---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 63C: 63C: Before Clause 80, insert the following new Clause— ““Domestic energy (1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State must make regulations— (a) requiring that all domestic buildings built after 2012 can function on a zero-carbon basis, and (b) making it mandatory to fit all buildings built after 2010 with appropriate renewable heating systems. (2) Within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State must present to Parliament a report including a programme to upgrade existing domestic, commercial, public, and industrial buildings to a minimum Energy Efficiency Rating of B within a ten year period. (3) The programme, established under subsection (2) above, may specify criteria for excluding certain buildings, or categories of buildings from the programme. (4) Buildings may be excluded on grounds including, but not limited to— (a) their historic status, (b) excessive costs of insulation, (c) their short remaining life.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment tries to balance the Bill by bringing in a dimension that it is completely missing. The Government’s White Paper on energy, published last year, flagged energy efficiency and energy savings as key parts of the way forward, yet they hardly feature in the Bill. In fact, it was very difficult to table amendments on this because the Long Title almost specifically excludes the area. Before I describe the amendment, perhaps it would be useful to quote from the White Paper a few of many short sentences on energy saving. The executive summary on page 9 states: "““The starting point for our energy policy is to save energy””." On page 35, it states: "““Promoting policies to improve energy efficiency. This is the most cost effective means of tackling emissions while improving energy security””." On page 43, that is put in a European context: "““Our priorities are to achieve the EU target of saving 20% of the EU’s energy consumption by 2020 by improving energy efficiency across member states””." Finally, a more long-term view is: "““For the long-term we set out our commitment to raise the energy efficiency standards of our future building stock and of the products we buy””." There is rightly a strong pledge at the forefront about how energy policy should be approached. I remind the Minister and the Government that at the beginning of this parliamentary Session we were promised three Bills that would work together: the Climate Change Bill, which your Lordships’ House has already sent to the other place; the Planning Bill, which we still have to go through; and this Bill. They were to be the three legs of a stool that would make sure that we met the carbon and climate change commitments that we have made. Yet, important as parts of this Bill are, energy saving is left out. I entirely understand the view that some of this does not need to be in the Bill because the legislation already exists. That may be the case for some of these areas, although that does not usually stop Governments legislating. I was interested to see some things that came out from previous programmes and legislation. On 2 April, Defra issued a press release entitled, ““Benn takes the fight against climate change into homes and communities””. That is excellent, as that is exactly where it should go, but I was struck that having gone through the existing policy on building stock the press release stated: "““It is estimated that once all the measures are installed under the scheme””—" which will be over several years— "““which is being highlighted in adverts in national papers today—it will save 4.2MtCO2/year—the equivalent of removing 1.45 million cars from the road””." That is very impressive, but 4.2 million tonnes of CO2 is 0.7 per cent of our total carbon emissions, whereas domestic homes account for some 27 per cent of our carbon emissions and buildings as a whole account for some 50 per cent of our economy’s emissions. The response that we have had in past legislation and the programmes that have come out of it are completely inadequate to fulfil the Government’s objectives, which they rightly—perhaps even courageously—set in the Climate Change Bill. In the amendments, I want to take a leaf out of the Government’s book again from the Climate Change Bill, where the big message is that we are not just making targets for carbon emissions but putting them on a statutory basis. What is an equivalent of that for energy? I would say the Government’s pledge to have zero-carbon homes by 2016. There are two points on that. First, let us be equally courageous and put it into this Bill, so that we all have to do it; at the moment, industry is unclear and there is a fair bit of uncertainty about how that will be met. Secondly, let us bring the date forward, because 2016 is a long way away—eight years. I seem to remember that the Government’s target on house-building per annum is something around 200,000—the Minister may put me right—but let us say that that is rather optimistic and that we are actually looking at around 100,000. That means that we have getting on for a million new homes to be built between now and 2016 that are not zero-carbon, though we have that technology at the moment. Given the importance of energy and climate change, that is not good enough, so I have brought the date forward to 2012, which is much more realistic and something that both industry and planning authorities can cope with. The amendment asks some rather more probing questions, as I want to hear the Minister’s response to them. The Government have been successful in a number of areas to do with heating over the past five to seven years, particularly in community housing developments. They have found a financial way to help local authorities and housing associations to install the likes of heat pump technology in, particularly, affordable homes and homes for the elderly. It makes absolute sense that such technology be installed when houses are built and, when they are built in estates, that the whole estate is furnished with it. The extra capital cost at that stage is not that great but the benefits in reduced heating costs for the future are huge, and it has made a major contribution to fuel poverty. I congratulate the Government on those schemes. But why should it be the case with just those few instances? Should it not also be the responsibility in the private sector and all buildings, particularly for major domestic developments, that such technology be fitted now? Retrofitting is hugely expensive. The amendment does not say that there should not be other heating systems—maybe there could be PV solar as well as heat pump—but it is a major way in which we could move forward. I read the statistic somewhere that by 2050—one of the iconic dates in terms of climate change targets— 95 per cent of existing buildings will still exist, so there is a great challenge to raise the efficiency of the existing housing stock. The Government are again rolling out a programme but it is minor in comparison with the need, hence why I say in the amendment that within 10 years we need to move all appropriate buildings up to category B on the energy performance certificates that the Government have recently introduced. Using that sort of currency—the alphabet soup—is a suitable way of doing that. There are questions about how that is financed. I was trying to table an amendment to do with financing, but I could not do so as it was not seen as appropriate to the Bill. I tabled the amendment to tackle something that is fundamental to meeting the issues around climate change, energy reduction, our targets in Europe and fuel poverty. It is about investing now to make great gains in the future. One of the other areas that the White Paper clearly illustrates, like many other academic and business papers, is that investment in energy saving is by far the most productive means of saving energy and carbon in terms of a positive feedback of costs. It covers the cost automatically, even at commercial discounting rates, and it is the best way forward. I beg to move.