only made the case for social tariffs, but also talked about what we ought to be talking about this afternoon, which is what happens after we have concluded that this is the right thing to do. He covered the fact that the onus is on the Government to take action and what considerations we have to undertake to secure not just a sticking-plaster solution for perhaps one winter, but something that applies long term and targets the right people in society, giving them the help that they need to keep their energy bills affordable.

I also very much commend the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my actual hon. Friend. Among other things, he set out the groups of people involved. In particular, he talked about those in very difficult circumstances that have not just arisen from the energy price shock that we had a little while ago, but that affect their daily living requirements on a longer-term basis. They are the people who would very much be eligible and we should think very seriously about ensuring that those people have that long-term social tariff support.

That point is very much underlined by Ofgem’s very recent announcement on the energy price cap. The announcement underlines—if underlining were necessary —just what a difficult situation the people we are talking about continue to find themselves in. The price cap comes to just under £2,000 for a dual fuel tariff. Of course, that is not the actual bill that anyone will pay; it is an average of the sort of bill that people can expect to pay under the price cap. A lot of people—particularly those in disadvantaged and difficult situations—will pay a huge amount more, either because of their need for constant heat, because of their circumstances, or because they have other issues such as a combination of difficult living circumstances, inadequately insulated homes and high heating bills all at the same time. The price cap is the very least indication of where a lot of those people will be. Not only that, but we know from projections that the cap will be something like that for a very long time to come.

The price cap is not a way station in the downward curve of energy bills for the future. All the projections we have, particularly from Cornwall Insight, are that it is likely to remain at the same level, certainly throughout 2024 and probably going into 2025, and that they will not dip much below about £2,000 on average. As recently as April 2021, the price cap was precisely half that amount.

The people we are talking about are faced with the prospect of paying twice as much as they were as recently as two years ago for the next two or three years, with all the affordability issues that that will continue to bring into play. That underlines the point made by hon. Members this afternoon. It would be great if we had a social tariff this winter that could effectively continue the price support that has been applied previously, but that energy price support is coming to an end. After this winter, at the latest, it is not being replaced. That underlines the fact that a social tariff should not just be for Christmas—it needs to endure in providing assistance and help for those groups in society.

That is the problem with the other key point that has been mentioned this afternoon—namely, where is the consultation? It is not that the Government have said that a social tariff is a terrible idea that will never be done by Government ever. It is difficult to remember exactly which Minister of State for Energy it was, because they keep changing, but in January the Minister said:

“we will look at a social tariff and at how vulnerable people are looked after, but we have to look at it in a considered manner.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 1031.]

On 18 April, the then Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero said:

“We do think that things like a social tariff could be very helpful”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 111.]

Then, in May, the Government stated, in response to a petition:

“The Government is considering potential approaches to consumer energy protection post-April 2024. The Government intends to consult on options in summer 2023…Government officials are considering potential options, including discounted tariffs, for a new approach to consumer protection in energy markets that will apply from April 2024”.

They have said all these things. They have said that there will be a consultation. What has not actually happened is a consultation.

It is difficult for us in this Chamber to home in on what a social tariff might look like, because the Government have not said anything about the sort of area that the social tariff would fall into as part of any consultation. We do not need just a consultation; we need to see the substance of that consultation and what the Government are minded to do about the commitments they have already made. That is completely lacking at the moment.

We can speculate to some extent on why there has been no consultation. Personally, I think the Government were rather hoping that this energy price crisis would be completely a thing of the past by now, and that instead of the energy price trajectory going down and flattening out, there would be a more straightforward downward price trajectory so that we would return to the position in 2021, when prices were about £1,000. Then the Government could say, “Well, actually, we don’t need a social tariff because it is much more affordable for everybody now, and we can tweak various other forms of assistance to make sure that life is good.” That has not happened. The data from just the past few days shows that it has not happened and will not happen in the near future, which should concentrate minds about what solutions need to be proposed.

This may be a little bit of speculation, but perhaps the Government are thinking, “Well, maybe we do need a social tariff.” But as hon. Members have mentioned, where will that be funded from? Will it be smeared across customer bills? Will it come from general taxation or some other arrangement? Of course, because there is no consultation, we do not know what the Government are thinking.

I could see the Government thinking, “Ooh, we’ve spent all this money on price support during the height of the crisis. Do we want to commit ourselves to another fairly substantial amount of taxpayer support for energy bills for the future?” Many of us would say the answer is yes, they should. But the Government may have other views and, indeed, there may even have been tension between Departments on the enactment and funding of that policy. I do not know, but that could have been the case.

There are ways of establishing a social tariff—the hon. Member for Waveney alluded to this—that do not actually cost the amount of money that the Government perhaps think it will. They involve changes in how the energy retail market works, but can deliver very solid back-up arrangements for social tariffs on a sustainable basis, which is what we all want, without that necessary and apparently large chunk of money coming from the Treasury. Again, as was the case for the hon. Member for Waveney, it would be inappropriate to expatiate on that at great length this afternoon, but I think that there are interesting ways we can examine it.

[Steve McCabe]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a very valuable point. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us what discussions the Government have already had with the energy suppliers and the director of Ofgem, since they have both indicated that they are in favour of a social tariff. Some of the work referred to by my hon. Friend must have been done—we just need to hear what has been discussed.

Green Energy in the North-west

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

We are indeed in strange times: those of us who have been in the House for quite a long time have a Pavlovian reaction every time the bell goes off—we jump up and run down the corridor. To resist doing that, and to resist saying anything in the meantime, is a new skill that we need to get used to.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on having secured this afternoon’s debate. It is a really important debate that sheds light on two things in particular, and he is to be commended for the excellent way he presented the case for renewable energy in the north-west.

First, we must recognise what an important part of the country the north-west is, in terms of both its renewable resources and their utilisation for the benefit of the country as a whole. Some of those resources have been mentioned in the time permitted to us this afternoon. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), spoke about the tremendous tidal resource in the north-west. Not many people know that the tidal range in the Mersey estuary is the second highest in the UK, closely followed by the Morecambe Bay tidal range. Parts of the north-west should be in the driving seat when it comes to utilising tidal energy for the future benefit of the UK. Of course, we already have substantial penetration of offshore wind in the Irish sea and a number of installations close to the north-west coastline, but anyone who has seen the offshore wind projects timeline charts put out by RenewableUK will know that, despite the tremendous offshore wind resource in the north-west, development of offshore wind has essentially stalled in that area. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) mentioned that some new leases are under way, particularly for floating wind, but performance at the moment is, frankly, very poor when it comes to developing this tremendous asset that the north-west has.

We have also heard from hon. Members not just about the north-west’s physical assets, but its human assets, including the assets of ingenuity and thought that have gone into the HyNet project. I unequivocally commend that scheme to this House for its proactive imagination, its importance, and its ability to bring jobs and skill chains to the north-west, which will benefit the north-west and the country as a whole. It combines carbon capture and storage and hydrogen and brings forward industrial processes, and the developers of that project are to be applauded—[Interruption.]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I am conscious that I cannot alter the finishing time, which is still 5.50. I am really sorry about this, Dr Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

I will shout my way through it, Mr McCabe. I am trying to draw our attention this afternoon to the north-west’s rich renewable resources that the north-west has, and how imperative it is that those resources be exploited for the benefit of the whole country as soon as possible. Hon. Members have underlined why that is so important.

The second important point to discuss is what the Government are doing about exploiting the resources and supporting the people, local councils and industries of the north-west in getting those schemes under way. The marks are pretty low here. I mentioned the lack of development of offshore wind, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wirral West said Government support for tidal power was lukewarm. That was extremely kind of her, because as far as I am concerned, Government support has been stone cold. That needs to be urgently reversed, in order to bring the resources for secure, stable, low carbon energy forward in the way we know is possible, in Morecambe, the Mersey and other sites in the north-west, to the benefit of the whole country.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I think you will have to wind up there, Dr Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

I was about to, Mr McCabe.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Now would be good.

[Dr Whitehead]

It is important to put the two parts of the debate together—what the potential is, and what the Government are doing about it. Those two things need to be in close harness. If the result of this debate is better Government support for renewables in the north-west, that would be a very good achievement indeed.

Dieter Helm Energy Review

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. That point is also made strongly in the Helm report, which has a list of the various interventions in play. Indeed, I think we can add a few more to those in the report, some of which have appeared more recently, such as energy intensive industry, underwriting and so on. What the Helm report says is right: we have vastly over-complicated many of the areas that we consider necessary as policy levers. Indeed the temptation, not just for the current Government but for successive Governments, has been than when they see a shed that is slightly leaning, they build another outhouse on the side to stop the shed leaning. They subsequently have to do something with the outhouse, and then we get the current extraordinary complexity of the whole process.

To get a feel for exactly how complex the market is, I refer hon. Members to a recent chart produced by the University of Exeter about the various interactions that the energy market now undertakes. Helm makes that point strongly. The question is this: if we are simplifying the market and how it works, how do we do that? How do we dismantle the complexity as we simplify the market, and what will be the consequences of that simplification?

All other things apart, this review was a hospital pass for Dieter Helm, and, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) emphasised, it was, frankly, an unbelievably rushed job. It was commissioned on 6 August last year, and concluded on 25 October last year. Not only was it commissioned on 6 August, but it had terms of reference that ran to one and a half pages. If hon. Members read them, they will see that not only do they greatly curtail what the review could have covered, but they are internally contradictory regarding what they ask the review to do. For example, the review states that the Government have

“the ambition for the UK to have the lowest energy costs in Europe”,

but, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) emphasised, the review merely talks about power. Although we are supposed to have the lowest energy costs, the review is only supposed to consider power, and not heat or energy efficiency; that point was made by the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). The review has apparently wide ambition, but in practice it covers a constrained area of examination. It is essentially a review of the cost of electricity, and that is what it concentrates on.

Given where energy is now, if we talked properly about its overall cost we would have to mention that, as the Helm review lays out in some circumstances, the cost of energy is higher in a number of other European countries but the cost to consumers is much lower. That is because of the difference in energy efficiency in those countries, and the interaction between different forms of energy—what happens to heat, for example—and the power sector. If we take the lowest energy costs in Europe as our theme, it is not immediately clear what we are talking about. What will those lowest energy costs be compared with? If we restrict ourselves to the power sector, how can we complete that examination in terms of overall energy costs? That is a bit of a theme of the report, hospital pass that it is, although given the short time span and the terms of reference given to Professor Helm he has done a tremendous job.

Nevertheless, we should be clear that the report in essence represents an extended opinion piece: the opinions of Professor Dieter Helm on how the energy market and the electricity market in particular will work in future. He has been expressing those opinions—I am familiar with a number of them—forcefully for a considerable period. I strongly agree with some of his opinions and I do not agree as much with some, but they are mostly there in the report, one way or another.

The question we have to ask about the recommendations that Professor Helm makes in the report is, how are they backed up with evidence? Having read the recommendations or even the executive summary, we might confidently assume that in the report we would find not only evidence to back up the recommendations, but talk of their consequences. However, we do not find that. What we find is material to back up why Dieter Helm’s opinions are right. As a satisfactory answer to the question asked, the report falls rather short of what one wishes might have been achieved. That is a problem in responding to it fully.

I strongly agree with some of Professor Helm’s conclusions, but some I do not agree with at all. However, I would have liked to see in the report what informs his conclusions, what the consequences of those conclusions are, and how they will be worked through. Professor Helm, for example, talks about the legacy costs of energy and of interventions by Government. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) intimated in his intervention, the extent of those potential legacy costs is laid out for us in the Helm report.

