---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 68: 68: Clause 81, page 74, line 23, after ““date”” insert ““that is no later than 1st January 2018”” The noble Lord said: I support the thoughts behind Amendment No. 69, which is grouped with and goes slightly further than Amendment No. 68. The amendment’s purpose is incredibly simple. The Government’s having added the section on smart metering in Clause 81 has set out an interesting way forward to deal with smart metering but not given any indication of when that obligation should be met and fully exercised. Smart metering has exercised a great deal of time of those who have been lobbied on the issue for a number of years; many of us believe that it is a valuable tool, not just for the industry but for the consumer—a point that should not be forgotten. This issue could have a realistic effect on fuel poverty and help many consumers deal with the use of electricity in the home. It would also be a fantastic boon for those who have the major difficulty of having meters read on a regular basis. I speak as someone whose meter is in the cellar and I should install a light because I have fallen over a couple of times looking for it, which is a nightmare. It is a major problem for old people who find it difficult to access their meters, especially if they are not read on a regular basis and there could be problems with the bills. Of course, smart metering would deal with that. However, the Government, having brought forward this most welcome part of the Bill, have failed in their duty to say when this purpose should be completed. We are talking about a massive investment running into billions of pounds. Once the consultation period has been undertaken and the type of smart metering is worked out, we are talking about a system that will cause an enormous amount of effort throughout the country. All premises will be affected and the papers will be full of stories about whether the meters have been installed correctly. There will be a great deal of problems. Of course, there will also be the fiscal problems of taking this forward. That is why a 10-year period should be considered. This is such a large project that it could go on indefinitely. Therefore, while the system may start in the next two or three years, the overrun may mean that many properties do not deal with such meters for 15 or 20 years. This issue feeds into the debates we have already had on feed-in tariffs before we get smart meters; they will be much more difficult to implement. On waste, we are talking about the environmental implications of not moving forward to zero-carbon-rated homes. I am always very worried about figures that cannot be justified, but there was talk of 10,000 meters being installed each week, each day or each month—I am not sure which, but an enormous number of meters are installed around the country on a daily basis. Obviously, that is part of the ongoing maintenance programme, but it will be very annoying and costly to the environment if meters are installed over the next two or three years only to be ripped out and replaced by smart meters a short time later. There are also cost implications for the people having them installed and the companies which have to install them. All we are asking is for the Government to go one step further. They have done the hard work in talking about bringing forward a consultation period to come up with the type of smart meters to be installed. We want to make sure that the end date is in sight, so that the companies can gear the considerable finances and the risk factor to fit within an acceptable timescale. We believe that 10 years is not too short a time in which this process can be undertaken. However, the big problem is that the directions set out give no start date by which the majority of the work should be started. An end date would focus not just the Government’s mind, but also the minds of industry, on when the majority of the work must be completed and on making sure that they have an objective in mind for its completion. I beg to move.