Examination of witnesses (Questions 580
- 599)
MONDAY 29 MARCH 1999
SIR DENNIS
PETTITT, CLLR
DEREK GREEN,
MR ALAN
ALLSOPP, MR
DAVID PICKLES,
OBE, MR
DICK HUSKINSON
and MS SARA
BATLEY
580. Who assesses the performance?
(Mr Allsopp) We do not within the Partnership.
(Mr Huskinson) We do have within the Partnership
a HECA sub-group, working group. Just as I chair the Renewables
Sub-Group, we have a sub-group specifically for the Home Energy
Conservation Act and that particular group is trying to set up—but
we have not got there yet—so that we can get together all
the HECA returns of all the districts within the Partnership.
With that sub-group basically the idea was to pick the brains
of the best ones and save them rather than re-inventing the wheel.
581. That would be an auditing group then?
(Mr Huskinson) It would be an auditing group but
not simply auditing, "Oh, these people have done better."
It is, "These people have come up with a good idea. Can we
share that and use that somewhere else?" So it is a sort
of audit but it is more benchmarking than auditing. It also helps
reflect the fact that there are 19 different authorities and 17
of those are energy conservation authorities under HECA. They
are starting from a different position. Some of them are starting
purely in terms of the different types of tenure within the district.
So yes, I agree that there is a need for us to do a fairly detailed
audit of where we are going but not simply audit for the sake
of audit—audit and find out who is doing what right and
what is best and how can we share that among the Partnership and
outside.
Dr Iddon
582. May we look at housing for a moment.
Have you tried to measure the energy efficiency of the housing
stock within your Partnership area with the rest of the United
Kingdom or even further afield, with Northern Europe?
(Mr Pickles) This issue of measuring the performance
of the housing stock is an area fraught with difficulties. Within
the United Kingdom the way the Home Energy Conservation Act actually
rolls out is that individual authorities tend to assemble a theoretical
model as to the performance of their housing stock and we are
forced down this route because in the United Kingdom we do not
have access to local energy consumption. In fact, most of the
work undertaken by our Partnership has to be done on a pro-rata
basis on national figures. I was at a meeting a month or so ago
where senior civil servants were saying that they were even having
difficulties obtaining data on a regional basis. This is quite
different in Sweden, for instance. There is a requirement of each
energy agency to undertake a local energy plan. My colleague in
Sweden scheduled out his local postcode references and asked the
national database what was the energy consumed within his locality
and this information came back from Gothenburg University. So
his energy plan is actually based on real data. The problem we
have is that we cannot access meaningful data on a local basis.
Those of who are also involved in Local Agenda 21 know that one
of the key indicators that is very high up is what is the CO2
emission within your locality, and once again we cannot access
meaningful local data. This is an enormous problem because the
basic tenet of any management system is if you cannot measure
it, you cannot manage it, and we have particular problems locally
where we have encouraged and supported local communities that
are particularly proactive and there is no mechanism for motivating
further efforts in this area. There is no mechanism for measuring
the effectiveness of our work in this area. So I think the key
importance in the United Kingdom is to move forward in terms of
establishing a national energy database where energy consumed
can be accessed on a postcode basis.
(Mr Allsopp) I would fully endorse that. Local
authorities in their own building stock can obviously get the
data but once it is beyond that realm, particularly into the private
sector and the industrial sector, it is again based on available
United Kingdom data. We have to do it on a local voluntary basis
whereas our partners in Sweden said when they did their study
it was simply, "Will you supply this information?" and
it comes back immediately by e-mail and they can produce their
reports, and we are expending a vast amount of resources at the
moment just trying to get that data.
583. This Committee has hit a controversy,
which goes along the following argument, that a key policy of
the Government during the election, and still now, was to reduce
the VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. It seems contradictory to what
we are trying to do, in other words, reduce CO2 emissions.
It positively encourages people to use energy, one can say. When
we put this to some of our witnesses they came back with the argument
that the condition of the United Kingdom housing stock in general
across the country is so poor that this is one way of addressing
the problem. Have you any views on fuel VAT and the condition
of the housing stock?
(Mr Huskinson) On the condition of the housing
stock it is a fact that certainly in Northern Europe there is
no such thing as fuel poverty, and certainly the concept of people
dying of hypothermia is totally foreign to them. I have had dealings
with a Danish supplier and he literally could not come to terms
with the fact that people could die of cold in their own homes.