The solution provided is that those legacy costs should be discontinued as something that goes on people’s bills, as they do at the moment, but that they should be all bundled up and put somewhere else. Where are they put? There is nothing in the report to tell us that, except that they will be socialised across consumers and not across to industry. One way or another, the bundle of legacy will reach back on consumers’ bills, in just the way that the social and environmental costs that appear on bills now are also borne by customers. Not only that, that cost will land on customers’ bills in a more concentrated way because, according to Professor Helm’s recommendation, industry will be exempted from the impact of the legacy costs. That means that customers’ bills will go up considerably and not down considerably over the period, as I assume is the intention of that particular proposal.

Similarly, one suggestion is that generators that produce power intermittently might be required to back that up by commissioning their own power resources to ensure that the intermittency is not spilled across the rest of the market. That sounds like a good idea except that if we do that, with each of those power generators independently commissioning their own power back-ups, that is a recipe for extreme inefficiency in the market over time. The market would have a series of near-redundant back-up power stations, not socialised across the piece but responsible only to those people who commission them and, therefore, in the market as a whole probably substantially increasing rather than decreasing the cost of energy.

There are a number of things in the report—the question of who runs the distributed energy service, how that is best run in the public interest, the simplification of the system over the period, and how the carbon price can be used in future to manage the transition to a low-carbon economy—but I am not convinced that it is much other than a good talking point as far as future energy policy is concerned. The report is a good, elegant and well-constructed talking point, but nevertheless it is a starting point and not a conclusion by any means.

I hope that that is how we see the report in future, because there is a long way to go before we get to the conclusions necessary to back up what the hon. Member for Wells described as the difference between the caterpillar turning into the pupa but still ending up as a caterpillar, or the caterpillar turning into a butterfly. As I think I have already mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, I personally prefer the example of the axolotl, which is a Mexican salamander. As I am sure hon. Members know, unlike other salamanders, it does not undergo the metamorphosis necessary to become a land-living amphibian; it stays for the whole of its life unmetamorphosed, with gills, under water. We do not want the energy market to end up like the axolotl. We are in a process of rapid transition—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I am very conscious of time, Dr Whitehead. Perhaps we could get back to the wind-up.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, Mr McCabe. I am just about done with the axolotls.

To conclude that remark and indeed all my remarks, in our energy markets we are above all—indeed, the terms of reference to an extent underline this—in a period of rapid transition towards forms of energy generation, transmission, distribution and supply that will look very different from most things that we are used to today. We know that is the case, because that transition is proceeding apace. I am not sure that the report does justice to that transition, and I hope that the Government response to it and their actions on its recommendations—that transition and the need to achieve a safe landing with that transition in the interest of customers and carbon emissions—are properly undertaken for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

As I recall, that figure of 250 was given to the Committee by the DCC’s chief executive. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Department initially announced last week that it did not know the figure, but then admitted that it was 80, and that most of those meters actually belonged to company officers, not members of the public. Does that not suggest that this programme is woefully off track compared with what was planned?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend gives a very important qualification to that figure of 250. I must admit that when I heard that figure from the head of the DCC, it struck me as being pretty shocking in its own right. It is interesting, to say the least, to hear that the 250 figure is on the optimistic side, and that the number that are actually on the wall and working—in the homes of friends and family, as my hon. Friend says—is only about a third of that figure.

The slippage is reflected in the latest cost-benefit analysis, which is from last year. It shows the cost-benefit gap narrowing, at least in part because of the SMETS 1 and 2 hiatus. The analysis indicated a high spike in proposed installations at the end of 2019, with some 15 million meters needing to be installed at that point. That is a substantial shift in the predicted curve of installations, and an enormous increase in the rate of installations since the time of the 2014 cost-benefit analysis. Sticking by the timetable under these circumstances becomes fairly heroic. Perhaps it can be done, but it is clearly a daunting task.

That is the context in which the change in the date for Government oversight is important—the process of changing the date by which licensable activities will have ceased from 2018 to 2023. Whether or not it was a wholly wise idea, the 2004 and 2008 Energy Acts and subsequent regulations specified a date for licensable activities to end, which means that as things stand at the moment, the Government will have no control over what goes on after 2018. Everybody knows that we will still be at a relatively early stage of the roll-out in 2018, so it is impossible to conceive that it would be wise to continue with the original timetable. We therefore support the idea of specifying a more satisfactory date in the statute book.

The Bill specifies a date of 2023, but that does not appear to coincide with the Government’s publicly stated ambition for the end of the roll-out. I say that with caution, because while their statements about the roll-out have changed over time, they have always revolved around the idea of ending it in 2020, and there has been a lot of talk from the Government about the installation of 53 million smart meters by then. Indeed, the frequently asked questions page of the Smart Energy GB website states:

“By the end of 2020, around 53 million smart meters will be fitted in over 30 million premises (households and businesses) across Wales, Scotland and England.”

That is also the basis on which Ofgem is working in terms of its licence enforcement. However, the Government have changed their position, as they now saying that, by the end of 2020, 53 million customers

“will have been offered a smart meter”.

That is a very different proposition. We could interpret that as 53 million people being offered a smart meter by 2020, but only 10 million having them installed, although I assume that that is not what the Government mean. The statement might be meaningless or meaningful, depending on what happens before the end of 2020 and a variety of issues that will appear along the road. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify those matters today. We surely cannot mean that the whole obligation for the roll-out would be discharged by doors being knocked on and someone saying something. If the smart meter installation programme is pursued on the basis of just making a desultory offer, the result will be way below the critical mass necessary for the overall aggregate data to work properly and lead to decent decisions. At that point, £11 billion or some such amount would have been wasted on nothing much.

The smart meter installation programme is voluntary. But, at the same time, we need a proportion—not 100%, but getting close to it—of smart meters installed in order to make the programme work by having worthwhile aggregated data. Some people have said that we need 70% of smart meters installed and others have said 80%; we need something to make the overall aggregated data significant. We clearly need to put a lot of effort into ensuring that the benefits of the programme are explained to the public.

