Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lea of Crondall (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 February 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Energy Bill [HL].


Energy Bill [HL]

I am pleased about that. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and as he is not here, he cannot deny it. I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for his broad support. I totally take his point about the need to make some adjustment. I say to my noble friend Lord Judd that rationing by price is a rather crude but accurate way of describing the world we live in. Whether it is capitalism or socialism, rationing by price is a fact of life in the middle of India or anywhere else. We also have to bear in mind that if we cannot change the income distribution in this country to be more reasonable than the outrageous distribution at the moment, we will have to fiddle around with a lot of discounts, exceptions and adjustments. Unfortunately, the question would then be whether so many people would be excluded from the heavy incidences of some of those price rises that we would not raise the revenue or have the carbon effect that we wished. That is the moral hazard that we are into, and it requires a lot of thought. My penultimate point is that I do not think that today is the day when Treasury officials in the Room are going to stand up and say, ““We’ve fallen in love with hypothecation””. What I am suggesting is in the Treasury’s interest. The priesthood in the Treasury is not separate from the rest of society, and we want to encourage it to be part of fronting up some of these matters. The consultative body and all the stakeholders have got to be able to communicate with Burton upon Trent. I think that community needs to be brought together. Finally, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham was very kind in what he said. I can assure him that we are at one in wanting to get this in a form that does not have all the teething points. I do not think the amendment as it stands states as crudely as he implied that we put all these taxes into one bundle and redistribute them in energy. I go halfway to that to make sure that the quantum is clearly identified. I recognise that this is mainly for general taxation, but in Burton upon Trent, it is a huge selling point to be able to say, ““This is what we are doing with some of the money””. I want to be a bit pedantic about that distinction. I hope that it is acceptable for me to say that one bundle does not quite sum up what I was trying to say. I will conclude on that note. Although I hope that we can come back to this on Report with a slightly different amendment, I would like to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 37A withdrawn. Amendment 37B not moved. Clause 102 : Repeal of measures relating to home energy efficiency Clause 102 : Repeal of measures relating to home energy efficiency Debate on whether Clause 102 should stand part of the Bill.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c73-4GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Conservation Housing Licensing Energy Heating Exploration Prices Offshore industry National park authorities Renewable energy Taxation Wind power Broads Authority Coal Authority Geothermal power
Legislation
Energy Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk