Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Deben
I can see the Whip looking at me with some care so I will be very quick. First, we have a moral duty because much of the climate change that is happening at the moment has actually been caused by us because we were the first in the Industrial Revolution. Secondly, if we want other, much less well-off people to follow, we have to set an example. Thirdly, 11% of the emissions in the world are made by organisations that are headquartered or sold on the London Stock Exchange, so we must realise how big our reach is.
Fourthly, because we have led the world—although we do not now—other countries are now doing significantly more than we are. The President of South Korea is here on a visit today. She comes from a country that has a programme of very considerable remit which will end up with it being carbon-neutral by 2050. China is moving from a carbon-intensity target towards a carbon-reduction target for the mid-2020s. It has already been shown that by leading the world, the world is changing. But if we stand aside and say, “After you, Claude”, nothing will actually happen. That is why we have to do it. We do it for the poor. To use the poor as an argument against doing things on climate change seems close—although I am not saying this about my noble friend—to reprehensible.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because I sense the House would like to come to a conclusion on the amendments.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with some astonishment. It was as though we had not even had a debate about fuel poverty in Grand Committee. I reread that debate and his first words were that he thanked the Minister for having brought fuel poverty into the Bill. You would not have guessed that from what he said this afternoon.
I have much more sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, but he, too, had his words of congratulation in Grand Committee. He said:
“The amendment goes some way to mitigate concerns that have arisen about that. It sticks in my craw to say this but the Government must be praised for obtaining support for the measure from Derek Licorice, the chair of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, and Jenny Saunders of the NEA”.—[Official Report, 11/7/13; col. GC 135.]
One must recognise Clause 136 is a considerable step forward. In Committee, I said that it was very worthwhile. Of course, the meat of this is going to be in subordinate regulations. We shall obviously want to watch that very carefully indeed. I totally understand the argument that my noble friend on the Front Bench advanced for not putting all the detail into the Bill, but wanting it in the regulations.
The impression I was given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was that the Government were not doing anything for the fuel poor. In fact, he has had a copy of the letter that was sent to all of us from my noble friend on the Front Bench setting out the details of fuel poverty spending. The total resources spent in 2010-11 at 2012 prices—these are common prices all the way through—on fuel poverty spending was £821 million. The current year has gone up, at constant prices, to £841 million and the next year the estimate is £845 million. That does not take account of the fuel allowance, which is paid under the social security arrangements. These are arrangements under the carbon emissions target, under the energy company obligation, the warm homes discount and so on, which are specifically aimed at the poor. So I rather resent that.
I have one question for my noble friend. John Hills’s report made the hugely important point—indeed, it has been referred to earlier in the debate—that it is our uninsulated homes, particularly for poor people, which are the biggest single cause of cold homes and fuel poverty. He quite rightly says—and this has been widely welcomed—that we must change the definition to take account of that. What I hope to hear from my noble friend is what is now happening to our main programme, the Green Deal, which is supposed to be the main instrument for increasing the amount of insulation of homes. One has heard gloomy tales that so far very few people have been able to take advantage of that. What is happening on that? We must know. To my mind that is the most important thing we can do to reduce fuel poverty.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
That is completely new. Does the Minister mean in advance of 2018-19? No, she is being advised from behind her. She may not have got that quite right.
I think that there is sufficient confusion on this that we must wait until we have the full details of how the scheme is going to work. That will require our having the details of the statutory instrument that implements it. I reserve my right to return to this matter.
Lord Deben
Can I underline what my noble friend has just said? It is extremely difficult to discuss these issues without having the details, and all the details have come very late. I have to say that it is extremely hard for us who may instinctively wish to support the Government if we do not have the information. This is another example of that. Either we have the information and can have a Committee stage or we do not have the information and have to spend our whole time making it difficult for the Minister, who herself does not have the information because she does not know—and it is not her fault—what will be in the statutory instrument. I therefore ask the Minister to go back and make sure that we can feel we are in charge of the facts, so that we can have a proper discussion.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Deben
My Lords, this is a very important amendment, not least because there are other aspects of planning that should lead one to take this seriously. My noble friend has talked about the commercial and industrial needs of London, but there are also the housing needs. It is estimated that we could build 2 million homes in London with the aim of dealing with our housing shortage. There is no doubt that the sustainable way of development is to use land that has already been used, that we really should try not to build on greenfield sites and that we should do our best to ensure that our cities are increasingly the centres that they ought to be of people living together and of great enterprise. It is very difficult to say whether cities or civilisation came first, but there is no doubt that the two are intimately connected. I believe that there is a real issue about the supply of electricity.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. Somebody is operating a mobile phone, and it makes the induction loop system very difficult for those of us who rely on it to hear what is going on. I do not begin to know who it is, but I recognise the sound. It is not my noble friend but somebody else. I beg pardon.