He just could not accept that; it was totally foreign to him,
and part of the reason for that is that in Denmark they have bad
winters and so they obviously have a very useful driving force
to build up the level of insulation within their dwellings. The
other thing, of course, is that community heating is the norm
in Denmark and Finland; for example, 48 per cent. of dwellings
are on community heating. In this country it is 2 per cent. and
we have to stretch the definition a bit to reach the 2 per cent.
584. Have you tried to direct anyone to
do any research on the connection between mortality and morbidity,
the cost to the National Health Service in general of that and
the energy efficiency/condition of our housing stock?
(Mr Pickles) We tend to pick up and run with the
research of Dr Brenda Boardman and I think her research indicates
a cost to the National Health Service of £100 million a year.
In the early 1990s within Newark and Sherwood the issue of affordable
warmth was a key issue such that our tenants were in fact suing
the authority that their homes were not fit to live in. Fifty
per cent. of dwellings within the town of Newark had severe mould
problems and through the work we undertook in the early 1990s
we actually monitored mortality, death, within our sheltered housing
stock and external temperature from the early Seventies, and whilst
this was by no means an authoritative study, it certainly produced
information that was valid enough to be useful for our key decision-makers,
our local members, in terms of their allocation of scarce resources,
but we established that where temperatures fell below minus 4<deg>
for more than three days there was a definite surge in death rates
within our housing stock in the 1970s and 1980s. During the last
cold spell that we had within Newark and Sherwood there was no
discernible difference in the death rate in our sheltered accommodation
and that was because in 1985 and 1995 our average SAP[1]
rose from an average of 23 to an average of just over 60. So whilst
not an authoritative study by any means—we just do not have
the resources to do a detailed authoritative study and we do not
have the numbers of dwellings—it is very noticeable in terms
of the health and welfare of our tenants. Also we found we had
comments, anecdotal comments, from teachers. Teachers on an estate
in Newark, the Hawtonville estate, the local school there, commented
that the clothes of the children no longer smelled of mould, condensation
and mould. The teachers could actually smell damp and mould on
the children's clothes. This had gone; the teachers noticed it
had actually gone. We also in the early 1980s used regularly to
get very aggressive letters from doctors who were effectively
saying, "We are fed up with putting drugs into these patients
when it is your housing stock that is at fault." That sort
of letter has disappeared now. We do still get letters obviously.
I think we are in a situation where we have contained the worst
excesses of this problem but we still have work to do. So there
are some very real social benefits that we have observed in an
anecdotal sort of way and we have excellent feedback from our
tenants.
585. One final question on housing: if you
had a choice, if the money was available, would you prefer to
build in energy efficiency into new build or tart up the existing
housing? Which would be more beneficial, in your view, to build
new or to renovate the existing housing?
(Mr Pickles) I would argue that a significant
improvement to the energy efficiency of new housing could be done
at little or no extra cost and in terms of new build it is a lot
easier and a lot more cost-effective to deliver on energy efficiency
improvements. Going back to an existing dwelling, you are faced
with extra difficulties and a more onerous task. I think the situation
we are in with the Government's 20 per cent. CO2 target
is that if we are not careful with the projected growth of new
homes, if we do not actually improve energy efficiency in those
new homes, the energy consumed by those new homes could well overwhelm
what savings we are currently making within the existing housing
stock.
Mr Savidge
586. May I take you back to what I think
were very interesting things you said about how we tend to deal
with virtual figures whereas other countries deal with real figures.
It was a very interesting suggestion of a national energy database.
What sort of role would you see local government having in establishing
such a base? Would you primarily think in terms of local government
collecting data that was then nationally co-ordinated or would
you see it as primarily a national government system, or what
form of organisation or structure do you think is essential for
this?
(Mr Allsopp) We actually did a presentation last
month to the LGA on this particular subject and the LGMB was there
and the Energy Saving Trust and DETR. We have actually agreed
that that would be taken forward as a funding bid to the DETR
from the LGMB. My personal view is that such a database ought
to be held by an independent organisation such that it is readily
and freely available to the public at large. Local authorities
have obviously got a part to play in that but the remit is really
on those who hold the data, who are currently the energy suppliers.
That would also be backed up, in my opinion, with a national CO2
profile that would obviously build in and add value to the European
CO2 reduction profile, so that we can easily evaluate,
monitor and reward basically, and that has to come from a national
monitoring process that we will sign up to such that we are not
re-inventing our own process, and a common national database so
that we are all singing from the same hymn book as well.
Joan Walley
587. May I come back to the nuts and bolts
of the Home Energy Conservation Act. I realise that within the
Partnership not everyone is a housing authority but could you
give me some idea of the resources you have to implement the 30
per cent. improvements?
