HL Deb 05 February 1981 vol 416 cc1281-302

3.18 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 15, at end insert— ( ) such electrical appliances for cooking, food preparation, refrigeration, ironing, lighting, clothes' drying, washing, air-conditioning or other domestic appliances as the Secretary of State may by order specify;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and myself, touches on a question which we raised at Committee stage. We have brought it back now and, with it, Amendment No. 2, which I am sure it would be for the convenience of your Lordships' House that we discuss together, for two reasons. The first reason is that we think we have improved the drafting of the amendment, and the second is that, having studied them, we are not entirely happy with the arguments produced by the noble Earl the Minister, and we are inviting him to consider the matter again.

The Bill as it stands seeks to improve the energy efficiency of a very limited number of appliances, water and space-heaters, by allowing the Secretary of State to issue type-approvals; and a much larger range of electrical appliances which are used domestically are excluded from the Bill, even though they are major users of energy. This amendment is intended to correct this. At the Committee stage the noble Earl the Minister gave, as we see it, four grounds for not accepting the amendment. These are what I should like to examine this afternoon. The first ground (in column 275) was that by restricting type approval to space and water heaters significant improvements could be realised in energy efficiency. That we accept. What we do not accept is that that actually is, or will prove to be, the major part of the problem in the future. I should like to say a few words about that.

The range of appliances other than those dealt with in this Bill includes significant energy consumers. According to the International Institute of Environment and Development—the IIED, and to save time I will refer to it in that way in future—in 1975 38 per cent. of the United Kingdom domestic electrical consumption was due to such use. More significantly, most peak loads on the electricity generating system (which are crucial in determining the level of provision of power station generating capacity and therefore the immense amount of capital expenditure which is needed in this matter) arise from the use of such appliances.

If the Bill is seeking to realise significant improvements in energy efficiency we must look at what is likely to happen in the future as much as at what happens now. It looks as though the trends in increasing ownership of domestic appliances are already clear. In many cases the growth sectors are those where the appliances are heavy users of energy. For example, the Electricity Council Handbook of Statistics for 1980 reveals that between 1972 and 1978 the proportion of domestic customers owning home freezers rose from 2 per cent. to over 25 per cent. Domestic ownership of heated tumble dryers rose from just under 3 per cent. to 13 per cent. of households over the same period. These trends can be more or less expected to continue to a certain extent; they will certainly not immediately go into reverse. If the Bill as it stands has the effect of realising significant improvements in energy efficiency of water and space heaters—and we hope that it does—which is intended by the Government, and if the growth in ownership of domestic electrical appliances continues in the direction pointed to by the statistics I have used, the proportion of electricity consumption in the home by popular appliances other than water and space heaters is bound to rise well above 38 per cent. and will probably account for the majority of electricity used. That is going to be the area in which significant improvement in energy efficiency can be realised. This will have a very large effect, and we suggest that it should be embarked on now.

The Government also claimed (in column 275) that type approvals for domestic appliances such as those covered by this amendment would interfere with the effect of market forces in raising energy efficiency and that the cost of operating type approvals inevitably would be passed on to the consumer. It is true that customers are beginning to become more aware of the operating costs of various domestic appliances and this will he reflected in the purchases they make. However, a recent Consumers' Association survey has shown that prospective purchasers of domestic electrical appliances at the moment pay equal, if not more, attention to a number of other considerations such as the size of the appliances, design features and initial purchase price. Unlike the analogy with a car, which is sometimes used, where miles per gallon is an easily recognised measure of energy efficiency, and hence an important element in choosing what car one would buy, domestic appliances have no readily understood means of comparison. The total cost of ownership of a car, taking into account running costs as well as the initial purchase price, can fairly well be calculated by the consumer. The same does not hold true necessarily for the purchaser of a tumble dryer, dish-washing machine or similar appliance. The total cost of ownership, buying, running, maintaining and repairing is a concept still not widely used in terms of purchasing an appliance.

I should be interested to know how many Members of this House have done sums of that kind when buying appliances. I would expect there to be very few. Therefore, there is no strong initiative on manufacturers to improve the energy efficiency of appliances. There is some incentive but not a strong one. It is conceivable that a slightly higher initial purchase price for an appliance incorporating improved energy efficiency features would be more than compensated by the cheaper operating costs, even in a relatively short time; but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a higher initial price might have much more effect than any consideration, even if it were known, of the running price. There is strong support for this amendment among consumer bodies such as the Consumers' Association and the Electricity Consumers' Council where discussions on this question of comparative purchasing have been held between them and the Department of Energy.

Thirdly, the Government claimed that type approval would be cost effective for water and space heaters and, by implication, not cost effective for the broader range of domestic appliances. This argument reflects the thinking of the domestic appliance industry that efficiency standards for most appliances are already set at a high level with little or no room for improvement. There is not enough information coming from the industry to enable one to deploy a strong case challenging this. Nevertheless, what evidence we have would seem to show that this is not so. The studies undertaken in Denmark reported by the IIED show that engineering re-design could cut energy consumption of a typical electric cooker from 950 kilowatt hours to 440 kilowatt hours per year—an efficiency improvement of more than 50 per cent. This could be achieved by attention to such features as better controls and timers, faster-responding hot plates, tighter seals on oven doors and better insulation of ovens.

Also, authoritative recent US studies show that energy use of the larger electrical appliances such as refrigerators and freezers could he reduced by 50 per cent. with little or no extra cost to the consumer by such devices as improved seals round the doors and latches, better heat pumps, internal recycling of heat, particularly in clothes dryers, more thermal insulation and better heat exchangers. To realise these and other savings, manufacturers need the same encouragement as the Bill provides for the manufacture of space and water heaters. The purpose of this amendment is to focus the industry's attention on energy efficiency as a manufacturing criterion at least as important as the more traditional price and design criteria.

