House of Lords
Tourism
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest estimate of the number of people employed in the tourism and hospitality sectors.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Tourism is one of the UK’s biggest employers, directly supporting 1.36 million jobs. British tourism is expected to employ 1.5 million people directly by 2020, and nearly 3 million in total if indirect employment is included.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does she appreciate that the British Hospitality Association estimates that 30,000 new beds will come on stream in the next two years, providing further employment, but that the current reality is that without our overseas nationals, our hotel and restaurant industry would probably collapse? A leading restaurant in Piccadilly employs people of 32 nationalities; a leading hotel on Park Lane employs people of 60 nationalities.
Parallel to that, we have a most serious youth unemployment situation in this country. Could not the Government therefore work in a creative way to try to build bridges between our hospitality industry and those who are unemployed, and to turn the negative attitude in this country to the industry and service industries generally?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
As my noble friend identified, the hospitality sector has long been reliant on migrant workers. Of course we value the skills that they bring, but we recognise that more needs to be done to attract and train people locally. Industry bodies such as People 1st and Springboard are working to improve the appeal of the industry and to demonstrate to young people the enormously wide range of job opportunities available to them.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I have a registered interest as a board member of VisitBritain. Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the great advantages of tourism is that it can bring economic development to parts of the country that other industries do not reach? There are great opportunities for British tourism over the next year to 18 months with the royal wedding, the Olympics and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but there are challenges too with rising oil prices. Will the noble Baroness ask the department to come back on the issue of visas for those coming from emerging markets? Many people from countries such as China find it very difficult to come to the United Kingdom because of the visa requirements. That one step alone would help to create even more jobs in tourism and give us an even better 18 months to two years.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the attractions of different parts of the country and the many big events that will happen around the UK, which we hope will bring an increase in tourism. On visas, there are figures to show that there has been a significant increase in the number of people from China applying for visas to come to this country, so the deterrent might not be as severe as the noble Baroness fears, but this is something that we keep under constant review.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Does the noble Baroness agree that it would help recruitment to the tourist industry if the Government made clear that they are taking a positive view of language teaching in British schools not merely for academic high-flyers but for all children?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness speaks to an issue that is after my own heart but which is slightly wide of the Question. Teaching languages and training people in this country to speak other languages is vital on all sorts of fronts. Hopefully, with the Olympics, there will be a boost because people who have trained in the hospitality sector will need to converse with all the visitors in their own language.
Lord Elton
My Lords, if we are to have more people in the tourist industry, we must generate more visitors. A great deal will depend on repeat business. Can my noble friend tell us who in government is responsible for surveying and maintaining visitor experience in this country, and could she ask him or her to pay attention to terminal 3 at Heathrow?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Without wishing to move to another department, I think terminal 3 is slightly outside the responsibility of DCMS, but my noble friend raises a very valid point on it. Many of the responsibilities for tourist attractions are at local and regional rather than national level, but DCMS keeps the whole tourist experience under constant review and looks at how we can attract tourists and encourage them to come back again.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
Does the Minister agree that the skills that are required in this industry are well catered for in the sector skills councils, in particular by People 1st, of which she has knowledge? Will she encourage government to ensure that apprenticeships are also made available within that industry?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness speaks with great experience of this area. Apprenticeships in the hospitality and tourism sector need to be encouraged. On the whole skills level, we hope that this sector, like others, will be given a terrific boost when the WorldSkills competition comes to London in October. We will be able to see the brightest and best of the UK competing against the best of the world. I encourage all noble Lords to go to the ExCeL centre in October to see how brilliant the skills of young people around the world can be.
Lord Tanlaw
Would the Minister not agree that north of the border the tourist industry would be greatly improved if daylight saving were in operation? Would it not help if time became a devolved subject so that the Scots could at least make their own decision on this, just as they do in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
A Bill on daylight saving is currently being scrutinised in the other place, so we probably need to await the outcome of that. It has been clear that there is no intention that time should be devolved between the four countries of the UK. We would like to see all four countries agreeing on the same time zone.
Baroness Billingham
As ever, the Minister has given us clear and concise answers and has answered many of the questions that I was going to put to her. I am sure she would agree that the people most at risk in our economy at the moment are young people between 18 and 25. Would she agree that the tourism industry is the one place where they could most easily be accommodated? What action are the Government taking to target more funds and resources on the tourism industry to stop a whole generation being denied their fair chance at employment in future?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government are making funding available to the tourism and hospitality sector. On encouraging young people, I mentioned the skills competition, but there are programmes, such as FutureChef, which appeal directly to young people to encourage them to come in. This is a two-way trade. Not only do the opportunities have to be there, but young people have to demonstrate commitment and interest in the jobs. The Government will do as much as they can to encourage the jobs and the young people to fit them.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
On daylight saving, is the Minister aware of the research by the Policy Studies Institute that shows that up to 80,000 jobs could be created in the UK tourist industry? Can she think of any other government decision that would cost no public money to help thousands of our young people back into work?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank my noble friend for that. Daylight saving is a timely issue. We have discussed it before, it is raised in the media and it is very much under discussion. However, it is currently under review in the other place, and I think we need to wait for the outcome of that Bill to see what happens following those discussions.
Banks: Mutual Ownership
Lord Borrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they envisage the sale of banks in which they have a stake being accompanied by the revival of mutual ownership.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, UKFI, which manages the Government’s investments and financial institutions is responsible for devising appropriate exit strategies. Its mandate requires it to act in a way that protects and creates value for money for the taxpayer and pays due regard to financial stability and competition considerations. It is currently exploring the options available for disposing of Northern Rock plc. All exit strategies will be considered, including remutualisation.
Lord Borrie
I am grateful to the Minister for his moderately helpful Answer, especially the reference to the activities of UKFI. Does he agree that traditionally and well deservedly mutuals have had a very high reputation among customers generally for satisfaction with their activities, that mutuals have engaged less than banks in speculative and risky activities, and that certainly they have provided a great deal of competition and diversification over the years? In this new set up today, when there will be some sales of existing state-owned parts of banks, will the Minister ensure that the mutuals get a great deal of understanding in this regard? Perhaps the Government could initiate a feasibility study through UKFI, which would be most helpful.
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, I think I can agree with the noble Lord. The important thing is the stability of our financial system. The Government are committed to fostering diversity in financial services, including, where appropriate, mutual ownership, and to creating a more competitive banking industry. That is why we have set up the Independent Commission on Banking: to recommend reforms to the banking system that meet those objectives, including promoting financial stability and consumer choice.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention that the shareholdings in question will be sold during the lifetime of this fixed-term Parliament? Will he also inform the House of the best estimate that the Office for Budget Responsibility has made of the proceeds of these sales?
Lord De Mauley
No timetable has been set. UKFI does not think that it is possible or desirable to set firm targets, such as time or proceeds, that would drive the Government’s sale of shares. When UKFI has a proposal, it will offer it.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that all building societies that transferred into plcs in the 1990s are now no more. People realised that there was strength in the mutual principle and framework. Will he go further and assure the House that UKFI will engage with the Building Societies Association to ensure not just that there is a war on words but that there is a proposal on the table to ensure that we will have competition and diversity in the marketplace in the future?
Lord De Mauley
I think I can perhaps go a little further in saying that the Government are implementing a number of legislative reforms that will allow financial mutuals greater flexibility to develop and expand, and so promote mutual ownership in financial services. These include such things as completing the passage through Parliament of the Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order, commencing the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010, and bringing Northern Ireland credit unions under FSA regulation. As I have said, the Independent Commission on Banking will also consider competition in the banking sector and make recommendations on this as part of its report.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware of the excellent report in 2006 by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Building Societies and Financial Mutuals that identified the beneficiaries of demutualisation as essentially the directors, who saw their remuneration go up. Among the biggest losers were those who live more to the financial margins, require basic bank accounts and are at risk of financial inclusion. Will he ask that when a future is considered for Northern Rock and others that this test of serving the financially excluded is part of the specification and that the work that mutuals do in this area is recognised?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I will certainly take my noble friend’s comments back to the department.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the noble Lord on a couple of occasions has referred to the Independent Commission on Banking. Will he confirm that in recent weeks there have been threats of resignation from the commission if its remit is in any way constrained?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am not fully aware of that and I will come back to the noble Lord on the matter.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major issues in this area is the lack of trust in the large banks? Does he accept that trust is much higher in organisations that retain a mutual element, such as the Nationwide Building Society or the John Lewis Partnership? Will he affirm that there is a need, whatever arrangements are being made, for real attention to be paid to the need for a restoration of trust within the sector, of which mutualisation might well be a very important part?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I absolutely take the right reverend Prelate’s point. It is very well made.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that mutual benefit societies of a wide variety are perhaps one of the earliest manifestations of the big society working, and that we will partly judge the Government’s views on the big society by the enthusiasm with which they pursue mutualisation in this area?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, what a highly helpful comment from the noble Lord. I will make sure that the Government are made aware of it.
Bribery Act 2010
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to bring the Bribery Act 2010 into force.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the implementation of the Bribery Act. We are urgently working on the guidance to commercial organisations to make it practical and useful for legitimate business and trade. After the guidance is published, there will be a three-month notice period before full implementation of the Act.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for making my thanks for that not very satisfactory Answer fairly perfunctory. The fact is that the Act should be in force by now. Does he not agree that those who have been campaigning so vociferously against the entry into force of the Act have done Britain’s industry no favours whatever by suggesting that it can export successfully only by the use of these dubious practices? Does he not also agree that suggestions that this piece of legislation was rushed through Parliament before the election are a travesty, considering that the matter was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny for a lengthy period in a committee of both Houses?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s last point: the legislation was subject to very careful scrutiny. Since coming to office, we have also subjected the Act to a wide range of consultations aimed at making sure that the Act, which passed both Houses with all-party support, was fully understood and could be implemented fully. I take the noble Lord’s point, as I think that the Government do, that any suggestion that British industry can only make advances in overseas trade by bribery does unjust damage to our reputation as a fair-trading nation.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I had the privilege of taking the Bill through this House. The Minister is quite right: it was received with widespread and vocal support from all sides of the House. That does not always happen with Ministry of Justice Bills. One criticism, however, was that legislation should have been put in place sooner, not as late as it was. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has reminded us, one year after the Bill became an Act of Parliament, we still do not know when it will be implemented. Does the Minister agree that this is totally unsatisfactory and that he needs to go back to his department and insist that the Bill be implemented as soon as possible?
Lord McNally
I hear what the noble Lord says. During the period we are talking about we have not been idle. My right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has met representatives of the CBI, the multinational chairmen’s group of the International Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and Transparency International. We are trying to make sure that this is understood and it is going to be implemented effectively. I certainly will take note of the comments made in this House today about the sense of urgency.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on boards of British companies that include American directors, British directors have long been embarrassed by the great enthusiasm with which their American colleagues cite the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, well ahead of anything we have had alongside it for a very long time? Despite what my noble friend has said, is it not the case that it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain the delay, and that that is doing increasing damage to the reputation of British industry and, indeed, to the reputation of the Lord Chancellor himself?
Lord McNally
My Lords, again I cannot help but draw attention to the fact that there is a sense of unity in the House on this. We are proceeding with all due speed on the matter. One thing that gives me encouragement, having sat in on a number of the meetings the Lord Chancellor has had with industry, is that industry itself seems to be quite capable of living with this Act. I take note of what my noble and learned friend has said, but I do not think that this is a matter of the reputation of the Lord Chancellor, although there is the question of implementation on which I hope these exchanges will be duly noted.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there is time for all these questions. Perhaps we can hear first from my noble friend and then from the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that bribery and corruption are hugely damaging to developing countries, not least to those in North Africa and the Middle East, and that that is a very important reason why the Government should not delay any further in bringing this Act into force?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Government are taking strong action on anti-corruption, including the recovery and freezing of corrupt assets in the areas the noble Lord has referred to, but the message is clear from this House that there is a matter of national reputation involved in any further delay. I duly take note of that.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, have any bribes, facilitations or other payments that might or could be bribes within the meaning of this Act been paid from public funds to Libyan officials over the course of the past few weeks? If so, at what level and by whom were those payments authorised?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, two of my noble friends wish to speak, but my noble friend Lord Campbell rose to his feet earlier on.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I am much obliged to my noble friend. This is not a long question. Is the noble Lord aware that nothing he has said justifies the conduct of the Government on this Bill—nothing at all?
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the great advantages of this House is that a Hansard report is made of interventions. I will ensure that the Hansard report of the exchanges that have come from all parts of the House are duly reported back to the relevant government departments.
Health: Cancer
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for improving outcomes for cancer patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we published Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer on 12 January, which sets out a range of actions to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Earlier diagnosis is crucial to improving outcomes, and we have set out plans to deliver this through improving GP access to diagnostic tests, supporting symptom awareness initiatives, and extending cancer screening programmes. We are also improving access to treatment and the quality of support for survivors.
Lord Patel
I thank the Minister for his Answer, which is very helpful because it prompts two questions. First, when does he think the procedures which he has put in place will succeed and cancer outcomes will improve, and in the mean time what is likely to happen to cancer outcomes? Secondly, could he also say what the state of radiotherapy treatment in England is?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the strategy we have laid out is an ambitious one. It aims to save an additional 5,000 lives every year by 2014-15. That programme is supported by over £750 million of additional money over the next four years. It sets out actions to prevent cancer incidence and to improve the quality and efficiency of cancer services and of patients’ experiences of care. We are giving ourselves a little time, but we are under no illusions, and this is an agenda to be pursued very energetically. We are putting considerable additional money—from memory, it is £150 million—into radiotherapy services, but we also feel that there is an important issue around the use of existing radiotherapy equipment, which is often not utilised as effectively as it could be.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the regional networks of specialist cancer services, established through the co-operation of clinicians themselves, have been instrumental in improving outcomes for patients? If so, how does he think that essentially collaborative model fits with the rigid and mandatory price competition that the Government now want to introduce into the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government are not introducing price competition, it has never been our intention to do so, and the Bill that will come before the House will make it absolutely and abundantly clear that price competition is out of range. As regards the cancer networks, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Over the past 10 years, these have played a crucial role in improving the quality of cancer treatment and the patient experience of care. The outcomes strategy that we have published explicitly states that next year there will be funding for cancer networks to support commissioning.
Lord Alderdice
My noble friend introduced the question of diagnosis, which is increasingly a multi-professional matter, involving pathologists, surgeons, radiologists and so on. This seems self-evidently a good thing. However, is the department accumulating evidence to show that it is actually improving the outcomes? It is of course an expensive procedure to involve so many senior professionals together.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is quite right. It does involve often a number of senior clinicians. The key to diagnosis, however, is to get in early, as I am sure he would recognise. The outcomes strategy commits us to saving the additional 5,000 lives very largely through additional identification of early cancer. In fact, 3,000 of the 5,000 lives that we are hoping to save will be saved, we hope, by earlier diagnosis. A good example of that is that over 90 per cent of bowel cancer patients diagnosed with the earliest stage of the disease survive five years from diagnosis, compared to only 6.6 per cent of those diagnosed with the advanced disease.
Lord Walton of Detchant
Would the noble Earl accept that this country has had a very proud record in carrying out clinical trials, not least in the field of cancer; and that since the passage of the European directive on clinical trials, the problem of getting ethical approval for multi-centred trials—in a variety of different centres—has become immense? Is he aware of the recent report of the Academy of Medical Sciences, from a committee chaired by Sir Michael Rawlins, which has made a number of crucial recommendations? If accepted by the Government, those would make the performance of these trials very much easier.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am indeed aware of that excellent report. It is being studied with care in my department. We hope to make an announcement reasonably soon in response to it. It contains some extremely important recommendations which, if implemented, should do a great deal to restore the country's position as a destination of choice for clinical trials.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there has been no question from the Conservative Benches so perhaps on this occasion we can hear from my noble friend.
Lord Mawhinney
My noble friend, in his original Answer, talked about the importance of early diagnosis. Is he not concerned at the cascade of cases reported in the media of GPs sending patients home with flu symptoms and indigestion and not detecting the cancer until it is too late? What does my noble friend intend to do to improve GP training to assist the earlier diagnosis on which he rightly lays so much emphasis?
Earl Howe
My Lords, of course those reports are a matter for concern, which is why we are clear that GP consortia should be supported as much as possible in terms of commissioning guidelines and information. One of the tasks of the NHS commissioning board will be to provide that support and information based on quality standards produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Armed Forces: Redundancy
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Private Dean Hutchinson of 9 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps and Private Robert Wood of 17 Port and Maritime Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps who were killed on operations in Afghanistan recently. My thoughts are also with the wounded, and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
With the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows.
“On 19 October last year, in the strategic defence and security review, the Government announced reductions in the size of the Armed Forces—reducing the Army by 7,000, the Royal Air Force by 5,000 and the Royal Navy by 5,000. This was to reshape the Armed Forces for Future Force 2020 and also to respond to the budgetary pressures resulting from the need to reduce the inherited deficit and deal with the black hole in the MoD’s finances.
Following the announcement, normal procedure for proceeding with the redundancies was followed. Let me briefly describe this. The Armed Forces modelled the manpower they needed for Future Force 2020 and consulted their own people on the best methods and timescales for achieving this. The families federations have been kept informed. Following yesterday’s announcement of the RAF programme, the Army and Navy will follow on 4 April with their programmes. The Army and RAF will give individuals notice that they will be made redundant on 1 September, followed by the Navy on 30 September. The exact timing of further tranches has not yet been decided.
Afghanistan is the Government’s main defence effort. Decisions in the SDSR were therefore weighted towards the protection of capability for the mission in Afghanistan which, as the Prime Minister said, will see a transition to full Afghan lead in 2014.
Redundancy is never a painless process, whether in the Armed Forces or elsewhere, and it is sad to see committed and patriotic men and women lose their jobs. But in that process it is essential that they are made fully aware of the options available and the timescales involved. That means a timetable needs to be adhered to for the sake of themselves and their families.
It would simply be wrong to alter that timetable for the convenience of the Government. Personnel were expecting the announcement this week. To delay for political expediency would have been to betray their trust. Difficult though it may be, in this Government, political convenience will not be the final arbiter of our decisions”.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I join the Minister in offering condolences to the families and friends of Private Dean Hutchinson and Private Robert Wood. It is right that the Minister draws attention to the wounded, some of whom will carry the price of their bravery for the rest of their lives.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s response in another place as a Statement in this House and I thank him for giving me an early view of the Statement. This Statement, together with the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday, is about cuts in manpower and how they are to be achieved. It is extremely precise: it talks of 344 pilots who will continue training, another 170 who will not and so on. Sadly, we learn that even more precise details were supplied to the press yesterday at a conference at 2 pm—which was before this House received details, before we had details in the Written Ministerial Statement and before the details that came out today in the other place. Can the Minister tell me whether in fact such a detailed briefing did take place yesterday at the Ministry of Defence? I am sure that it did. I will not comment on whether that is a good thing—the House must comment on that. However, I am sure that Members of the House would wish that details had come here or to the other place first.
The Statement has to be taken together with yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement. The essence of the two documents is that there is some detailed grand plan of what we are trying to achieve. It refers to Future Force 2020 and the SDSR as the basis for this. It speaks with such precision that you would think there was a precise description of where we are trying to get to with this grand plan. I can only assume that, within the Ministry of Defence, there is a clear view of what the force strength will be in 2015 and what the force strength will be in 2020. I can assure the Minister there are no figures in the SDSR to enlighten us and there are no figures I know of in the public domain. The Royal Air Force and the fast jets in particular are in the top of our minds and the Statement is principally about redundancies in the Royal Air Force. Can he give us some statement or indication of what front-line force these manpower adjustments are designed to yield in 2015 and what front-line force we are looking for in 2020? Can he also assure us that this Government, if elected, will provide funding from 2015 to 2020 to deliver the so far undefined Future Force 2020 promise?
I am sorry that these days one has to read the press to keep up to speed with the Government’s thinking on defence. In today’s Times, it is suggested that a further £1 billion of cuts will be needed between now and April. Is that true? Is it likely that he will be coming back to the House to tell us about more cuts, and will those cuts involve additional manpower losses or additional losses of capability?
I turn to what may be one of the most crucial elements of this Statement on redundancies: what I call the Afghanistan promise, which was made in the other place by Dr Fox on 8 November 2010. He said:
“It would not be possible for the Government to say that no one who had ever served in Afghanistan in any way, shape or form since 2001 would not be made redundant”.
At the end of the day, one accepts that there has to be a little more flexibility than something as extreme as that. But he went on to say:
“I reiterate what I have said: that because we need to maintain the Afghan rotation, no one currently serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will face compulsory redundancy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/10; col. 13.]
Can the Minister confirm that anybody serving in Afghanistan on 8 November 2010 will not be made redundant under this? I believe that would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that promise. Unfortunately, yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement was much softer. It said it would be those who had “recently” served in Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm that “recently” means 8 November 2010 and if not, and he is actually resiling on the promise made on that date, can he define what “recently” now means?
What of those who are made redundant? The Written Ministerial Statement, at the bottom of page 2, starts to talk about what we will do for them. It starts off with good words about how we have a duty to these people and about how they have served us bravely, and now that they are made redundant they must face a future. It ends up by saying:
“A comprehensive package of support and advice on housing, finance and finding a job will be made available”.
That is starting to sound like something tangible. But it goes on to say:
“Over the coming months, Ministers will scrutinise those plans in detail, working closely with domestic departments, to ensure they are as good as can be achieved”—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. WS 108.]
What does,
“as good as can be achieved”,
mean?
Surely, this is the moment to meet a promise that I thought I heard the Prime Minister make, to put the military covenant in law so that these assurances are tangible and can be delivered. The Minister has an opportunity, when he brings the forthcoming Bill to this House, to bring forward proposals to give a real, tangible base to the military covenant and I encourage him to do that. Will the Minister give us clarity on what sort of forces we are planning for, will he give us clarity on the Afghanistan promise and will he give us clarity on the military covenant? If he cannot, how does he expect to maintain the morale of our brave men and women?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, this is no new announcement. The department briefed the press at 2 o’clock yesterday but those being briefed were not allowed to leave the building until the WMS was laid. That is exactly what happened when the noble Lord’s party was in power; nothing has changed. We have gone out of our way to keep both Houses informed and will continue to do so. In the Oral Statement on the SDSR in October, the Prime Minister announced that the MoD would reduce the Armed Forces by 17,000 and that this would necessitate redundancies. That has been discussed in this House, including in an Urgent Question two weeks ago.
Yesterday, the Defence Secretary updated the other place, as I did here in a WMS, on the dates on which the various areas of the Armed Forces will look for redundancies. The RAF published its details yesterday; the Army and Navy will do so in April. Decisions on specific individuals will not be made until September. I must make it clear that we are not hiding anything and, as I have said before, I am always happy to organise briefings for any noble Lords in the MoD.
The noble Lord asked me about 2020. We have a clear view. As stated in the SDSR, the Future Force is structured to give us the ability to deploy highly capable assets quickly when needed but also to prepare a greater scale and range of capabilities if required. The aim is to do so affordably and in a way that minimises demands on our people, with five central concepts: readiness, reconstitution, reinforcement, regeneration and dependency. This flexible approach will allow us more effectively to counter the threats that we are most likely to face while maintaining the ability to respond to different threats in future.
The noble Lord asked me about further cuts. I can confirm to him that there is still a lot of work to be done on this; we are having a lot of discussions in the department, and I assure the noble Lord that the House will be the first to hear.
The noble Lord asked me about Afghan redundancies. Those engaged in combat operations for which they are in receipt of operational allowance, within six months of deploying on or recovering from those operations, on the day when the redundancy notices are issued will not be made redundant unless they are volunteers for it. I hope that that makes it clear.
The final question was what will happen when a serviceman or servicewoman is made redundant. All personnel will be entitled to receive support to transition to civilian life. Personnel leaving under the redundancy programme will qualify for the level of resettlement support for which they would have been eligible had they completed the commission or engagement on which they were serving when made redundant. We expect most if not all personnel to qualify for the full resettlement programme and the comprehensive services offered by the career transition partnership—the arrangement between the MoD and Right Management Limited. The package includes training courses, job-finding and individual counselling, CV and job interview preparation, analysis of transferable competences, conversion and skills enhancement training and information services. Under this package, job-finding support is available for up to two years after leaving the military.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I remind the House of the benefits of short questions, rather than speeches, so that we can get in as many noble Lords as possible.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I associate myself with the remark that the Minister has made concerning those who have given their lives or been injured in the defence of our country. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.
The National Security Council was supposed to be at the heart of our defence strategic planning. On Monday the Government confirmed that they wanted to see a no-fly zone established over Libya, but on Tuesday they confirmed that 11,000 of our service personnel were to be made redundant. If this is the quality of our strategic planning, would it not be better to keep the troops and sack the National Security Council?
Lord Astor of Hever
Absolutely not, my Lords. We are reshaping our Royal Air Force to be configured for Future Force 2020. It makes sense that we reduce the number of pilots only if we are reducing the number of planes. On the question of a no-fly zone in Libya, no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, will the Minister confirm what I have heard at the coalface among soldiers, sailors and airmen—that the redundancy terms for this round may be significantly meaner than those that were available in the early 1990s when we had another large redundancy programme? If that is the case, why?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is not necessarily meaner than last time. A full plan is in place for the military redundancy programme with full information available to all service personnel to make decisions for themselves and their families as soon as possible. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that the process and the practical application of this is both fair and understandable, and we are putting great effort into ensuring that it is communicated appropriately to all members of the Armed Forces.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the Minister’s condolences. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Army Chaplains Department, whose ministry is so appreciated by the bereaved and injured, and, indeed, to the chaplains of all our services.
I declare an interest as a former pupil of the Duke of York’s Royal Military School, which still serves the needs of children of people serving in the Armed Forces. Will the Minister assure us that the children’s places of those who have been made redundant will be safe at that school and that the educational arrangements that have been made for other children of those made redundant will be honoured by the Government?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. I agree with everything that he says about the Royal Army Chaplains Department. I was in Afghanistan last week and had the great honour to talk to a couple of those chaplains. They are doing very great work. I cannot give the right reverend Prelate an answer here and now on the specific case of the children about whom he asked, but I will write to him and deposit a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Will my noble friend clarify the position with regard to those servicemen and servicewomen who have been injured?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, every case of wounded, injured or sick personnel will be assessed individually. No one will leave the Armed Forces through redundancy or otherwise until they have reached a point in their recovery where that is the right decision, however long it takes.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Urgent Question. This is a very significant reduction for the Royal Air Force. Is this the end of the reductions, or are there more to come? It is very important for the service to know exactly where it is.
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. As I said in my earlier answer, there is still ongoing work in my department on this issue and the House will be the first to hear about it. I very much hope that there will be no further cuts.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the whole House holds the Minister in very high regard. We are all grateful for the attempts he makes to keep this House informed in what I am sure must be for him, as well as for many of us, very painful circumstances. However, these redundancies are not only very unfortunate but utterly short-sighted and irresponsible. The nation will rue the day when we lose those skills. In repeating the Statement, the Minister has increased the confusion about the nature of the guarantees that are being given by the Government to those who are serving in Afghanistan or who are on leave after operations there. How many more soldiers, sailors and airmen would have been covered by the guarantee had it been dated from 8 November than will be covered, given that the guarantee now runs only from the date of issue of the redundancy notices? If the Minister does not know the answer off the cuff—obviously, I forgive him if he does not—will he be kind enough to write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House?