(Mr Huskinson) It does not take very long actually.
588. In full detail?
(Mr Huskinson) We were told that an additional
allocation had been made within our standard spending assessment
in order to cover the cost of preparing the report for HECA when
it was first introduced and that this would continue. We have
19 treasurers within the Local Authorities' Energy Partnership
and none of them could identify it. I think the amount that was
actually spoken of, basically it was a part-time person for a
very small period of the year is what it would have covered if
it could have been identified. So in terms of additional resources,
perhaps it is there in the report, I am prepared to be generous
and believe that it was made but it was made in a way that our
treasurers could not find it. In terms of the resources for implementation,
that is the big problem. There are no resources for implementation.
We can prepare a report but if we need to go forward, if we need
to involve a number of different agencies, that all involves us
in cost and staff time, in advertising time, straightforward public
relations. All of this is money that does not appear in our SSAs
and settlements.
589. Am I right in thinking, could you remind
me, that this was a Private Member's Bill which was promoted by
one of the Nottingham MPs?
(Mr Huskinson) I think it was. I have forgotten
the name of the lady who promoted it.
590. I am just trying to rack my brains.
It was Alan Simpson's Bill, was it not?
(Mr Huskinson) No.[2]
591. The point of my question is, do you
think it would have actually got through Parliament if it went
by the Private Member's route if there had been money implications
there at that stage? So presumably we need to look at the subsequent
stage of implementation to make sure there are the means there
actually to deliver?
(Mr Huskinson) Yes. Earlier we said that we thought
the Home Energy Conservation Act was an excellent piece of legislation.
We think it is an excellent piece of legislation as a first step
because it raises the profile of energy. It gave us, if you like,
the intellectual acceptance of it and we now have to move to the
popular acceptance of it and from that that really presupposes
that we have to start doing things.
592. Could you spell out as well how you
think the housing obligations could be improved to deliver energy
efficiency improvements?
(Mr Huskinson) I think the housing investment
programme submissions currently take a fairly close look at energy
in terms of our investment within the housing stock. As you probably
appreciate, housing authorities have precious little finance anyway
and we are rated as basically above average or below average and
one of the things which gives you an above average rating is the
fact that you direct a fair amount of your very limited resources
to energy efficiency within your existing stock. So there is the
encouragement there from the housing investment programme system
but it is an encouragement to utilise a proportion of a very limited
amount of money.
(Mr Pickles) I think the question really highlights
the need for there to be some sort of retrospective building regulation
minimum standards on the existing housing stock and we are of
the opinion that that ought to kick in at point of sale or at
point of significant investment in the home which needs building
regulation approval. So often as a local authority officer I see
£80,000 extensions on to existing homes where the home owner
will not invest £150 in cavity-filling his existing dwelling.
I think we need to move forward with certain values that, yes,
it is fine to extend, but if you can clearly demonstrate access
to money you really ought to look after what you have first as
part of the package. So I think retrospective building regulations
is something we have to move towards. In fact, if I could give
an anecdote, for the last year we have been focusing on the fuel
rich, which is the approach that is taken in North America. If
you want to create jobs go to people with money, they spend money.
I had an individual in a village just north of Newark with his
Jaguar on the drive, who said to me, "If this issue was really
serious the Government would regulate, if this is a serious issue.
I have a car there with a catalytic converter. I did not ask for
the catalytic converter." So we have a situation, a rather
perverse one, which rather took me aback, where an individual
was saying, "It cannot be an important issue otherwise the
Government would regulate it." I am beginning to think that
the last 15 years' work that has been undertaken has actually
extolled this issue, has raised this issue with the public, and
we are now at a stage where it is actually deliverable in terms
of moving forward on regulation. I am beginning to think we are
at a point now where it is important to take a more regulatory
approach that might be deliverable at this moment in time, that
awareness has risen sufficiently.
593. If you had the opportunity to amend
the legislation going through the House right now to achieve that,
what would you actually propose?
(Mr Pickles) I am lost there.
Chairman
594. If you would like to let us have a
note with any second thoughts it would be very useful. This is
very much the point, is it not, what you were saying about the
chap with the Jaguar in his drive, that for a lot of people energy
is a very low priority looking at their homes. The wife is looking
at the kitchen, the man is looking at the garage, looking at the
bedroom for the children. The whole thing is low priority.