The evidence suggests that the public overwhelmingly like smart meters when they are introduced and they want to have them in their homes. We therefore need to make a lot of effort over the given period to ensure that the two ends—the voluntary nature of the programme and the need for substantial roll-out—can be reconciled. What do we need to do that has perhaps not yet been done to ensure that the roll-out programme gets its output properly organised and smart meters installed? That is the purpose of new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report to keep us firmly on track. But, of course, much of the progress towards the target at the end of 2020 now depends on how SMETS 2 meters can be rolled out and how the DCC performs.

It was always necessary for the DCC to start its roll-out to enable smart meters that have been installed and those that will be installed to connect with it, and therefore to go live at the earliest possible date. However, the DCC systematically failed to go live when it should have done. It repeatedly announced delays and eventually went live in autumn last year under circumstances in which eyebrows were raised substantially by most of the industry. That was because it went live just before the point at which it would have faced penalties for not going live. It also only went live in part of the country and did not go live with some of its peripheral activities. Indeed, it is still having problems as far as its liveness is concerned. However, the DCC is not a stand-alone company. It was set up in order to run all these things and was then successfully auctioned out to a company that could drive it. And that successful bidder was Capita plc. As far as running the system is concerned, the DCC is effectively a subsidiary of Capita plc. The rest of the smart meter programme now crucially depends on this company. If we look at the timeline of what was supposed to have happened, we see that it presents a really sorry picture.

According to the joint industry level 1 plan, the start of the mass installation of SMETS 2 meters was supposed to be in October 2014, and the DCC was supposed to go live in December 2015. The then Secretary of State approved the DCC re-plan to go live on 1 April 2016, but received a contingency request from the DCC to delay going live until July 2016, and even then to split into core functionality and remaining functionality, which was not supposed to go live on the new date. A further contingency request was made by the DCC for a delay until August 2016, and there were even further contingency requests for delays. The DCC finally went live, in the way I have described, in October 2016. But it was actually only live for central and south England in November 2016 and went live for the north of the country later that month. The remaining functionality eventually went live, but not until 20 July 2017.

I looked at the plans that were put forward when the DCC went live, and they were accompanied by pages and pages of so-called workarounds—that is, things that did not really work. That is still a problem today. A lot of the industry is saying that the DCC is not really live to the extent that it had anticipated, which remains a considerable problem for the end-to-end testing of SMETS 2 meters. That is why, among other reasons, there are currently only 250 or 80 on the wall, depending on whose figures are right.

Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

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

[Dr Whitehead]

We have talked about the extension period; the second part of the Bill is about administration orders. These might be made in the context of the DCC’s failure to operate either because it has gone bankrupt or because its supply of funds dries up or is diluted for any reason and it can no longer continue—it is entirely dependent on the resources it receives from suppliers to operate. A number of clauses in the Bill relate to setting up a procedure to enable the roll-out to continue by recovering the DCC’s procedures, if and when in administration, in such a way that the flow of the roll-out is not interrupted. At this stage of the legislation, therefore, we need to concentrate on whether the things put forward—what can and should be done by Government to make that change while at the same time continuing with the roll-out in the unlikely event of administration—are good enough to ensure the roll-out continues and we achieve the purpose of ensuring a smooth passage.

I want to make two brief points, to which the Minister may want to respond. The first is about provisions in the Bill relating to what are unlikely events that probably will not happen, but conceivably could. It might be prudent to legislate to ensure that we are in a position to do something in the unlikely event of that happening. We had a debate about that recently in this Committee. What we are doing in considering the second part of the legislation is roughly what we were doing in the first part to try and strengthen the Bill. We did not succeed in doing that, but we will not be churlish or childish about that. We will go along with the idea that this is an unlikely event, for which we have to make prudent legislation to ensure that catastrophe does not take place as far as the roll-out is concerned.

The second point is that we are legislating this morning for an event that could occur to an organisation that has been in operation for several years already without this legislation being on the statute book. One might ask, therefore, what was happening in the meantime. Were we operating over a period of time where there was no protection for the smart meter roll-out programme from the possible bankruptcy or administration of the organisation that was essential to the running of the whole operation? That seems to me to be a considerable omission on the Government’s part.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

We seem to have heard a lot in this Bill about these unlikely events that are never going to happen, but for which we have got to take precautions. I remember being told that banks were too big to fail as well. I wonder whether the point my hon. Friend is making is that we have got to a situation where we have a multibillion pound investment in the DCC—all of it coming out of customers’ pockets—and yet there is no protection at this moment if things were to go pear-shaped?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I rise in support of what I think is a simple and honest amendment that seeks only to underline the need for transparency—that is something we should be stressing throughout the Bill. We could ask whether the words “efficiently” and “economically” really need to be included in the Bill, and of course they do, but likewise we also need the word “transparently”.

If I understood correctly, this process started some years ago and we are now legislating for it. A moment ago it was asked why we are doing this only now. That seems a little incredible to someone who walked into this place a few months ago, but be that as it may, we are where we are. What we are picking up from consumers is not necessarily distrust, but there is some confusion out there. Any means by which we can improve the transparency of the programme and provide clarity for consumer and suppliers is surely vital. I support the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

In supporting this amendment, will hon. Members cast their eyes across clauses 2 and 3 that set up the smart meter communication licensee administration, and the special administrative regime—the SAR? We must emphasise what a special circumstance this is. This would be where the body that had been charged with the whole roll-out of smart meters, which had millions of pounds under its guidance, had gone into administration—for whatever reason. As the Minister points out, traditional methods are available for dealing with a company that has gone into administration.

A special administration regime would, among other things, ensure that the special nature of the DCC and its complete centrality to the roll-out was not subsumed under that traditional method of administration, which might cause damage given what the administrator might decide to do with the company if there were not a regime that was carefully worded and sorted out. The administrator might decide that a number of functions that otherwise would have been carried out by the DCC would not be—indeed, we may debate some of those additional functions later. There would be the whole question of the administration of that company being brushed under the carpet, being put in the hands of the administrator and set aside from the public gaze.

