---

Energy Bill [HL]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the strength of feeling on this issue from the debates we have had in Committee and from the two powerful speeches we have had this evening. I speak not only to my Amendment 70, but also to the amendments in the group. They seek to achieve the same ends but by slightly different means. Their ambition is the same: to improve substantially the quality of the private rented sector in terms of energy efficiency. There is broad agreement on the aim; the differences are about how we best achieve that. We should address the real concerns of the impact on those people who live in homes that are not energy efficient. In Committee we looked at the wider impact of cold homes. We spoke of the impact on those with homes rated in bands F and G. It is worth noting again, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the Chief Medical Officer has estimated that the annual cost to the NHS of winter-related illnesses is more than £850 million. It is huge; it is absolutely massive. That is not just across the private rented sector; but some of the worst homes, some of the least energy-efficient homes, are in the private rented sector. I want to say something about the impact that has on the individual. None of us in your Lordships’ House tonight lives in a private rented home that is rated band F or band G. Neither would we want to. If we did, we should be paying an extra 50 per cent in fuel bills to heat our homes to the same level as a band E rated property. If those properties rated F and G were brought up to band E standard, the difference would be between £500 and £800 for the bill payers. It can make a massive difference. The energy scale goes from band A to band G. Band G is the worst for private rented homes. If we raise that standard to band E, it would take about 150,000 private rented households out of fuel poverty. That is 150,000 families with children and older people—25 per cent of all private rented households—who are currently in fuel poverty. Forty per cent of F and G rated properties can meet the standard for less than £1,500 per property. The average cost is about £270 per property. Sixty per cent of F or G rated private rented properties could meet this standard for less than £5,000. The amounts we are talking about, which would make a massive difference, are not great. I believe we can do this. Landlords with poor performing property should be given help and advice about how to meet the standard and there should be a substantial increase to the landlords’ energy saving allowance. I do not think that the wider public know what we are talking about when we talk about F and G rated property being brought up to E standard. It becomes a jargon. I asked Friends of the Earth and ACE to give me some case studies of what it means to people. What is the difference? What is the impact on people living in these properties? These people gave Friends of the Earth permission to publish their stories on condition that they only gave their names and the general location of where they lived. Susan from Abergavenny said: "““My 11 year-old daughter and I are currently moving out of a rented house. The house is freezing cold, with no draught proofing and draughty sash windows with huge visible gaps in the window ""frames. During the recent cold weather, ice formed on the inside of the window each morning. On Christmas Day, I was able to write ‘Happy Christmas Ellie!’ on it. Despite asking my landlady to help on this issue, she said it was our concern to keep the house warm.""We spend enormous amounts on heating but are never warm””." This is repeated over and over again. Kristie from Pinner lives in a one-bedroom flat on her own. She says that her heating bills are 12 per cent of her monthly income. She says: "““I have told my landlord about this and asked for a better heating system, but he said it’s too expensive””." Jennifer from Nottingham says: "““This winter has been unbearable in the house, no matter how long we put the heating on for the house remains freezing. I visited my doctor at home over Christmas with a cough that I’ve had for over 3 months now. He said that the house has probably given me a lung sensitivity and I am now on an inhaler to try to help it””." These are real people suffering day in and day out. Environmental health officers, GPs and a midwife all tell the same story. There are some glimmers of hope. Jenny from Norwich tells us: "““As an elderly landlady with a single small property rented out, I put my tenant’s warmth and health as high as my own. Two years ago they had an up-to-date boiler installed and this year, during other renovations, the attic insulation was increased to current standards and the gas fire replaced. If, as someone living on a smallish pension, I can afford to do this, then so can more regular landlords””." I shall not continue with these stories, but I am sure noble Lords would find them as emotive and as heart-breaking as I do. It seems that there are two or three key issues before us today with the amendments. One is the regulations to improve energy efficiency in the private rented sector. We had lengthy debates on this in Committee. The general view was that we needed action on this as soon as possible. I have no objection to any review being undertaken of energy efficiency in the private rented sector, but there is no justification to use this as a delay for bringing in regulations. The Government’s proposals have two further matters for regulations. First, to improve energy efficiency, and we would all agree that any regulations should increase energy efficiency. Secondly, they propose not to decrease the number of properties available for rent. In Committee I raised concerns about the wording of the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was supportive of my comments on this and the Minister said that he was grateful for them. As the Bill stands, there is nothing that quantifies the number of properties available for rent that could be reduced. There are no proposals, no judgment and no evidence-based criteria for what judgment the Minister will make if there are fewer properties to rent. Our view is that the Minister should take into account any substantial impact on the number of properties available for rent. It would still not be an excuse for not taking action as a matter of urgency. Properties are being rented out that neither the Minister nor I would ever consider living in, but they are available in the private rented sector. He has it in his power to do something about this. From the start of our debates, I have believed in his integrity on this matter. He, too, is passionate about being able to make a difference. We are able to make a difference in that we have it in our power to bring in as a matter of urgency regulations to improve energy efficiency in the private rented sector and also to set a minimum standard. I am grateful for the briefings I have had from Friends of the Earth and Association for the Conservation of Energy. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I received a briefing from the British Property Federation, and I was disappointed by some of its comments on a number of issues. The federation views regulations on this matter as being the last resort where other measures have failed. For many families across the UK at the moment, those other measures have failed and they are looking to us to take action on the issue. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the role of local government. If local government are to take on and improve on this role, they need a full assessment of the costs and burdens it will involve. There is also the issue of sanctions. At the moment, the only sanction available in the Bill is that of fines. It would be appropriate for local authorities, if they have the powers, to ensure that work is undertaken to bring a property up to standard. I know that the Minister understands the very strong feelings across the House on this issue and that he will take these arguments on board. At no stage in Committee was it a party political issue, and indeed it gained widespread support. But we need to see in the Bill a determination that action will be taken. Unless there is that credibility in the Bill, landlords will not have certainty that regulations will be put in place, tenants will not have certainty, and we could find ourselves facing a spiral of conditions getting worse rather than better in a very short space of time. The whole objective of the Bill is to improve conditions and make things better.