Fourthly, the Government claimed (in column 274) that it is not possible for type approvals of domestic appliances to keep pace with technical progress and other research and development innovation or, if it is possible, it is very difficult. We submit that this argument is fallacious. Standards can be easily changed as and when technical advances arc made. The extension of type approvals to domestic appliances included in this amendment would encourage that technical progress. It has been found useful in other industries, in the building industry, for example, to lay down minimum standards in the form of building regulations. It cannot be suggested seriously that building regulations have inhibited improvements in house design and construction. The regulations themselves are frequently altered to take account of new methods and of new products—improved thermal insulation standards being a prime example.

There is in what I have said very considerable reason for the Government to look again at the answers that they gave to us on Committee stage. It is extremely important that we try to limit the amount of energy that is used. This is for every kind of reason, whether purely conservationist or in terms of balance of payments.

I would remind noble Lords that improvements in the balance of payments can still be made even when as in energy we are producing a very large amount of energy ourselves. For every kind of reason, which I think is accepted on all sides of the House, we should try and limit our energy usage. I suggest that this is a very obvious way in which the Government, without much trouble, without more parliamentary time, could significantly increase their record in this area. I suggest to the Government that they accept this amendment. I beg to move.

3.31 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord has made a very good case with which I fully agree and has fully justified the fact that this amendment has been put down again. It should give the Government more opportunity to justify the exclusion of electrical appliances, and domestic appliances in particular.

The Bill as it now stands gives the Secretary of State powers to require space and water heaters, which use energy in any form including solar radiation and electricity, as well as gas appliances for cooking, refrigeration, lighting or washing, to conform to energy efficiency standards. It has not included electrical appliances. We are not convinced by Lord Gowrie's arguments in Committee and we wish to have another chance to hear why the Government have left out this important area from the Bill. They like to call the Bill—and the noble Earl told us in Committee that this was not for cosmetic reasons, but for compelling reasons—an energy conservation Bill. How one can conserve energy without attempting to conserve energy through the important area of electrical appliances is something that perhaps the noble Earl will tell us when he comes to reply.

Apart from the obvious argument that the Bill proposes to include gas appliances, as I have said, these are also subject to the same market forces as electrical appliances; it is these market forces that must be examined if the Government's case is to be convincing. The total cost of ownership (buying, running, maintaining and repairing of the product) is a concept which is still not widely used in buying decisions. Therefore—and this is the view of many outside bodies including the Consumers' Association—there is no strong incentive on manufacturers to improve the energy efficiency of appliances. I am sure that they can be improved.

As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said, the IIED has cited Danish work which shows that through good design energy consumption can be cut by almost half. There have also been recent United States studies which show that energy use in the larger electrical appliances, such as freezers, refrigerators, tumble dryers and dishwashers, could be reduced by 50 per cent. for little or no extra cost to the consumer by such devices as improved seals round doors and latches, better heat pumps, internal recycling of heat, et cetera, and more thermal insulation and better heat exchangers.

Therefore, it is our case that it is likely that the energy efficiency of electrical appliances will be increased more rapidly with rather than without energy efficiency standards, especially if those standards are changed when technical advances are made. This is one area where the Government must consider very seriously that they cannot rely entirely on market forces, however much they may believe in them in many other spheres. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Lord Somers

My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. Living in a suburban area, as I do, I have come to realise to what an enormous extent the average person relies upon electricity for their day to day lives. Apart from those that are mentioned in the amendment, there are electric hedge cutters, electric car washers and polishers, power drills (of which I must confess ownership) and many others. Electricity is used for anything in order to save making a little effort yourself. Of course, electric mowers also use a considerable amount of energy. Therefore, I think that an amendment certainly similar to the one proposed, if not exactly the same, is by all means necessary.

Viscount Hanworth

My Lords, I am at a loss to understand why, considering that this only gives an enabling provision, the Minister should have been against it. I do not think that he has succeeded in making any satisfactory case as to why electrical appliances are different from gas.

I have carried out some studies on energy consumption. I did an analysis of a number of Which? reports and I also looked into some of those from the Continent. There is in many cases a 100 per cent. difference between the least energy consuming example and the worst. In nearly all cases there was something like 50 per cent. difference between the best and the average. There was no actual cost correlation. In other words, the appliance that used least energy was not any more expensive. The Minister, I believe, has talked about market forces. We have to remember in the first place that the consumers do not have the information when making their choice. In one case, with deep freezers, the outside casing of the deep freeze was used to dissipate the heat instead of having the radiator located behind it. This of course greatly lowers the efficiency of the deep freeze. That was done because it improved its looks.

I want to be fair: there is some endeavour now among manufacturers to improve efficiency. But it has not gone anything like far enough. If this amendment is accepted, I do not suggest that the Minister should start straight away laying down criteria; but he certainly ought to be able to do so if it proves necessary, because the manufacturers do not continue with energy-saving designs.

To take a simple example of the television set, which is not included in this list, there is very often a two-to-one difference in the consumption of energy and because some people use the television a lot this adds a considerable cost in the year. Much the same applies to refrigerators. One might say that those appliances do not have a high current consumption; but they are in practically every home and when one looks at the situation overall it represents quite a significant amount of our national demand for energy. So it is most important that the manufacturers should be encouraged to do their best to improve the energy in the ways that they can. I therefore very strongly support this amendment and I suggest that it might be pressed to a Division.

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie)

My Lords, of course I accept much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said in moving the amendment, and also much of what has been said by other noble Lords who have supported him. I certainly agree it is very likely that domestic electrical appliances will continue to consume an increasing proportion of electricity used in the home, and that therefore the consumer is intimately involved in the improvement of energy use. The Government care a great deal about that. We want to make it clear to manufacturers and others that we think a high priority should be given to practical cost-effective improvements in the energy efficiency of every kind of appliance, including of course the domestic electrical appliances with which the amendment is concerned.