A lot of company administrations take place in circumstances of some opacity—that is, it is difficult to ascertain exactly why the company went into administration, the intentions of the administrator or even where the appointment of the administrator came from. It is difficult to find out what the administrator thinks they are going to do with the company concerned. There are whole series of things that, in terms of general company law, ought to be a little more transparent but generally are not; that is how it works as far as company law is concerned.

However, this is a very different circumstance: the entity is an essential public function as well as a company, which might be placed into administration. It is therefore right that, in clauses 2 and 3, we do more than say that we want to make sure that the administration is in the right hands and that nothing happens with the administration that will cause damage to the passage of the DCC as the organiser of the smart meter roll-out. That is what all the paragraphs in clause 3, and some of those in clause 2, are about. They are concerned with the smooth transfer and running of the system. There is not one word about any light that should be shone on what would have happened to that company previously, and what is the public good of the company subsequently, once it comes out of administration.

[Steve McCabe]

The Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the Energy and Climate Change Committee have all expressed doubts about the operation of the programme, its transparency and the escalating cost. In such circumstances, if the Minister was forced to use the additional powers because of failure, surely it would be a complete dereliction of duty not to make what had happened obvious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

It is a devastating blow to hear that the Minister cannot bring himself to accept the word “transparent”, but in the circumstances I do not think that we would gain very much by pressing this to a vote. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on what has been said, because the circumstances in which he would have to exercise this power would be a massive failure and, almost certainly, a massive loss to the public, and I do not think anyone would be comfortable thinking that there had been any attempt to hush that up or push it to one side. I hope that he will reflect very seriously on why it has been raised. I do not wish such a failure to occur at all, but I am very clear that if it did, I would be one of the first at the front of the queue saying, “What on earth went on here?” I do not think there would be any gain in pushing it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert “within the context of the full services offered by the DCC”.

This amendment requires that any regulations about prioritisation of activities following the DCC going into administration would have to take into account the context of the full services offered by the DCC.

The amendment refers to clause 3(6), which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the activities to be undertaken in a smart meter communication licence under administration, subsequent to the DCC having been placed in that administration. The circumstances set out in subsection (6) are essentially about the extent to which the Secretary of State may say to the administrator, “You are now in the position of administrating this failed company. Because of the arrangements necessary for the roll-out of smart meters, you should make sure that, at the very least, the minimum amount of activities are carried out to enable a smooth roll-out of smart meter services.”

As far as I understand it, the reason for the subsection is that as the DCC evolves it will undertake the initial core services provided in respect of the roll-out, but it may also undertake a number of additional elective services to facilitate the roll-out. It is those additional elective services that the Department mentions in the memorandum it placed in front of the regulatory Committee, stating:

“In the unlikely event that the DCC becomes insolvent, it may be necessary to prioritise certain activities of the DCC…We are not yet in a position to set out the prioritisation of the DCC’s services, so soon after the start of live services…and in advance of the development of elective services. We believe that this will be possible ahead of the completion of the rollout when demand from suppliers for DCC to provide other services could be expected to have materialised.”

The Department then states:

“Once we have determined the prioritisation and how it should be done, we would prepare a statutory instrument that would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

I will come to that particular point in a moment.

The point of those particular passages, concerning clause 3(6), is that the Department is not clear what the prioritisation of the DCC services might be under administration, because the Department is not yet clear, so close to the start of live services, what range of services it would face under administration—because those services have not yet fully emerged. The Department would therefore want to determine how the prioritisation should be done, and to prepare a further statutory instrument, which would give form to that prioritisation once that is clear.

That is all very reasonable, except that something does not appear in 3(6) as it stands, or within the policy intent section that the Department has put forward as far as the regulatory Committee is concerned: any provision requiring that the services that the administrated DCC carries out at that point be as close as possible to the full range of services that were there before. It is distinctly possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations that would, for example, remove all elective services that had been developed by the DCC and concentrate just on the core services—the minimum that would enable the roll-out to limp home under the terms of administration.

The amendment seeks to give a context for what the Secretary of State may do by regulation, as far as administration is concerned, and it states that that context should be the full services offered by the DCC. Obviously, those would be the full services offered by the DCC at the point it went into administration, including those elective services which we do not fully know about at the moment. Clearly, if the DCC, prior to its administration, had developed a wider palette of services than the very minimum, it would have done so for particular reasons. I imagine that those reasons would be to assist the roll-out. Therefore, as a desideratum, under the terms of the administration, the DCC should operate post-administration as closely as possible to how it operated prior to administration.

The Secretary of State should consider, under those circumstances, what might be impossible or very difficult to achieve under a process of administration, not a wish for various services to be discontinued or downgraded. Obviously, I imagine that the Secretary of State would want to make sure that the future regulation was indeed as close as possible to what the DCC was doing before it went into administration, but I would suggest that is not entirely the point. It is necessary to put in the Bill a framework for what the Secretary of State may do under regulation, and that should be to have serious regard to the services in place prior to administration and not to be tempted, as it were, to put forward regulations or give instructions subject to regulation that did not produce an outcome post-administration that was as good as it had been pre-administration.

Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

There is a new clause that refers effectively to what we are considering here, but I am happy for it to be discussed separately, even though it has a substantial bearing on whether a non-GB company might be a successor to the DCC. As far as this stand part debate is concerned, I have no further comments other than that I will save my fire for later when we discuss the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Modifications of particular or standard conditions

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 6, page 5, line 20, at end insert—

“(aa) the public; and”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the public before making a modification to particular or standard conditions of gas or electricity licences when these powers are being used in connection with the smart meter communication licensee administration provisions.

No doubt you have observed, Mrs Gillan, as will have members of the Committee, that there are some similarities between this amendment and amendment 8 to clause 3, which we discussed earlier. They are part of the effort I have been making to ensure that the public have a slightly bigger voice in what happens in the programme, particularly in the event of something going wrong with it. I mentioned earlier the number of groups and organisations that have expressed anxiety, and these include the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the Energy and Climate Change Committee. I was particularly struck to see that Centrica itself had reached the stage where it thought the cost of the programme should be met from general taxation, rather than a charge on the customer. That led me to wonder.

