Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill [HL]
Lord Whitty ExcerptsFriday 7th February 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am intervening in this debate to support the Bill, at least as far as it goes, to call on the Government to give it their backing and to ask the usual channels to facilitate its rapid movement through the House. Also, like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I shall put the Bill in its wider context.
It was 2015 when we last had a fresh, clear and comprehensive fuel poverty strategy. There was the start of a consultation last year, but we have yet to have any clarification as to the outcome of it or what the Government will do about it. Clearly, we need that as rapidly as possible.
Fuel poverty arises from the interplay of three broad aspects: inadequate household income; expensive energy bills, sometimes because of seriously inappropriate tariffs; and the inefficiency of the fabric of the building and its energy supply. A fuel poverty strategy needs to operate on all these fronts so that we get higher income into those households—if necessary, supported by the benefits system; lower prices and appropriate tariffs for those most likely to be affected by fuel poverty; and an effective intervention to improve insulation, energy supply and energy efficiency generally within the buildings in which the fuel-poor live.
It is nearly 20 years since I was the Minister with responsibility for this. We had some success on all three fronts. Specifically, we had a comprehensive taxpayer-funded intervention system to improve the fabric of domestic buildings. We still have a similar system in Scotland and Wales, but not in England. We also benefited from falling gas prices at that time, which was fortuitous and not my fault—at least, I do not claim credit for it. It was clear that fuel poverty was falling considerably under the old definition, although it would have fallen also under the new definition. Unfortunately, since about 2005 or 2006, there has hardly been a year when at least one of those three features has not been conspicuously absent.
Some interventions have undoubtedly taken a number of the fuel poor out of that category. I will not argue again about the new definition; it has some advantages as well as disadvantages. But the fact remains that fuel poverty—30 years on from when we first started defining it—is still an intractable problem for millions of households. Instead of appropriate tariffs, we have had the warm home discount and the winter fuel payment. These are very welcome to households because they help to pay the bill, but they do nothing to change the misguided structure of the tariffs or to engender energy efficiency within the household. Most of the social interventions that are now provided—I pick up on the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in relation to a subsidy for green energy—are paid for by what amounts to a poll tax on all consumers. This is resented, it is unfair and it is not the appropriate way to fund such interventions, because those who are fuel poor themselves in some cases or who are just above the threshold are effectively paying for the system.
Incidentally, this very morning I half-heard on the news at 7 o’clock that the Treasury might be looking at an income tax-based system. I listened carefully but did not hear that item repeated, but there was an item in relation to the Ofgem review of the cap, so it may well have been in that context. I would be delighted if the Minister could assure me that a move towards funding through general taxation was at least being considered by the Treasury and that I did not mishear it.
In 2014, secondary legislation defined the energy efficiency of buildings—or the target for it—by reference to EPC level C. I think that with a bespoke programme we could do slightly better, but I support this Bill in ensuring that the target is at least put into primary legislation. In broader terms, we need to improve the energy efficiency of all domestic premises, because of our climate change obligations and because heating in housing is a significant part of our total carbon use and is largely gas-based. We need to take some early decisions on how to decarbonise the provision of heating in our housing. Are we going for electrification in some form or other? It would be highly disruptive, given the millions of households with radiators, as compared with gas, but nevertheless may be the better solution, particularly if we cannot find a formulation for biogas or hydrogen-based gas that does not itself cause significant carbon emissions. Either way, a decision on that strategic choice is needed very early.
Other aspects of the Bill deal with energy efficiency of all domestic buildings. I would argue that the obligation should not be on just mortgage holders to describe the house; it should be on all those who are selling, including estate agents and, in relation to new build, it should be on builders, developers and indeed the local authorities that give the planning permission. This is so that we can begin to raise the energy efficiency of all premises. That should be part of a clear dimension for reducing carbon. We also need a clearer dimension for fuel poverty itself. Can the Minister say when we will get a new fuel poverty strategy and also when we will get a statement on energy policy more widely? I would be very grateful if he could give me a date for both of those because, at the moment, there are a lot of aspects of energy policy, including fuel poverty, that are floundering without a sense of direction. I support this Bill and hope that it goes through the House as rapidly as possible.
Climate Change
Lord Whitty Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing us to this report. It makes extremely interesting reading and I agree with many of its conclusions; not all of them—I am slightly more techno-optimistic—but I agree, essentially, that we cannot just expect some technological solution to turn up, unless we invest in it and understand the limitations. That means that we should focus on using technologies that already exist, or are very close, to change behaviour over the next 10 or 20 years.
One statistical point: we may call it net zero or absolute zero but whether we succeed in offsetting the challenges to our climate—and therefore to our society and way of life—depends not on reaching that point by 2050 but on how we reach it. We need to make dramatic reductions in the early part of the next 30 years. That means concentrating on the technologies we already have because a straight-line reduction will not do it, nor will delaying until the 2040s. We need to do it in the next 10 years.
