7.1.  We began the last chapter by noting that there were over 25 million households in the United Kingdom in 2003. Therefore the current building stock will constitute the vast majority of the overall total for some decades to come. Demolition rates for existing properties stand at around 15,000 per annum,[63] less than 0.1 percent of the total stock. This means that unless the demolition rate rises, of the 25 million or so properties standing today more than 24 million will still be standing in 2050.

7.2.  Thus improving the energy efficiency of existing properties is hugely important to the Government's long term objectives. The theoretical potential savings in terms of carbon emissions are enormous: one estimate is that if the entire United Kingdom housing stock were to be fitted up to the current standards applied in Sweden, as much as three quarters of domestic carbon emissions would be eliminated.[64] However, many older properties could not in practice be improved to this standard, and the Government's relatively conservative estimate of the technical potential saving is 40-42 percent.[65]

7.3.  A breakdown of these savings in terms both of delivered energy and carbon, based on research undertaken by the BRE, is provided in a briefing paper by the Market Transformation Programme, "Ranking of energy saving measure in the home".[66] As we have already noted, over 80 percent of domestic energy is used in space and water heating, and this sector offers the greatest potential gains. Around 4.5 MtC/year could be achieved by installing wall insulation, about half of which would be cavity insulation, half solid wall insulation. Energy efficient, condensing boilers could deliver 2.5 MtC/year, double glazing around 1.0 MtC/year, loft insulation slightly less.

7.4.  The figures for cost-effectiveness, however, tell a different story. Hot water cylinder insulation, though delivering relatively small overall savings, is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, at just under £100/tC. Loft insulation and cavity wall insulation cost around £100-150/tC, while condensing boilers cost over £200/tC. Solid wall insulation costs almost £400/tC, double glazing almost £500/tC.[67] Overall, the Government estimate the economic potential saving as around 17-21 percent for 2010, and 28-32 percent for 2020.

7.5.  Government policy thus needs to strike a balance between the scale of potential carbon savings and the economic cost. As Dr Wyatt put it, you are looking for "most bangs for buck" (Q 525). Furthermore, different kinds of investment need different approaches. Gas boilers, for example, have to be replaced roughly every 15 years on average; therefore new regulatory requirements for high efficiency, condensing boilers[68], will over time affect practically every gas centrally heated household. The replacement cycle for windows, on the other hand, is much longer, while wall or loft insulation may be regarded as one-off investments (though they too have a finite life).

7.6.  There is also a very large non-domestic building stock, which potentially could yield considerable energy efficiency gains. However, here statistics are harder to come by—as Professor Oreszczyn noted, knowledge of the non-domestic building stock is "probably 20 years behind" that of the domestic stock. Researchers are confined to making "reasonably good guesses", while seeking funding from the Carbon Trust and Research Councils for further work. Our conclusions on non-domestic buildings are therefore largely reached by analogy with the domestic sector—although we did gather useful information on our visits to Leicester and Durham University, as well as taking evidence from those responsible for administering the Lords part of the Parliamentary Estate.

The Energy Efficiency Commitment

7.7.  The Government's principal tool for improving the efficiency of existing homes is the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC), the first phase of which (EEC 1) ran from 2002-2005; two further phases will run until 2011. The EEC requires energy suppliers, as a condition of their licence, to achieve targets, set in proportion to the number of their customers, for installing energy efficiency measures in households. The targets do not prescribe how they should be achieved, although various approved measures are permitted, such as improving insulation, installing efficient lighting, appliances or boilers. For each such measure that is installed the supplier receives an energy credit, calculated according to a methodology determined by the Energy Saving Trust. These credits are ultimately submitted to Ofgem and set against the supplier's target.

7.8.  EEC is not just a tool for reducing energy use and carbon emissions—it also has a vital role in helping to achieve the Government's target for eliminating fuel poverty by 2010. Customers in the "priority group", for whom energy efficiency measures are heavily subsidised, make up approximately half of the total who will benefit from wall insulation.[69]

7.9.  EEC 1, which ran until 2005, set an overall target for suppliers of 0.4 MtC/year, and this has been comfortably met. The target for EEC 2, the first phase of which will run from 2005-2008, is set at 0.7 MtC/year, almost double EEC 1; the Government will consult on the level of the 2008-2011 phase in 2007.[70]

7.10.  Not surprisingly, in meeting their targets the energy suppliers tend to focus on the lower cost solutions—notably loft and cavity wall insulation. According to the Energy Retail Association (ERA), a trade association for energy suppliers, 82 percent of the EEC 2 target is expected to come from insulation products (p 279). Insulation may look like a "low hanging fruit"—there are an estimated 11 million homes in the United Kingdom with unfilled cavity walls. However, the scale of the challenge presented by the EEC 2 target is clear, and various major issues were raised by witnesses: the reliance on the insulation industry to deliver the targets; the lack of demand for insulation, particularly from owner occupiers; the difficulty, given the temptation to take the benefit of insulation in improved comfort, of translating EEC targets into actual carbon savings; and the high cost of improving older properties without cavity walls.