Lord Deben
I thank my noble friend for explaining what it was that I said that was so damaging.
I would like the Minister to be concerned not merely with the commercial activities, although they are very important, but with what most of us think ought to be the way in which we develop housing in future, rather than across green fields. That means that we have to make it possible to develop on once-used land. One problem that is always brought to me when this comes up is the availability of utilities in general and, of course, electricity in particular.
Secondly, when we decarbonise our electricity system, the availability of electricity becomes even more important, as someone said earlier, because that is what we are trying to shift to. Unless we can put in place what is needed in advance, we will not be able to carry through the whole purpose of decarbonisation. When one looks at the present circumstances, we really are an 11th hour nation. We really do things at the very last moment. I have every sympathy with those who object to the present circumstances, in which nobody does anything until the situation is so disastrous that something has to be done or the whole thing will collapse. That is not a way to plan anywhere. Although no doubt my noble friend will tell me that it will all be dealt with—and here I declare an interest in that the consultancy I chair gives advice on sustainable development—my experience is that is not always like that. It is not always easy to have ready access to electricity supplies, in particular.
I commend my noble friend’s comments, but I hope that they will be taken in a wider sense—this is not just about London, there are other great cities where similar circumstances exist. We do not want people to build, develop and grow in places which are much less suitable simply because the electricity supply is not immediately available. That is a mistake that we have made in the past; I hope that we will not make it again.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Deben
I should say to my noble friend Lord Teverson that having not perhaps been easy in my comments up to now, on this I say to him that this is a real and very difficult issue that I am sure the Government are thinking about very hard. This is because levels of sustainability differ in different circumstances. The Committee on Climate Change discusses this on a regular basis because it is extremely hard to keep up with the developing circumstances. What we do not want is to think that we have changed to a low-carbon alternative and discover that actually it is nothing of the sort. That is the worry that people have.
There is a second worry, which is that we are facing ever greater shortages of food. The one thing we do not want is to have a situation in which our battle against climate change—climate change itself causes some of the shortages of food—is then seen as a kind of competition with the provision of food. That is of course why biomass in those circumstances is so complex a matter. However, I say to my noble friend that no one has a simple answer to this and I am sure he is not going to give us one today; we would not expect one.
No one has a simple answer because we all started off on the wrong basis. For example, the green movement was very much in favour of biomass. It was therefore almost unquestionably a good thing until they began to recognise the potential downside. That meant there was a huge swing to the opposite direction. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves in extremes rather than finding some sensible place for the pendulum to stop.
It is also true that there are many vested interests in this area. The farming industry saw it as a wonderful way in which it could increase its opportunities of reaching markets because this was a new area that farmers could exploit. Of course, as food prices go up and their returns from food production become greater, it is a real issue for them too. While in the United States, I have to declare that I had a visit from the representatives of the so-called—“so-called” because I cannot prove this, as I will explain shortly—sustainable forestry industry. They came to explain to me, as chair of the Committee on Climate Change, that they were unhappy about what we had said about these issues. I said, “Do you have forests that are independently certified?”. “No,” they said, “but we know it’s all right”. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response. In the world out there, we must be careful about how we change our energy supplies and do not undermine the truth of what we are saying.
So I say to my noble friend: this is a difficult area. None of us expects him to have an easy answer, because no one else has. However, I hope he understands that we will have to look at this during the Bill and to come back to it on Report, simply because things are moving so fast that we need to be sure that we have done everything we can to protect the Government from later assertions that they have encouraged the substitution of one form of emission creation with another form of emission creation. That is what we have to guard against.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, have been following this issue carefully. Before my noble friend Lord Ridley had a very provocative article published in The Times three or four weeks ago, I had quite an argument with him. He told me what he was going to write and I said it was rubbish. He duly wrote his article, and there were letters, including one from my noble friend the Minister, and from a number of other sources, which said that he was talking rubbish.
