Heating Rural Homes
Debate between Bill Wiggin and Jake Berry(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bill Wiggin
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no finer advocate of the pointy carrot than the right hon. Gentleman. But he is right. Again, it is as though he has read my speech because I will touch on the shortage of qualified technicians. One of the problems that we face is that, by insisting on one technology, all those various engineers who can do different things are being forced to do the same thing and, of course, that is far from practical or ideal. I will touch on that in a moment.
Those off the gas grid may face unique challenges that will prove a huge obstacle if the ban comes in. According to the Government’s heat and buildings strategy, at least 20% of off-grid homes will not be suitable for heat pumps. Rural areas tend to have limited infrastructure, meaning that it is impractical and uneconomical to deploy heat pump installations in every home. Many rural homes, particularly older or listed buildings, are not designed to accommodate these systems. Heat pumps work best in well-insulated and energy-efficient properties, which rural homes, sadly, tend not to be.
More than 35% of rural properties have an energy efficiency rating of F or G, compared with just 2.1% of properties in urban areas. That is a massive difference. In part, that is because properties located in these areas are proportionately more likely to be older, of traditional construction, detached and potentially larger than urban properties. But it is also because the current stupid, useless and inappropriate energy performance certificate assessment is based on modern construction. More than 60% of homes were built before 1970 and before the first thermal regulations, so these properties are extremely disadvantaged when it comes to energy efficiency ratings.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On the issue of the flawed nature of EPC, that is an important point. My hon. Friend will be aware that thatched buildings are often given a very low EPC rating because there is no ability to calculate the thermal quality of thatch. Thatch is a brilliant insulating material, so it is complete nonsense that thatched buildings should be given such low rating. This would be of passing interest were it not also the case that the Government are rapidly bringing forward legislation to prevent landlords from renting out properties if they have a low EPC rating. On that point, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There are also reports from the Department that it will in future be more difficult to get a mortgage if a property has a low EPC rating, with the voluntary code being suggested to the current clearing banks later to become a compulsory code. In many areas of the countryside, the net effect of that policy will be that someone will have zero chance of getting a mortgage unless these ridiculous EPC ratings and mechanisms are updated.
Sir Bill Wiggin
Madam Deputy Speaker, I saw you thinking that that was perhaps a bit of a long intervention, but it was pure gold. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: these energy performance certificates are not just stupid and useless, but absolutely evil when it comes to the fundamental right of people to want to own their own homes—something in which we on the Conservative Benches believe passionately. Worse than that, if someone cannot get an EPC rating of C, they cannot rent a house either. All of this will be no different from the land clearances, when people were shipped off into the cities because they simply could not or were not allowed to live in the countryside. It is an appalling situation and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight it. I hope the Minister is trembling on the Front Bench at the vehemence of loathing that I have for EPCs, not least because, when I last got one, it said that we should have built a windmill in the garden. How stupid can you get when it comes to really mindless environmental legislation. I care very much about this because, if we are going to do a good job of saving the planet, we cannot be handicapped by cretinous legislation such as EPCs. I ask the Minister to please fix it.
To go back to the speech in hand, we have covered traditional features in old homes. Indeed, it is even more troublesome and expensive to retrofit a listed building, of which there are around 500,000 in England. They have solid floors and walls and are much more difficult to rectify. The House will be aware of the debates I have held on environmental standards for listed buildings and the most welcome progress that was made to allow double glazing by Historic England—a small step, one might think, but to have 500,000 houses in this country banned from having double glazing just reinforces why I rage at EPCs. There are all the other environmental steps that we want to take but are banned from taking.
Sir Bill Wiggin
I feel for my hon. Friend. When we buy a washing machine or dishwasher and look at the energy rating on it, it is a helpful guide to what we should expect our fuel bills to be. However, the EPCs for houses are off the scale in their inability to provide anything useful and I am mustard-keen for the Minister to tackle them.
My fear is that Historic England, that wonderful body that has been trying to make Leominster a nicer place, may go back on its guidance on double glazing and on the curtilage of listed buildings. That would be a shame because, while there is an industry built up with secondary glazing, it is really important that as a Government we help people to do the right thing. Something that saves energy, improves fuel efficiency and makes houses nicer places to live in is obviously a sensible step.
