Home Energy Conservation Bill
Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2002.
Standing Committee C
Home Energy Conservation Bill
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
At the request of the Minister, and having consulted the Member in charge of the Bill and others, I have agreed to suspend the Committee at approximately 5.20 pm until 6.45 pm to enable the Minister to attend a Cabinet Committee. I hope that that meets with the agreement of the Committee.Clause 1 Targets for energy efficiency improvements
Clause 1 - Targets for energy efficiency improvements
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 55, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) For the purpose of enabling an energy conservation authority to discharge its functions pursuant to subsection (1) (a) above the appropriate authority shall, after consultation with such energy conservation authorities, representatives of registered social landlords, utility companies and other persons as the authority considers appropriate make regulations requiring:
(a) utility companies to report annually to a person prescribed in the regulations;
(b) registered social landlords, manager of government funded energy efficiency schemes and the Energy Saving Trust to report annually to energy conservation authorities;
in a format prescribed in the regulations on improvements in energy efficiency that result from measures taken by them (and different formats may be prescribed for different cases) provided that in the case of utility companies the regulations:
(i) shall not require any company to report to any energy conservation authority; and
(ii) shall not involve any company in any significant expense over and above that agreed under the Energy Efficiency Commitment; and
(iii) shall require that any information so provided by any utility company need be provided only on the basis of totals per postcode and for the avoidance of doubt shall not identify any particular address; and
(iv) shall be in a format to be agreed between the person prescribed and the utility company prescribed in the regulations, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld; and
(v) shall require the person prescribed in the regulations to report to energy conservation authorities; and
(vi) shall require that any information so provided to an energy conservation authority shall not identify any utility company'.
No. 8, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'stipulated' and insert 'prescribed'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'them' and insert—
'the body making the report and in the case of the Energy Saving Trust also by the utility companies (and different formats may be prescribed for different cases).'.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I was in full flow when you struck me down just before lunch, Mr. Benton. I was completing my comments on amendment No. 55, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said, was tabled before Government amendment No. 29. I was responding to the question about not only registered social landlords but utility companies providing information to local authorities on energy efficiency performance.
Ofgem and the Energy Saving Trust are already in discussion with the gas and electricity suppliers about how they can provide information on a voluntary basis, and I understand that those talks are going well. I appreciate the importance of good, reliable information from the utilities, and I was at the point of making a commitment that, should the current discussions not reach an agreement that is satisfactory to all parties, the Government will consider sympathetically the need to develop an amendment on Report that would require the utility companies to provide information to the trust. In doing that, we shall consult the Department of Trade and Industry about whether existing powers cover that and, if not, we shall work with it, Ofgem and the gas and electricity companies to find how legislation could best achieve the desired outcome.
I hope that my hon. Friend is fully assured that the Government are meeting the requirements of the amendments. Not only the registered social landlords but the utility companies—either voluntarily or as a result of legislation—will provide the necessary information so that local authorities will know what improvements in performance have been made in energy efficiency in their area. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I am happy to take the Minister's assurances at face value. He put his case in an extremely useful way. It is important that utilities are brought into the ambit of the Bill and are able to adhere to its letter and spirit. It is right for them to be given an opportunity of devising a way to do that that is satisfactory to both the promoter of the Bill and the Government. With those assurances and subject to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has
to say, I am happy to offer our support to the Government.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I, too, am pleased by the Minister's assurances, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment. My only caveat is that I wonder whether it would be wise to cover ourselves by introducing some reserve provision on Report in the event of voluntary arrangements being unsuccessful. If voluntary arrangements are agreed before Report but subsequently break down, we may kick ourselves for not having a reserve power in the Bill to enable the appropriate authority to take action to plug that gap. I leave the Minister with that thought.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I am glad to be left with that thought, but my offer was pretty comprehensive. We believe that these voluntary arrangements will work but, if not, we will introduce legislation. If we know that to be the position we can do so on Report. I realise that my hon. Friend is asking what will happen if a breakdown occurs after that. Rather than taking a reserve power for the Secretary of State, which I think is over-prescriptive and unnecessary, we intend that this information will be provided one way or another. If the discussions break down, which I do not anticipate, I hope that he will be satisfied that the Government are committed to ensuring that this flow of information occurs, whether through the Bill or any other legislation open to us. I prefer to leave it like that. I do not think that I could expect the Secretary of State to be encumbered with a duty that may be completely unnecessary and which we can cover by other means.
