I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government preparations for the radio teleswitch service switch-off in Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Minister to her place.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that when things go wrong, Governments get the blame—whether it is their fault or not. That is just one of the unfairnesses of politics with which we all have to live. In opening my remarks, therefore, I will say something very unusual—I struggle to think of another occasion when I have said this in almost 24 years as a Member of Parliament—if the radio teleswitch service switch-off goes badly, it will not be the Minister’s fault.
In the relatively short period that the Minister has been in the job, she has demonstrated a willingness to take hold of the issue and to make things happen in a way that I wish we had seen two or three years ago, because we all knew that the switch-off would be a problem. It is only now, when we are just over two months away from the final switch-off, that people who should have been alive to it long ago are finally waking up to the reality. I genuinely welcome the Minister’s engagement, and I hope that her energy will drive a less bad outcome than we might have had otherwise. It might still be possible to rescue the situation, even at this late stage—who knows?
The basic facts of the challenge with the radio teleswitch service are well rehearsed—this is not the first time that the Minister has been in one of these debates. RTS is a technology that allowed for automatic tariff switching for customers and enabled tariffs such as “total heating with total control”, which have been valuable to households in rural communities, particularly those that are off the gas grid. That includes most of the highlands and islands, and certainly the entirety of Orkney and Shetland.
RTS is planned to be switched off on 30 June this year, less than three months from now. A number of extensions have been made to the deadline previously, but the switch-off cannot be delayed indefinitely due to the system being obsolete and increasingly unreliable—quite apart from the fact that it relies on the BBC to commission it. It would be helpful if the Minister in her response could offer some explanation for the exact reasons for the hard deadline that we now face.
Despite being aware of the need to move away from RTS meters for years, Ofgem and the energy companies have not done enough to prepare—candidly, they have been asleep at the wheel. At some future date, we might want to revisit that to look at what should have been done earlier and why it was not but, frankly, for today’s purposes, that is an unhelpful distraction. I just put the energy companies, Energy UK and Ofgem on notice that they may yet have to account for something that visits a serious impact on my constituents and constituents who rely on RTS throughout the whole United Kingdom.
The first challenge is to get as many RTS meters as possible replaced with smart meters before 30 June. Across the United Kingdom, hundreds of thousands of RTS meters remain; perhaps the Minister can give us an update on the exact figure. I know from my frequent engagement with her that the numbers are going in the right direction, but not as fast as she would want. A disproportionate number are in rural communities in Scotland, such as my own in the isles.
I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how the Government propose to drive faster meter replacement in places such as Orkney and Shetland. I have heard that some energy suppliers intend to make a concerted push to replace meters first in Orkney and then in Shetland in the coming weeks. I would be grateful if she could clarify whether the spring sprint, as we are hearing it called, is being driven from the centre and whether all companies are going to be part of that surge effort.
In Orkney and Shetland, customers were historically served by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or the hydro board as it was called. That then became Scottish and Southern Energy, which then hived off its retail business to OVO Energy. I would therefore guess that OVO is still the dominant supplier in the local market, but in this age of switching, there are several other companies as well. Will everybody be expected to put their shoulder to the wheel in the spring sprint?
If there is a co-ordinated surge plan for our communities, the more information we can receive on that plan and how it will work on the ground, the better. I do not believe that many people are still unaware of the RTS switch-off, at least not in Orkney and Shetland, but we can still build momentum and maximise the number of people who replace their meters if people are fully aware of when and how they can get a replacement. Simply put, if we make this surge work in Orkney and Shetland, we have the opportunity to build momentum for work in other island rural communities, and indeed for those on the mainland. Getting it right for us is an opportunity for everyone.
The second critical issue is customers’ right to be no worse off under their replacement meter tariff. The Minister held a roundtable with me, other MPs and Ofgem on the state of play at the start of February. That meeting clearly had some effect as, a week later, Ofgem announced its consultation on new rules to protect customers. I note in passing that the consultation has since closed, and we are awaiting the results. Although that is not the only lever that can be pulled to drive progress, I hope we might soon have word on the results of that consultation, as we are not exactly flush with time. That would be a welcome practical signal from Ofgem—not just what its representatives say when they are sitting in the Minister’s office—that it has genuinely woken up to the need to approach this issue with greater urgency.
Central to Ofgem’s proposals under consultation was a commitment that energy suppliers must give consumers tariffs that leave them no worse off than their existing tariff arrangement when their meter is replaced. That promise is critical and it has to be delivered, both as a matter of fairness and for the practical success of the project. We need to give families the confidence that they can replace their meter in the knowledge that they will not be left worse off.
