---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 29: 29: After Clause 89, insert the following new Clause— ““Power to amend licence conditions etc: carbon dioxide emission targets and fuel poverty (1) The Secretary of State may modify— (a) a condition of a particular electricity supply licence under section 6(1)(d) of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29); (b) the standard conditions incorporated in licences under those provisions by virtue of section 8A of that Act; (c) a condition of a particular gas supply licence under section 7A of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44); (d) the standard conditions incorporated in licences under those provisions by virtue of section 8 of that Act; (e) a document maintained in accordance with the conditions of licences under section 6(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 7 or 7A of the Gas Act 1986, or an agreement that gives effect to a document so maintained. (2) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in subsection (1) for the purpose of requiring the holder of a licence to promote measures, in respect of the group of customers defined in subsection (4), pursuant to any order made under Part 1 of the Gas Act or Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 that imposes an obligation on suppliers to achieve carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. (3) Modifications made by virtue of subsection (1) may include— (a) provision about the protection of consumers; (b) provision requiring the holder of the licence to enter (or refrain from entering) into an agreement of a specified kind, or with a specified person; (c) provision specifying, or enabling the determination of, a date from which a modification is to take effect. (4) In subsection (2) ““the group of customers”” means customers who are— (a) in receipt of income or disability benefits, (b) in receipt of tax or pension credits, or (c) aged 70 or over. (5) The Secretary of State shall, within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations making provision for the provision of information to licence holders enabling them to identify those of their customers who fall within the group defined in subsection (4), and provision about the use, sharing and protection of that information. (6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall make provision in relation to matters including, but not limited to— (a) disclosure to licence holders of specified information, (b) conditions relating to the security of information disclosed, (c) conditions relating to the use and sharing of such information. (7) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who took part in the Grand Committee stage of the Bill will recognise that this amendment, which deals with issues such as fuel poverty, the carbon emissions reduction targets and the problem of data sharing, is in exactly the same terms as the amendment I tabled in Grand Committee. The reason for that is that it proved quite difficult to find an amendment to the Bill that was within its Long Title and so could be tabled and debated. I have previously expressed my gratitude to the officials in the Public Bill Office for their help in enabling this to be done. However, it would have been a little difficult to ask them to do it again for a different amendment, when all I am asking here is for the Government to come forward with more information about what is going to happen under the programme that they have announced. Quite a lot has happened since we debated that amendment last July; not least, the Government’s latest concordat with the industry. We had the amendment to the Pensions Bill, debated on 17 July, which dealt with the small number of the neediest pensioners who are entitled to pension credit. There was some sort of undertaking about data sharing. Then there was the letter following that from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, to the noble Lord, Lord Mogg, on 30 July, which sought to explain how this was going to be approached. We then had the full and important statements of the Government’s policy in their response to the Business and Enterprise Select Committee in another place earlier this month. Finally, we have had the report of the Ofgem probe into gas and electricity prices, which was issued a few days ago. I therefore make no excuse for coming back to the matter. The House will be relieved to know, however, that I do not intend to rehearse the details of all these many developments, otherwise we might be here later than we would wish. My case—and this has been my argument since the House debated the carbon emissions reduction targets order last January—has centred on the problem of identifying the households that are in fuel poverty, particularly those that are in the priority group specified in that CERT order. We were told in the Explanatory Note to the order that there were now 11 million people in that priority group, and noble Lords will remember that the supplier industries had to supply 40 per cent of their target reductions from that group. I understand from our debate in Grand Committee that there are some formidable obstacles to the question of identifying and targeting the households that deserve the special help. First and foremost there is the data protection legislation that prevents unauthorised disclosure. There is the issue of proportionality regarding whether the benefit from allowing disclosure is sufficient to justify the fact of disclosure. There is the issue of security of data, if data are to be transferred to other bodies—for instance, the energy supplier industries. And over it all, there are the imperatives of the human rights legislation. I would add, and I attach importance to this, the need to avoid stigmatising people by telling them to their faces that they are so poor that they need help. That is an important point that one needs to recognise. Yet the