Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 11th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is faced with a rather challenging task here. First, he operates against a background where the Government’s record in recent months has caused great anxiety among all those concerned with improving the environment and reducing the threats of climate change. Here he faces a fairly significant issue—the Green Investment Bank. Of course, the additional complexity is that the bank is itself subject to other legislation under consideration. Irrespective of the merits of the amendment, I could understand if the Minister felt that this were really quite a challenging situation. I will try to find a way out for him as well, as the Liberal Democrat noble Lords emphasised their solutions.

We are not averse to privatising the bank but we are not very appreciative of the urgency of doing it at this time. Crucially, the question that emerged during the debates on the Enterprise Bill and have been identified again today is how the Government intend to maintain the bank’s mission. Of course, it is easy to privatise if one disregards the fundamental objectives of the foundation of the bank. We need to know how the Government intend to guarantee that the bank does not morph in private hands into a different sort of institution and bank. What is the Government’s answer to that? They may not be totally enamoured of the Royal Mail example. Of course, that is buttressed by regulatory standards that we have not so far seen adduced as far as the green bank is concerned.

It is obvious that the Minister must make some progress on this, otherwise the proposal the Government are putting forward elsewhere will occasion increased opposition from this side of the House. I am always in favour of helping Ministers, particularly when it involves them rather than the Opposition doing the work. I suggest that the Minister consults his colleagues in the business department concerned with the process on the green bank and, after those consultations, comes back on Report with a much clearer identification of the progress of the Government’s thoughts on the bank. At present, in the debates on either the Enterprise Bill or this one we have certainly not yet heard anything remotely convincing from the Government to give the assurances we need that if this bank, which has proven to be a successful initiative and is respected for its work, goes into the private sector it will not all too readily be led down paths that depart from its much-valued objectives.

[Lord Teverson]

As we are in Committee, I will briefly come back to the noble Lord opposite about whether the Bank of England or the PRA is the right organisation for this. The Green Investment Bank is the Green Investment—I emphasise—Bank, so it seems to me appropriate. I want to make clear that we are open to other suggestions to solve this, if the Government and Minister do not believe this is the best way.

For instance, I am involved in an organisation called Regen SW, which used to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the South-West of England Development Agency. It was privatised and is very successful. I am one of three trustees who look after it. If there were a hostile takeover by a non-green organisation, there are three of us who can exert power to make sure that the original aims of Regen SW are maintained. If something creative can be done in that way, I would be absolutely delighted and we would like to hear it.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for their extremely constructive remarks—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who on Monday offered me sympathy for my position and today offered to be very constructive. Where do we go next? It is going to be very interesting.

Davies Commission Report

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement, which was delivered by the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place. The Official Opposition join with him in thanking Sir Howard Davies and his team for the vital work they have done since 2012 in producing this very important report.

I take this opportunity to praise Heathrow and Gatwick for the campaigns they have run in recent years which have been educative for the public and have often been conducted with an eye to giving information rather than just propaganda.

This substantial work has got one very important feature. Sir Howard Davies has proceeded to a clear recommendation:

“A new Northwest Runway at Heathrow delivers more substantial economic and strategic benefits than any of the other shortlisted options, strengthening connectivity for passengers and freight users and boosting the productivity of the UK economy”.

Aviation plays a very substantial role in our economy and it has the potential to play a greater one. The sector employs hundreds of thousands of people, contributes more than £50 billion to our GDP and pays the Exchequer more than £8 billion every year in tax revenues. But we know that the growth of our aviation sector is at risk. Heathrow has been full for 10 years; Gatwick will become full over the next five. It is therefore quite clear that we need additional capacity. That is the case made by Sir Howard Davies in the report but, as the Minister indicated, there are details regarding the report that we need to consider.

We, as the Opposition, present the following tests which we think need to be met so that the public can have confidence that this is the right way to move forward. The recommended expansion in capacity must go hand in hand with efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions from aviation, allowing us to meet our legal climate change obligations. We also need to ensure that local noise and environmental impacts have been adequately considered, and will be managed and minimised. The benefits of expansion must also be felt in every corner of the country, including any infrastructure, employment and supply chain benefits; regional airports must be supported, too. If these conditions can be met, it is quite clear that it is in the long-term interests of the country to carry out the report’s main recommendation. I therefore hope the noble Lord will appreciate that, given strenuous efforts to ensure that these tests are met, the Official Opposition will support the construction of an additional runway at Heathrow.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, this is a worthy report but I suppose we could say, “Here we go again —another report on the airports of south-east England and another recommendation for Heathrow”. There has also probably been another not very ringing endorsement of such a report. A Statement that says in almost its last sentence:

“It deserves respect and consideration”,

is hardly a ringing endorsement from the Government.