I am sorry that my noble friend is not here today: perhaps there will be another opportunity for him to defend his view here. However, I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that his view is based on the proposition that a biomass that depends on the growing of trees cannot in any way be regarded as a renewable source. I said to him that they grow again and that if forests are properly managed—and many of them are, not least by the Forestry Commission in this country but also in Scandinavia and so on—the turnaround is about 30 years. He said no, it is 90 years. He may well know a great deal more about this than I do. I have so far subscribed to the view that when a biomass source is used as a fuel for energy, if it can reproduce itself over a period—and of course, as they grow, trees reabsorb the carbon dioxide that they emit during combustion—then it is a renewable source.
I was worried at one point about the importation of timber and its threat to the health of our forestry, against the background of ash dieback. I arranged an interview with the head of the trade association in America that exports manufactured wood pellets, a large quantity of which come to this country. I have also talked to the companies that burn them, notably Drax, which is converting part of its coal-burning to biomass, as is Eggborough, a different kind of company but one also in the process of a substantial conversion to biomass. They base it entirely on the import of manufactured wood pellets from reputable sources in America or Scandinavia. I was completely satisfied that the manufacturing process totally eliminates the possibility of the importation of any funguses or other diseases that affect timber here. I have not heard any suggestion that if it is properly handled there is any risk in that direction.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I must start with an apology. I dealt in my earlier speech with arguments which are much more relevant to the group of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just spoken. I sometimes wish that there were a cut and paste facility for Hansard so that the relevant paragraphs could be taken out and inserted at the appropriate place. I will not repeat those arguments as they are on the record, even if they are in the wrong place. I apologise for that and hope that colleagues will forgive me.
However, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on Amendments 38G and 38H. I understand his argument that because the ONR will not be, as it were, under DECC but under the DWP, there therefore needs to be a reference to DECC. I ask him to think what the public perception would be of a clause which said that the operations of the ONR had to be “conducted in conjunction” with DECC. One can only imagine the situation that might arise. Supposing there was an argument whereby the ONR was unhappy about certain aspects of a licence for a nuclear installation but DECC was seriously worried about the implications for the country’s security of supply.
To my mind, any suggestion that DECC could lean on the ONR to modify its advice in order to satisfy the DECC requirement would be hugely damaging. For that reason, the noble Lord’s amendment needs to be looked at with great care. As I said earlier, the essence of this part of the Bill is to give the ONR a much greater degree of independence than it has had so far. That is done for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that people should have confidence in its expertise to do what is right to secure the safety of nuclear installations and all who work there and of the public who live near them, without showing fear or favour to any government department. Of course, in the end, somebody has to bid for the money to provide that. That is the role of the DWP and in that sense it is separate from DECC. However, that should not give rise to any possible suspicion that the ONR could come under the influence of DECC. That is my view. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about that.
I have already dealt with the question of collaboration. I am worried that if there is too much, one will get a clouding of who is responsible for what. I would not complain in the least if my noble friend were to agree to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for a diagram to be produced before Report showing where the lines of responsibility fall. It seems to me that that would be helpful to the debate. Perhaps eventually it could be made available for public consumption, if that appeared to be appropriate. However, one has to be jolly careful in this area. Some of the issues are dealt with already in other parts of the Bill—I have no doubt that my noble friend will refer to that—or in legislative powers that exist elsewhere. I have again looked through the 1965 Act and some of them are there, surviving as current legislation. As I said, the memorandums of understanding are hugely important. Although they may have to be modified in the light of the passing of the Bill, they should certainly continue to exist.
