Air Pollution

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-president of Environmental Protection UK, which is campaigning on this issue.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have invested billions of pounds in measures to reduce air pollution, including incentives for low-emission vehicles and sustainable transport. Local authorities are also required to review and assess air quality under the local air quality management system. We support them in seeking to deliver local measures to meet national air quality objectives. We also work with the devolved Administrations to improve air quality across the United Kingdom.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but does she recognise that there are still 29,000 people whose deaths are attributable to air pollution, mainly induced by traffic? Does she also recognise that the UK is in clear breach of EU limits in large parts of the country, particularly urban areas; that the WHO found a lot of the assessed areas were at dangerous levels, particularly for nitrogen dioxide; and that the Government’s own forecasts suggest we will not reach EU limits for London, Yorkshire and the West Midlands until 2030, 15 years after the deadline?

Does the Minister accept that the Government have virtually abandoned previous local and national air quality strategies and the development of low-emission zones, and have ignored the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendations? When are we going to see a proper government strategy on air quality?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we take this extremely seriously and I would refute the latter part of his question. He will know that we have managed to limit most pollutants and these are now below the legally binding EU limit values. The outstanding one is nitrogen dioxide, which has been a challenge not only for the United Kingdom but for 17 of the 27 EU states. We are working very hard to combat this.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, Amendment 90DA is relatively straightforward. Clause 63 provides for reviews and appeals against premises being deemed not eligible to be entered in the register of those covered by Flood Re. As it is written, Clause 63 indicates that when the register is drawn up there is a list of which households are either in or out, according to the risk assessment at the time.

This is a 25-year scheme and things will change over 25 years. My amendment is designed to add to the provisions of Clause 63 and appeal against the removal from that list at a later stage. It is really a tidying-up. However, removal from the list could arise for a number of different reasons. It could be because the insurance sector had decided that the risk had changed; but that could be because the Committee on Climate Change—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is no longer in his place—had advised of a change and that there was less risk in that particular area. It could be that the Environment Agency’s map had changed. It could be that the aggregated data from the insurance companies showed that that type of property was at less of a risk than it was assumed to be at the beginning of the scheme, bearing in mind that we are potentially 25 years on. It could be that resilience had been provided on some other basis—for instance, a flood defence scheme may have been built down the road—or that the catchment management in that area had significantly improved and diverted the flood away from that property to somewhere else. In an urban area, it could be that there had been major investment in the drainage system, which meant that the property was significantly less susceptible to surface flooding. There are all sorts of reasons why, objectively, the flood risk might diminish. Regrettably, in the light of the macro information from the Committee on Climate Change, it is more likely that a property will be drawn into the list than drawn out of it; but there will be such exclusions.

There could also be exclusions that are more esoteric to the insurance industry, in the sense that if insurance companies were insisting, as a condition of continued insurance, that that resilience measure should be introduced at the expense of the householder, one way or another, and the householders were not prepared to provide for that level of resilience expenditure, then either the offer, or renewal, of insurance would be taken away or the excess would be put at a level which the premium payer was not prepared to pay.

There are all sorts of reasons why a property might end up being removed from that list. If that is the case, there has to be the equivalent appeal against that in a situation where one is excluded from the list from the word go. As I read it, Clause 63 provides only for exclusion from the register in the first place; it does not provide for removal from the register. My amendment seeks to correct that gap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for this amendment. As we have previously discussed, a rigorous regulatory and dispute resolution regime for the insurance industry already exists, to ensure that insurers treat their customers fairly. Flood Re will not change the direct relationship between the insurer and the householder. Where households do not feel that a complaint has been treated fairly, they can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service, which offers a free dispute resolution service for people who wish to complain about how their insurance company has treated them. While the Financial Ombudsman Service is equipped to deal with individual complaints, the Financial Conduct Authority has a statutory objective to protect the wider interests of consumers and ensure that firms are giving a fair deal to their customers.

We need to remember that Flood Re is a voluntary scheme: insurers are not obliged to use it. We therefore maintain that there is no need for a specific appeal mechanism for Flood Re per se. Flood Re is not based on a register of properties; it is a voluntary scheme and so there are no grounds for an appeal mechanism.

However, the noble Lord is emphasising concern about who might be excluded from Flood Re over time. As was said in the other place, the memorandum of understanding agreed between the Association of British Insurers and the Government last year talked about genuinely uninsurable properties. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management said, there will be no such thing as a genuinely uninsurable property at the start of Flood Re. However, there might be a case that over time, if householders choose to take no action to tackle their flood risk, Flood Re might seek to find a mechanism whereby they no longer benefit from the public subsidy. We have reflected further on that issue, working closely with the ABI. I can reassure noble Lords that our focus is on supporting households to become more resilient, not on excluding them from the Flood Re scheme.

As householders with policies ceded to Flood Re will be benefiting from subsidised insurance, important signals to them about flood risk—for example, the price of insurance and the levels of excess charged—will be lost. We have therefore agreed with the industry that Flood Re will provide information to insurers to pass to householders about flood risk, Flood Re itself and how to reduce the likelihood and impact of flooding. An amendment to that effect has been tabled.