Amendment agreed to.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
With this it will be appropriate to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 2, line 4, leave out '(1)(c)' and insert '(1)'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'subsection (3)(a)' and insert—
'paragraph (a)'.
No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 13 and line 14 and insert—
'paragraph; and—
(c) where a registered social landlord has taken over the ownership of housing stock from a local authority the authority may, after consultation with that landlord, set targets which are reasonable and compatible with any format the landlord is required to use in reporting to the authority in compliance with regulations made under subsection (2) for energy efficiency improvements to be achieved with respect to that housing stock (which may differ for different parts of the housing stock), and the landlord shall take reasonable steps to ensure that any such target is achieved so far as is reasonably practicable.
Each energy conservation authority may take such reasonable action as it thinks fit to ensure the targets are achieved so far as is reasonably practicable.'.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
The Government are on record as supporting the principle that a registered social landlord who takes ownership of local authority
stock as part of housing transfer should work with the energy conservation authority to help to deliver that authority's ECA strategy. That will help to ensure that the benefits of the strategy are not lost when stock is transferred, and that action takes place. Obviously, it must be good practice that the new landlord should take the actions necessary to secure the improvement of the energy efficiency of the stock. We expect that of a local authority and I simply say that we expect that of traditional registered social landlords.
Annex H of the housing transfer guidance already states that both the local authority and registered social landlords should have in place arrangements for the registered social landlords to report to the authority on energy efficiency improvements made to dwellings in order to assist the authority in preparing the annual report that it is required to make under the 1995 Act. We believe that building on that through an agreement between the registered social landlord and the local authorities, which would then be reflected in the contracts signed between both parties at the time of the sale, would be a better route.
That would be a requirement of the housing transfer to which the Secretary of State gives consent and would be reflected in an enhanced version of the existing energy efficiency section in the housing transfer guidance. That guidance is reissued annually, allowing for further changes to be incorporated should Ministers wish, without a need to amend primary legislation. That route would also address the anomaly of how the Secretary of State would enforce the provisions in clause 1(3) on the registered social landlords, as this would become a matter for the courts if either side failed to honour its obligations. Any registered social landlord taking on housing from a local authority would need to work with that authority to develop a housing transfer proposal plus a new landlord's business plan to ensure that the planned improvements to the stock contributed to our wider energy conservation objectives. I believe that this provision ensures that the objectives of clause 1(3) are fully met. I commend this amendment to the Committee. I believe that it meets the objective of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and his supporters.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I appreciate everything that the Minister said. I am reasonably content with the question of future stock transfers. It is important that this should be right, given the pressure for local authorities to transfer ownership of their stock. The potential number of housing units involved could be extremely large and could therefore cost a large part of the potential energy saving. Nonetheless, I am happy with the proposed arrangements for future stock transfers and that reasonable energy conservation provisions will be built into the stock transfer agreements.
My amendment No. 12 concerns stock transfers that have already taken place. In the past, the regime governing stock transfers has been less explicit and well practised, and many stock transfers have taken place without this provision being incorporated in the stock transfer agreement. It tries retrospectively to do something about stock that has been transferred in the
past. The amendment has the agreement and support of the National Housing Federation. The Local Government Association is also keen on it and would like to see it included in the Bill.
Although it may seem surprising that both bodies would wish to take on extra duties in this respect, it seems that they do because they clearly recognise the importance of dealing with previously transferred stock. My outstanding concern, as expressed in amendment No. 12—which I am not prepared to press to a vote today—is that energy conservation arrangements for previously transferred stock should be addressed. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance on that point.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I am happy to give assurance. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are not talking only about future transfers. As I said, we can make the inclusion of energy conservation standards in the contract a condition for future transfers. It is not appropriate for the local authority to set targets for the registered social landlord after property has been transferred to him, because once housing stock has been transferred from the local authority to a registered social landlord it becomes his responsibility under the terms of the transfer agreement.