Lord Astor of Hever
I thank the noble Lord for that question. These are very painful cuts. When I became a Minister I did not look forward to making lots of cuts. It is a very difficult situation in which I find myself but we inherited this black hole and we have to act.
Lord Astor of Hever
We did. The noble Lord asked how many people were affected. I cannot give him a figure at the Dispatch Box but I will write to him and deposit a copy of the letter in the Library.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked about the Royal Air Force. There will be cuts to two Tornado squadrons. This week’s announcement to remove two squadrons of Tornados implements a decision taken by the previous Government during planning round 10.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the earlier tribute. What effect does my noble friend think that all this uncertainty and these redundancies will have on recruitment over the next 12 months?
Lord Astor of Hever
My noble friend asks about recruitment, and I have an answer somewhere. The Armed Forces depend upon high-quality young men and women who want to join them for a rewarding and exciting career. The level of recruitment will be reduced during the redundancy period to suit new structures, but recruiting will continue.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, these painful redundancies are an outcome of the strategic defence and security review, which, as the Minister said, was aimed at delivering Future Force 2020. Can he confirm that that Future Force, as planned, will be achievable only with specific real-term growth in the defence budget in the second half of this decade? What assumptions are his department making about the financial planning levels for those years?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that that is the case. As he will remember, during the SDSR the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that 2020 will be achievable only if we get more money.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden
My Lords, will my noble friend clear up an additional matter about redundancy? The Statement says:
“The Army and RAF will give individuals notice that they will be made redundant on 1 September followed by the Navy on 30 September. The exact timing of further tranches has not yet been decided”.
Does this mean that in the Army and Navy, after 1 September and 30 September respectively, there will remain people who do not know whether the threat of redundancy will materialise for them? If it does not mean that, will he kindly say what it does mean?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it depends on who comes forward for voluntary redundancy. At this stage, it is too early to be able to answer that question.
Earl Ferrers
My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to revisit the answer he gave to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce? His question, as I understood it, was: will the redundancy payments that are being offered to these people be meaner than those offered to people made redundant previously? I do not think that my noble friend answered that.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is a question of how one defines “meaner”. As I tried to say in my answer, we in the department think that these are fair amounts.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, the impression abroad is that the delay in arriving at a good and proper military covenant is that the MoD and the Government wish to get this lot out of the way, as has been discussed in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. Is it not a fact that great stress was placed in our debates in the past few weeks on the immediate need to bring forward a new military covenant that would not only set the scene for redundancies and everything else that we have been talking about, but would assume complete responsibility from the day that someone joins the services until he dies? It was made clear in several speeches that it was the responsibility of the Government to look after those who are being made redundant or who leave the services for any other reason. I say that because more and more evidence is appearing of soldiers, sailors and airmen slipping through the system, over the net and through the net, and now begging on the streets of Manchester, Birmingham and London. When will the military covenant be brought forward, so that we will know what the total responsibilities of this Government to soldiers, sailors and airmen are?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Viscount said that we give the appearance of wanting to get this lot out of the way. That is not the case. As the noble Viscount knows, we value all members of the Armed Forces. I understand that several service men and women will come forward for voluntary redundancy. The noble Viscount mentioned people slipping through the net. If he knows of any such cases, I would be very grateful if he could bring them to my attention.
As far as the military covenant is concerned, we are writing into law, through the Armed Forces Bill, the commitment that the Secretary of State for Defence will lay before Parliament every year a report on what is being done to live up to the covenant. We are committed to rebuilding the covenant to improve support for service personnel. We are doing everything we can to provide them with the right support, focused on the most important areas, despite the financial situation we inherited. We will soon publish a new tri-service Armed Forces covenant—the first of its kind. This will set out the relationship and obligations between the Armed Forces community, the Government and the nation. The report will also set out how we are supporting our Armed Forces, their veterans and families in such key areas as healthcare, housing and education. This will ensure that all future Governments must stand up for the Armed Forces.
Lord Laming
Could we return to the terms of redundancy? I am somewhat confused about the meaning of “meanness”, compared with the meaning of “fairness”. An earlier question was asked about meanness and the noble Lord described the terms as being fair. The question is: fair to whom? I simply ask whether the terms of redundancy are the same as before—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, referred to them—or different.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot add anything to my earlier answer. We have looked very carefully at this whole issue and we consider that these amounts are fair.
Lord Richard
I am sorry to go on about this issue but when it comes to fairness and meanness, surely there is one way of answering the question. Will they get less this time, given the change in the value of money, than they got last time? If they will, prima facie it is meaner.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot add anything to my earlier answer. We in the department consider that these amounts are fair and generous to our Armed Forces.
Lord Soley
With respect, that is not really satisfactory. Could the Minister, who is very thoughtful on these matters, give the matter some thought and maybe put it in writing in a letter to the House? That would enable us to make a comparison. The point that has been brought up by the noble and gallant Lord is a very fair and important one. To have the rumour running around that this is meaner but fairer, or something of that nature, just plays into a demoralisation argument. Please do not go there.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord and the noble and gallant Lord raise a very important point. I am happy to put this in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I will certainly deposit copies of those letters in the Library to clarify this issue.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, given the perennial difficulty of deciding whether fair is better than very fair or vice versa, I have the gravest possible sympathy for my noble friend.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that. This is a very difficult issue. We have struggled with it for a long time and I can assure noble Lords that we are doing our very best.
Energy Bill [HL]
“Purpose of this Part
(1) The principal purpose of this Part is to deliver energy savings from the domestic building stock, which will make commensurate contributions to—
(a) the achievement of the target contained in section 1(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (the target for 2050) and the carbon budget set for each budgetary period under Part 1 of that Act (carbon target and budgeting); and(b) the elimination of fuel poverty by the target date required by section 2(2)(d) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 (strategy relating to fuel poverty).(2) In performing functions, exercising powers and reviewing the effectiveness of the green deal under this Part, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the principal purpose set out in subsection (1); and(b) the recommendations from time to time of the Committee on Climate Change where these are adopted by the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I apologise for the slight delay in getting to my feet. I need some assistance from my colleagues, as the noble Lord will know.
These amendments are very similar to those that we brought forward in Committee, but we have taken into account the comments and concerns that the Minister expressed on that occasion. The amendments before us today seek two things. The first is the provision of an annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State on how the ECO and the Green Deal are fairing. Secondly, they establish the purpose of both these new clauses in the Bill in terms of the Government’s objectives as stated in previous legislation.
In Committee, the Minister was understandably concerned about not imposing a new duty on installers or providers to take account of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. That is not unreasonable, and we took it into account before putting the amendments before your Lordships today. Therefore, these amendments have been slimmed down. They would impose no new duties on the Government other than to provide an annual report—something to which I know the Minister is sympathetic—on the goals and aims, as stated in the impact assessment on the Bill, for carbon reduction and fairness. It is a way of putting the Bill into the context of government policy.
A report by the Secretary of State to Parliament on the operation of the Green Deal would be extremely helpful. Indeed, when dealing with a point raised by noble Lords in Committee, the Minister said:
“The scheme needs to be road-tested to ensure that it works and we must keep a watchful eye on it. Getting these things precisely ordered is a very good thing for the Bill”.—[Official Report, 17/1/11; col. GC 17.]
He will know of the criticisms that were made just yesterday of the Minister in the other place, Greg Barker, when he spoke at the Ecobuild conference in London. Concerns were raised by the UK Green Building Council, and the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said that there was not enough certainty or incentives for the industry, and that, although they supported the Government’s package of measures as being incredibly ambitious, they were concerned that it would not achieve the objectives. Like the Government, we want this Bill to achieve the objectives that have been set. They are ambitious, and some amendments have been tabled to help the Minister to achieve those objectives, to which we know he is committed.
Probably the most helpful parts of the amendments before us today relate to the annual report. The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to come back to Parliament, having looked at how the Green Deal is fairing. In the light of the commitments that the Minister made in Committee, there will be an opportunity for the Green Deal to be tweaked or changed and to see whether more can be done to create incentives. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support the amendment. The Minister will undoubtedly have been advised by officials and the Cabinet Office that it is not normal to put purpose clauses into Bills. However, that has always been nonsense. It is particularly important that we set out clearly in Parliament the purpose of these measures.
I commend the Government on developing the plans for the Green Deal, but undoubtedly not all the details have yet been thought through. Some will be thought through before the scheme is launched, some will appear in codes, some will appear in regulations and some will have to be dealt with in subsequent practice once we see whether the market is mobilised as effectively as the Government wish. However, the purpose will not change. With any changes down the line that the Government find it necessary to make, it is particularly important that we go back to the purpose of the Bill. That purpose is, in effect, twofold: to save energy and therefore carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, and to reduce the incidence of fuel poverty. Both those need to be addressed and set out in something like a purpose clause with a requirement to report back.
As for fuel poverty, I speak as one of the two Ministers who drew up the original guidelines. My noble friend Lady Liddell was the other Minister who signed the original Act to set up targets for fuel poverty, and it is not an easy subject, but it is important that the Government and Parliament set out the objectives. The contribution towards the elimination of fuel poverty is clearly one such objective. That will not solve the problem, as other measures also need to be taken, but it is a contribution and any subsequent change down the line needs to be seen against it, particularly in relation to the Green Deal.
On the face of it, it is not clear how the basic principles of the Green Deal apply to the fuel poor, particularly those who are in tenanted accommodation, whether with social landlords or private landlords, because the best way of delivering that dimension of the Green Deal may be in a deal with the landlord, albeit that the tenant normally pays the bill. Some complicated arrangements will have to be made. That is not yet in the Bill and I do not expect it to be, but reference back to the objectives and obligations to report annually would help us to keep the objectives of this provision clear. I hope that the Government will adopt something like these clauses in the final version of the Bill, either today or in subsequent proceedings in another place.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, and if the Minister had risen quickly enough to keep the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his seat, I probably would not have intervened at all.
Although repetition is a good thing, we must bear in mind that the stated purposes have already been written into legislation and are already so ingrained in all our thinking habits that, frankly, to put them at the beginning of this Bill adds nothing. One problem with the amendment is that it requires “commensurate contributions” from two very diverse and very different things that will depend on a great deal of voluntary action by large numbers of people or groups, societies, local authorities, housing associations and so on. To me, the word “commensurate” makes this, worthy though it is, in effect meaningless because there are too many outside factors that mean that commensurate action will probably be only accidental because it depends on so many people, either tenants, landlords or the other categories of people whom I have already mentioned, volunteering to take part. It also depends on a lot of other factors, the primary one being the absolute certainty that the energy savings they will achieve, and the value of them, will be greater than the costs that they have to bear. Such arguments were expressed in Committee because of the uncertainty about what might happen with interest rates in the future.
The second point is that, even if we put this into place, the far more potent effect in reducing emissions from domestic households will be the work that will have to be done on the supply side of the energy industry to decarbonise the electricity supply. It is far more important to pay attention to that sort of aspect, where the effect can be far greater on a residential level, than this aspect, which will have a beneficial effect—there is no denying that—but not a huge effect because the amount of energy and the cost saved will be nowhere near the cost of making the domestic sector CO2-emissions free. In my view, the effect of the 2050 target implies that by 2050 the whole domestic sector has to be carbon-emission free. We need to focus much more on that effect and take this as it is now. It will be a benefit, of course, but it will be only a small benefit. I do not think that we should complicate the matter, and still less should we try to take actions that depend on the actions of others—that are commensurate—because we simply cannot control the situation with that degree of accuracy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and want to tell everyone that I am on my best behaviour because my boss is watching, so I will not say anything too controversial or concede too much.
It is a great opportunity for me to thank all noble Lords for the time and effort that they put into Committee to identify issues and work together to make this a much more valuable Bill. That is the expertise of the House. We can contribute, and we have done magnificently. We have given the Bill a thorough road test with great cross-party agreement, and I pay my personal thanks to those on the Opposition Benches for all the work that they have done—through very difficult physical circumstances in the noble Baroness’s case. I am delighted to see her able to get to her feet. She can always have assistance from our side, particularly when going into the right Lobby.
We have sought where possible to accommodate suggestions, but some cannot be achieved within the timeframe available on Report. However, we will endeavour to do so by Third Reading, and then further changes will be made in the other place. Of course, some amendments would not provide the functionality that is required, and even though we have listened very hard to them, unsurprisingly we will not accept them. I hope noble Lords will take that into account when they make their contributions. We have listened and we have all ridden together to make this a constructive document, and again I thank everyone for their support. I do not believe that it is necessary to set statutory powers, as referred to in Amendments 102 and 121, but I agree that there should be an aim for our energy efficiency policies. We will come back with proposals on that for consideration in the other place, which I hope will satisfy the noble Baroness. We cannot achieve that now, but we will be looking to achieve it as we go forward.
I am grateful for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I was pleased to see that he had a playful smile when he referred to fuel poverty, which is fundamental to what we are trying to achieve. Fuel poverty has increased exponentially and we must put the brakes on that. Much of what we are trying to do with the Green Deal addresses that. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith rightly points, as he often does, to the issue of whether we should have continuing annual reports, and so on. Clearly the Government are committed to openness and transparency, and we have an annual report on progress towards our energy efficiency goals. We will consider the operation and performance of our energy efficiency policies, not least the Green Deal and the ECO, which will prominently feature in our reports published under the department’s annual energy statements. Such documents will provide all the information required on the activity of the department, including the Green Deal and ECOs. I hope that that reassurance will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has engaged with the Opposition during the Bill’s proceedings. He says that he will take things away and look at them again, which has been a theme throughout the Bill. All the amendments today are within that spirit of co-operation. I feel strongly about them, so I shall press the Minister for clarification. I think that what he is saying might satisfy our requirements, but we will test the will of the House unless I am clear about that.
There are two issues here. One is the annual report on ECOs and the Green Deal; the other is the purpose. Does the Minister intend to bring forward a purpose or aim clause which will specify what the Bill is to achieve in the context of government policy on emissions and other legislation? Will an annual report from the department include information about the Green Deal, such as how many homes have had Green Deal measures installed and what the emissions savings have been? If so, he has gone a long way to meet our concerns. If he is saying that those measures will be brought back either at Third Reading here or in the Commons, I will happily withdraw the amendment, but some clarification would be helpful.
Lord Marland
Forgive me; I thought that I was quite clear on the subject. The department’s annual energy statement will provide details of the progress of the Green Deal and ECOs, which will answer the noble Baroness’s question. Obviously, in providing information about the Green Deal, it will provide information on the amount of activity that we are able to create with it. We are committed to that.
As for the aims, I state clearly that we will look at them, refine them and come back with proposals in the other place, if we can in the timescale available for further debate. It should be very encouraging for the noble Baroness that that will carry on through the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that the noble Lord realises the effort it takes me to get my feet, but I will continue to do so throughout the evening. I am very grateful for that explanation; on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
This is a very small amendment aimed at clarifying the position of liquid petroleum gas under the Green Deal plans. Calor Gas, in particular, is anxious to have that clarification, and I am very grateful to it for briefing me on the amendment. Calor is very keen to involve itself in all ways which make its product as green—that is, as efficient—as possible; in particular, in the use of liquid petroleum gas in microgeneration boilers.
I understand that approximately 43 per cent of British homes are currently classified as hard-to-treat for greater efficiency purposes for a number of reasons, such as not having cavity walls or not being on the gas grid. A reasonable proportion of those homes appear to be unlikely to qualify for the Green Deal, either because they have little potential for improvement or because their heating bills are too high for the measures to have a positive financial impact. That could affect the position of those living in rural areas, where fuel poverty tends to be concentrated. Liquid petroleum gas systems, which are off the gas grid in hard-to-treat homes, may be the answer, offering the potential to reduce domestic fuel bills by up to 25 per cent, together with improved efficiency and lower carbon emissions. Does liquid petroleum gas qualify for the Green Deal? I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I commend this point to the Minister on behalf of people who live in rural areas. I hope that he will be able to say to us that it is perfectly all right, but the fact is that many people in my former constituency and constituencies like it rely on liquid petroleum gas. It would be a great pity if they could not improve their circumstances. It is an important part of our programme and it would be a pity if, by some oversight, it was left out.
Lord Teverson
I, too, speak as a rural resident. There is a point to be made about LPG. Some of us find LPG difficult and have to survive on gas oil instead; that comes into the same category of fuels. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I have some sympathy with the objectives of this amendment, but what strikes me as a problem is the structure of the Green Deal, which requires suppliers of energy to recover the debt that will have been advanced for the improvement of the house and transmit it to the providers. If one is talking about gas, electricity, and, I think, fuel oil, that would not be difficult, but in relation to LPG, a great deal of which, particularly in rural areas, is delivered to individual householders in individual canisters that have to be replaced from time to time, this fits rather uneasily into the main structure of the Green Deal. If this amendment is to be accepted, it will be incumbent on my noble friend on the Front Bench when she replies to explain how the debt would be recovered in relation to supplies of gas in canisters. It is not quite the same as gas and electricity supplied through the mains. It may well be that when she winds up the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, will be able to explain what Calor Gas has in mind.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue and I also thank other noble Lords for contributing. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, seeks to include in the Green Deal measures that save liquid petroleum gas. As she and my noble friend Lord Deben indicated, this goes to the deeper question of how we tackle properties that are not connected to the main gas supply and ensure that the Green Deal is as inclusive as possible. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is our intention that the Green Deal is flexible enough to allow appropriate measures to be installed in the maximum number of properties. I assure her that the provisions in the Bill are already wide enough to allow this. This may also reassure my noble friend Lord Teverson. We are even now working with stakeholders to ensure that this can include measures that save energy in buildings that are not on the main gas network. In these discussions, some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Jenkin has raised will no doubt have to be addressed. I hope that the noble Baroness found my explanation reassuring and that on that basis she will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say that these issues will have to be addressed, but are we not entitled at this stage to know what might be in the Government’s mind as regards people buying cylinders of gas from ordinary retailers, as is often the case? If there are powers in the Bill that cover this, that is fine. I would be happy to accept that, but one needs to know how this is going to fit into the main structure of the Green Deal.
Baroness Northover
I am assured that there are indeed provisions in the Bill that will cover this. It may very well be that my noble friend Lord Marland would like to explain them in greater detail to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, to assure him that all is as it should be.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
I think I will leave the noble friends to talk to each other. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the points he raised, and I thank the Minister for her response. I will refer the debate back to Calor Gas, which is very interested in the replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends on the Front Bench. I also look forward to the contribution that my noble friend Lord Whitty will make to the debate on his amendment in this group.
As the Minister is all too well aware, we raised these issues in Committee. In particular, we raised them against a background of concern that we should be clear about what is in legislation and what will be enforceable in circumstances where such an important concept as the Green Deal is to be communicated to the nation. The expectation is to make as rapid progress as we can for all the objectives, which noble Lords share, in terms of achieving carbon emission targets and improvements in the fuel efficiency of households. That will be a massive exercise. Therefore, what is being constructed in the scheme needs to be absolutely clear in legislation. That is why we have tabled amendments seeking to make an obligation on the Government under this clause and subsequent clauses relating to this area. The concern is obvious.
However, I should first put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who in Committee assisted us by indicating that we had used somewhat archaic phraseology when we introduced the concept of “shall” and that if we want to hit this objective we should insist on “must”. The House will be pleased to note that our amendments are perfectly constructed to be entirely acceptable to parliamentary draftsmen and the language that they are wont to use in legislation.
We are concerned to ensure that the legislation lays clear obligations and not elements of discretion on the Minister—not that we have anything but total trust in this Minister and the person, who I imagine is from the Commons, to whom he referred as his boss. I understand that relationships in the coalition may be defined in all sorts of interesting ways, which is a dimension I suppose I am obliged to accept. I take it that the Minister recognises that, whatever assurances he gives, we are discussing here not the intent or good will of Ministers, which we take for granted and of which we had great evidence from this Minister and his colleague in the conduct of the debate in Committee. However, the intention and good will of Ministers is as nothing to the import of statute and the law of the land. That is why, despite the fact that we received from the Minister a constructive response in Committee, following which we of course withdrew our amendments for further reflection, we are still of the view that this clause will be improved if we substitute “must” for “may” on the part of the Government in order that the country can be entirely secure about what the legislation constructs and so that it is not open to determination or discretion at subsequent dates.
This is an issue on which the country has to be involved. This is so much a question of participants among so many people with regard to the delivery of the Green Deal that it behoves Parliament to be absolutely clear in the Bill, which will eventually, with the good will of us all, become an Act. The Act must be absolutely clear about the way in which the legislation intends to work. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my Amendment 6 in this group provides the Minister with an option. I agree with my noble friend that in many respects what goes in the Act, and therefore in the regulations, would benefit from the Bill stating “must” rather than “may”, but my proposal would leave discretion to Ministers because of what I spoke about in the first group of amendments today. We are in a situation where the Green Deal is being developed fast and furiously but without total clarity as to how it is to be structured and how different groups or different types of building can benefit from the terms of the Green Deal.
My amendment therefore gives the Secretary of State the option to put into those regulations, or codes, provisions that address the particular circumstances of particular groups. If, as I suspect, the fuel poor, in particular the tenanted fuel poor, will be difficult to deal with on the same basis as the bulk of the Green Deal arrangements, the Government will need some special regulations to address the problem, and to deal in particular with the relationships of the landlord and the tenant, who actually pays the energy bill.
For example, as we have just debated in considering my noble friend Lady Gibson’s amendment, in rural areas there will be a lot of houses off the gas network that rely on either Calor gas or heating oil. For those people, there will be no attraction in the central mechanism of the Green Deal, as was rightly spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others who reflected on that. In some areas, such as the south-west of England, over 50 per cent of people are off the gas network. A larger number of people have houses which are difficult to heat because of structural reasons and which, again, will require a larger investment than is easily repayable through the normal level of energy bills.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government recognise that they may need to make some special provision for chronic fuel poverty, chronic hard-to-heat or locational difficulties, which make the normal run of Green Deal structures and Green Deal arrangements, and the financial arrangements that lie behind it, not applicable. There is no reason why the householders in that situation should not benefit from something akin to the Green Deal. The power would, as I say, be discretionary, so I hope that the Government will recognise the necessity of having such a power, which would give them a little bit of elbow room down the line. They could either adopt my amendment today or promise to come up with something similar in subsequent parliamentary proceedings on the Bill. I think that they will find they will need it.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I hope the Minister will notice that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that very interesting speech, gives the key to why “may” is better than “must”. It is simply that this is supposed to be a Bill that Ministers can apply most effectively to the particular circumstances. In many ways one of the reasons the Bill has had common support is that it is a brave Bill; it is an attempt to make a big change and to make a big change in partnership. It seems to me that to have “must” without any prioritisation or the like is a very difficult thing to have. You have to decide at any given time which provisions you are going to go for. Somebody could come back to you and say, “Well, you may have provided the first, second, fourth and seventh sets of regulations, but you have not provided the third”. You have not done so because until those regulations go into operation you cannot do the other things. There is a question of practicality that makes “may” much more sensible, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised his particular proposal in the form that he has.
However, it appears to me that the noble Lord’s proposal may well be covered in other parts of the Bill. If he is right and it is not, it would seem sensible to make sure that it is possible for Ministers to make specific arrangements, which will reach out to people in peculiar circumstances.
One of the things that has happened in the course of discussion of the Bill is to recognise how many people are in peculiar circumstances. This is not an area where you have simple programmes, where you can say that everybody is like this. I listened to my noble friend talk about Calor gas. We have a totally different view of what Calor gas is. For me, it is a very large tank with a delivery, not these little pot things, which relate to a different circumstance. It is perfectly possible to deal with the very large pots where perhaps it is not so easy to deal with the small pots. I merely make the point because there is a fundamental difference in the ways these things happen.
I hope the Opposition will accept that, on this occasion, I am afraid that we will have to depend on the good will of Ministers, because otherwise they will be unreasonably constrained in how they implement these matters. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will resist the amendments, not in a curmudgeonly way, but simply because it is better to do it this way. However, perhaps he could explain to the House whether the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to make sure that this reaches into all the tiny corners is addressed. Many of us who have dealt with particular areas of the country will know how easy it is for decisions made in metropolitan London not to work in the back kitchen of a cottage in a small village near Saxmundham. That is a different world and we must be absolutely sure that we cover it. In my former constituency, the poorest people living in the most acute fuel poverty were to be found in what looked like idyllic cottages at the end of lanes. It is very important not to forget them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Another issue that this group of amendments raises was discussed in Grand Committee. Much of the detail of this legislation will be found in regulations, and indeed we have been told that there are to be 19 different sets of regulations. I think we have accepted that that is an inevitable feature. My noble friend assured the Grand Committee, and indeed the House at Second Reading, that there would continue to be a great deal of consultation, and I take some comfort from that.
I have had a report of a meeting, held by the senior official in my noble friend’s department who is in charge of this activity, which was attended by 60 to 70 industry representatives. Apparently, she said that DECC is completely open-minded on the details and is listening to every point of view that is put forward—“listening” being the important word—and I welcome that. Furthermore, all the evidence will be published so that in due course we shall be able to see that other matters will be brought forward for continuing consultation. That is a reassuring point. Indeed, the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, are exactly what those sitting in the official Box will pick up on. They will recognise that when they come to draft the regulations, these things will have to be dealt with properly. From what I have heard from industry representatives, I am reassured about what the process actually is, and perhaps my noble friend will take some comfort from that.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which deals with making,
“specific provision for the green deal to address situations of fuel poverty”.
With this in mind, will householders in fuel poverty be able to afford the cost of the assessor? I believe that this cost, which might be £80, £100 or £120—I do not know—could be a barrier to the take-up of the Green Deal. £100 may be the entire weekly income of some householders in poverty, so rather than spend £100 on the assessor, they will choose to buy food or whatever. I suggested in Committee that this cost could be rolled up into the Green Deal so that no one has any up-front costs. The Minister’s response then was:
“As for rolling up the costs of the assessor, we would not encourage that, but there may be a framework in which it could happen. We will need to look into that further”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC69.]
I wonder whether my noble friend has been able to look into it further and whether he can give me any comfort on the matter.
Lord Marland
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has made a valuable point in asking whether the Bill should state “must” or “shall”—shall we or shan’t we?—so there are many imponderables. I am also grateful for the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding, both of whom speak with great authority on these subjects.
The most important thing is that, as we take this Bill through its meandering course, we have the flexibility and the opportunity, as Ministers, to consult industry and all bodies that have an idea on this, and eventually to tighten the code of practice. At this point, however, it would not be appropriate for us unilaterally to change these words, which currently give the Government flexibility. I am heartened by and grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that for the authority of Ministers it is imperative to have that flexibility. In the spirit in which we have conducted this Bill, I am happy to consider Amendment 3 in principle, as it is very important that the Secretary of State establishes a scheme through regulation. In considering the matter, it is rather important that we remove any doubts about the issue. That is why we are prepared to consider this amendment, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would suggest, we need flexibility in the other areas as we continue to go forward.