We are continuing to explore with industry how people could be incentivised, perhaps, for example, by Flood Re paying for a survey after a property has flooded a number of times. My noble friend mentioned that. This would depend on Flood Re having sufficient reserves. Another incentive could be to increase the excess after repeated flooding.

There are a number of practical considerations to work through. However, there is a clear commitment between the Government and the insurance industry to putting in place an incentive-based approach rather than an exclusionary approach. I hope that noble Lords will also agree that the approach we have outlined strikes a fair and appropriate balance between supporting householders at high flood risk and the affordability of the scheme as a whole, and that the amendment will therefore be withdrawn, bearing in mind what I said at the beginning about the direct relationship between the insurance company and the householder and the means of redress that they can avail themselves of.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply but I am not sure that it entirely meets the point. As a former chair of Consumer Focus, I am very familiar with the steps that people can take to obtain redress from financial services agencies, including the insurance industry. I am perhaps slightly less sanguine about the effectiveness of it but that is a different matter. However, the fact is that the Bill provides for a register and, in Clause 63, provides for people to appeal against a body being excluded from that register in the first place. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the issue and what the noble Baroness said, I took it she accepted that there was a possibility of someone being excluded in one of the situations that I described—namely, when the insurance company’s request that the householder introduced some resilience measures at their own expense as a condition of continuing to have that insurance could lead to their exclusion from the list. All I am saying is that if there is an appeals process at the beginning, why is there not one all the way through? I may have misunderstood something that the noble Baroness said and the purpose of Clause 63.

[Baroness Northover]

Perhaps I can clarify at least one point in relation to Clause 63 and the register. Clause 63 relates to the flood insurance obligation. It is not relevant to Flood Re. However, I am happy to write to the noble Lord to clarify this area.

[Lord Whitty]

That would be useful for all concerned, so I will shut up. I am very grateful for the Minister’s offer to write to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

I am not sure whether the leave of the House is divisible business. With the leave of the House, I will explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the sustainable development duty under the current Ofwat remit is a secondary duty. For several other regulators, including Ofgem, it is now a primary duty. That is what my amendment seeks, and it would cover social, environmental and economic matters, not simply resilience and water efficiency.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Redesdale, Lady Parminter and Lord Shipley and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for their thanks for the government amendments. I hope that noble Lords around the House are pleased that there has been so much positive engagement between Committee and Report. The noble Lords who have spoken are right to emphasise the importance of the environmental context of everything we are doing here. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Redesdale can go from here to a meeting to celebrate what has been achieved.

Turning to Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I make it absolutely clear that we agree that sustainable development must be at the heart of all that the regulator does. I hope that that reassures him and is also of interest to my noble friend Lady Byford. That belief is at the heart of the Government’s statutory guidance to Ofwat, the strategic policy statement. That guidance requires the regulator to report on an annual basis on its contribution to the Government’s sustainability objectives. I am pleased to be able to say that Ofwat is making such a contribution.

Much of the broader debate about Ofwat’s sustainable development duty dates from the 2009 price review. Much has changed over the past five years. Ofwat has made good progress; for example, it has taken active steps to correct the perceived bias towards capital investment. The current price review is very different from previous price reviews. For the first time, there is a balance between capital and operational solutions as a result of Ofwat’s new approach, which now looks at total expenditure rather than at capital expenditure and operational expenditure in silos.

Ofwat has been working with water companies and Infrastructure UK to halt the up-and-down cyclical investment that has affected the sector for many years. This change in approach has had tangible outcomes; for example, Ofwat has recently given permission to water companies to bring forward £100 million of investment into 2014 to smooth the investment profile and benefit the water-supply chain.

All of this is reinforced by what we have been doing to move the horizon from the short-term view of the next five years to a sustainable long-term focus. That is why the Bill will introduce a new duty of resilience that deals directly with the long-term pressures facing the water industry. The new resilience duty encourages investment in additional water storage. It pushes the sector to tackle unsustainable abstraction. It places the focus squarely on the responsible management of water resources. Importantly, it promotes the reduction of pressure on water resources, and reducing demand for water.

Noble Lords will also be aware that the new duty was amended in another place to be absolutely clear and unambiguous about what that means. It is about managing water resources sustainably. We have now made further amendments to be absolutely clear that the resilience duty means that Ofwat is expected to promote efficient water use by companies. I thank my noble friends again for their welcome of this.

We recognise the importance of preparing the water sector for the future. We recognise the need for a strategic response to climate change. We recognise the demand on resources that future population growth will cause. It is because we agree with the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we have addressed this at all these levels. The changes that the Bill introduces, and the changes we are already seeing in the regulation of the sector, show how much this debate has moved forward. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will accept the Government’s further amendments—it sounds as if everybody welcomes those—and that the noble Lord opposite will be willing not to move his amendment.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for drawing attention to his wish to ensure that that the policies set out in the legislation respond to the demands that climate change may bring in future—in particular, by including a formal role for the Committee on Climate Change. I was not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, accepted that formal role.

We fully agree that climate change and adaptation to it are vital. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, added the additional factor of population growth. He rightly challenges us on the uncertainty of the future and we are very much aware of the need to plan for the future in this regard.

