Deregulation Bill
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben
I do not know whether my noble friend will understand this, but it is often difficult to know the division between Westminster and Camden and between Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Unless we have a London-wide agreement, it puts buskers in an extremely difficult position. I am sure that my noble friend, like me, has wrongly put money in a parking meter because different local authorities have different times for parking. Is it not sensible to say that if there are going to be special local authority arrangements, they should at least cover the whole of the central part of London so that people do not need to take a local authority map to discover that in Camden they would be arrested but in Westminster—a very good council—they would not?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That is extremely helpful of my noble friend as it allows me to reinforce the efforts of the excellent Mayor of London as the honest broker in trying to get a London-wide code of practice. I think that there have been very constructive discussions with local authorities. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have more detail on that than I do. However, I think that that is precisely the way forward that my noble friend Lord Deben would find most agreeable.
Busking is undoubtedly a legitimate activity which often contributes to the vibrancy of a local area, and, per se, we do not believe that it does need control. However, it is important that backstop powers are available for specific circumstances. I know that this will not suit many of my noble friends but I hope that I have explained our reasons. Picking up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, we have looked at this with the Law Commission. I hope that, on that basis, and for the other reasons I have given, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Deregulation Bill
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment. The Government are clear that busking can enrich a community’s quality of life and generate a positive atmosphere enjoyed by many people. Regrettably, though, street entertainment can sometimes be a source of conflict between buskers, businesses and residents. Complaints of noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour can arise, and police and local councils have to respond and try to find solutions.
The Government do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. Busking should be about freedom of the individual, and only if necessary should local action be taken to curb certain excesses. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, although I am still waiting for some advice, there is actually no general legislation on the subject of busking but local authorities can have policies on it, including codes of conduct or permit regimes, and occasionally by-laws and local authority legislation, such as the London Local Authorities Act 2000. That Act enables London councils to license busking. Indeed, it is a matter for London councils to determine whether or not they utilise these powers.
The amendment proposes that a government Bill should seek to overturn private legislation promoted by London local authorities and passed by Parliament. If we were to accept the amendment, the Government would indeed be saying that London councils should not have the option to decide whether or not to license busking based on local circumstances. Indeed, we feel that this is not a subject for top-down government solutions; it is for local authorities to determine fair, reasonable and transparent policies in relation to managing our streets.
As far as the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 is concerned, while Section 54(14) is rarely used, the Metropolitan Police need to retain the provision to give their officers the tactical option of dealing with what they have called “busking-related offences”. We are seeking to strike a balance between freedom to busk and having to control nuisance caused by persons with no musical intent.
Lord Deben (Con)
I have often had discussions with the Metropolitan Police. I find the phrase “busking-related offences” precisely the kind of comment always made when you are suggesting that things might be changed. Perhaps the Minister could describe a “busking-related offence” that is not covered by any other legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend always intervenes to engage the Committee in important issues with his own touch. It is important to say that I know what he is saying but that, at the same time, if the Metropolitan Police need to have the ability to ensure that they have some means by which they can have assistance as regards a certain possible alleged assistance, for all the cynicism that there may be about the Metropolitan Police, we have to place our trust in them.
Deregulation Bill
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, used the word “whizzing”. I am not sure that anyone could start placing the ticket on a vehicle going at 80 or 90 miles an hour on the motorway. However, I take his point more seriously than perhaps is suggested by making that instant judgment as to why it would not be possible to adhere to these principles for someone going at 80 or 90 miles an hour on the motorway.
Lord Deben
Does this not give my noble friend the opportunity to go back to the department to explain why there is unhappiness? It was said that the reason why you cannot affix the notice is that the car is travelling too fast, but there are other reasons, too. In the part of the country from which we both come, a village school may have real problems with people parking in the wrong places. The ideal answer in that distant place, where it is difficult to have someone on duty all the time, may be to have a camera. The idea that Suffolk Coastal District Council or Mid Suffolk District Council is capable of having people standing outside every village school—and many of them have this problem—is not sensible. Is that not the same sort of issue as dealing with people travelling at 60 or 80 miles per hour? There is no other way of doing it, but we have to do it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend is always extremely persuasive. Clearly, the record of these discussions will go back to the department.
In his amendments, the noble Lord seeks to place in the Bill the list of exempted areas where local authorities can continue to use CCTV to issue tickets in the post. The department does not think that it would be expedient to set the exemptions in primary legislation. It is conceivable that exemptions could be increased or reduced in the future, so it might be more desirable to include them in secondary legislation. Everyone will have their own view on what is the right balance for the use of CCTV, whether that is in parking, as your Lordships are debating today, or more widely. The Government have given careful consideration to the list of exemptions and, in particular, have reflected the views of those who responded to the consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also seeks to introduce a requirement for impact assessments to be carried out for the provisions. As I am sure he will know, the Government have been clear in their determination to reduce the impact of rules and regulations on businesses and policymakers. Indeed, the Government’s Better Regulation Framework Manual, which was published in July 2013, states that impact assessments are required only for measures that regulate or deregulate business or concern the regulation of business. This clause applies only to local authorities that carry out parking enforcement, so we believe that no impact assessment is required.