CAPACITY IN THE INSULATION INDUSTRY

7.11.  The Action Plan anticipates that the current rate at which cavity wall insulation is being installed—280,000 a year—will need to rise by a factor of three by 2009. ERA noted that an average of 600,000 installations a year in 2005-08 will be required of an industry that has historically never exceeded 300,000 installations in any one year, and warned of a potential shortfall of 400,000 compared with the EEC 2 targets (p 280).

7.12.  This difficulty is compounded by the fact that the EEC obligation falls upon the energy suppliers, not the insulation companies—in the words of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the energy suppliers are being obliged "to contribute to building standards over which they have little or no direct control" (p 300). Equally, if there is a shortfall, the penalty will fall upon the energy suppliers, not upon the insulation industry directly.

7.13.  In contrast, the evidence received from the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency/National Insulation Association did not express any concern over these issues, and from informal discussions with CIGA/NIA we gather that the industry has considerably increased its capacity in recent years, and remains in close dialogue with the Government over the feasibility of achieving the EEC 2 targets. In addition, the fact that EEC 2 is set to run until 2011 provides a long-term signal for the industry, and we therefore expect capacity to expand to meet demand.

MARKET FAILURES

7.14.  It has been extremely difficult to stimulate consumer demand, particularly among owner-occupiers, who for the most part do not fall within the "priority group", and yet constitute some 70 percent of all households. Even at full price, loft or cavity wall insulation can, according to CIGA/NIA, pay for itself in reduced energy bills within 2-5 years, while with the subsidies offered by energy suppliers, payback times for individual consumers can be as short as one year.

7.15.  The lack of demand thus appears to be a clear market failure. However, reasons are not hard to find. Insulation, unlike a new boiler or refrigerator, is not a "distress purchase"—customers are not compelled to purchase it by the breakdown of an existing appliance. Thus with energy prices low, it is difficult to inspire householders to invest capital in insulation, particularly as properties change hands, on average, every seven years. Along with this apathy there is the "hassle factor" of clearing loft space, and so on. To overcome these difficulties CIGA/NIA argued strongly for new fiscal incentives to householders—an issue we have already addressed in Chapter 5.

7.16.  A specific challenge is the lack of incentive for landlords, who, while normally responsible for property maintenance, do not benefit from ongoing energy savings. Most landlords are in fact local authorities and housing associations, who are, as the EST noted in supplementary written evidence, regulated by the Decent Homes standard, which requires a modest improvement in energy efficiency by 2010. However, there is a greater problem with the private sector, and although the 2004 Budget introduced an energy saving tax allowance, allowing landlords to set insulation costs against income tax, the EST did not believe that "limited tax incentives" would be sufficient.[71] ACE agreed, noting both that the private rented sector contained "a very high proportion of energy-inefficient properties", and that there was still "almost no incentive for either landlord or tenant to improve energy efficiency." Janet Young, of the Peabody Trust, which owns 19,000 properties in London, confirmed that "there is not enough funding to achieve good levels of energy efficiency in our existing houses" (Q 212).

7.17.  There are of course individual landlords who set an outstanding example. The Peabody Trust itself has not only completed the BedZED development in Sutton, but is pursuing an active programme of research into energy efficiency and renewable energy, with a view to refurbishing its older properties. In Knightsbridge we visited the "Flagship Home", a project to refurbish a privately owned nineteenth century terraced house, which will provide 19 bedsits and apartments, and incorporates features such as internal wall lining to provide insulation, low-energy lighting and a solar collector to provide hot water.

7.18.  However, it is notable that both the Peabody Trust and the owner of the Flagship Home, while their commitment to energy efficiency is laudable, have benefited from capital grants—in the case of the Peabody Trust, from DTI and the European Commission; in the case of the Flagship Home, from the local authority and EST. The fundamental problem remains: energy efficiency carries a significant capital cost, and without enhanced support for landlords wishing to make such investment, it is hard to see progress being made more widely. ACE, in a response to a Government consultation on financial incentives, have already recommended options such as increases in Enhanced Capital Allowances.

7.19.  We urge the Government to consider further fiscal incentives to encourage private and social sector landlords to invest in energy efficiency. We welcome the announcement in the 2004 Budget that the Government would give consideration to a "green landlords" scheme, and look forward to further progress on this proposal.

THE "COMFORT FACTOR"

7.20.  Although improved insulation can mean lower energy bills, a significant proportion of the saving is likely to be absorbed by means of improved living conditions—so-called "comfort taking". The EST's calculation of energy credits under EEC 1 allowed for a "comfort factor" of 45 percent for the priority group and 15 percent for the non-priority group. However, as EST informed us, "various studies … have been unable to identify any statistical difference between the two household types in terms of increased temperatures after building fabric improvements". As a result, Defra has now "assumed an average comfort factor of 30 percent".[72]

7.21.  We find this methodology disturbingly lax. We note that EST is still conducting various projects aimed at monitoring the impact of improvements in energy efficiency upon actual energy use, and that it considers such continued monitoring as "vital in order to confirm the level of carbon savings that can be achieved through energy efficiency". We note also Professor Oreszczyn's view that the research community still has "very little hard knowledge of how people actually use energy in buildings", and his plea that the energy suppliers "be obliged to collect good quality data and to make it available to the research community" (p 72).