The Committee on Climate Change and, in this respect, its Adaptation Sub-Committee play a very important role in providing independent advice to the Government. The information and analysis provided since the committee’s inception have helped to shape the debate on climate change. Although the evidence of climate change is becoming increasingly compelling, it is clear that we need to do more to understand and plan for its impacts. This is a challenging task, given how interrelated and unpredictable those effects are. We have seen how variable the jet stream has been over the past few years, for example, and how it has brought us drought and flood.

Although, clearly, dealing with the current devastating flooding is the immediate absolute priority, we also need to reflect on our management of flood risk and assess our preparedness for climate change. The Government published the UK’s first national adaptation programme report in July 2013, which sets out the action that we propose to take. There is great expertise in this country, not least in your Lordships’ Chamber, which we can access and are accessing, as well as learning lessons from elsewhere.

Specifically in relation to Flood Re, I assure noble Lords that climate change projections were considered alongside other risk factors during the design of the policy and that the effects of climate change will continue to be considered during future levy-setting discussions. I remind your Lordships that in the memorandum of understanding with the industry that has been used to craft the Bill—I mentioned it in relation to a previous group—we have recognised the importance of the programme of flood defence and have committed to a specified amount of expenditure for 2015-16. However, we believe that advising on the scope and financial parameters for the transitional Flood Re scheme is a role for the insurance industry and would be outside the current remit of the Committee on Climate Change.

To clarify, the number of policies that would be eligible for Flood Re is based solely on the cost of the flood risk component of any policy, which is set by the insurers. This assessment of flood risk will indeed change over time, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, acknowledged, and it would not be possible for the Committee on Climate Change to provide any estimates without detailed knowledge of industry pricing models. Similarly, the value of the levy required and the likelihood of the need of any additional contribution by insurers is based on a number of financial parameters that could change year on year. Those include the level of premiums received, the cost of reinsurance and the amount of levy collected.

The Government and the Association of British Insurers have worked hard to determine the value of the levy required and the likelihood of the need for additional contributions, based on industry data and assumptions that were subject to independent review by Professor Stephen Diacon. In addition, extensive modelling, using a model that was quality-assured by the Government Actuary’s Department, has been carried out by the Government using there data, as part of both the pre-consultation and post-consultation impact assessments.

Looking forward, the Environment Agency will continue to collect and analyse data on flood risk, which will feed into the Government’s ongoing assessment of the scheme. In addition, as Flood Re is directly accountable to Parliament, detailed audited information about Flood Re’s ongoing operation will be reported to Parliament regularly.

I turn now to the proposed role of the Committee on Climate Change in advising the Secretary of State on setting the target number in relation to the flood insurance obligation. Clause 58 gives the Secretary of State the power periodically to set a target for the proportion of properties on a register of properties at greater flood risk that relevant insurers are collectively required to issue with insurance policies. The register, to be created by the Environment Agency and its counterparts in the devolved Administrations, will be based on the flood risk maps published by those bodies.

The number of properties indicated as subject to flood risk may change with time, as a consequence of climate change or through better information and mapping. The Secretary of State would set an overall target for the number of registered properties that the industry as a whole needs to cover. In setting this target, the Secretary of State would consider evidence on existing take-up rates of insurance and other relevant data. This could include advice from the Committee on Climate Change, should the Secretary of State wish.

The setting of the target number is a decision regarding the appropriate breadth of support that should be given by this financial support mechanism. Again, we believe that advising on the target number would be outside the committee’s current remit and, for reasons discussed in relation to Flood Re, would not be the most appropriate use of its resources or expertise.

Although, for the reasons that I have set out, we do not feel able to accept these specific amendments, I would like to return for a moment to the wider spirit behind them. We absolutely recognise that climate change is a most important consideration for the management of future flood risk and we value the expertise of the Committee on Climate Change. We are pleased that the independent Adaptation Sub-Committee will be publishing a revised climate change risk assessment report in summer 2016. We will consider that evidence and any implications for flood risk management carefully once the report is received.

Noble Lords know about various measures that we are putting in place to reduce the risks of flooding and coastal erosion, so I will not expand on that right now. I hope that the noble Lord will have been reassured by what I have had to say, setting what we are doing here in the context of our deep understanding of the potential implications of climate change and the unpredictability of measuring it into the future. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, who clearly recognises the issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, I thought, accepted the additional responsibility—although slightly conditionally. The conditionality was that the financial information, at least in broad terms, would be available to the committee.