As to the cost of assessors, further consultation has taken place with industry. We strongly believe, as I said in Committee, that many of the suppliers will pay for the assessment, because it is to their benefit. Typically, I would imagine, if one went to B&Q, as one does when buying a home, one might be provided with a list of approved assessors and an assessor would then go in and make the assessment, which would be paid for by the provider. Our research with industry and with the potential providers suggests that that will, we hope, answer the important question of my noble friend Lord Cathcart.
In the spirit of what I have just said, I hope that my comments on these amendments find favour, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful for the tone which the Minister has taken, as he did throughout the Committee stage, indicating that he will further consider our proposals. He will forgive me if I indicate that “considering” is not quite a promise of change, and he has had one further look at it as a result of our deliberations in Committee. I want to pay due credit for that deliberation.
I think that the noble Lord has an amendment on the code of conduct in the next group that would greatly strengthen his case and his position, and if he had prayed that in aid in relation to why “may” should remain rather than be replaced with “must”, I would certainly have been floored. Possibly, however, he wants to make the case for the next group of amendments in his own good time, and I recognise that. What I am indicating is that it is an indication of the Government’s approach to these issues. Our approach is as one. The reason why we are concerned to have concepts like “must” in the Bill, at certain crucial structural points, is obvious. I accept entirely my noble friend Lord Whitty’s point about an additional feature that should be taken into consideration, to which he would not necessarily want to attribute the concept of obligation.
On the structural issue, the reason why we think an obligation should be present is simply that we have got to communicate a message to many of our citizens who, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, indicated, comprise an enormous variety. The enormous numbers of people in the nation who have to respond to this legislation, hopefully in a constructive way, are such that the legislation needs to be as clear as possible, so that the message that is sent out is sufficiently clear to be readily understood.
As I indicated, because of the Minister’s response to these amendments and even more in his actions with regard to future intentions—I refer to the next group of amendments, which are government amendments that are constructively expressed—I am happy to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has telegraphed, this group of amendments respond to the excellent comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes—such is the harmony that flows between the parties at the moment I was going to say his noble friend Lady Noakes—and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The Delegated Powers Committee also prompted a number of these amendments. I hope they are self-explanatory and respond wholeheartedly to suggestions by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, to whom we are, as always, extremely grateful. I hope that the amendments satisfy his requirements and those of the Delegated Powers Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am indeed entirely satisfied with this group of amendments. This gives me an opportunity to say that the Government tabled no fewer than 145 amendments to the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that I did not have to count them. He was kind enough to send them to those of us who are active on the Bill numbered one to 145. It was a little difficult sometimes to match them up with the numbers of the amendments that finally appeared officially on the list.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Of course. I am not blaming my noble friend for that in the least. On the contrary, I found it all extremely helpful, accompanied as they were with helpful notes to explain the amendments. He has met our case splendidly with this group.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Sorry, my Lords; I was a little slow on my feet because I was somewhat taken aback by the speed with which the government amendment was moved, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated. With this number to get through, I suppose the group needs to be disposed of with some dispatch, but I had anticipated a slightly longer description from the Minister of what the amendments in the group purport to do.
Suffice it to say that the burden of my remarks on the previous group of amendments is that Amendments 50, 51, 52 and 56, which relate to how the code will be considered as far as parliamentary practice is concerned, go a long way to meeting anxieties about how we can be responsive to the application of the new deal. We need a framework into which we can all contribute. I have not the slightest doubt that we have an exercise of considerable complexity and real challenge. It means the commitment of real resources for people against fairly distant objectives. For some people, the gains will be future gains on behalf of the community while there is an immediate practical personal cost. That is why Parliament must be assured that we have provided a framework that works effectively.
The Minister listened to our concerns in Committee and these amendments, particularly those relating to the code of practice, are extremely constructive. I will be happy to support the amendments when they are put before the House.
“( ) Regulations for fees payable under this section may establish a reduced fee for charities and social enterprises applying for initial or continued authorisation as green deal participants.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I proposed a similar amendment to this in Committee and was greatly encouraged by the Minister’s response, which prompts me to bring it forward again today. In some ways, we might call this the big society amendment. My last role in Government was as Third Sector Minister and in it I saw—as I am sure many other noble Lords in their time in different departments, former Members of the other place in their constituencies and indeed noble Lords in their work in the community all have—how the role of the charitable sector and social enterprises in helping the most vulnerable in society, particularly those who are fuel poor or fuel vulnerable, is something society as a whole has welcomed. I know the Government want to attract those kinds of non-profit making or third sector organisations into public sector provision. However, there is an opportunity here for the wider charitable and social enterprise sector to be involved in the kind of work that it does best in conjunction with Government.
Although the Minister was very encouraging in Committee, I think some noble Lords misunderstood my explanation of this amendment, which merely seeks within the framework regulations, where a fee is payable for the initial or continued authorisation of the scheme, that the fee be reduced for those organisations such as charities and social enterprises. I am perfectly happy, in the welcome spirit of co-operation that the Minister has displayed today, to look at alternative definitions and for him to come back with one.
I accept that many—indeed most—of the providers, installers and operations will be, as the Minister said, market-driven. However, we should do everything we can to encourage those charities, social enterprises and non-profit-making organisations that have a special and specific role in helping the vulnerable, those with special needs, the disabled and those with learning disabilities. I found the Minister’s response last time very encouraging so I thought I would give him another opportunity to come forward. He has been very gracious today in accepting the proposal that has been put forward and I know that he would not want to see—as I would not—any potential assessor or installer excluded from the market when they have the ability to help those that most need it.
The amendment is also about ensuring that we have a Green Deal that reaches as many people as possible—I know we all want to see a big take-up. Attracting those charities, social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations into the market can only help increase the number of households that take up the Green Deal, as well as giving that specific help and support to the poor and the vulnerable. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I feel strongly on this issue and I know he does as well. I hope he can satisfy me on this issue and we are able to withdraw the amendment. However, if we are unable to, we will want to test the view of the House on this.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lords for their suggested amendments. This amendment seeks to ensure that where the code of practice specifies that an authorisation fee is payable by Green Deal participants, it should be reduced for charities and social enterprises. We recognise that these bodies will have—must have—an important role to play in helping to deliver the Green Deal. We are already considering how secondary legislation could allow for authorisation fees to be set at a variable level, depending on the nature or status of the organisation. We appreciate noble Lords’ desire for more clarity on this matter and I assure them that we are continuing to consider this issue further and will bring back a government amendment if necessary to this effect in the other place. We are seeking to make sure that this is as comprehensive as possible.
I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that we do not want to end up in a situation where, by specifying one or two organisations, we thereby exclude others. We fully accept the notion she is putting forward that the authorisation fee might be variable. We are seeking to work out how best you take that forward so that it is as effective and inclusive as possible, as opposed to being too specific around some particular groups that might be identified now, thus inadvertently excluding others. That is why we are still looking at this. However, we fully support what the noble Baroness seeks to do and if this is best put in primary legislation, an amendment will be brought forward. That will probably be in the other place because of the timing, but we are seeking to work out how best to achieve it. That is why we ask her at this stage to withdraw her amendment so that we can work this out better. We invite her to contribute to the discussions about how best to achieve that. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister’s encouragements to me were certainly not misplaced and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer. I entirely agree. It was never my intention to specify individual organisations or their categories. The variable fees approach is very much the way to proceed and I am happy to work with her to see how best we can achieve that. I look forward to seeing the amendments, if necessary, in the other place. On that basis, I am again happy to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) The provision made by the code in relation to green deal participants must also extend to matters in connection with energy plans that are promoted or arranged at the same time as green deal plans.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I feel that I have the appearance of a jack-in-a-box at this Dispatch Box. Hansard may make of that what it will. The amendments put forward in today’s sixth group—I beg to move Amendment 8A and to speak to the others in the group—all seek to achieve the same aims. They are all supportive and reflect the discussion that we had in Committee. Certainly, our Amendments 8A and 8B look to ensure that protection is there if an assessor identifies within the Green Deal—this also expands to the energy plan—that plans that are promoted or arranged at the same time as the Green Deal plans should also have protection from the same code of practice, so there is no confusion for those who have work undertaken in their homes.
We are certainly very supportive of Amendment 11, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I think he is trying to raise exactly the kind of issues that we raised in Committee. The amendments before us reflect our discussion in Committee, when I raised the point about having an energy plan from which the consumer could choose their Green Deal plan. That is in effect covered by this amendment. Much of his amendment, and ours, hits the key areas that concern people about the Green Deal. The assessor will identify what measures can be taken to improve energy efficiency. They must act in the best interests of the improver—that is, the consumer—but it is the customer or improver who chooses which measures in the energy plan then go into the Green Deal plan. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 11, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, ties in with our purpose clause and reporting clause, which the Minister so graciously accepted the need for earlier, but on a smaller scale to let us know the impact by consumer.
Again, the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Whitty is excellent. One way to best protect the consumer at any stage is through transparency and openness. If we always ensure that we have those, that fits in entirely with the Government’s approach on other issues as well. Our amendments are very much worth supporting. The key for consumer protection is that if consumers have a Green Deal plan, other measures introduced in their energy plan should all have the same protection, so that the consumer does not feel at a later stage that they have been somehow conned. I believe this will give confidence to the consumer and to the public in taking up the Green Deal.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, we have had a long and useful discussion about making sure that consumers receive the best deal that they can from the Green Deal. One of the areas that I felt was missing when we considered the original Bill in Committee was a duty for providers, for people who were bringing plans forward to consumers, to ensure that that was the right plan for that household and that family. I thank the Minister for the discussions we have had, and that I know he has had with other parties, on this area. I welcome the fact that the Bill is being brought forward relatively near the beginning of the parliamentary Session so that we can get the Green Deal implemented next year.
In putting the amendment forward, I was looking to get on the record the Minister’s further thoughts about how this area will operate. I have wrestled in my own mind to a large degree with how the tripartite arrangement of the financier, the adviser and the person who does the work will come together. We must avoid a bias in the solution whereby the person who draws up the plan fits it to the provider whom they are dealing with or fits the term of the finance deal to the finance provider, so that we do not have a situation where a biased recommendation is put forward that the consumer then feels they have to accept. How will the people who do the assessment be paid for if they are not connected to the other people?
My conclusion, having thought this through at some length with my meagre intellectual powers—
Lord Teverson
I hear shouts of derision. I am sure that the way this will operate—I do not say this negatively; it seems to be a fact of life—is that those three pillars of the deal that the consumer faces will be as one. I cannot see every potential provider, worker or builder going out there and getting the smart financial deals from the money markets, not just in London but worldwide or whatever, that larger organisations can. I cannot foresee a situation in which the advisers go out independently and then whether or not they get a deal depends on whether they get a fee. I do not think that any household will pay a fee. There is no provision for fees in the Bill.
The way in which this will work is that integrated major organisations—there is still a question about how smaller builders and SMEs will participate in the scheme, though maybe that is a broader issue—will come forward with major deals. There will then have to be competition so that the consumer can go out to maybe two or three of those major providers and get alternative deals, with alternative financial implications for the sort of deal that they go for.
I am interested to hear some further thoughts from the department about how this will effectively operate from the consumer’s point of view in terms of whom they come into contact with and who the deals will be sold by. How will we make sure that the competition is sufficient and that people feel confident enough that they take advantage of inviting more than one potential provider into their household? How will the Minister ensure, whether through a duty or through quality assurance, that those plans, even when there is competition, really reflect the best interests of the consumer? This whole area, as the Minister has said many times, is critical to ensuring that the scheme has credibility. It will roll out in the volume that we all want only if consumers find this to be a credible option that they can trust and that they know is going to give them not just a good deal but the best and the right one.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend’s meagre intelligence has led him to ask a series of very important questions. I put “meagre” in quotes; it would be quite wrong for him to stand by his own words.
I have a slight anxiety about this matter. As my noble friend rightly said, a number of parties are involved in producing the Green Deal for the customer. I had assumed that it was the role of the assessor to determine whether a proposal being put forward by a provider would achieve the objectives of the Green Deal. It seems to me—certainly a lot of people in the industry think that this will be the case—that a very wide range of bodies will wish to become providers under the Bill, not just banks, building societies or financial institutions. It has been suggested that major retailers might wish to become involved as well as local authorities, housing associations and a range of other bodies. I am not entirely clear how far the responsibility for ensuring that the plan is in the best interests of the consumer can necessarily rest with the provider.
My noble friend’s amendment emphasises the provider in this regard. The provider is entitled to rely on the advice of the assessor as the assessor will advise all parties on the validity of the proposals being put forward. Therefore, it would be very helpful if my noble friend could make this clear when he replies to the debate. I quite understand that these matters are being discussed with all the interests involved, but we must have some idea where the responsibility primarily lies. It is difficult to suggest that it lies with the provider, as my noble friend’s amendment does. The provider is entitled to rely on the advice of the assessor. As my noble friend rightly says, I hope that these matters can be decided in a competitive environment so that the consumer has a choice.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I wish to pursue the point made by the two previous speakers. This is an extremely important area in which the fine detail will determine whether the scheme works. I draw attention to the implicit assumption in the Bill that there is such a thing as a unique assessment. Regardless of who makes the assessment—whether it is done by the person who ultimately provides or an independent assessor—these are matters on which there can be different views and with which a householder may be dissatisfied and may legitimately and reasonably want a second assessment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and wish to speak specifically to Amendments 14 and 15. These are the remnants of a pretty broad discussion that we had in Committee about the need to ensure consumer confidence in this scheme. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has just referred to that matter. The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin, have indicated in relatively few sentences what a complicated arrangement this might appear to consumers. One of the reasons they need assurance is because this is more than a trilateral arrangement. In most cases there will be an assessor, who should be independent, and a provider, who will be the main provider and deal with the scheme, but the actual installer might be someone entirely different and under a certified, authorised subcontract to B&Q, the bank, Marks and Spencer or whoever might be the main provider. Then behind all that, financial arrangements that are closer to the householder may or may not come further downstream. It will be confusing. For that reason, the consumer—the householder or the landlord—needs serious confidence-building measures.
We were assured in Committee that some of those measures, apart from a bit of tweaking in the Bill, are already on the statute book in the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act and that they apply in this case. Most of those measures are, in fact; I am greatly reassured by that and I am grateful to the Minister for spelling that out. However, some areas are not so clearly covered by the consumer credit arrangements, and there are other markets where the consumer credit arrangements have not proved to be sufficient.
My two amendments address cross-selling and mis-selling. Amendment 14 talks about the assessments being dealt with by assessors who are independent of the providers. That does not mean that they will be totally independent, but that their assessment should be made on an unbiased basis and that they do not make recommendations that are geared to the specific offers of particular providers. Were that not to be the case, not only would the consumer interest be damaged but the Government’s desire—rightly so—to make this a competitive market would be seriously undermined.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is right to say that there is ultimately no such thing as a completely objective assessment. However, it has to be an honest and clear assessment that is clear of bias towards any potential provider or installer. Amendment 14 deals with that, because there are no measures in the Bill to prevent Green Deal assessors being incentivised by providers to make assessments in their interests. It is important that the consumer is reassured on that. Similar provisions in other areas of financial credit have not proved to be sufficient to avoid biased financial advice appearing in some markets. Indeed, the FSA is still struggling with some of those issues.
My second amendment deals with transparency. Again, I am not sure that the Consumer Credit Act is sufficient. There are references to fees at various points in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred to the fee for assessment, and I agree with him that it would be highly desirable if in all cases, not simply for the fuel poor, the fee for assessment was rolled up in the totality of the deal and arrangements were made for cross payment, as necessary. If you are faced with a threshold fee, that is a discouragement. You might end up paying the same money, but it should be part of the credit arrangement, not a separate arrangement.
There are subsequent references to fees, not all of which are entirely clear, and some of which may relate to exit fees. I understand that exit fees are an important provision for some credit providers in different markets, but it has to be made absolutely clear in the original agreement if there is to be an exit fee. We know that in other financial markets—mortgages and others—the regulations relating to exit fees are not clear enough. Certainly in the information provided to a person taking out a mortgage it is not always spelt out sufficiently when there is a substantial exit fee. In this case, the fee may relate to the owing of money, not to the person with whom you have dealt or who installed the energy-saving measures but to a financial company that lies behind that, via an energy bill from your energy supplier, and it is important that exit fees, if they exist, are specified. It is highly desirable that exit fees should not be another inhibition to the householder or a subsequent householder when deciding to move away from a particular supplier or form of credit.
Transparency is very important, and the current provisions of the Consumer Credit Act do not seem to tie this up sufficiently for application to these deals. The complexity of the arrangements, and the difficulty of explaining the range of organisations that will be involved in the totality of the deal for the average householder, make it even more important than in some other markets—where there is clearly a bilateral arrangement—that transparency exists. I therefore hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously.
Just to underline this, the real danger for the Government seems to come at the beginning. If one or two of these things go wrong because consumers are put off taking up the scheme, or very early on have some misunderstanding—to put it at its most neutral—with the installer, the provider or the financial vehicle, the rumour that this is not a good scheme will spread rapidly. We all want the scheme to succeed—to have a wide take-up and make the maximum possible impact on energy efficiency. However, it could stumble at a very early hurdle unless consumers are reassured. These two measures would help to reassure them.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I have just been handed a speaking note, which has slightly confused me. Ireland has beaten England in the one-day cricket—so much for the Green Deal. I am sorry to take away from the serious aspect of what we are talking about and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for imparting that. I know the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will be as distraught as I am to hear that news.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, makes a very serious point, as always with his knowledge of consumers. At the heart of the Green Deal must be consumer confidence. Without consumer confidence we will not get this deal off the ground. It is imperative that the Government do this. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise what I think are probing points that need to be ironed out in the passage of this Bill. The ironing out will be carried out with the platform of the Green Deal being very much consumer confidence, as we have debated in this Chamber and in Grand Committee rather exhaustively. On that basis, noble Lords will forgive me for reading out my speaking note, which is unusual for me. I will do it on this occasion because I want to get it right. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I suffer from meagre intelligence, so this has to be done in very big language.
Amendments 11 and 14 seek to ensure that consumers are offered the best possible energy efficiency solution. Clause 4 is central to the Green Deal and sets out the circumstances in which a Green Deal plan can be offered to the consumer. We envisage that a standardised methodology—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—will be used to carry out the assessment. This will ensure that the assessment is carried out in a robust, impartial way so that any measures recommended are suitable for the property in question and not influenced by other considerations.
Where the responsibility lies was the question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Assessors are responsible for getting the technical impartial assessment right. The Green Deal providers will be able to rely on this. They are responsible for financial advice. Installers will be responsible for the standard of installation.
I carry that theme a little further in response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on how the financing will work for small builders, for example. Assessors and installers will not need to raise the capital. The Green Deal plan is between the Green Deal provider and the consumer, but that does not mean that assessors and installers will be paid a commission. Nor does it preclude independent assessment. In addition, Clause 3 provides for the code of practice that will regulate the proficiency of the Green Deal participants. The provisions in this clause seek to ensure that consumers are offered the best possible energy efficiency solution for their property.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for another very helpful answer. Perhaps before I say anything specific about the amendments, I may offer him some helpful advice. Both he and I are new to our roles in your Lordships’ House. I am told that one thing that no noble Lord or Attendant ever does is tell my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham the result of a cricket match. I am also informed that he is rather grumpy because, having recorded the match to watch later, he now knows the result. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, should be grateful that it is me and not him sitting next to my noble friend.
The noble Lord has gone a long way towards understanding our concerns. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the relationships between the assessor, the installer, the provider and the customer are very complex, and this scheme is not going to work unless we have consumer confidence. However, I am reassured by the Minister’s comments that he understands the nature of the problem and is seeking to resolve it. If, at a later stage, he is able to bring forward regulations that show that energy efficiency improvements under the energy plan that are not part of the Green Deal can still be subject to the same consumer protections, that will be very helpful. It might also be helpful to investigate some of these matters further at Third Reading. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that he understands why we have concerns—they relate only to a wish to make this work and today he has gone a long way towards reassuring us. Therefore, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
“( ) In this Chapter references to a code of practice include references to a code of practice which has been revised by virtue of subsection (3)(d).”
“( ) An assessment made and provided under this section must clearly detail those energy efficiency improvements that qualify under the green deal.
( ) In making an assessment, the assessor must include all energy efficiency improvements options that qualify under the green deal.
( ) Nothing in this section prevents a green deal assessor from identifying energy efficiency improvements in their assessment that—
(a) sit outside the green deal; or(b) collectively exceed the total amount qualifiable under a green deal plan, where this is clearly identified on the assessment.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the amendments in this group are again about consumer choice and consumer confidence. As we said previously, the main objective of the Green Deal is commendable, although it is possible to go beyond the Green Deal with what is before us. Again, the assessor could potentially also be an improver.
There is no problem in identifying measures over and above those which can be provided by the Green Deal which improve energy efficiency. We welcome that. However, there could be a problem with an assessor who is paid or contracted by an installer or a provider, as the noble Lord said previously, as there could be a conflict of interest. In that relationship, who would make the decision on what are the appropriate measures to be undertaken under the Green Deal?
Very helpfully, the Minister said in Committee that:
“We must allow the consumer to make the choice, but we must ensure that the choice that he makes is regulated with proper standards”.
That is appropriate. Our major concern is that if the assessor tells the customer that a number of measures can be undertaken under the Green Deal, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who decides what is appropriate? If the relationship between the assessor and the installer is a financial one, we are then concerned that the customer receives the correct information from the assessor. We have raised this issue before and we are trying to avoid any possible conflict of interest between an assessor and an installer. The Minister also said in Committee:
“In many cases, we envisage the Green Deal provider employing or contracting the assessor. The assessor would identify the potential for energy savings using the standardised methodology”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC 66.]
I do not think we have got to the bottom of this difficult point about how the appropriate measures for a home are decided on. In Amendments 12 and 13 we are trying to ensure that any assessment clearly identifies everything that qualifies under the Green Deal. It has to include all energy improvement under the Green Deal; but there is nothing to stop an assessor identifying energy improvements in the early assessment outside the Green Deal or going over and above what the Green Deal includes. Any potential conflict of interest between an assessor’s functions and their connection with any installer or provider can be disclosed in writing. If the improver and the bill payer are aware of that relationship, they are able to make a choice in line with what the Minister said in Committee. That would ensure that at no stage is the improver, the householder, put under pressure, in any way, by an assessor to accept measures that an assessor could be putting forward because of the relationship with an installer. That is difficult and comes back to the independence of the assessor and how that can be achieved. It is similar to the point made by my noble friend Lord Whitty a moment ago.
The excellent amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, comes back to the points made at the beginning, which the noble Lord was happy to look into further as regards an annual report and having further information. This is the transparency issue. If the Secretary of State can do a cost-benefit assessment, to identify the benefits of the Green Deal, that would give confidence not just to the consumer but also to the energy industry. Much of it will be in terms of the Green Deal and the industry having the confidence to invest in undertaking the Green Deal.
I hope that the Minister understands why these measures have been brought forward today. We want to ensure that consumers have absolute confidence that they are not being given information that serves the commercial interests of others and to ensure that whatever measures are recommended to them, or that they choose, are in the best interests of energy efficiency for their homes. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
I shall speak to Amendment 160A which is in this group. It follows on from what my noble friend Lady Smith said about transparency, information and confidence in the field of energy conservation. As noble Lords will know, this is a rerun of Amendment 34 in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her tireless work in supporting energy conservation and for moving the amendment eloquently in Committee. She emphasised the lack of interest of Governments over the years in the issue of saving energy rather than producing more to meet an often unnecessary demand. My noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan supported her and urged publication of the information.
I am trying again to see whether I can squeeze a little more out of Ministers at this stage. I pay tribute to the Association for the Conservation of Energy which has been tireless in promoting this part of the energy debate on conservation, which is often put into the “too difficult” category by government. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, responded in Committee and said that the Government are already obliged to report annually to Parliament on the progress towards legally binding carbon budgets. She also said that,
“the principle of this amendment is sensible and laudable, although we feel that the case for specific reporting from Government may be stronger for the energy company obligation”.—[Official Report, 19/1/11; col. GC 107.]
Surely the information on conservation is as important as is the information on energy production.
I remind the House of a few facts given in Committee. The European Climate Foundation reports that emissions from buildings can be reduced by 95 per cent, which breaks down into 40 per cent from reduced demand and 45 per cent as a result of the electrification of heating. It is important to bring all these figures together at least in one report—we can debate whether or not it is annual—given the enormous challenges the Government have in meeting our carbon reduction targets.
It is also worth reminding the House that Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said that the cheapest way of closing the gap between energy demand and supply is to cut energy use. Many other Ministers have said similar things. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has been calling for a cost benefit assessment of energy saving for many years and it asked the Government about six months ago whether they had carried out a long-term assessment of the costs and benefits of energy saving and efficiency as against those of energy generation. The answer was that there was nothing specific in the public domain. I suggest that there should be because consumers need that information. I hope that when the Minister responds he will accept the principle of the amendment and agree that the Government should publish a cost-benefit assessment. How can the Government have properly thought through their overall energy policy without that? If they do not have that information, they should have. If they do have it, perhaps they should publish it.
I refer noble Lords to the Long Title of the Bill, which refers in line 5 to,
“information relating to energy consumption, efficiency and tariffs”.
It would be a small step for the Government to produce a report and then we would know both sides of the equation: the production; and the consumption and conservation.
Baroness Maddock
As has already been said, I moved a similar amendment in Committee so I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, today. At a time when we are trying to persuade people about all the things we need to do to tackle climate change and CO2 production, we ought to have the best analysis and figures to back up our arguments.
There is little I can add to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but if we are to persuade the sceptics, we need the very best figures. I withdrew my amendment in Committee—we were in Grand Committee and we could not go any further—but I hope that since our discussion the Government have looked at this and thought, “Why on earth can't we do it?”. It is not that difficult. There is lots of information available to draw the figures together. That would be very helpful for all of us. A lot of time and energy is going into the Bill because we believe that it is the right way forward. Let us have the complete evidence to back it up.
I hope that, even if the Government cannot say yes today, they will go away to look at the common sense behind the amendment.
Lord Marland
My Lords, as always, there have been some valuable contributions for which I am extremely grateful. To deal first with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, it is clearly fundamental that there is transparency and independence, that the reputation of assessors is impeccable, and that we avoid the cowboy culture that could exist, and in certain parts of industry has existed, in the assessment work. That is fundamental to the confidence that consumers must have in the Green Deal. Therefore, we will set out in secondary legislation more detail of the standardised methodology, which will protect the consumer from the cowboy culture and any further abuse.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose thoughts on energy efficiency are extremely well known. We are extremely sympathetic to them. Unless we educate people to use less electricity, we will end up using more, and the quickest way to reduce consumption is by using less energy. A lot of the work that we are doing on smart meters in homes will give people an everyday assessment of what electricity they use in their homes. At times, they will find it quite frightening, as I do with my children, whom I have referenced before, when I point to the excellent device we have that is also extremely frightening. The noble Lord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, rightly referred to the work that ACE has done, which we applaud and listen to in detail. It is fundamental that we develop a pattern of education so that energy use is reduced.
