Fuel Poverty

Debate between Chris Williamson and Michael Fallon

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on securing this debate on fuel poverty and cold homes. Like the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), I note that all the Back-Bench speakers were from Wales. I make no complaint about that at all; these are important issues. I note that fuel poverty, as a subject, is a devolved matter. I am not trying to escape responsibility—I will try to answer a lot of these points—but perhaps some questions should also be addressed to the Welsh Government and their spending decisions.

Let me begin by saying a little bit about fuel poverty, something on the retail market and prices and something about the off-grid issue, which a number of hon. Members mentioned. I will then try to answer some points made by hon. Members in their speeches. I hope that they will allow me to write to them if I do not cover every point that has been mentioned.

I hope that hon. Members welcome the fall in the last reported fuel poverty figures as much as I do. Of course, that followed a period in which fuel poverty rose between 2004 and 2009, reaching a peak of 5.5 million households. I put that on the record as a criticism not of the previous Government, but of how fuel poverty was measured. To help us meet the challenge better, with the new more accurate measure that we are introducing, which deals with low income and higher cost together, we will be better able to design and deliver effective policies that can cut bills and increase comfort for those on low incomes who live in the very coldest homes. I am pleased that the House agreed to the Energy Act 2013, which allows us to bring in the new definition.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the Minister understand the scepticism out there about the Government’s changing how fuel poverty is calculated? People want to see significant investment in energy efficiency, to ensure that the shocking increase in excess winter deaths last winter is not repeated in future. Fiddling around with the measurement of fuel poverty will do little to address that. People see winter deaths rising and fuel poverty increasing, but they see spending on tackling it falling. The Government need to deal with that, rather than simply changing the definition of what constitutes fuel poverty.

[Michael Fallon]

I am a little disappointed about that. We all deplore any excess deaths arising in the winter months, but in terms of fiddling with the figures, the new definition of fuel poverty that we are securing was reached by agreement with fuel poverty action groups that have welcomed the new focus, which, as I say, is on low-income households as well as high-cost households. The problem with the previous definition was that it essentially picked out large houses and wealthy people can be living in large houses. That was not the right way to tackle fuel poverty. It was also a measure that kept moving; people kept moving in and out of the definition.

We are now moving to a better definition, with the agreement with those who work in the area. That will form the foundation for a new fuel poverty strategy that we will publish later this year, which will be deliverable and on which the public can hold us to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

I will take up that point. It is important for those who are off-grid that there is as much transparency as possible, so that they understand what the costs are likely to be.

I will now address some of the individual points that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to harder-to-treat homes, which probably lie at the core of the long-term challenge. Getting energy efficiency measures into harder-to-treat homes lies at the heart of solving the problem and catching up with the progress that has been made elsewhere in Europe. I accept that those comparisons are not encouraging for us as one of the wealthier member states.

The hon. Gentleman asked about hypothecating some of the carbon taxes towards this objective. If that were to involve additional spending, the revenue from those taxes would have to be produced from elsewhere, or else we would become involved in additional borrowing. None of that is easy at a time when we still face a deficit of more than £100 billion. He asked specifically about extending the gas grid, and the grid is being extended in the current seven-year period that runs from 2013 to 2020. The aim is to connect some 75,000 off-grid homes each year. Those homes will be reasonably close to the existing grid, but that is expensive and a contribution has to be made by the householder, by some other agency or by the local authority. I do not want him to be under the impression that nothing is happening. I will take his points back to the transmission operators and the companies, including his view that more should be done. The aim is to connect more homes to the grid in each successive year.

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Extending the grid is welcome, but is not the key actually to reduce energy demand? Surely, a huge uplift in investment is needed to address fuel poverty—in other words, properly insulating people’s homes—using the money that is already in the system. Unless we can do that, extending the grid will not address the problem of fuel poverty for millions of people.