But all that said, I think there are a number of points intimately connected with the Bill which some speakers have overlooked. I would remind the House that this Bill is not just about setting standards: it is about applying standards, with which we would all agree, through a system of type-approval. Type-approval, by definition, does not come free. There is a cost to the manufacturer who has to pay fees to the type-approval body and these costs will, generally speaking, be passed on to the consumer. I do not particularly quarrel with that because, of course, it is the consumer who ultimately reaps the benefit of the system. We believe it is right to have powers to require the appliance covered by the Bill to be type-approved in this way.

As I said on Second Reading, it is possible to identify respects in which the performance of various kinds of boilers and other heating appliances can be improved and also type-approved. In short, we believe that the benefits of this kind of system will greatly outweigh any costs to manufacturer and consumer and hence these appliances covered by the Bill. So any difference between us really comes down to this question: can the same thing be said of the domestic electrical appliances which the noble Lord's amendment wishes to add to the Bill? I have to say to the House that I am not convinced that this case has been made out, and in the time remaining to me I should like to address myself to that issue.

Most electrical appliances already convert electrical energy to heat or mechanical energy with a very high degree of efficiency. That is not the only aspect which is relevant to energy efficiency, because the controls on appliances and insulation of things like ovens and refrigerators are also important; but I think it represents a major difference between electrical appliances and those which use other fuels. My advice is that there are even problems about how standards of energy efficiency for domestic electrical appliances might be devised. International standards bodies have been working in this field for 15 years and so far have failed to come up with acceptably accurate standards by which the energy consumption of domestic electrical appliances, except in the case of ovens, can be measured for legislative purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned the report of the International Institute for Environment and Development. I am happy to pay tribute to that as an admirable body. Indeed, my honourable friend in the Government who is responsible for energy conservation has appeared on the same platform as one of the authors of the report, Mr. Gerald Leach. The report has been discussed and widely studied by the Government: it contains much valuable work. Some appliances—and here television sets come to mind—now use very much less energy than was used by typical sets of only five or six years ago. The base year for that report's comment on electrical appliances was 1975. The report said, for instance, that each colour television set used 500 Kw hours a year. In 1975, with some of the larger sets which were then on the market, that level of consumption could have been reached with only four to six hours' viewing each evening. But with the modern colour sets of a similar screen size, a viewer could not use 500 Kw hours costing about £20 in a whole year, let alone in five or six hours, unless he had his television set on for up to 15 hours a day every day of the year. So in any case technology is moving, in our contention, in the direction of energy conservation.

Of course we recognise there is evidence from other countries that the efficiency of appliances can be significandy improved, although when we have looked into the details of improvements suggested we have generally found that the appliances criticised in other countries were much bigger or had more energy-using or energy-wasting features than the domestic appliances typically on sale in this country. Therefore only some of the more minor and expensive recommendations were relevant to appliances generally on sale here.

As I said, we accept that the number of domestic electrical appliances in use in homes is likely to grow, and we believe that some improvement in efficiency is likely to grow, and we believe that some improvement in efficiency is likely to prove practical and cost-effective. We would very much like to see such improvements but we do not think it is right to take powers in the Bill to impose efficiency standards by law in those areas in a market, whatever noble Lords may think of it, which is already imposing the efficiency standards rather more rapidly than any legislation that can be devised.

There is another point, which addresses itself particularly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. There is another difference between domestic electrical appliances and those covered in the Bill. I would refer your Lordships to my remarks at the Committee stage about this difference. Many of the appliances covered by the Bill are not sold direct to the customer. By definition therefore they are not subject very easily to the interplay of competitive market forces. They are sold through builders, through central heating installers and so on. The final user of the appliances—that is to say the person who pays the fuel bills—often has little say over which appliances are installed. If you happen to live in a flat you do not necessarily have much say over what kind of central heating system has been installed in the basement of the building in which your flat is.

This is clearly, I think, a difference with the situation where domestic electrical appliances are concerned because the latter are bought direct by the final user. There are very many competing products to choose from. The customer can go to bodies which produce reports like those of the Consumers' Association—and if your Lordships think that is rather a "la-di-da" thing to do, many people are now aware of the Consumers' Association and do make use of it—I would say that modern advertising, using the instance of the Mini-Metro during the last stage, often makes the energy efficiency point to the customer very efficiently and well.

I think it is absurd to suggest that manufacturers do not now use claims of improved energy efficiency as good selling points. Therefore it would seem to us that in this case market forces do seem to operate for such appliances in the direction of improved energy efficiency. As I said, perhaps slightly teasingly at the last stage, "market forces" has become something of a political "buzz word" and I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, must respond to this "buzz"; but I must say I am rather shocked and distressed to see the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, with all the classical Liberal attachment to freedom of markets, in such company.

As to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on enabling powers, we should be slightly disciplined about scattering enabling powers through the legislative landscape like confetti. All Governments have been guilty of this in recent years. But, of course, the general argument that I finally want to come back to goes deeper than this. Including domestic electrical appliances in the Bill would take us a very long way beyond Community obligations, which it is one purpose—not the main purpose—of the Bill to fulfil. Indeed, it is possible that there would be a conflict between requiring type approval for domestic electrical appliances and our other obligations under the low voltage directive.

The proposals which are now incorporated in Part I of the Bill have been very widely consulted on and discussed. We have taken into account the views and comments of 170 different organisations. The great majority of those who responded, which included a majority of organisations representing our own domestic manufacturers, agreed with our general approach. We were, therefore, able to bring this Bill before Parliament in the knowledge that it commanded wide support among those whom it was likely to affect.

But if we were now to extend the scope of the Bill, as the amendment would have us do, to cover domestic electrical appliances, I believe that we should be in a very different position. We should be acting without consultation and we should be in a less defensible position still, since the main association which represents manufacturers of domestic electrical appliances made it clear to us that they were very strongly opposed to an extension of the Bill and they believed that such an extension would be detrimental to their members' commercial interests, not only in this country but in overseas markets.

So we should consider very carefully before moving away from the broad agreement among those affected, upon which this Bill has hitherto been based, on which a lot of work has been done, and where we feel that we have got the balance of competing interests about right—not least, the interest of energy conservation.

