Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
JAMES HUGHES,
MR IAIN
WRIGHT MP AND
MR ANDREW
CAMPBELL
2 APRIL 2008
Q140 Joan Walley: Can I just press
you a little bit further on that because you mentioned the Warm
Front scheme? I am sure the Minister for Defra will perhaps want
to come in on this, but I think one of the issues which has been
flagged up is the fact that this Warm Front scheme was set up
in relation to the Fuel Poverty scheme, it was not set up as ideally
there to be dealing with these climate change issues. Therefore,
the criteria which comes out from Defra, which is picked up as
part of a local authority proposal to deal with these issues,
to some extent is still constrained by a set of criteria which
was fine when it was just simply a fuel poverty programme but
it needs to be looked at in the wider picture. So it is how there
are these checks and balances all the time to make sure that where
you say there is money available and it is already being allocated,
it can be sufficiently flexible to be able to be broadened out
to include these climate change aspects that we need to be mainstreamed,
which is what local authorities are now doing.
Mr Woolas: Except that it is the
house, not the person, which is retro-fitted. The criteria for
eligibility for Warm Front is, of course, based on the individual,
the householder, but it is the house that benefits. So whilst
it is primarily a fuel poverty measure, it is secondarily, and
importantly, a fuel efficiency measure which is sustainable because
it is the house which is refitted. We are currently, following
representations from the House, looking at how from an energy
efficiency point of view, the scheme can better dovetail with
other schemes. In terms of the major policy lever which we have,
I would point the Committee to the Carbon Emissions Reduction
Target, which started on 1st April, the £1.5 billion scheme
through energy companies, which is primarily an energy efficiency
measure. But if I could just make the other point, Chairman, which
is that the major driver of fuel poverty determination is the
price of fuel, and I am keen to point out that I do not want my
strategies to be following in the wake of increased fuel prices.
The best way of reducing fuel poverty is to decrease the price
of fuel, not to use more taxpayers' money to retro-fit houses,
so we are trying to do both, Chairman.
Mr Wright: If I may say, Chairman,
on a similar theme to the Warm Front, the Decent Homes Standard,
which I think we should be very proud of as a government, the
replacement of windows, boilers, and such like, was ostensibly
about trying to address the real under-investment in social housing
rather than adapting to climate change, but with new and more
efficient boilers, with more efficient windows which can keep
the heat in, that has a huge impact upon climate change and CO2
emissions. How we actually measure that in relation to a scheme
which ostensibly is not regarding that is a challenge.
Colin Challen: I think I might have the
Member for Telford sat on my shoulder when I am asking this question,
but have either of your departments done any work on modelling,
at what point it is possible that the cost of adaptation might
overwhelm the efforts of local authorities to deal with mitigation?
One can imagine a situation where an authority, perhaps Hull,
overwhelmed with floods may be completely deflected then only
to look at adaptation and any effort on mitigation would be electorally
impossible.
Chairman: We will have to suspend, I
think, for fifteen minutes and resume at a quarter past four.
The Committee adjourned from 4.01 pm to 4.29
pm for divisions in the House.
Q141 Chairman: We are a quorum. There
was a question which has been asked, but the questioner has gone.
Do you want to answer in Mr Challen's absence?
Mr Woolas: Thank you, Chairman.
For the record, the question was, just to remind the Committee,
what happens when adaptation costs more and there is not enough
for mitigation? The answer is, a very good question! The answer
to that is, I do not know, or rather it is not known at this point
in time. There are two serious policy measures which we have to
address the issue. The first is the proposal to publish an adaptation
policy framework, which will follow from the deliberation of the
Climate Change Bill but not be statutorily part of that, and that
will set out the overall vision for the United Kingdom on adaptation.
The Bill itself, of course, also requires, if Parliament approves
it, the Government to report to Parliament on an annual basis.
Mr Hughes: At least every five
years on progress made regarding adaptation.
Mr Woolas: In the budgets, that
is right. The second point is that we have the Climate Impacts
Programme, Chairman, which I am going to ask James to say a bit
more about, which is doing the science on this area.
