Caroline Lucas
Main Page: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)Energy Bill [Lords]
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gregory Barker
It is a pleasure to be back in the House to debate this historic Energy Bill one last time before it moves back for the last time to the other place. To better inform the debate on the amendments before us, I shall update the House briefly on the progress made over the summer on a number of issues that were raised in Committee.
We had a lively discussion on measures eligible for green deal finance. That was led by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who championed the power shower. I committed to an early refresh of the Government paper to take into account queries about our position on water efficiency and recommendation of measures outside the green deal. That has been done. After our exploration in Committee of the detail of the energy company obligation—an important part of the Bill—I agreed that my officials would meet the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) to discuss our brokerage proposal. That has been done.
The private rented sector was another important subject of debate—fruitful debate, I hope—with contributions from the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), among others. I shall say more about that later. My officials are setting up a new workshop to look specifically at how the provisions can best work with older buildings, which present a challenge to the green deal, particularly older historic buildings.
Lastly, I am pleased to report progress on energy efficiency for service family accommodation, following the excellent suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). My officials have had a number of meetings with their counterparts in the Ministry of Defence and, having agreed the shared objective of improving the energy efficiency of accommodation, are investigating the best ways to achieve that. As I mentioned in Committee, it is a complex problem owing to the unique nature of service family accommodation. None the less, I am optimistic that a solution will be found to satisfy the House and, most importantly, service families.
We have a large group of amendments, not all of which were tabled by the Government. I propose to speak to the Government amendments in my opening remarks and address the other amendments in my closing remarks, rather than pre-empt them before the Members who tabled them have spoken. That should make for a more orderly debate. There is nothing more annoying than having one’s arguments addressed before one has even had a chance to make them to the House.
The Government amendments are largely technical. Government amendments 31 to 34 cover disclosure. They enable the Secretary of State, if necessary, to require a green deal provider to produce a further document containing information about the green deal plan as part of the confirmation process. This would be in addition to the energy performance certificate. Both documents would then have to be disclosed to future bill payers. These amendments therefore enable the Secretary of State to require, if necessary, additional information about the green deal plan to be given to future bill payers as part of the disclosure process. This small amendment responds to the concerns of stakeholders and the concerns that were expressed in Committee about consumer protection, particularly in the rented sector. We have moved to tighten that up.
On the transfer of payments, Government amendment 29 is a technical amendment that makes it clear on the face of the Bill that when collecting payments, energy companies are acting in an agent and trustee capacity for the green deal provider, which, in many cases, will not be the energy company itself. This is in line with the policy that I set out in Committee. Liability for green deal payments should sit on the balance sheet not of the energy companies, but of the green deal provider.
Without this clarification, there is a risk that payments received would be the property of the energy company until they were remitted to the green deal provider, which might enable an administrator to claim green deal payments in the event of energy company insolvency. Through the amendment we can minimise this risk and, as with all risk minimisation in this process, help to push down the cost of green deal finance.
On assessment and installation, I shall deal with a number of Government amendments relating to the role of professionals operating under the green deal, and consider them with amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Amendment 26 and Government amendment 30 relate to the role of professionals and the importance of protecting customers, while allowing the green deal to thrive. I apologise for breaking the rule that I said I would abide by in my opening comments, but this makes more sense, so I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me. I am grateful to her for raising the issue of cross-selling.
It is important to consider how and when green deals are likely to take place. Many will come about as a result of other activities, such as the installation of a new kitchen or boiler in a home. We do not wish to limit these trigger points. They will often be important opportunities to promote the green deal alongside other renovations or improvements that are happening in the home, which the householder may not have considered ahead of planning for a new bathroom, kitchen or other improvement.
Our market research has shown that customers would welcome and are therefore more likely to trust the involvement of local authorities, community groups and third sector organisations when thinking about entering into a green deal. This was a recurring theme in Committee, when we all agreed that the involvement of local authorities and community groups was vital to ensure the successful large-scale roll-out of the green deal. Such organisations may see participation in the green deal as a way of making people aware of other valuable services—for example, loft clearance for the elderly is an essential prerequisite for putting in insulation. Some voluntary or community groups might offer such a service in some areas at no cost or at a reduced cost.
A blanket ban could reduce the willingness of these organisations to play a full and positive role in the green deal. This could be especially detrimental to vulnerable groups such as the elderly, who are most likely to benefit from energy efficiency. It could also affect the ability of enthusiastic volunteers and community groups to encourage their neighbours by knocking on their door, sharing their enthusiasm and urging them to join in community projects. Members of a community or neighbourhood group are more likely to go round and speak to their neighbours individually, rather than e-mailing or writing to them. We are concerned that a blanket ban could be detrimental.
Our approach is therefore to be mindful of the points raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. She is right to identify the need for strong consumer safeguards, but we believe the right way forward is to build on existing regulations that protect customers, and set out a clear enforceable framework within the green deal code of practice for such activities. This will be clearly set out in our consultation and we will seek further views on this important aspect then.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Minister agree that there is a world of difference between a community group knocking on a door in order to clear a loft so that loft insulation can go ahead, and selling wallpaper, carpets and sofas, which was the example that the Minister gave in Committee? Would he come some way towards supporting my amendment, given that it clearly says that it is permissible to knock on people’s door if the aim is to reduce CO2, but not if the aim is to sell a sofa?
Gregory Barker
I am sympathetic to the thrust of the hon. Lady’s amendment, but it is not illegal to sell things door to door. There is already a code of practice for that, but we do not live in a country where it is illegal for people to sell products door to door. That is already a fact of life and we do not propose to alter it; however, we do think there should be a strong code of practice. However annoying and regressive such practices may be, trying to address them outside a code of practice—that is, through blanket legislation—could affect not just loft clearance services, but the ability to go door to door, just as we as politicians go door to door trying to convince people of our ideas.
Andrew Percy
That, of course, is exactly what the golden rule is designed to protect against. My concern is that we offer residents—people living in the properties now—an equal interest rate across the whole area. We need to avoid people in more affluent areas being encouraged to take up the green deal by a lower interest rate than is offered to people in poorer areas or those perceived to be a higher credit risk, particularly tenants. There is a risk that landlords might be put off the green deal if they perceive that the cost is based on the occupancy of a particular tenant.
Caroline Lucas
I very much support the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and I wonder whether he supports my new clause 8, which would serve to make the green investment bank a vehicle whereby we could ensure that a common and low interest rate—one that is subsidised—is applied?
Andrew Percy
I looked at the hon. Lady’s new clause and amendments, which are interesting. I look forward to hearing the debate and listening to the Minister’s response to them. I am sure that he will say something to reassure her.