(Mr Pickles) I think culturally we need to move
forward in terms of the way we think about these issues. We have
to consider CO2 as a pollutant and if we can make that
mental leap that CO2 is a pollutant, as we have with
so many other emissions that are controlled by our environmental
health officers, then I think a regulatory approach starts to
make sense.
595. Nonetheless, people are not doing that
at the moment, are they?
(Mr Pickles) No.
596. They are not thinking of energy. When
they look at buying a new home or renting a new home it is very
low in their priorities?
(Mr Allsopp) We did actually try and promote that
on a voluntary basis with a funding bid to the Energy Saving Trust,
which was, unfortunately, unsuccessful, not only targeting the
fuel poor but the fuel rich. Our concept behind this particular
bid was that the fuel rich would have some money to invest in
housing improvement and when they submit a planning application
we actually put in a funding bid to offer them discounted opportunities
to carry out other energy efficiency measures in their home. So
at the same time as carrying out the home improvement they could
also carry out energy efficiency improvement at bulk discount.
So if there is funding available there are obviously opportunities
there to promote energy efficiency with a grant regime or a funding
regime.
Mrs Brinton
597. Could I concentrate our attention now
on the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. We have examined this in
some detail when we have taken evidence from other bodies, particularly
the Energy Saving Trust, and I have to say that they were not
actually very happy with it. They are not very happy with it as
a blanket application and they feel it should be targeted, and
I believe that you adopt personally a "worst first"
strategy. I wonder if you could tell us a bit about that and say
whether you agree?
(Mr Pickles) I think to be eligible for HEES you
are going to have to be in receipt of some form of benefit, so
there is a certain amount of targeting going on already. I believe
the Energy Saving Trust approach is that they would like to take
an eligible group and then target within that on the basis of
"worst first". I think that is the approach they advocate.
I think you will find—it was certainly the case with Newark
and Sherwood—that that is the approach that is taken by
local authorities in terms of their own housing stock, which is
the "worst first" situation. Possibly we are more concerned
that HEES does not look at the property in totality and we have
within the Partnership an initiative in Ashfield where, through
Groundwork Trust and an ILN, the HEES installers are working in
partnership with Groundwork Trust to deliver a package which tackles
the energy efficiency issues of the entire property. So the HEES
eligible work is undertaken and then there might be other sensible
cost-effective measures which could actually be added to that
HEES programme undertaken by this Groundwork Trust and ILN. We
would like to see that particular Groundwork Trust and ILN. Perhaps
Alan could explain how the funding for that actually comes into
play.
(Mr Allsopp) It is more back to this basket of
funding again where, in order to get schemes to be successful,
one has to get pump-priming itself to start off with, so the concept
was originally under a partnership with other local authorities
called Bridge to Work from Nottinghamshire County Council, so
we got effectively all the local authorities in Nottinghamshire
actually working together under the Bridge to Work scheme and
that brings together a bit of core funding from the County Council,
the district councils, etc. that gets initiatives pump-primed,
and the one that we mentioned particularly in Ashfield is an example
of that, where obviously people on benefits can usually only do
one measure under HEES and, therefore, they would probably do
the cavity fill, for example, and in partnership with the network
installers we have got a scheme together of an intermediate labour
market where we have people taken off the dole and into work and
this is a proper training regime as well and that is part of the
presentation that you will hear this afternoon. But basically
it delivers a one-stop shop for all energy efficiency measures
to be carried out in that dwelling at the same time in partnership
with the private and the voluntary sectors.
598. Thank you for that answer. You mentioned
CO2 beforehand and, of course, we all know that reducing
emissions is absolutely vital if we are going to meet those Kyoto
targets, and obviously that is not just national standards and
national objectives; those national ones have to be translated
locally. So talking about HEES again, do you think there needs
to be more targeting if we are actually going to reduce the emissions
locally, and if so, how and where?
(Ms Batley) I think because HEES is targeting
people on benefits and, therefore, more of the fuel poor section,
a lot of the energy efficiency improvements will then be taken
in comfort and so you will not see that significant a reduction
in their bill and you will, therefore, not see that significant
a reduction in their emissions. So HEES is not the best way to
achieve your carbon dioxide reduction targets.
599. Therefore it would be very difficult
to audit that?
(Ms Batley) Yes.
1 Standard Assessment Procedure. Back
2 The Energy Conservation Bill was introduced by Alan Beith, MP
in 1993-94 session but failed to proceed beyond Report stage.
Mrs Diana Maddock, MP introduced a similar Bill (the Home Energy
Conservation Bill) in the next parliamentary session which received
Royal Assent on 28 June 1995. Back
|
