| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks, but wonder whether I may attempt to clarify them a little further. I am always a little anxious when I hear the words, "The Government are confident" because they always seem to indicate that the Government are quite certain what they think but cannot quite tell us why they think it. Perhaps, therefore, I may relieve my misgivings by probing a little further about why the departmental lawyers are confident.
I see the seeds of two possible answers and I should like to know on which of those the Minister is relying. One possible answer is that the Minister is relying on Schedule 1(8) and that the payments were exempted by regulation under the heading, "Any prescribed payment". That is a familiar principle of the Cambyses laws--that the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. I dare say that it may be a complete reassurance for the Minister for this Government for the remainder of this Parliament. To avoid making any personal reference to any party, I say that that cannot be a convincing assurance on behalf of the Government after next. Nobody can know what they might be going to prescribe. If that is all that the Minister is relying on, I fully accept his sincerity, but I do not accept the legal force of what he says. It is not sufficient.
Alternatively, he may be relying on the fact that the Acts containing these payments are not specified in the repealing schedule and therefore cannot be altered except by primary legislation. As I understand it, this is not a Henry VIII provision in the schedule. Am I right in thinking that the words "Any prescribed payment" cannot apply to any payment not specified in a statute and that he cannot alter a statute by means of this regulation? If he gave that answer I would be a little more reassured than I am merely by the invocation of the regulation-making power. That may be of material assistance to me, and I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that if the noble Earl checks in Hansard he will see that I picked out two of the Acts which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, had listed: the Vaccine Damage Payments Act and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. I explained why they could not be caught by the provisions of this Bill. They are not paid because the Secretary of State is himself liable for the injuries sustained by the victim. It is for that reason that they cannot be caught, and the department's lawyers are very clear in that view. The only other payments that are exempted by primary legislation governing the operation of the present scheme which have not been carried forward are payments made under the Fatal
Accidents Act 1976 and the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976. Such payments are made to a close relative of a deceased person as a consequence of bereavement. The provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill do not permit the recovery of benefits paid in respect of a deceased person from the payment of compensation made to a surviving relative. It follows, as I am sure the noble Earl understands, that there is no need to exempt such payments specifically either on the face of the Bill or in regulations. I hope that that provides a little help in this difficult issue.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to this amendment and his assurance, which he has repeated this afternoon, that the Government do not intend to remove any of the protections or exemptions that already exist, which is very important. I note his comment about the various pieces of legislation referred to in my amendment. I also note his comment that the Government are confident, and their lawyers have advised them, that they do not have to do anything on the lines of the amendment tabled this afternoon. It is not my intention to press this matter to a vote this afternoon. I shall look carefully at the assurances given by the Minister that are now on record in response to the issues raised in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Home Energy Rating Surveys Bill [H.L.]
5.23 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Ezra.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Home energy rating survey]:
Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 5. The object of these amendments is to meet some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, at Second Reading of the Bill on 5th December. The noble Baroness then stated that, while the Government had some sympathy with the aims of the Bill--which were to promote the use of energy ratings for domestic residences to lead to the more efficient use of energy--they had reservations about the method proposed. In particular, the noble Baroness pointed out that an obligation to provide an energy rating survey with every mortgage loan could lead to much unnecessary work and expense, as some borrowers might not be interested in such a survey and
I consider that this is a valid point. It is for that reason that I have tabled Amendment No. 1. The amendment would oblige mortgage lenders only to offer to make an energy rating survey. Amendment No. 5 states that the obligation to offer an energy rating survey shall not apply to any residential accommodation on which a mortgage lender has reasonable grounds for believing that an energy rating survey has been made within the past three years. That would eliminate all new buildings. Three years is regarded by the professional firms who are engaged in making energy rating surveys as the minimum period that should be allowed to elapse after each survey. Following the period of three years circumstances may well have changed to justify a revised survey.
Amendment No. 4 provides that a mortgage lender shall take reasonable steps to explain the benefits of such a survey to intending borrowers so that they are aware of the situation. Amendment No. 3 is simply a drafting amendment which follows upon Amendment No. 1.
I believe that with these modifications the Bill will help to promote the much more widespread use of energy rating surveys, to which I understand the Government are committed. One must bear in mind that some half million mortgage loans are made each year. In my view, this is a much more effective way of spreading the use of home energy rating surveys than leaving it to individuals.
During Second Reading the noble Baroness pointed out that one of the conclusions from the trials recently carried out with selected mortgage lenders was that,
Furthermore, it should be remembered that in 1994 the Environment Committee in another place recommended that the Government consider a mandatory scheme for home energy labels (as they were then described). This Bill does not go as far as that. It simply makes it mandatory for mortgage lenders to offer borrowers the opportunity of having an energy rating survey when the loan is being arranged. As was pointed out at Second Reading, that should be much less costly than for an individual home owner independently to arrange for such a survey to be carried out. The largest firm that provides valuation services to mortgage lenders, Countrywide Surveyors--which I mentioned at Second Reading--could provide an energy survey for £15 compared with up to £150 for an independent survey.
I trust that with the modifications now introduced the Government will be able to support not only the intentions of the Bill--I understand that they do--but also its detailed provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We on these Benches echo our sincere appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving us a canter round a very familiar course. I recall the sympathy of the Minister on the last occasion with the broad thrust of the Bill. There cannot be very many who object to a measure that is designed to make the running of a home more efficient and cost effective. Unless the Minister is able to tell us of a considerable cost that may fall upon the state, what we are after is sympathy and direction from the Government so that those who have it in their gift to put a bit more flesh on the bones will be encouraged to do so.
There is no doubt that the costs of heating and making heating systems more efficient to ensure that money is not wasted are becoming higher and higher.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew my attention to the fact that something which tells you what is wrong and how it can be put right may cost the consumer as little as £15. I, of course, accept his figures. So we should not look a gift horse in the mouth.
We are all conscious of the parliamentary timescale and all the other pressures. The Bill needs to leave this place as soon as possible to have any chance of support in another place. I hope that the Minister will recognise the genuine effort that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made since Second Reading to make the Bill more acceptable, not just to the Government but to those outside this place. I think the phrase to be used about heating is that we give this proposal a warm reception.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I welcome the clarification and explanations given by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of this admirable Bill, which, looked at in the historic context, deals with a subject which is now as important to housing as drains were 150 years ago. For that reason, the clarifications and amendments which do much to improve the drafting of the Bill deserve every support.
Page 1, line 8, after ("mortgage,") insert ("offer to").
"once house buyers are given information about what they can do to improve the energy efficiency performance of their homes, the majority of them--over 80 per cent.--welcomed the energy efficiency information provided and indicated that they would be likely to take action in the next two years".--[Official Report, 5/12/96; col. 845].
I regard that as very relevant to the proposals in the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page