I am sure the Minister does not find it hard to see why the boiler upgrade scheme has been such a disappointment. Tragically, £90 million-worth of subsidy is being given back to the Treasury due to the difficulty of uptake. The Government’s latest scheme offers households grants of between £5,000 and £6,000 for low-carbon heating systems such as heat pumps—kind, well-meaning and hopelessly inappropriate. Ofgem figures show that fewer than 10,000 installations were completed under the scheme between its launch in May last year and March this year.
Households with a broken boiler could wait up to six months to source a certified installer, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, receive a grant, if they are lucky, purchase the heat pump, if it is available, and have it installed, by which time they may have suffered without heating during the coldest months of the year. That is never going to deliver on our ambitions, not least because every broken boiler is a missed opportunity. It means people will go out and buy another fossil fuel boiler because the option to buy a heat pump was just too difficult.
We cannot afford to drop the ball like that. Every time someone needs a new boiler, surely the right thing is for them to say, “Thank goodness for the Minister! She made it so much easier for me to get a super-efficient, clean boiler, which is not just keeping me toasty in the winter, but saving the planet for my children and grandchildren.” That is where we need to get to, and I know the Minister is listening and smiling with delight because that opportunity is opening up before her.
While the Government may have set the ambitious target of 600,000 installations of heat pumps per year by 2028, it will not be achieved unless they address the extortionate cost and impracticality of installation. A poll by Liquid Gas UK discovered that more than two thirds of people living in off-grid rural homes fear that they would not be able to afford a heat pump if required to install one. The average cost of installing a low-carbon heating system such as a heat pump is estimated to be between £15,000 and £30,000. That probably includes the £5,000 grant, as installers are not going to ignore the subsidy, either. For many families, that is an expense that they simply cannot afford. Twelve per cent of houses in rural areas are in fuel poverty—a rate 43% higher than on-grid homes.
On top of the expensive cost of heat pumps, there is a lack of skilled engineers available to install and manage them. I recently received an email from a heating engineer who works in an off-gas grid area of Herefordshire. They are deeply concerned that the Government’s proposals are impractical because it is so expensive and difficult to install heat pumps. In rural areas, it will therefore be extremely difficult to source a nearby engineer to install a heat pump when one’s current oil boiler breaks.
Homeowners should have the freedom to choose their heating systems based on what suits their needs, preferences and budgets. Rather than installing an expensive heat pump, they might find it more suitable to have a hybrid or cocktail of alternative energy sources, such as biomass boilers, which are eligible for the Government’s renewable heat incentive—
Sir Bill Wiggin
My right hon. Friend mutters “not any more”. That renewable heat incentive for domestic properties would be a wonderful step forward and would encourage biomass in all its different forms.
The Government already provide financial incentives such as grants for reducing the up-front cost of solar panels, making solar power an affordable choice for many households. I welcome the Government’s encouragement of rooftop solar by cutting VAT on solar panels, which saves households more than £1,000 on installation, in addition to the £300 annual saving on their energy bills. Now that we have left the EU, the Government have been able to remove the 5% VAT charge on energy-saving materials, including solar panels, heat pumps and insulation. However, a bigger tax break on UK-manufactured environmental solutions is needed to encourage people to do the right thing when it comes to heating their homes.
Sir Jake Berry
It is absolutely within our power to encourage people to install solar panels, but does my hon. Friend agree that another thing that the Government could do is to bring solar panels within the permitted development regime? Often, the expense of a planning application and of delays puts many people off.
Sir Bill Wiggin
I cannot think of a reason why putting solar panels on the roof of a house should not be permitted development, but it is not. That is a simple step that would really help. I remember when the onshore wind debate started. The then Labour Government refused to allow even the smallest electricity-generating windmill on the side of people’s homes in case it made the electricity meter go backwards. We lost the public at that point. They wanted to do the right thing, but they were prevented from doing so. Solar panels on rooftops should be a natural step forward. They should be permitted development and part of the planning permission for every new build.
If we are to embrace the technology of solar panels, let us ensure that they are made in Britain. Let us stop making the Chinese richer because we want to do the right thing for the environment while they build coal-fired power stations. Bigger tax breaks on UK-manufactured environmental solutions are needed to encourage people to do the right thing.
As solar panels are not always suitable for certain types of building or locations across the country, alternative options should also be supported. Hydrotreated vegetable oil, for example, is a sustainable fuel that can, at a small cost, be used in a conventional boiler. HVO has been trialled in over 150 homes across the UK in the last 18 months, yet it has been given no special tax treatment to encourage its usage. Bringing HVO fuel duty rates in line with kerosene—paraffin, or “heating oil”—would significantly lower its cost.