I am a bit disappointed by the Minister’s reply. She recognises clearly the importance of climate change in defining the nature and scope of the problem. The Government have an authoritative independent committee available to them to feed into their deliberations, along with the administrator of Flood Re, but she is saying, “Actually, the Minister might or might not take notice of what the Climate Change Committee says, but, in any case, it is not the role of the Climate Change Committee and the Adaptation Sub-Committee to talk about financial risk assessment”. That is not what we are saying, though. To feed in to the risk assessment, you need the most authoritative input that you can get, in order that the financial structure can be changed to reflect those increased risks, changed probabilities or changed distribution of risk. I would have thought that it would be useful to the Government to have it written into the Bill that they have an authoritative input on this from the Committee on Climate Change.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, I am not looking for this input before we get Flood Re off the ground. I will be looking for an ongoing input. The administrator of Flood Re, as well as the Government, is going to look increasingly for this kind of authoritative input. At the end of the day Flood Re is—despite its statutory base and its reporting to Parliament—a private body informed by the expertise of the insurance industry, but that expertise is itself informed by the best information that can be got on risk. In my view, the best information that can be got is probably from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is no longer in his place. I would have thought they would be the best and most authoritative sources to be relied on. I am surprised that they are not prepared to get that reflected in the Bill. For the moment, I withdraw my amendment.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support these amendments. New Section 2A(3) to be inserted by Clause 24 seems to differentiate between Ofwat’s duties regarding strategic priorities and social and environmental matters. We attach “must” to the former and “may” to the latter, but the Secretary of State ought to have regard to both. This is not the usual theological argument between “may” and “must”. Those of us who have been around the block on this legislation have come across that argument a number of times and have completely failed to understand parliamentary counsel’s advice. The provision clearly differentiates the status of the two duties. It does not differentiate and downgrade the social and environmental objectives for Ofwat, which some noble Lords might think would be sensible, as Ofwat is primarily an economic regulator. This is for the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State’s duty to balance all these issues out. He should therefore have regard to both duties and if it is “must” for the former it should be “must” for the latter. The provision does not say, “give priority to”; nor does it say, “If you have regard to these duties, you do not necessarily need to carry out exactly what they prescribe”. However, it is the duty of the Minister to balance all these things out. If the legislation gives less status to one than to the other, the outcome of the balancing seems to be predictive.

I do not think that is right. All parts of the policy need to be looked at. I think “must” is probably the appropriate modal verb but both duties need to be in the same form. They are both important and the Secretary of State, whoever that might be, needs to have regard to both. I therefore support the intention of the amendment.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for her amendment. She notes that Clause 24 on setting strategic priorities and objectives for Ofwat requires that the Secretary of State “must” have regard to Ofwat’s duties but “may” have regard to social and environmental matters. She would like to change “may” to “must”. I am also familiar with the debates to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty refers, having delivered a “must” to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, yesterday at Third Reading of the Children and Families Bill.

The Government are keen to hear and understand my noble friend’s concerns. However, we think that the new power to set strategic priorities and objectives for Ofwat will ensure that social and environmental matters will continue to be addressed. The purpose of Clause 24 is to strengthen and clarify the existing guidance-giving powers. It enables the Secretary of State to issue a single consolidated statement setting out social, environmental and economic policy priorities in the round to help Ofwat to balance all the relevant considerations appropriately when making regulatory decisions.

The Government’s principles of economic regulation require that Ofwat regulates within a clear framework of policies and duties set by the Government. Under the new power, Ofwat must carry out its relevant functions in accordance with the statement. The new powers stipulate that, in issuing the guidance to Ofwat, the Secretary of State must have regard to all Ofwat’s duties. These are set out in Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and include protecting the interests of consumers, promoting economy and efficiency by companies in their work and, as we have already discussed, contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. These duties encompass the regulator’s essential purposes and it is right that, in giving a steer on policies and objectives, the Government should be bound by them. We note that the duties clearly embrace both social and environmental matters. In addition, the new powers under Clause 24 stipulate that when formulating a statement the Secretary of State may have regard to social and environmental matters. We hope that this serves to provide additional reassurance that such matters will continue to be addressed through the strategic priorities and objectives. As a further check, Clause 24 also requires that we consult widely on the statement of strategic priorities and objectives. Following this, the statement will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. When we consulted on the existing strategic policy statement last year, the social and environmental content received a warm welcome from both environmental NGOs and consumer groups. I thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for her own tribute to this.

We have great sympathy with my noble friend’s objectives but we are not persuaded that such a change to the Bill is required. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 124. These amendments deal with the water resource management plans. Water resource management plans, to colleagues who are not familiar with them, are the 25-year plans which each water company is required to produce, which then have to be approved by the Environment Agency. Those plans are fairly strategic. A lot of thought and work goes into them and there is a lot of consultation on them—but it is not always clear what they are used for thereafter. One presumes that the companies follow them for their own strategic decisions. To a limited extent Ofwat follows them in terms of the allowance for capital expenditure that is required in the price review. However, that covers only five years, and Ofwat, try as it might, cannot always see 25 years ahead as regards the changing capital and management requirements that will be needed.

The legislation on this, which is marginally changed by Clause 27, refers only to those plans being authorised,

“for the supply of water to consumers”,

which is of course the key issue. However, it is also important that the plans allow various regulatory, environmental, water quality and resilience requirements to be met. For example, water framework directive timetables and objectives and various ecological requirements have to be met. Following the Government’s inclusion of resilience as a primary duty of Ofwat, companies will undoubtedly have to meet requirements under the resilience criteria by a certain date. The amendment seeks to broaden what the plans deliver in public policy terms and therefore includes a requirement to meet environmental, quality and resilience standards.

Amendment 124 deals with an issue at which I hinted earlier—namely, that once the relevant plans are in place, the environmental regulator and the economic regulator need to pay attention to them. At the moment, following a change of direction or policy on the part of either Ofwat or the Environment Agency, decisions can be taken which do not accord with the plans. Theoretically, the relevant company then has to change the plans but probably does not do so until it has to revise them in five or six years’ time. Amendment 124 suggests that the Bill requires the relevant regulator to have regard to those plans when conducting price reviews, and that the Environment Agency must do so when conducting its regulatory and enforcement activity. If that is not done, the plans will gather dust on the shelf, will be referred to occasionally by the companies themselves but will be used rarely by those who are supposed to be in charge of regulating the sector.

