The
Chairman: Order. That is a happy
convenience.
5.8
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House.
5.36
pm On
resuming—
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Member for Wealden made numerous points
suggesting that the system was confusing—the hon. Member for
Cheltenham followed up with similar remarks—and that it should
be much simpler so that people could understand it. I thank the hon.
Gentleman for his generous comments about my presentation. I have tried
hard to make the issues understandable so that people can follow what
is being changed. I am careful to try to ensure that our civil servants
present things in an understandable way. The question, however, is
whether the public need to understand the system, and the simple answer
is that they do not. They need to understand that the Government want
to help them to achieve more energy efficiency in their homes and why
that matters.
Starting last
autumn with the Prime Minister’s announcements, we have
consistently conveyed that message to the public. Does it work? Yes, it
does. We know that because we have set up two things, one of which is
the ACT ON CO2 helpline. We have publicised the phone
numbers widely. The helpline is run for us by the Energy Saving Trust.
The number of inquiries rocketed when the helpline was introduced.
Clearly, that is one means by which people get their information.
People get their information using the means provided by the
Government, but they also get it directly from their energy companies,
which have their own marketing programmes to let people know what they
are eligible for and what help they can obtain. The Government’s
simple slogan covering the issue
is: “Save
Money, Save Energy, ACT ON CO2”.
That is how the public
expect us to communicate, and we do.
The hon.
Gentleman suggested that the schemes were fundamentally flawed and that
people needed much simpler information. I hope that I have shown how
they can obtain that. He asked how the schemes and the changes in CERT
and the new CESP will be communicated. There will be a certain amount
of communication with the public about what is happening this week. I
would repeat, however, that the public should be able to access
appropriate information and find out their entitlements. Of course, the
number benefiting from entitlements goes way beyond those who get free
assistance from the energy companies because they fall into priority
groups. It also includes those who get discounts—everybody could
potentially get some discount. There are, of course, discounts for DIY
installation and materials. That is how we think that it is appropriate
to communicate, and we have done a more than adequate job on
that.
The hon.
Gentleman says that the schemes are not up to purpose because millions
need insulation. I totally disagree about that because the schemes are
up to purpose in terms of the existing legislative base. Unusually, we
have increased the obligation on companies in the middle of the current
spending period because we agree that more needs to be done. We are
making the schemes work as effectively as possible and we are
delivering on as great a scale as possible. It is true that millions
more need insulation, and I will come to that shortly.
The hon.
Gentleman said that CESP does not begin to scratch the surface, but the
fact is that CESP is
designed to enable us to do work that is much more complicated, to do it
via the existing legislative base, and to enable companies and
businesses such as insulation firms to understand how to do
more—to do whole house treatments, to go house by house and
street by street, and to work in partnerships. Essentially
we are piloting comprehensive programmes that will provide us with the
basis on which to move forward. That is an appropriate thing to do. We
specified—I asked for this—that the initiative should be
directed to low-income areas, because I want whatever we can deliver to
benefit those who may suffer fuel
poverty. The
hon. Gentleman said that the Government need a sense of direction, and
I agree; I believe that we have that. We have produced the heat and
energy-saving strategy, with consultation on that, and, as hon. Members
have acknowledged, a White Paper is being published this week. In all
those ways we are moving the agenda forward at pace, with
complexity.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about batteries running out in real-time displays. We
have allowed for that. There is a 50 per cent. difference in the score
for a company that markets or provides RTDs with batteries lasting only
up to a year. Companies distributing equipment with longer lasting
batteries will get a higher score. Clearly, we want long-life batteries
to be used to ensure that people continue to use the equipment after
the novelty has gone.
The hon.
Gentleman asked that RTDs should not be a distraction and I agree, but
the technology is important and teaches people a great deal. There is
an export market, and we think it is right that we should encourage the
British companies that produce RTDs to go on doing so. They are part of
the scheme and will not hold up the roll-out of smart meters. We have
already announced that we shall begin next year, and will continue
until every home in the country has a smart meter. We cannot do all
that work overnight, so why should we not use interim measures that
make a great deal of
sense? The
hon. Gentleman asked about energy advice and how it would be monitored.