The question of whether regulators other than the ONR should have powers and responsibilities for the enforcement of regulations is difficult. Already, nuclear operators can be prosecuted by two regulators if they are guilty of offences that offend the legislation of both of them. Again, we have to be very careful not to muddle the lines in any way. I ask my noble friend to look at that matter with some circumspection. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has posed a series of important questions, and I, for one, look forward to my noble friend’s reply in due course.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I want to refer particularly to the suggestion that DECC and the DWP should in some sense be brought together in this. I speak as a former Minister for health and safety. I also speak from a family background with a great interest in what happened in the coal industry in South Wales. There is no doubt that one of the problems of the nationalisation of the coal industry was that it was always thought that, because it was a nationalised industry, there was no need to make a real distinction between the industry and the way in which it was policed. In the early days, that was not thought to be important because people had a very high-minded view about what nationalisation meant. I am not going to enter into that discussion but that was what people thought. They felt that if it were nationalised there was no need to have too strong a distinction between the way the whole thing was run because everyone was working particularly for the benefit of the miners as well as for the customers outside. One can perfectly understand the history of what led to that.
However, there is no doubt that as time went on it became more and more clear that you had to be very different. You had to think about the fact that, whatever else was true, management—even management with the highest ideals and attitudes—could not really be responsible for policing itself. You had to be very careful about that. Therefore, increasingly we divided it and made sure that the policing of the system—looking at the mines and making sure that they were safe—was very separate.
As a Minister for health and safety, it always seemed that the most important thing about our regulation was that it showed that the ministry responsible for a particular industry had to be second-guessed right the way up to the Minister. The Minister responsible for health and safety was not the same Minister as the one who was responsible for many of the industries which the Health and Safety Executive policed. I always thought that that was terribly important. Inside the then department of whatever it was, now the Department for Work and Pensions, there was a culture of seeing that as a most important independent difference.
I feel very strongly that there is always a suspicion among the public that the nuclear industry is so powerful and strong that it can lean on Ministers. I remember that the industry used to act like that. When I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I got some pretty offensive interventions by senior people in the nuclear industry because I waited until I had the full reports as to whether I should give planning permission for the test drilling of a deep site for nuclear waste. When I turned that down because the nuclear industry had failed to meet the requirements of the Planning Acts, I cannot tell the Committee how rude, offensive and utterly self-opinionated the industry was because I said, “You haven’t obeyed the law. As the planning Minister”—not the nuclear Minister—“I will not give you planning permission because you have not looked at alternative sites and all kinds of other things”, and I turned it down. That was done by someone who was known to be in favour of nuclear power. However, I felt uncomfortable about the two connections because, as the environment Minister, I had responsibilities which ran across the two.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Does my noble friend recollect, as I do, the ghastly events of the landslide at Aberfan? With three other Members of Parliament, I was due to go on a visit to the mining industry just after it happened. I remember that we were briefed by Lord Robens, who was then the chairman of the National Coal Board. He was completely shattered by what had happened in Aberfan and he made it a matter of personal responsibility. He went down there, he attended a number of the meetings that were held and he followed it up.
My noble friend has given an example of the kind of thing that can go wrong if you muddle the responsibilities. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon was one of the counsel who took part in the Aberfan case and for him, too, it was one of the most shattering events that he had ever taken part in. Aberfan is a very good example of why one has got to make absolutely certain that these responsibilities are separated.
Lord Deben
I agree with my noble friend about that example. The reason I drew from familial experience was that I was brought up by a father who had pastoral responsibility for one of the mining villages in south Wales. For him, that event was most devastating. Although as a family we were not affected by it, my father was affected by his memories of what he had to do in those kinds of circumstances. I remember vividly his comment that you can never trust to police an industry those for whom the main interest is the industry as a whole. That is not because they are bad men and women, but simply because they would have to wear two different hats, and you should not ask people to wear two different hats. That is why we keep on talking about declarations of interest and so on. We know that however good and sensible you are, it is sometimes quite difficult to remember which hat you are wearing.
Again, I agree with my noble friend—Aberfan remains in one’s heart in a very special way and will be there until the day one dies, even though one was removed from it. That is simply because of the effect it had on people one knew and upon the memories of my father. I feel strongly that we should not allow the lesson that we should have learnt from the coal industry to be forgotten in this industry.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have doubts about two amendments in this group. On Amendment 40G, I am told that full cost recovery always takes place. However, you have a potential position whereby a licensee who needs to be properly regulated may be in financial difficulties and unable to pay the charges that he would otherwise have to. It may be a rare occurrence but, given that they attempt a full cost recovery at the moment, there needs to be a possibility that some essential services may not be paid for on the spot by the licensee because they do not have the money. I would be very interested to hear any other arguments.