3.53 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, the noble Earl has produced a number of heavy arguments, some of which are very much the same as he produced before. But that is not surprising, because, presumably, he thought they were good then and he thinks they are good now. I must say that I am far from convinced. Of course, type approval costs money and there is no difference between us as to who should pay for it. It is the manufacturers and, presumably, in some form or another the cost would then be passed on to the customer. I do not think that the customer would particularly mind that if it meant that he was spending less on his energy consumption. Nor do I think, given the kind of appliances and the very large numbers that we are talking about, that the amount of money concerned would be more than infinitesimal.

The noble Earl also said that electrical appliances are already efficient. That is true, certainly compared to a number of other fuels and a number of other kinds of machinery. But very few of them are so efficient that they cannot be made more so. The difference between the energy efficiency of machines of the same kind which are equally successful in the market seems to show not only that there is not a very great deal of market pressure here, but also that there is very considerable room for improvement.

We accept, as the noble Earl the Minister said, that some improvement is already occurring, but I do not think we would accept that it is occurring—I think this is what he said—much more rapidly than any regulation could effect. We do not think that is true. We think, on the whole, that in the past it has been slow in happening, and, although we agree that it is happening now, we do not think it is happening fast enough.

Energy efficiency—until energy becomes a very great deal more expensive than it is now, which it may well do—does not appear to be a major consideration in customers' choices. The reason for this, which I attempted to point out in my opening speech and shall not repeat again, is the multiplicity of sales points of one kind or another in these appliances, and the difficulty of finding an easily understandable formula, which people can use and quantify as against costs. This amendment, if passed, would have a considerable effect.

The noble Earl twitted me for speaking from these Benches on the freedom of markets. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that in real life there is no such thing as a free market and one has to take into consideration all kinds of things, including the lack of freedom of the market, the reasons which militate against people making a choice on a particular matter and the public interest, and, in the question of energy conservation in 1981, there is a public interest which goes far beyond the private interests that we are talking about.

We are not trying to force anything. The noble Earl the Minister said that permissive clauses were scattered like confetti. I think that where there is a very great deal to be said for permissive clauses—not for compulsory clauses—there is no harm in scattering them about quite a lot because, as we all know, there are difficulties in finding time in your Lordships' House, or in Parliament generally, for Bills of one kind or another. We do not want to take two bites at this cherry. To give the Secretary of State these powers for electricity, when we have given them for gas, is not something about which he has very much to complain.

I accept the fact that there will have to be consultation before all these standards are set, but I do not see why the general principle cannot now be accepted, whether or not the makers of the electrical installations have been consulted. I do not believe for a moment that it will be detrimental in overseas markets. If we set these standards, it will help our overseas exports a very great deal. I see no reason at all not to pass this purely permissive amendment and, unless my colleagues object, I feel inclined to divide the House on it.

3.59 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Ilchester, E.
Ampthill, L. Jacobson, L.
Ardwick, L. Jacques, L.
Ashby, L. Kaldor, L.
Avebury, L. Kennet, L.
Aylestone, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Balogh, L. Leatherland, L.
Banks, L. Leonard, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.] Listowel, E.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bernstein, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Beswick, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Birk, B. Lovell-Davis, L.
Blease, L. McNair, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Meston, L.
Briginshaw, L. Mishcon, L.
Brockway, L. Oram, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Pargiter, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Peart, L.
Byers, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Collison, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Rochester, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Ross of Marnock, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Rugby, L.
de Clifford, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Denington, B. Seear, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Segal, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L. Shinwell, L.
Gladwyn, L. Sligo, M.
Gore-Booth, L. Somers, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Stamp, L.
Gosford, E. Stone, L.
Gregson, L. Strabolgi, L.
Grey, E. Strauss, L.
Hale, L. Tanlaw, L.
Hall, V. Underhill, L.
Hampton, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Hanworth, V. Wigg, L.
Henderson, L. Winstanley, L.
Hughes, L. Winterbottom, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Wootton of Abinger, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abercorn, D. Cottesloe, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Crathorne, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Cromartie, E.
Avon, E. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Daventry, V.
Bessborough, E. de Freyne, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Denham, L. [Teller.]
Brentford, V. Derwent, L.
Brookeborough, V. Drumalbyn, L.
Caccia, L. Duncan-Sandys, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Ebbisham, L.
Cathcart, E. Effingham, E.
Clitheroe, L. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Clwyd, L. Faithfull, B.
Falkland, V. Mottistone, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Freyberg, L. Northchurch, B.
Gainford, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Gisborough, L. Onslow, E.
Glasgow, E. Polwarth, L.
Gormanston, V. Porritt, L.
Gowrie, E. Renton, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Ridley, V.
Robbins, L.
Halsbury, E. Rochdale, V.
Harvington, L. Rodney, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. St. Davids, V.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Inglewood, L. Selborne, E.
Ironside, L. Selkirk, E.
Jessel, L. Sempill, Ly.
Killearn, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Kinnaird, L. Spens, L.
Kinnoull, E. Strathclyde, L.
Long, V. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L. Strathspey, L.
McAlpine of Moffat, L. Sudeley, L.
McFadzean, L. Swinfen, L.
Malmesbury, E. Teviot, L.
Mancroft, L. Ullswater, V.
Mansfield, E. Vernon, L.
Marley, L. Vickers, B.
Melville, V. Vivian, L.
Milverton, L. Wise L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Clause 15 [Grants for purposes of energy conservation advice schemes]:

4.6 p.m.

Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 15, line 35, after ("other") insert— ("( ) may defray the whole cost to the owner of any private dwelling place for re-siting gas or electricity meters for the purpose of inspection from outside the premises;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. I have no intention of repeating the arguments raised both at the Second Reading and at the Committee stage of the Bill. The clarification by the noble Earl the Minister during the Committee stage has given me a better understanding of the Bill, so I have transferred the amendment to what I hope is to be a more appropriate section of the Bill; namely, that part of the Bill which entitles owners to various grants of one kind or another in the form of advice and assistance. The reason I have done this is that the meters for both gas and electricity are covered by the local and individual gas and electricity boards. This amendment merely ensures that proper action can be taken nationally, which covers all the boards concerned.

