HL Deb 03 November 2004 vol 666 cc376-83

(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that by 2016 all social housing shall as far as is reasonably practicable achieve a SAP rating of no lower than 65.

(2) In this section "social housing" means housing let by a registered social landlord or a local housing authority."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as you will see, we have pared down this amendment to contain what is the nub of the issue, that all social housing should reach a standard assessment procedure (SAP) rating of 65. SAP is the Government's method of measuring the energy efficiency of homes. I hope that this is a completely non-controversial amendment and that it will be accepted. I believe that it should be, as I shall explain.

I shall start with a few facts. The Government have a legal duty to end fuel poverty under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. The Government agree that a SAP rating of 65 is needed to ensure that. As Elliot Morley said in the House of Commons on 19 April: research has shown that bringing homes to a SAP rating of 65 is a level at which there is minimal risk of a household being in fuel poverty".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/04; col. 138W]

This amendment requires that to happen. Common sense tells us that we can all agree that—can we not? As we said from these Benches at Report, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has expressed sympathy with the amendment. On 19 October, at a meeting of the All-Party Group on Warm Homes in Committee Room 17 in the House of Commons, this very point was put to the Defra Minister. He replied: I have sympathy with this … I am not defending ODPM". I hope we can leave the matter there and agree the amendment. However, sadly the Government do not always act on the principle of common sense, so let us look at what will happen if the amendment is not accepted. First, the Government intend to ensure that all social homes are brought up to the current decent homes standard; secondly, that standard will not end fuel poverty; and thirdly, a large number of people will be left in fuel poverty.

Let us look at the Government's own figures. In 2001. DTLR consultation on the decent homes standard stated: 25 per cent of social sector tenants living in homes with these stock measures are still fuel poor". That is about 650,000 homes, or more than 1.4 million people. What about homes that do not comply even with the current standard? The latest figures show that there are more than 1 million non-decent homes that would fail the current low standard on thermal insulation grounds. The current policy is to bring those homes up to decent home standard, a standard that will not, as we explained, guarantee their removal from fuel poverty.

Failing to make the amendment will lead to a vast waste of public money. Let me explain how. The Government will ensure that works are undertaken on all social homes to bring them up to decent home standard but, as I just said, that will leave a large number of people in fuel poverty. The law will require those homes to be brought out of fuel poverty, so another set of works will have to be undertaken at some stage. That double visit scenario will cost more and is wasteful. So I suggest: let us stop the waste; let us end fuel poverty and let us make the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, my name is added to the amendment, and this is another cause for which I have been fighting for many years: to ensure that we use energy much more efficiently. The amendment is important because it affects more people who are in fuel poverty, which is also a cause to which the Government have signed up.

Those of us who have campaigned in this area for a long time spend our life being pleased by what the Government do and then being disappointed by their rowing back all the time. We find it irritating that the Government cannot run with these things; they have to be pushed and, many times, dragged kicking and screaming. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, the importance of the amendment is to bring the decent home standard up to the standard that is required for new homes. It is unfair not to try to reach that standard in social housing.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, mentioned the last meeting of the All-Party Warm Homes Group. I am a member of the group, although I could not attend the meeting because I was sitting on the Front Bench here considering the Housing Bill, but we received a rather good report of what went on there. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the standard that he thought that we should be moving to was the SAP rating of 65. Basically, he said that the reason that the Government would find that difficult is that it would be difficult to find the money, but we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society.

I have fought on the issue for many years now. In the late 1960s, I went to live in Scandinavia, where they had cracked the problem. Admittedly, it is much colder there, but we are talking about 30, getting on for 40 years later and we are still not dealing, with this problem. This is important, and given the Government's position on climate change and all the other reports that are coming out at the moment, it is imperative that we do this. It is in line with the Government's agreed policies on fuel poverty and on where they want to be in the environment field. The Minister has told us how the environment is at the top of his agenda. If it is, the Government should jolly well accept the amendment tonight.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I acknowledge the good intentions behind the amendment, but I am surprised that it comes from the two Opposition Front Benches, as they have spent the past two and a half hours arguing against compulsion. It is difficult to see how Amendment No. 51 or, for that matter, Amendment No. 52, could possibly work without a considerable degree of compulsion.

There is another aspect. I suppose that most of us here would like to live in a snug, warm house in the winter months, but there are quite a few people of all age groups and backgrounds—I suppose that they are mainly older people—who do not want to live in a hermetically sealed fug and positively relish fresh air. They do not mind or perhaps positively like draughts, either because they think that they are good for their health, in the same way as people used to think that TB patients benefited from being exposed to the chill of winter, or because they feel, with good reason, that draughts are good for the fabric of their house or flat because they disperse condensation. For my part, I think that choice should operate here.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, this is an interesting and valuable amendment, in that it enables your Lordships' House to give fair consideration to issues relating to fuel poverty. I must say that it was with something of a wry smile that I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on the issue. The House will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that in 18 years of Conservative government we heard very little from the Conservatives in government about what they were doing to tackle fuel poverty.

