---

Energy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and wish to speak specifically to Amendments 14 and 15. These are the remnants of a pretty broad discussion that we had in Committee about the need to ensure consumer confidence in this scheme. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has just referred to that matter. The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin, have indicated in relatively few sentences what a complicated arrangement this might appear to consumers. One of the reasons they need assurance is because this is more than a trilateral arrangement. In most cases there will be an assessor, who should be independent, and a provider, who will be the main provider and deal with the scheme, but the actual installer might be someone entirely different and under a certified, authorised subcontract to B&Q, the bank, Marks and Spencer or whoever might be the main provider. Then behind all that, financial arrangements that are closer to the householder may or may not come further downstream. It will be confusing. For that reason, the consumer—the householder or the landlord—needs serious confidence-building measures. We were assured in Committee that some of those measures, apart from a bit of tweaking in the Bill, are already on the statute book in the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act and that they apply in this case. Most of those measures are, in fact; I am greatly reassured by that and I am grateful to the Minister for spelling that out. However, some areas are not so clearly covered by the consumer credit arrangements, and there are other markets where the consumer credit arrangements have not proved to be sufficient. My two amendments address cross-selling and mis-selling. Amendment 14 talks about the assessments being dealt with by assessors who are independent of the providers. That does not mean that they will be totally independent, but that their assessment should be made on an unbiased basis and that they do not make recommendations that are geared to the specific offers of particular providers. Were that not to be the case, not only would the consumer interest be damaged but the Government’s desire—rightly so—to make this a competitive market would be seriously undermined. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is right to say that there is ultimately no such thing as a completely objective assessment. However, it has to be an honest and clear assessment that is clear of bias towards any potential provider or installer. Amendment 14 deals with that, because there are no measures in the Bill to prevent Green Deal assessors being incentivised by providers to make assessments in their interests. It is important that the consumer is reassured on that. Similar provisions in other areas of financial credit have not proved to be sufficient to avoid biased financial advice appearing in some markets. Indeed, the FSA is still struggling with some of those issues. My second amendment deals with transparency. Again, I am not sure that the Consumer Credit Act is sufficient. There are references to fees at various points in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred to the fee for assessment, and I agree with him that it would be highly desirable if in all cases, not simply for the fuel poor, the fee for assessment was rolled up in the totality of the deal and arrangements were made for cross payment, as necessary. If you are faced with a threshold fee, that is a discouragement. You might end up paying the same money, but it should be part of the credit arrangement, not a separate arrangement. There are subsequent references to fees, not all of which are entirely clear, and some of which may relate to exit fees. I understand that exit fees are an important provision for some credit providers in different markets, but it has to be made absolutely clear in the original agreement if there is to be an exit fee. We know that in other financial markets—mortgages and others—the regulations relating to exit fees are not clear enough. Certainly in the information provided to a person taking out a mortgage it is not always spelt out sufficiently when there is a substantial exit fee. In this case, the fee may relate to the owing of money, not to the person with whom you have dealt or who installed the energy-saving measures but to a financial company that lies behind that, via an energy bill from your energy supplier, and it is important that exit fees, if they exist, are specified. It is highly desirable that exit fees should not be another inhibition to the householder or a subsequent householder when deciding to move away from a particular supplier or form of credit. Transparency is very important, and the current provisions of the Consumer Credit Act do not seem to tie this up sufficiently for application to these deals. The complexity of the arrangements, and the difficulty of explaining the range of organisations that will be involved in the totality of the deal for the average householder, make it even more important than in some other markets—where there is clearly a bilateral arrangement—that transparency exists. I therefore hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously. Just to underline this, the real danger for the Government seems to come at the beginning. If one or two of these things go wrong because consumers are put off taking up the scheme, or very early on have some misunderstanding—to put it at its most neutral—with the installer, the provider or the financial vehicle, the rumour that this is not a good scheme will spread rapidly. We all want the scheme to succeed—to have a wide take-up and make the maximum possible impact on energy efficiency. However, it could stumble at a very early hurdle unless consumers are reassured. These two measures would help to reassure them.