The Liberal Democrat position is very different from that of the Official Opposition, in that we believe there is no need to expand airport and runway capacity in the south-east. One thing to illustrate that is in the report itself, which clearly states that airports in the south-east will reach full capacity in 2040. That is 25 years ahead. We certainly need to plan ahead on major infrastructure projects in this country but some 25 years ago, back in 1990, I was lucky enough never to have seen an email and I certainly did not have a smartphone. I had also never participated in a videoconference, which is perhaps more relevant. Over that time, Stansted, which has capacity, has increased its ability to take extra flights.

Yes, Heathrow is full. As the Minister said, it has been full for 10 years. In fact, it has always been full but you manage businesses, as Heathrow and other airports do, by making sure that your fixed assets are fully used. If you have an asset that is not being fully used, you are not managing it properly. Airport capacity will clearly be used as much as it can be and we will find that at Heathrow, as a prime airport in the UK. We would no doubt quickly find that it was true with a third runway as well.

I now move on to the fourth runway, which the report goes into. There is an illustration here of how the report looks at the future. It says categorically that,

“there is no environmental or operational case for a fourth runway at Heathrow”.

If that is the case, I find it difficult to understand why the third is so important, given that Heathrow salespeople, if they are up to their measure, will make sure that the capacity of the third runway is used fully and as soon as possible.

Heathrow is irresistible. Asking for a fourth runway is irresistible to the management of Heathrow, as they asked for terminal 5 after terminal 4. What the report really says is that Heathrow is in the wrong place. If the environmental or operational issues are wrong for a fourth runway, a third runway is clearly wrong now.

On climate change, we can be very proud of a 20% reduction in emissions since 1990, yet airline emissions in the UK have gone up by some two-thirds. Is that compatible or is it a contradiction of policy, given that the Government have, quite rightly, committed themselves to the climate change policies and budgets of the Climate Change Act 2008?

On air quality, page 196 of the report states that,

“none of the schemes improve air quality compared to a scenario where no expansion takes place”.

On connectivity, I agree that there is a real issue around regional airports being squeezed out by Heathrow, but the report recommends that the Government should be prepared to use public service obligations. There is nothing in there saying that these should be mandatory.

On noise, the reports states that,

“an independent aviation noise authority should be established with a statutory right”,

which sounds very strong, but it concludes with “to be consulted” over noise levels in the west. That is clearly another very weak recommendation.

I have two questions for the Minister. It is said that this autumn’s decision will give a clear direction. Will there be an actual decision in October? Most importantly, the Statement says that,

“we will need to decide on the best way for achieving planning consents quickly and fairly if expansion is to go ahead”.

Will the Minister confirm that that “if” is still an option?

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I, too, very much welcome these amendments. As we discussed in Committee and on Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we felt that this was an important bit that was missing from transport strategy. The Infrastructure Bill is an excellent opportunity to put that right. The early clauses sounded very woolly to me, but as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, new subsection (9) makes it rather clear that this is expected to happen rather than being something that is optional. That is a major step forward. I assume and hope that this will go forward and that we will approve it as soon as possible.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I join the two noble Lords who have just spoken in very much welcoming these amendments. Throughout the passage of this Bill there has been very consistent pressure from the cycling organisations. They have established their case against a background, which we are all too aware of, where cycling is still too dangerous a pursuit in certain parts of the country, particularly in our great cities.

I always think of Lord Dormand, who was in this House for a number of years. When he was in the Commons, he used to cycle from Westminster to the National Executive Committee meetings at Walworth Road. That meant a journey around Parliament Square, the roundabout at the far end of Westminster Bridge, and Elephant and Castle. I thought that it was the most dangerous journey in the world as a cyclist, which is why, every week he threatened to do the journey, I sought to dissuade him. He always made the journey and always lived to tell the tale.

However, subsequently there has been an increasing number of cycling accidents, if not on trunk roads, often on large roundabouts, which are difficult to negotiate with a very slow vehicle such as a bicycle as you go past a number of exits from which other vehicles will make definitive and often rapid moves. We have a lot to do to make cycling safer, but I am pleased that the Government have been persuaded of the case that the cycling organisations, the general public and we on these Benches have pushed as hard as we could. We are delighted with the outcome that the Minister has described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, perhaps I can also tackle beavers? The bigger problem, diplomatically, would be if they crossed the Tamar, rather than the Bristol Channel to Wales. I will leave that aside for the moment.