6.45 p.m.

I know that it is a quarter to seven; I do not want to stimulate a long debate about the political history of the fuel poverty lobby, but I was, I suppose, in the end pleasantly surprised to see that the Conservatives had decided to latch on to the issue and hitch their wagon to the Lib Dem cause. That is exactly what they have done. Fair play to them, I suppose, if they want to score a point or two, but the issue is more important than that. I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, because I know that she has long been a campaigner on this issue, which I have followed myself for a number of years as a local authority member and someone concerned about standards of housing.

I shall go through the issue with some care, because I think that the Government's case is strong. The new clause proposed by the amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that, by 2016, all existing social housing stock should, as far as reasonably practicable, achieve the standard assessment procedure rating of no lower than 65. We discussed similar amendments on this on previous occasions, and the noble Baroness reminds us again that we have been accused of having to be dragged kicking and screaming to take energy efficiency seriously. I resent that, because the Government have taken the issue very seriously for a long time.

The opposition parties cannot have it both ways. I remind the House that the decent homes programme has made more than 1 million homes decent since 1997—that is unarguable—by ensuring that homes are fit; are in good repair; have adequate heating and insulation; and have reasonably modern facilities and services. We are improving the quality of life of tenants living in those homes and at the same time making a big contribution to reducing health inequalities, fuel poverty and child poverty. I am sorry that the opposition parties continue to disregard the benefits of the decent homes programme, which will continue to be delivered.

They also overlook the fact that the decent homes programme is intended to deliver a rounded package of improvements. It would of course be possible to isolate one element of the package and to pursue a policy of perfection in one area to the detriment of the others. That is what the amendment would do, but at potentially huge cost. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, if the amendment were accepted, the cost of bringing all social housing up to a standard of SAP 65 could add £3 billion to £5 billion to the cost of the decent homes programme. I suggest that the parties opposite owe it to your Lordships' House to explain exactly where that money would come from or, alternatively, what they would take out of current spending plans to enable its implementation.

I could understand the concern of some noble Lords, if the decent homes programme, as currently defined, were having a negligible effect on energy efficiency. But the simple fact is that, by 2010, it will have helped to take at least 108,000 people out of fuel poverty, as well as reducing carbon emissions by at least two megatonnes. In addition, the programme has already supported a positive upward trend in the SAP ratings of the social housing stock. The English House Condition Survey indicates that, in England, the mean SAP rating is 53.6 for local authority stock and 60.3 for registered social landlords' stock. That compares with 50.6 for all English housing.

I make no apology for reminding your Lordships' House of what has already been achieved through the decent homes programme. It is those successes that the amendment would put at risk. The SAP target of 65 that the amendment proposes is impractical and simplistic, for a number of reasons. Many homes can be decent at a lower SAP level. Some homes cannot be brought up to a standard of SAP 65 because of the way that they were initially built or because they would require significant extra work to reach the standard. Conversely, a SAP rating of 65 does not guarantee that a home has met the thermal comfort criteria. Of the homes that currently fail to reach the decent homes standard on the thermal comfort criteria, about 20 per cent have SAP ratings of 65 and above. We will sometimes have to deliver more than SAP 65 to make such homes decent.

Our objection to the amendment does not stem from a lack of ambition on our part; it is that we do not see a case for wasting resources on a symbolic SAP figure that will prevent us targeting resources intelligently. In any case, there is no sense in fixing a SAP figure in primary legislation, given the progress that I have described and the fact that the SAP methodology is under continual review.

We have a wide range of social housing stock in this country. An inflexible target would be a blunt instrument. We prefer to set ourselves targets which we can deliver, like the existing thermal comfort criteria. Some might argue that we should work towards an even higher energy-efficiency level in social housing. That would be at the expense of other basic improvements, which, we would all agree, are desperately needed to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable members of society. Our efforts in this area should remain focused on helping the most vulnerable while maximising energy efficiency and promoting the alleviation of fuel poverty.

A target of SAP 65 for all social sector homes could cost the taxpayer an additional £3 billion to £5 billion. This Government are committed to dealing with fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency. However, we are not willing to be committed to an impractical and non-cost-effective approach such as this proposal and the amendment behind it.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the progress made since 1997. We have spent £13 billion through local authorities, a 13 per cent increase in real terms. We have spent an additional £6 billion for arm's-length management organisations and PFI, including resources from SR2004. In 2001, 5 per cent of tenants living in decent homes were fuel poor, compared with 15 per cent of tenants living in non-decent homes. Those in fuel poverty after the installation of effective insulation and efficient heating will he in a better position than previously, as they will have to spend less to heat their home.