I am unhappier about Amendment 40K. This point has been raised with me by the Nuclear Industry Association, which feels that it would be greatly to the advantage of the UK generally and the ONR in particular to be able to develop and make the best use of its expertise in markets not just in this country. The effect of eliminating subsections (4) to (9) of Clause 79 would be to reduce the ONR to its absolutely core activities. There is quite a strong feeling that that would not be to everybody’s advantage.
My noble friend referred to the effect of the Fukushima disaster and the great tsunami there, and I said earlier that it greatly enhanced the reputation of regulation in this country because of the work of Dr Weightman—but it goes wider than that. The supply chain for the nuclear industry is very much concerned with spreading its activities abroad to increase overseas earnings, and here, too, the ONR could provide valuable services and should not be prevented by the Bill from doing so. Of course, it will always be concerned primarily with its regulatory duties in this country, but it has the expertise, and will develop increasing expertise, to provide wider services and perhaps earn some money for itself and for this country. So I would be unhappy to see the elimination of those four subsections.
On the question of the account of what the total money might be, I await with interest the answer from my noble friend.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I wanted to build for one moment on what my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said and take it to a further degree. This House should be very careful about restricting a body that we have been careful to construct. There is a terrible habit in your Lordships’ House, of which there was a good example today when somebody got up and said to the Minister, “What are you doing about Egypt?”—as if we were doing anything about Egypt, or as if we should always do something about everything. It is about time that we realised that there are a lot of things in this world that we are not likely to do anything about at all. One thing that we should not do is to do things about things about which we cannot at this moment know anything whatever.
We have no idea how this organisation will develop. We have some suggestions, which my noble friend Lord Jenkin has put forward, which may represent some of the routes. But here is the idea that we should be so frightened that we should write down now what this organisation may or may not do, when it has been carefully built, with a whole lot of non-executive directors and all sorts of restrictions as to the nature of the people who run it. I find that one of the problems of government. I would prefer the organisation to be in the position of doing rather too much or doing something wrong than not being able to do what it needed to do, or what came to it, or to take up opportunities that might arise. We have to be a bit freer on this. There is a kind of determination to control that we should resist. I would much prefer this organisation to be sensibly built and then left to get on with it. So I hope that we resist any suggestion that, at this moment, we should decide what this organisation should do in two or three years’ time, or indeed in five or six or 10 or 11 years. It is much better to leave it as it is, and I hope that my noble friend will resist any such proposal.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful to my successor as Secretary of State for the Environment a good many years ago for giving way.
I was unable to speak at Second Reading because I could not be here, but I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a joint president of London Councils. I have considered whether to make these remarks, which will have a somewhat different tone from what we have heard so far, now or leave them until the Clause 1 stand part debate. In the light of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to say what I want to say now.
Of course, I have read all the briefing and have had meetings with the Local Government Association, which has expressed clearly its view that it would very much prefer this whole clause not to be in the Bill. It has suggested a number of amendments that we shall come to later. I put it to the association that I do not think that it has paid sufficient attention to the significant volume of evidence that is set out in the impact assessment, published last month. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to bits of it, and I shall do so as well, but perhaps drawing a somewhat different conclusion.
He referred in somewhat disparaging terms to the work of Professor Ball at Reading University, who has produced a report that seems to support the view that there is a very substantial body of opinion that regards the planning system as one of the barriers to growth. Professor Ball stated on page 12 of the impact assessment that the transaction costs of development control for major residential developments may be as much as £3 billion a year. He gave evidence recently to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and advised that the actual costs were likely to be much higher than this. He went on to talk about the value of development that has been delayed by the planning system and stated that, taking into account both direct and indirect costs to the economy, the total cost of development control could be expected to run to several billion pounds. This is the view of a very respected academic who was consulted by the department and who gave evidence to a Select Committee in the other place.