Furthermore, since the Committee stage of the Bill I have received the impression of general support for this principle outside Parliament, coupled with further information regarding the concern felt by old people, working couples and those who live alone about entry into premises of gas and electricity meter readers. It was only a few days after the original amendment was withdrawn that noble Lords may recall a news item describing the cold-blooded murder of a jeweller in Whitechapel carried out by two men dressed as Post Office engineers. This kind of horror story adds to the justifiable fears of householders that the criminal fraternity are making increased use of this kind of pretext to gain entry for serious crimes of all categories, including murder.

Again emphasising the security aspect of the amendment, it has also been brought to my attention that the practice of leaving cards on the flap of the letter box or on the window sill by gas and electricity board representatives when they cannot obtain entry into premises merely announces to criminal elements that the house remains unoccupied during working hours. All these problems and complaints can be overcome by this very simple addition, I submit, that the amendment makes to the Bill.

Furthermore, where gas and electricity boards have already sited meters outside premises—this is no new concept from the boards themselves; they do it all the time—it appears to have been done on a purely random basis or at the convenience of the local board concerned rather than at the convenience of the householder. The intention of the amendment and my persistence in submitting it to the House is that it should act as an incentive to both the gas and the electricity boards to ensure that in all new dwelling-houses and flats, meters can be read without having to gain access to the premises.

This is fundamentally a design and planning matter, coupled with sheer common sense. No builder or developer, either in the private or the public sector, can design a house or flat until agreement has been reached with either the gas or electricity board as to where the service outlets are to be situated; and it is at that very early stage that it should be possible—and indeed desirable—that the gas or electricity board ensures that the design of the house or flat makes allowance for the meters to be read without the necessity of gaining entry to the premises.

Secondly, this amendment will only be used by those householders who are worried, either because they are very old, because they are living alone or have the inconvenience of the related problems that I have mentioned. Therefore this amendment is intended merely to ensure that they can have the display of those meters read from outside the premises.

Thirdly, while it is accepted that price rises to the consumer in all the energy sectors are part of the Government's policy of conservation, these rises in price and corresponding increases in the profits of British Gas or of the local electricity board would be more acceptable to the general public if there was some corresponding improvement in the service to the consumer. There are not many ways in which the service can be improved in terms of the quality of the energy supplied, but more often than not the impression I get is that the consumer's rights, requests and interests are put second to those of overall Government policy, or the policy of the local generating or gas board. I consider it is now time that the individual consumer's views on such matters should be listened to and acted upon by Her Majesty's Government in such a way that, in whatsoever part of the country they may live, the effect of this amendment can be felt. The amendment before us can ensure that meters can be re-sited at the owner's request regardless of the local board's policy or inclination. In the case of some local boards it is part of their policy already.

Finally, the noble Earl may say that this amendment does not belong in this Bill at all, which is entitled an Energy Conservation Bill. I should have to disagree most strongly with that view, if it is put forward, because we are supporting this Bill as a step towards an energy efficient society. I believe it is detrimental to that principle to have the energy services of a household monitored in an inefficient manner, and the relatively small cost of the design and re-siting of the meter displays should be more than amply covered by the extra cost saved through superfluous visits, correspondence, and delayed payments of accounts that result from a lack of access to the meter. Therefore, I have every hope that the noble Earl will consider this amendment sympathetically. I await his reply with great interest. I beg to move.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I wonder whether I might add one brief point in support of the arguments already advanced on this amendment by my noble friend Lord Tanlaw. My noble friend has reminded the House of the alarming increase in muggings, attacks, robberies and other kinds of maltreatment of elderly people and others living alone by bogus callers of one kind or another, and some of those bogus callers who have gained entry to the homes of elderly people have in fact done so disguised as meter readers.

Some time ago, I played a part in persuading the electricity boards to introduce what is known as the "password scheme" for the visually handicapped; in other words, for the blind; for people who are unable to study callers' credentials and decide whether they are genuine; people who cannot benefit from a door chain so that they can scrutinise a caller before letting him in. The blind are in a particularly vulnerable position. Therefore, the electricity boards introduced a password scheme, under which visually handicapped people could choose their own password which was kept entirely secret and unless the would-be meter reader gave that password the blind person did not let the meter reader in. Some time after that the gas boards were persuaded to introduce a similar scheme.

At the moment, particularly in the North-West, in Greater Manchester and in Merseyside, where there has recently been a great increase in the number of these attacks, muggings and so on by bogus callers, we are now having pressure from other bodies representing the disabled and the elderly for the electricity boards and the gas boards to extend the password scheme to other categories of people and not merely restrict it to the blind. It may be that would be a good thing, but how much cheaper and how much more economical in terms of money and manpower it would be merely to site the meters outside. Surely, if we can do anything to reduce the number of people who have a statutory right, for one purpose or another, to enter the homes of elderly people living alone, we should seize the opportunity.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, I should like briefly to support all that has been said and also to give another reason why, in my view, this amendment should be carefully considered. It is that if the meter reader cannot get into the home, for reasons which have been described so well by noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, then a "guesstimate" is sent in to the consumer, which sometimes bears very little relation to the actual consumption of energy and can be better described as a "wild surmise".

What happens? The consumer gets a bill—I have had this happen myself—which is sometimes 10 or 15 times more than the normal amount for that period of the year; he takes a little time to consider it and then within three weeks receives a red notice threatening to cut him off. Three weeks is really far too short a time to deal with a bill. Very often it takes a week by second-class post for it to reach the consumer. People cannot deal with everything the same day; they very often deal with their bills over the weekend, so probably it takes a week to answer it. They cannot afford first-class post any longer for this kind of thing so they use second-class post. Therefore payment takes another week to reach the board. Then the computer starts getting threatening. The cheque reaches the electricity or gas authority the day after the computer has got to work and a threatening letter with a red notice is sent off, which is a great shock to elderly people.

