You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard


22 May 2007 : Column 563

House of Lords

Tuesday, 22 May 2007.

The House met at half-past two: the CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Housing: Energy Performance Certificates

Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My Lords, over 3,000 people have already passed their exams with a further 2,500 in training. Home owners wishing to sell privately will be able to contact local energy assessors through business listings services by contacting one of the accreditation schemes or online at the national register of energy performance certificates and home condition reports.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. This is a very serious matter, but it is almost turning into a farce. Is the Minister aware that the newspapers are advising people that it is cheaper to pay the £200 fine than the £600 fee for the certificate? Will she confirm that, as another newspaper has reported, you do not have to produce the certificate if someone knocks on your door and offers to buy, or if a relation, a friend or someone you meet in the pub offers to buy? In Australia, private sales are not listed as sales; they are listed as “expressions of interest are invited”. Would that type of sale fit into the free category?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I will answer the questions in reverse order. The types of sales that the noble Baroness has described as private in Australia would be regarded as private here, as long as no public marketing takes place. When houses are sold privately without being marketed, no HIP is required; if she sold her home to a friend she would not require a HIP. A HIP is required when marketing by an estate agent or someone else kicks in.

It will certainly not be a better option to go for the £200 fine rather than the cost of a HIP. The only additional cost on the HIP is the energy performance certificate of £100. The fine would be £200, which would be imposed again if the offence of not getting a HIP were repeated. I am sure that the House is aware that I will be making a Statement later, after which there is to be a debate. There will be many opportunities today to explore the detail of the Question.

Lord Soley: My Lords, will the Minister make sure that she gives advice to everyone? Homes are a major cause of carbon in the atmosphere, and if we are serious about climate change it is very important that we debate these issues, preferably on a cross-party basis, and make any changes that we need from time to time. It is important that this should work. Will she confirm that she will keep that climate change issue in this Bill?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is an extremely important point. Our homes generate 27 per cent of all carbon. Not only should there be cross-party agreement on what we have to do urgently, but people are with us on this. In the most recent YouGov poll, two-thirds of people want more information about energy efficiency and 72 per cent think that it is a good idea to rate energy efficiency. We are going with the grain of what people want, which is the only right and proper thing to do in the circumstances.

Lord Newby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that if the Government reach their target for the number of assessors, each of them will be required to carry out five assessments per day unless the number of housing transactions falls? Assessors are being told that they are not allowed to go up into lofts to inspect the insulation. Is there not a danger that, with these assessors whizzing around the country but not really looking at all the property, the assessments themselves will barely be worth the paper they are written on?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about one point, which is that it is assumed that the average number of assessments undertaken will be five a day. However, assessors will work at different rates, at different times of the week, and both part-time and full-time. Where he is not right is to say that this is not a serious qualification. The accreditation system has been fully qualified by the QCA, and the certificate will be well worth having because it will save a lot of money on bills.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that while the assessors may be qualified, they have to go on to be accredited? The accreditation may take some time because the Criminal Records Bureau must be consulted.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that 1,500 people have been accredited or have applied for accreditation. No one will be able to conduct inspections without having a criminal record clearance. The noble Baroness is quite right about that.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, how much money will the average home buyer save when the HIPs are in existence, and how much will they save on their energy costs? Further, would my noble friend like to comment on whether she thinks the amount of money saved will be a farce or actually welcomed by first-time buyers?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am absolutely sure that the money saved on energy will be welcomed by everyone. The Energy Saving Trust has shown that savings to the average property owner will come to around £300 a year. If only a fifth of home owners make the basic changes set out in the EPC, they could save around £100 million a year on their energy bills. These are serious figures.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, who is going to employ the domestic energy assessors, or whatever they are going to be called? Will they be employed by estate agents or lawyers, or will they be self-employed? Who are they responsible to?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, some of them will be self-employed, while others will be employed by the range of people just mentioned by the noble Baroness. Estate agents themselves are setting up opportunities to qualify and accredit some of their people, as are surveyors. Recruitment will be made across the professions, but we expect to see quite a number of self-employed people.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us an idea of what these people were doing before they became assessment officers? Were they on the dole? Why does she think that employing 5,000 people to do a job that has worked perfectly well before and at far less cost is a good thing?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, this is a new task. We have not carried out audits of what our homes cost in terms of energy before. We have had audits for all sorts of things such as fridges, but we have never had them for our homes, which is slightly bizarre. The types of people coming in vary enormously and cross a range of professions, bringing extra skills with them. For some this represents an opportunity to change careers and qualify for something we are required to do under European law and which will be of benefit to the country.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I know the cost of the energy used in my house because I pay the bill, and I should imagine that most other householders know too?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have no idea whether the noble Lord has fitted loft insulation, draft proofing, double glazing and cavity wall insulation in his house. He nods his assent and he is wise to have done so. Many people have not done so and they do not know what savings they would make. The energy performance certificate will suggest to householders how they might save money as well as carbon.