I am concerned that landlords might be unwilling to take out a finance package if they perceive it as reducing the market value of their property. Under risk-based pricing, those with a poor credit rating—often people on low incomes, who are at the highest risk of being in fuel poverty—might find themselves, by accident rather than design, excluded from accessing a green deal finance package. Tenants in the private rented sector may be at a high risk of exclusion from green deal finance, because the underwriting process for mortgages is such that home owners are likely to have a better credit rating. The Minister rightly said that we should extend as much choice as possible to residents. We need therefore to ensure that as much choice is offered to tenants in the private rented sector as is offered to property owners, and that is, I am sure, what the green deal is intended to do.
Andrew Percy
That is entirely the right principle. The communities to which I have referred, many of whom I represent, risk fuel poverty because they live in the very worst properties with the very worst energy efficiency ratings.
I will not press my amendment to a vote because I think that the green deal is an exciting proposal, I strongly support it, and constituents to whom I have spoken find it very attractive. However, I shall be interested to hear what assurances Ministers can give me and people outside that the scheme will be designed to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, and that it will not exclude anyone. No matter how small their number—it may be just the odd one or two—there are people who are very much at risk, and they must be drawn into the scheme by some means.
Caroline Lucas
My name is attached to five of the 15 new clauses and amendments in this group. New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months of the Bill’s becoming an Act with proposals on how the green investment bank could maximise take-up of the green deal.
Much more needs to be done to make the green deal as attractive and appealing as possible. Given that the energy companies have found it difficult to give away energy efficiency measures in the past, I fear that the “pay as you save” mechanism, as currently designed, will not be enough to drive the level of adoption, or the depth of the improvements that are needed for the delivery of huge emissions savings from our housing stock. In Committee we discussed possible drivers, including council tax or stamp duty rebates linked to the green deal, and reduced VAT rates for products bought under it. I support all those options, but I think that we should chiefly explore the idea of using the green investment bank to subsidise the interest rates, for all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a survey. I have figures from the same survey. A key statistic that the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that about a third of home owners said that if the interest rate were set at 2% per annum, they would be “very” or “fairly” likely to take up the green deal. As the hon. Gentleman said, the figure fell to just 7% of home owners when an annual interest rate of 6% was suggested. It is clear that if the Government are still considering interest rates above 6%, they will face real challenges in attempting to drive sufficient take-up.
In Germany—which I realise operates a different scheme—an energy efficiency household loan programme offers publicly subsidised interest rates of 2.65%. That programme has achieved 100,000 residential retrofits in a year. The Government must achieve 145,000 every month if they are to fulfil the ambition that they set out at the beginning of the process, and they are intending to do that at market interest rates, which are much higher. I do not see how that will work.
Gregory Barker
It is not correct to compare the two schemes. The German scheme consists of a normal personal loan, secured in the normal way. It must be applied for through the banks, and in the case of a successful application the interest rate is subsidised. That is the nub of the programme, which I have discussed in Berlin with the German environment Minister. There is a great deal more to the green deal, which involves substantial subsidy not of the interest rate, but of the interventions themselves. We expect that most solid wall installations will attract a substantial element of subsidy, and that other interventions for fuel-poor households and more vulnerable customers will also be able to attract subsidies. Customers may pay a competitive interest rate, but they will be doing so on a significantly subsidised final bill, and I would have thought that it was much better to pay a competitive interest rate on a smaller bill than a subsidised interest rate on a higher bill.
This is a fundamentally different proposition, therefore. The German scheme simply involves subsidies of existing loans. What makes the green deal unique is that it is not a personal loan in the way the German scheme is. It will be secured against savings on future energy bills. It will not add to the personal debt of the individual who benefits from the installations, and it will remain with the home. There is also the golden rule. I apologise for making such a lengthy intervention, but it was important to put that on the record.
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.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady will remember that when the financial services regulations were introduced, banks had to declare up front whether they were providing information and advice to their customers in an independent capacity or as a tied agent for themselves. Does she agree that it is also important in terms of the green deal that people who have gained a householder’s trust and entered their home on the basis that they are providing impartial and independent advice do not, once inside the front door, switch hats and start offering advice as a tied agent of another service provider?
Caroline Lucas
I completely agree. Trust is crucial if the green deal is to be successful. We want people to be talking about it, telling their friends and neighbours how great it is; we want there to be a real buzz and momentum behind it. If there are just a couple of cases of such mis-selling, the whole process will be undermined.
I also seek to extend the same consumer protections for the repayment of a green deal loan to energy advice services or energy plans that are not specifically green deal plans. If a householder decides after the initial green deal assessment to pay for the services up front without the need for a green deal loan, they ought to be eligible for the same kinds of protection they would receive if repaying the loan in a different way. If the clause in question is left in its current form, regulations regarding protection and redress will hang not on what a consumer buys, but on how they pay for it. That is perverse. If the consumer pays up front, the protections and regulations will not cover them. Only if they take the green deal loan will they have those protections. If people are not protected until they have signed a contract, how will that help consumers during the advice and contracting stage when they may not have decided to pay for green deal services yet, let alone how to pay for them? Also, who can the consumer complain to about pressurising sales tactics if they walk away before they have signed the contract? Will consumers choose the financial option that is best for them if they have to use green deal finance to get ongoing support from the advice line and redress scheme? I hope the Minister will address those questions in summing up.
My final concern in relation to this group of amendments is about the comparability of green deal quotes. It is vital that consumers are in a position to make an informed choice about which green deal is best for them, and that could be nigh impossible if the different quotes received are hard to compare. I should like the Minister to address this by ensuring that all green deal quotes are provided in a way that makes them very easy to compare with one another, to judge and to assess.
I have detained the House for some time so I shall conclude. My final amendment in this group would give consumers the right to choose which energy bill their green deal loan repayments would be applied to. In 78% of occupied British buildings, heating and hot water are provided by natural gas, so that is the fuel most likely to be reduced after a green deal makeover. It therefore seems logical for customers’ gas bills, where possible, to carry green deal loan repayments because if the golden rule is working, their gas bills will not become more expensive after the green deal repayments have been applied. It is there that the advantage of the green deal will be most apparent to householders.
If the repayments are added to electricity bills, those electricity bills are not likely to fall so much after a green deal makeover unless a home’s space and water are heated by electricity, but far fewer homes are heated by electricity than by gas. That means that in the vast majority of cases, green deal customers will potentially have lower gas bills but higher electricity bills. That makes it harder to see whether the golden rule is working and risks undermining the central pay-as-you-save principle, as well as eroding customers’ confidence in the value of the deal. I hope the Minister will therefore consider allowing consumers to choose which bill they want their green deal payment to be applied to so that their management of the green deal is as straightforward as possible.
