Lord Davies of Oldham
Main Page: Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour - Life peer)Energy Bill [HL]
Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends on the Front Bench. I also look forward to the contribution that my noble friend Lord Whitty will make to the debate on his amendment in this group.
As the Minister is all too well aware, we raised these issues in Committee. In particular, we raised them against a background of concern that we should be clear about what is in legislation and what will be enforceable in circumstances where such an important concept as the Green Deal is to be communicated to the nation. The expectation is to make as rapid progress as we can for all the objectives, which noble Lords share, in terms of achieving carbon emission targets and improvements in the fuel efficiency of households. That will be a massive exercise. Therefore, what is being constructed in the scheme needs to be absolutely clear in legislation. That is why we have tabled amendments seeking to make an obligation on the Government under this clause and subsequent clauses relating to this area. The concern is obvious.
However, I should first put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who in Committee assisted us by indicating that we had used somewhat archaic phraseology when we introduced the concept of “shall” and that if we want to hit this objective we should insist on “must”. The House will be pleased to note that our amendments are perfectly constructed to be entirely acceptable to parliamentary draftsmen and the language that they are wont to use in legislation.
We are concerned to ensure that the legislation lays clear obligations and not elements of discretion on the Minister—not that we have anything but total trust in this Minister and the person, who I imagine is from the Commons, to whom he referred as his boss. I understand that relationships in the coalition may be defined in all sorts of interesting ways, which is a dimension I suppose I am obliged to accept. I take it that the Minister recognises that, whatever assurances he gives, we are discussing here not the intent or good will of Ministers, which we take for granted and of which we had great evidence from this Minister and his colleague in the conduct of the debate in Committee. However, the intention and good will of Ministers is as nothing to the import of statute and the law of the land. That is why, despite the fact that we received from the Minister a constructive response in Committee, following which we of course withdrew our amendments for further reflection, we are still of the view that this clause will be improved if we substitute “must” for “may” on the part of the Government in order that the country can be entirely secure about what the legislation constructs and so that it is not open to determination or discretion at subsequent dates.
This is an issue on which the country has to be involved. This is so much a question of participants among so many people with regard to the delivery of the Green Deal that it behoves Parliament to be absolutely clear in the Bill, which will eventually, with the good will of us all, become an Act. The Act must be absolutely clear about the way in which the legislation intends to work. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my Amendment 6 in this group provides the Minister with an option. I agree with my noble friend that in many respects what goes in the Act, and therefore in the regulations, would benefit from the Bill stating “must” rather than “may”, but my proposal would leave discretion to Ministers because of what I spoke about in the first group of amendments today. We are in a situation where the Green Deal is being developed fast and furiously but without total clarity as to how it is to be structured and how different groups or different types of building can benefit from the terms of the Green Deal.
My amendment therefore gives the Secretary of State the option to put into those regulations, or codes, provisions that address the particular circumstances of particular groups. If, as I suspect, the fuel poor, in particular the tenanted fuel poor, will be difficult to deal with on the same basis as the bulk of the Green Deal arrangements, the Government will need some special regulations to address the problem, and to deal in particular with the relationships of the landlord and the tenant, who actually pays the energy bill.
For example, as we have just debated in considering my noble friend Lady Gibson’s amendment, in rural areas there will be a lot of houses off the gas network that rely on either Calor gas or heating oil. For those people, there will be no attraction in the central mechanism of the Green Deal, as was rightly spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others who reflected on that. In some areas, such as the south-west of England, over 50 per cent of people are off the gas network. A larger number of people have houses which are difficult to heat because of structural reasons and which, again, will require a larger investment than is easily repayable through the normal level of energy bills.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government recognise that they may need to make some special provision for chronic fuel poverty, chronic hard-to-heat or locational difficulties, which make the normal run of Green Deal structures and Green Deal arrangements, and the financial arrangements that lie behind it, not applicable. There is no reason why the householders in that situation should not benefit from something akin to the Green Deal. The power would, as I say, be discretionary, so I hope that the Government will recognise the necessity of having such a power, which would give them a little bit of elbow room down the line. They could either adopt my amendment today or promise to come up with something similar in subsequent parliamentary proceedings on the Bill. I think that they will find they will need it.
Lord Marland
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has made a valuable point in asking whether the Bill should state “must” or “shall”—shall we or shan’t we?—so there are many imponderables. I am also grateful for the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Jenkin of Roding, both of whom speak with great authority on these subjects.