[Michael Fallon]

I understand that this problem must be addressed across a number of fronts. The hon. Gentleman is right that energy efficiency has a huge part to play, which allows me now to address the energy company obligation. The ECO has been criticised, so I will first address the suggestion that some of those who work in the ECO scheme have run out of budget. I am advised that, by the end of November 2013, published figures from Ofgem showed that approved ECO measures accounted for some 60% of the affordable warmth obligation that was to be delivered by March 2014, so there is still work to do. There are still affordable warmth targets out there for 2015, and we are now extending the scheme to run through to the end of March 2017. We are also ensuring that, having considered the working of the scheme, it is better targeted at lower-income households.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for shale gas, and I am sorry that he will not be able to demonstrate that support for any application in his constituency at the moment. No application has yet been made that would allow him to campaign more openly on the scene of an application, but I note what he says. We simply do not know the full potential for shale, so we are not able to estimate the likely revenues, which is what he was homing in on. I am sure that if shale takes off here, as it has taken off in the United States, there will be many claims on the additional revenues that it brings in. The revenues will, of course, not only simply be brought into the Treasury and reallocated outwards to public services; they will also be brought into local communities through the local community benefits package that the industry has already agreed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the green deal. Some 130,000 assessments have now been made through the green deal, and it is perfectly true, as I think he said, that not all have taken up green deal finance, but the green deal is being taken up. More and more assessments are being made, and the scheme is proving successful.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) welcomes the warm home discount, and he asked about eligibility. He will be pleased to know that 2 million households get the warm home discount each year, but we have committed to extending the scheme not simply for 2015-16, but with an additional spend of some £320 million. More than 1 million additional low-income households will therefore receive the payment, without having to take any action at all.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about oil syndication, which we are pursuing through the twice-yearly round table that I chair. We will pick up experience from his constituency and from other constituencies to see what the Government can do to encourage syndicates. There are some good examples of syndication and oil buying in the north-east of England, in Ceredigion and in Northern Ireland, and I want to see what role the Government can play in incentivising that form of syndication.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central said that she is proud of the previous Labour Government’s record, but she then outlined the reforms that she wants to make. I am not sure why she should be both proud of Ofgem and determined to abolish it. Her Government set up Ofgem, and now they are going to abolish it. I am not sure that she should be proud of that or of having started with 14 energy suppliers and ending up with the big six. She must develop her policy for a future Labour Government, if there is ever to be such a thing, in her own way.

I preferred the hon. Lady’s earlier remarks, in which she said that the Labour Government did not get everything absolutely right. That is probably a good motto for any Government. I am not pretending that the current Government have all the answers on fuel poverty, which is a deep-rooted problem. A lot depends on the state of our housing stock, which needs to be addressed. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) is right that we need to do more on energy efficiency, but we also need to measure the problem better to ensure that the data that we have are properly matched so that, with all the different schemes, we get help to those who need it most.

I am sure, Mr Sheridan, that you would like me, on behalf of all the hon. Members who have spoken, to thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire for bringing this important subject to the House today. I assure him that the Government will respond to him and the other Members who have spoken on all the points that have been raised. This is a serious subject, and we are grateful to him for raising it.

Energy Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and Michael Fallon

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

We have made our intention absolutely clear that the renewables obligation was going to be closed by March 2017. That has been made clear to the Scottish Government by officials and Ministers in correspondence over many months now. It is only right that the renewables obligation should be closed evenly for England, Wales and Scotland. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) suggested that some of those involved in the fuel poverty area were not supportive of our change. He quoted Derek Lickorish, the chairman of the fuel poverty advisory group, but let me now quote him. David Lickorish said:

“I very much welcome the announcement in Parliament today by the Secretary of State that will place an enduring requirement for this, and successive governments, to tackle fuel poverty beyond the current legislation.”

The hon. Gentleman also quoted the Association for the Conservation of Energy. Let me tell him what Mr Warren said:

“It has been our long-held view that fuel poverty-proofing our inefficient housing stock is the only permanent solution to the scourge of fuel poverty. We therefore welcome as a step in the right direction the Government’s stated intention to adopt a new target to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of the fuel poor.”

I just want to make it clear that those voluntary organisations that are the most concerned in this area welcome the change that we are making.

[Chris Williamson]

I think the Minister will find that the organisations to which he is referring took the view that something was better than nothing, because nothing was previously on offer. It is stretching the point to suggest that these organisations are endorsing the Government’s approach, because that is far from the truth.

[Michael Fallon]

The problem the hon. Gentleman has is that fuel poverty went up. It went up in the boom years when the economy was booming and public expenditure was increasing year after year. That has been the particular problem with his definition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and Michael Fallon

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to protect the universal service obligation under plans for the privatisation of Royal Mail.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

The Government’s overarching objective is to secure the future of the universal postal service. The minimum requirements of the universal service are enshrined in primary legislation, which means that the six-days-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere service to every address in the United Kingdom can only be amended by Parliament. That protection will continue to apply following any sale of shares in Royal Mail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Despite those assurances, the public have seen that previous ideologically driven and badly executed privatisations have led to substandard services and price increases. The fact is that the polls show that the vast majority of the British public oppose this privatisation. Why is the Minister riding roughshod over the wishes of the British people?