Barry Gardiner
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who has made a very informed speech about exactly the points at the heart of the measures. I, too, want to address the green deal to dig out more about the golden rule and the energy company obligation. We all agree that it is right that energy efficiency improvements should be provided at no up-front cost. That is a good thing that we all support across the House and want to see implemented. As has been pointed out, however, the loans will be provided at commercial rates through the green deal and will attach to the property, not the householder, for up to 25 years.
The golden rule has been introduced to require that all green deal loans are less than the repayment cost resulting from the installation of the measures. The qualifying energy efficiency improvements will be determined through the energy performance certificate. This means that any savings will be estimated and based on standardised use. As a result, there are no guarantees that actual savings will match or better the estimated savings, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). The Bill’s central premise is that consumers will save more on their energy bills than they will repay in loan costs and that that will be enough to drive consumer demand. However, the Bill provides little detail about how demand for the green deal will be driven beyond that basic finance mechanism other than through the introduction of the new ECO, which will underpin the deal and subsidise properties that require energy efficiency improvements but for which the golden rule would not be met.
It is estimated that the green deal will reach more than 40 million homes by 2020 and a further 12 million by 2030. That amounts to the retrofitting of 1.7 million homes a year—that is 4,800 a day—between 2012, when the green deal starts, and 2020. The Committee on Climate Change has estimated that, between 2012 and 2022, we would need to insulate 8.3 million lofts, 5.7 million cavity walls and more than 2 million solid walls to meet the UK’s carbon budget. The Government’s expected take-up of those measures, through the green deal and the extension of the carbon emissions reduction target, misses those requirements by 3.8 million lofts and 2.7 million cavity walls.
Although I support the aspiration behind the green deal, it is difficult to see how it can be achieved under the proposals. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change’s third progress report to Parliament concluded that the Government proposals should help to strengthen incentives for the take-up of energy efficiency measures. However, there is a significant risk that they will not adequately address the range of financial and non-financial barriers. I do not want to talk the measures down because Members on both sides want them to work, but it is important that we are realistic about their likelihood of success.
The economies of energy efficiency retrofits at today’s energy prices simply are not attractive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion has pointed out, because of the gap between projected returns based on current energy prices and the cost of borrowing—a gap that can be met only if substantive subsidies are applied. Recent analysis by E3G has highlighted that at today’s prices and with the commercial interest rates that the Government intend to apply to green deal financing, the golden rule cannot be met on a 25-year loan. The Government have quite rightly identified that the up-front costs of improvement and access to capital are significant barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency, but we should be clear that the green deal alone will not overcome them. Without intervention to limit the cost of borrowing, consumer demand for green deal programmes could be very low indeed.
Furthermore, access to capital is not a universal problem. For those who can afford them, savings, mortgage extensions and personal loans have long been readily available to provide up-front capital for energy efficiency investments, yet they have not been used on any scale, despite the fact that many people are able to procure those borrowings at 5% or 6%, let alone at the 11% that the Government are suggesting. Financing through the green deal simply does not stack up for the rational investor, and particularly for low and middle-income households.
Let me give an example. The annual energy bill for an average household is calculated at £1,029 a year. A good whole-house retrofit would be expected to save approximately 50% on the average energy bill—in this case, just over £500 a year. Solid wall insulation was identified by the Committee on Climate Change as the main energy efficiency measure that could usefully be financed by the green deal, but according to DECC’s own analysis, the capital cost of solid wall insulation ranges between £7,600 and £12,600. Let us take the cost of £12,600 and the maximum saving of £500 a year; in fact, DECC’s analysis estimates that solid wall insulation would save only £400 a year, but I give it the extra £100. Through the green deal, if we pay back £500 a year, through the savings on the energy bill for that average house, against the £12,600 loan over 25 years, we still do not pay back the full amount. That deal fails the golden rule.
An energy company obligation is being introduced to subsidise the difference, reducing up-front costs to the point that they are less than the energy savings. The Committee on Climate Change estimates that up to £17 billion of support will be required through the ECO to insulate 2.3 million solid walls by 2022, but the Government estimate that the total ECO support will be only £1 billion. The fact that the golden rule cannot be met even before the cost of finance is factored in is a matter of huge concern.
The Government have calculated that the green deal’s financial cost will be cheaper than a market personal loan, but they concede that it could mean rates of up to 11%. At today’s energy prices, to drive demand by meeting the green deal’s golden rule, 25-year loans would need to be offered at rates of 2% or less. E3G’s recently published analysis concluded that a £15,000 loan at 0% over 25 years for changes that delivered a 50% energy saving and lifetime savings of £2,461 could meet the golden rule in year 8, but that the same loan offered at just 2% would incur losses of £1,747 over that 25-year period, whereas a similar £15,000 loan for changes that delivered just a 35% energy saving would not break even at all even with interest at 0%.
Gregory Barker
I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for tabling amendments 49 and 50 and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for tabling amendment 28.
Amendment 49 would require that any energy efficiency services provided or products sold by green deal participants, in addition to those paid for with green deal finance, should be subject to the green deal regulatory framework. It is important to note that the green deal is an innovative form of finance agreement that is attached to the meter and therefore passes between bill payers. I think that we all understand that. So it needs specific protections, which are not necessarily relevant to those who do not take out the green deal.
I should like to assure hon. Members that we intend to require customers to be made fully aware of the difference between offers that fall under the green deal scheme, with all its specific safeguards, and those that fall outside. However, many of the forms of mis-selling that rightly concern the House can be prosecuted already under existing general consumer protection legislation. We will not accept companies using green deal accreditation as cover for less appropriate goods and services.
Amendment 50 would ensure that recommendations and estimated costs and savings are clearly and transparently communicated to the consumer as part of the green deal plan, thus enabling customers to compare offers. I should like to reassure hon. Members that we intend to require green deal providers to set out clearly how the proposed savings and costs meet the golden rule principle, as enabled by the power in clauses 4 and 5. I urge hon. Members to look specifically at clause 5.
In addition, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will apply to domestic green deal plans in full, bar a few essential amendments, thus ensuring robust consumer protection, and it already regulates the provision of information to consumers who enter into credit arrangements.
Caroline Lucas
I wonder whether the Minister can clarify things a little further. On amendment 50 and comparability, is he saying that there are some guidelines somewhere that will ensure that many different green deal providers will be required to present the savings that are likely to accrue from investing in a green deal package in a similar way, so that they are genuinely comparable? On amendment 49, if a green deal assessor goes in and after a big assessment the householder decides not to take a green deal finance package but to pay up front, will they be unable to access things such as an advice line?