We can readily identify that with the levers that we have available. In October of this year, we will produce our fourth carbon budget report, which will provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of economy-wide packages under consideration. That report will continue. The costs and benefits to society of particular technologies are assessed through extensive consultation within industry, so a lot of information is provided to us from industry groups. In addition, we provide publications on carbon budgets, energy market reform, feed-in tariffs, CERTs and green deals, so a huge amount of information is provided, which helps us readily to assess the extent to which carbon production and energy use are being reduced.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister, who has sought to be very co-operative and helpful in his comments. However, two things stand out for me. One is that he is right that there is a great deal of information out there for the consumer. In fact, there is so much that it is totally confusing for most people. The simple cost-benefit assessment that is referred to in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would not only help the Government in developing policy but would be helpful to the consumer. Having information readily available is something that we all require.
The Minister welcomed both our amendments, but he did not pick up on one point. If he is able to assure me that he will come back on it later, it would be helpful. The issue relates to information being provided to the improver and the bill payer about the relationship between the assessor and the installer. That is necessary for transparency and openness. If that relationship is open, there can be no suggestion that there is anything underhand or against the interests of the consumer. If there is a doubt in the consumer’s mind, people will not have confidence in the Green Deal. I can see the noble Lord nodding at me, which is always a welcome sign, so I hope that he will look at these issues—he is now making extremely strange faces; I preferred the nod—and addresses these issues to take that point into account. Openness about that relationship is crucial.
On the basis of what he said, and on the basis that he will look again at the matter on which he nodded to me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) Where consent to green deal improvements is sought by an improver, that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we discussed this issue in Committee, and the Minister gave, as ever, a constructive response, but to the wrong anxiety as far as we were concerned. He seemed to construe our concern as being about the Green Deal being forced upon someone. Consent is clearly the basis on which we seek to proceed, but there might be a tenant who comes under some degree of pressure, so the Minister’s response was to indicate that the Bill would have a framework of regulations that would give protection. I accept the Minister’s position on that without reservation, and I am very grateful to him for expressing that concern.
It might have been my fault in not making it explicit enough when speaking to the amendment, but my concern was almost entirely the other way round. The improver and the bill payer are two different people, and I envisaged that the improver might be involved in the improvement of a substantial number of properties, such as a block of flats which he owned. He might get improvements from 99 out of 100 tenants, but what if one objected and said he was not prepared to sign up to this deal and what if it is difficult for the work to go on without the issue being considered in its totality? We have to envisage that with certain kinds of improvements, the whole building has to be improved or nothing is effective. I was concerned to express the anxiety expressed in this amendment about what happens when an improver is bent upon improvements to the property that meet the objectives of the Green Deal, subscribe to all the benefits that the Bill contains and therefore fulfil the objectives of everyone in this House, but one person stands out against them.
I think that that is a genuine anxiety. I tried to raise the issue in Committee. As I have said, it may have been entirely my fault in that I was not explicit enough or that the amendment was not drafted as accurately as possible, but the response that I received was not directed at this specific problem. I want reassurance from the Minister that he has considered my anxieties and those that might be shared by other noble Lords, that this problem has been tackled satisfactorily in the provisions in the Bill, and that therefore we can see circumstances in which we all recognise that improvements will go ahead only through consensus. There has to be an understanding of that.
However, what about the minority position in extreme cases in which someone is excessively affected, not least because, as we all appreciate, for some individuals the benefits from the improvements to the property might look fairly limited? They know that they will get an increase in their bills pretty soon. The benefits might lie in the future and such individuals might consider that their personal circumstances, in a long-term perspective of that kind, are too long term for the pay-off. I am interested in where ordinary citizens, to say nothing of the awkward squad, might find themselves in a position in which they see no benefit but where they are a very small minority and all other tenants in the building see the advantages. I am interested in how the Bill copes with that issue. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I was very attracted to this proposal, but I should like to share with your Lordships why I do not think that it is sensible in the end. I am attracted to it because there are a lot of curmudgeonly people in this world—you do not even have to have an argument to say that people have a good reason to do something. There are curmudgeonly people who say, “I don’t want this. Why have I got to do this?”. I can quite see the argument. I also have a concern for those who think that other people might benefit and therefore have a slightly dog in the manger attitude.
I come back to the purpose of this Bill, part of which is to get advocates for what we are trying to do around the nation: that is, convincing and converting people to what we are trying to do. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a discussion should go on among flat owners—perhaps there is a landlord, ground rent is paid or whatever—about improving the building. I do not like the idea that behind that is the threat. This is contrary to the way in which the Bill is supposed to operate.
The Minister has said again and again that if this does not work, there will have to be further regulations. The Bill is designed to make that possible, but in the first flush we should try to get a widespread range of people advocating the proposal and convincing their neighbours to go along with it. If we do not do that, one of the most important roles of this Bill will be interrupted.
I have been in both Houses over many years and one of the words that I most dislike is “reasonably”. The difficulty is that the definition of “shall not be reasonably withheld” is difficult in the case that we are talking about now, simply because most people object to something in a way that they consider to be reasonable. They might be very unreasonable people, but when they come to the argument they feel that they have put forward a reasonable argument.
I return to the purpose of the Bill. I am very concerned that we should start this whole process of the Green Deal with an understanding that this is the Government seeking—if I were a modernist I would say “reaching out”—to convince the population as a whole that they have created a framework within which, with consent, we are going to do a large amount to reduce the amount of energy that we use to improve the housing stock and to do all the things that we want to do.
I therefore hope that the Minister will resist this particular amendment, not because we might not be driven to it—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, might be right; we might be driven to it—but because I hope that at least we can start off with the intention of the missionary, to win converts to this, rather than with the intention of the mercenary, to force people to do what you want them to do. All my instincts about something I believe in strongly are to the former, but I have a belief in the end that the latter might well win more converts.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, whether or not the Minister accepts the amendment, it is clearly an issue because there are curmudgeonly tenants and curmudgeonly landlords. The Minister’s understanding of the amendment in Committee and the way in which my noble friend Lord Davies has explained it today will arise. Whether or not she accepts that this provision should be in the Bill, the reality is that the basic concept of the Green Deal is that you pay back through the energy bill, yet the person actually making the improvements, or paying for the improvements in the first place in the normal sense of the word, might do so as part of a general improvement plan. It might be the landlord when the tenant pays the bill, or it might well be the tenant who wants to see these improvements and the landlord pays the bill, whether or not that bill is then re-charged to the tenant. So you have some complicated arrangements here.
One of the reasons why this matter is important is that the private rented sector has the least energy-efficient building structurally and has the highest incidence of fuel poverty proportionately. Therefore—I go back to my earlier point—before we launch this we need to have these things sorted out. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says: that in a sense we do not want to appear to be holding a dagger to the throat of whoever is taking these decisions, or whoever is being curmudgeonly in his terms, but we need a way around this problem. I am not sure I have heard from the Minister yet that we have a way around this problem. Hopefully by the time she produces regulations, we will at least have the outline of a way around this problem, and, as I say, if it is not solved in the private rented sector, then a whole part of the potential benefits of this Bill will be lost.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendment, which raises an important issue about human nature, if nothing else.
Removing consent barriers from the Green Deal journey is of course crucial to the success of the initiative. We agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. We want as many people as possible to take out a Green Deal, and the consent process must therefore be as straightforward as possible. However, we also need to be aware of the rights of property owners and tenants to object to works on their property or the addition of a Green Deal charge to their energy bill. Given this, we need to ensure that any options to overcome consent barriers achieve a balance between respect for these existing rights and unblocking barriers, which could hinder people’s ability to take out the Green Deal.
The noble Lord has just flagged up a very important and very complex issue. I assure him that officials clearly fully understood what the noble Lord said in Committee and are actively working to address the barriers. We will continue dialogue across government to identify solutions. The work is ongoing. I hope that that reassures him. He flagged up a very important area that is now being worked on. Because of that we are not yet in a position to accept the amendment.
I am certainly struck by what my noble friend Lord Deben says in regard to this and hope that he will continue to lead in this area as he always has. I like the notion of the missionary as opposed to the mercenary, but it is worth bearing in mind that some people are not too keen on missionaries either. I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. What has been identified, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Deben, acknowledged, and certainly as my noble friend Lord Whitty did, is that this is a difficult area but one that we have to confront if we are going to effect improvements. Again I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for pointing out how important the private rented sector is and how much the improvements have to be generated in that area to reach the targets to which we all subscribe. The success of the Bill will depend on success in that area as much as in any other.
I appreciate the response made by the noble Baroness, but she will appreciate that she is asking the House to take things somewhat on trust: namely, that the Government recognise a problem but are not quite in a position yet to identify what their solution might be. That is a very difficult thing to say while a Bill is passing through Parliament because, as we all appreciate in this House, this might be close to being the last time that we can address ourselves to this issue. Consequently, we must hope that the department is successful in the work that it has done under the guidance of Ministers who, I have no doubt, will be strenuous in these terms.
Because I am happy to put my trust in Ministers with regard to the objectives of the Bill, I will indeed withdraw the amendment in a few moments, but I hope they recognise that Parliament will expect answers to this and related problems of similar complexity and difficulty, because, although I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the best approach is the missionary approach, we have an exercise to sell and we all have a role to play in that to convince our fellow citizens of the advantages. A lot of progress has been made. If you look at public opinion polls in response to concerns about issues that the Bill seeks to confront, there is no doubt that we are making progress. However, there is a long way to go and things differ enormously from a general response in an opinion poll and where—dare I say it?—hard cash and the mercenary come into play. Therefore, I wish the Government well and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
(a) meets the standard specified in the code of practice in relation to the product or description of product, or(b) is listed in a document which—(i) is issued by the Secretary of State or a person authorised by the Secretary of State in connection with the code, and(ii) is referred to in the code as listing the products which are to be taken as meeting the required standard.”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, government Amendments 17, 19, 20 and 50 relate to the framework for ensuring that the products installed under the Green Deal are of an appropriate standard. This issue came up in Committee and we are seeking to address it.
We must, of course, ensure that products going into homes and businesses are of high quality, are safe and are installed by accredited installers. The amendments to Clause 7 provide that products must meet standards to be set out in a code of practice. Where products are not already subject to rigorous standards, we will require them to be certified using a testing methodology to be set out in the code. Many energy efficiency products are already required to comply with standards, and we will use these as far as possible. The fundamental principles about which measures are eligible will be set out in secondary legislation. DECC will consult on the draft regulations and the code of practice in the autumn.
Clause 7 contains an option to produce a long list of specific products that comply with the standards. We will consult on whether it is appropriate to produce a list such as this because we must protect consumers without stifling innovation in the market. It is critical that any list is capable of being updated regularly when new products come on to the market. We are enabling the list to be issued and updated by an external body, for example the body appointed to administer the code of practice. I hope, therefore, that the House will welcome the government amendment.
We are sympathetic to the proposal set out in Amendment 18 that an oversight body should govern such a list. However, the government amendment allows for this as well as additional approaches, should they be chosen by the Secretary of State as appropriate. Given that, I hope that my noble friend will be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 18 (to Amendment 17)
Lord Teverson
“( ) is administered and updated by a green deal oversight body,”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend is sympathetic towards this amendment. I should explain that it was going to be spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter, who regrettably is defending Britain’s interests in Brussels with her European sub-committee at the moment, so she cannot be here today. The basis for this amendment is that in Grand Committee, we had quite an extensive discussion around making sure that within this system there would be some form of ombudsman or final appeal for consumers so that people would feel assured that any dispute would be looked at in a proper and independent fashion, and could be resolved in a sensible and cost-effective way. The process should be friendly to consumers and would come to an objective conclusion, but would not cost them a lot of money to go through it.
I know that my noble friend has looked through the government amendments to see how this could be achieved and feels that this is one of the more appropriate ways of dealing with the issue. Disguised in the rather generic language of the “green deal oversight body”, which in the language of 1984 would probably mean something quite big brotherish, the amendment is trying to use the Government’s form of language in order to introduce the concept. Given that, while I welcome the Government’s own amendments, I am disappointed that we have not yet found a way of bringing this dimension to the Green Deal. I would be keen to hear from the Minister in her response at the end of the debate how this particular need, which goes back to consumer confidence in the process, could be met. I am not absolutely sure that the government amendments put forward at this stage will do that. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
This group of amendments provides a welcome opportunity to talk about one particular participant in the whole process, and that is the many firms which supply the products. There is an enormous range of them and they are hugely important if the objectives of the Bill are to be achieved. All I want to say in a very few remarks is that I hope that the department really will listen to those people who have had the experience of supplying products to the various participants under the Green Deal’s predecessors. The impression of the trade association that represents the builders’ merchants is that there was actually a great deal of malpractice under the CERT programme, which it describes as operating as a closed shop and distorting the market with unfair subsidies. In my Second Reading speech, I warmly welcomed the new approach set out in the Green Deal and the energy companies’ obligation as it represents a considerable improvement on the previous system. I am delighted that it has been so widely welcomed around the House.
The participation of the supply chain is very important to this process. Suppliers have a great deal of experience and provide a wide range of products including loft and solid wall insulation, replacement windows and doors, heating, hot water systems and associated insulation, draft proofing and all the rest. It seems to me that those suppliers have a great deal of wisdom to convey to those who are trying to draw up the regulations and the code under Clause 7. This is an opportunity to stress the importance of the supply chain.
I believe that the department is listening to the trade association concerned and therefore I wish only to say firmly that it would do well to listen hard. Its representatives have experience and are deeply involved in the whole process, and they totally support both the concept and the practice of the Green Deal. Just as we do, they want it to be as successful as possible. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me an assurance that this will indeed be something that the department will do.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, at the previous stage of this Bill, I tabled an amendment about carbon monoxide alarms. I have not retabled it now because I have had reassurances from the Minister. These amendments are about compliance with appropriate standards, so I rise simply to seek an assurance that the standards will cover both primary products and secondary products, which must be appropriate carbon monoxide alarms to accompany the installation of appliances which may produce carbon monoxide. Sadly, we have a steady string of notifications of carbon monoxide poisoning. Charlotte Church was recently poisoned but she survived because luckily she lives in a large house and her grandfather had told her to get a carbon monoxide alarm because of her symptoms. No one is immune, from the most famous names to those one has never heard of.
A further reason that the concept of a Green Deal oversight body is appealing is that, while many victims of carbon monoxide poisoning survive, unfortunately many will do so only with neurological and other damage. They need to be listened to and their claims to be heeded. I therefore seek a reassurance from the Minister that the issue of carbon monoxide alarms has not been forgotten or sidetracked, and that it will be considered as part of the appropriate standards to be set out in a code of practice as a result of this Bill.
Lord Deben
My Lords, first, I declare an interest because, in the course of advising people on corporate responsibility, that can hardly be done without talking to quite a number of businesses that at some stage may be involved in this process—and not only the businesses, but the people. That enables one to ask the Minister to be extremely careful about a long list of appropriately ticked-off equipment. This is an area of fast-moving innovation. I have to tell the Minister that, in the work which I do professionally, one of the most difficult things is to keep up in this particular area, so rapid is the development. One of the problems that any of us who work in this kind of area face is the way that government legislation can hold up the market, stop development, and make it more difficult for new things to come forth.
I understand that we have to have a balance, and to stop people installing the wrong thing, the bad thing, the thing that does not do what it says. However, I beg her to look extremely carefully at the mechanism, so that it encourages innovation and makes it possible for new products to come onto the market rapidly, some of which will be cheaper and better able to meet the needs of the Green Deal. We need to have a system which does not inhibit the very necessary innovation which in part will be driven by the Green Deal. We do not want to have a situation in which the Green Deal is driving that innovation, and then find that people cannot meet the requirements because it takes six months to get it on the list, or because there is some technical reason why you cannot get it on the list. There are so many examples today of things which would do very well if we had not passed some regulation, when nobody knew how to do this, so that the new product cannot actually be recommended.
There is a second thing that I hope the Minister will think of, though this is not the appropriate place for her to put it. I am always worried when we talk about products without talking about people. You can have the best products in the world, but a cack-handed involvement in them will result in a worse position than the one you started off with. I discovered this from my professional work, in this case, when we did some work with plumbers. The fact is that there are no regulations ensuring that plumbers can be competent. You could have a product under this legislation which would be perfectly well ticked off, but a plumber doing the work could make it absolutely impossible to operate it as the rules and the certification would suggest.
This is an appropriate moment to say to the Minister that I hope very much that, in considering the products and making sure that they are suitable, we remember that products need installation. The installers must in fact be capable of installing them properly, or all the regulations on products in the world will not deliver the goods. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, when her civil servants are looking at this, they will see these two things together. They have to be part and parcel of the same mechanism, and that mechanism must not in any way inhibit the innovation which I very much hope will be the result of this legislation.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. Innovation is moving extremely fast here. A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of being a judge in the final of the Shell springboard competition, which, as many noble Lords will be aware, aims to encourage and support small companies which are bringing what I might loosely describe as green technologies to the market. One of the two winners of this competition produced a technology which will have profound implications for the Green Deal—namely, a domestic voltage regulator. That is not a person; it is a very small piece of machinery. Without becoming too technical, I should explain that the appliances in our houses work on 220 volts. For technical reasons of the grid, typically it supplies us with something like 240 volts and 250 volts. That excess voltage, at best, does not do any harm to our domestic appliances, and at worst it damages them, because they receive too high a voltage, and it is indeed wasted. A domestic voltage regulator regulates down to 220 volts, and the consequence is that one proportionately reduces one’s electricity use. This is now a well-tried technology, and has the scope of reducing domestic use of electricity across the country as a whole by around 10 per cent, which is a massive saving. This is the kind of technology that we need to make sure is taken up rapidly. It has now been thoroughly tested, is already available, and has been in use for a number of years at the large-scale commercial level.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, these amendments to Clause 7 seek to strengthen the framework for ensuring the quality of Green Deal improvements and products, and address a number of points made in Committee. Amendment 17 provides that Green Deal improvements must meet standards set out in the code of practice, and that if the Government decide to use the power to create a list of products that meet the standard, this can be administered and updated frequently. Amendment 19 makes provision for a testing methodology and certification process for products. Amendment 20 is simply a repositioning of text which was previously contained in Clause 7(3)(a), and makes clear that the code of practice is issued under the authorisation scheme in the framework regulations.
In Committee, we had a full discussion on the challenge between the need for certainty of standards and codes, and their drafting and interpretation to the complexity in the housing stock. Although there was a recognition that certain standards of work, of procedures to follow, and of improvements in products should be consistent in the provision of the Green Deal, there was a recognition that flexibility would be required to meet varying properties with differing levels of energy efficiency. The Committee reconciled the differing approaches by expressing a wish for a guarantee of quality to be recognised, so that there would be consistency of outcomes that would provide a greater level of confidence, vitally required to produce the maximum uptake of the Green Deal. The Minister and his team have listened to what has been said on this. These amendments, as proposed by the Minister, meet the Committee’s concerns, and I am grateful that the Government have come forward with them on Report.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the Opposition Front Bench for their welcome of the government amendments. The Government believe that the approach of my noble friend Lord Teverson could be permitted under these amendments, though I recognise that an ombudsman is not specifically mentioned. There has been quite a debate about how specific you should be, and on the pluses and minuses of that within this, which is a tension within the Bill as a whole. How do you ensure that you have got customer protection and standards, and how do you make sure that does not then become too prescriptive and restrictive? As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned, there has been wide consultation with many of those who operate in this area, and I can assure him that, in terms of addressing these areas, the Government will continue to do that. Their experience of the problems that have arisen in the past will be very useful in terms of feeding in to ensure that the work taken forward addresses those kinds of problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned carbon monoxide monitors, and primary and secondary products like this do come under what we are discussing here. She recognises that my noble friend Lord Marland gave a very sympathetic hearing to the very important point that she made at an earlier stage. Again, that is something that comes within this.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is right about the difficulties of having a specific list and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, also referred to that. It is extremely important that the Bill is not out of date by the time it is finally concluded in the other place. We have to be extremely careful about lists. There is a balance between trying to ensure that what happens is not too specific and that we have a high standard, but that we are stimulating innovation and not stifling it, as noble Lords said.
In the light of those assurances about what we seek to do, I trust that noble Lords will accept the government amendments. Although we fully understand where the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is coming from with regard to the ombudsman, we hope that at this stage he will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and I will withdraw the amendment. I say that to save the tension and stress of the House, which is never good at this time of year. However, I genuinely feel that something should appear in the Bill, whether it is the oversight body or the ombudsman, ombudsperson or whatever it would be these days. I ask my noble friend to think further about that as we reach Third Reading or as the Bill moves to the other place, as this is an important area for confidence and dispute resolution within the way that the Bill works. At this point, however, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“( ) In specifying the standard in relation to a product or description of product for the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the code of practice may make provision as to the testing and certification of the product or description of product.”
“( ) In this section references to the code of practice are to the code of practice issued for the purposes of the scheme under the framework regulations.”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
My Lords, Amendment 21 is in an extensive group of amendments that relate to the energy performance certificate. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are extensively reviewing the energy performance certificate to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the Green Deal and that there is no confusion between the certificate’s relationship with buying and selling a home and achieving energy performance under the Green Deal.
As currently drafted, the Bill would apply the energy performance of buildings regulations, with modifications, where a Green Deal plan is present. This would enable Green Deal information to be added to an EPC and kept up-to-date. In this way, we will be able to monitor the progress referred to earlier by other noble Lords and thereby measure the success of the Green Deal’s energy-saving benefits.
Amendments 58, 170, 172 and 174 make consequential amendments relating to parliamentary procedure, extent and commencement. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that these are effective and transparent ways of fulfilling our criteria for disclosure in the Green Deal. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
When we were discussing the number of government amendments earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made an appropriate comment about how we are all grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendments early. To have early sight of them was indeed helpful as, in the true spirit of the complications of energy legislation, it is sometimes difficult to trace them back and follow them through—that is more of a problem with the following group of amendments—although I am sure that all noble Lord have been able to do so.
The noble Lord has taken on board comments that we made throughout Committee stage about monitoring and having information and transparency. With this group of amendments the Minister has responded to issues raised by the Committee and I am grateful to him for doing so.
Lord Marland
“( ) The reference in this section to securing that a document is updated includes a reference to securing that a document is replaced by a document of the same description.”
Lord Marland
““the 2010 Regulations” means the Building Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2214)”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
“( ) Subsection (3) applies if one or more of the first, second or third conditions is met.”
“(2A) The second condition is that—
(a) by virtue of section 8(4)(b) or (c), the framework regulations specify a document of a description which is required to be produced under the 2008 Regulations, and(b) provision is made in the 2008 Regulations by virtue of section 10(3) to require a document of that description to contain additional or updated information.”
“(2B) The third condition is that, by virtue of section 8(4)(b) or (c), the framework regulations specify a document of a description other than one falling within subsection (2) or (2A).”
“( ) In this section references to a document being required to be updated or further updated include references to a document being required to be replaced by a document of the same description.”
Baroness Northover
“Disclosure of green deal plan in connection with other transactions etc
(1) This section applies where—
(a) there is to be a transaction or other arrangement in respect of a green deal property (not falling within section 12(1)), and(b) the transaction or arrangement is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(2) The regulations may require a person of a description specified in the regulations to—
(a) obtain the document mentioned in section 8(4) or, if that provision has not yet been complied with, produce a document containing the same information in connection with the green deal plan as that document would have contained, and(b) provide the document free of charge to a person of a description specified in the regulations at the time so specified.(3) The regulations may provide for an obligation imposed on a person by virtue of subsection (2) to be discharged by a person acting on the person’s behalf.
(4) In this section the reference to a green deal property is to be read in accordance with section 12(5)(b).”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendments 41 and 42 are a straightforward extension of the existing disclosure and acknowledgement provisions to ensure that all relevant circumstances are captured. The principle behind Clauses 12 and 13 is that those taking on responsibility for repayment of the Green Deal should have the presence of the charge disclosed to them, and acknowledge that they are aware of it. After further consideration, we have concluded that additional powers are needed so that we can require disclosure and acknowledgment in circumstances that do not fall within Clauses 12 and 13.
As drafted, Clauses 12 and 13 rely on there being a relevant property transaction for the sale, rent or licensing of a property to trigger the obligations to disclose and acknowledge. However, the provisions will not cover all circumstances—something that was flagged up in Committee—such as where a property is transferred by executors to a beneficiary under a will, or when a property is given by one person to another. The new owner ought to be made aware of the Green Deal, and this is the purpose of the amendment.
Robust disclosure and acknowledgment requirements protect individuals and businesses by ensuring they know they are taking on a Green Deal plan when they choose to move into a property. This helps to minimise the number of disputed Green Deal plans, which means that payments are maintained and the cost of finance is kept as low as possible. We will work with stakeholders on how these new provisions will apply in practice. Our aim is to use existing systems where possible, and we will consult before setting out these arrangements in regulations.
Amendments 43 to 45 enable the sanctions contemplated by Clause 14 to apply to those other circumstances or other transactions where disclosure and acknowledgment may be required under the new provisions.
Amendments 59 to 61, 171, 173 and 175 deal with consequential issues such as parliamentary procedure, extent and commencement elsewhere in the Bill.
In conclusion, I can assure noble Lords that these powers are necessary and proportionate to protect the consumer and to ensure the effective operation of the Green Deal. Furthermore, I would be grateful if noble Lords could note the Government’s intention to introduce, in the other place, a further amendment relevant to consumer protection under the Green Deal. This future amendment will propose that, in certain exceptional circumstances such as particularly long Green Deals, Green Deal providers will be able to recover more compensation from bill payers when a Green Deal is repaid early than is currently permitted under the Consumer Credit Act. Where extra compensation is recoverable, this will be within the limits set by the consumer credit directive. Without such a measure the cost of finance is likely to be increased, thus driving up costs for all Green Deal consumers.
I am highlighting the future introduction of this amendment now to reflect noble Lords’ close interest in consumer protection matters—something that has also been flagged up today—which are an issue of utmost importance to the Government in the development of this legislation. We propose to introduce such an amendment in the other place to allow further time to ensure that, in making this change to the Consumer Credit Act, we are able properly to balance the interests of Green Deal providers with the protection of consumers, which is so important within the Green Deal scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments, which show that the Government have listened to what was said in Committee. She referred in particular to the provision of information where a property changes hands through an executor following a legacy. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, and I am grateful to the Government for looking at it.
I am very pleased that she has told us now about amendments that she will seek to have tabled in the other place, which will want to scrutinise those proposals. We have concerns—we will have to look at the detail of how this works out—that additional compensation may be charged for early repayment. Indeed, that was a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Committee, so I appreciate her informing us now of the Government’s intention.