Therefore, I consider there is a case for leaving it much longer than the boards leave it at the moment. No store, Harrods or any other large store, would start to send threatening letters for at least a month or six weeks, and there is no case for sending these threatening notices in such a short period of time. So I hope the noble Earl will look into this aspect as well.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, to take the latter point very quickly, I certainly would not want—of course, none of us would want—people to be alarmed by threatening letters, and certainly one should not pay attention to threatening letters sent by computers. I was once billed by a computer for £150 for the service of IBM equipment which I did not happen to own. I wrote a letter protesting and I received a bill back from the computer for £0.00. So something can happen! I will look at the latter point. I do not think it is directly connected with the siting of meters, because of course it would be possible for threatening letters or red flag letters to arrive for non-payment whether one's meter was sited inside or outside the premises. However, I will certainly draw attention to the noble Lord's remarks about the speed at which letters go out. I cannot give the answer to that.

Going back to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I would remind the House that the amendment really is about money. It would have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to pay grants to cover the cost of re-siting gas or electricity meters outside private dwellings. In a very coherent and sensible manner the noble Lord made his case, and that implied that the costs were pretty negligible in return for the service which the public would receive as a result. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I, of course, accept that there are good reasons for consumers wanting to have their electricity or gas meters re-sited outside the premises. I absolutely agree with that. External meters avoid the need for estimated readings when the reader is unable to gain access, thereby causing the problem mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. We do not want to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of re-siting meters. Following the discussion of this issue during the Committee stage the Department of Energy drew the attention of the Gas Corporation and the Electricity Council to the views expressed here. But we believe that this question of the siting of meters is best left to the boards and the Gas Corporation to handle as they think fit, taking into account commercial considerations and the interests and wishes of their customers.

I would argue that this is not a matter on which it is necessary or desirable to have legislation. Nor is it a matter for Government subsidies, since it would not be the Government, or through the Government the taxpayer, but the individual consumer, and conceivably the electricity and gas authorities, who would benefit by re-siting. I can think of many improvements in life, large and small, which could be made by Government expenditure following some central legislative requirement, but priorities have to be considered.

Also, I think it would not be fair to say that the gas and electricity boards are unresponsive to consumer demand. If we turn our minds back to the debate in your Lordships' House yesterday, I was somewhat castigated, and so were some of my noble friends, for taking the view—which I do not think we take, but which the Opposition represented us as taking—that in some way the public sector is altogether unresponsive to the needs of its consumers. I do not take that view, and I think noble Lords who felt that we took that view should not take that view now. I think the gas and electricity boards can be very responsive to the wishes of their customers. I think there is quite a lot of movement on this point, in that the electricity and gas authorities are willing, where they are requested to do so, to consider re-siting where they can do it, and they are also trying to site most meters externally on any new buildings. We certainly welcome that.

The question is—this is where I come back to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw—one of cost. The advice I have is that if this cost were to be met by the Government, which appears to be the intention behind the amendment, it would be a major, and in my view unjustifiable, use of taxpayers' money. I am advised that the total cost of re-siting gas meters alone—this is gas alone and not electricity meters, which are also covered by the amendment—has been estimated by the British Gas Corporation to be of the order of £500 million. That is a lot of money. As an Employment Minister who is engaged in administering sums of that order for youth employment and other schemes, I can think of many more urgent uses for that money if I could only get hold of it.

Lord Byers

My Lords, is not that the estimate for every single meter in the country?

The Earl of Gowrie

Yes, my Lords, that would obviously be a maximum figure. But the noble Lord's amendment would lay us open to defraying costs of this kind whenever that was demanded. As I say, the gas and electricity authorities are responsive to their customers' requests and where they can do it they will do it. I think it would be very dangerous, as well as possibly marginally unconstitutional, to write a money provision of this kind into a Bill which might be interpreted as being a new right, to have one's meter, come hell or high water, re-sited on demand. I think that would be not only wrong—I think it goes further than the noble Lord himself would wish—but also would be an unjustifiable use of taxpayers' money. I therefore hope that, in the light of these comments, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Tanlaw

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl very much for his expression of the Government view, I am a little surprised, to take one of his major points first, that he used the full figure of £500 million to prove the point. The point of this amendment, as I am sure the noble Earl appreciates, is that it would be at the request of the owner when this is required; I do not think every single householder wishes to have his meters moved. Secondly, it is the special category of householder, the elderly, the lonely and so on, who would require this.

On the question of money, the noble Earl will recall that under the thermal insulation Bill the grant given by the Government was not fully taken up by the public. I am not at all sure that the grants available for advice through the Department of Energy will be fully taken up by the public. After all, the information available is about the equivalent of what you can receive from any normal double glazing company as a free estimate before you purchase. Would the Government consider that, if grants are not fully taken up under this Bill, these sums of money perhaps could be made available to, if you like, subsidise local gas and electricity boards for special cases, where either harassment or criminal elements have created severe worries in certain districts?

The noble Earl mentioned, as it were in passing, that most new houses and buildings would be given outside meters. It would be helpful if this was definite, not necessarily a directive. I think it is the feeling of the House that as a matter of common sense the service meters should be designed to be sited externally by the architects and the builders, be they in the public or private sector, and the individual authorities should co-operate in seeing that this is built into the plans. Half the problem of this £500 million the noble Earl mentioned arises because nobody has thought about this in the original design for the house for the last 50 or 60 years. I think this amendment has at least focused attention on a small minor point, one that has created a disproportionate amount of worry and inconvenience. Perhaps something will be done to clarify this.

There is a final point. Perhaps the noble Earl could say, or perhaps the Gas Board could say, what is the cost to the gas and electricity boards of second calls and failures to get agreement on a bill because of inability to gain access. I am going to add up the totals too. If you add up over the last 20 or 30 years the cost of all those extra calls, and all those postcards going in the post, you are beginning to get quite close to the figure given as a maximum for re-siting meters. I can argue and use maximum figures in the same way as the noble Earl. Perhaps we can look at this again.