Mr Hughes: As you know, the UK
Climate Impacts Programme did a lot of very good work in terms
of looking at what climate impacts might be. It is doing a lot
of work at the moment with the intention of publishing some updated
scenarios later on this year. The last set was done in 2002 and
were based on emissions levels and this new set will be too, but
they will also take account of the probability of things happening
at different temperatures and therefore it will give a better
ability to assess risk. It will be looking at what the impacts
of climate change might be down to a 25 kilometre square area,
so it will be fairly detailed. That information will be coming
out in the second half of this year. As the Minister has mentioned,
we have got the adaptation policy framework coming out. We have
also got this requirement in the bill for the Government to report
to Parliament on a risk assessment, and that risk assessment will
need to consider the costs and benefits associated with the UK
adapting to climate change. Again, subject to parliamentary approval
of the Climate Change Bill, another of the things it contains
is the requirement of the Government to produce a programme for
how it is going to address those risks. So all of that will be
a commitment on Government once the bill becomes statute.
Q142 Mr Caton: One of the Local Government
Association's and Climate Change Commission's recommendations
was consideration of the statutory underpinning of local government
action on climate change. Should there be a statutory duty on
local authorities, and indeed Regional Development Agencies and
other public bodies, to tackle climate change?
Mr Woolas: That is really one
for me, I think, is it not? We believe that the combination of
the performance regime and the statutory duties to cooperate on
partners will address the objective of the proposal that there
should be a statutory duty in a better and more comprehensive
and meaningful way. The taking of responsibility and the powers
to make those responsibilities really does address that, but I
caveat my answer by, again, pointing out (as we both have done)
the dilemma between devolution and centralisation. So obviously
that is something which has been given huge consideration and
that is the policy which has resulted.
Mr Wright: Just to add to that,
I do reiterate the point I made to the Committee earlier, Chairman,
about clause 147 of the Planning Bill, which sets out that local
planning authorities must include in their development plan documents
taken as whole policies designed to secure the development and
use of land in their area and that those policies contribute to
mitigating and adapting to climate change. So although I recognise
the importance of having flexibility with regard to the planning
policy statements, there is going through Parliament at the moment
the proposed locking on the statute book where local planning
authorities do play a key role there.
Q143 Mr Caton: Are councils using
their existing powers as fully as they can to tackle climate change?
Have you identified any areas where new powers should be introduced,
or even existing powers strengthened?
Mr Woolas: Just one point. I think
I am right in saying the LGA Commission on the statutory point
gave a two year gap and said councils should be given the chance
to do it and then we should look at it again. I think the answer
to the question is that in England there are around 400 local
authorities, 150 Local Area Agreements, and there are some great
examples and some poor ones. I think where more could very clearly
be done would be in energy efficiency. I think that is the big
gain that we are looking for in the new regime.
Mr Wright: When Local Area Agreements
are used properly, I think there is transparency and I think there
should be a dialogue between the partners, particularly the local
authority, and the public to flush this sort of thing out. Phil
and I were talking earlier on about naming and shaming local authorities
which maybe do not have climate change within their Local Area
Agreements. I have to say that in terms of the number of Local
Area Agreements and local areas which do not have this as a priority
it is comparatively few. Of the 150 or so at the moment, given
the process of negotiation that is going on between the local
areas and Government Offices, we are only talking at the moment
of round about nine which have not had some sort of climate change
indicator as something of a priority. So in that respect I think
it is largely positive. Whether we go out and name and shame them
is something to consider.
Q144 Mr Caton: Recognising that variation
and taking on board what Phil Woolas has said about the Commission
talking about a two year timeframe, is the Government mindful
to look again after that sort of period of time to see whether
statutory duties do need to be placed on local authorities?
Mr Woolas: The Government is mindful
because of the obligation which we hope the Climate Change Bill
will place upon us, and that will apply across the board. If we
are not able to show that the trajectories on the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions are in line with our requirements and
our international obligations, then we would have to re-examine
the policy. I think I am right in saying that in this area of
sustainability and climate change there are more Beacon councils
than in any of the other categories, which is quite encouraging.
Mr Caton: Thank you.
Q145 Martin Horwood: A few councils
have come up with some really quite imaginative financial incentives
to householders to do things like energy efficiency or renewable
energy. We have got one with a loan fund which lends people capital
to invest in renewables and then reclaims that money only when
the property is sold. Why are not more of these kinds of financial
incentives happening? What are the barriers to these being more
common?
Mr Wright: What I would say is
that we are trying to encourage this as much as possible. Beacon
councils, which Phil has just mentioned, are a good example of
trying to disseminate this good practice. We come back time and
time again, though, Chairman, to locally devolved ideas and cultures
and how that can be best applied to particular local circumstances.