Gregory Barker
Such people can certainly access the advice line. If people choose to pay in full and not to take finance agreements, they will not be any less covered by the accreditation of all green deal service providers and the protection and warranties that go with all green deal products. We must not forget that the green deal is not just about financial arrangements where consumer protection kicks in. We will set out in further detail in secondary legislation, which hon. Members will thoroughly scrutinise, and go to great lengths to ensure that there is a rigorous consumer protection element to the accreditation of all services that are green deal applicable. That will apply whether or not they are financed by consumer credit. Obviously, all products must be specified and approved for use under the green deal to ensure that they meet the golden rule.
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman’s question is predicated on a misunderstanding. It will simply not be possible for any consumer, poor or rich, to disaggregate their bill payments for the green deal, other charges and the energy consumed. There will not be that opportunity to withhold green deal payments, just as one cannot refuse to pay transmission charges or other levies that are included on the consumer bill. That will not be an option for them.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister confirm that he is still leaving the door open to using the green investment bank to support and subsidise the interest rates? I am not clear what he is saying specifically about the green investment bank.
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.
Gregory Barker
The default rate will be the same as the standard default rate for electricity bills generally, which is a very low percentage. It is probably higher in the present economic circumstances, but when averaged out over a decade, it is very low compared with other instances, and it will not be extrapolated out of that. On the ECO, the hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it. The bottom line is that there is no magic source of money; it all has to come from somewhere and ultimately that is the taxpayer and the consumer, who are basically the same person in this context. We have to be very responsible and we are constantly looking for ways to lighten the load for hard-pressed consumers, who are concerned about rising energy costs.
We will publish in the autumn our expectations of how DECC policies, taken together, will impact on consumers through to 2020. The results of the early work are extremely encouraging. These things must be seen in the round—one strand of policy cannot be taken out as though it was part of a Woolworths pick ’n’ mix. We have to take the energy efficiency measures, the levies and our other measures to encourage greater competition in the energy sector as a whole. We will publish that in the autumn, when I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to quiz the Secretary of State.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister rightly says that there is no magic pot of money, but there are certainly progressive and regressive ways of doing this. Does he agree that putting a levy on all consumer bills, irrespective of the financial situation of the householder, is inherently regressive? Indeed, the impact assessment of the 2009 extension of the carbon emissions reduction target showed that using a levy actually pushed more people into poverty than were pulled out as a result of the CERT money.
Charles Hendry
We now move on to a series of technical and miscellaneous new clauses and amendments, which cover nuclear decommissioning transmission charging, the process of consultation and the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and how it applies in Scotland.
I shall first address the issue of the nuclear decommissioning programmes. In Committee, hon. Members raised concerns about how any agreement that sets out the manner in which the Secretary of State will, or will not, exercise his power to propose a modification to an approved programme will deal with “unforeseen circumstances” in the future. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ concerns, we have had very useful meetings and I am very grateful for the constructive way in which they have engaged to ensure that we have a new clause that is acceptable to both sides.
I recognise that the funded decommissioning programme and any agreement entered into under the new clause are very long-term arrangements, and that the arrangements will need to take account of “unforeseen circumstances” that may arise in the future.
In the light of the Committee’s concerns, we wish with new clause 11 to amend the relevant measure in order to require that the Secretary of State enter into an agreement only when he is satisfied that it includes adequate provision for the modification of a programme if the programme no longer secures prudent provision for the liabilities.
Let us be clear: we would not impose an additional test to the existing requirement that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the programme and the agreement as a whole secure prudent provision for the liabilities. The new clause would make it explicit that, as part of ensuring prudent provision, the Secretary of State needed to be satisfied with the arrangements for making modifications to the programme when he entered into the agreement.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister be a little more precise about the exact definition of the word “prudent” in this context?
Charles Hendry
We have chosen to use the word “prudent” not only because it is a concept that is established in law but because it was important to give the Secretary of State the ability to decide, in future, whether something has ceased to be prudent. We looked at some of the wording that had been discussed in Committee relating to unforeseen circumstances and moved away from that because we were concerned that the legal debate would then be about whether something was foreseen or unforeseen. If people could point to one speech by a Minister who had talked about such issues, then nobody could say that they were unforeseen because they had been discussed in this House. I will clarify that further in a few moments.
It is clear that over the years foreseen and, potentially, unforeseen events will occur that may require modification of the arrangements set out in the programme. The new clause is not limited to unforeseen circumstances, but when the Secretary of State enters the agreement he will need to be satisfied with the arrangements for modifying the programme when it is no longer prudent, be that in unforeseen circumstances or those which were foreseen. The new clause also allows the agreement to set out matters that may be determined by a third party, and for the Secretary of State, if he so agrees, to be bound by that determination. This provides reassurance to operators that there can be a mutually agreed and mutually binding process between the Secretary of State and the operator where disputes can be resolved in an impartial manner. Such a third party would need to be impartial and independent of the operator and the Secretary of State. In addition, both parties would need to be satisfied that the third party in question had the expertise to perform the role required of them. The exact terms of the agreement, including any process for third-party determination, and the method for appointing a third party will be decided on a case-by-case basis with the operator and after taking into account the programme submitted by that operator.
I turn now to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to new clause 11, which are in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Under amendment (a), the Secretary of State would not be able to set out in the agreement when he would not use his section 48 power. This would leave him with broad scope to use his section 48 powers and so render the agreement ineffective from the perspective of providing investor confidence, which is the whole purpose. Amendment (b) would have the same effect. Amendment (c), which would omit the word “prudent” and insert
“adequate to protect the interests of the public and taxpayers”,
would not provide further protection for the taxpayer. Arguably, it would reduce protection by introducing a looser term that could be subject to conflicting interpretations and be inconsistent with the rest of the Act, for which the test is prudence.
New clause 17 would amend subsection (2)(c) of section 48 of the Energy Act 2008. That would have the effect of allowing others with obligations under the programme to propose modifications to a site operator’s programme without first seeking their consent. It is clearly unreasonable, we believe, to expect an operator to agree to this. In any case, the Secretary of State would need to seek the views of the site operator and take those views on board before deciding whether to approve the modification.
There is also a legal issue involved in the new clause. The effect of modifying subsection (3) of section 48 in this way would probably be exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion intends. Under the Act, if it were amended as proposed, the Secretary of State would be able to impose obligations only on an associate of the operator and not the operator itself. Modifying subsection (3)(a) and removing subsection (3)(b) altogether would mean that obligations placed on an associate of the operator could not be removed even if, for example, those obligations were no longer relevant because they had been fulfilled. This is clearly inappropriate and impracticable. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady feels sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendments.