It is also clear that we need a better solution to incentivise both the take-up and production of UK-made heat pumps. Currently the boiler upgrade scheme subsidy is merely pushing up prices, when supply-side reforms and intelligent incentives would clearly be better options. Stimulating a home-grown heat pump industry similar to our natural gas boiler industry, which produces 90% of all gas boilers in this country, will increase supply and bring down costs for consumers.
A number of British businesses are already striving to make renewable energy cost-effective and affordable, such as Caplor Energy in my constituency, which provides a full range of renewable energy solutions nationwide. We should encourage British-based companies through big tax breaks, rather than continuing to import heat pumps from abroad and filling the pockets of Chinese companies. A holistic approach to rural home energy systems that involves a mixture of technologies would allow homeowners to transition to a fully electric product once the correct thermal efficiency levels have been reached. They could then avoid having to make drastic changes to the fabric of their house all at once, with or without the local council’s intervention.
In many cases, a hybrid heat pump would be most appropriate, as they efficiently switch between renewable and fossil fuel. Hybrid heat pumps are a good middle ground; they ensure a reduction in carbon emissions without leaving people at the mercy of the weather or subject to power outages, yet the renewable heat incentive scheme no longer extends to hybrid heating systems, or any other systems that could have eased the transition to entirely electric heating.
The Government propose a “rural first” approach to the transition. They aim to phase out the replacement of fossil fuel boilers in rural homes from 2026. That is almost a decade earlier than the date for equivalent homes connected to the gas grid. That is extraordinarily unfair. It is far too difficult for the Government to phase out fossil fuel heating in off-grid homes from 2026. The Government consulted on the proposal to phase out the replacement of fossil fuel boilers from 2026 for off-grid homes in January last year, but we are yet to see their response to the consultation. When will they publish it, given that it has been over a year since the consultation? In the absence of a response, can the Minister confirm that the Government will delay the 2026 boiler ban until there are effective and affordable alternatives for heating rural homes?
To conclude, I commend the Government on their net zero policy and on our environmental agenda. We must pursue a more flexible, cost-effective and practical approach to heating rural homes that considers the unique circumstances of these areas. The Government’s 2026 boiler ban is a misguided policy that fails to consider the practical implications and financial hardships that it would impose on people living in rural communities. We must ensure that the voice of rural homeowners is heard, and that their concerns are addressed. I urge the Government to re-evaluate their strategy, drop the ban, and develop a plan that prioritises practicality, affordability and choice for rural homeowners, and ensures that those living in rural homes are not unfairly disadvantaged because of where they live.
Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill
Debate between Bill Wiggin and Jake BerryMonday 13th May 2019
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Act 2019 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
What a privilege it is to have this opportunity to close the debate today. I wish that it had been better attended, but it is great to have had a contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and some contributions from Labour Members. There was no one here from Change UK or TIG or whatever it is called; it obviously does not care about business rates.
In our debate today, it is important for us to stick rigidly to the scope of the Bill, which sets out how we will empower HMRC to look at digitisation and at how it can modernise and simplify the business rates system. Before the 2016 Budget, the Government held an extensive consultation and set out a commitment to enter on this process. It is a commitment that, following the passage of this Bill, HMRC will then, and only then, be able to progress the necessary design work.
Today’s Bill is an important step towards those reforms, and it will allow HMRC to start to explore some of the digital infrastructure that will link local authority business rates to digital tax accounts. This has been called for by businesses, and it is also being welcomed by them. Today’s Bill is simply the first important step, and it rightly paves the way for further discussions on how the process will proceed. All those discussions will require legislation, which will pass through the House and be subject to the usual scrutiny of the Opposition parties.
Turning to the impact of business rates on businesses, we have heard clarion calls in the press this morning and from the Opposition during this debate for looking into a more wholesale reform of business rates rather than simply digitising them, and it is impossible to have a debate about digitisation without giving cognisance to that point. Let us not forget, however, that we have committed to £13 billion-worth of savings to business over the next five years through the reforms that we have already made to business rates. We have switched the annual indexation from RPI to CPI, which will, over the lifetime of that commitment, save ratepayers and businesses up and down the country some £6 billion. That is £6 billion that will remain in all our local communities and economies for the constituents that we represent. We have also reformed small business rate relief, doubling it to £12,000 and making it automatic, meaning that 650,000 businesses now pay no business rates at all. We have responded to calls from businesses for more frequent revaluations, which will now happen every three years from 2020-21.