The most important thing is that, as we take this Bill through its meandering course, we have the flexibility and the opportunity, as Ministers, to consult industry and all bodies that have an idea on this, and eventually to tighten the code of practice. At this point, however, it would not be appropriate for us unilaterally to change these words, which currently give the Government flexibility. I am heartened by and grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that for the authority of Ministers it is imperative to have that flexibility. In the spirit in which we have conducted this Bill, I am happy to consider Amendment 3 in principle, as it is very important that the Secretary of State establishes a scheme through regulation. In considering the matter, it is rather important that we remove any doubts about the issue. That is why we are prepared to consider this amendment, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would suggest, we need flexibility in the other areas as we continue to go forward.
As to the cost of assessors, further consultation has taken place with industry. We strongly believe, as I said in Committee, that many of the suppliers will pay for the assessment, because it is to their benefit. Typically, I would imagine, if one went to B&Q, as one does when buying a home, one might be provided with a list of approved assessors and an assessor would then go in and make the assessment, which would be paid for by the provider. Our research with industry and with the potential providers suggests that that will, we hope, answer the important question of my noble friend Lord Cathcart.
In the spirit of what I have just said, I hope that my comments on these amendments find favour, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful for the tone which the Minister has taken, as he did throughout the Committee stage, indicating that he will further consider our proposals. He will forgive me if I indicate that “considering” is not quite a promise of change, and he has had one further look at it as a result of our deliberations in Committee. I want to pay due credit for that deliberation.
I think that the noble Lord has an amendment on the code of conduct in the next group that would greatly strengthen his case and his position, and if he had prayed that in aid in relation to why “may” should remain rather than be replaced with “must”, I would certainly have been floored. Possibly, however, he wants to make the case for the next group of amendments in his own good time, and I recognise that. What I am indicating is that it is an indication of the Government’s approach to these issues. Our approach is as one. The reason why we are concerned to have concepts like “must” in the Bill, at certain crucial structural points, is obvious. I accept entirely my noble friend Lord Whitty’s point about an additional feature that should be taken into consideration, to which he would not necessarily want to attribute the concept of obligation.
On the structural issue, the reason why we think an obligation should be present is simply that we have got to communicate a message to many of our citizens who, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, indicated, comprise an enormous variety. The enormous numbers of people in the nation who have to respond to this legislation, hopefully in a constructive way, are such that the legislation needs to be as clear as possible, so that the message that is sent out is sufficiently clear to be readily understood.
As I indicated, because of the Minister’s response to these amendments and even more in his actions with regard to future intentions—I refer to the next group of amendments, which are government amendments that are constructively expressed—I am happy to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Sorry, my Lords; I was a little slow on my feet because I was somewhat taken aback by the speed with which the government amendment was moved, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated. With this number to get through, I suppose the group needs to be disposed of with some dispatch, but I had anticipated a slightly longer description from the Minister of what the amendments in the group purport to do.
Suffice it to say that the burden of my remarks on the previous group of amendments is that Amendments 50, 51, 52 and 56, which relate to how the code will be considered as far as parliamentary practice is concerned, go a long way to meeting anxieties about how we can be responsive to the application of the new deal. We need a framework into which we can all contribute. I have not the slightest doubt that we have an exercise of considerable complexity and real challenge. It means the commitment of real resources for people against fairly distant objectives. For some people, the gains will be future gains on behalf of the community while there is an immediate practical personal cost. That is why Parliament must be assured that we have provided a framework that works effectively.
The Minister listened to our concerns in Committee and these amendments, particularly those relating to the code of practice, are extremely constructive. I will be happy to support the amendments when they are put before the House.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) Where consent to green deal improvements is sought by an improver, that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we discussed this issue in Committee, and the Minister gave, as ever, a constructive response, but to the wrong anxiety as far as we were concerned. He seemed to construe our concern as being about the Green Deal being forced upon someone. Consent is clearly the basis on which we seek to proceed, but there might be a tenant who comes under some degree of pressure, so the Minister’s response was to indicate that the Bill would have a framework of regulations that would give protection. I accept the Minister’s position on that without reservation, and I am very grateful to him for expressing that concern.
It might have been my fault in not making it explicit enough when speaking to the amendment, but my concern was almost entirely the other way round. The improver and the bill payer are two different people, and I envisaged that the improver might be involved in the improvement of a substantial number of properties, such as a block of flats which he owned. He might get improvements from 99 out of 100 tenants, but what if one objected and said he was not prepared to sign up to this deal and what if it is difficult for the work to go on without the issue being considered in its totality? We have to envisage that with certain kinds of improvements, the whole building has to be improved or nothing is effective. I was concerned to express the anxiety expressed in this amendment about what happens when an improver is bent upon improvements to the property that meet the objectives of the Green Deal, subscribe to all the benefits that the Bill contains and therefore fulfil the objectives of everyone in this House, but one person stands out against them.