I may exaggerate the position slightly, in that these are important documents and are regarded as such, but they are not quite given the importance that they deserve at either the company or the regulator end. These amendments seek to change that position. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling these amendments. As noble Lords know, the noble Lord introduced the Water Act 2003 to Parliament, which made the planning processes a statutory requirement. We recognise that he seeks to ensure that the water resources management framework has greater bite and that the relevant plans will have the desired effect. I hope to show him that these plans are supported by other policy measures.

Water resources management plans must show how incumbent water companies intend to maintain a sustainable water supply demand balance over a period of at least 25 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said. They must do this within the framework of environmental protection that is set out in legislation. The noble Lord seems to be concerned that they may not have that necessary effect.

Within this context, new Section 37A allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to the incumbent water companies on any relevant matter for which they must plan. In addition to this, water resources management planning guidance sets out the expectations of government and the regulators in relation to the water environment—for example, that the options chosen must not lead to any deterioration in the status of the water environment.

The companies have their own statutory environmental duties. For example, when exercising their functions, companies must have regard to the environmental sites protected by the habitats regulations. They must also have regard to the Environment Agency’s relevant river basin management plans. In addition, both the Environment Agency and Natural England are statutory consultees on the draft plans, and the Environment Agency provides the Secretary of State with technical advice on the plans. Following consultation on the plans, the Secretary of State has power to direct an incumbent water company to change its plan if he is not satisfied—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

I am sure that my noble friend shares everyone’s concern that the Government should take responsibility for ensuring that we do our very best to protect the environment. We need only to look at the challenges that we are facing at the moment to realise the importance of that, and it is in our common interest to do so. Here we have a semi-monopoly in an area that is vital to everyone. It is extremely important, therefore, that we balance all the necessary pressures. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord De Mauley will be happy to talk further with my noble friend to explain the philosophy behind the Bill.

Coming back to my comments on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I was setting out the other areas that help support his ultimate aims, which were, as I understood them, that these 25-year plans should have positive environmental effects. I was showing how other measures, too, help underpin and strengthen those plans.

As regards Amendment 124, both Ofwat and the Environment Agency already have general duties regarding incumbent water companies’ maintenance of their water supply systems. Ofwat and the Environment Agency consult extensively with incumbent water companies through the water resources management planning processes. For the current water resources management planning round, joint government, Ofwat and Environment Agency guidance was issued to companies to help them prepare their plans. This guidance also set out the role of each regulator in the process.

The Environment Agency, as well as having responsibilities to protect and improve the environment, and promote sustainable development, also has duties such as those set out in Section 15 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to have particular regard to incumbent water companies’ duties. Ofwat has primary duties to ensure that the companies can both finance and properly carry out their functions. The current round of water resources planning and business planning processes have seen much closer joint working between Ofwat and the Environment Agency than may have occurred in the past. I hope that that point is helpful to the noble Lord. To ensure that the outcomes of the water resources management planning process are reflected through the price review process, the Government have made it clear that they expect Ofwat to use its role as a statutory consultee to identify at an early stage any proposals within a water resource management plan that would be inconsistent with its approach to the price determination process.

I have set out a number of these other areas in order to reassure the noble Lord about how the 25-year plan fits into this issue. I heard his concern about whether these provisions had any effect, but all are consistent with what he has been saying about trying to ensure that the water companies operate within a sustainable framework. I hope that my exposition has reassured him and that he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am happy with those reassurances, in particular on underlining the need for the regulators to work more closely together and on the plans themselves. I think I am probably the only person alive—I am certainly the only person in this House—who has served on the boards of both Ofwat and the Environment Agency, albeit for only a very short time on the board of Ofwat. Although relations had thawed somewhat by that time, they are actually more constructive today, which is very important when looking at these long-term plans. I thank the noble Baroness for her reassurances.

In a sense, my amendments were provoked by new Section 37AA(2) which states that a direction about adjusting the plans or addressing them can be given,

“only where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate”,

in relation to the supply of water. However, there are other outcomes, and the noble Baroness has given me a reassurance that they will be dealt with elsewhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, when I heard the earlier debate about consolidation and clarifying legislation, I thought that this was a case in point. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly spotted that, too. This amendment allows me to put something on record. The issue is about duplicate records. Our plan is to repeal Section 195 on the basis that a single record is all that is required. The Environment Agency is not aware of any request having been made for the inspection of the duplicate record required by Section 195. Of course, it will continue to maintain its primary and comprehensive sets of data, including maps. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that public access to this information can be obtained under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, or for that matter under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is a small efficiency and cost saving to the Environment Agency, without detriment to necessary data collection, maintenance or public access. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with details of the data held by the Environment Agency. On that basis, I hope he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

I thank the noble Baroness for that and her determination to write to me setting it out. The importance of this is that these maps are there but will change. They will change as a result of development activities, because of climate change and our experience of floods that are supposed to happen once in every 200 years in the Somerset Levels—to return to that topic—but have happened in two years. It is vital that mapping resources are there and accessible to everybody, as they clearly already are to my noble friend Lord Knight. Not everybody has that level of accessibility. We need it, and we need to be assured that the resources can be updated and improved as information changes.