We are making real progress; we want to continue to do so in a timely and efficient way which targets resources where they are most needed. For those reasons, although I can understand some of the good spirit behind the amendment, it is ultimately one that we must reject.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As a Conservative I support choice, but we are not talking about choice for the people affected. This is social housing, in which many people have no choice; they have sub-standard homes in which investment is needed. We suggest that the rating be achieved by 2016. Although the Minister quoted figures for a lot of extra expenditure, that could be phased in over time. I do not think that the Minister gave any adequate answers to the problem. In moving the amendment I suggested that we would save money by having, in addition to the general scheme, a scheme to ensure that dwellings achieved the right SAP rating, because homes would have to be visited only once.

I am afraid that, often, the Government like to talk about issues but do not put the money behind the infrastructure that the country needs. If they do not want to put the money behind such issues, they should not talk about them. The Government like to talk the talk, but they do not want to walk the walk. We shall therefore have to test the opinion of the House.

6.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Attlee, E. Howard of Rising, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Howe, E.
Best, L. Hunt of Wirral, L.
Blatch, B. Jacobs, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Bradshaw, L. Jopling, L.
Bridgeman, V. Kimball, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L. King of Bridgwater, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Knight of Collingtree, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Laing of Dunphail, L.
Burnham, L. Lane of Horsell, L.
Byford, B. Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Caithness, E. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Cameron of Dillington, L. Liverpool, Bp.
Carlile of Berriew, L. Liverpool, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Luke, L.
Chadlington, L. Lyell, L.
Clement-Jones, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Colwyn, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller] McNally, L.
Crickhowell, L. Maddock, B.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Mar, C.
Dean of Harptree, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Dholakia, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Dundee, E. Methuen, L.
Dykes, L. Michie of Gallanach, B.
Eden of Winton, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Elles, B. Miller of Hendon, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Monro of Langholm, L.
Elton, L. Montrose, D.
Falkland, V. Morris of Bolton, B.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Fearn, L. Moynihan, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B. Murphy, B.
Fookes, B. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Fowler, L. Neuberger, B.
Freeman, L. Newby, L.
Garden, L. Newton of Braintree, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Noakes, B.
Garel-Jones, L. Northbourne, L.
Geddes, L. Northover, B.
Glentoran, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Goodhart, L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Greengross, B. O'Cathain, B.
Hamwee, B. Onslow, E.
Hanham, B. Palmer, L.
Hanningfield, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Hayhoe, L. Patel, L.
Henley, L. Peel, E.
Phillips of Sudbury, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Platt of Writtle, B. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Prashar, B. Smith of Clifton, L.
Rawlings, B. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Razzall, L. Steinberg, L.
Reay, L. Stewartby, L.
Redesdale, L. Strathclyde, L.
Rees, L. Swinfen, L.
Rennard, L. Taverne, L.
Renton, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Tope, L.
Rogan, L. Trumpington, B.
Roper, L. [Teller] Vallance of Tummel, L.
Rotherwick, L. Vinson, L.
St. John of Bletso, L. Waddington, L.
St John of Fawsley, L. Wakeham, L.
Sandberg, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Walmsley, B.
Seccombe, B. Watson of Richmond, L.
Selsdon, L. Weatherill, L.
Sharman, L. Wilcox, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B. Williams of Crosby, B.
Sharples, B. Williamson of Horton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hart of Chilton, L.
Alli, L. Haskel, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council) Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Hoyle, L.
Bach, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Bhattacharyya, L. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Borrie, L. Jay of Paddington, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Jones, L.
Burlison, L. King of West Bromwich, L.
Campbell-Savours, L. Kirkhill, L.
Carter, L. Layard, L.
Chandos, V. Lea of Crondall, L.
Christopher, L. Leitch, L.
Clark of Windermere, L. Levy, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Lipsey, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Lockwood, B.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. McDonagh, B.
Craigavon, V. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Crawley, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
David, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] McKenzie of Luton, L.
Drayson, L. Maxton, L.
D'Souza, B. Mitchell, L.
Dubs, L. Monson, L.
Elder, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Evans of Parkside, L. Morris of Aberavon, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor) Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Plant of Highfield, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Prosser, B.
Filkin, L. Radice, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L. Rooker, L.
Gale, B. Rosser, L.
Gavron, L. Rowlands, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Goldsmith, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Sawyer, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Sewel, L.
Grantchester, L. Simon, V.
Grocott, L.[Teller] Snape, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Harrison, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Thornton, B. Warner, L.
Tomlinson, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Triesman, L. Whitaker, B.
Truscott, L. Whitty, L.
Tunnicliffe, L. Winston, L.
Turnberg, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Turner of Camden, B. Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

7.5 p.m.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 52:

After Clause 209, insert the following new clause—