The point you made, Mr Horwood, about the revolving fund, that
is something we have applied centrally to the Salix financing
fund, which is acting as a multiplier to provide energy efficiency
measures, and energy savings can then be recycled back. I am keen
to disseminate that and Beacon councils are aware that you can
do that, but I would be keen to hear more examples as well.
Q146 Martin Horwood: I must admit,
until I was briefed for this meeting I was not aware that that
kind of scheme was possible actually. Are you confident that local
authorities actually know that they can do things like this?
Mr Woolas: No.
Q147 Martin Horwood: So is that not
your fault?
Mr Woolas: Yes, it is. It is our
responsibility. I think we live in a country—and this is
the Government's view—which is over-centralised, that we
increase the performance regime on a centralised basis and increase
the finances in order to improve the quality of performance of
local government, and that has worked. We do not see the new regime
as a U-turn, we see it as a natural development. The number of
councils we have measured as improving or successful has increased
dramatically over the course of eight years, and we are now in
a new regime. Characteristic of that new regime is the requirement
for a management and leadership culture which says, "We can
do things," rather than, "Government won't let us do
things," as the Secretary of State said at the time of the
Government White Paper. So it is a question of changing culture.
Q148 Martin Horwood: But unless someone
such as the Department has told them that these kinds of things
are actually possible, it is sometimes difficult for people to
imagine what they have to do to get somewhere.
Mr Woolas: Well, we are putting
some money on the table, Chairman.
Q149 Martin Horwood: Could I just
ask one specific question about financial incentives? The obvious
vehicle for it at local government level is council tax and doing
incentives or discounts on council tax for people who do the right
thing or invest. Is that legally possible? Are there any legal
or technical barriers to using council tax in that way?
Mr Wright: That is happening already.
Kirklees, I think I am right in thinking, is a local authority
in terms of having council tax incentives.
Mr Woolas: Kirklees operates a
revolving loan fund for environmental improvements actually.
Mr Wright: To allow and to facilitate
local authorities to do things on the ground, it is perfectly
reasonable. I think there is a cultural challenge, as Phil has
just mentioned, in terms of saying, "You can do this,"
rather than, "Government won't let us." It is turning
around quite substantial cultural barriers there, I think. Reiterating
one of the themes we have had already today, that more mature
relationship between central and local government is helping,
but I think we have to be mindful of those cultural barriers which
need to be knocked down.
Q150 Martin Horwood: Can I put to
you another example, which may be again not so much about cultural
barriers but simply about people not knowing what is out there
and what powers they actually have and what they can do? The Local
Government Act in 2000 introduced the new power for local authorities
to promote "the environmental, economic and social well-being"
of their communities. Presumably, they could be using the environmental
section of that power to promote energy efficiency. Do you think
many of them are doing so?
Mr Woolas: Not enough, Chairman.
I think the power of well-being was heralded by local authorities,
by senior officers and by leaders, but I do not believe that has
filtered down enough and I think as Members of Parliament when
we are addressed with the answer, "We are not allowed to
do that," the answer is, "The 2000 Act allows you, using
the power of well-being for your area, to do everything the law
prescribes other than what the law prescribes you cannot do."
Q151 Martin Horwood: So if enabling
powers, communication, best practice examples and things like
this are not really filtering through, does this not bring us
back to this point about statutory underpinning, that actually
maybe we need statutory duties and that that is the way you will
really achieve a step change in local government performance?
Mr Woolas: Chairman, we would
see that as a failure.
Q152 Martin Horwood: Maybe we are
failing them, are we not?
Mr Woolas: You could describe
it in that way. I think local government has to step up to the
mark. I think it is capable of doing that. Interestingly, I think
I am right in saying that the LGA Climate Change Commission said
that councils should have two years but that the statutory duty
should be imposed upon individual councils which did not step
up to the mark. I think I am right in saying that. Yes, I am.
I am getting a nod.
Q153 Martin Horwood: So it would
be applied selectively?
Mr Woolas: Yes, but that is coming
from the Local Government Association, so they clearly think it
is a possibility.
Q154 Martin Horwood: Would you support
that kind of power to enforce poor performers to step up?
Mr Wright: We are getting, Chairman,
to the heart of the issue, which is should it be locally determined
or should it be dictated in terms of central government diktat?
It has to be said that I personally believe in terms of changing
around culture if somebody is persuaded of the merits as opposed
to being told and dictated to, "You have to do this,"
I think there is more ownership, more buy-in and more commitment.