I thank the noble Baroness and the Minister for their patience this afternoon. We will meet again shortly, dealing with floods, in particular. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling these amendments. The Government recognise the significant role that CCWater plays in the industry by representing water and sewerage customers in England and Wales. The noble Lord made that case cogently.

However, these amendments concern the licence authorisations that relate to inputting water to the network, and the noble Lord is clearly well aware of that point. This means that they relate solely to the relationship between water supply licensees and the incumbent water companies, rather than that between licensees and customers. Before issuing a wholesale or supplementary authorisation, Ofwat must consult the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. This is not least because they can provide intelligence on any prospective licensees that are trying to operate in this area. The purpose of this is to ensure that these parties are fit and proper persons for the purpose of operating in the new markets.

We would like CCWater to continue carrying out its valuable work of protecting customers and handling customer complaints. It is worth noting that Ofwat already publishes a notice on its website asking for comments from interested parties before it issues a licence with either a retail or restricted retail authorisation. CCWater therefore has the opportunity to respond on any issues that might affect customers at this point. I hope that any concerns, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can be addressed in that way. I hope that he is reassured by this and is willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. She is right that these clauses deal with the relationship between new bulk suppliers and the incumbents, but that has a significant effect on the nature of the market beyond that. If the purpose of this consultation is to establish whether the newcomers negotiating a relationship with the incumbent are fit and proper persons, one issue is the effect on consumers down the line. I accept that Ofwat is open to people writing in, but why is the statutory consumer organisation not one of those listed to give a view in the first place? We are changing the market, and there should be a consumer view on how that market is changing and who is entering that market. I am looking not for a veto, but for an input. I hope that the Government will think slightly more. It would not cost them that much to add a new paragraph (e) to this subsection, and it would be consistent with what is done later in the Bill—admittedly on parts closer to the consumer—and with the established legislation and regulations. I withdraw the amendment for now, but I would hope that the Government could consider this further.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Grand Committee

Baroness Northover: My Lords, the Government are committed to a rapid increase in offshore wind deployment to maintain a secure energy supply, to tackle climate change and to meet our renewable energy targets as well as to deliver green jobs for the UK, which pick up the points of both the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Judd. However, we are also committed to securing full benefit from our oil and gas resources, which remain of great potential value to our economic well-being and energy security. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, will be reassured by that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, puts it, it is about coexistence and ensuring that this works well.

We believe that both the offshore wind industry and the oil and gas industry are needed and can successfully coexist to ensure the nation’s energy needs are met. DECC is working with both industries and their trade associations to encourage effective co-ordination and co-operation in their respective development processes. Our expectation is that suitable consultation, planning and phasing of the respective operations will in most cases allow both developments to achieve their objectives in full, or with only minor compromise. I note what the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Jenkin, said on this.

At the stage of formal consent, an application from either industry to exploit the natural resources of our marine environment would be considered as part of the standard procedures of the relevant authority and be consulted upon with interested stakeholders. Any user of the sea—including oil and gas and offshore renewables industry players—is able to make representations at a number of stages, including the formal consent process and the environmental impact assessment. We recommend that interested parties do so, so that their views can be taken into account in any decision-making.

It is worth noting that the Government are well aware that this issue is causing concern, particularly to the offshore wind industry. Therefore, the department is working on a solution that is acceptable to all parties. I hope that that will help to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

Clearly, in terms of the financial compensation that has been referred to, if the oil company is not prepared to offer appropriate compensation, there is no question of the Secretary of State intervening to override what is happening there.

We understand the motivation behind what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is proposing, and it is extremely important that there is equal treatment. I am a great believer in equal treatment. Therefore, we understand why he has brought this forward. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to agree this amendment to primary legislation—to hardwire it in—but we understand the issue. It is being looked at currently in DECC. Obviously we do not want any situation to develop that will disadvantage what we are trying to do with the Bill as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, it is the vision of where we are going as a whole that is important in this Bill. That is apparent from the Bill and everybody's involvement in it. If we bear that in mind, it is important that these issues are resolved and DECC is looking at that at the moment. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and everybody who took part in what was a rather wider debate than I originally envisaged. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Smith for their support for the amendment. My noble friend Lord O'Neill, not for the first time and I suspect not the last, provoked me into saying more than I ever intended and more than was particularly helpful to this amendment. As my noble friend Lord Lea said, the preference or otherwise is largely a matter for the fiscal system, which is already there. But if there is in addition a disadvantage to one sector as against another in the process, we should address that as well.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that this is at least on the radar screens of the department. But it has been on the radar screens of the department and predecessor departments for at least eight years to my knowledge. We need to hurry this up.

Whatever I may have said earlier, this is not about giving a preferential position. Nor is it dealing with the whole of the ocean. It is dealing with those areas where a licence or lease has been given or is about to be given or where a project is already operating. The rest of the ocean is open to the oil and gas industry in any case. Nor is the amendment saying that in no circumstances will oil and gas be allowed to operate there. All I am requiring them to do is to negotiate to reach an agreement. I hope that the Government can help to set up a process whereby that happens and thereby to equalise the hoops that any new developer will have to go through. There are two different forms of consenting and they are not the same. Some would say that they slightly—I think they are significantly—disadvantageous to renewables as against oil and gas.

