Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Viscount is rehearsing Second Reading arguments. We are dealing with some very small—but very important to the developers—changes to try to ensure justice. As I indicated, the Government will get their policy and will be able to close down the onshore wind industry subsidies, as they wish to do. What we are trying to do is to ensure that this very small and limited number of cases where substantial amounts of money have already been laid out by developers in trying to take the development to planning consent—and where in some cases the council had indicated that it was minded to consent after much local discussion and engagement—should be allowed to proceed.
To us it is a question of simple justice. I read somewhere the other day that the Scottish author William McIlvanney had said that Scotland’s motto was not,
“Wha daur meddle wi’ me?”,
but was really, “It’s no’ fair”. In this case, it isnae fair. The Minister himself said, when dealing with the end of the renewables obligation for solar of 5 megawatts and below, that,
“we have aimed to strike the right balance between protecting bill payers and protecting developers who have made significant investments, while being conscious of the need to decarbonise our energy infrastructure. That is why the order makes provision for a number of grace periods, which mirror those offered last year as part of the large-scale closure. Stakeholders have welcomed this consistency”.
Well, they do not welcome the inconsistency in dealing with onshore wind. He went on to say:
“One of the grace periods was designed to protect developers who could show that a significant financial commitment had been made on or before the date on which the proposals were announced. This required evidence that a planning application had been made, among other things, as a proxy for the financial commitment”.—[Official Report, 16/3/16; col. 1915.]
It seems to me that that is entirely in line with what we are proposing in these amendments. It is a question of simple justice, and even at this late stage I ask the Minister to think hard and seriously about these matters and to respond favourably. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments A2 to A4 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. My Amendment A2 is dealt with in this grouping, so it would be appropriate for me to speak to it now, as I understand it. One of my noble friends said to me earlier, “This issue is hellishly complicated” —I am not sure whether that is an unparliamentary phrase or not—and then added, “I do not think all these three amendments make it any simpler”. I apologise if that is the case.
All three amendments are very similar to each other, but perhaps rather immodestly, I think mine makes the issue a bit clearer than the others, particularly in relation to one case that the Minister knows I have a particular interest in—I know this sounds like special pleading, and I will come to that in a moment—which is the Sorbie project near Ardrossan in North Ayrshire. I know representations have been made to him about it, and I tried to intervene—I should perhaps have got up a bit earlier—to try to get some clarification in relation to Sorbie. Government legislation can be interpreted in different ways, and if the Minister had been able to say then that Sorbie is covered by his amendments and that they will be interpreted as allowing it, it would have saved me having to speak at all. That would have been merciful, but I will speak and then see if he can say in his reply whether or not it is included.
The key difference is that my amendment expressly covers the situation where the planning authority’s decision to grant planning permission was subject to a planning agreement being entered into. I do not think that the wording of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, covers that scenario.
The lawyers who have been advising me say that my wording removes any uncertainty over whether a planning authority decision which was subject to a planning agreement being entered into can actually meet the criterion, “a grant of planning permission was resolved”. With my wording, Ofgem would not be able to say that if the planning authority made the decision subject to the planning agreement being entered into, it would not qualify.
Ultimately, the difference between the amendments is very slight and—this is the point—Ofgem might take the view that “resolved to grant” would include where this was subject to a planning agreement being entered into, because the most likely reason for a delay between a planning authority decision and planning permission, or a decision notice, being granted is that a planning agreement was required. So the principle behind both amendments is the same: that a planning agreement delayed the grant of the permission. My wording is slightly clearer on that point.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester’s excellent amendment in Motion A4 is the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, subject to one difference. As I understand it, my noble friend’s new amendment requires the planning permission to have been granted within three months of 18 June 2015, that is, by 18 September 2015. This amendment would not work for Sorbie or for Crookedstane, as the decision notices were not issued until December 2015 and January 2016 respectively. I am arguing that they should be included.
Subsection (f) of my amendment is specific to Sorbie, as it clarifies the different legislation which applied to this project as it was dealt with under delegated authority in Scotland. The existing legislation does not deal in any way with a planning application which was processed under delegated authority under the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
I want those included. It may be a bit of special pleading, but I think that noble Lords who heard me last time will agree that it is a very good case, and I want to mention it briefly again. Sorbie Farm is a dairy farm in North Ayrshire. The price of milk was going down, and it was in financial difficulties. It was advised to diversify, and one of the obvious ways of diversifying in that area was to plan a wind farm, and it decided to go ahead in that way. A great deal of effort was put into it, and a lot of investment; the farm had already invested a great deal.
