Alan Whitehead
Main Page: Alan Whitehead (Labour - Southampton, Test)Energy Bill [Lords]
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there should be a non-discriminatory interest rate across green deal finance, but does he not accept that the golden rule itself is, to an extent, a measure of mitigation of what may well be universal high interest rates, set by green deal providers on the grounds that they are private companies providing finance? Does he accept that ensuring that there is a level playing field for finance in general does not resolve the problem that the golden rule may result in very few changes being made to a property as a result of high interest rates, and that additional measures such as green investment bank intervention may well be needed?
Andrew Percy
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and will be interested to hear Ministers’ response to it. Although we understand how the green deal must operate, we all want to ensure that it is made as attractive as possible and that there is as much choice as possible. What worries me is that if we go down the route proposed, poorer households and, in particular, landlords may be put off.
With risk-based pricing, I fear that people with short tenancies may be charged a higher interest rate than owner-occupiers or tenants who have lived at the same address for a long time. Short-term tenants who default may be difficult to pursue and may already have a chequered credit-rating history. More important, however, is the fact that risk-based pricing is probably unnecessary. As others have pointed out, the golden rule should mean that no one, whatever their credit rating, ends up paying a higher energy bill than they would have without the green deal.
If risk-based pricing is permitted and finance providers try to charge households with poor credit ratings higher interest rates, the total cost of the measures could exceed the golden rule threshold, with the result that such households are likely to be refused green deal finance altogether. I think that that is the point that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) was making. Although it is possible that the golden rule will hold interest rates at a reasonably low level for most consumers, it will not do that for all of them. As the Minister said, other options are available, but while the energy company obligation may help the very poorest, some consumers could be trapped between the two. I should be interested to hear his response to that as well.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we must design a system which, as well as being future-proof, can be drawn as widely as possible. I represent a great many people in private rented accommodation, particularly in Goole, and much of it is of poor quality, consisting of single-skinned brick terraced houses to which earlier schemes could not be applied because they had no cavity walls. I do not want private landlords to be deterred from encouraging tenants to take up the green deal because they fear that their properties will be devalued in the future as a result of the higher energy costs.
Many tenants have told me that they have huge problems with damp, meaning that there are rooms that they cannot use. Their houses are crying out for energy efficiency measures. I do not want them to be the ones who do not benefit from the green deal, while constituents living in leafier areas who happen to own their properties do benefit from it, and I know that the Government do not want that either.
Caroline Lucas
We discussed this matter in Committee, so I know that the Minister and I do not agree. I still do not think that the measures under the green deal will be significantly subsidised. I agree that we have the ECO pot of money for the fuel poor and hard-to-treat homes, but the figures that have been discussed in respect of the ECO are about £1 billion to £2 billion, which is a small amount given that we hope there will be mass take-up of the green deal. Most people who take up green deal provisions will therefore not feel that they are being significantly subsidised. I still do not agree with the Minister that this proposal will in its current form be attractive enough.
Dr Whitehead
In the light of the Minister’s intervention, the hon. Lady might want to point out to him that the logical consequence of setting a market rate in respect of the green deal and the golden rule is that a significant proportion of those who cannot access the green deal at a market rate will be pushed into the ECO. That underlines the point made earlier about the purpose of the ECO: is it a fuel poverty device, or is it a device to mop up, as it were, those people who cannot afford the green deal at a market rate, which the Minister appears to think is the case? If it is the case, perhaps it ought to be clearly spelled out in our discussion.
Caroline Lucas
I am extremely grateful for that helpful intervention. It focuses on some of the contradictions in respect of the purpose of the ECO, and I hope that in this debate we can make clear what exactly the ECO will be for, how big it is going to be, the extent to which it is intended to subsidise those who are in genuine fuel poverty, the extent to which it is intended to subsidise those who cannot afford market interest rates, and the extent to which it is for hard-to-heat homes. There is a lack of clarity, and I worry that ECO is being used as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, in that whenever there is a difficult question, the ECO tends to be the answer. There simply is not enough money in the ECO for it to be the answer, however. The financial community has much less appetite than has been suggested for providing affordable green deal finance, which is why the green investment bank must step in.
As Members may remember, on Second Reading the Secretary of State quoted Conor Hennebry, director of global capital markets at Deutsche Bank, as having said that
“‘the City is practically champing at the bit to finance the government’s green deal.’”—[Official Report, 10 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1059.]
That sounds very good, but the Secretary of State failed to add that Mr Hennebry went on to say:
“Financing the green deal is absolutely possible for us”—
the City—
“but whether the figures will stack up for you is a different matter.”