I am grateful to the department for the terms in which the Minister has responded. However, I ask her and her officials to hurry up because this is an outstanding issue. In a sense, the oil and gas industries can go to their boards—the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, used to sign these off himself. Yes, they have the option of going anywhere in the world, but so does the kind of City finance that, by and large, offshore, wind and certainly the newer technologies of tidal and wave will have to go for. They also have the option of going elsewhere and it is important that the element of risk is reduced and that coexistence is a reality. It must be coexistence between equal partners in the delivery of our energy mix and not one that gives an advantage to one sector as against another.

Having said that, I accept the Government’s good faith in looking at this. I would be grateful if in a month or two we could complete that process and come back with a system that addresses the problem. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Monday 31st January 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, this amendment was originally in a group, but it has been disentangled, as it may be more logical for it to stand alone. It deals with the requirement in Clause 72(2) that a supplier must provide its domestic customers with information regarding one or more of its lowest domestic tariffs. In other words, it is an obligation on the supplier to ensure that the consumer knows what the lowest tariff is so that they can move to that tariff. This was so central to the coalition’s programme that it was referred to in the programme itself, which said:

“We will increase households’ control over their energy costs by ensuring that energy bills provide information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier”.

I therefore welcome the clause and its fulfilment of that commitment.

Of course, it is also true that there is a history of people moving to heavily advertised tariffs only for that tariff to change after a reasonably short time, often without notice during the period of the switch. This is a relatively modest attempt to ensure that this does not happen. If the householder switches on the basis of the supplier’s advertised lowest tariff, there should be no change to that tariff until after a period of 12 weeks. This seems a reasonable protection for the householder and would make a reality of Clause 72(2), which in itself is an important principle and one that I welcome. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. He makes a good point: it would not help consumers if information on lowest tariffs was often quickly out of date. The amendment would require the Government to guarantee that a supplier’s lowest tariff was available to customers for 12 weeks after information about that tariff had been provided to them on their bill, thereby allowing them sufficient time to consider the information on their bill and to act on it before their supplier could move the goalposts and change the price.

The powers that we are seeking in the Bill would allow the Government to require suppliers to inform customers about their lowest tariff and how to switch to it. It is a feature of our competitive market that energy suppliers are able to react to changes in the market through dynamic pricing. The amendment would effectively prevent suppliers from making changes to the price of a tariff for a period of 12 weeks, which is not the intention of these proposals. Such a requirement would limit suppliers’ ability to react to changes in the market and may lead to a more conservative pricing strategy, risking higher prices for customers across the board—in other words, the law of unintended consequences, which we have been looking at in other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord might be reassured if I could conclude. We are sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, intends. We have to give careful consideration to the amendment to make sure that the unintended consequences that I have just mentioned are not brought to bear. I therefore propose to him that we take away the amendment for further consideration, because we understand the principles behind it. On that basis, I wonder whether he might be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her recognition of the issue. Given her assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I appreciate the clear willingness of the noble Baroness to answer quickly. I wish to raise a very similar point, about how this legislation fits in with the existing climate change legislation in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has preceded us on some provisions. Can the noble Baroness give us some information on discussions with Scottish Ministers, and tell us what their response has been? Many of the issues that we have raised in relation to the Green Deal and other issues would apply to these provisions as well. Obviously we would not want to have the same discussions again; but if the noble Baroness can give some outline of the discussions she has had with Scottish Ministers, it would be very helpful.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I was not expecting to be provoked to speak on this amendment or this clause, but I speak in my capacity as former chair of Consumer Focus. It was always a little uncertain where the boundaries between reserved legislation and responsibilities applied in this area. Fuel poverty is a devolved matter, as are most aspects of energy efficiency; but, of course, Ofgem regulation is a reserved matter. I feel that quite a number of the clauses that we are about to consider stray across both areas. I am not necessarily saying that we should hold up proceedings and delay consideration today but, before this Committee finalises its activities, it would be helpful for us—and, I think, for my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament—to have a clearer delineation of which jurisdiction applies to each area of intervention. It has caused some confusion in the past under the previous Government, and we are compounding it here if we leave these clauses precisely as they are at the end of our deliberations.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising this matter, which gives me an opportunity to clarify things. Noble Lords can be reassured that there has been a great deal of discussion about this Bill prior to this stage, and after—as one hopes—the Bill goes through, there will continue to be discussions.

Chapter 3 deals with a policy matter which is indeed devolved to Scotland. It makes provision for Scotland which is equivalent to that made in Chapter 2 on the private rented sector for England and Wales. Similar to Clause 35, Clause 48 lays the foundations for the provisions in the private rented sector by clearly defining what we mean by “domestic” and “non-domestic” private rented properties in Scotland for the purposes of this Bill. The only substantial difference is the use of Scottish legislation to define what we mean by the domestic private rented sector in Scotland.

The domestic private rented sector in Scotland is defined as properties let under a tenancy covered by the landlord’s repairing duty in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. The intention is the same as the provisions for England and Wales. We wish to capture the widest range of private rental properties.

