Water Bill

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Whitty

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an owner of a band H property. Many noble Lords have spoken on this amendment at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and I spoke to a similar one in Committee, and I am pleased that the House has returned to it. I have one question for the Minister that is a matter of principle. While the rationale for the exclusions from band H properties is principally that some band H owners have higher incomes than others—that is not a proven principle but it nevertheless continues to be argued by the Government—does the Minister accept the view that the Flood Re scheme should follow the principle that those who contribute to this government scheme are afforded its protection?

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this amendment, and particularly for the way in which he outlined the dilemmas of this proposition. I think we all have a problem here. I hope that I do not need to make it clear that we on this side strongly support the basic concept of Flood Re and the reassurance that it will give to a lot of people who are currently worried about their future cover.

We have to recognise that the Government are not entirely on a free position on this; indeed, I congratulated the Government—that is quite rare for me—not long ago on reaching an agreement with the ABI, which I know is an incredibly difficult negotiator. Therefore, I do not think that any of us want to unnecessarily unravel the arithmetic that lies behind the Flood Re proposition as it now is. However, the wide-ranging nature of the noble Earl’s amendment means that we would be unravelling it quite substantially.

On the other hand, as noble Lords have made clear, this is not entirely a matter for the insurance industry. The structure of the project is an agreement between insurance companies but it has to be backed by Parliament and it therefore has a statutory base. Parliament has to be concerned about fairness, equity and proportionality. We therefore have to query whether the exclusion of certain properties, and such a large number of them in aggregate, is fair and equitable.

To some extent, I go along the same lines as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter: there are different arguments relating to the different categories. Some exclusions were in the previous statement of principle and are therefore in a changed position as a direct result of the demarcation of Flood Re. Small businesses were covered by the previous arrangements, as were tenants in leasehold premises—although there have been some concessions of late, which I will come on to in the next amendment—and band H properties. The exclusion of post-2009 properties is not a new position; it was the position under the old scheme.

I shall comment on my view on each of those. First, I accept that small businesses have a different way of meeting their insurance requirements. I also accept, on the other hand, that many small businesses, boarding houses, shops and small premises were seriously affected by those floods and, under their understanding of the previous settlement, would probably expect to be covered by the replacement scheme. It is therefore quite important that we bear in mind the position of small businesses. The insurance industry claims that there is not a market failure in this area, and the Government seem to have accepted that. Maybe we ought to put businesses in a different channel because they are not dealt with in the same way as residential properties under Flood Re. The Government should not lose sight of the fact that many small businesses are under serious risk and do not feel well protected by the current situation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to come back to this.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Moynihan, and others referred to band H properties. It is a slightly odd move by the Government to exclude band H—an unusually populist, progressive move, to avoid cross-subsidy from the poor to the rich. It may be a welcome indication of things to come. However, it still leaves a number of people in difficulty. I think that the Government may have to look again at band H, but it does not make a lot of difference to the arithmetic. The number of people who are asset-rich but income-poor is relatively small and, therefore, it could not make a priority social case for re-including band H.

That leaves me with the subject matter of a subsequent group. Almost the whole of the tenanted sector and the private rented sector, even with the Government’s new concessions, are excluded from this. They all regard themselves as residencies, they all have domestic insurance in one form or another and they are all lived in by households and families. I think it is unfortunate that they are excluded. I would give my priority to that and I will come back with a further amendment. As it stands I cannot fully support the broad sweep of the noble Earl’s amendments. Nevertheless I thank him for the debate and the wide range of issues which, one way or another, the Government will have to explain to various sectors of the public.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Whitty

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment proposed, although again I anticipate that the Minister is not going to be able to accept it. I would like to echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord Selborne about the briefing notes, which have been outstandingly helpful. In a latter edition, there was a very helpful road map which draws together some of these key issues. In the spirit of being helpful to my noble friend on the Front Bench, if the Minister is not in a position to accept the amendment on the face of the Bill, I hope that he will encourage his officials to give prominence to that road map on the website, and therefore in part meet the suggestion in my noble friend’s amendment.

