Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Earl Cathcart

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I was coming to that. The noble Lord has anticipated my very next sentence. It was necessary to identify the context because that explains why, on a consensual Bill, on which we have sought to work with the Government to improve the Bill and on which we recognise the efforts of the Government represented in Amendment 1, there is still a crucial area of difference. The government amendment is expressed in terms of the desirability of each holder of a licence. Power does not seek to emphasise desirability; power seeks to define will: what the Government want to see happen, not what they would like to see happen, as if in some way they can rely on a general response of good will. Of course, in many areas they can, but this is an area of crucial aviation policy with regard to airports. Our amendment to the government amendment says that, in place of a fairly wishy-washy concept of desiring that things should happen, there should be an obligation.

That issue is clear enough, and important enough, for us to press this issue despite the good will of the Minister and the efforts to respond. The response is too mealy-mouthed to achieve the objectives that this Bill should achieve with regard to the protection and improvement of the environment. It will become clear during the proceedings today that on many aspects of the Bill we agree with a great deal of what the Government are doing. However, in this area, the government amendment does not stand the test. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I am by and large happy with the government amendments in this group and will talk particularly to Amendments 1 and 7. The wording is not precisely what we asked for, but my noble friend Lord Attlee has clearly listened to the arguments expressed in Committee, on all sides, and has gone a long way to addressing these concerns.

I will say something on Amendments 2 and 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I share his concern that “desirability” is rather limp—I think the noble Lord used the word “wishy-washy”. I would much rather have seen the word “duty” in there, as I feel we all have a duty to the environment in whatever we do and the aviation industry should be no exception. I would like to have seen the licence holder having a duty, using the words of the government amendment,

“to take reasonable measures to reduce, control or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the airport”.

However, that is not where we are. The Government have used the word “desirability” in their amendment, for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Attlee, and I do not suppose that they are inclined to accept any amendment to that.

Is the Government’s amendment fit for the purpose that we argued for in Committee? I believe that it is. Although there is no mention that the licence holder should have a duty to have regard to the impact of airports on local communities, which is something that I argued for in Committee, I believe that these amendments will deal with the impact of airports on the environment. Importantly, these amendments will provide the CAA with the flexibility it needs to allow regulated airports to invest in sensible measures to reduce the environmental impact of their operations, without fear of legal challenge from an airline, whose main preoccupation, in this regard, is simply to minimise airport charges. That was the kernel of the argument in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Attlee has addressed it. I welcome these government amendments as they stand, and I thank the Minister and his team for listening and responding.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Earl Cathcart

Monday 31st January 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am going to offer a word of solace to the Minister: I recommend that he suggests that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, not that the Government should accept it. I doubt whether the Government will accept it, not least because although this has been an interesting and informed debate, the cross-currents have been very sharp and very obvious. In seeking the objectives that we all seek, the question of strategy is difficult. I doubt whether this Bill can stand the strain of carrying an amendment which indicates that the whole of the tariff position should be restructured as far as the electricity companies are concerned, particularly given that we are short of information.

First of all, the companies are short of information about which households ought to have preferential treatment. I very much enjoyed the thoughtful and considered speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. He took us with him in terms of the objectives, but council tax will not do as a measure of the relative strength or weakness of household economies. We are in the historic position—as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, identified—that this initial tariff is the old standing charge written into a new pricing framework. Now there are elements of a standing charge which companies have to meet.

However, our consideration with this Bill is, how do we make the Green Deal effective? I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who indicated the difficulties of both ends of the spectrum in this argument. In terms of making the Green Deal effective, it would complicate matters enormously if we were also saying that in a short period of time, we would be changing the nature of the pricing policy. There is enough of a problem with pricing anyway. We all know that we have a terrifying situation at the moment with world energy prices and the issues faced by consumers. None of us knows what lies ahead, but it is unlikely that energy will become significantly cheaper in the foreseeable future. Therefore households treat energy bills with great seriousness.