That does not mean that where a transfer has already taken place we have lost control of improvements in energy efficiency standards. The registered social landlord will be subject to the Housing Corporation's energy efficiency standards. The Housing Corporation, in collaboration with the Government, will be concerned to improve those standards. There will be a separate discipline on registered social landlords if there has been past transfer; they are not outside the purview of a framework of consistently rising standards. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that a system is in place to drive up standards for past as well as future transfers.
Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)
I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I apologise for arriving late; I was trying to get a breakdown of the stock that has already been transferred to registered social landlords. Would the Minister take a belt-and-braces second look at the consistency of treatment between previously transferred stock—some 600,000 properties—and the next wave of transfers? We must ensure that we do not create inconsistency in the treatment of registered social landlords and of other landlords or property owners.
If targets are set in the Bill, I have no doubt that they will be reflected in the new arrangements. Registered social landlords have told us that they are unclear about whether the Housing Corporation will require them to work to the same rules and standards under the new arrangement. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about clarity and consistency in the application of the measure. It would be such a shame if, inadvertently, we were to create the impression of confusion and disagreement, which do not exist.
Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
I accept the Minister's point that it is not sensible to expect any organisation—including a local authority—that has transferred the ownership, rights and duties of a property to another party to assume the right to manage the property as though it were its own. However, in addition to achieving clarity, it is important that we create no disparity between different types of registered social landlord or between the properties that they own; I echo the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South made.
I do not like retrospective legislation. Generally, it is bad, because it breaks the concept of contract. However, we must not allow one set of tenants of a registered social landlord to be treated less fairly or effectively than another set. Therefore, I wish to be reassured by the Minister that, however it is imposed, there will be a set of rules that will have a common effect for all tenants of registered social landlords.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I am happy to respond positively to that comment, because I agree with its objective. I accept that inconsistency in the treatment of future and past transfers and of registered social landlords and other landlords would be wrong.
The Housing Corporation not only will require but has required higher energy efficiency standards. I said on an earlier amendment that the Housing Corporation introduced new performance standards for RSLs in 2000–01 on energy efficiency and the renovation of housing stock. I said that that related specifically to the average standard assessment procedure rating of dwellings for all RSLs with more than 250 homes. The corporation will replace the current SAP performance indicator with a performance measure against the decent homes target.
That shows a steady ratcheting up of standards. However, without giving a commitment, I am happy to reconsider the provision to assure myself before Report that there is a level playing field for local authorities, RSLs and other landlords and that a mechanism is in place that can deliver that.
Amendment agreed to.
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
For the benefit of hon. Members who arrived late, I should point out that due to a ministerial appointment with the Cabinet, we are rescheduling the sitting. We shall break from approximately 5.15 until 6.45 pm. I neglected to mention earlier that the intention is to continue until 7.30 pm.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'( ) The power of the appropriate Minister to give energy conservation authorities guidance under section 4(1) of the principal Act (guidance in relation to preparation of reports) includes power to give them such guidance as he considers appropriate in relation to the implementation, within such period as he considers appropriate, of measures set out in the reports there mentioned.'.
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State may' and insert—
'appropriate authority shall'.
No. 14, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'stipulate guidelines for' and insert—
'issue guidance with respect to'.
No. 15, in page 2, line 19, leave out 'for'.
No. 16, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'and the authorities shall comply with any such guidance.
(4A) Copies of any report referred to in section 2, 3 or 5 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (reports by authorities on energy conservation measures to be taken by the authority and others, and progress reports) made by an energy conservation authority shall be made available to members of the public at the offices of the authority during working hours.
(4B) In this section—
''the appropriate authority'' means, in relation to England, the Secretary of State and, in relation to Wales, means the National Assembly for Wales;
''energy conservation authority'' has the same meaning as in the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995;
''registered social landlord'' means a body for the time being registered as a social landlord under Chapter I of Part I of the Housing Act 1996; and
''utility company'' means any body supplying gas or electricity to domestic consumers.'.