Turning to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham about business rates and revaluation, it is of course the case, thinking about cash flow and the impact that business rates may have on a business, that it is possible for business rates to go down if rent has gone down and other factors have reduced during the period since the previous revaluation. The last revaluation actually led to a majority of businesses seeing no change or a reduction in their business rates. Over time, that should happen more often with more frequent revaluations from 2021.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am curious, based on the Minister’s research, about how often businesses ask for a revaluation.
Jake Berry
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. From speaking to business groups—I regularly consult with the Government’s Future High Streets Forum, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the Retail Sector Council—it is clear that they seek more frequent revaluations because that stops bill shocks. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows about bill shocks from people who have visited his advice surgery, and he also runs his own business—[Interruption.] Although I do not think that farms have a big business rates bill, because they do not pay any business rates.
Bill Wiggin
However, I get continual complaints about business rates from the landlord at the Moody Cow pub, which is very near my home.
Jake Berry
I am sure that those at the Moody Cow will be delighted not just with more frequent revaluations, but with when they can move on to the digitalisation of business rates, which we are discussing today.
People who make the clarion calls for the abolition of, reduction in or some other change to business rates will accept that they are already a key source of funding for local authorities, funding essential services, such as adult social care and children’s services. I note that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) did not take the opportunity in the wider context of this debate on business rates to elucidate the Labour party’s policies, but those who seek to reform business rates have an obligation to say how the revenue would be made up.
Many people who talk about business rates reform have at heart concerns about the health of our high streets, which was mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and which should worry us all. The Government need to find a way of ensuring that high streets continue to thrive as shopping patterns and behaviours change. I cannot remember a period of more rapid change in how we choose to shop. High streets must clearly transition from bricks-led retail to a bricks-and-clicks online and offline model, with experiential leisure at its heart. High street retailers will be delighted that business rates were slashed by a third in the most recent Budget for retailers with a rateable value of under £51,000, and that formed part of our wider high street package.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are a fan of “Sex and the City”, but Sarah Jessica Parker recently bemused her Instagram followers on a recent visit to London, when she praised Timpson not just for its key-cutting service, but for its extensive selection of umbrellas, labelling the branch in High Street Kensington tube station as her new favourite shop. Timpson is of course a fine retailer, which is why I was delighted that Sir John Timpson worked so closely with the Government on his report on the future of the high street, business rates and retail. Leading directly from his report, the Government created the £675 million future high streets fund to support high streets and enable them to pay their business rates. Although all those reforms have been welcomed, people will continue to call for a more fundamental review of business rates, and the Government will, of course, continue to keep that under review.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) raised a lot of specific questions about how the digitisation of business rates will work. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am unable to answer any of those questions today because the purpose of the Bill is to give HMRC the statutory power, which it currently does not have, to go away and work up that system. How the system will work cannot become clear until we have empowered HMRC, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to start work on it. That is why it is so important that we agree Second Reading this evening, and it is why it is so welcome that the Opposition Front-Bench team support the Bill.
This important Bill is just the start of our cross-party work to ensure that we create a business rates system fit for the future. Many people who run businesses will now be used to making the majority of their transactions online, whether it be paying their VAT bill, paying their utility bills or making sales and buying stock. If we truly want to create a modern tax system that is supportive and friendly to business, we must all work to create an online taxation system, including for business rates, that small businesses and large businesses alike will find workable and useful in driving productivity and efficiency in their business. That is why I have the pleasure of commending the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Non-domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Non-domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Criminal Law
Debate between Bill Wiggin and Jake Berry(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The seriousness of the case to which my hon. Friend refers in his excellent speech will be listened to by his constituent and his constituent’s family. Does that not show that the voters who send us here do not want us to get involved in procedural shenanigans in the House of Commons? They would rather we have a proper debate and allow Members to raise constituency cases as my hon. Friend is trying to do.
Bill Wiggin
My hon. Friend is quite right, but this case gets a lot worse. This man was then held in a Madrid prison while an appeal against his extradition was submitted. The Foreign Office sent a letter to the Spanish authorities saying that, unless the Romanians were willing to ensure that a retrial took place, they should decline Romania’s request to have him extradited. No such assurance was given, but on 14 May 2007 he was taken back to Bucharest where he spent a further 21 months in prison, enduring horrendous conditions which fell considerably short of the minimum required by members of the EU. Most importantly, the Spanish constitutional court, following the Foreign Office request, upheld the appeal against extradition—