Identity Cards

2.44 pm

Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): No, my Lords. The latest Identity Cards Scheme Cost Report, which sets out the estimate of the likely cost of the scheme over the next 10 years, was published on 10 May this year.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to award this month’s prize for creative government accounting to her department. The report published last week tries very hard to cover up the fact that the costs went up over the past six months by over £800 million. The total costs over the next 10 years are now calculated at over £6.3 billion, but still exclude costs in a large number of government departments. Does the Minister not agree that the best advice she could give to the incoming Prime Minister is to cut his losses and cancel the scheme?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, under Section 37 of the Identity Cards Act the Government should have produced the costing by 9 April; they did not do so until 10 May. Have the Government broken the law? Has the Minister’s department carried out any race equality impact assessment under the new UK Borders Bill, which has implications for identity cards estimated at £200 million? What are the repercussions of that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are very sorry that the report due on 9 April was published four weeks late. As noble Lords are aware, we indicated in the second report that we would include the BIA costs, but they were not available until about two days before the report was prepared. Therefore, in order to be consistent with a commitment made by my honourable friend Liam Byrne in the other place on 7 December, we promised to include those costs, and we apologise that the report was a month late. As with all efforts of this nature, we will have assessments made in due course to ensure that they apply appropriately to all our citizens.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, one of the arguments used by the retiring Prime Minister is that ID cards would help the police to solve the 900,000-plus unsolved crimes. If this is the case, and if the police are even half successful, what does the Prime Minister-in-waiting intend to do with these hundreds of thousands of newly convicted criminals? Send them, no doubt, to our already overcrowded prisons.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we hope that the advent of identity cards will help us to better protect individual identities and interdict crime more successfully. Identity theft is a growing scourge that we must tackle and better address. The incoming Prime Minister is as committed to that endeavour as the outgoing one.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I urge my noble friend, far from delaying the introduction of the identity card scheme, to consider ways in which it can be speeded up. The sooner we have it in place the better. Will her department consider the possibility of using identity cards for identification purposes at general elections?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are introducing the scheme as speedily and as safely as possible and will continue to do so. Identity cards will have a number of valuable uses, one of which may be as my noble friend suggests.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, does the Minister concur with the cost figures mentioned by my noble friend Lady Noakes?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not. I heard what the noble Baroness said about inflated figures. We do not agree with them. The figures in the report are accurate. The previous report indicated £5.4 billion over 10 years; the current report indicates £5.5 billion and introduces the additional amount of £200 million. Those figures are robust and accurate and we hope that those who have the acuity to understand them will be able to affirm that.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness seems very sure of her figures. Can she tell the House of any other government programme of this size and complexity where the figures have not gone up year by year? Is she now staking her reputation on the concept that these figures will not further escalate?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am staking my reputation on the fact that we will endeavour on all occasions to be accurate. Let me remind the House that these figures are predicated on what we already know is the cost of the IPS system and producing the passports. We have real reason to believe that the figures are robust.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister guarantee that the computer system for ID cards will successfully co-ordinate every government department required to use them, bearing in mind the disasters that occurred with the NHS, Defra, the Home Office over the original asylum cases, and almost every other major government computer system that I can think of?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I again remind the House that the UK visa system has been an unmitigated success. The satisfaction rate of all those who have had the privilege of using it is way over 90 per cent. I am sure the House will not hesitate to celebrate that.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, was it not introduced by a Conservative Government?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: But perfected by ourselves, my Lords.