Another point that I want to make is that I was very pleased at her opening comments on the importance of disclosure of information about charges. She may recall that one of our amendments—I cannot recall whether it was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, or by myself, but it was supported by us all—was on pre-payment meters, which often mean that people pay much higher rates for electricity or gas than those of us who pay by direct debit or in response to a bill. One of our proposals in Committee, which was not accepted at the time but which I think the Government said they would look at again, was that greater information should be provided for those customers about exactly how much the Green Deal costs them and how much their energy bill costs. If the Government are bringing in greater transparency so that information on charges can be disclosed, we would like to see that point included. Therefore, perhaps that issue can be looked at at the same time.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lady for her very positive response to these amendments. We will indeed look at the issue that she has raised.
Lord Marland
“Acknowledgment of green deal plan in connection with other transactions etc
(1) This section applies where—
(a) there is to be a transaction or other arrangement in respect of a green deal property (not falling within section 13(1)), and(b) the transaction or arrangement is of a description specified in regulations made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may require a person of a description specified in the regulations to secure, at a time and in a document so specified, that an acknowledgment is made by a person of a description so specified that—
(a) the bill payer at the property is liable to make payments under the green deal plan, and(b) certain terms of that plan are binding on the bill payer.(3) Where the green deal property is in England or Wales, regulations made by the Secretary of State under this subsection may provide for any acknowledgment required by virtue of subsection (2) to be in the form prescribed in the regulations under this subsection.
(4) Where the green deal property is in Scotland, regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this subsection may provide for any acknowledgment required by virtue of subsection (2) to be in the form prescribed in the regulations under this subsection.
(5) In this section references to a green deal property are to be read in accordance with section 12(5)(b).”
Lord Marland
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
One of the features of this whole Green Deal, which has run right through the discussions, is that it will be the suppliers of gas, electricity and, no doubt, other products, who have to collect the payments from the improver, through their energy bills, in order to repay the loan that will have been made by the provider to enable the improvements to be made. This is an important new role for the gas and electricity supply companies. They have unanimously—I have spoken to a number of the companies—welcomed the whole process in this Bill. They recognise that this will bring a range of energy efficiency measures to homes and businesses.
However, they have a very serious concern about an aspect of this process of cash control. My noble friends on the Front Bench will remember that I have raised this at every stage of the Bill, including at Second Reading. They do not want to become liable for the Green Deal debt. If there is a default on the payment, it is difficult to understand why the gas and electricity companies should be the ones that bear that. Perhaps I may spell this out because that is what this amendment is all about. Clause 15 as currently drafted provides power for the Minister to modify gas and electricity licences, and industry codes and agreements maintained pursuant to a licence, for the purpose of requiring and enabling licence holders,
“to take, or not to take, specified action in relation to Green Deal payments”.
That is very wide indeed. The power can be exercised by the Minister subject only to routine public consultation. It really is quite a peremptory power.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, while it is for the Minister to respond to the eloquent identification of the issue by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his concluding remarks the noble Lord identified a dimension of that issue for which I do not think I have seen the answer in any of his earlier speeches on it—that is, as he says, that someone has to pay. I imagine that if this paragraph is taken out of the Bill, the question of who has to pay will have deleterious consequences for the success of the whole concept behind the Bill, but I imagine it is for the Minister to identify those issues.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for helpfully answering this question for me because it is absolutely fundamental that if we withdraw the liability from one party, we have to establish where it is going to fall. No one knows more about the industry than my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He is very close to it indeed and, as he said, this is a complex accounting issue on companies’ balance sheets. These implications need to be looked at carefully and that needs to be done in consultation with businesses. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said earlier: if we withdraw from one, we have to work out who is going to pick up the bill at the end.
I make a strong commitment to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—he knows that when I make these commitments, I mean them—that we will be liaising with the energy suppliers and the finance providers over the next few months as we put together the important financing of the Green Deal which, as we all know, we have not as yet structured. It will, however, be an important structure and through that we will develop a policy and provide absolute clarity on this issue for, we hope, all parties. It is fundamental that all parties go into this Green Deal approach unified and clear of their position and, indeed, that the customer is clear of his recourse in that position. That is a commitment that the Government will make to this process and I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, I say that if the supply companies are not going to be made liable then it will of course be the providers. They put up the money and if there is a default then, like any lender, they have to bear its cost. The risk of default could mean a marginal increase in the rate of interest that they would have to charge in order to cover that risk. They do not face the same problem as the supply companies, which have the problem of having the whole thing landed on their balance sheets. As I have said, that could amount to billions of pounds.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his promise to consider this. He has of course been as good as his word on so many of the other undertakings that he has given. While he will be discussing this with the industry and with the providers, I simply find it difficult to believe that it could be right in the present circumstances to leave the whole of the debt outstanding, in the case of a default, on the balance sheet of the supply companies. I want to make my own views on that clear. Having said that, my noble friend has made a fair offer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
My Lords, these are further government amendments. I have written to noble Lords who have been interested during Committee and our various debates about these amendments. Again, I apologise for their exhaustive extent but all noble Lords are, I think, in agreement that this variety of amendments improves the Bill and that we have taken on board the excellent work that various noble Lords have done in Committee.
These amendments make small technical changes to Clauses 20 and 92, and a consequential amendment to Clause 73. Amendment 48 makes a small amendment to Sections 33(1) and 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000, if your Lordships are still following me, and would insert into those sections a reference to the modifications made under Clauses 15 to 18 of the Bill. Section 33 of the Utilities Act lists the provisions which form the standard conditions of electricity licences and Section 81 of that Act lists the provisions which form the standard conditions of gas licences. Amendment 163 makes this amendment to Section 33(1) of the Utilities Act in respect of modifications made under Clause 92 of the Bill.
Amendment 49 provides that the,
“principal objective and general duties”,
as set out in Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 and Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 apply in respect of the Secretary of State’s exercise of the licence modification powers contained in Clauses 15 to 18, as they would apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part I of the 1986 and 1989 Acts. Amendment 164 does the same thing in relation to Clause 92, while Amendment 165 is made in consequence of Amendment 164. I am already looking forward to the response by the opposition Benches to these excellent amendments, which I hope will be supported.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I could not disappoint the Minister. In fact, I was able to see further clarification in his own words. I have sat down with these amendments and looked through them, but they raise an important issue about the complications of energy legislation. I know that the noble Lord and his team sought to be helpful to all Members of the Committee and to those who took an interest in these issues by sending through not just the amendments but some explanatory notes, which were helpful. I am grateful to him for doing that.
While we will continue to scrutinise this legislation, it may be helpful at some stage—probably not at Third Reading but at some later date—if we were to have one of the wonderful seminars that the Minister has organised to look at some of the detail of energy legislation, the direction in which it is going and where it can be consolidated. That would be helpful to all noble Lords considering these issues in future. In the mean time, I am grateful for his detailed and helpful explanation of the amendments in front of us.
Lord Marland
“(7) In section 33(1) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of electricity licences)—
(a) after paragraph (d) omit “or”;(b) after paragraph (e) insert “or(f) under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2011.”(8) In section 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of gas licences)—
(a) for “2008 or” substitute “2008,”;(b) after “2010” insert “or under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2011”.”
“( ) Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers under sections 15 to 18 with respect to holders of licences under section 7 or 7A of that Act as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.
( ) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers under sections 15 to 18 with respect to holders of licences under section 6(1)(c) or (d) of that Act as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.”
Lord Marland
“( ) If the function of revoking a code of practice issued for the purposes of the scheme is specified in an order by virtue of subsection (1)(a), the code must not be revoked without the approval of the Secretary of State.”
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, during Committee we expressed a clear wish to see as much information regarding appeals as could be provided with clarity in the Bill, rather than it being included in secondary legislation. While we accept that there is no requirement to specify further all the details regarding appeals, which is the challenge we are making under Amendment 54, nevertheless we still feel that we need to be more precise in specifying the nature of the appeal forum. That is the subject matter of Amendment 53.
I have undertaken some quick research into Acts with appeals sections. Without undertaking an exhaustive search, I can cite the Housing Act 2004, with proceedings relating to tenancy details, the Education Act 1993, specifying a special educational needs tribunal, the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 and the Social Security Act 1998. All those specified with greater clarity the tribunal and the relevant way it will operate. We seek to bring that same level of clarity to this Bill, especially in regard to what the relevant authority is regarding appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, this is a valuable amendment. It is clear that we have to have a course of action if things do not go correctly. At this point in the process, though, it is fundamental that we work out what the sanctions are before we establish the process. Because at this point we have not established the sanctions, we cannot yet establish the process. It will take us some time to work this through; noble Lords in the Opposition know that we are at an embryonic stage with this. It is fundamental and we are committed to making sure that there is a right of recourse and there are sanctions. As the Bill progresses and we get into secondary legislation, I know that the picture will be much clearer, and I agree that that is important. I hope that that answer gives noble Lords confidence that we acknowledge where they are coming from and that we are taking steps to deal with it, and I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition and acknowledgment that this is an important area that still has to be filled in with greater clarity. We know that there are many opportunities yet for the Bill to be so amended, and even for part of it to come forward in the regulations. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
Baroness Northover
My Lords, these amendments do three things. First, Amendments 55, 80, 87 and 90 seek to refine the definition of “subordinate legislation” in the Bill. This would make it explicit that the Secretary of State is able to amend Welsh subordinate legislation under the powers in Clauses 31, 39, 42 and 45 relating to redress and appeals. This power is needed to ensure that the Secretary of State can properly implement the redress and appeals mechanisms required by Chapters 1 and 2 in Wales.
Secondly, Amendment 93 requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before making PRS regulations that relate to domestic private rented properties in Wales. This amendment reflects the interest that the Welsh Ministers have in this area.
Thirdly, Amendments 64, 63 and 93 require the Secretary of State to have obtained the consent of Welsh Ministers before amending or revoking Welsh subordinate legislation pursuant to the redress and appeals provisions in Clauses 31, 33, 39, 42 and 45. The requirement to obtain consent does not apply where the Secretary of State is making only incidental or consequential amendments.
Our officials have been working with the devolved Administrations and territorial offices throughout the Bill process, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear. Wales has confirmed that it is content with the government amendments that we are moving here on Report. Our engagement with Wales is ongoing; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be giving evidence to the National Assembly for Wales Sustainability Committee in Cardiff on 10 March, and my honourable friend the Minister of State will be speaking in the Welsh Grand Committee in the other place, also on 10 March. We will continue to work closely with Wales throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am not going to raise any objection to amendments that take account of the interests of Wales. I am just somewhat amazed that the Government missed the opportunity to do this on 1 March rather than on 2 March.
Lord Marland
“Parliamentary procedure in relation to code of practice
(1) This section makes further provision in relation to the issuing of any code of practice for the purposes of the scheme established by the framework regulations.
(2) Before the code is issued the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the code before Parliament.
(3) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft, the code may not be issued.
(4) If no such resolution is made within that period, the code may be issued.
(5) The “40-day period”, in relation to a draft of a code, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the 2 days on which it is laid).
(6) For the purposes of calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which—
(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.”
Lord Marland
“(7A) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making provision under section 31 amending or revoking—
(a) provision included in an instrument made under a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;(b) any other subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers (or the National Assembly for Wales established under the Government of Wales Act 1998).(7B) Subsection (7A) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is making incidental or consequential provision.”
“( ) Subsection (8) does not apply to the extent that consent has been obtained under subsection (7A).”
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) Before making regulations or an order under this Chapter, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament with proposals on green deal apprenticeships.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, Amendment 65 raises an obvious point. We all see that there is going to be a significant increase in economic activity as a consequence of the Bill. A great deal of work will need to be done by a great number of people, and it is a potentially significant stimulus to an economy that is sorely in need of any kind of stimulus that it can get, particularly in terms of employment. I want to emphasise through this amendment my hope that the Government will address themselves significantly to the question of youth unemployment, particularly the role that an increase in apprenticeships can provide in dealing with that problem.
We are all well aware of the fact that we are going to see a substantial increase in unemployment in this country. We know that hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs are going to be lost. We also know that the private sector is going to have difficulty in making up for this loss of opportunities. This is one area where the private sector will seek to expand its opportunities and employment. We all want to see a substantial contribution in terms of jobs created for young people. Otherwise we are going to see a whole generation of young people blighted by the loss of jobs. So apprenticeships can play a significant role.
I think that the House will recognise the fairly substantial expansion in apprenticeships that occurred over the years of the previous Administration. When we came to power, apprenticeships had reached a very low ebb. Although we did not reach anything like the ambitious targets that we would have liked to reach, the significant increase in apprenticeships needs to be sustained. We cannot afford as a society to look as if we have turned our backs upon that next generation of school leavers. The issue is sharp enough with regard to higher education and university places and we know the pressure there will be regarding opportunities for young people there. However, a substantial number of school leavers still have no aspiration to higher education and apprenticeships could potentially play an important part in providing skills for that generation.
That is why I hope that the Minister will recognise that the Bill is a stimulus to economic activity and could potentially increase levels of employment in this country. We should certainly ensure that apprenticeships benefit from this in order that the younger generation gets its fair share of opportunities too. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I do not think that the amendment is appropriate to go into the Bill. That said, everything that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said is right; this is a really important opportunity to upskill and to find ways to create important apprenticeships in a growing, expanding and increasingly important sector of the economy. One of the things that the Bill does is to open up a lot of employment opportunities in that sector. I agree that there is a challenge; in some ways this area could become almost a deskilled tick-box process that did not require a great deal of skill. That would be wrong in terms of both employment and the long-term viability and credibility of the scheme. I hope that it will be an area where the Government encourage apprenticeships with a good standard of learning. This programme is particularly good at stimulating such apprenticeships as it is long term. The Green Deal will last for a number of years and there will be time to train people properly. That is one of the reasons why we are not jumping up and down and saying that all this needs to start tomorrow.
We accept the Government’s timetable for implementing the programme. It has to be drawn up in the right way not just in terms of formulating codes of practice, its administration and the way it works but in order to ensure that we have a sufficient number of people with appropriate skills in the marketplace to enable the programme to be delivered effectively. Therefore, although I agree absolutely with the spirit of the amendment, I do not think that it is necessary to include it in the Bill. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that apprenticeships will be an important part of the scheme.
Lord Marland
I am extremely grateful that this amendment has been put forward as it goes to the very heart of how we are going to develop as a nation over a rocky period—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and my noble friend Lord Teverson mentioned this—when growth, enterprise and opportunity will be fundamental to restoring the country’s financial viability. That is why the Government have committed to spending £250 million on apprenticeships over the spending review period. Some 75,000 apprentices will be created between now and 2014-15, leading to more than 200,000 people starting an apprenticeship each year. This is a fundamental commitment which I am sure the whole House applauds as very good news.
I was hoping to make an announcement on apprenticeships and the Green Deal. However, as noble Lords will understand, I am a very junior Minister and more senior Ministers will want the glory of making that great announcement, which, in fairness, would be more appropriately made next week in Green Growth Week. On a serious note, I hope that that announcement is satisfactory news for all concerned, particularly those on the opposition Benches who have tabled this amendment, as it will demonstrate our commitment to Green Growth apprentices and the Green Deal. As I said, I fully concur with the two noble Lords who have spoken on this subject. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I extend my sympathy to the Minister for the fact that he is not able to make these great announcements. However, we welcome any advance that the Government make in this very important area.
I thought that I had achieved enough leverage to get this amendment included in the Bill. I realised that the Minister might take a little persuading but I had strong hopes that I could appeal to other sections of the coalition. Nevertheless, when the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, complimented me on my remarks but said that he did not support the amendment, my heart sank. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Northover
“(iii) under a tenancy which is specified for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Secretary of State”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, government Amendments 67, 68, 91 and 92 give the Secretary of State the power to expand the range of tenancy types that are within the definition of “domestic private rented property” in Clause 35. They also clarify that the Secretary of State is able to consider non-PRS properties in the review if he considers it appropriate to do so.
We committed to considering the amendments of my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, from Grand Committee on the definition of this type of property. After that consideration, we now propose these government amendments. These amendments also make it clear that the Secretary of State’s review of the PRS might include a review of the energy efficiency of other types of property if he or she considers it appropriate.
Amendment 67A would amend the definition with the intention of not excluding social housing from the PRS provisions within the Bill. After an extensive debate in Committee, we agreed that we want to see the social housing sector continuing to improve its energy efficiency performance. That sentiment still stands and the Government are actively engaging with the sector to ensure that this is the case under the Green Deal. However, we feel that in the context of the PRS provisions, which are all about targeting the worst performing housing sector, regulating social housing is not necessary at this stage.
In addition, the PRS and social housing sector are governed by very different frameworks. While the PRS includes a large number of landlords, each with a small number of properties, the social housing sector contains considerably fewer landlords each with hundreds or thousands of properties. These social landlords have been subject to previous requirements to invest in the energy efficiency of their stock. However, we want to encourage the social housing sector to continue to drive up standards across its stock and will be keeping a careful watch on the sector’s uptake of the Green Deal. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords opposite will be content to withdraw Amendment 67A, and that the House as a whole will be willing to accept government Amendments 67, 68, 91 and 92. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I have listened to the noble Baroness’s comments on the government amendments which enable the Government to extend a review of energy efficiency to the social rented housing sector and provide a flexible instrument for expanding the definition of “private rented sector” in the Bill to cover other types of property. We are most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. In the light of these concessions and the conversations that we have had with the department on this subject, we no longer feel that it is necessary to move our own amendment on the future of social rented housing as it is clear that this type of housing is intended to fall within these provisions. As I say, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on this matter and ask for a response from the Minister, possibly in writing as she may not have the information to hand. Quite a few vicarages might benefit from the Green Deal. Older vicarages are typically not well insulated and not particularly well looked after over time by their impecunious residents. They are prime candidates for insulation improvements but they are neither private rented nor social housing as such. Indeed, they are typically occupied under a form of licence. It would be helpful to be told either now or in writing—the Minister may prefer to reply in writing—how the Green Deal arrangements will apply to a considerable stock of houses that are occupied under licence by office holders such as clergy.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for responding to issues that I raised in Committee. I was anxious that as many dwellings as possible came within the scope of the Bill, particularly in the private rented sector. I discussed the position of agricultural tenancies, certain tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 and houses in multiple occupation. I sought a provision that would enable the Minister to include any property that he considered appropriate. That point has been answered but in Committee confusion arose over agricultural tenancies. In Committee on 24 January, the Minister assured me that agricultural tenancies were already covered in the Bill but on 26 January he changed his mind and said that they were not. Therefore, I am not clear where we are on agricultural tenancies. Some agricultural tenancies are in a similar position to that of vicarages. Even if my noble friend is unable to answer today, there is some confusion on this issue, and I should be grateful for clarification on which other tenancies the Minister is minded to include. I assume that this will be done through secondary legislation, but I am not entirely satisfied that the Minister has responded to the queries on these important issues.
Baroness Northover
I thank noble Lords for their general welcome for these amendments. Perhaps I may pick up the various points that have been made. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill covers as wide a range of properties as possible. Therefore, I can confirm that both the categories that have been mentioned would be included within it. In fact, we pay particular tribute to the church for its leadership in this field and for seeking to move to zero carbon. I can confirm that the church properties would fall within this arrangement, as would agricultural tenancies. However, if noble Lords want more specific information, I am sure that we can arrange discussions between them and officials on all the details. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the purpose is to be as inclusive as possible in the Green Deal, and that is what the government amendments seek to achieve.
Baroness Northover
“( ) A review under this section may include a review of the energy efficiency of such properties which are not PR properties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Elections: Voting Arrangements
(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Astor
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider changing the voting arrangements for British citizens residing abroad and members of the Armed Forces serving abroad.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I hope you will forgive me for asking a Question on voting arrangements, because of course, as a Conservative hereditary Peer, I have never voted in any general election. However, there is a referendum approaching in which I look forward to voting, and I have, of course, always been able to vote in local elections.
This Government have always seen the merits of enfranchisement of British citizens living abroad. However, in recent years, the take-up of overseas registration has been disappointing. I am afraid that one of the reasons was the change of rules enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is now very difficult for British citizens living abroad to register, and it is even more difficult for them successfully to use their postal vote. As a result, registration has plummeted.
Equally, those serving abroad in the Armed Forces have had severe problems getting their postal votes processed. Does my noble friend have any estimate of how many members of the Armed Forces serving overseas successfully managed to vote at the last election? At present, the only sure way for members of the Armed Forces to vote is by proxy. However, surely those who wish to exercise their vote by secret ballot should be able to do so. It is extraordinary that out of all the troops from NATO countries in Afghanistan, who are there to encourage democracy, ours are often denied it. Can my noble friend give an assurance that for the referendum that is to be held on 5 May, when postal ballots are sent out on 18 April to those in Afghanistan, the Falklands or the many other territories, postal ballots will be able to be returned on time so that the votes count?
We seem to be the only EU country that does not encourage its citizens living abroad to play an active part in their own country. It is difficult to register and it is difficult to vote. You have to register in the constituency where you last lived in the UK, and you have to prove it, so many do not bother—it is a cumbersome procedure.
Through the internet, those living abroad are as close as they have ever been to their home country. It is the same as if they were living here. You can download any national newspaper any morning. You can watch the BBC on a television anywhere in the world. You remain part of your home country and belong to it. However, if you do not register, you lose interest in your home country and do not feel like supporting any political party. As a result, many feel disfranchised, unwanted and irrelevant to what is happening in their home country.
The main groups affected are those who are working abroad, including members of the Armed Forces, and particularly those who have moved or retired abroad. We live in a world where many travel for both short-term and long-term reasons, and their numbers are increasing; but that should not mean that their political rights should not be exercised. The rules are seen to be unfair and totally different from the rules for other EU countries, which not only make it easy but actually encourage their citizens abroad to take part in the democratic process. French citizens abroad can register with their embassy or consulate. Their votes can be cast in person, by mail, by proxy or on the internet. The advantage of that is that the French embassies and consulates know where their citizens live in foreign countries; often in times of crisis or difficulties, those nationals are able to be contacted much more easily than we can contact our nationals who live abroad.
Italy has a somewhat similar system. The Greek constitution provides for voting from abroad by post, but the law required to apply this provision has not yet been passed—although that is intended to happen. In Germany, the restriction on those voting is 25 years compared with 15 years in this country. Noble Lords will remember that the previous Government changed the rules, whereby if you have lived abroad for more than 15 years you are no longer able to vote. That is unfair, and that does not happen in many other European countries that I have looked at, including Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. All have better arrangements for voting abroad than we do.
There are always exceptions to the rule. For some inexplicable and particularly Irish reason, only diplomats and military personnel serving abroad can vote in elections in Ireland. I do not understand, nor have I been able to discover, why that is the case, but perhaps a noble Lord with more knowledge of that may be able to answer that question.
At the last election, complaints were numerous. For those living abroad, despite getting their requests to register well in advance of the deadline, many did not receive their registration. If they succeeded in registering, the ballot papers often did not arrive in sufficient time for the votes to be cast and to arrive back in the UK in time to count. The system is unworkable and deprives many British citizens of their right to vote.
We saw at the last election that many were disgracefully locked out of the polling booths at the last minute—at a quarter to 10, or just after. The Electoral Commission has a lot to answer for, and one wonders whether it is up to the job.
There is a 15-year rule in this country and I hope that the Government will look again at that, because it is unfair and excludes perhaps half the expatriates living overseas. There is no credible reason for that. When the Conservative Government re-enfranchised expatriates in the late 1980s, they did not imagine a situation when a Labour Government would come along and disfranchise people again by adopting the 15-year rule. That provision should be reversed. This is not a party issue. In the US, the Conservative and Labour groups signed a joint letter complaining about the 15-year rule and disfranchisement. Under the present system, the only way expats can be certain that their vote will arrive in time, especially from outside Europe, is to vote by proxy. However, many do not have an obvious proxy, and many do not want to vote by proxy.
I understand that there are at least 650,000 British citizens living in EU states, and some 800,000 expatriates worldwide who receive UK pensions. When one looks at the figures and evidence provided by the Electoral Commission, one sees that the entry of overseas voters on the UK parliamentary electoral registers had increased to the rather meagre sum of 30,809 in December 2010. By any standard, that is a pathetic amount, compared to the number of our citizens living overseas. It is something that must be addressed. Can the Minister confirm any of the figures that I have given him? Are they correct for how many people are living abroad and how many manage to vote? I am not entirely sure that all my figures are right. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Finally, under the recent Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, from which your Lordships are only just recovering, overseas voters have the right to vote in the referendum on 5 May. What is being done to inform them of their rights and encourage them to vote in this important referendum, which could change a significant part of our constitution? It is important that the Government undertake to review the system before the next election, as it is unfair and discriminatory in an age when we all ought to be voting online.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on securing this important debate. I declare my interest in these issues: I was the Minister responsible for them in the previous Government. I will focus my remarks on the voting arrangements for service personnel, although some of the improvements that can be made will also have implications for British citizens living overseas. I want to focus on the armed services because when men and women make such sacrifices for their country, they must be able to have an effective say in their country’s future. The Government must do everything possible to enable them to do so.
There are two elements to ensuring that service men and women can vote. First, they have to be registered. Secondly, when they do vote their vote has to be able to be counted in time. Both pose particular problems for services voters. They are often more peripatetic than other voters, which can cause problems with registration and deployment in remote areas, particularly in conflict zones; and can create serious problems with the timely return of postal votes. Much work has been already been done in both areas. The period for service declarations was extended to five years under the previous Government to help accommodate the volatility of life in the services. There are annual electoral registration campaigns targeted at service personnel and their families, and each unit has a unit registration officer.
We can see the results. During the time of the previous Government, the number of service personnel serving abroad who are registered to vote increased from around 36 per cent in 2005 to 48 per cent in 2008. An MoD survey carried out not long after that estimated that in 2008 65 per cent were registered to vote. This is still far too low and much more must be done to increase registration rates, just as more needs to be done to increase registration among the 3 million or so voters who are eligible to vote but cannot because they are not on the register. I hope the Minister will respond to this debate by telling the House how the Government are building on the work of the previous Government to increase registration rates further.
Once registered, all service personnel serving overseas can make use of proxy votes to ensure that their votes can be counted. They are not disenfranchised. However, when I was the Minister and I consulted representatives of service men and women and their families, they made it clear that many were uncomfortable using proxy votes and wanted to ensure that postal votes could be used. In my view, the Government should do everything possible, consistent with the integrity of the ballot, to enable voters to vote in the way that they wish.
The electoral timetable, for good reasons, means that postal ballots are issued only relatively close to election day, and therefore there can be serious problems with the timely return of postal ballots. The previous Government took action to address this problem. A great deal of excellent work was done by first-rate experienced officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. A bespoke postal voting scheme was set up for the last general election to expedite postal voting in Afghanistan, and a process was established to produce a long-term solution. Before the last election, I secured agreement from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that, whatever the outcome of that election, a consultation would be launched in July 2010 on the options for additional voting channels for service personnel and their families. This consultation was to have concluded by the end of November last year. The aim was then to reach conclusions on the way forward in the light of that consultation by spring 2011, and to bring forward legislation in 2012—in good time for the next general election.