That is the crux of the issue: will the figures stack up in respect of rolling out this programme as widely as possible? I do not think they will. It is not at all clear that the figures will stack up for householders, unless there is Government support through either the green investment bank or the ECO. If the ECO is to be used, that is fine, but we must make it an awful lot larger and make its provisions a lot clearer.
No matter what interest rate is applied to the loans, it is vital that consumers have confidence that their rights will be protected if they take up a green deal offer, and I seek to strengthen those protections in amendments 26, 49 and 50. Amendment 26 would ensure that only products and services that reduce household emissions could be sold during green deal assessments and installation visits. Amendment 49 would ensure that consumer protections on the repayment of a green deal loan are extended to energy advice services or energy plans that are not specifically green deal plans. Amendment 50 would ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations to ensure that quotes provided for green deal goods and services are easily comparable.
Gregory Barker
That is a very important point. I do not rule it out completely. It is unnecessary to do so at this stage. But we do not anticipate that it will be necessary, and it is certainly not part of our planning and budgeting. Rather than the green investment bank subsidising interest rates at the consumer end of the journey, it is more likely that it will play a role in helping to pump-prime the liquidity in the bond market when we first see companies taking these aggregated packages of green deal finance and seeking to offer them into the bond market as new securitised products. In the long term, there is an exciting future, and there will be a lot of strong institutional demand for such products.
The conversations that we have had with the largest city institutions and banks have been encouraging and we have set up a working group. Short-term interventions to aid initial liquidity are more likely to be a fruitful use of green investment bank money. Although the coalition Government have promised £3 billion, substantially more than anyone anticipated at the general election, to fund this new important piece of financial architecture in the City of London, which will make a substantial difference to our economy and drive green growth, that money can be spent only once. The key to the green investment bank priorities must be to address market failure. We cannot keep spending that money time after time. There are many demands on the green investment bank funding, and if the market, as we believe, is capable of supplying competitive interest rates in a way that is affordable to most consumers, supported by the ECO subsidy, it would be quite wrong to use green investment bank money when we clearly need to prioritise other areas of the low-carbon economy as well.
Likewise, as the hon. Lady can imagine, DECC is pushing for an ambitious ECO. This is a huge opportunity that is extremely cost-effective, and in terms of the hierarchy of spend on the low-carbon transition, the ECO represents incredibly good value, particularly compared with forms of low-carbon generation; but, again, the ECO comes out of consumers’ bills, and there is a balance to be struck. We cannot keep pushing up the ECO, because ultimately that will start to become regressive. When the coalition came into government, we took steps to reduce consumers’ bills by taking off the cost of funding the CCS programme and taking it into general taxation. We took measures to ensure that the renewable heat programme would be funded not through consumers’ bills but out of general taxation, and that is a progressive measure. We have to ensure that we get the right balance and have an ECO that is good for consumers and does the job. We cannot treat it as a magic pot of money. It is paid by every energy bill payer, and more than ever, as world energy prices go up, they are scrutinising bills to ensure that they are getting good value for money.
Dr Whitehead
When the Minister says that he is pushing for a generous ECO, does he mean that he is pushing the Treasury to raise the cap that it has set on levies; that he is trying to ensure that the ECO is as generous as possible within the cap; that the ECO should remain outside the cap and therefore can be as large as he might wish to make it; or that the cap overall ought not to be referred further to the Office for National Statistics for a determination on whether the ECO is inside it at all?
Gregory Barker
All those issues are the subject of a constructive and thoughtful conversation between my Department and the Treasury.
Mr Weir
I agree that it is important that targets are set and delivered, but I do not agree that energy saving would necessarily be a lower priority under the guidance system, and I shall explain something about that. As the hon. Lady will know, the Scottish Parliament has often taken a different road from the UK Parliament—the central heating scheme is a classic illustration. Both the previous Administration in Scotland and the current Scottish National party Administration have taken different routes from the UK Government to deal with those matters.
The Scottish Government have decided that they will focus their efforts on each local authority’s housing strategy. As the hon. Lady rightly says, guidance has been issued. They are seeking to make it clear that that strategy and guidance are the driving force behind determining levels of investment in each local authority area—I believe that a significant piece of work was done in the highlands and islands on that basis.
The Scottish Government have also introduced Scottish housing quality standards, which every local authority and housing association must achieve by 2015, and for which an additional £1.5 billion will be spent over the next three years. In a recent case in my constituency, there was a difficulty with lack of insulation, and I took that up with the housing association. It is clear that it is very much aware of the need to react to the 2015 standard. I hope that that problem is resolved before the onset of winter, although time is running out.