I think that that is a genuine anxiety. I tried to raise the issue in Committee. As I have said, it may have been entirely my fault in that I was not explicit enough or that the amendment was not drafted as accurately as possible, but the response that I received was not directed at this specific problem. I want reassurance from the Minister that he has considered my anxieties and those that might be shared by other noble Lords, that this problem has been tackled satisfactorily in the provisions in the Bill, and that therefore we can see circumstances in which we all recognise that improvements will go ahead only through consensus. There has to be an understanding of that.
However, what about the minority position in extreme cases in which someone is excessively affected, not least because, as we all appreciate, for some individuals the benefits from the improvements to the property might look fairly limited? They know that they will get an increase in their bills pretty soon. The benefits might lie in the future and such individuals might consider that their personal circumstances, in a long-term perspective of that kind, are too long term for the pay-off. I am interested in where ordinary citizens, to say nothing of the awkward squad, might find themselves in a position in which they see no benefit but where they are a very small minority and all other tenants in the building see the advantages. I am interested in how the Bill copes with that issue. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I was very attracted to this proposal, but I should like to share with your Lordships why I do not think that it is sensible in the end. I am attracted to it because there are a lot of curmudgeonly people in this world—you do not even have to have an argument to say that people have a good reason to do something. There are curmudgeonly people who say, “I don’t want this. Why have I got to do this?”. I can quite see the argument. I also have a concern for those who think that other people might benefit and therefore have a slightly dog in the manger attitude.
I come back to the purpose of this Bill, part of which is to get advocates for what we are trying to do around the nation: that is, convincing and converting people to what we are trying to do. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a discussion should go on among flat owners—perhaps there is a landlord, ground rent is paid or whatever—about improving the building. I do not like the idea that behind that is the threat. This is contrary to the way in which the Bill is supposed to operate.
The Minister has said again and again that if this does not work, there will have to be further regulations. The Bill is designed to make that possible, but in the first flush we should try to get a widespread range of people advocating the proposal and convincing their neighbours to go along with it. If we do not do that, one of the most important roles of this Bill will be interrupted.
I have been in both Houses over many years and one of the words that I most dislike is “reasonably”. The difficulty is that the definition of “shall not be reasonably withheld” is difficult in the case that we are talking about now, simply because most people object to something in a way that they consider to be reasonable. They might be very unreasonable people, but when they come to the argument they feel that they have put forward a reasonable argument.
I return to the purpose of the Bill. I am very concerned that we should start this whole process of the Green Deal with an understanding that this is the Government seeking—if I were a modernist I would say “reaching out”—to convince the population as a whole that they have created a framework within which, with consent, we are going to do a large amount to reduce the amount of energy that we use to improve the housing stock and to do all the things that we want to do.
I therefore hope that the Minister will resist this particular amendment, not because we might not be driven to it—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, might be right; we might be driven to it—but because I hope that at least we can start off with the intention of the missionary, to win converts to this, rather than with the intention of the mercenary, to force people to do what you want them to do. All my instincts about something I believe in strongly are to the former, but I have a belief in the end that the latter might well win more converts.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendment, which raises an important issue about human nature, if nothing else.
Removing consent barriers from the Green Deal journey is of course crucial to the success of the initiative. We agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. We want as many people as possible to take out a Green Deal, and the consent process must therefore be as straightforward as possible. However, we also need to be aware of the rights of property owners and tenants to object to works on their property or the addition of a Green Deal charge to their energy bill. Given this, we need to ensure that any options to overcome consent barriers achieve a balance between respect for these existing rights and unblocking barriers, which could hinder people’s ability to take out the Green Deal.
The noble Lord has just flagged up a very important and very complex issue. I assure him that officials clearly fully understood what the noble Lord said in Committee and are actively working to address the barriers. We will continue dialogue across government to identify solutions. The work is ongoing. I hope that that reassures him. He flagged up a very important area that is now being worked on. Because of that we are not yet in a position to accept the amendment.
I am certainly struck by what my noble friend Lord Deben says in regard to this and hope that he will continue to lead in this area as he always has. I like the notion of the missionary as opposed to the mercenary, but it is worth bearing in mind that some people are not too keen on missionaries either. I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. What has been identified, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Deben, acknowledged, and certainly as my noble friend Lord Whitty did, is that this is a difficult area but one that we have to confront if we are going to effect improvements. Again I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for pointing out how important the private rented sector is and how much the improvements have to be generated in that area to reach the targets to which we all subscribe. The success of the Bill will depend on success in that area as much as in any other.