No. 33, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'( ) An energy conservation authority must, at all reasonable times, keep a copy of any energy conservation report, or report sent to the Secretary of State under section 3(2)(a) of the principal Act, available for inspection by the public free of charge.
( ) In this section—
''energy conservation authority'' has the same meaning as in the principal Act,
''energy conservation report'' means a report prepared under section 2 or 5 of the principal Act,
''the principal Act'' means the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (c. 10).'.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
Amendment No. 31 relates to the Secretary of State's powers to give guidance to energy conservation authorities on their energy conservation reports. The amendment proposes revising the wording for two reasons. First, section 4(1) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 already contains provision for the Secretary of State to give authorities guidance on the preparation of their progress reports. Secondly, the amendment will include under section 4(1) of the 1995 Act a power to give guidance on the implementation of measures set out in the reports.
Following a long and anguished debate this morning, I am well aware of Committee members' concerns about implementation and ensuring that the targets are met. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance on the implementation of measures in connection with the fuel poverty strategy. We have appointed Mr. Peter Lehmann to be the first chair of the fuel poverty advisory group, which will advise the Government on delivery of the fuel poverty strategy for England. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I do not have much difficulty with the amendment, which has virtually the same purpose as the original subsection. Mine are purely minor drafting amendments, as is the Minister's amendment in effect. It calls for what we should like to see in the Bill but in the words of parliamentary counsel. As long as the amendment results in
consistent reports, which are prepared on a like-for-like basis, so that we can all see where we are going, I am content.
Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
I echo the point about consistency. That is extremely important. If we are to be able to compare, we must be able to contrast. However, we cannot contrast and understand information unless we are given it in the same format. I ask the Minister for an assurance. Will the information be made public and, if so, will copies be available to the public?
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
That is an important point. The hon. Gentleman pre-empts amendment No. 33, which tries to do exactly that. The first part of the amendment places a new requirement on energy conservation authorities to make copies of their energy conservation reports and progress reports available to the public for inspection free of charge. Authorities are already obliged to publish their reports, but that is not to say that they are always readily accessible to interested members of the public. I am sure that hon. Members agree that it will be in the interests of local accountability and access to information for the documents to be open to public inspection and to be readily available. That is our intention, and I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
I see in Government amendment No. 33 that the documents are available to the public for inspection free of charge. Some of the reports are fairly complex and take some time to read. One may need to take them away to compare them with others. Will the public be able to make copies of them?
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I am not sure whether we have decided yet, but my view is that as long as the documents are not excessively voluminous, there is no reason why a member of the public cannot take away what he can freely read. The intention is that they should be made freely available. I know as a Minister that one must always be careful about making a promise, as one can be told about conditions that may make fulfilling that promise difficult. I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that the answer is simply yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (5).
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'pursuant to this Part' and insert—
'under this section'.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
It is amazing what progress one can make when there is broad agreement.
Subsection (5) requires regulations made pursuant to part 1 to be made by statutory instrument. The amendment proposes that it should be omitted, as it would not be needed in the light of amendment No. 29, which proposes that the regulation-making power under clause 1(2) is omitted. I realise that I have the great advantage of having a Government brief, as it is not always easy to follow explanations. However, I hope that my explanation is understood. There is no
other regulation-making power in part 1, and the subsection is redundant for that reason.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
Once again, I have little difficulty with the Government amendment and I have no wish to press my amendment No. 17.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 33, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'( ) An energy conservation authority must, at all reasonable times, keep a copy of any energy conservation report, or report sent to the Secretary of State under section 3(2)(a) of the principal Act, available for inspection by the public free of charge.
( ) In this section—
''energy conservation authority'' has the same meaning as in the principal Act,
''energy conservation report'' means a report prepared under section 2 or 5 of the principal Act,
''the principal Act'' means the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (c. 10).'—[Mr. Meacher.]
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 - Energy conservation authorities:
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 26 and insert—
'shall make arrangements for the carrying out of the authority's functions under this Act and the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and shall identify an officer with responsibility for administering those arrangements.'.
The amendment was tabled to tidy up the drafting of the requirement in respect of HECA officers, which the officers and local government want because it helps local councils to deliver what is wanted if there are clearly designated officers with responsibility for carrying out the task. It does not matter whether they are called HECA officers or officers with responsibility to draw up HECA reports.