If the noble Earl is giving the assurance that this has been fully discussed and taken up with the electricity and gas boards, let us hope this is a matter that will not have to be raised again from these Benches or in this House as a matter of general concern to the public; and that members of the public approaching their gas or electricity boards will be treated with patience and courtesy and with some generosity when it comes to those in lower income groups, in that a small adjustment can be made to solve their problem. In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 4: After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:

("Use of water power for electricity generation, etc.

.—(1) In the exercise of their functions under the Water Resources Act 1963 and the other enactments relating to water and water-supply and the control and disposition of water-resources, water authorities shall have regard to the national importance of facilitating, so far as is reasonably consistent with the need to satisfy primary demands on those resources, the use of water as an alternative or supplementary source of power.

(2) A charging scheme made by a water authority under section 31 of the Water Act 1973 may provide for charges to be paid by persons obtaining power from machinery installed in water in the authority's area; but such charges shall only be made in the cases (if any) where the authority is obliged to incur expenditure directed to maintaining the flow of water to the machinery or otherwise in connection with the machinery or any use to which it is put.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. The noble Lord the Minister was good enough to give a very sympathetic response at the Committee stage when I moved an amendment on similar lines. He spoke then of solving the problem that we are addressing by administrative action, and he also mentioned the need not to discriminate in favour of particular classes of user. So, the amendment that we have put down now has been revised in the light of his comments and after further discussion with the departments concerned.

I pointed out previously the need of water power users and potential users to be emancipated from the threat under which they presently feel themselves, of demands for excessive charges since the Water Act 1973 became law some seven or eight years ago. That, of course, is particularly true in the case of potential users who are contemplating substantial capital expenditure in the hope of recouping that expenditure by having lower costs in future years.

As I said during the Committee stage, the users feel that experience has shown that they need unequivocal legislative guarantees against this possibility to encourage them to engage in these sort of schemes which I think everybody agrees are a desirable contribution to energy saving by virtue of widespread, small power generation schemes. So, I hope that the Government will feel able to give these users some kind of a guarantee in some form or other, even if the exact form that we have put forward in the amendment is not acceptable as it stands. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to say that it is always being pointed out to us that there is liable, by the end of this century, to be a very serious shortfall in the energy supplies to this country. I think that every encouragement should be given to small, individual producers of energy in any form whatever—whether it be hydro-energy, solar power, wind or whatever. So far as I can see, every difficulty is being put in their way not just on the part of the water authorities, but on the part of planners and many other people as well.

We must bear in mind that with improving technology not only will present methods of producing hydro-power be improved, but the time may well come when small units could supply not just a farm but a complete village and there is the possibility in the foreseeable future that they could be adding power to the national electrical networks instead of only meeting an individual's requirement.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I should like to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. He said that every encouragement should be given particularly to small producers who can use water power in this way. I approach this matter somewhat in a spirit of nostalgia, because I remember going, as a boy, to a small farm in Wales where an uncle of mine was using the waters of a stream to produce electricity for his cowshed. He was considered in that local area—the depths of West Wales—to be something of a witch doctor in being able to produce light out of water with a little bit of iron in between. Therefore, I, too, should like briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathcona for giving the House an opportunity to consider this matter again. When we discussed the issue during the Committee stage, I explained that the Government believed that a defensible case can be made for making only a minimal charge for abstraction for hydro-power, instead of charging on a volume-related basis. So there is absolute common ground between my noble friend and myself on that matter. I also went on to explain that, in our view, the right way to proceed is by way of discussion with the water authorities, and that the Department of the Environment was looking carefully at the possible use of the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 60(3) of the Water Resources Act 1963, as I thought that those powers might provide a means of alleviating the charges made to the hydro-power users.

Since then we have considered the matter carefully and in more depth, as well as having had discussions with the National Water Council and with representatives of three of the main water authorities. As a result of those discussions, we have concluded that it would, in fact, not be satisfactory to make use of the powers of direction in the 1963 Act.

Instead, therefore, we intend to proceed by using this very Energy Conservation Bill to amend Section 60 of the Water Resources Act 1963. Section 60 of that Act empowers the water authority to make an agreement waiving or abating charges for the abstraction of water. Subsection (2) sets out the matters which the water authorities shall have regard to in making such waivers or agreements. What we intend to do, therefore, is to add a new item to the list in subsection (2) which will require water authorities to take into account the extent to which, in the interests of energy conservation, they should abate their charges for hydro-power abstractions, to prevent the charges from inhibiting abstractions of this kind. That is to meet not only my noble friend's point, but the point which I want to bring to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—namely, that of course we do not want to inhibit abstractions for turbo-generation: indeed, we want to encourage it wherever possible.

I think that the way in which we are seeking to do that has an additional advantage. Subsection (4) of the 1963 Act provides that if someone applies to a water authority for an agreement exempting him from charges or an agreement reducing his charges, and if the water authority refuses, or proposes terms for an agreement which he, the applicant, objects to, then the applicant or the water authority may refer the matter in dispute to the Secretary of State. Amending Section 60 of the 1963 Act in the way which we should like to would, therefore, give a small-scale hydro-power user an important new argument for a reduction of charge which, in the event of a disagreement between himself and the water authority—and I think that would be unlikely—he could take to the Secretary of State for decision. I think that such a Government amendment would go a very long way towards meeting the entirely legitimate grievances of water power users in England and Wales.

It is not a simple matter of abolishing all charges for all water power users in all circumstances, though undoubtedly there will be cases where water power users will be able to get charges waived completely. Indeed, the amendment of my noble friend would itself not abolish all charges in all circumstances; and I think that this reflects a broad agreement in this House and elsewhere that it would not be reasonable to do so. Perhaps I could give an example of why it would not be reasonable.

