Baroness Smith of Basildon
Main Page: Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour - Life peer)Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendments 81, 82 and 83, which stand in my name and were aired in Committee, seek to address the problem that the Green Deal may make very modest inroads into the problems of poor standards of insulation in the private rented sector. The Government’s impact statement for the Bill recognises this problem and there was agreement in Committee on the difficulties of reaching those of the 1.2 million private landlords who own substandard properties.
In anticipation of continuing problems of getting landlords to take action, the Bill proposes giving enforcement powers to local authorities and giving tenants the right to trigger the necessary action. However, the Bill’s measures kick in, as we have discussed in relation to earlier amendments, only after a review has been concluded and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the measures will not deter lettings in the future.
My amendments cut to the chase, making sure that if there is only limited take-up of the Green Deal and if all other ways of securing action by private landlords were to fail, by 2016 it would no longer be legal to let properties with the very worst energy performance. Making the position clear would mean that all landlords and, very importantly, all managing agents—they look after some 60 per cent of private rented properties—know that they have five years to get the substandard premises up to the very modest E rating with 10 years to move them up to the D level.
Perhaps I may advance three reasons why these amendments, very carefully brought together by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Friends of the Earth with considerable support from Members in another place, would help the Bill’s objectives in this tricky area of the private rented sector. First, setting a minimum standard as a legal requirement for letting greatly increases the chances of success in getting the works done to the more than 740,000 offending properties. The take-up of Warm Front and the CERT scheme has been poor in the PRS, and the misery of cold homes with attendant wasteful carbon emissions seems unlikely to end without the sanctions which a legal requirement for letting would bring.
As well as fixing the ongoing problems of fuel poverty for some 150,000 PRS tenants, the amendments would reduce problems of fuel debt. Citizens Advice tells me that it had more than 100,000 inquiries last year, which was up 33 per cent on the previous year, from people with fuel debts. A minimum energy efficiency standard of band E would save on average £488 for an average outlay of only £2,535, which would be a very fair rate of return. At the same time, according to the Energy Saving Trust’s research for Friends of the Earth, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has mentioned, these measures would save 1.87 million tonnes of climate-changing carbon dioxide each year, which Friends of the Earth calculates as being equivalent to taking 800,000 cars off the road. I guess that the Minister shares the widespread view that achieving a minimum standard will require sanctions at a later date. These amendments give that process the necessary teeth without the delays and uncertainties inherent in the proposed review and its aftermath.
Secondly, landlords and their agents are well used to complying with statutory requirements. The simplest comparison here is the duty to obtain a gas safety certificate. Obtaining an energy performance certificate with a rating of E or above is just as straightforward and, since few landlords would deliberately flout the law, can be expected very quickly to become a normal part of the letting process. I emphasise my point that managing agents are important in this regard. Few agents wish to bother their landlords with suggestions for extra spending or give themselves more work. But virtually all agents, as responsible corporate entities that are much easier to reach than individual landlords, will make sure action is taken if it is a legal requirement.
As the Bill is drafted, no action will be required of the landlord or the tenant until such time as the review has been concluded, powers have been granted to local authorities, and local authorities have taken decisions to act and given the requisite notice, et cetera. The reality is that this leisurely timescale, which stretches past the next general election with no certainty of its outcome, means that all those who are not minded to take these matters seriously will simply sit on their hands.
Thirdly, the proposed arrangements, assuming the necessary powers are granted in 2014 or 2015 to local authorities and tenants, rely on either or both of those parties taking the necessary action. Local authorities may already have the power to act against landlords who let the very coldest homes because these properties are likely to fail the test set out in the housing health and safety rating system. Yet despite these existing powers, local authorities, which have a lot of other priorities to handle, are not exercising them. Recalcitrant landlords can be fairly confident that few local authorities will chase after them if and when extra powers are granted to those local authorities.
Meanwhile, the fallback of expecting tenants to take matters into their own hands seems even less likely to achieve results. A very high proportion of tenants stay little more than a year in their rented property while, with the loss of security of tenure since 1988, all will recognise the high risk of not seeing their tenancy renewed or even of receiving a couple of months’ notice to quit if the landlord sees them as acting against his or her interests. How much better would be the legal protection given by these amendments to the tenant, and how much simpler, cheaper and more effective for local authorities, if they need only to ask for the necessary certificate in the knowledge that if it is not available the landlord is not permitted to let the property.