There will be proper monitoring by Ofgem. There is a sampling process
and audit: it is about 5 per cent. of measures. The hon. Member for
Wealden asked me about the RTDs and evidence of how they had worked
elsewhere. I can give him some information that has been provided to
me. A study was carried out by an official in 2006 who concluded from
international studies that the average savings were between 5 and 15
per cent. When we factor them into the CERT uplift, we go for 3.5 per
cent. so we have been very conservative about the
savings. Suppliers
need to monitor and report to Ofgem, as I have said, and we will be
partnering with suppliers on RTD roll-out to find out which displays
have the greatest impact. We intend to learn from that. I have a list
of different projects and companies, but because we have had such
delays, I shall not read it. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like
the information, I shall write to
him. The
hon. Gentleman made many comments and criticisms about low-energy light
bulbs. Has it all been a great mistake? Absolutely not. We have been
pioneers in this country in bringing forward the CFLs. They have made
important energy savings and will continue to do so, because they last
so long. Once people have them, it
is a long time before they have to be replaced. The hon. Gentleman is
right about the tremendous potential of LEDs. I am a great fan of them.
That technology will transform lighting in this country, and commercial
lighting, in particular, might benefit very quickly. So, yes, I
consider CFLs to be an interim technology, but there will be a great
deal of overlap and they are very
worthwhile. The hon.
Gentleman asked about health effects. When I was in the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and dealt directly with this
matter—it is a DEFRA competence—we looked into the health
effects and got the EU to do the same. We have acknowledged some small
health effects, but the answer is for people to move to new generations
of lights, rather than to try to hang on to their incandescent bulbs.
There are various myths about the time CFLs take to brighten and the
rest of it, but I can assure people that the recommended energy-saving
light bulbs light up and go out quickly. That should not be a
problem. The
hon. Gentleman asked about the focus on solid wall insulation and the
points made by the Energy Saving Trust. We need to strike a balance; we
need to do various things. As I have said, we shall do some testing,
with a limit on behaviour change, but we also want solid wall
insulation rolled out in greater numbers. We believe that both are
possible. He also asked about the advice, which I have already covered.
He said that it is not the right long-term solution and that we need to
go much further. He also said that we are confused about energy
efficiency and fuel poverty. We are not confused. We want every
household to be as energy efficient as possible, but there are costs
related to energy efficiency, so we constantly have to factor in and
watch the impacts on fuel poverty. We shall continue to do
that. The
hon. Gentleman recommends his own scheme—the £6,500
scheme. That point is constantly repeated by Conservative Front
Benchers, but my letter, in April, to the hon. Member for Tunbridge
Wells (Greg Clark) remains unanswered. We have costed the programme and
it is an impossible cost. We would truly like to know how he would make
it work. The hon. Member for Wealden ended by saying that he hopes to
see a lot in the energy White Paper. I assure him that he will see a
great deal in that paper and that he does not have long to
wait. The
hon. Member for Cheltenham made some similar points regarding existing
homes. We agree that new homes should be carbon neutral and that we
need retrofitting programmes as well. He also referred to LEDs, which I
have covered. He said that CESP can be part of the solution, but that
much more fundamental work needs to be done. He mentioned the complex
scores, guesswork and so on. I must tell him, however, that we know
what savings have been achieved through the programmes that ended in
2008-09. The Warm Front scheme delivered savings of 9 million tonnes of
CO2, and CERT produced savings of 93 million tonnes of
CO2, 38 million of which were carried over from the previous
obligation on companies. Overall, CERT and Warm Front have delivered
savings of 64 million tonnes net—CO2 not
carbon.
Martin
Horwood: I am impressed by the figure of 93
million tonnes. Is that actual measured savings or extrapolated over a
product’s lifetime and so on?
Joan
Ruddock: I am not sure of the point that the hon.
Gentleman is making. We know about products and what they save. If we
have a product, and we know its savings, we can do the arithmetic and
end up with a final figure. I am not sure what other methodology he
would wish to employ that would give a different answer. He might like
to make a
suggestion.
Martin
Horwood: I will suggest one refinement. Given that the
savings over the products’ entire lifetime go some distance into
the future, as most of the products are still in place, there is
presumably a difference between the savings achieved and banked to the
scheme’s credit and the much smaller savings that have actually
been
made.
