As with all things, I listen with great care and will, of course, having done that, discuss this with my officials. If we can improve the writing of legislation, I am always happy to look at that. However, I reiterate that this is basically a backstop power. We expect industry to deliver, but let us not be naive: there will be parts of industry that do not and will not, and we therefore need to have that measure in place. Finally, exercising this power would, of course, be subject to affirmative resolution procedures and would therefore require the consent of both Houses.
The Delegated Powers Committee’s view is that these provisions are not inappropriate, in particular since they provide for the affirmative parliamentary procedure to be used. The committee hoped that we would provide as much information as possible on the shape and content of secondary regulation, and we are currently considering what we can do to satisfy this. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, when I am asked by the Delegated Powers Committee, I try my level best to ensure that as much information is available to it as possible.
I have spoken previously about the importance of not prejudicing the models coming forward through the voluntary approach and the outcome of any formal consultation. It is for these key reasons that we have not set out the finer details of implementation within primary legislation. However, I take on board my noble friend’s concerns and hope that I can offer him some comfort. We are currently considering the
recommendations of the committee and, in particular, whether we can provide further briefing on what any secondary legislation might look like. The Shared Ownership Taskforce is due to publish its final report in October. Following that, we could consider how its final approach influences the details of implementation, but going any further than this now could prejudice the outcome of the task force’s consultation, which we would be loath to do. I hope to provide an update to the Committee on this matter before Report.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend would introduce a two-year delay to the commencement of these provisions, which I do not believe is the right approach. I will set out a few reasons for that. First and foremost, the current timescales associated with the voluntary and mandatory approaches are aligned. The policy as a whole creates the right impetus and drive to achieve our objective of substantially increasing shared ownership from next year. The potential to introduce backstop powers is intended to nudge industry to ensure that the voluntary process is sufficiently robust, but it also sends a very clear signal that we want to see offers to communities being made on the ground from 2015.
By contrast, the approach proposed by my noble friend would mean that when the voluntary approach is reviewed in 2015, if it were found to be unsuccessful, it could be at least until the end of 2017 or early 2018 before the powers could come into force. This would follow a formal consultation and the development of secondary legislation which is inconsistent with the approach set out in the community energy strategy.
5.30 pm
We want to ensure that the offer to communities becomes commonplace from 2015, and it is therefore essential to send a very clear signal to industry in order to maintain the momentum and commitment needed to achieve this aim. Delaying the potential to introduce the enabling powers, as proposed by my noble friend, would not send the right signal to industry and the community energy sector. It could risk undermining the current approach, potentially weaken the commitment to the voluntary approach and, as a result, slow down the pace at which we achieve our objective.
My noble friend asked whether we have a register of shared owned schemes. The Shared Ownership Taskforce is considering how to monitor the voluntary approach, and one of the ways in which to do that could be through a register. A decision will be made prior to the launch of its final report in October.
My noble friend also asked whether any schemes have been refused in planning. We are not aware of any shared ownership schemes being refused in planning. We are still in the initial stages of shared ownership. It would be prudent for me to come back to my noble friend and the Committee in writing with further details if there are further details to make my response fuller.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about a legislative consent Motion and the Scottish Government. We have been in discussion with the Scottish Government and they have agreed that no legislative consent Motion is required as electricity generation is a reserved matter.