Examination of Witnesses (Questions 700-701)
MS HELEN
DEAVIN, REVEREND
DAVID HARES,
MR GLENN
BUCKINGHAM AND
MS BELINDA
JAMES
31 JANUARY 2007
Q700 Chairman: I have some sympathy.
I asked my electricity provider how much I had used year on year.
That information was readily available; but when I asked, "What
does it represent in carbon emissions?" I was told, "I
can't tell you. Ring another number". I want to move on to
a question which two of you mentioned—Reverend Hares and
Helen Deavin—which was the question of assistance and some
form of further help, through subsidy, to enable more advanced
ways, at the domestic level, of systems to be installed that would
help to reduce your carbon footprint. How do you think the burden
should be shared? At the end of the day, everybody says, "The
Government should use the money" but, in actual fact, the
Government are the custodian of the people's money. It is the
money of us all. What we are saying effectively is that a lot
of people out there will be asked, technically speaking, to subsidise
your personal contribution to reducing your personal carbon footprint.
If we took it to its logical extreme and everybody did it, by
definition there probably would not be enough money to go round
and subsidise. We would have to find another way of making it
more affordable. At the moment, we are looking for examples. Our
first set of witnesses illustrated that by example you can lead.
Give us your feelings about what you think, at this stage when
we are trying to encourage people, should be the burden share
between Government (the rest of the taxpaying community) and those
who want to make a personal commitment and investment into attacking
their carbon emissions.
Ms Deavin: Looking at the actual
costs involved, one solar roof panel works out at not far off
£2,000, and mini turbines are working out at about £1,500
at the moment. I guess if we want to see these being used more
often, one of the things that needs to happen is that their cost
needs to come down, and they need to be at a much lower price
so that people can use them. In these fairly early stages perhaps
that is where government assistance is most needed, because it
will mean that there is more demand for these products and then
the costs will start to come down.
Mr Buckingham: Could I comment
on that. We installed our photo voltaic and wind turbine six years
ago. The prices have not come down in six years. The demand is
still very great, as I understand it; there is obviously a margin
there to be had for a lot of suppliers, and it is the thing to
do. Personally, on the matter of microgeneration, I think a more
positive first step to take is solar hot water heating. I do not
see why that is not on all new houses, on housing estates, et
cetera, and why it is not incorporated in the building plan straightaway.
There are also these Electrisave devices which show you the by-the-minute
cost for running your house—in electricity, gas, or whatever
it might be—and can apparently also show you your carbon
consumption at the time. Why are they not in new houses as a standard
fitment? They are about £70 each, which is nothing very much
in the cost of a new house.
Q701 Mr Drew: This is not really
a question; it is a comment. When we went to Leicester and talked
to some of the people there, one of the individuals had had the
opportunity of Clear Skies. He was very critical of the fact that
the government subsidy had effectively gone straight into the
premium payment to the supplier. You could buy the same kit much
cheaper on the Continent and put it in yourself. It is slightly
different, but it shows the problem of a subsidy.
Mr Buckingham: I think that grants
and so on can distort what happens. It is a very difficult one.
We did ours without any grant. We felt that it was something we
would like to do. Rather than put money into a PEP or any other
investment, or invest in a new car which would have cost a lot
more, we spent the money where it is a long-term investment and
is more sustainable than a new car or other things.
Reverend Hares: One of the obvious
things is that you can buy these things vastly more cheaply in
places like the United States, but tariffs and all the rest of
it lock them out. Regarding the business of how to make grants,
this is something where wiser heads than mine—economists,
and so forth—are needed, in order to try to prevent undue
profits going in inappropriate directions and where certain people
will only be allowed to work with a profit margin of, say, 30%
or whatever it is, in a more or less guaranteed market. Depending
on what is available in the way of grants and where there is the
political will and acceptance to make those grants, then you pick
the targets that will give the greatest yield in terms of carbon
efficiency.
Chairman: We come now to the end of our
formal evidence session. I would like to thank all three panels
for some very incisive, interesting, thought-provoking, and indeed
genuinely challenging contributions. We have the job, when we
carry out these inquiries, of synthesising all of the views and
trying to take the best of the ideas—and, as some have suggested,
to use our political judgment about the things that are achievable—and
to write a report. When our report is produced, it is obviously
in the public domain and the Government have 40 days to provide
an answer. The Committee's next port of call is to go to Germany
to find out why they are able to do far more in the field of renewables
than we are in the United Kingdom. To be true to our low-carbon
footprint agenda, we are travelling by train. When we come back,
we will have a session with Ian Pearson, the Environment Minister.
I will therefore draw the formal evidence session to a conclusion,
with my thanks again both for the verbal and the written contributions.
|