I recognise that there is a wide variety of views on how best to proceed. As the Minister I heard, for example, suggestions for automatic registration for service personnel, for counting military votes on a longer timetable after polling day, and for the electronic distribution and remote printing and counting of ballot papers. All of these suggestions had merits and drawbacks but they were all worth exploring further. I became convinced that the answer lay with the internet. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to this as well. Enabling voting by internet would require changes in electoral law—which is enormously complex—and must satisfy, crucially, any concerns about the integrity of the system. However, none of these problems seemed insoluble, not least because the security of the internet is becoming at least as robust as the security surrounding traditional methods of voting. Just as importantly for the credibility of any changes, the security of the internet is increasingly widely accepted. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what progress the Government are making with this consultation and bringing forward the legislation necessary for any changes.
Finally, I want to touch on the referendum, which the noble Viscount referred to. At the moment, I understand that the proposal is to issue postal ballots on 18 April. That, as the Minister will appreciate, leaves very little time for them to reach personnel deployed in remote areas and be returned in time. While there may well be good reasons—and there are—for such a late issue of postal ballots for a general election, I cannot see why that applies to this referendum, where the contents of the ballot are known now. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the measures he is taking to ensure that all voters in the armed services, no matter where they are deployed, will receive postal ballots for the referendum on AV in good time for them to be returned by the due date.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Viscount for initiating the debate. I agree with what he has said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has said. I raised this issue last summer in a Written Question, when I asked the Government whether they would introduce legislative proposals so that British citizens who have worked overseas for more than 15 years in international organisations could have the same right to vote in parliamentary elections as members of the Armed Forces, Crown servants and employees of the British Council. My noble friend Lord McNally, in a Written Answer on 10 June, said:
“The Government are aware that representations have been made on behalf of those working in some international organisations abroad that they should continue to be able to vote after a period of 15 years’ continuous residence overseas. The Government have not yet considered the way forward on this issue”.—[Official Report, 10/6/10; col. WA57.]
I quite understand why that should be so for a new Government, but I hope—for the reasons that I will give as well as those that have been given—that the Minister will indicate that this thinking and open-minded Government will further consider these important issues.
I put down that Question for Written Answer because Simon Palmer, a very distinguished senior official in the Council of Europe, who has now been serving abroad for, I think, 27 years, raised the issue with me. He pointed out that in the days of the internet and broadband, British citizens serving abroad in international organisations are at least as well informed about British politics, British social policy and what is happening generally in this country as they would be if they were living in Herne Hill. He pointed out, therefore, that if there was any rationale in the pre-internet age for the 15-year cut-off, to do with knowledge of what is going on in the United Kingdom, it has long since disappeared. I agree with that.
He also pointed out, as has the Electoral Commission in the information that it has provided, that the cut-off point has varied from five to 20 to 15 years. I am not aware of any rationale for how those periods have been chosen. They seem to be entirely arbitrary and, I dare say, discriminatory in a way that violates Article 14 of the European convention read with Article 3 of the first protocol. There seems to be a difference in the treatment of, for example, an employee of the British Council, who is not subject to any cut-off point, a member of the armed services, who is not subject to the same cut-off point, and someone such as Mr Palmer who has been providing service abroad in the wider public interest, who is subject to this cut-off point. I should be very grateful if the Minister could tell us the rationale behind a period of five, 20 or 15 years in relation to such a person.
That is not all. So far, I have concentrated on membership of service in international organisations. However, in a world in which there is a right of establishment and freedom of movement under European Union rules, I ask myself why our concern should not include, for example, business men or women, who under the right of establishment are living, working, earning money and paying taxes in other parts of the European Union. Again, that seems entirely irrational. It might be said that it is somehow administratively difficult to administer the scheme without a cut-off point. However, that cannot be right because, as we know from the exceptions to the 15-year rule and to the overseas voting scheme, it is perfectly possible to manage without it in respect of those exceptions.
Therefore, although I do not expect the Minister to be able to give a definitive answer this evening, I very much hope that these concerns, which have already been raised by the two previous speakers, as well as by me, can now be looked at so that a full and comprehensive answer can be given to the question raised by the noble Viscount, which affects basic civil rights and freedoms, quite apart from any European dimension or any question of Peers voting—although Peers are of course subject to the 15-year rule if they are outside the country for that time—and quite apart from the vexed question of prisoners’ voting rights. We are dealing with something that transcends all that and I very much hope to get a positive answer.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on securing this debate. He asked whether any Member present this evening could explain the vagaries of the electoral system in the south of Ireland. As an Ulsterman, I am as mystified as he is.
Where there is a will, there is a way. In this modern, sophisticated world of ours, we pride ourselves on the ingenuity of mankind. We contemplate the merits of sending a man to Mars; medical teams have transplanted an entire human face; and we have unlocked the basic building blocks of life itself. Amazing, ingenious—is there nothing beyond our grasp? Apparently, there is. We can send a probe millions of light years into deep space and receive back pictures of worlds previously not even contemplated, but somehow the ability to send ballot papers to serving soldiers and receive them back before the polls close is one small step just too far for mankind—at least, of the British variety.
Patently, it is nonsense that those who serve in the Armed Forces—those whom we dispatch to mortal peril in the name of democracy—cannot be serviced with an adequate voting system in the 21st century. Iraqi and Afghan citizens living in this country have more chance of voting in their national elections—a franchise they enjoy courtesy of the efforts of British and other allied troops—than those very same UK troops have of voting at home. It is an insult that those who serve at the sharp end in the service of our democracy are so impeded in their ability to action that most basic democratic right—the right to vote.
Now, I do not propose that we use the 1945 election as a template. While it is true that that election accommodated the huge numbers of service men and women serving overseas, it did so by postponing the counting of votes by some three weeks. In Northern Ireland we used to postpone the counting of general election votes until the day after the polls closed, while everyone else on the mainland busied themselves with counts during the night. Given the level of irritation which that small delay caused, I do not think that postponement is the solution. Surely the answer lies at the other end of the electoral process, by providing for a slightly longer period between the close of nominations and the day of the election. That should provide enough time for ballot papers to be sent and returned in a timely fashion.
I know it is said that a week is a long time in politics, but just how many budding, potential parliamentarians are going to be debarred from standing for election because they have been asked to submit their nomination papers several days earlier? I suggest that there would not be many. In any case, surely the need to support the right of those in the Armed Forces to vote far outweighs the needs of those who feel compelled to stand for election at the very last moment.
Others have argued that the means for serving soldiers to vote already exist through the use of a proxy. That is to assume, however, that everyone has access to a proxy to whom they can entrust their vote. In any event, the use of a proxy is but a pale imitation of the real thing. Personally placing an X—and I say “X” deliberately, rather than the “1, 2, 3” that some well-intentioned but, I believe, misguided souls aspire to—is the moment of closure.
At a time when our learned friends at the European Court of Human Rights have advised Her Majesty’s Government that they would be well advised to provide voting rights to prisoners, we could well end up with the absurd position of criminals having more access to the voting system than troops in Afghanistan. That makes no sense to me and no sense to the country. When we are asking so much of our troops and when there is much discussion of the position of the services in today’s society and the need to support and enhance that position, ensuring that our service personnel serving abroad can, at the very least, cast their judgment on the Government who equip and direct them seems to me a fairly obvious starting point.
This is a point of principle and, I think, a moral obligation for parliamentarians. I urge the Government to bring forward proposals sooner rather than later.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, my brief contribution to this evening’s important debate might perhaps be regarded as having a slightly maidenly tinge. I have spoken once before since having the privilege of joining this noble House, but these are the first words since then that I have uttered in this Chamber, which Disraeli had chiefly in mind when he compared this House to the Elysian fields—that paradise in which heroes of the ancient world reposed for all eternity. Disraeli was firmly opposed to the creation of a mass electorate, convinced that the right to vote should be tightly restricted. However, above all, this great hero of the Tories believed that his party should seek to master whatever sets of circumstances might be created by the remorseless process of change to which, as he often pointed out, this progressive country is always subject.
I do not think it can be said that my party has so far done spectacularly well in dealing with the circumstances created by the enfranchisement of certain British citizens living permanently abroad, and nor perhaps have other parties. The most striking feature of the current overseas voting arrangements is how few people have so far taken advantage of them. Of those living overseas who are eligible to take part in our elections, no more than some 31,000 are actually registered today, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out. That is exactly the same number as 20 years ago after the Representation of the People Act 1989 had extended to 20 years—up from the initial five—the period during which our fellow citizens abroad can apply to vote in UK parliamentary and European elections. I was greatly struck by the comment of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill about the lack of any rationale for these different periods. As he has told us, no rationale has ever been offered and it would be very useful to have one because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it is of serious concern that so few British citizens living abroad have come forward to take up the right to vote here, which was conferred on them in the 1980s.
As far as my party is concerned, this state of affairs does not reflect indifference on the part of our fellow citizens living abroad. There are lively and successful Conservative associations in many overseas countries—some of which I have had the pleasure of visiting—and they form part of a network which is advised and assisted by the highly regarded Conservatives Abroad office in Tory headquarters. As one of our leading overseas members has recently said, “Within their host countries, expatriates meet and celebrate their Britishness in all types of organisations, associations, churches and schools”.
When the Conservative Party's flourishing overseas associations are asked why so few people are actually registered to vote—I think this is true of other parties—they tend to answer with one accord that the process of registration is too complex and cumbersome. There are other factors, but registration is so often the dominant one. The statutory requirements for registration are not easy to fulfil, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, explained in his opening speech. Again, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out, the time needed to fulfil the requirements makes it virtually impossible to register close to an election. The position would be greatly eased if electronic registration were introduced. Of course, there would be many problems attached to this, not least fraud, but many other countries have overcome them successfully. There might perhaps be merit in asking the Electoral Commission to examine the issues thoroughly and produce a full report which could help to inform close discussion of the ways in which more of our fellow citizens abroad could exercise more easily the important right that they have been given.
Against such a background it might also be timely to reconsider the current rules which disenfranchise all our fellow citizens who have lived overseas for more than 15 years. Subject to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to whom we are greatly indebted for this debate, I ask the Minister to consider these suggestions.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation for the debate secured by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for the effort that he made to enfranchise the Armed Forces when he was Minister in the other place. I have great hopes for the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I agree with everything he says. I thought that he would turn to the electoral system in the Irish Republic, but he did not. He condemns the system which is so close to my heart—that of proper proportional representation—but I am sure that we shall remain on speaking terms. However, he spoke of the importance of service personnel being able to vote. I battled with this a couple of Sessions of Parliament ago when I tried to get serious consideration of the automatic registration of people when they sign up to the Armed Forces, so that they are included on an electoral register. We have a registration officer for every unit but I think we need more. Automatic registration would meet the criteria quite easily.
Others have already mentioned the very tight general election timetable: between the close of nominations and polling day there are just 11 working days. I suggest that 11 working days is far too short a period for nominations to be verified, for papers to be printed, for them to be dispatched, for them to reach the furthermost parts of our interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere and for them to be filled in and returned. It is nice to speak of doing things online, but I am sure that many of our troops are out of the reach of any sort of computer, so would be unable to take advantage of that method of voting.
This morning, the MoD confirmed that we have 9,500 troops in Afghanistan. How many of them voted? It says that at the time of the general election there were 9,000 or 10,000, so this morning I was astonished to receive figures from the Electoral Commission showing that, in the 2010 UK general election, 294 proxy voting applications were received and forwarded to electoral registration officers and 270 postal votes were successfully returned from Afghanistan to returning officers in about 120 authorities. That is out of 9,000 people who are eligible to vote. That is totally disgraceful and is not acceptable in any modern democracy.
I suggest that one of the reasons for that is the period of 11 days for the whole transaction. That contrasts with other timetabling for elections: for example, for the National Assembly for Wales, where we shall have an election very soon, there is a gap of 19 days; for the Scottish parliamentary elections, 23 days; for the Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 days; for the London Assembly, 24 days; and for the European Parliament and for local elections in England there is a gap of 19 days. When we have such important elections, why is the gap only 11 days? We tried to sort this out with the previous Government but I am so sad that they were not able to proceed to retimetable the gap between the close of nominations and polling day. It is nonsensical.
The situation becomes even more confused. Last year, a general election took place on the same day as local elections in England. Agents, returning officers and their staff were all involved in election campaigns and there was tremendous inconvenience because the different elections had different timetabling, even though they were to take place on the same day. Not only were ballot papers not returned in time because of the 11-day timetable, but candidates and parties were unable to reach the electorate with their messages and manifestos. The Representation of the People Act 1983 states that any candidate can send one item of election literature free of postage to each elector. However, that does not apply to people overseas. You get a ballot paper at the last minute but no information about the candidates and there is nothing to promote them. We need to extend this ridiculous period of 11 days so that there is sufficient time, not only for the ballot papers but also for the material from the various candidates to reach those who are entitled to vote.
Finally, having a consistent workable timetable, say of between 18 and 25 days—I believe that the Electoral Commission wants 25 days—between the close of nominations and polling day would enable those overseas, especially those serving in the forces, to play a much more significant part in our elections in the United Kingdom.
Lord Patten
My Lords, the issue of the voting rights of those living abroad or serving their country abroad seems to me to have a clear constitutional quality or aspect but also presents equally clear and simple logistical challenges to ensure that votes are deliverable on time, in the right place and in an orderly way.
Tonight we must debate the issues raised so eloquently by my noble friend on the run within our present rather ad hoc arrangements for constitutional change and reform. Within that framework I shall concentrate on the rights of service men and women, important though the feelings of, for example, British civilians living abroad are. We should treat the constitutional and logistical issues of the service vote specifically within the framework of the military covenant, which is central to my remarks. The military covenant should embody, with everything else, the clear voting rights of men and women who serve us abroad. I regard it as ever more important as we necessarily ask in these difficult times fewer to do more when they serve us. This is an urgent task.
The absolute right to vote on time and in secret should be enshrined in the military covenant. A proxy vote is no substitute for being able to vote in secret. I remember the late Lord Garden making that point very strongly some years ago. Why should service personnel not be able to vote in exactly the same way as any other British subject wherever they are in the world? The issue begins with the life of service registration which is now five years. I welcome that. I also applaud the MoD’s efforts to get the service vote registered. Its efforts are excellent, as are those of some local councils, such as North Lincolnshire, which only last month publicised the issue in its area. In the end I would prefer to see registration lasting the life of service if that is the only certain way to ensure the continuing right to vote for service men and women wherever they are.
There are then the sheer logistical problems of getting votes back from bases in, say, Germany, which are compounded to the power in getting votes out of in-theatre areas such as Afghanistan. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno, so rightly said, there is no reason why there should not be a longer period. Why cannot procedures for general and local elections be better aligned? At present the printing and posting of general election ballot papers can begin only after the final publication of those nominated—11 days. In local elections it is 16 days. For a start we could align the 11 days with the 16 days as those extra five days could make all the difference in the logistics of ensuring that those who are risking their lives do not also risk recording their vote when all that is required is a little neo-constitutional date alignment. I have heard the argument that someone should have the right to stand for Parliament at the last minute. I have never thought that that was a very good reason. Among the ranks of my new best friends in the Liberal Democrats, Mr Huhne, the Energy Secretary, took about three years before he tilted at the seat I represented, making it quite clear that he was going to stand. We should take the service vote as something that trumps the need for last-minute, monster loony applications to stand in general elections.
In short order, also, why do we not have special ballot box arrangements administered in theatre by forces with priority postal arrangements to get them back, and in the opposite direction, exactly the same expedited arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, to get messages of candidates across? What my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said about looking at internet voting is very important but we should not diminish or forget the possibility of cyber attack on internet voting or indeed on any other internet sphere.
I end by recognising the fact that life cannot be perfect. There are a few particularly difficult situations facing those of our excellent submariners on board our deterrent Vanguard class submarines when on patrol on continuous at-sea deterrence for 80 or 100 days submerged, with all the communications involved. It would be pretty difficult, I suspect, to get their votes back. In those cases, proxies by those they trust might be the only answer. They deserve our thanks, as do all our service men and women, which is my reason for stressing that the service vote and its safety is not some little issue for returning officers, constitution freaks and those interested in the wider shores of constitutional reform. It is absolutely central that the military covenant in future should embody the rights of servicemen to vote in exactly the same way as anyone within the kingdom.
Baroness Gale
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for holding this debate tonight. It is a very good topic, of interest to everyone who believes that in a democracy voting should be uncomplicated and that an easy route to casting one’s vote should be found.
To assist British people living abroad and those in our Armed Forces serving overseas, the Electoral Commission runs advertising and media campaigns to encourage voter registration among British citizens living abroad. The campaigns include online advertising targeted at sites which are frequently used by British citizens living overseas. I received some information this morning in which the commission said:
“Our most recent campaign took place in spring 2010 in the run up to the UK Parliamentary General Election. It resulted in more than 40,000 overseas voter registration forms being downloaded from the Commission’s website. The Office for National Statistics publishes annual registration data collected from Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain and from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. In December 2009 there were 14,861 entries of overseas voters on the UK Parliamentary electoral registers, this increased to 30,809 in December 2010”.
The Electoral Commission’s campaign doubled the amount of registrations, but the number is still very low. The commission believes that the current election timetable may not always provide enough time to allow for postal voters to receive the ballot paper, mark it and send it back in time for the close of poll. In its report on the 2010 UK general election the commission restated its recommendation, first made in 2003, that the Government should review the election timetable to ensure that there is sufficient time for voters to receive and return their postal ballot packs for future elections. Would the Minister look at this recommendation?
There are a number of problems for voters abroad, as other noble Lords have said. The closing date for nominations and then the wait of a few days for withdrawals means that, as has been said, the full list of candidates is available only 11 days before polling day. Most people recognise that this is too short a time to get postal votes sent abroad and returned. Fixed-term elections could overcome that problem. Proxy voting can be an answer for some people as it should be a sure way of getting one’s vote cast. However, not everyone is happy with allowing someone else to vote for them and they may not have someone they can trust enough. So that can be only a partial answer.
In America most states send out ballot papers between 20 to 45 days before an election, but there are also back-up systems, including online forms that can be printed and posted back. Canadian forces have a flexible special voting system that enables people to vote wherever they are stationed. Under that system, electors have a six-day window to vote beginning two weeks before civilian election day. Will the Minister look at other countries such as those mentioned to see if their methods could be adopted?
Another way to overcome those difficulties would be to move to electronic voting, as other noble Lords have said. Surely we could have a pilot scheme first. Like other noble Lords, I believe that that is the way forward. I think that we will get there one day, but I wonder how long that will take. Does the Minister think that that is a feasible idea?
My final question to the Minister is: why cannot people from Wales who live abroad vote in the referendum tomorrow in Wales, whereas they can vote in the referendum being held on AV on 5 May? There is a certain irony there. Welsh people abroad will be allowed to vote in the 5 May referendum but not in the Welsh Assembly elections on the same day. If a general election is held in May 2015, Welsh people abroad will be able to vote in the UK general election but not in the Welsh Assembly general election being held on the same day. The same applies to Scotland. I believe that that is an oversight. Because we have had devolution for only 11 years, no one has spotted it. I ask the Minister to have a good look at it and report back to the House.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, on that last point, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, should look behind her and ask why the Labour Government did not deal with that apparent anomaly, but I will have a look at it. It seems strange that you can vote in one referendum but not in another. I sincerely hope that the Welsh people will turn out in good numbers and vote yes in tomorrow's referendum.
The key thing about this debate—I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor on securing it during the first year of a five-year Parliament—is that many of the issues raised are good, should be studied and, I hope, be considered by the Government with urgency. I will deal later with the specific issue of the military vote, although it is significant that more than half the speakers devoted most of their remarks to it. I take on board the priority that the House gives to addressing that matter.
Of an estimated 5.5 million British citizens resident overseas, only about 30,000 vote. We must address that issue. As my noble friend Lord Roberts pointed out, for all the efforts made, only about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan voted, out of about 10,000. That disengagement of the military is not healthy. I take on board the points that have been made and will return to them.
The point about postal voting and the election timetable has been made. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that, although proxy voting is an alternative, it is not one that all electors want. Therefore, it is right that we address the issue of the postal vote. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said last September that the Government have noted the Electoral Commission’s view, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and my noble friend Lord Roberts referred, that an extension to the electoral timetable would be an advantage. The Electoral Commission has said that a longer timetable for Westminster elections could be created by bringing the key deadlines into line with those used for the majority of elections currently held in the UK. That would mean that the election timetable would begin 25 working days before polling day.
As I said, the Electoral Commission's views are on the table, and I know that the Government are working on the issue with a sense of urgency—not in time, of course, for the referendum on 5 May. Again, the Electoral Commission is planning guidance to administrators to prioritise postal votes, particularly postal votes going overseas.
Several noble Lords mentioned electronic voting—
Lord Wills
Before the Minister leaves the point about the referendum, is he saying that it is impossible for the Government to issue postal ballots for the referendum before 18 April?
Lord McNally
No, we will not do so. I will come back to that.
A number of countries have moved to e-voting but some have stepped back from it—in particular, the Netherlands and a number of states in the United States—because of the security issues that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. One problem is that e-voting is vulnerable to attack and to fraud. On the other hand, I have actually voted electronically in a pilot scheme in local elections seven or eight years ago. I voted in a St Albans local election from my office in London. Although there is not a great deal of enthusiasm for e-voting at present, I think that if we are to have the in-depth study that this debate urges, a study of e-voting would be worth while. Voting in UK embassies is not easy, given the constituency basis of our elections and the need to get ballot papers to cover all parliamentary constituencies.
Let me use the last few minutes on the military vote, because I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that the military covenant is important and the right to vote on time and in secret should be addressed as part of that covenant. I will certainly take that message back. It is important that we try to encourage our service personnel to vote. The Government are making every effort to encourage participation in the vote on 5 May, not only in Afghanistan but in other British service areas where the British Forces Post Office will make voting in military locations a priority.
As I said, the Government are introducing an initiative for voting on 5 May. The deadline for new postal vote applications and changes to existing votes for the referendum is 5 pm on 14 April. The chief counting officer for the referendum has directed electoral administrators to prioritise postal votes going overseas, to ensure that they are sent out as soon as possible after the deadline for new postal vote applications has passed, with the first issue of postal votes to take place not later than 18 April. That issue will include postal votes for members of the Armed Forces. Why 18 April? Many areas will issue combined ballot packs and so will need to have election papers included with the referendum ballot. Also, 14 April is the last date for registration, and we will need to send out postal votes after that date in case of any change in details—a point raised by the noble Lord.
I say frankly and honestly to the House that on a wide range of the issues raised, such as the 15-year rule which was raised by my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Lester, I do not think there is a rationale—I almost feel I am back to why the AV Bill provides that there should be 600 MPs—for the figure of 15 years, five years or 20 years. However, I think that it is certain that, in a world where many more people work abroad, the issue should be properly looked at. I say to my noble friend Lord Lexden that Disraeli’s most famous intervention into voting was to dish the Liberals in 1867 and then bring in a more radical franchise in 1868.
I leave the House with the message that the issues raised tonight are very substantial. They have been raised at the right time in this Parliament by my noble friend Lord Astor and other noble Lords who have spoken. I will make sure that my right honourable friend Nick Clegg and his colleague, my honourable friend Mark Harper, in the Cabinet Office, who have responsibility for these matters, see the Hansard of this debate. It will carry with it my very strong endorsement that we should carry forward the momentum of what the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was trying to do towards the end of the Labour Government and that early in this Parliament we should have a really radical look at voting for our overseas residents and, very importantly, for our military. I hope that will be the lasting value of this debate.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Maddock
Baroness Maddock
I shall speak also to Amendments 71 to 75, 77 to 79 and 84, and the comments I make will also be pertinent to Amendments 81 to 83, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best; they also have my name to them. When I saw this Bill, I was delighted to see that the private rented sector was to be included. As time has gone on, I am not quite so delighted with how far we have got on the private rented sector. What I aimed to do in Committee and reiterate here is to have greater certainty about what sort of regulation we are going to have and when it might come in, and to bring the timetable forward.
The amendments bring forward to 2020 the Government’s measures for local authorities to issue notices to landlords requiring relevant energy efficiency improvements, and make it a duty rather than a power. They remove its conditionality on the outcome of the review in Clause 36. Landlords receiving a notice from a local authority will be required to improve that property at least to a minimum energy efficiency level of EPC band E, and this level will be increased before 2020. The maximum penalty for non-compliance is increased to £10,000 per tenancy, and local authorities are given the option to carry out the improvements themselves and then impose a charge to recover the costs. From 2016, a minimum energy efficiency standard is introduced whereby it becomes an offence to let or market a domestic private rented property which falls below EPC band E—that means those in F and G—until it is improved to band E, and the minimum standard must be raised again before 2020. A fine of £10,000 can be imposed for marketing or letting a property which does not meet the minimum standard.
There has been a lot of discussion about this. Some landlords, the British Property Federation and the RLA have produced briefings that claim that lots of properties would be taken off the market. Given the situation in the housing sector at the moment, I think that is highly unlikely. The latest edition of Landlord & Buy-to-Let Magazine states:
“Landlords are faced with excellent levels of tenant demand, strong pricing power … and improving buy-to-let mortgage conditions and are looking towards 2011 with confidence”,
so I think that is one thing that can be knocked on its head.
It is important to look at the details surrounding this sector. According to the Government’s figures, properties rented from a landlord or a letting agency are most likely to be the worst insulated, and 42 per cent of tenants in the coldest rented homes are unable to afford to heat them properly and are defined as being in fuel poverty. New research by the Energy Saving Trust reported today shows that the average cost of improving the coldest rented homes is £2,535 and that 30 per cent could be improved for less than £900 through rather cheaper measures such as loft and cavity wall insulation. Only 5 per cent would cost more than £7,500. A poll by Friends of the Earth found that tenants renting from a landlord or through a letting agency faced the worst during the freezing snowy weather this winter, with half saying that they were uncomfortably cold in their home and a third turning off their heating because they were concerned that they could not pay the bill.
There are 754,000 F and G-rated—that is, below E —private rented properties in Britain. They could all be improved for less than £2 million. The average cost would be about £2,500. The annual fuel bill reduction would be something like £370 million and the average fuel bill reduction could be a little under £500.
The annual report by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, for 2009, which was published in March last year, showed that people living in poorly heated housing live in great danger. Old, badly insulated properties offer significantly less protection against the risk of cold than more modern buildings. The annual cost to the NHS of treating winter-related disease due to cold in private housing is £859 million, although that is all private housing, not just the private rented sector.
This issue has been around for a long time. There is an issue about when and when not to regulate but, as I said in Committee, we are looking at the worst of rented properties. Most would not cost a lot to bring up to a proper level. A large percentage of people living in those properties are in fuel poverty, and this is one case when I really think we need to bring in some sort of regulation. We have been talking about trying to improve them for years, but nothing has happened.
My final point is that many people living in these properties are being paid for by taxpayers, who are paying huge amounts of housing benefit. Given where we are at the moment, I do not think we can go on doing that much longer. All the time I have been in Parliament, I have been trying to make sure that we have fewer people living in cold homes in the winter and fewer excess winter deaths. Even if the Minister cannot do anything today, I hope that he will promise that by the end of the passage of the Bill we will have more certainty that we are really going to do something about the private rented sector. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendments 81, 82 and 83, which stand in my name and were aired in Committee, seek to address the problem that the Green Deal may make very modest inroads into the problems of poor standards of insulation in the private rented sector. The Government’s impact statement for the Bill recognises this problem and there was agreement in Committee on the difficulties of reaching those of the 1.2 million private landlords who own substandard properties.