If the amendment were to be carried, it would in no way challenge government policy or the whole principle. Whether or not we agree with the points made by the Minister in his introduction, that would not be contested. The position in relation to Sorbie was that North Ayrshire Council approved it in June 2014. However—my noble friend Lady Liddell will understand this very well—it was called in by the Scottish Government due to an aviation objection which was subsequently withdrawn. The application was then granted on appeal in November 2015. Although the grace period wording would, on the face of it, allow the project to proceed, it is threatened by what those advising me consider to be inadequate drafting in the Bill, which my amendment is intended to clarify. It is not clear whether the approval date would be November 2015 or the original date when it was approved.
If the Minister can consider the matter and let me know at some point during the debate that Sorbie would be included, I would certainly be happier—no, I will not say that; I am never happy about government legislation, but I would be less distressed by it as it goes through.
Notwithstanding all that, and the special pleading for Sorbie, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. It does not challenge the Government’s policy; it does not undermine the manifesto on which they were elected; it does not threaten any of the basic policy, but it brings justice to developers who were encouraged to develop renewable energy projects and who, in some cases, have invested up to £1 million each in getting them off the ground—or on the ground. They did it in very good faith, and then the ground was taken from beneath their feet by this Bill, which they were not expecting. The specifics of it were not included in the manifesto.
I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Grantchester, and even more serious consideration to accepting that Sorbie should not be excluded on the basis of this legislation as currently drafted.
Scotland Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scotland Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I concur with the noble and learned Lord and perhaps we will have a bigger attendance, although that should not in any way diminish the quality of the contributions we have had this evening, because these are important issues. With these words, perhaps we can confirm that Clause 17 will not stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt the Question is that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content; the contrary Not-Content.
The Lord Speaker
The Question is that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, as we begin Report on the Bill, we believe that it is important that the House is updated on our position on the Bill. We invite no prolonged discussion at this stage on the timing of Report.
The Bill is acknowledged on all sides of the House to be a significant constitutional Bill that has not been the subject of what is regarded as the norm for such a Bill—either public consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny. Report has been brought forward without the 14-day gap that convention requires between Committee and Report. These conventions exist for a reason. That 14-day gap allows consideration and discussion in Committee and then the formulation of amendments for Report and preparation for their debate. There has been one sitting day between the end of Committee and Report. It is for your Lordships to judge whether the many issues raised by the Bill meant that it was never going to be possible to scrutinise it properly in the time sought to be allotted by the Government.
We think it right to register the point about the gap, but the mood of your Lordships’ House has been to encourage the participants to resolve the problem by negotiation. The Opposition have supported and participated in this actively. They have been greatly assisted by the intervention of the Cross-Benchers. We have negotiated at all times in good faith. The Government indicated a basis for agreement on the main issues, to which the Cross-Benchers have responded, with our support, in accordance with the Government’s suggestions. Cross-Benchers have discussed amendments with the Government in accordance with what they believed the Government were indicating, but no agreement has been reached.
Our system of self-regulation works only if the parties are willingly to negotiate honestly and skilfully and can reach agreement. However, we want to help the process and to do so we have agreed today that we will seek to complete Report on Part 1 of the Bill today. There is a way to go, but my sense is that your Lordships want to get on. It is a token of our good faith that we seek to complete Part 1 today. No one could suggest that that was not very reasonable progress. We want this House to consider these matters in a reasoned and reasonable way, and we very much hope that the Government will respond to this. We want this House to be able to consider and, as appropriate, vote on the key issues before us on Report to encourage resolution by agreement.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, last week an amendment on public inquiries was tabled from the Cross Benches as a possible means of arriving at a compromise agreement between the Government and the Opposition. The Government promised to come back with a modified amendment. Following this there was an agreement that Committee on the Bill should be completed, as it duly was, last week. We are now on Report and we have further amendments on public inquiries, thresholds and the percentage variation. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to reiterate the role of the Cross-Benchers by laying particular emphasis on their being politically unaligned.