Bishop of Guildford: Appointment
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am not sure that I am inclined to that view. Obviously the Church in Wales and the Church of England have taken different paths. That is a matter for the Church of England.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, we should be careful because the Church of Rome appoints its own bishops and takes a great deal longer than the Church of England, which is itself very dilatory. Changes do not necessarily speed up the system.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am a great believer that if one does not want too much change, one should have some change.
BBC Licence Fee: Non-payment
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the important thing is that this is going to be a thorough review. It would not be wise of me to prejudge any of the decisions and discussions that will be had. The amendment would mean that the review would start within three months of enactment, and should then take no longer than 12 months. All the points that the noble Lord has raised will be part of that review.
Lord Deben (Con)
Yes, but will my noble friend accept that it would be a sad day if the BBC, which has a reputation throughout the world, were undermined by the kind of underhand technical pressures which are put about? We really ought to recognise that, on these Benches, as on the Benches opposite, there is strong support for the independent BBC, funded as it is, and with sufficient funds to go on being an exemplar to the world.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I think all will be revealed in due course.
I want to return to the matter of investors and business, because certainty over the EPS is part of that. The grandfathering of the EPS limit until the end of 2044 will, we believe, give investors in new gas plants certainty that the operation of their assets will not be constrained by the EPS for a period considered sufficient to make a return on their investment.
I am particularly mindful of what my noble friend Lord Deben said about business. It is important to note that business has made it clear that these grandfathering provisions are essential if the EPS is not to deter or increase the cost of investment in new gas plants.
Lord Deben
On that point, will my noble friend give way? I still do not understand the difference of view. The Government refuse to have a carbon intensity target for 2030 in order to give confidence to business to invest in low-carbon generation, but they insist that we have the equivalent for 2049, or whenever it is, because otherwise we will not get investment in gas. At least one of those arguments must be untrue. I cannot understand this utter conflict. They are two different arguments; my noble friend gave the one on the one occasion and now gives the opposite on this. We cannot really accept this argument on the basis of logic.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Let me quote the CBI, which is particularly supportive of the Bill’s proposals:
“The current EPS proposal should remain unchanged … It has been set at a level that will allow new gas plants to be built … and it contains strong grandfathering proposals out to 2045 which will give investors confidence”.
I say to my noble friend that this is what the CBI believes is necessary for business investment, which I think all noble Lords would agree we desperately need.
Lord Deben
Most of the members of the CBI have also asked for that on the question of carbon intensity in 2030, but there the Government have said, “It doesn’t matter what they say on this because we know best”. Yet when it comes to this issue, they quote the CBI and other industry bodies in favour of it. I come back to my point: we must have this approach either for both cases or for neither. If we are to have it for gas, surely we do not need it as far ahead as this. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron: we need it not at this level but only at 300 grams, as no one has suggested that gas will produce emissions of 450 grams. Where is that extra 150 grams coming from? What is it for?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I say, I am quoting the CBI specifically on this matter, and it cites the year 2045. Although I understand what my noble friend is saying, I cannot renege on the fact that the CBI is specifically citing that particular year in the quote that I wanted to mention to the Committee.
There has also been a query, although we are going to discuss the 300 grams in further amendments, about the 450 grams. That figure represents a significant reduction in the emissions of a new coal plant. This level builds on and supports the planning requirement for any new coal plant to be equipped with CCS while being above the level of carbon emissions for a new gas plant. The 450-gram limit also provides some flexibility for CCS projects to help manage the uncertainties associated with first-of-kind technology. As I say, though, we will have a separate debate on this matter with the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
If I may continue, I say to noble Lords who may be concerned that we are locking in high levels of unabated gas generation well into the future, while grandfathering will give investor certainty over the regulatory regime under which their assets will operate in relation to EPS, it does not permit a right to emit. This is because as levels of low-carbon generation increase, with its use effectively prioritised due to its low generation cost, unabated gas generation will increasingly be displaced. The role of gas will therefore be to balance an energy system that includes greater amounts of inflexible and intermittent generation. Analysis for our gas generation strategy shows average overall load factors for gas plants at around 27% in 2030, based on achieving 100-grams-per-kilowatt-hour grid average emissions intensity.
The role of government is to strike a balance between the three objectives of energy policy: to decarbonise our electricity system, to maintain security of energy supply to the country and to keep costs to consumers to a minimum. I understand that the intention behind this amendment is to provide greater certainty for decarbonisation but, for the reasons I have set out, I believe that shortening the grandfathering period of the EPS would introduce uncertainty and risk to the new gas plants we will need to build up to 2030, and that the better way to balance these three objectives is through the approach that we are taking in the Bill.