I will now speak to Government new clauses 12, 41 and 44, which relate to transmission of renewable electricity and the role that renewable generators in peripheral parts of Great Britain could play in meeting low carbon energy targets. Section 185 of the Energy Act 2004 allows the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme adjusting transmission charges in a particular area of the country to help to mitigate any material hindrance to renewables development caused by these charges. Section 185 was introduced to address concerns that a GB-wide charging regime for the electricity transmission network might hinder the development of renewable generation in a particular area of the United Kingdom—for example, in the north of Scotland and the Scottish islands. Under the regime, transmission charges are cost-reflective. In effect, the further electricity has to travel, the higher the transmission charges.
Any scheme introduced under section 185 can be applied for up to 10 years—an initial period of no more than five years with renewal for up to five further years. Currently, any scheme must terminate by October 2024. The new clauses merely extend that time limit until 4 October 2034. This power has never been exercised, and it is possible that a review of the transmission charging regime currently being carried out by Ofgem under Project TransmiT will address any perceived problems in other ways. However, it is not certain that Ofgem’s review will address all such perceived problems in every case—for example, renewable generation on the Scottish islands, where forecast transmission charges are significantly higher than elsewhere in Great Britain. The lead times of proposed developments also mean that no renewable generators on the Scottish islands will be connected to the transmission network by October 2014, and so they would not be in a position to benefit from the full possible extent of any section 185 scheme. It therefore makes sense now to extend the sunset clause by 10 years to October 2034. This will allow maximum flexibility to take account of the outcome of Ofgem’s review and give developers time to bring forward renewable generation and associated transmission links without concerns of exceeding the current 2024 deadline.
Government amendments 43 and 51 relate to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. As hon. Members know, having listened to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill, the Government were convinced of the desirability of retaining HECA in England, and this was agreed in Committee on 21 June. Schedule 3 makes a number of amendments that were necessary when HECA was being repealed. However, with HECA being retained, the consequential amendments listed in schedule 3 are no longer necessary. Government amendment 43 is therefore a purely technical amendment that I hope raises no issues of concern for hon. Members.
Regarding amendment 51, I would like to reassure the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) that we have fully consulted colleagues in the Scottish Government during the development and passage of the Bill. The intention to repeal HECA in Scotland was at the request of Scottish Ministers, who indicated that they believe that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, together with the local housing strategy guidance, will be sufficient to ensure appropriate promotion of energy efficiency and the opportunities that the green deal will bring to this. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members can withdraw their amendment.
Charles Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a devolved matter that we have discussed with the Scottish Government. We are implementing this measure as the easiest and quickest way of delivering on that.
Finally, I refer to a small set of Government amendments regarding consultation—Government new clause 13 and consequential Government amendments 35, 37, 38 and 39. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that consultation with key stakeholders carried out before, as well as after, Royal Assent can contribute towards fulfilling the various statutory consultation duties that arise under, or by virtue of, the Bill. Consulting stakeholders is an important part of developing and implementing any policy. Throughout the Bill, there are several provisions that impose a statutory requirement to consult before exercising powers to make secondary legislation. These include, for example, consultation with devolved Administrations or energy companies. In many cases, the consultation requirement can be satisfied by a consultation that takes place before, as well as after, the passing of the Bill. The new clause seeks to ensure parity of approach throughout the Bill.
I hope that I have assured hon. Members that the Government have listened during the passage of the Bill, and I urge them to support our amendments. Similarly, I hope that I have reassured them sufficiently that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Caroline Lucas
I am seeking to amend new clause 11, which was based on a clause that was withdrawn by the Government in Committee because of cross-party concerns. I have not been fully reassured by what the Minister has said about the new clause, which has not met all those concerns. My amendments therefore seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot decide not to exercise his powers to modify a nuclear decommissioning programme; that a nuclear decommissioning programme can be modified only by the Secretary of State on his own, not working with an operator; and that we clarify what is meant by the word “prudent”. The Minister has helpfully expanded on that term so I feel a little reassured, although I still think that it is a little open.
Caroline Lucas
If the liabilities are fixed so that uncertain messages are not being given to the investors, but the costs rise in an unforeseen manner, how is that not a subsidy if the person who is going to meet the difference between the liabilities and the real cost is not the taxpayer?
Charles Hendry
The hon. Lady raises an entirely separate issue. A funded decommissioning programme is constantly reviewed. If there is evidence that not enough money has been put aside for decommissioning issues, that money will have to be increased. The operators entirely accept that if the costs rise, they will have to contribute more towards the decommissioning pot. The new clause is about whether the Secretary of State should be able to say, “You know, I’ve decided that rather than you putting that money into a pot over 20 years, I’d like it in 12 months.” That would be a fundamental change which, under the existing legislation, the companies would not have been able to challenge. There will be no change in the measures ensuring that enough money is put into the decommissioning pot. If that goes up or down, the amount put in will have to reflect that. That is not touched in any way by the changes that we are making through the Bill.
On the hon. Lady’s new clause 17, at present anybody can write to me as a Minister and say, “We don’t think this is adequate,” and we will consider that. That, as she says, would not be a legal power, but an advisory power. It would still be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to take it forward. The Secretary of State has a number of choices. He can choose to modify, to modify in part or to take no action, so considerable power rests with him.
That comes to the heart of the questions that we were asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. There is something vaguely Rumsfeldian about the concept of unforeseen. What are foreseen unforeseen circumstances and what are unforeseen unforeseen circumstances? I think we have been wise to move away from that. A prudence test is a better one, which both Government and industry are more comfortable with. The Secretary of State will have the power to make those decisions, but we will also make clear in those programmes the role of the third parties.
We have had a considerable amount of discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the nature of those third parties. It would clearly have to be somebody who was acceptable both to the Government and to the operators and who was not prejudiced towards one side or the other. That is a role that the Government are used to developing. The Secretary of State would have significant powers but there would also be a role for third parties. Critically, the Government and the operator would be bound by the decision of the third party. This gives the extra degree of certainty and comfort that the hon. Gentleman sought. I hope we have been able to reassure him.