The amendments before us—some usefully tabled by expert Members on the Cross Benches—are to do with content, not process. As the current Convenor, I do not and cannot speak for one party or another in this debate, although as individuals, me included, we will vote according to what each of us thinks are useful amendments and what is an appropriate way forward. I can say that Cross-Benchers as a group wholly support the main task of this House, which is scrutiny. It follows that anything that might interfere with that role, be it a programme timetable, filibustering or flouting of the conventions of this Chamber, would probably not be supported. Thus the normal convention at this stage is that Report should go ahead, that reasoned arguments be put, that Divisions take place and that the Bill goes to the House of Commons by 14 February. I say with some confidence that this would be the view of the majority of the Cross-Benchers.
As your Lordships know, a great deal of negotiation has taken place. However, what is now called for is that the essence of these negotiations comes to the Floor of the House and that opinions be canvassed by means of voting. Whatever the outcome of the Divisions, the Bill would go back to the other place for consideration. This is the way in which this place has, for perhaps hundreds of years, conducted its business. Many of us might feel that we should now return to these practices and that necessary compromises are made at the final stage of the Bill, which is Third Reading, next week.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken in a most constructive way. I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when he said that this should not be the occasion for prolonged debate. I very much welcome the reiteration by the noble Baroness of her role as Convenor of the Cross-Benchers, the role of the Cross-Benchers themselves and her interest in the process of scrutiny. Individual Cross-Benchers can take different views on the content of the Bill as it progresses.
It is true that there are normal minimum intervals, which have been shrunk on this occasion. The reason for that is plain. For the Bill to become law it needs to return to the House of Commons at the end of play on Monday 14 February. That has been well known by Members of this House. However, the House has flexibility to reduce minimum intervals, and that is what we are dealing with. Indeed, some of the amendments that we will deal with today were last dealt with in Committee on 30 November. The House will feel, therefore, that we will have plenty of time to examine it. Time is not unlimited. That is an important consideration. I respect what the noble and learned Lord said about completing Part 1 today. That is right, sensible and achievable. I am sorry that he did not go on to say that he would be able to complete Part 2 this week, but I have to hold out the hope that we will be able to reach agreement so that Report can be completed this week in time for Third Reading on Monday. We will also continue to work with the usual channels, because it is also the will of the House that we should try to focus the key debates on this Bill at a time that is most convenient for noble Lords to make their voices heard in a Division.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement. We welcome the Government’s constructive approach, as set out in the statement. We on this side have repeatedly made it clear that we are ready and willing to talk. We believe that that is the right way forward. We believe that that approach is what this House wants to see and that it is right for the Bill and right for this House. We wish to preserve the self-regulating nature of your Lordships’ House.
In his wise intervention last week when we last considered the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made clear his support for negotiations because, as he put it,
“it has always been the way to work”.
Looking for,
“a spirit of real co-operation”,—[Official Report, 19/01/2011; col. 405.]
he hoped that we would have some concessions from Her Majesty’s Government and that we will respond constructively. I very much agree with that view and with the view from the Cross Benches, which was expressed so well by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, and the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who said:
“I urge that the Government and the Opposition redouble their efforts to reach a compromise so that the debate can proceed in a timely fashion and we are able to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill in a timely fashion with the necessary compromises on both sides having been achieved”.—[Official Report, 19/01/2011; col. 401.]
We on these Benches very much agree with these views. In that spirit, I can report to the House that I and others met Ministers last week on these matters and put proposals to the Government, although so far this has not borne fruit. There have been further contacts over the weekend and we have sought to do all we can to promote further discussions, so we are profoundly grateful for the statement that the Leader of the House has given today. We are, as the noble Leader says and as the House is aware, at an impasse. The Government’s right to get their business done in reasonable time has to be balanced with the Opposition’s right, and indeed responsibility, to give reasonable scrutiny to any Bill but particularly to an important Bill of considerable parliamentary and constitutional significance.
The House has faced such an impasse before on a number of occasions and has met and resolved it by the House giving leadership. That is both what we need to do now and what I hope we will do now. The Leader of the House had three principal points in his statement and our response to them is as follows. We will continue to involve ourselves constructively in any discussions. We will consider constructively any of the Government’s proposals, as indicated in the statement today by the Leader of the House. We will participate constructively in any wider discussions beyond the Bill currently in front of us about the conventions of the House.