I know that the Minister has reservations about the provision, but I would like his comments on the provision of HECA officers before I decide whether to press the amendment to a Division.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I understand why my hon. Friend tabled the amendment. If there is to be a significant uptake in energy efficiency standards in many authorities it will require drive, and should perhaps be headed by an individual or individuals.
There were difficulties with the text of the Bill on Second Reading, but the amendment would achieve nothing legally, although I understand its purpose, and I shall explain why. If, as I propose, a duty is placed on local authorities, they must make arrangements to carry out their functions under that duty; they do not need legislation to tell them so. If they are to carry out their functions they will also need to identify an officer or officers to do the work.
If the purpose is simply to add emphasis to the need for authorities to put adequate staffing arrangements in place, primary legislation is not appropriate. What
is needed is to set a clear statutory duty to meet a standard and it is up to the authorities how they do it. They will be penalised if they do not meet that standard, but it is for them to put in place whatever staffing requirement is necessary to do so. It is not for us to specify what they must do in every case; for example, in many local authorities, energy conservation officers may have other duties. That is why the Government amendment deletes clause 2. It is not that I disagree about what may happen, but that it is not appropriate for primary legislation to make it a requirement.
Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
The Minister made some good points. Guidance, not primary legislation, is by far the best way to achieve what is wanted. However, I should like reassurance that the guidance will suggest that local authorities should have a nominated HECA officer and that that should be public knowledge. It is important that members of the public and organisations can contact a nominated person when they need to do so. They do not have to be full time officers; they may share their duties or have other duties, but it is important that nominated officers should be in local authorities' directives. I hope that the guidance issued by the Minister's Department will include that provision.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
May I reinforce a valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed)? I apologise to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown for misnaming his constituency. It may be a fault in my thinking, but I do not see the difference between his amendment No. 18 and clause 2. However, I shall leave that matter.
We are in an age where Governments try to be understanding and properly open, and to give access to people. That encouragement of public participation dates back to the citizens charter. Although the Minister has been scrupulous in precedence by saying that this provision is not needed, I would have hoped that, through the progress of modern government in openness, the provision might remain in the Bill. It is good to have a designated officer so that the public know that they can go to Mr. Joe Bloggs, in whatever department of the local authority, to raise their concerns about progress in implementing the Bill's objectives.
Although I would not press the matter in a Division, I hope that the Minister might take back to his colleagues the message that people need to be encouraged to participate in carrying out Parliament's requirements in legislation. To be given the name of someone in a local council in order to help to do so would be a welcome step forward in the process of public participation in legislation.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I am happy to try to respond. There is a difference between what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) is saying, which is to leave in the Bill the words:
Every energy conservation authority shall identify a designated officer—
which are pretty prescriptive—and what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is saying. He is saying
that the matter can be left to guidance but that the guidance might encourage—I am not sure whether he was saying ''require'', which is a term I would resist—local authorities to consider best practice of local authorities with a good record and that in most cases that will entail a designated person who, in whole or in part, makes this a major part of his responsibilities. I am happy to consider the wording of the guidance, which has not yet been drawn up, but I resist the provocation that it is necessary to ''require'' local authorities to appoint such officers when the objective is to achieve the standards and targets; how they do that is a matter for them.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I should be grateful if the Minister would assure us that he will take the opportunity in the guidance, which he will have to produce as a consequence of the Bill in any event, to encompass the sound point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire: the identification of an officer whom the public know is a source of information and guidance on energy conservation. That is an important and useful point, and I am happy for the Minister to cover it in guidance. Subject to his assurance to that effect, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I cannot help the Committee any further. I am happy to give a commitment that we shall take account of what has been said about encouragement to have a designated officer. I cannot make a commitment about guidance that has not yet been drawn up. I take the point, and if we believe that it is a way of promoting best practice, we are happy to consider it and to take it on board if that seems best.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
On a point of order, Mr. Benton. If amendment No. 18 is withdrawn, the commitment on the appointment of designated officers falls. Do I need additionally to make the point that the provision should be deleted? I am not sure whether I need to state that in a clause stand part debate, or whether it follows automatically from the previous debate.