I appreciate the response made by the noble Baroness, but she will appreciate that she is asking the House to take things somewhat on trust: namely, that the Government recognise a problem but are not quite in a position yet to identify what their solution might be. That is a very difficult thing to say while a Bill is passing through Parliament because, as we all appreciate in this House, this might be close to being the last time that we can address ourselves to this issue. Consequently, we must hope that the department is successful in the work that it has done under the guidance of Ministers who, I have no doubt, will be strenuous in these terms.
Because I am happy to put my trust in Ministers with regard to the objectives of the Bill, I will indeed withdraw the amendment in a few moments, but I hope they recognise that Parliament will expect answers to this and related problems of similar complexity and difficulty, because, although I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the best approach is the missionary approach, we have an exercise to sell and we all have a role to play in that to convince our fellow citizens of the advantages. A lot of progress has been made. If you look at public opinion polls in response to concerns about issues that the Bill seeks to confront, there is no doubt that we are making progress. However, there is a long way to go and things differ enormously from a general response in an opinion poll and where—dare I say it?—hard cash and the mercenary come into play. Therefore, I wish the Government well and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, while it is for the Minister to respond to the eloquent identification of the issue by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his concluding remarks the noble Lord identified a dimension of that issue for which I do not think I have seen the answer in any of his earlier speeches on it—that is, as he says, that someone has to pay. I imagine that if this paragraph is taken out of the Bill, the question of who has to pay will have deleterious consequences for the success of the whole concept behind the Bill, but I imagine it is for the Minister to identify those issues.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for helpfully answering this question for me because it is absolutely fundamental that if we withdraw the liability from one party, we have to establish where it is going to fall. No one knows more about the industry than my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He is very close to it indeed and, as he said, this is a complex accounting issue on companies’ balance sheets. These implications need to be looked at carefully and that needs to be done in consultation with businesses. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said earlier: if we withdraw from one, we have to work out who is going to pick up the bill at the end.
I make a strong commitment to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—he knows that when I make these commitments, I mean them—that we will be liaising with the energy suppliers and the finance providers over the next few months as we put together the important financing of the Green Deal which, as we all know, we have not as yet structured. It will, however, be an important structure and through that we will develop a policy and provide absolute clarity on this issue for, we hope, all parties. It is fundamental that all parties go into this Green Deal approach unified and clear of their position and, indeed, that the customer is clear of his recourse in that position. That is a commitment that the Government will make to this process and I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, these amendments do three things. First, Amendments 55, 80, 87 and 90 seek to refine the definition of “subordinate legislation” in the Bill. This would make it explicit that the Secretary of State is able to amend Welsh subordinate legislation under the powers in Clauses 31, 39, 42 and 45 relating to redress and appeals. This power is needed to ensure that the Secretary of State can properly implement the redress and appeals mechanisms required by Chapters 1 and 2 in Wales.
Secondly, Amendment 93 requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before making PRS regulations that relate to domestic private rented properties in Wales. This amendment reflects the interest that the Welsh Ministers have in this area.
Thirdly, Amendments 64, 63 and 93 require the Secretary of State to have obtained the consent of Welsh Ministers before amending or revoking Welsh subordinate legislation pursuant to the redress and appeals provisions in Clauses 31, 33, 39, 42 and 45. The requirement to obtain consent does not apply where the Secretary of State is making only incidental or consequential amendments.
Our officials have been working with the devolved Administrations and territorial offices throughout the Bill process, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear. Wales has confirmed that it is content with the government amendments that we are moving here on Report. Our engagement with Wales is ongoing; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be giving evidence to the National Assembly for Wales Sustainability Committee in Cardiff on 10 March, and my honourable friend the Minister of State will be speaking in the Welsh Grand Committee in the other place, also on 10 March. We will continue to work closely with Wales throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am not going to raise any objection to amendments that take account of the interests of Wales. I am just somewhat amazed that the Government missed the opportunity to do this on 1 March rather than on 2 March.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) Before making regulations or an order under this Chapter, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament with proposals on green deal apprenticeships.”
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.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I extend my sympathy to the Minister for the fact that he is not able to make these great announcements. However, we welcome any advance that the Government make in this very important area.
I thought that I had achieved enough leverage to get this amendment included in the Bill. I realised that the Minister might take a little persuading but I had strong hopes that I could appeal to other sections of the coalition. Nevertheless, when the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, complimented me on my remarks but said that he did not support the amendment, my heart sank. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.