I recognise the point made by the Local Government Association that planning is by no means the only barrier. Certainly the availability of finance, particularly for housebuilding and some forms of industrial and commercial development, has been a considerable problem. Of course, that is being addressed by the Government through a number of other measures that are not necessarily in the Bill. However, we all have evidence from bodies such as the Chambers of Commerce, the Home Builders Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. They are the investors who are affected by planning controls. Everybody seems to agree that what we need now is more investment in our infrastructure. They are the people who will do it and they have provided strong evidence, from surveys of their members, of the barriers posed by the planning system. On the measures taken in the planning Bill, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework document, I have nothing but the highest praise for my right honourable friend Greg Clark, who took it through. I notice my noble friend on the Front Bench nodding. Mr Clark did a splendid job. Despite that, these complaints are still being made. In these circumstances, the Government are right to take account of them.
Nobody is arguing for a moment that this is a magic wand that will remove all difficulties. The Minister said that the Bill was not likely to achieve that by itself. However, it contains a number of measures that will improve growth in the economy and remove barriers to investment. In these circumstances, one has to look very carefully at amendments that are designed to make the process outlined in Clause 1 more difficult. I do not say for a moment that it is all right. I will listen to the debates on amendments. I have put my name to some of them and, when the Marshalled List is reprinted, it will be seen that I have added my name to others. At the same time, I do not want the Committee to feel that I share the views of those who would rather see Clause 1 removed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I understand the points being made by the noble Lord. The question of the pressures on local authority finances and therefore on local authority staffing is important, but of course authorities do charge. My noble friend Lord Tope made the point that some local authorities could improve by hiring better quality staff. These are the kind of things where, if there is some form of longstop provision of the sort that is in Clause 1, minds will be concentrated. I am not saying that the clause needs no amendment and I have already made the point that I have put my name to several amendments that we will come to, but I would not be happy to join forces with those who would prefer to see it removed altogether. I thought it right to make my views pretty clear at this stage of the Bill.
The Bill is a miscellaneous set of measures rather than a large and comprehensive Act like the Localism Act that we have passed. It contains a number of disparate and separate measures that are aimed at meeting the increasingly vocal call for the Government to do something to improve the growth of the economy. None of the provisions is a golden one, likely by itself to make a huge difference, but taken together they are a brave attempt to try to find out what the obstacles are. Many noble Lords will have seen that there is plenty of evidence about the barriers, and I want to make it clear that in the interests of growth and of improving the planning system, the broad thrust of this Bill is right, as indeed is Clause 1. If it is put to a vote, I shall certainly support the Government.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare my interests as the chairman of a company that tries to help in terms of sustainable development, as an officeholder in the Town and Country Planning Association and as an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Above all, I was my noble friend’s successor as Secretary of State. I fear that I have to say to him that I disagree deeply with his assessment of the Bill.
I am sorry that we cannot have an automatic discussion about its Title because I am always suspicious of Titles which are difficult to vote against. It seems that more time has been spent on getting the Title of this Bill right than on any of the clauses because the difficulty we have here is that of a half-baked Bill. At no point do we have the information needed to make any of the clauses meaningful. I do not think that it is easy even to table amendments to this clause without understanding what the criteria will be. If it is possible to put criteria into the consultation, it seems to me that there ought to be a mechanism for then translating such criteria as survive the consultation into the Bill, so that we know where we are. I fear that we really do not know where we are.
I want to challenge that fundamental argument—a historic argument that has come from the Treasury since time immemorial—that the planning system is the only thing that you have to deal with if you want to get growth. I remind the House that the planning system is there precisely to make places better for the people who live there. There is a price to pay for that. If you have a planning system it will cost money in the sense that if you did not have one, developers would not have to pay the costs of putting forward a planning application. It seems to me that those figures are pretty much nonsense, because all they are is an adding up of what it costs to have a system in which the public have some say in the conditions and the places where they live. That is a fundamental part of the life of any community. My concern is that it is difficult enough now for communities to plan their future, and that this is going to make that significantly worse.
This comes at a time when we have just discussed and debated the Localism Act. I feel like putting down an amendment that asks for the repeal of the Localism Act, because that seems to be what this first clause actually says. It does not seem to sit with all the rest of what the Government have been putting forward—which is something that I have been going up and down the country defending and believing in. I know that it is difficult to be local and that people at the top know best, or think they know best, but in the end I want the people of Suffolk to have some say in the Suffolk of tomorrow, and not to be told by somebody outside that they have to have this because it is good for them or good, in a curious general way, for growth.