I suggest that in achieving what the Government wish—a minimum standard, even if it is at a low level in the next five years, with clarity and certainty for landlords and tenants, and ease of administration for local authorities—these amendments, which are so strongly supported by the wide membership of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Friends of the Earth, do the job to good effect at less cost to the public purse.
I should add that Amendment 82 provides for exemptions for meeting the minimum standards, while Amendment 83 gives local authorities the powers to do the works themselves if landlords fail to take action or face fines. I am sure that these consequential amendments could be improved by the Minister’s department.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the exemptions from the legal requirement in Amendment 81 to give reassurance to landlords who are anxious about meeting a statutory minimum level of energy performance. It would be sensible for local authorities to have discretion to exempt properties in several circumstances; namely, listed buildings and properties in conservation areas, and national parks where there are special planning requirements affecting the interior or the exterior of the properties.
In relation to the debate on excluding properties where the tenant wishes to refuse consent for the Green Deal, an exception might be made here for regulated tenancies where a tenant does not wish to be disturbed. There are 100,000 regulated tenancies out of more than 3 million private sector tenancies. These tenancies have been in place since at least 1988. Unlike shorthold tenancies used in the rest of the PRS where the average length of stay is 14 months, a regulated tenancy has been going for 22 years or more. Because the occupiers have security of tenure, they are unlikely to move. Although these tenants would be well advised to accept the upgrading to their properties necessary to meet the minimum energy performance standards by 2016, I can see the case for respecting their right to veto any works to their home if they cannot face the upset.
I hope that the Minister, who has made so many excellent changes to the Bill so far, will see the sense of these amendments and take them away with a promise perhaps to bring back something similar at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling on this issue from the debates we have had in Committee and from the two powerful speeches we have had this evening.
I speak not only to my Amendment 70, but also to the amendments in the group. They seek to achieve the same ends but by slightly different means. Their ambition is the same: to improve substantially the quality of the private rented sector in terms of energy efficiency. There is broad agreement on the aim; the differences are about how we best achieve that.
We should address the real concerns of the impact on those people who live in homes that are not energy efficient. In Committee we looked at the wider impact of cold homes. We spoke of the impact on those with homes rated in bands F and G. It is worth noting again, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the Chief Medical Officer has estimated that the annual cost to the NHS of winter-related illnesses is more than £850 million. It is huge; it is absolutely massive. That is not just across the private rented sector; but some of the worst homes, some of the least energy-efficient homes, are in the private rented sector.
I want to say something about the impact that has on the individual. None of us in your Lordships’ House tonight lives in a private rented home that is rated band F or band G. Neither would we want to. If we did, we should be paying an extra 50 per cent in fuel bills to heat our homes to the same level as a band E rated property. If those properties rated F and G were brought up to band E standard, the difference would be between £500 and £800 for the bill payers. It can make a massive difference.
The energy scale goes from band A to band G. Band G is the worst for private rented homes. If we raise that standard to band E, it would take about 150,000 private rented households out of fuel poverty. That is 150,000 families with children and older people—25 per cent of all private rented households—who are currently in fuel poverty. Forty per cent of F and G rated properties can meet the standard for less than £1,500 per property. The average cost is about £270 per property. Sixty per cent of F or G rated private rented properties could meet this standard for less than £5,000. The amounts we are talking about, which would make a massive difference, are not great. I believe we can do this. Landlords with poor-performing property should be given help and advice about how to meet the standard and there should be a substantial increase to the landlords’ energy saving allowance.
I do not think that the wider public know what we are talking about when we talk about F and G rated property being brought up to E standard. It becomes a jargon. I asked Friends of the Earth and ACE to give me some case studies of what it means to people. What is the difference? What is the impact on people living in these properties? These people gave Friends of the Earth permission to publish their stories on condition that they only gave their names and the general location of where they lived. Susan from Abergavenny said:
“My 11 year-old daughter and I are currently moving out of a rented house. The house is freezing cold, with no draught proofing and draughty sash windows with huge visible gaps in the window frames. During the recent cold weather, ice formed on the inside of the window each morning. On Christmas Day, I was able to write ‘Happy Christmas Ellie!’ on it. Despite asking my landlady to help on this issue, she said it was our concern to keep the house warm.
We spend enormous amounts on heating but are never warm”.
This is repeated over and over again. Kristie from Pinner lives in a one-bedroom flat on her own. She says that her heating bills are 12 per cent of her monthly income. She says:
“I have told my landlord about this and asked for a better heating system, but he said it’s too expensive”.