My second point is that this is a matter of wider significance in Government. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is a subject that the Cabinet Office should look at carefully, not just in the context of water but in the wider context of the utilities. There is a necessity for clarity for those who do not spend many hours sitting on your Lordships’ Benches going through the detail of these Bills but who nevertheless have an equal, if not a greater, interest in the key elements of the legislation before Parliament.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on producing such an important amendment. I suspect that it is beyond the Minister’s pay grade to agree that, in accepting the amendment, we would at one and the same time get Parliament to rationalise the way in which we legislate, get Ministers to ensure regulators co-ordinate with each other and get departments to make their activities comprehensible to the public. Nevertheless, these are welcome ambitions. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, added some rationalisation of the quangos as well. I am afraid that all this is indicative of the way in which we do business. From listening to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, both at an earlier stage and today, I understand that this is not a new problem—I have noticed that the Water Industry Act 1991 is seven pages longer than the Bill we are considering.

However, to be serious about this, one of the great failings of Parliament has been the failure to produce consolidated legislation in any field. After 15 or 16 years in this House, I still fail to understand why Parliament has not devised a procedure for pulling together consolidation of Acts in all areas, so the noble Baroness’s amendment has wider implications. Whether the amendment should sit in the Bill I will leave to the Minister but, much more narrowly, the proposition that for each subject matter there should be a single website address which links to all the different bits of regulation, authorities and other government interventions, is very good. It is one which has been talked about in Whitehall but hardly delivered at all. The one point where Defra could probably take this amendment on board in the context of water is regarding that single website. I think practitioners, companies and consumers would be very pleased to see such a development. I congratulate the noble Baroness, but we will see what the Minister says.

Green Deal Framework (Disclosure, Acknowledgment, Redress etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I shall briefly make a couple of comments and ask one question of the Minister. I am glad that there is continued all-party support, under her new leadership in this area, for the Green Deal and for the work of the Green Investment Bank, which I strongly echo. I hope that, as the Government have been reconsidering elements of the energy Bill, when we finally read it this week we will see a greater emphasis on energy efficiency measures. It is so important that we see energy efficiency embedded in energy policy, as much as we focus rightly on the need to ensure that we have the correct balance between nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels in a policy geared towards ensuring that we have security of supply at a competitive price.

I welcome the Minister’s clear explanation of the measure before the Committee today. In her opening comments, she made an interesting point: she said that during the consultation exercise undertaken on the three measures that we are considering, 80% were in favour. It would be helpful if we knew the genesis and gist of the 20% who were against the measures, so that we can take that into consideration before reaching a determination.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s questions, which should throw some clarity on this issue, and with the underlying point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about energy efficiency in general. Like other colleagues, I strongly support the concept of the Green Deal and wish to see it in operation as rapidly as possible. Now that we have a clear start date, the company is in place and the assessors are coming online, we stand a good chance of being able to start from that date.

The problem for the Government is that the start-up will be relatively slow. It is still not clear to the general public what the Green Deal is about. I think that I am right in saying that the Government are still setting their face against having a public information campaign on the Green Deal, which seems to negate all the good work that the department has done to get all its ducks in a row by this point. If we do not make a real effort—and it will be quite an expensive effort—to tell the public what is on offer, I fear that take-up will be even slower.

That leads me to my central point, which is broader than these regulations. I recognise that they involve some tidying up and corrections, as well as bringing some technologies into play, so I approve of their general direction. What is needed to surround them, though, is, first, a bigger commitment and information and, secondly, frankness about how quickly the Green Deal will not only have an effect on general energy saving and cost saving for householders but, more particularly, have an effect on and be available to the more vulnerable of those consumers.

The interplay between the ECO and the Green Deal is intended to replace CERT and CESP, and is also intended effectively to replace Warm Front. The total number of households covered by those provisions together, even after being run down over the past couple of years, is still close to 200,000. For those groups in fuel poverty, by the old definition at any rate—and I suspect that it will also be true under the new definition—I do not see how the Green Deal is going to replace a figure of that magnitude. When we are considering this, it would be useful to know the Government’s overall assessment of the impact of this on fuel-poor households, and of how far that and other measures will approximate what went before.

Having said that, I approve, broadly speaking, of the regulations and I approve of the Green Deal. However, we have to be clear that we are covering the hiatus period which, even if takes off faster than I am assuming, will cover the next 12 months at least. We also have to be clear on how it affects help to the fuel-poor who, at the moment, are still growing in number by any definition.