Gambling: Casinos

2.51 pm

Lord Anderson of Swansea asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, following the vote in this House, Ministers are considering how to proceed. We will make an announcement in due course, but there is one point I want to make absolutely clear. As the Secretary of State has said on previous occasions, there can be no more than one regional casino in the current Parliament.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I recall a tired colleague in another place declaring that if Keir Hardie were alive today, he would be turning in his grave. Certainly Keir Hardie would be puzzled at the readiness of the Government to get into bed with the promoters of these super-casinos when the social effects are so clear and public demand is so limited. Would it not be more democratic, now that we know there is strong opposition in the House, to allow a separate vote? When will the decision be made about the procedure?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Keir Hardie lived before the development, for instance, of the football pools, which are a great attraction for working people in this country in terms of gambling. My noble friend has to recognise that there have been social changes over the century since Keir Hardie. Of course there were demands for these casinos. It is clear that a large number of local authorities saw the benefit of the regeneration effect of casinos, and they voted and put forward proposals in the full knowledge that they would have to stand the test of the response of their local communities to the proposals they were putting forward.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I hope the Minister will comply with a Motion passed in this House that aimed to separate the 16 large and small casinos and have a separate order for those, and remit the issue of the super-casino to a Joint Select Committee. But what he has just said about the government policy seems directly at odds with what the Prime Minister said only 10 days ago: that he would like to see two super-casinos in one region. What response does the Minister have to that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is quoting the Prime Minister quite rightly. The Prime Minister was reflecting the fact that the Bill originally had provision for eight casinos, and that the claims of Manchester and Blackpool might be strong but there was no way they could be delivered within the framework of a single casino, which was in the Act that was eventually passed. What happened in this House, as evidenced by the fact that a substantial section of the Liberal Democrat Party voted against the order and for the Motion, was that the Liberal Democrats were persuaded that Blackpool was a better offer than Manchester, when in fact no such proposition was before the House.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend first say what is the Government’s assessment—or reassessment as the case may be—of Manchester’s case?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Manchester’s case was identified by the independent committee—that is why we introduced an order fully consistent with its recommendations. Those virtues were put before the House but were rejected.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, given what the noble Lord said about having only one super-casino, is it not possible that that could be reconsidered, especially if there will be a committee to consider these matters? Is there not an advantage in having two super-casinos so that a comparison can be made between them if one is in an urban environment and the other in a destination environment?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are governed by the Act as it stands, with provision for one casino. Of course in the distant future it might be possible to extend the number of super-casinos, but prior to the 2005 election, the Government proposal was for eight, with the expectation of a wide regional spread. It was the Conservative Party which insisted that there should only be one, and we have to live with the consequences of that.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that one of the principal reasons why the House rejected the order on 28 March was precisely because a large number of us, myself included, felt that the process and the conclusions of the Casino Advisory Panel were seriously flawed? It had in effect misdirected itself and ignored the findings of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Gambling Bill and the tone that prevailed throughout its subsequent passage. Therefore, is not the most sensible course for the Government to follow the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Anderson and split the order, at the same time establishing proper parliamentary scrutiny into the case for, and location of, the one regional casino?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has to live with the consequences of this action, as do we all. Whatever his motives for voting, the result was to lose the order. The Government are in a difficult position because we could be subject to judicial review if we acted on part of the inspector’s report and not on all of it. My noble friend may adduce that he voted against the order on those grounds, but noble Lords voted on it for many different reasons. The single most obvious fact was that a considerable number of noble Lords thought the casino should be in Blackpool rather than Manchester. That is why the order was lost.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords—

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, have the Government worked out the sum that will need to be charged to super-casinos and others to pay for the costs of rehabilitation of those families who are due to become addicts as a result of this increase in the number of casinos? The sums projected were pretty high.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the whole point about the Gambling Act 2005 is that it brought to the fore the concept of social responsibility for gambling, to protect vulnerable groups, particularly children, but also adults who might be subject to addiction. The Act established a framework in which those issues can be effectively addressed, and it is working. However, we do not have the new casinos—certainly not the regional casino—against which to test social effects more effectively and widely. That was the intention behind the order put before the House.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we must move on—we are well into the twenty-third minute.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page