As I hope I have indicated throughout, I do not hold the Minister responsible because I appreciate that he was bequeathed the current state of affairs by his predecessor—but I wonder if the Minister believes that, if this were a Treasury programme, it would have been allowed to continue in its present form for this length of time, with the escalating cost. I would be very curious to hear his response —if possible; I am not trying to put him in a difficult position. The Minister did tell us earlier about one of the first questions he asked when he arrived in the Department and he went on to explain that he had some doubts about the information he was being given. I am really curious to know what he felt when he first encountered the programme and whether he was confident that all was well with it, because it seems to me that there are grounds for some doubt. I want to refer to the cost-benefit analysis, on the basis that the 2016 analysis was significantly revised downwards. We have never had an explanation for exactly why that was the case. It is probably reasonable to guess that it is partly about the delay in the roll-out, but the way things are going at the moment, with delays in the roll-out and escalating costs, we could end up in a situation where the benefit for the customer turns into a big fat negative. It seems to me that it would be a bit remiss of us not to pay some attention to that.

I do not know if I have got this wrong, but it looks to me as if, every way we turn, there is only one person footing the bill for any aspect of the programme. The Minister tells us that the energy suppliers can be fined if they do not achieve the roll-out, but presumably that means another cost that gets passed on to the customer. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he envisages any protections to ensure that, were he to use his powers to fine the supplier for failing to comply with the roll-out deadline, that would simply not be, in effect, yet another charge imposed on the customer. Certainly, as a customer and as someone who represents lots of constituents who are customers, I would like to know if that is the case and if that is what I am being asked to support today. It would be reasonable to know. As far as I understand it, the power to fine is up to 10% of turnover. Perhaps the Minister can give us some clue as to what that works out at per customer—funnily enough, I would expect that it is quite a tidy sum of money.

In the past, the Government have said that they would intervene to make sure the benefits of the roll-out were realised, if they believed the costs were being passed on to the customers to an unacceptable extent. In the context of the amendment, is the Minister happy that the current escalation in the costs is acceptable? At what point does he think his Department might be moved to intervene?

We are repeatedly asked to recognise that the DCC is unlikely to fail and that everything we are being asked to undertake here is simply on the basis of extra protection in the event of failure, but what I am saying is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

Again, the Minister has been quite helpful. We need to remember that we are talking about a circumstance where there has been a catastrophic economic failure of the DCC. That is why the Minister would be in that position. It would inevitably be—in part, at least—because of doubts about the system, resulting in escalating costs. It would be against a background of an ongoing dispute about SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 meters and the whole question of interoperability, and it would of course then feed into the question whether the meter asset providers were also adding to the cost because of the new role in which they found themselves. That is why we would be in that situation.

In such a situation, I certainly would not want to be the Minister putting my name to something without having some reasonable evaluation of what exactly had happened; how much the cost was likely to escalate; and whether or not this thing was turning into a white elephant. It seems to me that it would be pretty necessary to do that.

If the Minister is confident that the information he will glean from the consultation and that he will make public will be enough to provide him and his colleagues with the cover they might require if they ever find themselves in that situation, I am happy to accept his judgment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Modifications under the Enterprise Act 2002

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

We are overrun with Henrys again this afternoon: there are more Henrys in clause 8. I have not tabled an amendment because the question of amendments to Henry VIII clauses has been tested, but the Committee should be aware that clauses 8 and 9 are substantial Henry VIII clauses. Both seek to make regulations by negative procedure. The clause to which I drew attention earlier is therefore not an accident; it is part of a theme that runs right through this Bill and that theme ought to be looked at.

We could have a debate about the justification for the procedure in clauses 8 and 9. Frankly, I think they have been written to make the Government’s life easier. That is not a sufficient reason to justify the enactment of legislation. I hope that I can recruit the Minister on future occasions for what I might call a crusade—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Mrs Gillan. I was coming to that precise point.

[Steve McCabe]

I do not have any argument with what the Minister is trying to do, but I am intrigued by whether or not a precedent is being set. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding that if this can occur in this situation, there is no reason why in the future, on any Bill—Private Member’s Bill, or anything else—a Member could not seek to change the long title of the Bill and therefore introduce additional components to the Bill that were not part of the original intention of the legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Forgive me, Mrs Gillan. It is not about angels dancing on the head of a pin; it is an important issue about the procedures of the House. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is puzzling over whether we would “sacrifice the good” of what is before us because of concern about a procedure. That is not a position that the Opposition have put ourselves in; it is a position that we are all in because these amendments have all been grouped together when they refer to two different things, one of which is a procedure and the other of which is substance.

As far as the substance is concerned, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we think the substance is good and we do not wish the Bill to be sabotaged because we have concerns about how those good things came to be, but I think the hon. Gentleman will clearly understand that if that procedure is taken as a usual state of affairs in this House, without anybody drawing attention to it for the future, there may in future be circumstances in which someone wishes to introduce a much worse series of amendments than the one that we have today. We know, because the Minister was clear about it, that another Bill was effectively grafted on to this Bill. I can understand the reasons why the Minister wanted to do that.

[Steve McCabe]

Is it fair to say that my hon. Friend is seeking to guarantee that there is an accurate Hansard record that describes the doubt about the process, because it may well be a process that will be challenged in the future? This is not about the detail of the changes that the Minister is seeking to make, which I think there is broad agreement on and support for, but rather my hon. Friend has the parliamentary opportunity to get a Hansard record of what the anxiety is about the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I am not sure this need necessarily take long. As we have heard, it is a legal obligation on the energy suppliers to take all reasonable steps to meet the 2020 target of every household being offered a smart meter. Both new clause 1 and new clause 11 outline some steps that the Secretary of State could take to ensure timely completion of the roll-out while protecting consumers and ensuring the benefits of the roll-out are fully realised.