Jennifer from Nottingham says:
“This winter has been unbearable in the house, no matter how long we put the heating on for the house remains freezing. I visited my doctor at home over Christmas with a cough that I’ve had for over 3 months now. He said that the house has probably given me a lung sensitivity and I am now on an inhaler to try to help it”.
These are real people suffering day in and day out. Environmental health officers, GPs and a midwife all tell the same story.
There are some glimmers of hope. Jenny from Norwich tells us:
“As an elderly landlady with a single small property rented out, I put my tenant’s warmth and health as high as my own. Two years ago they had an up-to-date boiler installed and this year, during other renovations, the attic insulation was increased to current standards and the gas fire replaced. If, as someone living on a smallish pension, I can afford to do this, then so can more regular landlords”.
I shall not continue with these stories, but I am sure noble Lords would find them as emotive and as heart-breaking as I do.
It seems that there are two or three key issues before us today with the amendments. One is the regulations to improve energy efficiency in the private rented sector. We had lengthy debates on this in Committee. The general view was that we needed action on this as soon as possible. I have no objection to any review being undertaken of energy efficiency in the private rented sector, but there is no justification to use this as a delay for bringing in regulations.
“Local carbon budgets
For the purposes of ensuring local authorities assist in meeting the United Kingdom’s carbon budgets under section 4(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (carbon budgets), the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on proposals for introducing local carbon budgets by December 2011.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this amendment deals with an issue that we discussed in Committee. Most noble Lords in the Chamber now were in Committee, so to the relief of the House I will not repeat all the comments made. We are very supportive of the issue of local carbon budgets and keen to see progress. We have deliberately worded the amendment in a way that gives the Minister some flexibility to report back to the House and to Parliament on this issue.
However, if we are really to make a difference in reducing our carbon emissions, we need to engage locally and work with local government. If we look across the board at where the support lies, Greg Barker has given his support as has the Federation of Small Businesses, which e-mailed many noble Lords today to say that it supports local carbon budgets and wants to work with local authorities and the community to reduce emissions. The trade unions, the workforce and the Audit Commission all see enormous value in having local carbon budgets so that local authorities and communities can play their role not just in their own estates and properties, but in their wider communities, whether we are talking about transport or domestic properties. Actions can be taken and advice and support can be given by local authorities working with the Government and working with their local communities to ensure that we reach the kind of targets and reduce our emissions in line with targets that the Government have set. The Climate Change Act 2008 set targets for the Government. Those targets can best be met if we work with local authorities and local communities.
I hope that the Minister can update us on the action that can be taken and I hope at some stage that he can assure us that there will be a report back to this House and the other place to show how the Government can work with local authorities to ensure that we have local carbon budgets really making a difference and settling this issue.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I support my noble friend. This is a crucial amendment and I hope that the Minister can respond. We are all agreed that the Bill is about meeting a challenge that is overwhelming and on which literally our future survival depends. We therefore cannot have the luxury of simply talking about principles and objectives without having the means to deliver them.
Some 80 per cent of the emissions in this country originate in local communities—in our homes, workplaces, travel and the rest. Therefore, it is crucial, as my noble friend said, that if we are to deliver the results and not just spell out hopes, we must work effectively with local authorities. The only point that I would make in addition to her real commitment is to say that it is my view—I speak for myself but I hope my noble friend will agree—that if this is going to be meaningful there will have to be very specific objectives spelt out to the local authorities about what is expected of them.
We have a national aggregate target, which we then disaggregate into what is required locally. Each local authority should be in no doubt whatever about what is expected of that local authority to meet the national target and local authorities should be expected to give convincing evidence that progress is being made. I am fairly confident—in fact I am very confident—that the Minister agrees with the spirit of what I am saying. I hope that he can not only respond to my noble friend’s amendment but give reassurance that this will not just be another chapter in the world of aspirations and good intentions but will actually spell out a sea change in terms of having the levers there to get results.
Lord Marland
My Lords, you have heard differing views on the future of carbon budgets, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Maddock. My noble friend Lord Teverson, as usual, clearly told us his views; and we heard those of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Reay, who would be opposed to carbon budgets. It has been an excellent debate and we have heard views from all sides—all of which are respected.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, this has been a subject on which I have taken those views on board. We should try to find a way through in a spirit of co-operation. The Localism Bill, which is about a spirit of partnership, is going through Parliament at the moment. We have imposed upon local authorities a 10 per cent carbon reduction target through the DCLG, and they will have to set their own examples.
