I return now to the issue of fees and how they are referred to in a rather different context. Both this amendment and my next group of amendments relate to references to fees. Clause 30 covers powers to deal with special circumstances. The first of the special circumstances is the suspension or cancellation of the Green Deal. Subsection (2) refers to the provision setting out the procedure, "““for securing a suspension or cancellation (including the payment of an administration fee calculated in accordance with the regulations)””."
It is the bit in brackets that I am seeking to change. If a Green Deal arrangement is to be cancelled, it is presumably for one of two reasons: either because the provision under the Green Deal has not met the specifications—in other words, the provider has defaulted—or because the repayer, whether or not they were the original repayer, is now in circumstances where they cannot repay. In either of those circumstances, it seems inappropriate, in addition to cancelling the deal, to charge a payment. It is therefore odd that there is reference at that point to the payment of an additional fee. Even though it is referred to as an administration fee, in the circumstances it is an additional payment. It is conceivable that there are other circumstances than the two that I have suggested, but I cannot think of them. If the Minister’s imagination is better than mine, no doubt she will tell us.
The second such provision relates to subsection (2)(d), which goes back to the argument about early repayment. If the original agreement was clear, the terms of early repayment would be clear. As it stands, this runs into the same difficulty that I referred to an hour or so ago, which is that a new occupier or a new landlord might have to meet a repayment fee—to which they had not previously been committed, as they were not the original signer of the agreement—for deciding that on all other grounds they wished to repay early. It is not clear, as it is not clear in many other respects, why a fee should be paid for early repayment or exit. Because we have seen exit fees abused in other areas of energy provision, I would be deeply suspicious of the primary legislation referring to an exit fee in this form. No doubt we will return to this issue when we come to the details of defining the situations to which this applies, but in the primary legislation the apparent presumption that a fee is involved should be deleted. I beg to move.
Energy Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Whitty
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Energy Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c108-9GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:57:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_702402
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_702402
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_702402