Joan
Ruddock: We can say what has been done in a particular
year or cycle. At other times, we talk about lifetime achievements,
because measures, equipment and so on stay in place and continue to
function for a period of years. In the case of insulation, that period
can be as long as 40 years. I acknowledged that at the moment we do not
know for how long people’s behaviour will remain changed with
things such as RTDs and advice. That is why we are scoring the
anticipated outcomes conservatively. At the moment, all that we have
from reports and research studies is a couple of years, because the
measures are new. I acknowledge that there
are—
Martin
Horwood: It’s
guesswork.
Joan
Ruddock: It is not guesswork. It is not absolutely certain
how long the behaviour change will last. We cannot say at this stage,
“If this piece of equipment lasts for 15 years, the behaviour
change that occurred in years 1 and 2 will continue.” That is
why we have scored conservatively. We have made allowances for that.
More might be suggested, but I am quite clear about what I am
saying.
I am advised
to give the further information that we undertake independent reviews
into the phases after they are completed. As a result, savings from
previous phases increased from 1.8 to 2.1 million tonnes of
CO2. When we go over the figures, they sometimes vary, but
that is made transparent. There is no question of pretence or of trying
to fool anybody. The assumption that hard measures such as loft
insulation are uncertain is just not reasonable. They are proven, and
we can be certain of what we are doing in that area. None the less, the
hon. Gentleman says that he wants us to do more and more. Ultimately,
he either accepts that the programme is worth while, and that loft and
cavity insulation are worth while, or he does not. Perhaps he is
quibbling a little too much.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about small areas and the index of multiple
deprivation. We do indeed use super output areas, so his area would be
covered. He criticised us about the small numbers in CESP. Again, that
is the nature of an interim period. We are gaining information. While
we have been consulting on CESP, we have been learning how to do things
and working out how to put much more comprehensive schemes in place. We
anticipate that all cavity walls and lofts will be filled by 2015. We
have no doubt about the urgency required, and we intend to get on with
it.
The hon.
Member for Leominster asked me a specific question about connections to
the gas grid and switching. There is no doubt that switching can be
extremely helpful and can lower people’s bills significantly. We
therefore think that it is appropriate, even though there is a
potential cost involved in putting in a meter. Overall, it is
definitely a saving and well worth having for both the customer and the
climate.
Bill
Wiggin: I agree with everything that the Minister has just
said. I would like to consider giving Ofgem a well-aimed kick for the
hidden cost of gas. I discovered that for myself when I tried to move
my meter and found that the minimum cost of moving a meter less than 2
m—6 ft—is £1,000. Hidden costs like that would hit
hardest the very poor households that the hon. Lady is targeting. I
therefore think that a regulatory body such as Ofgem should be looking
at protecting people from such a monopoly
power.
Joan
Ruddock: I agree, but given the scoring, the approach and
the obligation on the energy companies under the schemes, I am not
certain that they would pass on such a charge because it would not make
great sense. Unless I am contradicted, we would not expect a charge of
that magnitude to be passed on. Perhaps the company just recognised the
hon. Gentleman and told him that.
Bill
Wiggin: No, it is a national thing. Shall I send the
Minister
details?
Joan
Ruddock: Please do. The hon. Gentleman raises a very
interesting point and I shall be happy to look into it.
I have
endeavoured to answer all the points made by members of the Committee.
I am confident that the CERT and CESP programmes are important in terms
of both addressing climate change and reducing future household bills.
CERT is already delivering such benefits and the order will enable even
more homes to benefit with immediate effect. The new CESP programme
will further expand the benefits specifically to those in vulnerable,
low-income groups, as fuel bill savings can make a significant
difference to a householder’s
income. I
hope therefore that members of the Committee will support the CERT and
CESP orders so that those who will benefit from them can begin to do so
as soon as possible. We hope to have the measures in place soon, and
clearly it is important that they should be in place ahead of the
winter—not that we can perhaps contemplate the winter at this
stage, but it will surely come and we want the measures to be in place.
I commend the orders to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Carbon
Emissions Reduction) (Amendment) Order
2009.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Community
Energy Saving Programme) Order 2009.—(Joan
Ruddock.) 5.57
pm Committee
rose.
| 