Can this be solved along the lines of this amendment? In due course, I think it would probably need to be. We have to get away from the issue of why the pricing policy is as it is. The Bill has to deliver the drive towards the Green Deal. The priority has to be to emphasise to households that they must pursue strategies to reduce the consumption of electricity. It is consumption that we have got to reduce or, more accurately in many cases, we have got to reduce waste, given that our houses are so ill-equipped for the circumstances.

We have to deliver the Bill’s objectives before we move, and expect the industry to move, to that dimension identified by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This has been a very useful debate, but I fear that if the concept in that amendment was put into the Bill, we would complicate matters enormously in terms of the impact on households. We would therefore fail with the main strategy to which we are all committed under the Bill. I hope the Minister will take a similar view.

[Earl Cathcart]

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said that there were inconsistencies in my argument. What I was doing was reporting from the letter that my noble friend had sent to me, where there may have been inconsistencies. I said in my remarks that putting rising block tariffs in this Bill would be like putting the cart before the horse. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies; I am not expecting to have an amendment to get rising block tariffs into the Bill. I am asking the Minister to assure us that this will be looked at, so that the Green Deal can take effect first, and then the whole issue will be considered after the Bill is done and dusted.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Earl Cathcart

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Grand Committee

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I was wrestling with an amendment—it was going to be a probing amendment—to the effect that a landlord of private rented property should not be liable for the Green Deal if the property becomes vacant. I realise that this amendment might better be put in Chapter 2, when we are discussing the private rented sector, but it did not seem to fit there and seems to fit much better in Clause 5, which deals with the terms of the plan and in particular the persons liable to make any payment under the Green Deal.

When a private rented property becomes vacant between lettings, does liability for the Green Deal loan repayment fall to the landlord, bearing in mind that energy bills are likely to be minimal between lettings? It seems obvious that if the property is vacant, it would fall to the landlord to carry on paying any energy bills for the duration of the vacancy, even though they are minimal, but does he become liable for the Green Deal? And if so, does the repayment of the loan instalments get adjusted downwards, bearing in mind the very small energy bills while vacant and the golden rule? Secondly, what happens if the landlord cuts off the energy supply and reconnects when a new tenant arrives? The energy bill would be zero but there would still be interest to pay. Would this fall on the landlord and what about the golden rule here? Could this act as a disincentive to landlords to take up the Green Deal, or do the Government think it will act as an incentive to landlords to reoccupy the property more quickly, bearing in mind that the landlord may have to carry out repairs, maintenance and redecorations between lettings?

There is a provision in Clause 15(3)(d) of this Bill to suspend Green Deal payments. Does this suspension provision apply when a property becomes vacant, and, if so, what would this do to the repayments? Would it increase the term of the agreement and increase total liability due to interest accrued during the suspension? I ask all this because it does not seem to be at all clear as to how this would work and what the figures would be like for the landlord in the event of his property becoming vacant. I would be grateful for clarification.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not have a great deal to add, as he has quite a bit to answer from his noble friend Lord Cathcart, who has identified issues which concern us all. Whether the answers come down in relation to the landlord or in any other respect, there are anxieties also about the tenant. We need a clear position with regard to that. We have our uncertainties and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having identified those.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will accept what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, had to say about the fixed rate of interest. I once had a friend who took out a fixed-rate mortgage with a London authority just two years before the oil price rise in the 1970s. We can all recall inflation running at staggering figures at that time and interest rates going well into double figures. If you had a fixed-rate mortgage of 2 per cent, you reaped considerable advantages from that. With regard to a scheme that has any length of time attached to it, the question of fairness over a period of time has to be addressed.

My noble friend Lord Whitty raised the obvious question of what those costs will be and the interest which will bear upon the initial person living in the property. Consumer rights need to be safeguarded. We want clarity on that point too. Our amendment requires clarity on the changeover, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, also referred, with regard to whether the relationship between the improver and the person paying the Bill could change to the disadvantage of one or the other. How will the scheme work to guarantee that there is fairness over the considerable period of time involved in this exercise? That was the burden of the questions addressed earlier today.

I do not really need to add my voice to this matter because, if my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, are worried about the word “fee”, I am too. I, too, had also identified that. So that is a question for the Minister to answer. Is he not lucky to be in the place that he is?