I have some concerns about how that proposal is being interpreted by energy suppliers in practice. I have been contacted by constituents who, having been offered a meter replacement by EDF, for example, have been told that they are not allowed to have an Economy 10 tariff but must take a more expensive and inferior Economy 7 tariff instead. That would leave them worse off than they were on the RTS tariff, which seems to be a prima facie breach of Ofgem’s rule and undertaking. It also suggests that EDF, perhaps because it is not the biggest player in some of those markets, has not fully appreciated the scale of what will be required of it.
When I publicised in the local media that this debate was going to take place, I was contacted by another constituent, who said:
“On Saturday 5th April, my old RTS meter was replaced. I am with OVO and was with SSE before”—
a fairly classic Orkney and Shetland customer—
“I previously paid around £5 per day on average...In just over two days since the new meter was installed I have spent almost exactly £30 on electricity. Quite an increase, I’m sure you will agree.”
I certainly do agree and if such stories continue to appear, they will make a mockery of the rule that people will be no worse off. As the energy companies are among those who have to push hard and play catch-up here, it would assist everybody—including them—if they demonstrated a better understanding of the no detriment rule that Ofgem is seeking to enforce.
As the regulator, Ofgem is responsible for judging whether such a breach has occurred and what sort of penalty or remedy must be applied if it has, but I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with that assessment, and to hear the Government’s view on what seems to be a basic matter of fairness. That matters because I have heard other such cases from constituents. In such communities, it does not take much for a narrative to set in that Ofgem’s rule—or guidance or whatever it will be called—does not hold water.
There are also concerns about the consequences for people who, for whatever reason, are not upgraded by the end of June. Ofgem has stated that there will be no interruption of the electricity supply to homes as a result of the switch-off. That is essential, because, apart from anything else, our communities are entirely off the gas grid. It would also be helpful for my constituents if they received clarification from the Minister about the exact process of the switch-off in June and what it will mean for individual customers.
One of the defining features of RTS is the use of “total heating with total control”, which turns heating on and off automatically according to the radio signal. If heating is stuck on at the point of signal shutdown, that will be a significant problem for households, which will incur significant costs. It could even be dangerous for older and more vulnerable people. We should remember that we are talking about what might be euphemistically called some of the most windswept and interesting parts of Scotland; RTS being switched off in June is no guarantee that people will not still have their heating going. If the Minister has any answers about what is being done to avoid such issues, that information would again be welcome for my constituents.
Beyond these specific technical questions, my worry is that safety nets for the remaining customers will be weakened once the numbers start to come down. Bluntly, Ofgem and the electricity companies have shown little interest in or concern about our communities thus far. They may be coming to the table now, when there is political and public pressure on them, but once the numbers are down to the hard core of hard-to-shift cases, I worry that their interest may wane again. There is a natural risk that isolated homes, and isolated and vulnerable people, will make up a disproportionate number of the remaining cases. Even if they are small in number, each one of them matters and no one should be left behind.
There are also specific challenges around connectivity for rural and island communities in Scotland. Smart meters may be the solution for most people who are replacing their RTS meter, but many areas in the isles do not have the signal required for smart meters—indeed, they likely never will. I understand through correspondence with energy suppliers that technical solutions are being sought for those cases. Again, however, I remind the House that there are just weeks to go. If the Minister can give further updates about what the energy companies intend for those hard-to-reach cases, that would again be a source of useful information and reassurance for my constituents.
I suggest that such challenges further reinforce why Ofgem’s commitment that tariffs must be no worse than they were under RTS must be delivered, so that there is no backsliding to inferior meters and tariffs. Hitherto, the overall communication and consistency from Ofgem and energy suppliers have been pitiful. Constituents continue to be given poor or conflicting advice about their appointments, their eligibility for smart meters and much more besides.
Even now, some constituents find themselves unable to book any appointment, regardless of date. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was offered an appointment in April, only for that appointment to be cancelled and replaced with one in August. Taken individually, those may be minor issues, but each one risks adding to the sense of confusion or suspicion about the way that suppliers are going about their business, precisely when we really need confidence.
This is a matter that we have been fighting on for years. I am afraid it illustrates on the part of the big corporates and regulators such as Ofgem a shameful indifference to the fact that they need to provide a different service to people in the highlands and islands, and in island and rural communities such as mine. It has left our communities in a place where, frankly, they should not be. We are grateful to the Minister for that understanding and for doing what she can to push them on, but sometime in the future I think we will have to return to this matter and see why we have been left swinging in the wind in the way that we have been.