I will study the references that have been made during this short debate, particularly my exchanges with my noble friend Lord Deben. As this is a technical matter, it would probably be better if I wrote to him and other noble Lords on this. I appreciate that the noble Baroness will be disappointed by my reply but I hope she understands that the Government cannot support her proposed approach because of the three objectives that we need to balance. On that basis, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Deben
Perhaps I might suggest to my noble friend that there is a way out of this, which is that we put into the Bill a statement that all this applies to plants built before 2025. The Government can then have all that they want but we do not have the ridiculous situation in which I can build a gas plant in 2043, seven years before we have to reduce our emissions by 80%, which would drive a wedge totally through that. Is my noble friend prepared to consult on whether the Government will accept an amendment put forward on that basis, which has been suggested to me by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, who has made a very sensible proposal?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I have said that I will study everything that all noble Lords have said. The point is that you would not have certainty, building in 2043, that the EPS level would stay the same beyond 2044. I think that probably helps to clarify that. However, I will consider all the points that my noble friend has made.
Energy Bill
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Deben
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling these probing amendments, as he described them, and therefore providing this opportunity to continue the careful scrutiny of this part of the Bill. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said. I believe that we all want to secure the best for consumers but suspect that we may diverge on how that is best achieved.
Amendment 51ZA would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to allow collective redress for energy consumers. We agree that consumers should be able to get the compensation that they are due when things go wrong. The consumer redress order powers we have put forward in the Bill will provide energy consumers with what we believe is the most appropriate and cost-effective way of obtaining this. In principle, collective redress can provide benefits in some sectors, but I am concerned about the potential impact such powers may have on the time and cost involved for energy consumers seeking redress through this route, and the impact of any additional costs on all consumers.
The most effective redress mechanism ensures that consumers receive timely and cost-effective compensation, and I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said about balance in these matters. Under existing arrangements, energy consumers can already obtain redress through the courts, but the legal process does not typically offer a quick or cheap remedy for consumers who have suffered a detriment. In part, the concern that I have about the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on collective redress is that it would not speed up the process; indeed, it may, perversely, lengthen it, although I am sure that is not his intention. Consumers will also be required to identify themselves as potential claimants and join an action. Consumer redress order powers overcome these barriers by allowing Ofgem to take action on consumers’ behalf, without them needing to initiate action or incur costs.
Allowing collective redress via these amendments would benefit intermediaries involved in bringing such cases, who will seek awards that allow them to recover their costs—which would be borne by claimants or, where costs are awarded, by all consumers as energy companies seek to recover these sums. Collective redress could also encourage litigation on fine points of law, creating higher costs for energy companies, which would again risk increasing prices for consumers as a whole. In contrast, the consumer redress order powers contained in the Bill offer a speedier resolution to consumer detriment, which does not require consumers to come forward and take action, is proportionate to the sums at stake and minimises the potential costs for all energy consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether the Bill’s provisions cover regular breaches of consumer law. The intention is that they will. If the breach is also a breach of licence conditions, such as mis-selling, that would be included.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 51ZE and 51ZF would increase the time limit for consumer redress order powers contained in Schedule 14 from, as the noble Lord has mentioned, five years to 15. I naturally have sympathy with amendments designed to ensure that consumers can obtain redress. The intention is certainly not for these time limits to be arbitrary. The time limit is consistent with the existing time limit for Ofgem imposing penalties on energy companies. In some cases, both penalty and redress may be appropriate, and so it is important that the enforcement regime that we establish allows Ofgem to balance both penalties and redress when looking to put things right.
This five-year time period for penalties was introduced as recently as the Energy Act 2010, following, as the noble Lord will know, two high-profile cases which showed the limitation of the then one-year limit for Ofgem to investigate and take action. There has been no case involving an energy company either before or since where it is alleged that this five-year time limit would not have provided ample opportunity for Ofgem to take action.
Lord Deben
On that point, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Professional Financial Advisers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that very long periods allowing for what is by then retrospective action can have a damaging effect on the confidence of an industry. We have to be very careful to get this balance right. The reference to the financial services industry made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is a mistake because many people now recognise that that has done and will do significant harm, and is against any sense of human rights. There comes a point at which those who have been involved are now so far removed from those who are operating that it does not make sense. Five years was chosen, and it seems not a bad choice. I hope that the Minister will resist any temptation to go further. I say that as somebody who has no interest whatever in energy provision companies.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend provides an excellent prelude to further commentary on why the Government are concerned about the extension to 15 years. There are indeed jurisdictions with longer time limits than those afforded to energy consumers though these powers. Of course, there are others which are significantly less. These variations reflect various factors, including the length of time required to detect and act on wrongdoing, the scale of the sums at sake and the likelihood of sufficient evidence being able to investigate and determine a claim.
The powers are drafted to balance—a word that was used by my noble friend—these considerations without placing unnecessary additional costs on consumers. My noble friend has mentioned business. We are certainly seeking to provide an appropriate balance to all these matters. For those reasons—although I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that his amendments have been given proper consideration—I hope that the explanation I have given is sufficiently compelling at this time that he might feel able to withdraw his amendment.