Whether these are Eurasian or American beavers has been a question for some time. I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine this. It is presumably a question of DNA, rather than their accents. Can we hear from the Minister when this might be resolved? Presumably if they are not Eurasian, a much darker alternative has to be faced.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I apologise to the House because I am going to make a very technical and limited statement. We very much approve of this group of amendments but we have one concern, which has been articulated by those who know a great deal more about beavers than I know about anything. Consequently, we listened to their advice with the greatest care. It has come from a number of well intentioned sources—by “well intentioned” I mean those who want to ensure that our environment and natural life flourish. We are concerned about the welfare of species.

Our concern is that the European beaver—a native species that has established populations in the UK—has been excluded from the species control order. The classification of the beaver under Part 1B of Schedule 9,

“Animals no longer normally present”,

is regarded as bizarre. It lists them alongside the wild boar, hence our anxiety. It seems strange that, despite European beavers being recognised as a native species to the UK and a natural component of British river systems, they will need a licence from Natural England to continue to exist in the wild.

The Minister will know that we proposed an amendment in Committee, which was supported by a number of NGOs including Friends of the Earth, that the Government’s definition of invasive, non-native species should correspond to the European Union habitats directive, which was adopted in 1992. That will clarify exactly the status of the European beaver. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that representation is a worthy one and is taken account of by these amendments.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

I add my congratulations. I contributed to this debate in Grand Committee. It is good to see that a great deal of listening has taken place and some practical action has occurred. I am impressed that the Minister is also such an expert on areas such as non-native invasive species. The fact that a lot of these issues have been resolved is a good example of how government can work with the House to resolve important issues such as this one. Given globalisation, this area will grow in importance as the years go on. It is important that we get it right now. I congratulate the Minister on what she has managed to achieve.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister might have expected the odd congratulation from her own supportive Benches, although whether she would get the same commendation after Christmas as we get closer to the general election is a different matter altogether. However, from these Benches I also congratulate the Minister on the extent to which she listened and responded to the points made in Committee. This is one of the few occasions on which I have tabled an amendment and then seen the Government table an amendment which is as close to being identical as one could have. Therefore, talk about taking the wind out of my sails—I was actually breathless and unable to carry on with my comments. I end on that, I hope, helpful point.

[Lord Teverson]

We on these Benches have great admiration for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done on this part of the Bill. He made excellent speeches in Grand Committee.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My apologies to my noble friend Lady Kramer. I am thinking ahead and getting too far ahead in my own mind.

Amendments 144C, 144D, 144E, 147D and 147E refer to Schedule 3 and are very much in the area of the annual duties of the FCA and the PRA to make public their actions over the previous year. Apart from producing annual accounts, three methods of accountability are mentioned in Schedule 3. There is the annual report, which is the responsibility of both the FCA and the PRA; there is a public annual meeting for the conduct authority, but not for the PRA; and there is a consultation process for the PRA on the annual report that is followed by a further report by the PRA on that consultation. It seems to me that all three processes are not only admirable but essential for the full accountability of these important and key organisations both to the industry and the public.

My amendments would put the same responsibilities on both those organisations so that the FCA will also have a consultation process on its report, and a report on that, and the PRA would also have an annual public meeting. I note with interest the Minister’s remarks about one size not necessarily fitting both these organisations because they are very different. Clearly their responsibilities, actions and how they work are different but, in terms of their responsibilities to the broader industry and to the public, their responsibilities are very similar. That is why I think it is important that, as in my amendment, the Prudential Regulation Authority should have an annual public meeting. Again, the reasons seem to me to be pretty straightforward. Although the PRA has a relatively limited clientele compared with the FCA, its work, as we have seen through the financial crises of the past few years, is very relevant to the remainder of the financial services industry, customers of those institutions and to all taxpayers, who at the end of the day, if the regulators of those major institutions have been ineffective, carry the can for the cost of that regulation not working. For those reasons the very admirable process of annual accountability should be reflected in both organisations. On that basis I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I have little to add to this debate. I will keep my remarks very brief, but they are remarks of some cheer. I never thought that I would from this Dispatch Box congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on an amendment, but I very much approve of his Amendment 130B, and the precision with which he spoke, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has made such a contribution to our proceedings today.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Monday 5th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. The Minister has quite enough on his plate in terms of issues to tackle without me adding a great deal to his burden. I have some sympathy for him; he is well aware of the fact that the Merits Committee of the House expressed some criticism of the amendment order. Clearly there is also, among those in the affected industries who are directly interested in the issues, a belief that a considerable amount of backsliding by the Government is going on. This is a pretty modest measure against the background of the Chancellor's denial of environmental issues last week, and the clear indication that the Government are going to soft-pedal on planning issues, reduce subsidies to the solar panel industry and offer subsidies to some of the most polluting industries. The measure must be seen in that context. Therefore, I will give an element of reassurance to the Minister; we on this side support the measure, inadequate though it is. We hope that it will be the basis on which in due course something more constructive can be developed.