Government continue to insist that they want to help the industry suppliers to, "““identify those who are mostly in need of help””." Those are the words that were used in the Government’s response to the Select Committee. So far, however, they have entirely failed to explain how. I turn to the letter on 30 July from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, to the noble Lord, Lord Mogg, whom I am delighted to see in his place today. It says: "““Both Ofgem and the Government share a commitment to ensure that those vulnerable to fuel poverty receive appropriately targeted help””." I come back to the word ““targeted””. In the same paragraph, the letter continues: "““the Government is committed to exploring how data held by DWP may be best used to ensure that appropriate help is targeted on all vulnerable groups””." The noble Lord was there referring to the amendment to the Pensions Bill, but that is merely an amendment to give the Government power to make regulations. It is difficult to have a debate on this issue without knowing what the structure of the arrangements for the sharing of data is going to be, because we have not yet seen the regulations. A few weeks ago I submitted a Written Question to the Government: "““How soon after the Pensions Bill receives Royal Assent they intend to make regulations under Clause 136 of the Bill as amended in Committee of the Whole House (HL Bill 79) about energy consumers who are in receipt of state pension credit; and whether they will publish draft regulations in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent””." Even that would help—but no. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, replied: "““Clause 136 of the Pensions Bill enables the Secretary of State to set out in regulations details of how state pension credit data are to be shared with energy suppliers. We are working closely with energy suppliers, the Department for Energy and Climate Change, Defra and Ofgem to agree how the data-sharing process will work. We will lay the draft regulations as soon as possible after Royal Assent; they will be affirmative and therefore subject to full parliamentary scrutiny””.—[Official Report, 10/10/08; col. WA 24.]" We are no wiser at all. They are not prepared to help in any way so that we can see how this will all work. Ofgem, which has been leading the fight for targeting, had a summit last April that was headed ““Targeting the Help””. I therefore approached that body and asked what was its latest information on this. The answer I had from the official there was: "““I don’t know at present if the Government has plans for further legislation in this regard””." Not only does Ofgem not know what is going to happen but it does not even know how the Government are going to do it. It seems to me that we are in some difficulties on this. The purpose of my amendment is simply to ask for more explanations of how Ministers intend to deal with the crucial issue of targeting. I acknowledge and indeed applaud the several organisations that have been making heroic efforts, such as EAGA, and the many voluntary groups which have offered their help, to fill the gap between the householders who need help and the energy industries that are in a position to give it. I recognise, too, the strenuous efforts that are being made by the supplying companies to fulfil their commitments. Indeed, under the CERT legislation, it is their obligation; they are under a statutory legal obligation to get their savings from the 40 per cent of the priority group, and they are liable, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told us in the debate in the House, to severe penalties if they do not achieve it. But they are not told which households they have to get their savings from, so that the solution to the core problem of targeting still remains hopelessly unclear. When I argued this case last January, it was the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, then the Defra Minister, who struggled to convince noble Lords that the policy was capable of being implemented. Anybody who was in the House for that debate will recall that there was a Minister under very considerable pressure. In Grand Committee, the task fell to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and he was rather more reassuring. Indeed, he began by congratulating me on having got my amendment on to the Marshalled List at all. The House of Commons—the other place—was not allowed to discuss this issue at all; it was not allowed to discuss fuel poverty when debating the Energy Bill. It fell to this place, with the help of officials, to get it on to our Marshalled List. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, told us that there had to be, "““a joined-up approach within and across government departments, suppliers and other agencies involved””." Then he went on to say: "““However, I have to tell the noble Lord that the precise details of the future arrangements are still being considered and discussed with supplier companies””.—[Official Report, 1/7/08; cols. GC 43-44.]" Yet the government response to the Select Committee report in another place, which we got earlier this month, provides absolutely nothing on targeting. You can read it in full and secure no information whatever—it simply does not refer to it. There is a great deal about how much money is going to be spent by the industry and the Government, but nothing—nothing, my Lords—about helping companies to identify who should get that help. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is here representing both departments—the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as it now is, and the department formerly represented by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. So he has assumed the mantle of both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach. We look to him now to give us some enlightenment as to how this will all be achieved. I beg to move.