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
The Minister has just done precisely that.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
On point of order, Mr. Benton. The selection list does not mention amendment No. 34. Would you explain the position to the Committee?
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
I am informed that amendment No. 34 was not selected because it was more appropriate to deal with it in the clause stand part debate.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 - Failure of an authority to implement measures
Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)
With this we may take new clause 1—Failure of energy conservation authority to implement measures—
'Where the appropriate authority is satisfied that an energy conservation authority is failing to comply with section 1, subsections (5), (6) (9), (11), (12) and (13) of section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 (which empower the appropriate authority to give directions to defaulting best value authorities as to the exercise by them of their functions or to transfer their functions to another person) shall apply in relation to that energy conservation authority.'.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
The new clause is designed to deal with enforcement in respect of authorities—the Maldons of this world—whose progress is nil, as it would encourage them to meet the excellent standards of the most successful authorities. It is necessary because the clause is poorly drafted and says nothing about how enforcement will be achieved. The new clause ties enforcement to the best-value regime.
Is the new clause necessary? Once energy conservation has been made a statutory duty, the question remains whether the best-value regime bites automatically or applies only to a specified list of local government duties. I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that point. We must know whether best value will apply automatically. If not, the new clause is absolutely necessary.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown had finished speaking when the sitting was suspended, but I am quite prepared to comment on new clause 1.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to take action using the best-value provisions under the Local Government Act 1999 if she considered that an energy conservation authority was failing to take such measures as were reasonably practicable to comply with its duties under the Bill. The Government consider that it is unnecessary to restate the powers that already exist. Energy conservation authorities are subject to the duty of best value, and the Secretary of State has a range of powers under the 1999 Act that enable her to ensure that the authority continues to improve the provision of its services, including those relating to home energy conservation. The 1999 Act includes the power for the Secretary of State to intervene when she considers that an authority is not complying with the Act and, in particular, the best-value duty.
My point is that it is unnecessary to restate those powers here. However, I am keen to do what I can to ensure that appropriate enforcement mechanisms are included in the home energy conservation legislation. I emphasise that, because I seem to be widely disbelieved by Committee members and various lobbying organisations. The Secretary of State already has powers of direction on authorities' duties under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and I shall consider what powers of direction it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have in
relation to the new provisions on setting and achieving targets, which I shall propose on Report. I hope that that commitment meets the requirements of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
I am grateful to the Minister for those comments; he has assuaged my concerns. It is true that best value regimes currently embrace energy conservation, so in one sense new clause 1 should not be necessary under present circumstances. However, signal changes in the White Paper state that the range of local government duties to which best value review regimes apply will be restricted. I am happy to hear the Minister commit to an amendment that will ensure that provision is in place should that happen. With those words from the Minister, I am happy not to press new clause 1.
Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)
I am also pleased with the words used by the Minister on the new clause. It is worth putting into context the current situation and why the new clause was tabled, and I hope that this will form part of the Minister's appraisal of whether the current arrangements are as comprehensive as he believes. If HECA contains the power to ensure that the worst performing authorities meet the standards being set by the best, we must check whether that is being delivered in the current HECA reviews.
Before tabling the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown took the opportunity to take advice from parliamentary counsel about whether the existing arrangements could deliver the job. The advice was that they could not and that there were limits to the current arrangements that needed to be understood and closed or tightened if we were to deliver our proposals. I shall quote the salient parts of the advice. The adviser says:
There are performance indicators set by the Secretary of State which include 2 relating to energy efficiency and conservation but these are not specifically related to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.
The general scope of the 1999 Act is wide enough to cover the HECA functions since it relates to local authorities and their functions generally. But the implementation of the 1999 Act suggests that it is not concerned with HECA compliance as such.
The adviser says that in her search,
Of some 1000 inspections reports on the net, only 15 appear to be concerned with energy efficiency.