New clause 1 is fairly specific in the information it asks the Secretary of State to publish, and includes the progress toward the 2020 target as well as information on the costs and projected costs of DCC and the installation of meters more generally. I listened to the Minister earlier making a commitment to publish an annual report on the progress of the roll-out. Most people, certainly on this side, thought that was a helpful and reasonable offer.

It is important to point out to the Committee that the Government’s commitment to annual progress reports has fallen by the wayside. What we actually heard today was an offer from the Minister to reinstate them, as far as I can see. In December 2012 the Government published their first annual progress report on the roll-out, which gave an overview of the programme and the progress to date. They subsequently published two further progress reports in 2013 and 2014, but since then there have been none. Obviously, we know that from 2014 the progress was not quite so good to report on; I do not know whether that is the reason, but my point is that we stopped getting the reports.

That is why I thought it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill a commitment for a regular progress report. I was pleased to hear the Minister say earlier that it is his intention to provide it anyway, and that is good enough for me, but I cannot guarantee that the Minister will be in his post even for the duration of the Bill, can I? I have no way of knowing what a successor might do. Goodness, I wish the Minister well and I hope he is in post much longer than the duration of the Bill, but I am simply recognising that, if I look around the present Government, quite a few people who were in post a few weeks ago are no longer there. These things happen, and they happen quickly in politics. We can never tell what is around the corner.

I am simply observing that the Minister’s word in itself is not sufficient for the purpose, because what the Government have previously done was publish reports and then stop publishing them when the information became less convenient. I thought it would make sense to make a request to have it on the face of the Bill, and that is what new clause 1 seeks to do.

New clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to commission an updated, independent cost-benefit analysis of the roll-out. Mrs Gillan, you will not want me to go over all this again, but we know that the cost-benefit analysis from 2016 showed a downward trend. Although I hear the Minister and I know his intentions are good, my concern throughout has been that we could reach a stage where those benefits turn negative. That is why I raise this matter.

We heard from Audrey Gallacher of Energy UK. She said that she thought it was time for a new impact assessment to ensure that the benefits case is still alive. The value of the assessment that I am calling for—an independently led assessment, as mentioned in new clause 11—is that it would bring confidence to all stakeholders. They would have a chance to consider independent information, so it would be good for the suppliers. It would be good for the Department and for the DCC and customers. If it were to show that the benefits case is no longer as strong as it was, it would give us the opportunity to look at other approaches that the Government might choose to pursue. It would take us back to the question of whether there is a different model—with the SMETS 1 and the mini DCC we heard the evidence about—as opposed to the elaborate DCC model that has taken up so much of the consideration of this Committee.

In the situation of uncertainty surrounding the roll-out, an updated cost-benefit analysis would be a sensible commitment to include on the face of the Bill. It would provide stakeholders with certainty and transparency and improve the credibility of the smart meter roll-out. For those reasons I suggest that the Committee considers adopting both new clauses 1 and 11.

[Dr Whitehead]

I want to speak in favour of new clause 7 and to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak says about the merits of new clauses 1 and 11, and taking into account the fact that the Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to produce publicly available annual reviews on aspects of the smart meter roll-out. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

My hon. Friend says he is offering protection for the public, which is true, but is he not actually offering a bit of protection for the Minister? As I said before, if this goes wrong, only one person will carry the can. My hon. Friend proposes a way of guaranteeing that the information provided—or filtered through BEIS—to the Minister is actually real information about what is happening, in terms of functional meters, as opposed to this fantasy information about cold calls or visits that have not resulted in any activity.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. As we have discussed, there remains a little bit of a discrepancy, one might say, between the ambition of those responsible for it for what the roll-out looks like and the Government’s claim that the target really is that everyone will have been offered a smart meter by 2020. It seems important to me that we reconcile those two positions as the roll-out progresses. In a way, Ofgem is actually reconciling those positions in terms of getting a picture of what is actually happening so far as the roll-out is concerned on the actual number of meters installed in homes after the end of the visits, but it is not quite yet getting to the position of whether the meters are operating as they should.

My hon. Friend is also right that I am anxious to make sure the Minister is as well protected as possible; I always am. It is a personal ambition of mine that the Minister should be properly protected under all circumstances, and the new clause will help him in that respect. It will give us, I hope—among other things in the Minister’s annual reports—an accurate depiction of the real picture, so that the defence of that picture can be undertaken by the Minister on the basis of accurate information that will not come back to whack him around the head.

I can think of no better protection for the Minister than being assured that he will not be whacked around the head by statistics at a later date. I am therefore sure that he will take the substance of the new clause on board in his response, if not the whole new clause, particularly in terms of what may well be in the report he has promised us for the future.

Smart Meters Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Steve McCabe]

The Minister may want to help the Committee with that, but my understanding is that he has an installation target. Clearly there will be people who refuse to accept smart meters, and that will inevitably affect any overall figure; but, as far as I understand the matter, the Government have an installation target. My point is that if they need to achieve a 70% increase in the daily rate, that does not seem to be likely or credible; it is not on the cards. However, the Government are adamant that the 2020 target is achievable—a sentiment that the Committee will remember was echoed by some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday. I think that we need to hear from the Minister how he will achieve that.

A recently circulated myth-busting document from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says it is a myth that the Bill

“is just a means of extending the roll-out until 2023.”

It states:

“Reality: Energy suppliers remain legally obliged to complete the roll-out by the end of 2020.”

If BEIS is right in its myth-busting, why does the Secretary of State need such an extension of powers to develop, amend and oversee regulations relating to smart meters? If the energy suppliers are legally obliged to complete by 2020 and it is a myth to suggest that the Bill is simply about creating an extension, and BEIS is confident about that, why are we here discussing an extension to 2023?