The challenge that will face Governments, and our Government in particular since we will chair the Glasgow conference, is to ensure that we adopt on a multinational basis policies that will make a real impact. But those who will gather at Glasgow—the leaders of our nations and indeed Members of this House—are partly responsible for this situation. We tend to think that carbon in the atmosphere has gone up since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution but over half of the carbon concentrated up there now has been put there by us since the Rio conference, and therefore since the point when there was clear scientific consensus and most political leaders accepted that consensus. Yet we have failed to reverse the direction in which the planet is going. This means that the responsibility is on us and our contemporaries in other countries to ensure that we take effective steps, at Glasgow and immediately beyond, towards a coherent approach to this.
It is clear that Governments have not done enough yet to convince the population to be prepared to accept changes in their lifestyles. The evidence provided to us by Citizens Advice shows that, yes, 80% of people recognise that we need to make changes, but in relation to specifics, such as changing the heating system in your house, less than 30% are prepared to do so. We have a long way to go. Governments have persuasion but have not yet persuaded.
However, they have stronger measures at their disposal. Changes to consumers’ behaviour come not from moral virtue, or through taste or fear of the future, but from the price of the product at the time they buy it. If we are trying to switch consumer behaviour away from the ever-increasing size of cars powered by petrol or diesel, we have to take fairly draconian measures in taxation to favour low-carbon and smaller cars. If we are to change our behaviour on household heating, we have to make some systems changes, which may involve using either hydrogen or electrification for domestic heating. We need an early decision on which we are going to do—or whether we will do them both—but moving in that direction will also mean that we need to persuade individual households and businesses to reduce the temperature within their buildings in the interim.
The interventions by government have to be fairly draconian. Price increases brought about through taxation are never popular but if we are to change behaviour, we will have to grasp that nettle—and grasp it with our colleagues, particularly in the developed nations, so that there will be no way in which some nations will beggar their neighbour and undercut the consensus that we need change. It means that the European Union, the United States and other developed countries need to act in concert, in a way that will probably alienate some of their citizens but will mean that they do not undercut each other.
A lot of technologies are there or almost there. Even in aviation, there are some possible benefits in taking small steps but unless we change the overall behaviour of our citizenry and businesses, we will not get there. We need to do that on an international basis; Glasgow is the first step towards doing just that.
Nuclear Power Stations
Lord Whitty Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a wider strategy and all the points that have been raised, but the Question refers to learning lessons from the reduction during the heatwave in capacity in the French nuclear power system. Is he utterly confident that the French system will share those results in view of our imminent departure from Euratom and ending all other agreements with our French partners?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord will be aware that the French nuclear system is based primarily on riverine cooling, whereas that in the UK is based on marine cooling. Two plants in France had to be turned off because of the situation in the rivers. We do not have any issues in that regard, but we will learn lessons because it is important to do so. The Office for Nuclear Regulation must learn lessons not only from what happens at home but from what happens abroad.
Update on Grenfell Response and Building Safety
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, very much for his usual characteristic, constructive approach in seeking to address this as representatives across the board. On locality, we have said that we will rehouse affected families from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk in either the borough of Kensington and Chelsea or in an adjoining borough, so we have widened the issue in the way he suggests. However, I come back to the point that families are able to say that a particular home is not suitable. They will no doubt want to take their children’s education into consideration. We have also sought to provide a means of concentrating on bereaved families as the first set of families we want to rehouse. However, we are obviously taking into account as many of the factors that the noble Lord raised as possible to make sure that we deal with needs as they arise.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, in an otherwise comprehensive reply to the Front Benches, I did not detect—I am sorry if I missed it—a reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about a broader review of social housing, to which the Prime Minister made reference in her July Statement. Can the Minister say more about that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord. I think he is right: I missed it. It was in my notes to cover. I certainly can confirm that Sir Martin Moore-Bick did not seek to make that issue part of the inquiry for the very valid reason that it is only right as regards the tenants, the bereaved families and the people of the estate that we focus pretty much laser-like on the block. However, the Prime Minister has said that we will look at the position in relation to social housing and review it. The Housing Minister wants to look at that and will talk to organisations and tenants about it. As noble Lords can understand, at the moment he is under immense time and emotional pressure in dealing with this issue but it is very much in the in-tray. However, it is slightly separate from the specific issue of Grenfell Tower.
Localism Bill
Lord Whitty Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in moving Amendment 38 I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. We have come to the housing revenue section of the Bill and my amendments would delete the lot. I suspect that if the Chief Whip were in her place she would say that I am using Committee procedures because potentially I am using a clause stand part Motion to get some clarification of the Government’s intentions. In other words, this is a probing amendment and I do not expect to seek a vote on it. Indeed, I think I probably support the general direction of government policy in this area. However, it is an area that was not discussed at all in Committee and is one in which, to my knowledge, in all the copious material that the Minister has provided for us, we have not had a comprehensive statement of the Government’s intention. Perhaps I missed it, but I have not seen a clear statement of where we are going on housing revenue.