The standard has already been achieved in 40% of housing in Scotland. There is still a long way to go, but that is a significant achievement. The standard assessment procedure rating achieved is 7, so clearly the standard is delivering what is necessary in those houses—it is much more effective than HECA in doing so.
In addition, the Scottish Parliament has passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which is acknowledged as world-leading legislation. The Act will drive much of what is done in Scotland. The £33 million energy assistance package has helped 150,000 people on low incomes to reduce their bills since 2009. One in six Scottish homes—a total of 145,000—have been visited for a home energy check, and there have been almost 18,000 installations. The EAP has been extended to help the most vulnerable. In addition to helping pensioners, the scheme has been extended to include disabled families with children under five, disabled children under 16, those with severe disabilities, and those who are terminally ill. The £50 million warm homes fund will also be introduced to help.
In addition to the EAP, the Scottish Government are providing £12.5 million in 2011-12 to support local councils to deliver area-based insulation to save households money, reduce emissions and tackle fuel poverty. It is hoped that councils will target areas across the country that are most in need of free insulation and other energy efficiency measures. The Scottish Government are working with local authorities to help to target the areas that are most in need, which is very much welcomed by Energy Action Scotland.
I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will not press amendment 51 to a Division, but I ask hon. Members to realise that Scotland is doing things differently. In many ways, HECA has been overtaken by events in Scotland, which is why the Scottish Government want it repealed. They want repeal not because of a desire to avoid the implications of HECA, but because they have moved in another direction. Interestingly, the Scottish Government and the Labour Government in Wales have taken a similar view. We might be going in different directions, but I hope that we are all going towards the same goal of making our homes warmer and eradicating fuel poverty among our populations.
Dr Whitehead
I want to comment briefly on new clause 11 and, in doing so, echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). With hindsight, it has been recognised that the clause concerned, which was originally pretty flawed, has been substantially strengthened and clarified as a result of its withdrawal, the discussions that followed and its emergence on Report as new clause 11. In Committee, widespread concern was expressed about that flawed clause on the grounds that it sought to replace an arrangement under the Energy Act 2008 that enabled the Secretary of State unilaterally to invoke sections 48 and 49 of the Act for the modification of a decommissioning programme regardless of any agreement made previously.
The original clause would have replaced that provision with an arrangement that appeared to enable the Secretary of State to waive the ability to make programme modifications, if circumstances changed, by making an agreement when the licensing agreement was first adopted binding him or herself in perpetuity regardless of the objective circumstances in place after the original agreement. That was clearly not satisfactory. I accept that, for logical reasons, it is difficult to place the words “unforeseen circumstances” in legislation—clearly we do not know what those would be—but I think that the question of when a programme ceases to become prudent could be better addressed.
I would be grateful if the Minister clarified a couple of issues relating to the wording of the new clause that might be referred to should a modification action be undertaken by people seeking to understand what the clause really means. I appreciate that, as I have mentioned previously, the background to the new clause is similar to the Marx brothers’ form-guide sketch in “A Day at the Races” in which they have to refer to a large number of separate documents to understand where they were in the first place. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if he confirmed that the Secretary of State may act, by him or herself, to point out that a decommissioning programme subject to the new clause had ceased to be prudent and say, “It appears to me that this programme has become imprudent and therefore needs modification.”
What those modifications might consist of would be a matter for negotiation and discussion with the site licensee. If points in the modification programme could not be agreed, a third party could come in, under proposed new subsection (3D), to determine how those points might best be resolved. When the third party—as the Minister emphasised, it would be an independent party—has resolved those previously unresolved issues, the Secretary of State would, under the proposed new subsection, be
“bound by such a determination”.
It is clear, however, that under administrative law the Secretary of State would not be able to undertake an agreement unless he was satisfied that there was adequate provision for the modification of the programme, including the understanding that the site licensee would also be bound by what the third party had determined.
It would not be logical or reasonable for the Secretary of State to undertake a programme that would enable the licensee to escape being bound by the consequences of a determination of modification and therefore simply not undertake any action relating to those modifications, even after they had been agreed. That is my understanding of the new clause. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that and placed it on the record that the process would lead to an agreed modification programme that could be instituted by the Secretary of State, but mediated by a third party, after a programme had been judged to be no longer prudent on a different programme of decommissioning.