We have had a useful exchange. I thank the official Opposition for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the issue, so that the nuclear aspects of the Bill are stronger and more effective than they were before.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Adjustment of electricity transmission charges
‘In section 185(11) of the Energy Act 2004 (areas suitable for renewable electricity generation: end date for schemes adjusting transmission charges) for “2024” substitute “2034”.’.—(Charles Hendry.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Consultation
‘A requirement for the Secretary of State to consult which arises under or by virtue of this Act may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as consultation after, the passing of this Act.’.—(Charles Hendry.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Energy efficiency aim
‘(1) The principal purpose of this Part is to deliver energy savings from the building stock which will make commensurate contributions to—
(a) the fulfilment by the Secretary of State of the duties under section 1(1) (reduction of net UK carbon account by 2050) and section 4(1)(b)(carbon budgets) of the Climate Change Act 2008; and
(b) the elimination of fuel poverty by the target date required by section 2(2)(d) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000.
(2) In performing functions under this Part the Secretary of State will have regard to—
(a) the principal purpose set out in subsection (1) above, and
(b) the recommendations from time to time of the Committee on Climate Change where these are adopted by the Secretary of State.’.—(Luciana Berger.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Caroline Lucas
I associate myself with the comments made in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead).
I shall say a few words in support of my new clause 7, which I believe would go to the heart of whether the green deal will succeed or not. As the Minister knows, I strongly favour a properly publicly funded, street-by-street, area-based approach to domestic energy efficiency programmes. That would be far more effective than the market-based green deal approach that the Government are pursuing, not least because a market-based approach will not work for those on low incomes living in fuel poverty. I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the green deal finance mechanism is not appropriate for those groups—essentially low-income and vulnerable households that have under-heated their homes in the past.
It is crucial to recognise that the golden rule is much less likely to work for households, as they are much more likely to use the money notionally saved from their fuel bills to increase their thermal comfort—in other words, to take the benefits of energy efficiency improvements in increased warmth rather than in increased savings. That is why the energy company obligation is so important, yet under the Government’s current proposals, I am concerned that the obligation is being seriously under-resourced.
The purpose of new clause 7 is to try to identify additional support to allow us to create a significantly larger ECO pot of resources and to supplement it with some other sources of revenue. In arguing for more resources, I have tried to be helpful by suggesting possible sources of funding that could come on stream in the years to come—namely, receipts from auctions under the EU emissions trading system, the carbon floor price, a tax on gas and electricity companies, or, if necessary, direct taxation. Let me say a few words about why those resources are so desperately needed.
As other hon. Members have said, the scourge of fuel poverty is getting worse, not better. The latest Government statistics, from 2009-10, show 5.5 million UK households in fuel poverty, or 21% of the total. Retail energy prices have continued to rise since the fuel poverty figures were updated, with five of the six main energy suppliers recently announcing higher charges for gas and electricity, which will inevitably increase the scale of fuel poverty. As a result, National Energy Action estimates that we are currently closer to having 6.5 million households across the UK living in fuel poverty. However, the stark truth is that existing programmes to address fuel poverty through energy efficiency are not equal even to current demand.
If there is to be any prospect of meeting our social and environmental objectives, and if the 2016 target to eradicate fuel poverty in England in particular is to be met, the Government must introduce much more ambitious policies to support and protect low-income and vulnerable groups. That means that the ECO must be much better funded and supplemented with other resources if it is to provide the necessary support for those who are fuel-poor and living in vulnerable households and for the hard-to-treat properties that need it most.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady care to tell the House approximately how much she believes is available or needed for the ECO, and how much of that the sources named in her new clause—in particular, those named in subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c)—would provide?
Caroline Lucas
If the hon. Gentleman holds on for just a moment, I will come to those very figures. Indeed, the question that I wanted to ask the Minister was whether he could outline the latest thinking on the level of funding for the ECO pot. The figure of £1 billion has been cited in the past, but a recent all-party report recommended that the annual contribution through the ECO should be no less than £2.5 billion, focused exclusively on low-income and vulnerable households. Other reports have suggested that the contribution should be as much as £4 billion a year.
Let us not forget that the introduction of the ECO will coincide with the end of all Exchequer funding for domestic energy efficiency programmes—the first time in three decades—when Warm Front is phased out. As we have discussed, the ECO will be funded through a levy on all customers’ fuel bills, regardless of households’ financial circumstances. That is inherently regressive and can result in perverse outcomes. I mentioned earlier that if we are not careful, we could push more people into fuel poverty by levying a fee on all bills—rather than by adopting a taxpayer-funded approach—than we take out of fuel poverty. It is simply not acceptable for low-income and vulnerable households effectively to subsidise those who just happen to live in hard-to-treat homes, but who are perfectly able to pay to heat them properly. The dual function of the ECO pot is therefore misguided and risks creating cross-subsidies from the poorest to the better-off.
In their paper “Extra help where it is needed: a new Energy Company Obligation”, published in May, the Government provide further information about the ECO, and in doing so partially recognise the limitations and regressive nature of the policy, as well as acknowledging concerns about targeting and equity. That document says:
“As the delivery costs of ECO are assumed to be recovered by the energy companies through increases in consumer bills and therefore spread across all households, it is important for the credibility of the scheme to ensure that all households have fair access to the benefits, safeguarding distributional equity. In addition to providing for affordable warmth, this includes considering how the benefits of support for solid wall insulation can be delivered equitably. We are looking into learning the lessons from CERT”.
Those are the challenges that need to be overcome. The case that I want to make—the same case as that made by the Committee on Climate Change—is that the funding available from the ECO should be used exclusively for low-income and vulnerable households, including those in hard-to-treat homes. Essentially, what we should not do is use ECO funds for those in hard-to-treat homes who can afford to pay for them.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, with which I agree, in criticising the market-based approach to the alleviation of fuel poverty. Is she also concerned about the figures that appeared on the front page of The Daily Telegraph last week, which suggested that the cost of the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff could, depending on the price of carbon-based fuels, be as much as £300 per household? That would negate most of the benefits of the Bill.
Caroline Lucas
I did not see that piece in The Daily Telegraph, but I would query some of the assumptions on which such a calculation was based in relation to the levels that fuel bills might reach—because fossil fuels are getting so expensive—without some measure of investment in alternative fuels. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however, that it would be better not to put more and more obligations that have to be paid for on to people’s fuel bills. That is a regressive thing to do, and any such measures should be funded either through direct taxation or through mechanisms such as the emissions trading scheme’s revenues.
Gregory Barker
I am listening closely to the hon. Lady, and I admit that the Government have not yet come forward with our proposal on the ECO. She seems quite clear about what it should involve, but I did not pick up the actual figure that she thinks would be right for it. Will she tell us what she thinks that figure should be, so that we can work out whether the sources of revenue would be sufficient to fund it?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for his intervention, and I am pleased to see his impatience for me to get to the crunchy bits involving the figures, which I will now do. The figures that I was quoting were from an all-party group chaired by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that involved myself and a few others. The group believed that it would be necessary to have a minimum of £2.5 billion in the ECO pot specifically for low-income and vulnerable households involved; some members of the group felt that it should be £4 billion. We were therefore looking at between £2.5 billion and £4 billion, but that was intended not for solid-wall insulation in the able-to-pay sector; it was focused solely on low-income and vulnerable households.