Housing revenue means two different things. It means the allocation between housing authorities so that some are losers and some are winners in a national reallocation process that seems in part to be reproduced in these provisions, and it is a protection at the individual local authority level to ensure that rental and other income received for housing purposes is actually recycled for those purposes. That protection is not always quite adequate, but nevertheless it is part of the long-existing provision. On previous occasions when housing revenue stipulations have been significantly changed, there has been a whole Bill that has gone through a number of procedures. Here we are squeezing them into a very large Bill in which, to my mind at least—although again I should say that I may have missed it—the Government have not spelt out their intentions. The last Government made a start on this, and by and large I approved of the Minister’s approach, but I have not seen a similar comprehensive statement of where we wish to end up.
There are a lot of complicated provisions here, particularly in regard to the formal abolition of subsidy to the balance between what the Secretary of State allocates to different authorities. No new formula has been proposed, but neither is it clear that the old formula will still operate. One has to say that the old formula was pretty opaque and gave rise to some disgruntlement in a number of local authorities. The Government owe us a clear explanation of where we are going on the housing revenue account, and if it already exists I would be grateful for it. If not, I am happy for the noble Baroness to write to me in the interval between now and Third Reading, but I do not think that this House should let what could be a major strategic redirection on housing revenue provisions pass without comment.
Some of my colleagues have tabled detailed amendments, but my amendments are intended to give the Government an opportunity to explain what their strategy is. At least the position will then be clear so that by Third Reading we can decide whether we agree with it or not. Given the way I am trying to use these amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness will take them as they are intended, in a spirit of inquiry, and give us greater clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would leave out a whole series of clauses that relate to the housing revenue account. I have added my name to Amendment 46, which would leave out just one of those clauses. That implies that I am happy with the others, as indeed I am.
The housing revenue account is regarded in local government circles as well past its sell-by date and there is general acclaim for its abolition. It is a significant aspect of the localism agenda that financial responsibility for council housing is to be put back into the hands of councils. In place of pooled debt and pooled rents, each council involved will henceforth assume direct responsibility for housing debt according to its ability to repay it, and it will keep all the income from rents for managing and maintaining its own council stock. Efficiency gains on its rented account will go back into improved housing provision. These are helpful reforms, but they stop well short of giving councils the full financial independence that could enable proper asset management of their housing resources and harness significant prudential investment in new homes. These freedoms are enjoyed by even the smallest housing association.
Amendment 46, in leaving out Clause 158, would remove the restriction on councils that want to borrow prudentially—knowing that they can repay what they borrow—for housing purposes. When councils move to a self-financing regime with the housing revenue account buyout on 1 April 2012, they will face new restrictions on borrowing for housing purposes—a new capping regime—despite the continued presence of the prudential code that has operated perfectly well since 2003. The chairman of the Local Government Group points out that it has demonstrated on many occasions that councils have a strong record of sound financial management and manage borrowing responsibly in accordance with the prudential code. He says that local government’s view is that these rules to which it adheres provide sufficient protection that councils will undertake only borrowing that is affordable, and that imposing a cap on councils’ ability to borrow for affordable housing will severely restrict their ability to invest in an increased number of affordable homes, which government wants to see. Paradoxically, housing associations are being encouraged at exactly the same time to borrow a lot more to replace the shortfall resulting from smaller grants. A lot of housing associations are borrowing more, but not councils, which must accord with the new cap. The Local Government Group says that it hopes that if government will not remove the new cap, Ministers will at least consider committing that local government will be properly consulted in determining the level at which the cap is to be set for each authority to allow some crucial further investment on a sustainable basis. I support the removal of the clause as proposed by Amendment 46.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord about that. I do not have a firm answer as to why that should be the case, although it may well be that someone is sending me a document on that. It is suggested that the existing power in the Local Government Act 2003 allows central government to,
“by regulations set limits in relation to the borrowing of money by local authorities”,
in order to ensure that the local authority does not borrow more than it can afford. While this power provides powers to cap local authority debt, it links local caps to local affordability. Our concern is not that councils will act in ways that are imprudent locally but that on aggregate these borrowing decisions may be unaffordable nationally. That is the situation there. If that does not cover the point, though, as I indicated earlier, I will write.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to explain all this to me in simple language. I now understand that this is all about self-financing, which I have supported in the past and therefore continue to support. It is just that, due to the way the clause reads, it seemed to me that the one-off payment was not the result of a deal but was by the unilateral decision of the Secretary of State. Maybe that is the way that it has to be expressed in legislation, but I am grateful for the offer of a paper clarifying that. I still think that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, need a fuller riposte, and maybe the Minister could come up with that as well. In the mean time, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.