That is why I come back to the fact that the Local Government
Performance Framework, I think, is appropriate because that level
of discussion and negotiation between central government via Government
Offices and the local areas I think really helps embed that commitment,
and I think we are seeing it on the ground. It is early days,
I grant you that, Chairman, but I do think that is important.
That is persuading people rather than dictating through quite
blunt statutory instruments.
Q155 Martin Horwood: This is going
to become quite critical when we have national carbon budgets,
is it not?
Mr Woolas: Yes, it is, very much
so.
Mr Hughes: Could I just make one
or two comments? In terms of the desire to try and make sure that
councils appreciate what might be available, certainly from examples
from other councils (i.e. in terms of sharing best practice),
just to mention a few things, most of which have happened very
recently but which I hope will help to ensure that best practice
to be shared. One is that towards the end of last year the Government
published an Energy Measures Report, which provides advice to
local authorities on what they can do. We have also got the Best
Practice programme, which the Minister mentioned, which was launched
very recently, and again that is going to be providing information
not just on best practice but also assisting with training and
on mentoring. Also, the Nottingham Declaration Partnership are
updating their website and I think they are looking to launch
that in June this year. That is also a source of information for
local authorities in order to find out what is happening elsewhere,
and obviously we have now just had round ten of the Beacon Council
Scheme. We have got climate change Beacon councils now, and again
there are examples there of best practice in terms of what is
happening within their local areas as well. So there are lots
of things which have been happening very recently or are about
to happen.
Mr Wright: Again, Chairman, following
up on that, I think Mr Horwood mentioned the well-being power
for local authorities. My department has funded an independent
valuation of the take-up of that well-being power, which has been
on the Statue Book for five, six, seven years, something like
that, and has looked closely at a series of case studies where
this well-being power has been used and applied effectively, and
publication guidance with regard to that evaluation will be published
shortly.
Q156 Martin Horwood: So can you tell
us now how many have taken it up?
Mr Wright: No, I cannot.
Q157 Mr Chaytor: Minister, you started
off saying that devolution was at the heart of this policy, but
then you stepped back a little bit and said that for the last
few years government has been highly centralised in order to drive
up the policy and performance of local government. Are you saying
that the reason why we are only now recognising the role of local
and regional government in the delivery of climate change policy
is the inadequacy of local and regional government over the last
ten years? Are you saying there was no capacity to deliver until
now?
Mr Woolas: That question is directed
at me, Chairman, so I will answer it. The level of flexibility
in a local authority's revenue finances has been extremely limited
for many years. It is not a partisan point—well, it is in
part—but it was very tight. Therefore, for authorities to
make changes, to re-prioritise, was very difficult because they
could only really allow on council tax increases (previously rate
increases). As resources increased, as revenue budgets went up,
it gave them more flexibility, but against a background of the
drive to improve they were focused, I think, on the areas that
the CPA focused them on. I think the second point is that the
climate change issue, as we all know, has risen up the political
agenda most in recent years, not least in the last twelve months
and I think local authorities are catching up (as the rest of
us are) with that. Of course, the financial framework, the incentive,
other than notably in landfill sites, has not really been the
driver which I think the future policy measures we have described
today will be.
Q158 Mr Chaytor: But it is now ten
years since the Government signed up to a target-based policy
by signing the Kyoto Protocol and for a number of years we have
had increasing numbers of local authorities signing this Nottingham
declaration, which is a clear indication that they saw a role
for local authorities and they wanted to do more. So my question
is, why has it taken so long for Government to adjust the system
and provide the incentives for local authorities to do more?
Mr Woolas: First of all, the United
Kingdom is on target to meet its Kyoto commitments. The greenhouse
gas emissions are reducing. We should not confuse—and I
am not saying the question does, Mr Chaytor, but we should never
confuse CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. We are on target, so
my case is that it is working. Secondly, because it took a while
for the issue to move from the Cabinet Member or chairs of environment
committees' in-trays to the lead Member on finance, the chief
executive and leaders' in-trays, I think we have passed the tipping
point now, for the reasons we have discussed.
Q159 Mr Chaytor: Could I put a question
about the capacity of local government? I am just interested,
as a digression, to read the Hartlepool glossy literature from
your exhibition there and it speaks about the alluring restaurants,
the chic shopping and the exhilarating water sports.
Mr Wright: Absolutely!
|