[Michael Fallon]

Parliament has already decided that Royal Mail should have access to private capital. We are implementing that decision of Parliament, and the decision to put 10% of the shares in the hands of the employees. The level of service is protected under the Postal Services Act 2011, and any change in ownership does not affect control over the price of stamps or the future of the six-days-a-week service.

Manufacturing (East Midlands)

Debate between Chris Williamson and Michael Fallon

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I repeat what hon. Members have said in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing this debate. As he said, the east midlands has a long, proud and—as we have learned—historical tradition of manufacturing, which is vital not just for UK manufacturing but for growth in the wider economy. Its location at the geographical heart of the UK, an abundance of natural resources, and a spirit of invention put the east midlands at the centre of the industrial revolution. As we have heard, inventions that have come out of the region include the jet engine, ibuprofen, DNA fingerprinting and the MRI scanner. My hon. Friend’s constituency has a long history of mining, and it has been home to Rolls-Royce since the 1940s. The food and drink industry is a major employer there, and it has a strong record of productivity.

Nobody in this debate has been under any illusions about the scale of the wider economic challenges we face as a country. The continuing sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone is affecting the real economy and depressing demand, which has caused uncertainty for British businesses and damaged some of our manufacturing output. That damage was already pronounced under the previous Government, which presided over the fastest ever decline in manufacturing as a share of the economy: manufacturing fell by nearly 10% as a share of gross domestic product, and almost 1.7 million jobs were lost in the sector. Under this Government, manufacturing’s share of GDP is growing again and our manufacturing capability is increasing in quality—nowhere more so than in the east midlands.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

I will not.

I had the pleasure of visiting Toyota’s factory at Burnaston near Derby last week, and I saw for myself how a world-class work force in a cutting-edge facility can produce workmanship that is second to none. Earlier last week, I also met Rolls-Royce to hear its plans for the future. To kick-start the recovery, the first thing we had to do was to tackle the deficit, but we have not focused only on that. We have taken a wholly proactive approach to unlocking growth, reducing the red tape that holds back business and creating a competitive tax system so that businesses choose to locate and grow here.

In the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced multiple measures to encourage greater investment in manufacturing. There will be a significant temporary increase in the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £250,000. An additional £210 million will be added to the £2.4 billion regional growth fund until March 2015. There will also be an extra £120 million for the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. Let me reassure colleagues that the Government have never been clearer in our commitment to manufacturing, which we see as an essential building block of a more resilient, innovative economy.

A greater proportion of the east midland’s economic output comes from manufacturing than in any other English region or part of the UK. Some 12.3% of the work force are employed in manufacturing, compared with 8% across the UK. The region has a positive balance of trade in manufactured goods, and the latest figures are expected to show that it achieved its highest annual level of exports in 2012, worth some £18 billion. The iconic names that are at the heart of the region’s manufacturing base—Rolls-Royce, Siemens, JCB and Toyota, to name just a few—employ thousands of people directly, and are at the centre of the network of hundreds of smaller businesses that make up their supply chains across the region. As we have heard, the region has a thriving sector of small and medium-sized enterprises working in the advanced manufacturing supply chain, and in the automotive and aerospace supply chains in particular.

Last week, I met the private sector chairs of the region’s local enterprise partnerships and some council leaders from the east midlands. I was impressed by the common sense of purpose across the public and private sectors, across political divides and even across traditional geographic rivalries. I saw for myself the determination to ensure a strong recovery for all parts of the east midlands and to tackle some of the barriers and bottlenecks that they have identified.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and Michael Fallon

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the latest construction output figures; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that construction output fell by 2.5% in the last quarter, but overall gross domestic product increased by 1%.

[Chris Williamson]

Earlier this year, the Secretary of State gave a commitment that the Government were taking steps to address the decline in construction output, but this week’s construction trade survey showed, for the first time ever, a decline in every single construction sector. What has gone wrong?

[Michael Fallon]

There are various surveys; another construction survey shows that output increased in October. In September, we announced a housing and planning package that will deliver up to 70,000 new homes and 140,000 jobs, with a £40 billion guarantee for infrastructure projects and £10 billion for new homes. We have also introduced the Growth and Infrastructure Bill to speed up the planning system and unlock new investment in housing and infrastructure. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman voted against it on Monday night.