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend consider myth-busting the myth-busting? It is not the case that all suppliers are legally required to install smart meters by 2020: it is those suppliers who are under an obligation, because they have more than 250,000 customers, to pay and take part in green and social tariffs. Suppliers with fewer than 250,000 customers have a target to supply by 2020, but are not legally obliged to do so. That may be of use to my hon. Friend in considering the target itself. The fact that some companies do not have the same obligation may be cause for further thought about whether targets will be reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I simply say that my fear is that we could end up agreeing a timescale that does not have safeguards or an obvious justification, which in itself is an opportunity for further delay and is perhaps a recipe for failure. I ask the Minister: would it not be sensible, at this point in the roll-out of the programme, to send a clear message to the industry, consumers and everyone that an extension until 2023 is needed and to make it absolutely crystal clear why that date has been chosen and what will happen in that period—or whatever period BEIS picks? It has been interested in other dates in the past, but now it thinks it should be 2023. Would it not be sensible to send a clear message to the industry, so that we can ensure that the benefits of the programme that the Minister intends are actually realised?

If it is not possible in all conscience to do that and to convince the Committee that we are on track for that outcome, would it not be sensible to revert to the 2020 target and to actually develop a sense of common purpose that says to all those people engaged in the programme, “You said you could do this. We are telling you that 2020 is the delivery target. We are absolutely clear that that is where we are heading”? Would it not be sensible to stop the backsliding and to say that what we actually want is to deliver what we are telling the public we are capable of delivering? We simply cannot have it both ways; we cannot be emphatic on both points. There is either an achievable deadline of 2020, and all the statements from the Department are believable, or that deadline is unachievable and the Minister needs to set a new deadline, explain it and justify it and convince us that that one is deliverable.

[Dr Whitehead]

My understanding of my role, with regard to the amendments, is that I am not summing up on behalf of the Opposition but speaking in support of the amendment put very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak just a moment ago. Before I say anything else, I need to emphasise, as my hon. Friend did, what the Opposition think about the Bill as a whole and what we think about smart meters and their roll-out.

We need to be clear from the start that we are certainly not opposed to the Bill overall and we are certainly not opposed to smart meters. We think that smart meters are not only a desirable but a necessary part of the process of smartening up our energy systems as a whole, and that they will have considerable benefits for both consumers and the energy system as a whole when they are rolled out.

We are also anxious to see that that roll-out proceeds in a timely fashion and that we have a substantial coverage of smart meters at the earliest possible stage, so that those benefits can start to be realised. Indeed, as we heard in oral evidence, there are quite a few issues relating to how many smart meters need to be installed in order for those benefits to start rolling out. Getting those numbers in is an important part of the process of realising benefits for the future.

The amendments we are talking about, and indeed clause 1, are about the process of changing the date by which time licensable activities will have ceased from 2020 to 2023. Whether or not it was a wholly wise idea, the 2004 and 2008 Energy Acts and subsequent regulations specified a date for those licensable activities to end, so after 2018 the Government will have no control over what goes on. Everybody knows that in 2018 we will still be at a relatively early stage of the roll-out. It is impossible to conceive that it would be wise to continue with the original timetable, so we support the idea of specifying a more satisfactory date in the statute book.

The date specified in the Bill is 2023, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, that does not appear to coincide with the Government’s publicly stated ambition for the end of the roll-out. I say that with caution, because their statements about the roll-out have changed over time, but they have always revolved around the idea of ending it in 2020. There has been a lot of talk from the Government about 53 million smart meters being installed in homes by then. Indeed, the “frequently asked questions” page of the Smart Energy GB website states:

“By the end of 2020, around 53 million smart meters will be fitted in over 30 million premises (households and businesses) across Wales, Scotland and England.”

However, the Government have changed their position; they are now saying that by the end of 2020, 53 million customers

“will have been offered a smart meter”—

a very different proposition. We could interpret that as 53 million people being offered a smart meter by 2020, but only 10 million having them installed, although I assume that that is not what the Government mean. That statement may be meaningless or meaningful, depending on what happens before the end of 2020 and on a variety of issues that will appear along the road, many of which the Committee will examine in its consideration of the Bill.

Smart Meters Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

If, as we have heard, SMETS 1 can be made fully interoperable with software upgrades, what is the purpose of SMETS 2 meters?

Derek Lickorish: What is the purpose of SMETS 2 meters if we can make SMETS 1 interoperable? To be able to answer that question, you would need to have a review and some evidence on which to base that decision. At the moment, it is beyond my sphere of full knowledge on everything to give a clear-cut answer to that question.

Richard Wiles: SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 need to run in coexistence. I believe that some clients are in prepayments mode, and prepayment is available in SMETS 1 now. I am talking about some specific instances where SMETS 2 is required: for aspects such as high-rise buildings or dual band comms hubs, when that comes into effect, when greater interoperability is required. Certainly from our position, we believe that we can deploy a larger volume of SMETS 1 meters and still help the Government meet the 2020 deadline.

As to SMETS 2, there are specific advantages around interoperability that have been touched on. While each individual SMETS 1 provider creates mini DCCs, as Derek mentioned earlier on, that will be avoided with SMETS 2. However, with enrolment and adoption, we are working with DCC at the moment, and that will allow the interoperability of our estate to be absorbed into the wider continued operation of the smart meter system through DCC.

Derek Lickorish: Can I add to my answer to Alan’s question and build on a point Richard made about interoperability? Although SMETS 2 has some advantages on the one hand, it is not at the data level. If you take mobile phones, they can keep on being produced because they are data interoperable with the network. SMETS 2 meters have to be identical not only for the meter installed today but for those in 15 years’ time as well. This backwards compatibility requirement is built into what we have. SMETS 1 meters are data interoperable, which is why we can make SMETS 1 interoperable relatively easily from the mini DCC position.

I know that all these things are grindingly complicated. We are trying to explain them in a way that I hope is straightforward.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Q After this morning’s witnesses, I was left with the impression that the DCC programme is absolutely fine, on target and all is going well. Has the DCC programme been delayed? If so, what have the problems been?

Richard Wiles: There have been publicised delays within the go-live period. The go-live date of November last year was when we had a release of DCC that allowed devices to be installed and to be made interoperable. A statement was made this morning that there are 215 meters on the system. It was envisaged that there would be a considerably higher volume than that now.