Charles Hendry
I am grateful to hon. Members for participating in the debate. I was surprised by how many of them paid tribute to the Government for listening so hard and making changes—I almost started to wonder whether we had done too much of it. Nevertheless, we remain firmly of the view that the Bill is better as a result of the changes made. I give particular credit to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for his work with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and I thank them both for their constructive engagement in getting us to where we are, which, as I said, is better than where we started. It is perhaps an early birthday present for the hon. Member for Southampton, Test—I believe that his birthday is tomorrow—and the House can celebrate by recognising his contribution.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) for her comments about the changes that we have made to HECA. Listening to the discussions on the Opposition Benches about how best to address these matters in Scotland, I felt like we were intruding on family grief. However, I have no intention of doing that because they are matters that will properly be resolved by the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, we have to accept that the legislative consent motion is essentially an on/off switch. One either has to have HECA or get rid of it; one cannot have a little bit of HECA or have a different element within it. My understanding from our discussions is that the Scottish Government want to address these issues differently, using different mechanisms. We absolutely respect their right to make those decisions, and the changes in the Bill will simply make that possible.
The bulk of this debate inevitably focused on the nuclear clauses. The hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Angus (Mr Weir) and I will never agree on the principles of nuclear, but we all want to make sure that if nuclear power stations are built in the United Kingdom, that should be genuinely without subsidy and we should have extremely strict controls on decommissioning, safety and a range of other issues.
Dr Whitehead
I will address my remarks to amendments 9 to 12, which I tabled. I will also put those amendments in the context of the other amendments in the group headed “Energy efficiency”.
I will question to what extent the Bill is attached to anything by which it can be measured. What might we mean by the success of the green deal, the energy company obligation or the energy efficiency aspirations of the Bill? As things stand, it is difficult to attach the good ideas, aspirations and programmes in the Bill to any sort of measure. Most importantly, it is difficult to attach them to one of the key measures we currently have, which is the progress we are making in reducing our carbon emissions under the Climate Change Act 2008. That Act asked for certain actions to be undertaken by the Committee on Climate Change. In its progress reports and recommendations on meeting our carbon budgets, the Committee has increasingly involved itself in specific measures that, among other things, are the domain of the Bill, such as targets for the removal of problems relating to non-cavity wall homes through external and internal insulation. Such measures contribute to greater energy efficiency and, as a result, to reducing carbon emissions.
My amendments would do something very simple: they would require the Department to assess the cost-benefit relationship between undertaking and investing in energy efficiency measures and undertaking investment in and pursuing energy generation. It will be good for policy direction if we know the costs and benefits before mounting programmes that could have a substantial impact on either. The fact is that we do not know and no one has done that kind of work within or outside the Department, yet a substantial raft of policies have been launched on that non-understanding, including a number of policies in the Bill. Frankly, that is not a rational way to make policy, and the Department’s chief scientist, Dr David MacKay, very much agrees. He said recently:
“I agree that this is a crucial comparison to make, and I would love to see us develop a rational, quantitative approach that incentivises energy saving in the same way that, say, renewables are incentivised.”
Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 would require the Minister to assess that and report to the House to inform policy making.
Essentially, my proposals are in the same vein as several that we have debated this afternoon. New clauses 1 and 2 would explicitly link the aims of the Bill to the progress made on reducing carbon emissions and to reports from the Committee on Climate Change. The Department would have to provide a clear strategy in its plan for delivery and ensure that the strategy is based clearly on a link with climate change strategy. Similarly, in respect of putting local authorities at the heart of local carbon reduction, a requirement would be placed on the Committee on Climate Change to advise on local area carbon emissions, so that they too are linked.
We need to be able to relate the ambition—the overwhelming imperative—to reduce energy use in the residential and small business sector to what we need to achieve by certain dates in terms of improving the energy efficiency of property throughout the UK. That is one of the key areas on which the Bill remains silent. After the end of Warm Front, the carbon emissions reduction targets, the community energy savings programme and various other programmes, the green deal and the energy company obligation are the only shows in town as far as making progress on energy efficiency in homes is concerned.
The Bill sets out a number of ways in which the green deal and the ECO can move forward, but it does not set out any means by which to assess their success or appropriateness. That is significant in terms of the proposals in the Bill for the development of the ECO. We are asked to accept that an ECO of perhaps £1 billion a year will get close to achieving the loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, and solid wall insulation tasks that face the country over the next period, which relate to the Committee on Climate Change recommendations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) described a number of the scenarios that have been set out and said what we ought to be achieving for the third progress report of the Committee on Climate Change. What is the Government’s ambition within the likely terms of the Bill? Will the finance be available to get us anywhere near that ambition?
The figures suggest that by the early 2020s, using a combination of green deal, CERT extension and the ECO, we are likely to be almost 5 million properties short on loft insulation, 4.5 million short on cavity wall insulation and 200,000 short on solid-wall insulation. Those figures assume the Government’s low-scenario ambition, and although they decrease if we adopt their high-scenario intention, they still fall substantially short not only of the imperative and ambition, but of the likely finance.