The definition of a non-domestic private rented property is one which is let under a tenancy and is not a dwelling. A dwelling is already defined under the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations (Scotland) 2008, so it is logical to use this existing definition for the purposes of this chapter. I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for raising the point on Monday of whether the amendments on Chapter 2 should be extended to Scotland.

As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, notes, as this is largely a devolved matter, it is for Scottish Ministers to consider the amendments and decide whether they would like similar amendments to be made to those provisions which extend to Scotland. Naturally, we will make Scottish Ministers aware of the amendments which this House has been considering, so that they can consider the issues raised and decide whether they wish similar amendments to be applied to the equivalent Scottish provisions in Chapter 3. It does not override existing Scottish legislation, but it gives Scottish Ministers the option to use these powers if they so wish.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Whitty

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, Clause 30 allows regulations to be made that set out when and how a bill payer’s liability to make Green Deal repayments can be cancelled or suspended. Amendment 18 would prevent the regulations from making provision for a procedure to be followed for securing such suspension or cancellation of the repayments. Noble Lords have made the point about this being proportionate and not abused.

An example of when the bill payer’s liability might be cancelled is where the bill payer had chosen to make full early repayment of the Green Deal finance arrangement. In such an eventuality, there may be a need to include an administration fee. I will turn to why that might be in a minute. As discussed earlier, such a fee would be calculated in line with the rules of the Consumer Credit Act for the domestic Green Deal and in line with the regulations that we propose to set out in secondary legislation for the business Green Deal. This clause also gives us the flexibility to introduce a payment suspension mechanism for the bill payer in appropriate circumstances.

The legislation permits an administration fee to be requested for the arrangement of payment suspension. This is essential to balance the needs of the property owner to have flexibility while minimising the loss that the provider of finance might incur. The details of this—for example, when such a fee might be requested and the level of such a fee—will be subject to consultation later this year.

Amendment 19 would remove the ability to set out in regulations what should be payable in the event of early repayment of the Green Deal being required, including how any fee should be calculated. The effect of this amendment would be to prevent the regulations setting out the rules on early repayment from being set out in Green Deal plans.

The domestic Green Deal is subject to the early repayment rules set out in the Consumer Credit Act, which prevents consumers from being charged unreasonable fees when they repay early. However, business Green Deal providers are not subject to any existing regulations on early repayment fees. This amendment would remove the ability for the Government to set out regulations limiting the fees that can be charged when a business is required to repay the Green Deal early.

Early repayment fees are an important protection for the investor providing the finance. They have invested their money expecting a particular rate of return over a particular period. Being able to claim some compensation when an early repayment is made is an important element to keep the cost of finance low. This practice is not uncommon in the mortgage market.

However, we do not want Green Deal providers to charge disproportionate fees when early repayment is required, so the ability to set out some rules around this in secondary legislation is important. There is a danger that these amendments could remove that protection, which I think is far from the intention of the mover of the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by my explanation and, on that basis, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I understand and accept part of that argument. These regulations are going to be subject to consultation. It may be appropriate that in some circumstances an administration fee is charged. A reference was made to the mortgage market, but in that context this is not just an administration fee but effectively—the noble Baroness used the term “compensation”—a major disincentive to people repaying their mortgage early. There is a certain amount of consumer dissatisfaction about this from people who, under all other calculations, would repay their mortgage early but who have been put off so doing by the size of the early repayment charge. I do not know that the analogy with the mortgage market is particularly helpful; I would hope that, at a maximum, any fee would reflect the real cost of the administration of cancelling early rather than the potential loss. After all, the finance provider would get the money back and could then reinvest it in as good a deal as they could. I do not think that the compensation issue should arise in these circumstances.

My main point is that this is primary legislation. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that this is subject to consultation. I suspect that the issue of fees will arise during that consultation among potential providers and finance companies as well as among consumer groups. The fact that the Bill is written in this way suggests that the procedure must include provision of a fee. Clause 30(2)(a) refers to,

“the procedure to be followed for securing a suspension … including the payment”,

as if the payment is an obvious matter. Similarly, paragraph (d) says, “including a fee”, not “a possible fee” or “there may be a fee involved”. It is worded as if the regulations are going to have to provide for a fee.

I would prefer to keep that open until we come to the consultation on the regulations. I think that in this case the primary legislation—I am using the opposite argument to the one to which the ministerial Bench usually resorts, which is that we do not have to prescribe so much in primary legislation because we can leave it to the consultation on regulations—is too prescriptive or could be seen to be too prescriptive.

[Baroness Northover]

Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that what is being sought here is a balance between bringing providers in and the very important aim of encouraging people to take up these schemes and for them not to think that their fingers are going to be burned if they pay off what they owe early. What underlines these provisions is the attempt to find a proportionate way to deal with that and to protect people through this legislation. However, as my noble friend Lord Marland has indicated, we will be discussing the subject of fees further.

[Baroness Northover]

I may need to come back to noble Lords on that but, as I understand it, if people choose to repay early the expectation is that they would pay a fee. However, I do not think that I have fully answered what the noble Lord has asked, so I will need to come back to him to clarify that.

[Lord Whitty]

In view of the hour and the fact that we will be returning to this, I beg to withdraw.