The Minister must know about the concerns of the industry. The issues raised by the order around verification and reporting are complex, and there is a danger that if people get it wrong and biofuels prove not to conform to the requirements, the industry will get into further trouble. However, we should look at how little notice the industry has from the period of consultation to the implementation of the order, which is only a week and a half from being part of the requirements.

The industry also indicated that there are areas to which it seems no consideration at all has been given. For example, the development of hydrogen fuel with regard to motor transport is not considered in relation to the order. From what we can see, the Minister's general perspective is that the Government will keep the issues under review. That is a long way off definitive policy, which is what the order is meant to represent. The industry deserves better from the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated with regard to the production of biodiesel, it is important that people know the parameters within which they will work. How can we expect them to invest, particularly in these very difficult times, against a very uncertain perspective?

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said and I hope that the Minister will give some response. When 97 per cent of the world's scientists who are interested in this area regard climate change as moving apace and as a threat to the world, the concept of deindustrialisation may be emotive but we certainly have to change. Without change, we will face a catastrophic future.

[Lord Teverson]

Does the noble Lord agree that there is a big difference between decarbonisation and deindustrialisation? Probably the greatest deindustrialisation in this country was in the 1980s. Since then, industry has probably improved and got better.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I could not put it better myself—in fact, I did not put it better myself and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for pointing that out to the Committee. The Minister must recognise that investor confidence in the industry is low. One plant has effectively has been mothballed—this represents almost one-third of the industry—and we surely need to give some stimulus if we are to hit the targets set for 2020. Of course, the Minister will appreciate just where the industry is at present: about 250,000 tonnes of bioethanol and 330,000 tonnes of biodiesel are being produced. Yet we need several millions of tonnes in order to hit the target, which is only eight years away.

I have come along, as I always do, with words of comfort for the Minister: we support this measure. However, we regard it as inadequate and we want indications from the Government that the inadequacies will be repaired.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I, too, sympathise with a number of the themes that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has brought forward, but I remind the House that this is Report stage and, to be honest, I find this amendment quite muddled. I find it very difficult to understand its detail or even what it is trying to achieve in terms of its words. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, what he is trying to achieve, but I am not even sure that if we put this into the Bill it would achieve that. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause refers to a range of things including quasi-fiscal instruments. I do not know whether that is a technical Treasury term that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has got from his friends in the Treasury, but I do not understand it.

I seriously do not understand what proposed new subsection (2) means. It seems to connect carbon budget periods, which as we know are five years, with annual assessments, and I am not sure what it is trying to do. The list in proposed new subsection (2)(a) to (c) exclude the industry that paid for my mortgage in the first 20 years—the road freight industry—inland waterways and shipping, and I am not sure that its purpose is comprehensive.

Proposed new subsections (3) and (4), again, come back to statistics that I think are generally available. It has not been difficult for me to find most energy statistics that I have tried to find.

I agree that we have an issue with the amount of money that ROCs and feed-in tariffs actually cost consumers, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding reminded us, and with the way in which these charges affect groups in fuel poverty differently. However, I honestly do not feel that this amendment achieves what we want to achieve within a reasonable understanding of what this amendment actually says. For that reason, I find it impossible to support it at this stage of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this has been a fairly substantial debate that justifies at least one decision which the House came to the other evening: that we would not be able to rush consideration of this and the other amendment and deal with them within the time limit that we had at that time. I am grateful to my noble friend for having generated quite a significant debate on the issues.

It is a little unfair to suggest that this amendment comes somewhat late in the Bill, as we discussed it extensively in Committee. I indicated from the opposition Front Bench that we did not find parts of it entirely acceptable at that stage. In particular, we could see Treasury colleagues bridling at the concept of hypothecated taxation, which is an additional complicating dimension to the proposals. My noble friend Lord Lea has worked hard, and harder, to take out that part of his amendment and still retain the merits of the original amendment.