In anticipation of continuing problems of getting landlords to take action, the Bill proposes giving enforcement powers to local authorities and giving tenants the right to trigger the necessary action. However, the Bill’s measures kick in, as we have discussed in relation to earlier amendments, only after a review has been concluded and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the measures will not deter lettings in the future.
My amendments cut to the chase, making sure that if there is only limited take-up of the Green Deal and if all other ways of securing action by private landlords were to fail, by 2016 it would no longer be legal to let properties with the very worst energy performance. Making the position clear would mean that all landlords and, very importantly, all managing agents—they look after some 60 per cent of private rented properties—know that they have five years to get the substandard premises up to the very modest E rating with 10 years to move them up to the D level.
Perhaps I may advance three reasons why these amendments, very carefully brought together by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Friends of the Earth with considerable support from Members in another place, would help the Bill’s objectives in this tricky area of the private rented sector. First, setting a minimum standard as a legal requirement for letting greatly increases the chances of success in getting the works done to the more than 740,000 offending properties. The take-up of Warm Front and the CERT scheme has been poor in the PRS, and the misery of cold homes with attendant wasteful carbon emissions seems unlikely to end without the sanctions which a legal requirement for letting would bring.
As well as fixing the ongoing problems of fuel poverty for some 150,000 PRS tenants, the amendments would reduce problems of fuel debt. Citizens Advice tells me that it had more than 100,000 inquiries last year, which was up 33 per cent on the previous year, from people with fuel debts. A minimum energy efficiency standard of band E would save on average £488 for an average outlay of only £2,535, which would be a very fair rate of return. At the same time, according to the Energy Saving Trust’s research for Friends of the Earth, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has mentioned, these measures would save 1.87 million tonnes of climate-changing carbon dioxide each year, which Friends of the Earth calculates as being equivalent to taking 800,000 cars off the road. I guess that the Minister shares the widespread view that achieving a minimum standard will require sanctions at a later date. These amendments give that process the necessary teeth without the delays and uncertainties inherent in the proposed review and its aftermath.
Secondly, landlords and their agents are well used to complying with statutory requirements. The simplest comparison here is the duty to obtain a gas safety certificate. Obtaining an energy performance certificate with a rating of E or above is just as straightforward and, since few landlords would deliberately flout the law, can be expected very quickly to become a normal part of the letting process. I emphasise my point that managing agents are important in this regard. Few agents wish to bother their landlords with suggestions for extra spending or give themselves more work. But virtually all agents, as responsible corporate entities that are much easier to reach than individual landlords, will make sure action is taken if it is a legal requirement.
As the Bill is drafted, no action will be required of the landlord or the tenant until such time as the review has been concluded, powers have been granted to local authorities, and local authorities have taken decisions to act and given the requisite notice, et cetera. The reality is that this leisurely timescale, which stretches past the next general election with no certainty of its outcome, means that all those who are not minded to take these matters seriously will simply sit on their hands.
Thirdly, the proposed arrangements, assuming the necessary powers are granted in 2014 or 2015 to local authorities and tenants, rely on either or both of those parties taking the necessary action. Local authorities may already have the power to act against landlords who let the very coldest homes because these properties are likely to fail the test set out in the housing health and safety rating system. Yet despite these existing powers, local authorities, which have a lot of other priorities to handle, are not exercising them. Recalcitrant landlords can be fairly confident that few local authorities will chase after them if and when extra powers are granted to those local authorities.
Meanwhile, the fallback of expecting tenants to take matters into their own hands seems even less likely to achieve results. A very high proportion of tenants stay little more than a year in their rented property while, with the loss of security of tenure since 1988, all will recognise the high risk of not seeing their tenancy renewed or even of receiving a couple of months’ notice to quit if the landlord sees them as acting against his or her interests. How much better would be the legal protection given by these amendments to the tenant, and how much simpler, cheaper and more effective for local authorities, if they need only to ask for the necessary certificate in the knowledge that if it is not available the landlord is not permitted to let the property.
I suggest that in achieving what the Government wish—a minimum standard, even if it is at a low level in the next five years, with clarity and certainty for landlords and tenants, and ease of administration for local authorities—these amendments, which are so strongly supported by the wide membership of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Friends of the Earth, do the job to good effect at less cost to the public purse.
I should add that Amendment 82 provides for exemptions for meeting the minimum standards, while Amendment 83 gives local authorities the powers to do the works themselves if landlords fail to take action or face fines. I am sure that these consequential amendments could be improved by the Minister’s department.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the exemptions from the legal requirement in Amendment 81 to give reassurance to landlords who are anxious about meeting a statutory minimum level of energy performance. It would be sensible for local authorities to have discretion to exempt properties in several circumstances; namely, listed buildings and properties in conservation areas, and national parks where there are special planning requirements affecting the interior or the exterior of the properties.
In relation to the debate on excluding properties where the tenant wishes to refuse consent for the Green Deal, an exception might be made here for regulated tenancies where a tenant does not wish to be disturbed. There are 100,000 regulated tenancies out of more than 3 million private sector tenancies. These tenancies have been in place since at least 1988. Unlike shorthold tenancies used in the rest of the PRS where the average length of stay is 14 months, a regulated tenancy has been going for 22 years or more. Because the occupiers have security of tenure, they are unlikely to move. Although these tenants would be well advised to accept the upgrading to their properties necessary to meet the minimum energy performance standards by 2016, I can see the case for respecting their right to veto any works to their home if they cannot face the upset.
I hope that the Minister, who has made so many excellent changes to the Bill so far, will see the sense of these amendments and take them away with a promise perhaps to bring back something similar at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling on this issue from the debates we have had in Committee and from the two powerful speeches we have had this evening.
I speak not only to my Amendment 70, but also to the amendments in the group. They seek to achieve the same ends but by slightly different means. Their ambition is the same: to improve substantially the quality of the private rented sector in terms of energy efficiency. There is broad agreement on the aim; the differences are about how we best achieve that.
We should address the real concerns of the impact on those people who live in homes that are not energy efficient. In Committee we looked at the wider impact of cold homes. We spoke of the impact on those with homes rated in bands F and G. It is worth noting again, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the Chief Medical Officer has estimated that the annual cost to the NHS of winter-related illnesses is more than £850 million. It is huge; it is absolutely massive. That is not just across the private rented sector; but some of the worst homes, some of the least energy-efficient homes, are in the private rented sector.
I want to say something about the impact that has on the individual. None of us in your Lordships’ House tonight lives in a private rented home that is rated band F or band G. Neither would we want to. If we did, we should be paying an extra 50 per cent in fuel bills to heat our homes to the same level as a band E rated property. If those properties rated F and G were brought up to band E standard, the difference would be between £500 and £800 for the bill payers. It can make a massive difference.
The energy scale goes from band A to band G. Band G is the worst for private rented homes. If we raise that standard to band E, it would take about 150,000 private rented households out of fuel poverty. That is 150,000 families with children and older people—25 per cent of all private rented households—who are currently in fuel poverty. Forty per cent of F and G rated properties can meet the standard for less than £1,500 per property. The average cost is about £270 per property. Sixty per cent of F or G rated private rented properties could meet this standard for less than £5,000. The amounts we are talking about, which would make a massive difference, are not great. I believe we can do this. Landlords with poor-performing property should be given help and advice about how to meet the standard and there should be a substantial increase to the landlords’ energy saving allowance.
I do not think that the wider public know what we are talking about when we talk about F and G rated property being brought up to E standard. It becomes a jargon. I asked Friends of the Earth and ACE to give me some case studies of what it means to people. What is the difference? What is the impact on people living in these properties? These people gave Friends of the Earth permission to publish their stories on condition that they only gave their names and the general location of where they lived. Susan from Abergavenny said:
“My 11 year-old daughter and I are currently moving out of a rented house. The house is freezing cold, with no draught proofing and draughty sash windows with huge visible gaps in the window frames. During the recent cold weather, ice formed on the inside of the window each morning. On Christmas Day, I was able to write ‘Happy Christmas Ellie!’ on it. Despite asking my landlady to help on this issue, she said it was our concern to keep the house warm.
We spend enormous amounts on heating but are never warm”.
This is repeated over and over again. Kristie from Pinner lives in a one-bedroom flat on her own. She says that her heating bills are 12 per cent of her monthly income. She says:
“I have told my landlord about this and asked for a better heating system, but he said it’s too expensive”.
Jennifer from Nottingham says:
“This winter has been unbearable in the house, no matter how long we put the heating on for the house remains freezing. I visited my doctor at home over Christmas with a cough that I’ve had for over 3 months now. He said that the house has probably given me a lung sensitivity and I am now on an inhaler to try to help it”.
These are real people suffering day in and day out. Environmental health officers, GPs and a midwife all tell the same story.
There are some glimmers of hope. Jenny from Norwich tells us:
“As an elderly landlady with a single small property rented out, I put my tenant’s warmth and health as high as my own. Two years ago they had an up-to-date boiler installed and this year, during other renovations, the attic insulation was increased to current standards and the gas fire replaced. If, as someone living on a smallish pension, I can afford to do this, then so can more regular landlords”.
I shall not continue with these stories, but I am sure noble Lords would find them as emotive and as heart-breaking as I do.
It seems that there are two or three key issues before us today with the amendments. One is the regulations to improve energy efficiency in the private rented sector. We had lengthy debates on this in Committee. The general view was that we needed action on this as soon as possible. I have no objection to any review being undertaken of energy efficiency in the private rented sector, but there is no justification to use this as a delay for bringing in regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has told some shocking tales. Funnily enough, I do feel that I stayed in one of those properties in my younger days. It was not at all comfortable, and I have a feeling that one of my sons, who is a student, is staying in such a property at the moment. It is a terrible tale and the whole idea of the Green Deal is to remove this from the equation. But let us stand back for a moment and work out what the Green Deal is. It is about giving people the opportunity to drive energy-efficiency endeavours into their homes, and to reduce the cost of electricity and thus to have all the ongoing effects that that may have in their lives. However, the Green Deal is not a prescriptive document, one that determines that “You, you and you should have this, this and this”, but rather it is to encourage and provide the facilities by which people can take advantage of situations.
Of course, there are also some very good landlords. There is some terrible accommodation, terrible houses and very bad landlords, but there are also some very good ones. So we have to look at this. However, we must start from the standpoint that we are committed, as a Government, to ensuring that the Green Deal works at all levels, and we are committed, as a Government, to ensuring that this drives hard into the private rented sector. But as I have said on a number of occasions, this is a market-driven endeavour where we want to see natural buy-in by all forms of property owners, including landlords, and we expect them to improve their properties to an acceptable standard. We would all love to wave a magic wand and say that the minimum standard should be band E, but the standard of what? We have inherited an energy performance certificate which was designed for people buying and selling houses, not for those relevant to the Green Deal. So until we have redesigned the energy performance certificate to make it fit for purpose within the Green Deal rather than for buying and selling houses tied into the now abandoned HIPs, which as I have told the House on many occasions we are working extremely hard to do, it would be wrong to be prescriptive about that element.
We are starting from the standpoint, which has been excellently portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, of the 1.2 million properties that fit into the category of the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly pointed out that 150,000 of them are in bands F and G. One would hope that landlords are listening to what the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Maddock are saying and will feel compelled to raise these houses up to an acceptable EPC level of band E and above. We want also to ensure that local authorities buy into this, along with all other housing sectors. Further, we have been briefed by ACE and Friends of the Earth, and we are very receptive to their briefings. But we are at an early stage in the passage of the Bill and we are starting to shape it. One of the fundamental timescales that we have established is a review in 2013. If landlords in the private rented sector do not adopt decent standards by 2013, we will be able to establish where the pressure points and the weaknesses lie.
We believe, with the encouragement that the Green Deal gives to property owners, that they will take it up, when the new EPC is produced, to level E and beyond, and this Government are fundamentally committed, as the sponsor of this Green Deal, to ensure that they do. It would be ridiculous for us to think that we have achieved things if we have not driven hard to get the public rented sector out of the F and G bands. There is a lot of work going on to get to this position. We do not want to get to this position until we have thoroughly gone through the process of redesigning the EPC and setting a framework that people can attach themselves to. We have given people the opportunity to use market forces and their best endeavours and best practices to achieve a minimum standard. If we find that they have not taken that up, of course we will come down like a ton of bricks, because it will show that what we have set out to achieve has not succeeded.
Throughout all these debates, which have been extremely well enunciated, and have found great favour with us, we have listened. We are all, after all, singing from the same hymn sheet, in particular on Amendments 69, 70, 76, 84, 89, and 94 to 99, which really deal with the materiality. It would be ridiculous if this did not find favour with us in terms of a form of words. I accept in principle the intention of this. I have listened to what noble Lords have said in Grand Committee, I will warmly consider this element of the amendments, and we will take the view of tabling this as a government amendment as the Bill carries on with its passage. I hope that that will find favour with noble Lords, and will demonstrate that, on the one hand, we have listened and that we all understand the problem that we all face, and, on the other hand, that we understand that, in the timeframe available and with the concept of the Green Deal, we must make an evaluation. Once we have persuaded the market to accept an opportunity, if it does not take it up we must evaluate it in a very short timeframe, which will be the end of 2013. If the market does not respond to that, we will then bring into action a set of standards, which we will help it to maintain. With that, I hope that this finds favour with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Smith, who made excellent speeches, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, perhaps I should say that my glass is half-full at the end of that. I obviously think that this is a really important issue, or I would not have gone on at such length in Committee and here on Report. I take issue with my noble friend. As far as I remember, the energy performance certificates were not there because of what we are doing on buying and selling houses. It was a European piece of legislation, and it got thrown in with the HIPs because it was the best way of dealing with it. At the time, I thought it should be separate, and spoke on that issue. We need to look at it carefully, because the EPCs are part of what we are required to do in signing up to our responsibilities in Europe for reducing carbon emissions.
I will withdraw my amendment, but I look forward to what the Minister has promised. As I say, I feel my glass half-full at the moment. Maybe he will be able to top it up at some point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
“Domestic minimum standard regulationsPower to make domestic minimum standard regulations
(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of securing that a landlord of a domestic PR property which falls below a minimum standard of energy efficiency (as demonstrated by the energy performance certificate) as is provided for by the regulations shall not let or market the property until such time as the landlord can demonstrate that the property meets the minimum standard for a domestic PR property.
(2) Regulations under this section are referred to in this Chapter as “domestic minimum standard regulations”.
(3) For the purposes of domestic minimum standard regulations—
“energy performance certificate” has the meaning given by the Energy Performance Regulations;
“landlord” and “local authority” have the meaning given by the regulations; and
“minimum energy efficiency standard” means Band E or above expressed in accordance with Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Energy Performance Regulations or above (or any higher level set in accordance with subsection (5)).
(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of “energy performance certificate” in subsection (3).
(5) The Secretary of State shall, no later than 31 December 2019, amend the regulations to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard.
(6) Domestic minimum standard regulations shall come into force no later than 1 January 2016.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The noble Lord can degroup his amendment if he wishes, but he has already spoken to it in the previous group.
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
(a) an order under section 35(1)(a)(iii), or”
“(5) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making provision under this Chapter amending or revoking—
(a) provision included in an instrument made under a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;(b) any other subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers (or the National Assembly for Wales established under the Government of Wales Act 1998).(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is making incidental or consequential provision.
(7) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before making—
(a) domestic energy efficiency regulations, or(b) tenants’ energy efficiency improvements regulations,which apply in relation to domestic PR properties situated in Wales.(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to the extent that consent has been obtained under subsection (5).”
“Local carbon budgets
For the purposes of ensuring local authorities assist in meeting the United Kingdom’s carbon budgets under section 4(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (carbon budgets), the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on proposals for introducing local carbon budgets by December 2011.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this amendment deals with an issue that we discussed in Committee. Most noble Lords in the Chamber now were in Committee, so to the relief of the House I will not repeat all the comments made. We are very supportive of the issue of local carbon budgets and keen to see progress. We have deliberately worded the amendment in a way that gives the Minister some flexibility to report back to the House and to Parliament on this issue.
However, if we are really to make a difference in reducing our carbon emissions, we need to engage locally and work with local government. If we look across the board at where the support lies, Greg Barker has given his support as has the Federation of Small Businesses, which e-mailed many noble Lords today to say that it supports local carbon budgets and wants to work with local authorities and the community to reduce emissions. The trade unions, the workforce and the Audit Commission all see enormous value in having local carbon budgets so that local authorities and communities can play their role not just in their own estates and properties, but in their wider communities, whether we are talking about transport or domestic properties. Actions can be taken and advice and support can be given by local authorities working with the Government and working with their local communities to ensure that we reach the kind of targets and reduce our emissions in line with targets that the Government have set. The Climate Change Act 2008 set targets for the Government. Those targets can best be met if we work with local authorities and local communities.
I hope that the Minister can update us on the action that can be taken and I hope at some stage that he can assure us that there will be a report back to this House and the other place to show how the Government can work with local authorities to ensure that we have local carbon budgets really making a difference and settling this issue.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I support my noble friend. This is a crucial amendment and I hope that the Minister can respond. We are all agreed that the Bill is about meeting a challenge that is overwhelming and on which literally our future survival depends. We therefore cannot have the luxury of simply talking about principles and objectives without having the means to deliver them.
Some 80 per cent of the emissions in this country originate in local communities—in our homes, workplaces, travel and the rest. Therefore, it is crucial, as my noble friend said, that if we are to deliver the results and not just spell out hopes, we must work effectively with local authorities. The only point that I would make in addition to her real commitment is to say that it is my view—I speak for myself but I hope my noble friend will agree—that if this is going to be meaningful there will have to be very specific objectives spelt out to the local authorities about what is expected of them.
We have a national aggregate target, which we then disaggregate into what is required locally. Each local authority should be in no doubt whatever about what is expected of that local authority to meet the national target and local authorities should be expected to give convincing evidence that progress is being made. I am fairly confident—in fact I am very confident—that the Minister agrees with the spirit of what I am saying. I hope that he can not only respond to my noble friend’s amendment but give reassurance that this will not just be another chapter in the world of aspirations and good intentions but will actually spell out a sea change in terms of having the levers there to get results.
Lord Reay
I strongly oppose these amendments. At Second Reading, I declared that I was against introducing local carbon budgets into the Bill, although unfortunately I was not able to be present in Committee when the issue was debated on amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and my noble friend Lord Deben. The ultimate purpose of these amendments is, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has explained, to oblige local authorities to do more to see that carbon emissions are reduced in their areas and, in effect, to coerce them into making a greater contribution towards achieving the Government’s renewable energy targets. However, in Committee, it was represented as being an opportunity rather than an obligation for local authorities, and one that they were longing to be given—“unanimously” at one point, said the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I refer to col. GC 231 of Hansard of 26 January 2011.
No doubt there are keen protagonists of the Government’s renewable energy policy in positions of authority in local government who would welcome such an imposition. However, it surely stretches incredulity to refer to a general—let alone a unanimous—call from local authorities to be given such an obligation. Indeed, if local authorities reflect, as they might be expected to, the wishes of their electorates, I would anticipate a very minor interest in the subject; and, from some who are aware of some of the likely effects of introducing carbon budgets, a most violent opposition.
Legally established local carbon budgets would be likely to have the same sort of effect as regional renewable energy targets have had, and still have today, although they are due to be abolished under the Localism Bill. These have had one most malign effect: they are used by developers, some local authorities and also some planning inspectors to justify the most abominable decisions to permit gigantic wind farms in entirely inappropriate rural locations. It is developers, anxious to drink deep at the well of subsidies before the well dries up—as it has started to do throughout Europe—who would latch on to local carbon budgets and use them as another weapon in their hands in their tireless and far too successful efforts to use the financial advantage that subsidies give them to buy their way to victory in our planning system, as they appeal against every decision that goes against them and so triumph over the wishes of anguished but financially outbid local communities.
I appreciate that behind this amendment, and indeed behind this Bill as a whole, lies a belief that we must strive to meet carbon emission reduction targets for which we have assumed legal obligations. This is not the occasion to argue in detail for alternatives to that policy. However, I believe the cost that we have assumed for the purpose of meeting those targets is far too high and that we should be looking for ways to reduce the cost rather than meet the targets.
One of the greatest of those costs is of course that to the poor electricity consumer, whose bills are programmed to ratchet up each year into the indefinite future to pay for the ever-rising renewable energy subsidies. The current cost, according to Ofgem, is around £1.5 billion a year but is due to rise to some £5 billion or £6 billion by 2020—a miserable prospect for all those in fuel poverty, whose plight has been vividly described by others in this debate such as my noble friend Lady Maddock and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Another of those costs is the destruction of our beautiful landscapes, which are famous and loved throughout the world, which our planning system has, to date, largely preserved and which the present Government seem so nonchalantly to ignore. Because the acceptance of these amendments would confirm how little we care about that threat, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reject both of these amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, if Essex man dare to stand up against Essex girl—I admire the noble Baroness for overcoming her present difficulties—I am afraid that I am going to oppose this amendment. The real problem with local carbon budgets is that local authorities, which presumably would have to administer them, have no power to influence so much of what goes on in their own areas.
The noble Baroness who proposed this amendment comes from a very urban area of Essex but I come from a rather more rural area. Not the least of the problems that would have to be included in local carbon budgets is that of what you do about agriculture. There is nothing we can do about this but agriculture is one of the highest carbon emitters in the country, so that is a difficulty. We have no control over our population’s motoring habits or the way people organise their lives, such as where they do their shopping. I have a lot of friends who go to do theirs 10 miles away, not because it is difficult—nowadays, it is very easy—but because it is cheaper for them to do so. There are so many factors that cross local authority boundaries, which mean that the local authorities would have no power to control what is actually going on in their districts.
You could, of course, get around all those factors by raising a huge number of exceptions so that you would not consider this, that or the other factor. However, once that starts to be done it destroys the whole purpose of the exercise. While the principle of controlling emissions in all ways is good, it seems to me that the principle that you can begin to administer that locally is simply erroneous because the powers do not exist to make that possible. I am sorry to quarrel with my noble Essex friend, if I may call her that, but I am afraid that we have to face that brutal reality. I hope that we will not inflict this duty onto local authorities. They have enough difficulties with the problems that they already face. Adding this burden onto them, which they could not fulfil anyway, seems not to be a reasonable thing to do.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, put down Amendment 153 and I added my name to it, but he is not in his place. I spoke to this amendment at some length in Committee so I will not repeat what I said then.
I do not have the cynical view of local government that is being expressed by the two previous speakers. My experience over the years of local government is that it has been very effective in trying to deal with poorly insulated properties in its areas under the Home Energy Conservation Act, which is now going to be removed. I know that my noble friend the Minister is keen for local authorities to be involved in what is going on, but I also support the fact that we do not necessarily give new duties to local authorities. We have a Localism Bill coming that includes a power of general competence. However, it is clear to me that, in spite of all that, local authorities have a major role to play in this.
As I said, I know that the Minister agrees with that. I hope that he can set out some of the roles that he sees for local authorities as the Green Deal is rolled out, and give us some idea about what sort of rewards they might get. I do not mean rewards from the public purse; it is not necessarily from there that they will get rewards for being involved with this. I know that he understands what I am talking about.
I hope that, if not tonight then at some point, he will be able to set this out in a little more detail to reassure us—including local authorities, many of which are asking to be involved. Some of them are actually asking for carbon budgets, which Amendment 100 mentions. I have had a letter, as I am sure have other noble Lords, from a group of local authorities that want to have local carbon budgets. The situation is not anything like as clear-cut as the two previous speakers said.
I hope that my noble friend can go at least some way towards setting out how he sees local authorities being involved. Maybe this is something else where, when the Bill gets to another place, we can be more specific on how local authorities have been involved. Their record on doing things such as rolling out energy efficiency street by street is fantastic. People in local communities trust their local authority more than they trust the people who provide their utilities, so we need to take full account of that. I know that my noble friend understands that, and I look forward to what he has to say.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Maddock about the involvement of local authorities. I know from conversations with the Minister and other Ministers that this is very much in the Government’s mind. I welcome the fact that, as I hope they will, local authorities will be integrated into the process.
I want to talk about carbon budgets. Reducing carbon, as we talked about with regard to the Climate Change Act, is fundamental, but I just do not think that local carbon budgets are the right instrument to do that. There is huge pressure on local government finance at the moment, so I would agree that because of that—I declare that I am a member of a local authority—local authorities are starting to concentrate on activities where they have statutory obligations. Where they do not, they are having to consider rather more. If there were a more perfect way of doing this, I would like to see some statutory obligation generally in terms of climate change in a broader sense. However, I fundamentally believe that it should then be left to local authorities to decide how they implement and deliver that, and that they should have the powers to do so.
I spent a huge amount of time in this House two or three years ago on the Climate Change Bill. We spent a huge amount of time working out how national budgets could work. We looked at all the difficulties regarding air transportation, imports and exports and—maybe more esoterically, but importantly—whether carbon consumption was more important than carbon production. We looked at the transfers of budgets between years and at all the other sorts of mechanisms that there are. We considered what happens in terms of the EU ETS, transfers of that in or out and how it worked. We gave particular thought to air and shipping.
If you bring that down to local authorities—many parts of the country still have not one tier of local authority but two, so you have to add them up and they will not come to the national budget anyway—you have the issues of transportation, such as motorways being major emitters. The easiest way to mitigate those would be to stop industry coming into your local authority and get it to go the other side of your local authority boundary. If you took this seriously, you would have all sorts of weird incentives whose outcomes would be perverse.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I have thought about this point for some time. Is it not a fact that one of the possible anomalies in the whole discussion going back to the Climate Change Bill is that carbon budgeting and financial budgeting in the traditional sense do not correspond? That has to be done at some point or the whole thing will get out of sync. Does the noble Lord agree that you need a clear analysis of how carbon budgeting corresponds with financial budgeting at national level before you discuss it at other levels?
Lord Teverson
I would probably agree with the noble Lord on that matter. However, I do not want to prolong this discussion as we want to get through the Bill. Although it is vital that we reduce carbon emissions and local authorities need to play a key part in that, that objective should be a statutory obligation on them which is outside this Bill. They should have a much greater connection with the Climate Change Committee which should have a local authority aspect. It would be great if local authorities wanted to engage in a modified form of carbon budgeting.
Lord Judd
I would appreciate it if the noble Lord would clarify something for me. If he is in favour of achieving national carbon reduction objectives, how will that be achieved unless everybody who has a role to play knows what role is expected of them and what they must do to play their part in reaching the total? Unless you disaggregate the overall total, how on earth are you going to get that result?