The statement from the Leader of the House indicates that the will for discussions is now there. We welcome that, although it will of course be for the discussions themselves to show whether that will translates itself in practice into specifics. Concrete progress is required on the issues of concern in the Bill. With concrete progress, I am confident that we can resolve the impasse before us, but that will involve give and take. In the mean time, we will continue to maintain the level of scrutiny that we have been applying to the Bill, with many amendments in front of us yet and considerable scrutiny still to be carried out in this Committee.
This House had a tough and difficult time last week. We debated the Bill long into the night. I do not know whether the House faces a tough and difficult time this week as well. However long we sit, we on this side stand ready for constructive and positive discussions. We welcome the fact that the Government are indicating their readiness to take the same constructive and positive approach.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I speak on behalf of the Cross-Benchers. It will come as no surprise that there is deep concern among us about the breakdown in the conventions and procedures of this House. I thank the Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his words today, but would like to muse a little further on the possible consequences for this Chamber.
Scrutiny is our job, but I doubt that a reasonable person would conclude that the speeches in the dark hours of the night last week, and maybe even again tonight, represent scrutiny or sensible revision. We are therefore forced to believe that it is the Opposition’s intention to delay the Bill beyond the date on which it would be possible to have a referendum: 5 May.
Many Cross-Benchers, of course, hear the justifiable worries that the Opposition have expressed about the lack of scrutiny of certain parts of the Bill, and I am sure that we acknowledge the difficult combination of two contentious issues for reasons of political expediency. We recognise that the date of 5 May was always, to say the least, an unhelpful goal. I think everyone would also agree that there is some legitimate question about whether the Salisbury/Addison convention really should apply to this Bill.
Despite all this, I hope that I am expressing the views of the majority of Cross-Benchers in saying that the tactics that the Opposition are using to delay the Bill fly in the face of the conventions that have governed this House for perhaps the past six decades, that these tactics undoubtedly bring this House into disrepute, that any success of such tactics may well encourage their further future use, and that these factors put together may even mark the beginning of the dissolution of this House. I say this with some reluctance—even to me, it sounds somewhat dramatic—but I believe it to be true. Why would the public, let alone the other place, choose to support a Chamber that is seen to be deeply unserious in undertaking the role of revision and scrutiny? We are at a dangerous crossroads.
As everyone knows, the Cross-Benchers are fastidiously independent and non party political. What I say is absolutely not anti-Opposition; indeed, as has been said and was shown by Cross-Benchers in this House last week, we very often support the Opposition in their valuable amendments. No, our collective concern—for once, perhaps we are acting as a group—is that the self-regulation and fundamental tasks of this House are sufficiently valuable to be preserved. We therefore both understand the need for and urge that there be significant compromises on both sides of this House so that we may proceed with dignity and resolve.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has just said is of extreme importance. She has summed up very well what is at stake in an issue that has far greater repercussions than the source of the differences between the two sides of the House. We do indeed put at risk the whole reputation of the House of Lords as a place of intelligent and thoughtful discussion, where from time to time essentially bipartisan considerations give way to the greater needs of the constitutional issues that affect the United Kingdom and its people.
In that context, observing this as someone who has not taken detailed part in the debate, it seems clear to me that there is some room to move on both sides. I suggest that one of the issues that might be moved on is that of giving slightly more discretion to the Boundary Commission on constituencies with a natural community. The House’s choice on the issue of the Isle of Wight showed how strongly it shares that view, and it is only sensible to do that within the narrowest conceivable limits, which basically means equal-sized constituencies while recognising that some issues have to be given rather more discretion than the present Bill gives them.
In exchange for that, it is vital that the Opposition accept their responsibility and cease to create what is in effect a filibustering lobby—for that is what it is. It is high time, speaking as someone who cares very much about this House as an essential element in a sensible, thoughtful and responsible democracy, that it is accepted that there should be some relatively small movement on both sides so that we can get an agreement and decision on this issue within the next few days and, to put it bluntly, cease to lose the respect that we so much need, and usually deserve, from the rest of the country.