This amendment has come in its proper place in our consideration of the Bill. It is not as though we are at the last stages of our consideration of this Bill in Parliament. The Bill started in this House, and our job in a sense is to clarify the issues and to make amendments where we think amendments should be made so that our colleagues in the other place can address the Bill with the benefit of the considerable expertise that this House brings to bear on matters of this kind. We therefore owe my noble friend a considerable debt for having raised these issues.

Does this matter fit within the Bill? I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but I fear that that point can be made about every Bill that is likely to come before the House. I can think of Bills that relate to energy, Bills that relate to the environment and green issues, and Bills that relate to a Treasury position. All will say that their Bill focuses on particular issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spelled out accurately, and that we should not try to drop a load of matters into it that are not extraneous but that bring other dimensions into the Bill that are not its primary purpose.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, welcome back; it is very nice to see such a full contribution from noble Lords. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions as we move into day four. They have been incredibly valuable. I assure everybody that we are drawing up a list of comments and suggestions, which we take very seriously. We will look at them and if any noble Lords seek clarification, there will be some opportunity for that between Committee and Report. We will make sure that there is an opportunity for discussion. It would be quite nice if we could get through the Green Deal today; this will be our fourth day on it. It looks as though we are moving on quite nicely. It would also be very nice to get through the AV Bill today.

[Lord Teverson]

Can we take a vote on that, Lord Chairman?

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I have noticed that the AV part of the Bill has long since been discussed. It is the other parts that are more difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

No, my Lords, I have asked whether the noble Baroness intends to move the adjournment of this Committee. It is 7.45 pm. I have quite a lot to say on this Committee. In fact, I could probably go on for three and a half hours and I assure the Committee that I certainly will unless the Government recognise that rules are rules. To complain about what is going on in the Chamber, which is well within the rules, and to break the rules in Committee is quite unacceptable.

[Lord Teverson]

I am not going to talk about the other Chamber, but with this Committee on the Energy Bill, if there is some time left, we take the amendment and finish after that amendment. I am amazed at that intervention. It is quite unnecessary. I find it absolutely astounding. I presume that we will do as we have always done, which is to finish debating the amendment then adjourn. I shall join with the noble Lord in doing that, if that is the case.

[Lord Marland]

We started at 3.45 pm and we have been here for four hours. That is how long I was instructed that we were here for. We are running over by a minute. I do not think that that is unreasonable; no one is trying to frustrate the Committee. I did not intend to stop the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, making her excellent speech. I naturally thought that we would finish the amendment.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Teverson

Monday 17th January 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the purport behind the amendments is to clarify what will be included in the framework regulations. The Minister has used the open term “may” and we are concerned that he should be more deterministic in regard to the regulations. He should include the word “shall” in crucial places in the legislation in order that we are clear about the determination of the Minister and the legislation as to what the regulations will cover.

We want to be clear from the legislation what will appear rather than what will be at the Secretary of State’s discretion. The greater degree of certainty that we are able to establish within this legislation, the clearer the nation will be. This is important for everyone who is a participant in this ambitious agenda for ensuring the reduction of carbon content and for hitting the important targets. The more that is clearly determined in the legislation, the clearer the nation will be about our obligations.

We propose inserting “shall”, and I hope the Minister will take these amendments as an opportunity to give a clear definition of what he expects to be in the legislation. I am sure he appreciates that accepting our amendments would be the clearest way of communicating that fact to our fellow countrymen.

Amendments 5A and 8B seek to establish whether we are limited to the lists referred to in the legislation and I ask the Minister to clarify the position.

It would not become me to pre-empt the amendments which are to be spoken to by other noble Lords but we all recognise from the Second Reading speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the importance of her amendment, which we support in principle. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also brings forward a principle that we largely support. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

It is a great pleasure to speak during the course of a Bill to which I have been looking forward for some time. I am glad that the Energy Bill is a priority in the Government’s legislation.

My amendments are minor but have an important effect. They reflect in many ways the debate that took place on the previous group of amendments. On page 4, Clause 3(7) refers to energy plans. We believe that it would be useful if we included energy plans as well as Green Deal plans within the same sections of the Bill. It would add greater clarity and ensure a more holistic approach to the way in which the Green Deal operates. A number of my other amendments circle around that broader theme.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I should say that I cannot think of a better principle than that the Government should be clear. I like firm language as opposed to language which is not clear about its intent, and I welcome the amendments that will achieve that.