During the passage of the Bill, we have given great consideration to these issues, and we have determined that the best way forward is co-operation. I hope that next week we will be able to sign a memorandum of understanding with the local government group, to build upon the Nottingham declaration. The memorandum will set out a timetable for progress on reducing carbon emissions that we hope all local authorities will buy into.
At this point, I offer my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who has set up a meeting with me and the chief executive of Liverpool City Council to discuss how we can get the Green Deal through to Liverpool and together reduce carbon emissions, and use Liverpool almost as a test case.
I have taken on board the valuable comments of noble Lords. I have taken on board the fact that it will not be acceptable to impose provisions on local authorities. Indeed, the Department for Energy and Climate Change cannot impose our will on local authorities, but we can impose a way forward and an understanding between us all that this has got to be right for the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. It has to be right for future generations and it has to be right that we use less electricity and less energy than we are using now, to conserve the future.
I hope that given those comments and the impending memorandum of understanding—which I cannot reveal too much about now because, as you know, I am a very junior person—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will appreciate what we are doing. I hope that that finds favour with her and with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, because on two occasions today he has provided your Lordships’ House with information on the memorandum. He cannot make the announcement, but I think that he has stolen the thunder of whichever Minister will do so. The noble Lord’s response on the memorandum that he and his colleagues intend to bring forward addresses exactly the kind of issue we are looking at, whereby local communities and local authorities will have an opportunity to play their role in achieving carbon reductions across the country. I look forward to the further information, and I hope that there will be a statement to the House at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
After section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (licences to search and bore for and get petroleum) insert—
“3A Accidental petroleum releases: verification of financial costs
(1) At the time of applying for a licence under section 3, the applicant must provide the Secretary of State with information showing that the applicant has sufficient funds to compensate any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of that licence.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations, in particular, to provide for the type of financial and supporting information to be provided under subsection (1).
(3) Before issuing a licence under section 3, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) the applicant has provided a complete and accurate record of information required by this Act and any regulations made under this Act; and(b) on reviewing that information, has sufficient funds to compensate for any damage caused, or loss suffered, as a result of petroleum being accidentally released during the operation of the licence.(4) In this section “sufficient funds” includes any insurance able to be claimed by the licensee in the circumstances outlined in subsection (1).”
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I raised a similar amendment to this in Committee as a probing amendment to try to clarify financial liability for oil spills off the UK coast. Looking back, I am not sure that I am any clearer on the financial responsibility, but my amendments then got a fair amount of support in Committee. It was understood that there has to be an arrangement whereby, should there be an accidental spill by those seeking oil off our coast, the responsibility for cleaning it up does not fall on local authorities. We were seeking clarification. We did not get that then and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide it now. As the Minister may recall, I drew comparisons with the requirements on the nuclear industry, which has to provide all costs of clean-up after its operations, with that of the oil industry of accidental oil releases into the environment.
A couple of issues were raised in Committee which I think were entirely reasonable, and I have incorporated provision for funding into our new amendment. I hope that the Minister can take this away to look at it. We have included a definition of sufficient funds and taken out detailed provision about certification, because that could go into regulations. I will be grateful to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Marland
This is a very complicated issue for someone who is not in the insurance world; but for someone who is, it is quite simple. It may be best in this instance if I commit in writing the exact layering of this requirement. Suffice it to say that the oil industry is a very mature industry. Substantial insurance requirements are placed on it. As I mentioned extensively in Committee, it has a mutual pool which offers additional protection to its balance sheets, and those that it makes in the open market. As someone with an insurance background, I would be happy to explain that in greater detail in writing to the noble Baroness. I hope that she finds that an adequate response to enable her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that he understands why I raised this issue. It is in large part due to public concern. He and I debated in this Chamber the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It was in research for that debate that I discovered concern about not knowing what the full implications would be if there were an oil spill off our shores. I am grateful for his comments and his commitment to come back to me in writing.
It would also be helpful if he would come back to me on the issues that I raised about comparisons with the nuclear industry. I have never really understood why the nuclear industry is treated differently from the oil industry. He may be able in his response to assure me that it is not treated differently. The nuclear industry, particularly under this Government, now has to find all the costs of remediation and disposal of waste. As I understand it, that is not the same for the oil industry. Can the Minister tell me that he is entirely satisfied that, in any event, for any oil spill, the liability will not fall on local authorities, and that insurance is in place to deal with the matter? I look forward to receiving that information in his correspondence on the matter, which I can perhaps discuss with him further, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.