Our researches since this matter was raised during the Committee stage have revealed that the Central Electricity Generating Board is paying over £140,000 in the current year to the Welsh Water Authority for hydro-power abstractions. As far as we are aware, the CEGB does not challenge the need to pay these charges, which are a reflection of the very considerable burden which the board imposes on the Welsh Water Authority and the resources of the area. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessarily always reasonable to abolish any charge.

But what is reasonable and what we intend to do by an amendment of our own is to require water authorities to take into account the need to prevent charges from inhibiting the use of hydro-power. The charges, if any, will not therefore be such as to make the use of hydro-power uneconomic. It seems to me that that is the nub of the problem and the Government's amendment will go straight to it.

Therefore, we plan to move such an amendment on Third Reading. Perhaps I may apologise in advance because I shall not, in the nature of things, be able to table this amendment before Monday. The Government do this because they agree with the general intention of the amendment of my noble friend. But in technical and legal terms, it does not seem to us that subsection (2) of my noble friend's amendment is altogether satisfactory. It is not clear whether—and, if so, in what sense—it overrides the existing provisions of Section 30 of the Water Act 1973. Section 30 is drafted with considerable care and balance. For instance, it contains an important provision which requires the water authorities not to give undue preference to one category of user as against another, and we could be caught in that difficulty in taking the needs of the hydro-power user into account.

As I explained during the Committee stage, the Government believe that it would not be right to tamper with this principle, or to appear to be tampering with it, without very careful consideration and justification. So it seems to the Government that there are many fewer legal and practical difficulties in leaving the 1973 Act alone, and in amending the power to reduce or waive charges in the 1963 Act instead, in the way in which the Government propose. In the light of what we have said, and in the light of our acknowledgment of the very useful action which my noble friend Lord Strathcona has suggested—and we are very grateful to him for his work here—I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his present amendment.

4.44 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I joined my noble friend Lord Strathcona during the Committee stage and I am very glad to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the Government intend to table an amendment while the Bill is in this House. It sounds as though the amendment will go a considerable way in the direction which my noble friend Lord Strathcona seeks. However, in the intervention which I made on Committee I asked my noble friend Lord Gowrie whether he would look at the position in Scotland. When speaking just now he said that these changes were to take place for England and Wales. If the House will give him permission to speak again, perhaps he would confirm that the amendment which he proposes will be restricted to England and Wales.

During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathcona had down a consequential amendment, which was not to extend the changes to Scotland. The reason I raised this matter at the earlier stage was that it seemed to me that the position in this area was already satisfactory in Scotland. Hydro-power is generated in Scotland from private sources. For many years one large company from at least two sites has generated electricity, and over the years it has no doubt made sense that any surplus electricity should go into the grid. Furthermore, as I understand it, Scottish legislation does not discourage small generators from using hydro-power or indeed other sources.

The legislation and practice is different in Scotland and, indeed, both generation and distribution of electricity in Scotland comes under the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Secretary of State for Energy or, indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment. As he has not mentioned it today, I would ask my noble friend whether he looked into the situation in Scotland, as I suggested, and whether he thinks that the situation there is already satisfactory and that, therefore, changes are not needed, because that was the sense in which I spoke on the last occasion.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, briefly, I should like to answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I did not mention it because, as is so often the case in so many matters, they order things better in Scotland and apparently, as my noble friend suggests, it is not necessary to provide licensing in this way. That is my advice. If my noble friend cares to look into it, and as long as he is satisfied that Scotland would not be affected in this way, I think that we could leave it at that.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, replies, as I took part in the debate on the noble Lord's amendment in Committee and supported it—indeed, I still support him although I did not speak today—may I say how grateful we are to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for going into this matter, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, on securing this amendment from the Government. We shall look forward to seeing it on Third Reading.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his support. I am, of course, particularly grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. There is no way in which we could refuse his offer of examining the amendment which the Government intend to table for Third Reading. From what he has said, I think we have every reason to believe that it will be satisfactory in covering the point that we seek to make. I confess to a very slight sense of nervousness when the Government talk about abating charges. This is a fairly good Government approach to a problem such as this, saying, "Provided you recognise our right to be unreasonable, we are prepared to say that we will, after all, be reasonable"; whereas we are seeking to ensure that someone contemplating installing a hydro-electricity plant can go to the local authority and be sure that he will not get clobbered after he has spent his money in the hope of collecting economies later. I am sure that my noble friend and I are as one on this purpose. However, I think that he will understand my slight nervousness when I hear him talking about agreements to abate charges.

I do not think that the water power users have been claiming that they should be absolved from all charges—not at all. Clearly, they accept that some kind of small charge may be legitimate. But they also believe that the onus should be upon the water authority to demonstrate that either it is losing something or is having to go to some expense to provide an amenity for which it can legitimately be expected to charge.

Finally, may I pull my noble friend's leg slightly and say that it is curious that when Mr. Marcus Fox wrote his letter from the Department of the Environment to the water authorities back in December, he was then talking about total charges of £20,000, which I mentioned during the Committee stage. Is it not remarkable that in the interval somebody has discovered another charge of no less than an extra £120,000, which of course rather alters the argument when we were saying that the water authorities do not stand to lose very much. It is a slightly unfair point to make. I do not think it is particularly relevant. I am sure that the noble Earl wants to do what we want to do, and we look forward very much to satisfying ourselves that the terminology he is going to produce will be another victory for good sense for the House of Lords. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 [Application to Northern Ireland]:

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 22, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) the reference in section 15 to the Treasury shall be read as a reference to the Department of Finance for Northern Ireland;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, after this triumph of common sense we now come to a technical amendment. Clauses 15 and Clause 27 as currently drafted would enable the Department of Commerce for Northern Ireland to make grants with the approval of the Treasury for the purposes of energy conservation advice schemes. The reference to the Treasury in the Bill is not appropriate. Under the arrangements for devolved administration in Northern Ireland the Department of Commerce obtains financial approval for the expenditure of money from the Department of Finance for Northern Ireland rather than from the Treasury. Hence my amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Back to