Of those, only one was found that mentions HECA. It is clear that under the existing arrangements the provisions are not working. Towards the end of her advice, the adviser says,
In any event if the inspections carry on as at present the emphasis will continue to be broadly on whether the authority has good HECA policies in place rather than how they are moving towards meeting the targets.
We could unwittingly find ourselves in a trap whereby the existence of policies was seen to be synonymous with evidence of targets being met. The adviser concludes:
In part this must be because of the nature of the existing HECA legislation which is itself not very specific so far as the meeting of targets is concerned.
We understand that and we seek to move on from it. That is the loophole that we need to close.
I ask the Minister, as he carries out his appraisal of the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the existing provisions, to look at the implications of the White Paper issued in December 2001 by DTLR, specifically at paragraphs 3.63 and 3.66. Both relate to proposed changes in best value reviews and planning. Paragraph 3.63 states:
Best value reviews are becoming more strategic and fewer in number. We will introduce further measures to reinforce a more challenging and strategic approach.
It refers not to a comprehensive approach but to a strategic approach.
Paragraph 3.66 states:
high performing and striving councils will have greater flexibility to determine their review programmes in the light of our intention to remove the requirement to review all of their functions over a five year period.
We need to be clear whether the functions that we want local authorities to carry out will be increased by including the requirement to meet the HECA target, or whether the probable direction of change will exclude that.
It would be against the Minister's intentions and the Committee's desire were we to find that the provision affected the Government's ability to influence the 100 or more authorities that have made less than 1 per cent. energy efficiency gains in the five years or so since HECA was passed. An inability to influence those authorities on best value practice would be a severe limitation, not least in requiring them to meet the energy efficiency targets and make the efficiency gains within their existing budgets. Ironically, were we not to have that power, the Minister would be exposed even more to the legitimate fear that he expressed this morning that the targets could be met only if the Government made out a large cheque.
I hope that I am not alone in the Committee in thinking that if the rigours of the best value review process are applied to the worst performing authorities, that will help get the message across that the energy efficiency target is not optional, nor one that will be met only on the back of a large Government cheque; that the Government expect the target to be met within the terms set by the best value review. I hope that the Minister will take those factors into account and rigorously test them when he reconsiders the comprehensiveness of the existing arrangements.
Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
I understand the clause to enable the Government to ensure that local authorities take their duties seriously by using a standard enforcement clause that applies to many functions of local government. The Minister suggested that there were other ways to skin this particular cat, and that this might not be the best way.
I want the Minister to respond to part of the advice that a parliamentary counsel gave, with which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South did not deal. The counsel said that the best value regime was unlikely to provide the route to enforcement of HECA targets, as
the Government were asking the Audit Commission to move away from individual inspections of specific functions, as is happening with housing, and to move towards inspecting authorities and their functions across the board. The plan was also to grade authorities roughly as excellent, good, OK or poor and to concentrate the inspections on the bottom two grades. However, as those grades would be determined on the basis of functions across the board, HECA functions might not be inspected where they most needed to be.
We all agree that the HECA functions are important. It is important that we do not merely compile a list of best behaviour but that we can check properly whether authorities are doing what they are meant to do. I would like the Minister to persuade me that his proposal deals with the concern about HECA targets, and with the problem that the parliamentary counsel highlighted.
Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)
The hon. Gentleman made two interesting points, which I should, and will, take into account. I said that I would consider the powers of direction in relation to authorities' duties under the 1995 Act, but I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said about paragraphs 3.63 and 3.66 of the White Paper
published in December 2001, which he quoted. I should carefully examine that further, and I will. I also take the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about the advice from a parliamentary counsel that the best value regime may not be able to drive the HECA targets in the way in which we think. The counsel suggested that the Audit Commission was moving away from individual local authority inspections to a broader brush approach. Those are valid questions, and rather than give a snap answer, I undertake to examine carefully what has been said and, if need be, to respond on Report. I insist that clause 1(3) is unnecessary because it is already covered by existing powers. If those powers are insufficient to drive up HECA standards, the Government will have to examine the position and introduce further proposals. I acknowledge both points, however, and will reflect carefully on them.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)
Thank you for your patience and genial chairmanship today, Mr. Benton.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock till Tuesday 26 February at half-past Ten o'clock.