We considered where we might be able to find such sums of money, including down the back of the sofa and so forth. Based on the Treasury’s own budgetary projections, the EU emissions trading scheme and the carbon floor price will bring in a combined revenue of £2.7 billion in the first year of the green deal’s operation, 2013-14, rising to £3.6 billion by 2015-16. If we were to choose to hypothecate those two revenue streams alone, they could be used to supplement the revenues of the ECO. That is exactly what many groups and individuals have recommended. A 2008 European Parliament directive recommended that at least 50% of revenues from EU ETS auctions of allowances should be devoted to environmental protections, including more efficient heating and improved insulation. In contrast to the UK, countries such as Germany, Hungary and Poland are doing exactly that.
Ofgem provided constructive support in its report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2008, stating:
“In view of these pressures on prices the regulator has identified a windfall to the electricity industry arising from the free allocation of tradeable emission permits.”
That windfall still exists. The report continues:
“This could be used to fund aid for fuel-poor households: those who spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy.”
The European Parliament and Ofgem are thus both in favour of such a move.
Graham Jones
The hon. Lady mentioned hard-to-treat homes and solid-wall insulation. Is she saying that those who are able to pay should not benefit from the ECO?
Caroline Lucas
If money were no object, I would love to see hard-to-treat homes subsidised through the ECO, even for those who are able to pay. We are living in financially constrained times, however, and I am therefore suggesting that we focus all the money in the ECO, which should be increased, on low-income and vulnerable households, of which a subset would be those low-income and vulnerable households in properties that are hard to heat and therefore need solid-wall insulation.
Gregory Barker
If the hon. Lady is not prepared to subsidise solid-wall insulation, does she accept that many able-to-pay customers will baulk at the substantial cost of such insulation, so there is a very real risk—it is almost certain—that we would be unable to hit our CO2 reduction targets? All the analysis of this problem that has come from a climate change or environmental perspective is absolutely clear that we will need to subsidise these currently expensive measures.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for his intervention. I hope he will allow me to explain my proposal. It would mean that for at least the first three years the ECO would be used for the low-income and vulnerable families that live in hard-to-heat homes. As about 40% of the low-income and vulnerable households do live in such homes, I am confident that if the revenues from the ECO were focused on that group of people, we would have a much greater uptake of solid-wall insulation and the price would come down far more quickly. If we were to use the bulk of the ECO to go house to house or street by street to some of the poorest, most vulnerable people, I believe it would have a far better environmental impact than sitting back and allowing market forces to see who happens to ring up the advice line to say, “By the way, I’m living in poverty in a hard-to-treat home, so could I have some support from the ECO?” What I am suggesting would be better for dealing with fuel poverty and also better for the environment—the figures suggesting that do stack up.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
Was the three-year time scale you mentioned the period over which you envisage this £2.5 billion to £4 billion ECO operating? If not, what time scale are you looking at for the generation and use of the ECO in this way?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he is asking me whether, over those three years, I envisage a pot of money of between £2.5 billion and £4 billion, replenished on an annual basis, being used only for these low-income and vulnerable households. If that was the question, the answer is yes.
Simon Wright
For how much longer, then, will it go on for the groups that your all-party parliamentary group spoke up for? Is a 10-year programme envisaged for that level of investment? Do you have a longer time scale in mind?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, let me say that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should address the Chair, that I am “you”, and he should not therefore ask me what my views are. The hon. Lady should be referred to as either his hon. Friend or the hon. Member.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the report of the all-party parliamentary group, which was co-chaired by myself and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, as it contains all the detail in it. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the overall number of years, but my essential point is that both for attacking fuel poverty and for environmental rigour, it makes more sense to target all the ECO resources for at least the first three years on low-income, vulnerable households, including those living in solid-wall and hard-to-heat properties, rather than trying to separate out the ECO into hard-to-treat homes that might belong to able-to-pay groups. A focus for at least three years solely on low-income and vulnerable households would have stronger fuel poverty and environmental outcomes.
Let us not forget that the Government are still bound by their statutory commitments to the eradication of fuel poverty in England by 2016. If that objective is to be met, we need significant additional resources for programmes that will improve heating and insulation standards in dwellings occupied by those households. An impoverished Exchequer, a coalition Government who are averse to high taxation and a policy of funding a range of programmes through levies on consumer bills can only exacerbate the appalling scale of fuel poverty. I think we need a major investment in a national programme to improve domestic energy efficiency, giving priority, as I say, to those in greatest need.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that the Government are taking other measures? For example, in the recently published public health paper, the eradication of fuel poverty is highlighted as a public health outcome for the very first time. If health and wellbeing boards are established, they will play a critical role, and they will have additional funds to target on this issue. There is already very good partnership working in such counties as Cornwall—between Community Energy Plus and the local authority, for example—and it is targeting precisely the households that the hon. Lady mentions. That is another way of tackling fuel poverty.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I welcome the fact that health and wellbeing boards are now interested in fuel poverty, although whether that will bring significant new resources into play is another question. I hope that the hon. Lady is right, but I am not convinced that she is, or at least that there will be enough resources without hypothecation of some of the revenue sources from emissions trading and so forth.
New clause 18 would allow fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes to be better targeted at those in greatest need through the sharing of data between the Government and energy companies, with all due consideration for privacy and data protection issues. I believe that such improved targeting would also reduce wasteful administration costs, which have been estimated at about £120 per household. Money spent on trying to identify low-income and vulnerable consumers would be much better spent on helping them out of poverty.
I strongly support amendments 2 to 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington and signed by me. I had tabled similar amendments to improve clause 42, but withdrew them to support those tabled by the hon. Gentleman.
Guy Opperman
It is no exaggeration to say that the citizens of Northumberland are often faced with a straight choice between heating and eating. I am lucky enough to represent 1,150 square miles of south and west Northumberland, and while in the rest of the country 6 million people—one in 10—may suffer from fuel poverty, it is well accepted in my constituency that the position is far worse there. The north-east has the second highest level of fuel poverty in the country, and we take the issue very seriously.
I support what the Government are doing in the Bill and with the green deal. It is a wonderful step forward. Listening to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), one might have believed that nothing had happened since the present Government came to office, that everything had been rosy in the preceding 13 years, and that fuel poverty magically mushroomed out of nowhere in May 2010.