I remind the House that two things are important. First, there is no discernible distinction between good and bad planning authorities on party political grounds. I go round the country and I know that you cannot say that Labour authorities are better or worse than Conservative authorities. There are very good Conservative authorities and very much less good ones, and very good Labour authorities and very much less good ones. The Liberal Democrats of course find themselves, as usual, in every possible place. I cannot resist a lifetime of teasing.
The words of my noble—and real—friend seem to give away the reality of the matter, which is that it is always about people’s vocal belief that this is so. People are vocal and always have been. All the time I was Secretary of State—and I am the longest-serving Secretary of State—they were vocal about it. Everybody always is, in particular if they do not win. I am afraid that we have to put up with that vocality, if there is such a word. There are many things wrong with the planning system. I believe that large infrastructure projects should always be done centrally and that it is nonsense to have another debate about the safety of nuclear power every time you go round the country. That is barmy. It is barmy to accept that if you want to build a railway or something of a serious nature, you have to deal with every single bit, because it is not the bits that count, it is the whole. There are very obvious examples of that, which I support and am enthusiastic about.
My problem—which is why I support these amendments—is that this particular clause seems to be inapplicable, in the proper sense of that word. First, if we are not going to deal with more than a handful of authorities and a handful of applications, then it does not meet the vocality. It does not meet what people are complaining about, so they will go on complaining. No doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading, we will have another Bill—because we always do—and there will be another way of not achieving what those who are vocal want. The reason is that it is not achievable. What they really want is something that distinguishes between planning applications not on the grounds of merit but on the grounds of speed. That does not seem a very sensible basis on which to do it. Of course, bigger planning applications take longer. Anyone can decide about a car port in a short period. A complex decision on mixed development in an area of outstanding natural beauty, with difficulties of infrastructure, takes time. If it happens to be in a small district council, it takes longer, because the district council is unlikely to have spare capacity to deal with it.
Energy Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Deben
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the changes that he has made. I very much agree with the spirit in which the noble Lord has brought forward his amendments. However, I do not think we should leave this without accepting that this has been a major response to the pressures which have been brought about, and we ought to thank my noble friend for that.
However strongly one feels about the need for care with regulation, this is one area where regulation is essential. As any of us who have had to deal with this on either a constituency basis or a ministerial basis will know, there are many good landlords; but, my goodness, there are some pretty bad ones as well. I too would like to ask whether we could think again about the seven-year period, for several reasons. First of all, one has to think of the situation of a family in such accommodation. It is the whole primary-school period for a child. Seven years is a very long time for people in very poor accommodation, and it is something that we can do something about.
It is also very bad environmentally. Forget the sadness of the people themselves—we are wasting energy in a way which is unnecessary, in circumstances where this can relatively easily be put right.
Thirdly, although I hesitate to draw too close a comparison with other things that are happening, there is a worry that we are not living up to the promises that we have made. Therefore people are worried about the date of 2016. It is a crucial date. If this Government in any way move from that date, they will do huge damage to the housing industry. The good housebuilders are all prepared to meet the requirements which the last Government laid on them and which this Government are continuing. There are some quite large housebuilders who have no intention of doing anything about this until they are absolutely sure that we are sticking to 2016. It would be a crying shame if their tardiness were to succeed, and those who had done the job and were prepared were found to have wasted very considerable amounts of their money preparing to meet the Government’s targets. I am worried that if we move this from 2016 to 2018, there will be those in the companies which have decided not to do the job properly who will say, “There you are—the Government are not really absolutely sure. It is not actually on that date”.
Therefore I beg the Minister to reassure us that 2016 is written in stone, because the best housebuilders have spent a great deal of money on being prepared for that, and they will not only not forgive the Government but will not believe the Government again if we move from that. It is a cross-party agreement, and it is one which I think is crucial.
I therefore ask the Minister whether it is possible to think again about 2016. Five years is plenty of time to prepare, even for the most unhappy of landlords. I do not believe they need another two years; and there is also the ancillary problem, which I hope will be put right.