Lord Teverson
We do not do that at national carbon level, do we? If we were to do that, we would disaggregate by industry, but the previous Government and the present Government have not gone down that route. If we took that a step further, we would come to individual personal carbon budgets. There are arguments for and against that. I do not think that you need to disaggregate everything completely as all the relevant levers are not in place and splitting it all down does not mean to say that everything would necessarily add up because all sorts of areas, including motorways and EU ETS major emitters—even proponents of carbon budgets agree on this—could not be effectively and practically included in those carbon budgets. That system of making the detail add up to the total would not work under this scheme anyway. I am not saying that the question was invalid but if we really wanted to go down that route we would have to go down the industrial sectorial route as well or separate out consumers, the manufacturing sector and the services sector. Such an approach gets too involved in the mass of detail as opposed to inventing the policy instruments that we need. We need to involve local government in the Green Deal. I would much prefer it to have a statutory obligation but I think that carbon budgets are the wrong way to do it.
As regards wind farms, in Cornwall they are fantastic. Tourists like them and the majority of people are not against them. They are beautiful objects to behold on the horizon and may there be more of them.
Lord Marland
My Lords, you have heard differing views on the future of carbon budgets, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Maddock. My noble friend Lord Teverson, as usual, clearly told us his views; and we heard those of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Reay, who would be opposed to carbon budgets. It has been an excellent debate and we have heard views from all sides—all of which are respected.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, this has been a subject on which I have taken those views on board. We should try to find a way through in a spirit of co-operation. The Localism Bill, which is about a spirit of partnership, is going through Parliament at the moment. We have imposed upon local authorities a 10 per cent carbon reduction target through the DCLG, and they will have to set their own examples.
During the passage of the Bill, we have given great consideration to these issues, and we have determined that the best way forward is co-operation. I hope that next week we will be able to sign a memorandum of understanding with the local government group, to build upon the Nottingham declaration. The memorandum will set out a timetable for progress on reducing carbon emissions that we hope all local authorities will buy into.
At this point, I offer my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who has set up a meeting with me and the chief executive of Liverpool City Council to discuss how we can get the Green Deal through to Liverpool and together reduce carbon emissions, and use Liverpool almost as a test case.
I have taken on board the valuable comments of noble Lords. I have taken on board the fact that it will not be acceptable to impose provisions on local authorities. Indeed, the Department for Energy and Climate Change cannot impose our will on local authorities, but we can impose a way forward and an understanding between us all that this has got to be right for the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. It has to be right for future generations and it has to be right that we use less electricity and less energy than we are using now, to conserve the future.
I hope that given those comments and the impending memorandum of understanding—which I cannot reveal too much about now because, as you know, I am a very junior person—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will appreciate what we are doing. I hope that that finds favour with her and with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, because on two occasions today he has provided your Lordships’ House with information on the memorandum. He cannot make the announcement, but I think that he has stolen the thunder of whichever Minister will do so. The noble Lord’s response on the memorandum that he and his colleagues intend to bring forward addresses exactly the kind of issue we are looking at, whereby local communities and local authorities will have an opportunity to play their role in achieving carbon reductions across the country. I look forward to the further information, and I hope that there will be a statement to the House at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
“( ) In subsection (1) (power by order to impose an obligation to achieve a carbon emissions reduction target) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In this section “the Administrator” means—
(a) the Authority; or(b) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority.”( ) In subsection (3) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) In subsection (4) for “the Authority” substitute “(subject to any directions given under subsection (9B)) the Administrator”.”
Lord Marland
My Lords, we come to yet another huge group of amendments that the Government have tabled, which recognise the points made in debates in Committee and at Second Reading.
These amendments serve to clarify the powers currently set out in Clause 67. They pertain to the Secretary of State’s ability to transfer from “the Authority” to himself or another body the administrative powers and responsibilities for the energy company obligation. The authority is defined as the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, the functions of which are presently carried out by Ofgem. The Government are currently reviewing the role of their various delivery bodies, including Ofgem, and it would be helpful to have powers already available that would enable us promptly to take account of the results of that review, thus ensuring certainty for those being regulated by the ECO.
In tabling this amendment, we are in no way prejudging the outcome of the review. This series of amendments refines the policy objective contained in Clause 67 by enabling the Secretary of State to transfer directly to another body, or to him, the functions currently performed by the authority. The refinement will preclude the need to make two sets of orders—one establishing the ECO and another moving some or all of the authority’s functions to another body or to the Secretary of State. The process for doing so has been streamlined. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is indeed an extensive list of amendments that address issues touched on in Committee. The amendments are necessary to ensure that future recommendations of the Government’s delivery review can be implemented without unnecessary delay and without causing unnecessary uncertainty to those energy companies caught by the future energy company obligations. It is possible that the Government’s delivery review may conclude that administrative responsibilities for the ECO should be transferred to a body other than the authority, which is currently Ofgem. This series of amendments enables any future ECO to be administered by “the Administrator”. The amendments make the authority the default administrator but give the Secretary of State a power to transfer the administrative functions away from the authority and place them on another body, or to transfer the functions to himself. We are content with these amendments.
Lord Marland
“( ) in paragraph (d) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
( ) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;( ) ”
“( ) in paragraph (f) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
“( ) In subsection (6) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The order may—
(a) make provision for any specified requirement contained in it to be treated as a relevant requirement for the purposes of this Part; or(b) if it provides for the Administrator to be a person other than the Authority, make provision for and in connection with enabling the Administrator to enforce any requirement imposed by the order.(7B) Provision made by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (7A) may, in particular, include provision corresponding to or applying (with or without modifications) any of sections 28 to 30F and section 38.”
( ) In subsection (8) omit paragraph (b).”
“(12B) If an order under this section provides for the Administrator to be a body other than the Authority, the Secretary of State may make payments to the body of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“( ) The reference in subsection (12A) of section 33BC of the Gas Act 1986 to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section includes a reference to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section before its substitution by subsection (2) of this section.”
Lord Marland
“( ) In subsection (1) (power by order to impose an obligation to achieve a carbon emissions reduction target) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In this section “the Administrator” means—
(a) the Authority; or(b) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority.”( ) In subsection (3) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) In subsection (4) for “the Authority” substitute “(subject to any directions given under subsection (9B)) the Administrator”.”
Lord Marland
“( ) in paragraph (d) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
( ) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;( ) ”
“( ) in paragraph (f) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”;”
“( ) In subsection (6) for “the Authority” substitute “the Administrator”.
( ) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The order may—
(a) make provision for any specified requirement contained in it to be treated as a relevant requirement for the purposes of this Part; or(b) if it provides for the Administrator to be a person other than the Authority, make provision for and in connection with enabling the Administrator to enforce any requirement imposed by the order.(7B) Provision made by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (7A) may, in particular, include provision corresponding to or applying (with or without modifications) any of sections 25 to 28.”
( ) In subsection (8) omit paragraph (b).”
“(12B) If an order under this section provides for the Administrator to be a body other than the Authority, the Secretary of State may make payments to the body of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“( ) The reference in subsection (12A) of section 41A of the Electricity Act 1989 to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section includes a reference to paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of that section before its substitution by subsection (2) of this section.”
Lord Marland
“( ) “the Administrator” means—(i) the Authority; or(ii) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority;”
Lord Marland
“( ) “the Administrator” means—(i) the Authority; or(ii) if the order so provides, the Secretary of State or a specified body other than the Authority;”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
( ) any body other than the Authority that is for the time being the Administrator in relation to a carbon emissions reduction order or a home-heating cost reduction order”
Lord Marland
Lord Marland
“12 (1) Section 103 (overall carbon emissions reduction targets) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a) for “by the Authority of its functions” substitute “of the functions of the Administrator”;(b) in paragraph (b) omit “generators,”.(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a) for “the Authority to apportion the target” substitute “the target to be apportioned”(b) in paragraph (b) omit “electricity generators,”.(4) In subsection (3) for “The Authority” substitute “The Administrator”.
(5) In subsection (4) omit “electricity generators,”.”
Lord Grantchester
“( ) in subsection (3)(g) after “consumers” insert “(including adherence to and independent Code of Practice for Installation).”
Lord Grantchester
With the permission of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I shall move his amendment. I pay tribute to him for his clear leadership on consumer interests. He has laid out in his amendment a very clear way forward regarding smart meters. I could not do justice to the exposition that he would have made far more adeptly than me. However, there is an important element that we should debate tonight and on which we should question the Minister on the way forward.
As we all know, there is considerable anxiety and resistance from consumers, arising by and large from misunderstandings over the operation of smart meters. However, smart meters offer the opportunity to reduce inaccurate bills to consumers, as well as to lower their costs. We had a full debate in Committee and wish to build on the positive discussions and proposals being considered with the Energy Retail Association and Energy UK, especially with regard to the code of practice. I know the Minister is also keen to bring in the benefits of smart meters in a constructive manner. He spoke in Committee of his dialogue with the energy companies, without saying exactly what he would do on this matter. This amendment would allow him to construct a good way forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Amendment 157 draws attention to the need to ensure that the smart meter installation visit promotes consumer confidence and protects customers. We have already proposed to require suppliers to develop a code of practice governing the installation process and to ensure that the installation is not used for unwelcome sales activities.
Since the prospectus was published, suppliers have made good progress in drafting a code, with input from consumer groups and others. The smart metering programme has made it clear that the code will not be voluntary. We will shortly set out our detailed decisions in this area as part of the government response to the consultation. We have all the necessary powers to put the code in place, backed up by a licence obligation, under Section 88(3)(g) of the Energy Act 2008 as it now stands.
Amendment 158 in this group would require the Government to consult on a strategy to deliver the intended benefits of smart meters to consumers and to report on progress. Therefore, I assure your Lordships that the Government are clear that they are accountable for the successful delivery of the programme and its benefits. Indeed, this recognition was behind our recent decision that DECC would take direct responsibility for the next phase of the programme. We made this clear in announcing that decision in December, and it includes accountability for ensuring delivery of benefits.
However, provision in primary legislation is not required. Indeed, this provision would cut across the things that the Government are already doing to achieve the intent behind these amendments. The Government are already consulting on our strategy to achieve the benefits sought for the programme. As many of your Lordships will know, the Government published a prospectus in the summer last year containing a wide range of proposals for consultation. These proposals covered the policy design for the implementation of smart metering, including a wide range of proposals for the technical, commercial and regulatory arrangements required to deliver the benefits.
This has already been a very full and detailed consultation, with several hundred pages of published consultation documents. The prospectus was supported by two full impact assessments setting out clearly the benefits that we seek. We will shortly publish the conclusions of this process, which will confirm the Government’s strategy and plans. It would therefore be unnecessary to reconsult on this strategy and it would cast doubt on our conclusions to do so.
It is important to say that there will need to be further work to develop the benefits management arrangements and, crucially, the consumer engagement strategy. If necessary, we will bring forward proposals for changed or additional measures using the Secretary of State’s powers. It is also important that we have strong programme management arrangements, and that the measurement and reporting of benefits is robust and rigorous. We will set out how this will be taken forward. All these matters will be specifically addressed as the programme is taken forward by the Government.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure his noble friend that much of what he is seeking is already in train and that his amendments would cut across that. I am sure that that is not what his noble friend intended. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for her fulsome acknowledgement and exposition of where we are with smart meters and of everything that is going on within her department with regard to the industry. I shall certainly reassure my noble friend and he will enjoy the most fulsome remarks that she has just expounded. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Energy tariffs
(1) After consultation with electricity and gas retail sellers and consumer groups, the Secretary of State shall introduce regulations that make it mandatory for electricity and gas through pipeline supply companies supplying to domestic properties to configure their tariffs so that the initial units of energy supplied are at a lower cost to the consumer than the remaining units.
(2) The number of units in the initial tranche shall reflect the basic energy requirement of a household.
(3) The new tariff scheme shall be revenue neutral to consumers and energy supply companies as a whole.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, earlier I forgot to confess that I am an Essex person. As I live in Cornwall, and have done for some time, I am often referred to as “Mr Treverson”; I am actually Teverson, which is a Danish or Anglian name, so perhaps I could join the Essex fraternity from at least three of the Benches—I suppose, that is something. However, that is not what I want to discuss now, although this affects Cornwall as much as it does Essex, as they both have very diverse populations.
I thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart for his work on reverse block tariffs. We intend to change around this perverse incentive to consume more energy by moving around energy pricing and energy tariffs, so that you are effectively penalised, or at least you are not financially advantaged, if you consume more rather than less. However, I confess that it has been very difficult to put this amendment together, in Grand Committee and in its amended form here, so that it precisely defines what is needed. If your Lordships were absolutely convinced by my arguments and decided, even if I withdrew it, to vote on it after all, I would really question your sanity as regards making the amendment work. The spirit is good, but the practicalities are difficult.
I welcome the very positive reaction from the Government and the Minister in this area. I am convinced that to get this right will take longer. I am also convinced that its rightful place would be in the energy market reform area, on which I know the Government intend to bring forward further legislation. I would be very content if the Minister were able to give me some comfort that it would be better positioned within that legislative framework. Having tried to describe how this should work, I do not underestimate that it will probably take most of the good public servants of DECC at least two years to work out how this should work. It is an important and worthy goal and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some comfort in that direction. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I apologise to the House because in my enthusiasm to speak to Amendment 6, I forgot to declare my interest which is as a landlord in the private rental sector. I do not think my interest influenced what I said on that amendment.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I made at Second Reading or in Committee, but it is generally accepted that three things make up fuel poverty: household income, energy prices and energy efficiency. This Bill will deal with energy efficiency and this amendment asks the Minister to review energy prices. I am also grateful to my noble friend for saying in Committee that the Government will carry out a full-scale review of fuel poverty and its implications. I know that a review into the way in which energy companies charge will not be popular with everyone, not least the energy companies, but the way in which they currently charge is a win-win situation for them. What manufacturing company in the real world would not like to charge a huge price for the first number of units sold so that they can recover their fixed costs and then a lower price for subsequent units so that they can recover their variable costs, thus guaranteeing themselves a profit?
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Teverson suggests that the energy companies, together with consumer groups, should be involved in the review. I hope that they will examine whether there is a better way of coming up with a pricing tariff. The amendment also says that a new tariff scheme will be revenue neutral for energy companies, so it is not intended that they will lose revenue. It will be revenue neutral to them.
If we want to do something about poverty—fuel poverty in particular—we must look at all the options and a review on setting tariffs is a welcome start. Energy prices will continue to increase. There are already 6.5 million households in fuel poverty. A quarter of households live in fuel poverty, 50 per cent being pensioners. That is not something to be proud of. The least we can do is review how energy is charged for.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am confused as I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was moving or withdrawing his amendment. When I made my contribution last time on the general lines on which the noble Lord spoke today, I must say that I had every sympathy with the main principles on which his amendment is based, but the Bill is not the place in which to locate this issue, important though it is. We heard not just from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, last time, but we had the benefit of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who talked about energy prices from a historical perspective and explained how they had established themselves on a basis that is indefensible in terms of what we are seeking to achieve. I refer particularly to the fact that the old standing charge necessitated the heavy impost of the early units.
We are aware of the fact that we need a revision of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, should be congratulated on articulating the case forcefully in Committee and for again today identifying why he still advocates the main principles. I do not think—and I think he was coming to the same conclusion—that it quite fits within the framework of the Bill. That is why last time I said that the amendment should be withdrawn and the Minister seemed to think that I had done his job for him. I had not done that then, and I have not done so this evening. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I have a declaration to make. I am not an Essex person which seems to be the thing to declare before speaking in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested, was considering withdrawing his amendment. My department has been made available to him for discussing and working through this problem which we take seriously. We have made it available to my noble friend Lord Cathcart. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right that this is probably not the right Bill for this tariff but the department will be happy to work with the noble Lord and reach a conclusion. As he rightly says, it will take several months, but I invite my noble friend to either withdraw or do whatever he was going to do with his excellent amendment.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister. I have only two alternatives: to test the opinion of the House or withdraw the amendment. I have come across no other option in the Companion. I am happy to take the advice of both Front Benches in anticipation that we will revisit the issue in the next Energy Bill on market reform that comes to the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
( ) In section 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of gas licences), after “Part 1” (as inserted by section 20(8) of this Act) insert “or section 72”.”
“Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
After section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (licences to search and bore for and get petroleum) insert—
“3A Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
(1) At the time of applying for a licence under section 3, the applicant must provide the Secretary of State with information showing that the applicant has sufficient funds to compensate any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of that licence.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations, in particular, to provide for the type of financial and supporting information to be provided under subsection (1).
(3) Before issuing a licence under section 3, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) the applicant has provided a complete and accurate record of information required by this Act and any regulations made under this Act; and(b) on reviewing that information, has sufficient funds to compensate for any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of the licence.(4) In this section “sufficient funds” includes any insurance able to be claimed by the licensee in the circumstances outlined in subsection (1).”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I raised a similar amendment to this in Committee as a probing amendment to try to clarify financial liability for oil spills off the UK coast. Looking back, I am not sure that I am any clearer on the financial responsibility, but my amendments then got a fair amount of support in Committee. It was understood that there has to be an arrangement whereby, should there be an accidental spill by those seeking oil off our coast, the responsibility for cleaning it up does not fall on local authorities. We were seeking clarification. We did not get that then and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide it now. As the Minister may recall, I drew comparisons with the requirements on the nuclear industry, which has to provide all costs of clean-up after its operations, with that of the oil industry of accidental oil releases into the environment.
A couple of issues were raised in Committee which I think were entirely reasonable, and I have incorporated provision for funding into our new amendment. I hope that the Minister can take this away to look at it. We have included a definition of sufficient funds and taken out detailed provision about certification, because that could go into regulations. I will be grateful to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Marland
This is a very complicated issue for someone who is not in the insurance world; but for someone who is, it is quite simple. It may be best in this instance if I commit in writing the exact layering of this requirement. Suffice it to say that the oil industry is a very mature industry. Substantial insurance requirements are placed on it. As I mentioned extensively in Committee, it has a mutual pool which offers additional protection to its balance sheets, and those that it makes in the open market. As someone with an insurance background, I would be happy to explain that in greater detail in writing to the noble Baroness. I hope that she finds that an adequate response to enable her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that he understands why I raised this issue. It is in large part due to public concern. He and I debated in this Chamber the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It was in research for that debate that I discovered concern about not knowing what the full implications would be if there were an oil spill off our shores. I am grateful for his comments and his commitment to come back to me in writing.
It would also be helpful if he would come back to me on the issues that I raised about comparisons with the nuclear industry. I have never really understood why the nuclear industry is treated differently from the oil industry. He may be able in his response to assure me that it is not treated differently. The nuclear industry, particularly under this Government, now has to find all the costs of remediation and disposal of waste. As I understand it, that is not the same for the oil industry. Can the Minister tell me that he is entirely satisfied that, in any event, for any oil spill, the liability will not fall on local authorities, and that insurance is in place to deal with the matter? I look forward to receiving that information in his correspondence on the matter, which I can perhaps discuss with him further, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Northover
“Special administration under the Energy Act 2004Amendment of section 166 of the Energy Act 2004
(1) Section 166 of the Energy Act 2004 (indemnities) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) As soon as practicable after agreeing to indemnify persons under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement of the agreement before Parliament.”
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Where a sum has been paid out by the Secretary of State in consequence of an indemnity agreed to under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement relating to that sum before Parliament—
(a) as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year in which that sum is paid out; and(b) (except where subsection (4) does not apply in the case of the sum) as soon as practicable after the end of each subsequent relevant financial year.(6B) In relation to a sum paid out in consequence of an indemnity, a financial year is a relevant financial year for the purposes of subsection (6A) unless—
(a) before the beginning of that year, the whole of that sum has been repaid to the Secretary of State under subsection (4); and(b) the company in question is not at any time during that year subject to liability to pay interest on amounts that became due under that subsection in respect of that sum.Special administration under this Chapter”
Baroness Northover
This is a minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency of statutory reporting to Parliament under the Energy Act 2004 and the Bill with public expenditure rules. The amendment to ensure consistency will apply both to the special administration regime for electricity transmission and distribution companies and gas transporters created by the Energy Act 2004, and to the provisions for a special administration regime for energy supply companies under the provisions in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I of course accept the amendment that the Government have moved, but I return to the issue that I raised in Grand Committee about the uncertainty created by the third of the three tests of whether a company can be put into administration, which is that the company is likely to be unable to pay its debts. Under the original Act, that was a decision to be taken by the company. Under this Bill, it is a decision that will be taken by the Secretary of State. Despite what my noble friend said in reply to that debate in Grand Committee, it seems to me that this still leaves a substantial area of uncertainty for the industry. My noble friend said at the time that there would be consultation with the company and its directors. What I would like to suggest and, indeed, if we were going to reach this clause next Tuesday—we have made such haste this afternoon and evening that in a sense I have been a little bit caught short—I would have tabled an amendment to say that it should be done only with the consent of the company. That would make the case. I wonder whether my noble friend can say something about this now or whether this is a point I could raise again at Third Reading.
Baroness Northover
I thank my noble friend for that comment. I think the best way to take this forward is by consultation. If he would like to discuss the details with officials, we could see what, if anything, needs to be addressed.
Lord Marland
“( ) In section 33(1) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of licenses under Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989), after “72” (as inserted by section 73(6) of this Act) insert “or 92,”,”
164: Clause 92, page 72, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) Sections 4AA to 4B of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State under this section with respect to holders of gas licences as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.
( ) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State under this section with respect to holders of electricity licences as they apply in relation to functions of the Secretary of State under Part 1 of that Act.”
165: Clause 92, page 72, line 35, leave out from “section” to end of line 37 and insert“—
(a) references to a gas licence are to a licence for the purposes of section 5 of the Gas Act 1986 (prohibition on unlicensed activities relating to gas), and
(b) references to an electricity licence are to a licence for the purposes of section 4 of the Electricity Act 1989 (prohibition on unlicensed activities relating to electricity)”
Lord Teverson
“Geothermal power
(1) The Secretary of State shall have the authority, after a period of consultation with industry, geological experts, the devolved administrations, local authorities, energy producers and other interested parties, to put into place for the United Kingdom a licensing system and regulations for the exploitation of heat from deep geothermal sources for both the direct use of that heat and for the generation of electricity.
(2) The licenses shall relate to—
(a) individual geographically delineated areas on land;(b) the heat held by rocks greater than one kilometre below the surface.(3) Licenses shall give exclusive exploration and production rights for the purpose of energy production from geothermal sources, both direct heat and electricity generation, to the licensee, for that area, and for a specific period of time.
(4) The Secretary of State shall have the authority to lay down regulations for the method of allocation of licenses to those organisations wishing to explore or exploit those resources (or both).
(5) Any organisation already undertaking exploration or exploitation from geothermal sources within the United Kingdom, in that they have already undertaken, at the time the licensing regime comes into force, boring for the purpose of exploiting geothermal heat to below one kilometre, shall be entitled to hold the first license awarded for that license area; and any licence fee or other consideration for that license area as a part of the licensing regime will then be determined by arbitration under rules determined by the Secretary of State reflecting the fees or other consideration paid for the licenses deemed to have similar potential.
(6) The holding of a licence for the exploration or exploitation of deep geothermal heat (or both) shall not convey any automatic rights in terms of planning permissions for surface development, or given any rights in terms of surface access.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this amendment is slightly different from the one I put down in Committee as it affects geothermal energy. I thank many sides of the House for supporting that. The change that I have made to this amendment is that I have not included time constraints, not because they are not important, they are, but because when I had to submit this amendment in time for Report, it was not clear from the industry or from the department whether it is possible to implement geothermal licensing through secondary legislation or whether it requires primary legislation. Since that time, the industry, I and a Member of the other House met the other Minister, my honourable friend Greg Barker, to go through this. I welcome the fact that a working party has been set up, which probably met for the first time today, to start finding a way forward to make this move. The industry’s advice is that licensing probably requires primary legislation rather than empowerment through this Bill to allow secondary legislation by the Minister. That has rather stymied my wish to press this matter forward strongly and makes the situation rather difficult.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support my noble friend. Some years ago in Southampton we had a geothermal bore which contributed—it is not as hot as we would like—to the district heating scheme. It has been very successful. During the Recess I was in New Zealand. A great part of its energy mix is from geothermal. I suggest that noble Lords look at how it has been dealt with there as a good example of how to use geothermal energy.
Lord Dixon-Smith
I hesitate to speak at this hour, but since we are considering geothermal power, perhaps I may introduce a thought about indirect geothermal power. Such power is waste heat from power stations, which consume enormous amounts of raw energy and turn out enormous amounts of waste heat. Generally speaking, it is completely unused. It is an enormous financial handicap and an enormous energy inefficiency which our whole electricity generating industry has to bear and which, as customers, we all pay for.
While I am all in favour of looking for all geothermal sources of energy, we have these indirect geothermal sources of energy already available to us on the surface but we do nothing about them. It is legitimate to raise the subject in this rather indirect way even at this hour of the night. The same applies to nuclear power stations. One can argue that nuclear power is an indirect form of solar power. That is exactly what it is—solar power is nuclear power but happens to be 95 million miles away, and we enjoy it enormously as a result. If it was much closer, we would not. But we have these other sources of energy, which are indirectly the same source of energy as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about. If we are looking at one of them as something that we should use, we really should look at the other.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I want very warmly to support the noble Lord on this issue. It has always intrigued me that we have never given the priority that we should have done to developments in this sphere. It is good to see it happening. He referred to the north-east. Perhaps I may say as a Member of Court of Newcastle University that one of the things that is very important about these developments is that universities such as Newcastle—I do not see Newcastle in any provision—are dying to make a contribution in the development of this new potential and, in the context of Newcastle, have already played a significant part in what is happening in the north-east. Therefore, there is a background of scientific and applied scientific interest, which sets it off on a very good course.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is presenting a very important argument, which we discussed intensively and fully in Committee. I have no doubt that we would have had a much more intensive debate this evening were it not for the lateness of the hour. That does not mean to say that those of us who have kept our speeches short, as I intend to do, do not have enormous respect for the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has put forward, but we did have a full debate in Committee and I am very grateful that he drew our attention to the matter again this evening.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. We had intensive debates in Committee and at Second Reading on this subject. My views are well known on the subject. That is why our department facilitated discussions with the Minister of State, Greg Barker, who is discussing this with the Environment Agency in the next few days. I think he had a meeting with him today, but I do not want to get diaries out of kilter to see how we can take the matter forward. He knows, as well as I do, that we are very interested in the subject and are committed to offering every possible opportunity for those who are interested in the subject, in taking the matter forward and in hoping to bring this provision into reality in what is a very difficult area. I think the noble Lord was thinking of withdrawing his amendment because of the meetings he has had. With that, I hope he will formally withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords for staying up, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who is still recovering from her ghastly operation, who, with great cheerfulness, has maintained an excellent presence here tonight, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions so far and for helping in what has been a very harmonious evening.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and his continued interest, which is genuinely recognised and welcomed by the industry. I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith about the amount of energy, and heat particularly, that we waste, whether welling up from the ground in many ways or from industrial applications. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that one of the reasons is that we do not have a culture of district heating in this country. We look at each dwelling as an individual area. That is one of the things that has to change in terms of being able to utilise that energy. I thank him for reminding me of that.
I am well satisfied that the Government are taking this agenda forward seriously. This particular amendment is no longer appropriate. I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw my amendment.