I want to discuss energy efficiency and fuel poverty in the context of new clause 19, which was presented very impressively by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). My constituency is particularly affected in the context of oil and liquefied petroleum gas, although we are obviously affected by other energy issues. I applaud all the efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes through the green deal, but I am concerned about, in particular, the variances in the price of heating oil and LPG. We discussed the issue during an important debate in Westminster Hall in January to which a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), made impressive contributions. I hope that that debate is a source of ongoing development in relation not just to the Bill and the green deal, but to other proposals made by the Government.
Fuel poverty is not an abstract issue. It is talked of as though it affects other people, but account should be taken of the sheer increase in fuel prices. The price of heating oil in Northumberland, for instance, rose from approximately 41p to 71p in the three months between September and December last year. That is a massive price rise. Everyone accepts that prices are affected by consumption and by oil and gas prices generally, but there is undoubtedly an element of profiteering, and naked monopolies and cartels have been created by individual companies. We have campaigned strongly on the issue.
It is well known that I am no fan of the company known as DCC Energy. I am pleased to say that it is being subjected to an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, which was launched on 14 March this year and will report in October. I hope very much that the OFT will fully address the difficulties that individuals face. I touch upon this matter because it relates to fuel poverty and energy efficiency. We in Northumberland have at least 20 or 21 fuel companies that provide heating oils and other products. If the practice had not been made public by Members and The Sunday Times—whose campaign I applaud and endorse—it would not be known that all but four of those companies are owned by DCC Energy. Long-standing customers of, for instance, a heating oil company that had been bought-out might be told, “We’re the independent and long-established company that you’ve always purchased from,” when that was manifestly not the case. That company is now clearly controlled by a parent company.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
At last we are here at the Third Reading of a Bill that has dropped off the parliamentary agenda more often than Humpty Dumpty. In Committee, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) clearly set out his ambitions for the Bill. He described the green deal as
“the centrepiece of…the coalition’s ambitious plan for energy efficiency.”
He went on to describe it as
“a new paradigm…the biggest home improvement project since the second world war.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 7 June 2011; c. 4-5.]
In reality, it is a bit of a disappointment; not as broken as Humpty Dumpty, but in parts as divorced from reality as a nursery rhyme. Much was promised, but little was delivered.
The delays are serious, because they mean that the green deal will fail to be delivered by October next year as planned. But we should not be surprised, because since the Secretary of State was appointed we have seen promises delayed and initiatives re-announced so often that we have lost count. Even after intense parliamentary scrutiny here and in the other place, it is still a weak Bill, which I fear will not deliver what it promises. We want the Bill to achieve its aims, but wanting is not enough. The green deal needs to work, and the Government need to now work very hard on that delivery. But the Government are swamping providers in red tape, customers in confusion and energy companies with responsibilities that many are reluctant to undertake. We should not be surprised because the Government have form on this issue in delay, dither and confusion generally on the green policy agenda.
There was so much promise. The greenest Government ever was the Prime Minister’s pledge. That is the same Prime Minister who has not mentioned green issues at all since the election. In opposition, he criticised energy Bills but now sits on his hands and does nothing. The Secretary of State needs to take responsibility. He has less influence over his Department than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not just the Chancellor who we know has influence. We knew trouble was afoot when the Prime Minister appointed a new energy adviser, and as he arrived at No. 10, dripping with oil, the death knell of the Government’s green credentials were sounded. We know this from a recently leaked memo, originally circulated to a select group of 12 trusted advisers and leaked by one of them to The Daily Telegraph. This shows the unease within the Conservative party ranks about the Secretary of State’s performance. The memorandum from the Prime Minister’s own energy adviser suggested that the Department’s projections were unconvincing, so not exactly a ringing endorsement for the green deal from within the Government.
One of the real scandals of the Government’s approach against a backcloth of rising prices for gas and electricity is how they are turning their back on consumers. As the temperature drops, millions will start to see their energy prices spiral out of their reach, and the green deal will not deliver this winter or even next. Those in private rented housing will have to wait until 2016, or even 2018, to see those improvements. So people will face the terrible choice between staying warm and running up debts, and turning off the heating despite plummeting temperatures. Those on pre-payment schemes will see their money run out sooner and the gas go off. Hundred of thousands will slip into fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their household income on keeping their home at an adequate temperature. The Secretary of State cannot even persuade members of his own Government. Recent polling shows that energy prices are a top concern for the public. Within months there could be a full-scale crisis.
Caroline Lucas
I am no apologist for this Government, but I must observe that in Labour’s 13 years in government CO2 emissions went up, not down. Does that not look a little hypocritical of the hon. Lady?
Meg Hillier
We all share the mission of reducing carbon emissions, and we have all supported the Government in signing up to the fourth carbon budget, but the proof of the pudding will be in whether they can actually deliver. My sad worry is that the Bill will not deliver the home efficiency improvements it sets out. We want it to succeed, but it is a wishy-washy Bill that I fear will not meet the Secretary of State’s aims. It needs further improvement. It has no strategy or plan for delivery, and there are so many unanswered questions about practical delivery, even after being debated in both Houses.
The Secretary of State has staked his reputation on this market-driven home energy efficiency model. His claim that it will transform the energy efficiency of our homes, which represent 27% of emissions nationally, and create green jobs up and down the country is melting away, as publicly and privately the expected players are very critical of it. I re-emphasise that the Opposition strongly support the aim. The original thinking behind it came from my Government when we were in power. The need to tackle domestic emissions is unarguable, and we fully support the direction of travel. It is just a crying shame that the Secretary of State, with all Whitehall’s talent at his disposal, has managed to deliver a wet dishcloth of a Bill.
As five of the big six energy companies hiked their prices over the summer, it was clear that the vast majority of bill payers will face real pressure this winter. The Secretary of State’s proposal was that customers should shop around for the best deal, but with companies’ prices rising in line with one another, that suggestion rings hollow. The Government have abolished Warm Front before any replacement scheme has been introduced, and the new energy company obligation ushered in by the Bill leaves many questions unanswered. We pass the Bill tonight with that detail still to come.
The reality is that the Secretary of State, as a Lib Dem in a Conservative Government, and distracted by other matters, now lacks the focus to get even this flagship Bill delivered in time. We still have more than 50 pieces of secondary legislation to pass, so the timetable is in serious doubt. I do not doubt his commitment to this, but the reality is that the Government as a whole are not serious about their green agenda. With friends like that in No. 10, we can have little hope that the real opportunities for growth and jobs in greening our energy supplies and helping those who are shivering under blankets will be met by the Government.