The second thing I wanted to say, very briefly, refers back to a point which has been raised about not being sure as to what all this means. Certainty is the key thing for the housing industry. I declare an interest in this, because although I am not a landlord I advise some housing companies on how to build ecological houses, and I do that as the chairman of a company as well. These are not covered, I am happy to say, by this Bill, so I can speak entirely independently, but as someone who knows something about it, the one thing the industry needs is absolute certainty. If there is any doubt in the way in which the amendments have been so fortunately made, I hope the Minister will allay those fears now, simply because this is an industry that does not actually move very fast, and only moves when it knows precisely what it has to do. I fear that is true, and it will be very helpful if the Minister would allay those fears.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I will make two brief points. The first is that, yes, there are landlords who fall well short of the standards that we might like them to adhere to. I am especially concerned with one category of letting, and that is letting to students. I say this with some feeling, as my grandchildren are in exactly this position now. A group of four students at Imperial rented accommodation in the north-east of London, and it was so draughty that my dear granddaughter came and said, “Please may we have a rug to lay against the front door to keep the snow out?”. They were not going to be there for more than a year, and indeed they were already looking for something else. However, these will be the really difficult cases, and I think one has to recognise that.
My second point is quite different. I have been consulting local authorities, because they now have quite specific rules to enforce the new provisions that are made for the private rented sector. I am gratified to find that they are in fact quite ready to take that up. They welcome this, provided that the full cost will be met, and that this will be treated under a full burdens assessment so that they will not have to thrust the cost upon their council tax payers. I think that they have been given some assurances, but if those assurances could be repeated this evening by my noble friend that would be very welcome.
Energy Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I shall finish my speech, as I gave way to the noble Lord to allow him to make his intervention.
I am not complaining that the amendment is placed at the end of the Bill. Of course the noble Lord has placed his amendment where it appears to fit. I am concerned that he is proposing a major series of changes to the whole way in which all the organs of government—the Treasury, the Office for National Statistics and all the others—should conduct themselves, and a new forum to examine the assessments. With the greatest respect, I do not think that this can be added to a Bill of the very specific nature that we have before us.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I hesitated to break into my old mentor’s speech, but I want to agree with him and to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, that in his speech he proved why this is impossible. In this amendment, the Office for National Statistics is supposed to publish all this in an easily assimilable form. Your Lordships' House might suggest that after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, it is quite difficult to feel that it would be easy to produce an easily assimilable form.
The second thing I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, is very important. It is always true that the poorer you are, the more heavily any imposition weighs upon you. It is not new to say that a particular sum is heavier on somebody who has a small income than on somebody who has a large income. That is why it is very important in the way in which we deal with these matters to see that it falls as lightly as possible on those who are least able to bear it. To spend a great deal of time producing this material in a form that I fear will not be easily assimilable and will probably not be read by the very people for whom it is intended does not help this issue. This issue is that in everything the Government do, in everything the coalition do, they have to seek to do it in a way that is as equable as possible. I say to your Lordships that we are already placing huge responsibilities upon the system of government, and to add to those this very detailed, extremely expensive and, I have to say, probably not used collection of new statistics without any real indication that it is going to be of any practical value is unnecessary not only at this stage of the Bill but at any stage of the Bill.
Finally, the thing we should be concentrating upon is enabling individuals to influence their spending. That is what matters, not what the Office for National Statistics says. Individuals should be able to see how much energy they are using, how they can best prevent that energy being used, how they can opt-in to the Green Deal and how they can make their lives more comfortable and happier. That is what we should be concentrating on. We should be moving away from this determination constantly and centrally to mull over, reproduce, redo, represent and reargue all these cases and get down to the real issue. How does Mrs Jones do something about her own energy use? How does she make her home more energy efficient? How does she know when she is using that energy? How is she able to take advantage of lower tariffs by, for example, doing her washing at a time that is not a peak time? All those things demand the fast installation of smart meters. I hope they will not be prescriptive but will merely say what they are supposed to do rather than how they do it. I hear some rather unnerving information from the ministry that sounds as though it wants to be terribly detailed about it. I hope it is not going to be like that. That is what we should be emphasising: helping individuals to make choices that benefit them rather than providing a lot of statistics that I suggest will be read by nobody. If they will be read by nobody, they will do nobody any good.