7.22.  We are concerned that the methodology for calculating the carbon benefits of the Energy Efficiency Commitment is so lax, and so poorly supported by hard data. While we support the data monitoring being undertaken by the Energy Saving Trust, we also recommend that the Government take steps to oblige energy supply companies to collect specific but anonymised data on energy use and make them available to the research community.

OLDER HOUSES

7.23.  We have already noted that the emphasis under EEC is on lower-cost improvements, such as loft or cavity wall insulation. However, this means that many properties, in which improvements in energy efficiency are less straightforward, risk being overlooked. In particular, there are an estimated seven million properties, mostly built before 1930, with solid walls. The Action Plan notes that internal lining of the outside walls of a typical semi-detached house costs around £900, and brings with it disruption to internal decoration and a reduction in room size. External cladding, requiring scaffolding, is still more expensive, though the marginal cost is significantly reduced when it is added as part of an overall refurbishment, for instance of an apartment block.

7.24.  The Government is clearly aware of the difficulties presented by older buildings, and the Action Plan identifies more economic and practical insulation for solid-wall housing as a "key priority for future research and development". We agree. There is a risk that solid-walled houses, the least energy efficient, will not benefit from the Energy Efficiency Commitment. The development of cheaper and less intrusive insulation for such properties is a key priority for future research.

Heritage

7.25.  The technical challenge presented by older buildings is in many cases compounded by planning and heritage constraints: there are some 300,000 individually listed residential buildings, and a further 1.2 million which are located in conservation areas—representing in total about a quarter of pre-1919 dwellings. The Flagship Home in Knightsbridge, located in a conservation area, demonstrates the impact of such constraints: external cladding was of course not permitted, and internal lining has been used instead; in addition, English Heritage refused permission to replace the front windows with double glazed units, with the result that while rear-facing windows are new double glazed sashes, at the front the original Victorian sashes remain, with secondary glazing added inside.

7.26.  The constraints faced by Durham University in refurbishing both Durham Castle itself, which is a World Heritage Site, and student accommodation within the Durham Peninsular, have been even more severe. For instance, secondary glazing has not been permitted in residences, as it would alter the external appearance, while objections have been raised to the installation of roof insulation in the castle itself.

7.27.  While the architectural heritage must be respected, the attitude of local planning authorities and English Heritage to refurbishment of older properties often appears to be unhelpful. Buildings change over time—the architectural heritage cannot be simply frozen. We recommend that the Government review the guidance issued to planning authorities with a view to developing a more flexible approach to energy efficient refurbishment of older buildings.

Demolition and refurbishment

7.28.  There is also the issue of demolition. We have already noted that the demolition rate in the United Kingdom currently stands at 15,000 per annum. This rate would imply an average life expectancy for houses of over 1,500 years, and is clearly not sustainable. At some point demolition rates will inevitably rise. The Environmental Change Institute, in its report "Achieving the 40% House scenario", notes that the three quarters of pre-1919 homes not listed or in conservation areas "could be demolished if deemed unhealthy and incapable of providing affordable warmth". The Institute recommends that demolition rates should rise to around 80,000 per annum (0.25 percent of the housing stock), focusing on inefficient or unhealthy properties.[73]

7.29.  The arguments for and against demolition are complex and controversial, particularly where older buildings are concerned. Such housing, even if it is not listed or in conservation areas, is an important part of our architectural and cultural heritage. On the other hand there are many nineteenth century terraces, often in poor condition, with solid walls, poor air-tightness, and problems with damp or eroding brickwork, which would be expensive to refurbish to anything approaching the standard of new build. With these considerations in mind, we recommend that the Government review its strategy on demolition of poor quality housing.

7.30.  There is likely to be less controversy over possible demolition of poor quality modern (frequently social) housing. However, at Angered, a 1960s social housing development outside Gothenburg, we witnessed an example of what can be achieved by refurbishment of even the least promising housing. Demolition would have been an easy option, but instead an impressive refurbishment has contributed to both energy efficiency and social renewal. Open ground-floor passages have been converted to safe laundries and communal greenhouses. Insulation has been added on walls and roofs, with solar collectors providing 30 percent of hot water and heating. South-facing balconies have been glazed, allowing passive solar gain. Windows have been replaced or reglazed. Overall, energy consumption has fallen from 260 kWh/m² per annum to 160 kWh/m², occupation rates for apartments are better, and communal areas are clearly well cared for. The cost of the project, met largely by the European Commission, was around £400 per m²—less than half the cost of a new building.

7.31.  However, while Angered demonstrates what can be achieved by means of refurbishment even in unpromising circumstances, the tax system in this country does not favour refurbishment. For instance, VAT is currently charged at the full rate on refurbishment, while new buildings are zero-rated—creating a perverse incentive to demolish rather than refurbish. A striking example was reported in March 2005, as we approached the end of our inquiry: in the course of converting Malory School, in the London Borough of Lewisham, into a new sports academy, it was decided to demolish a sports hall, built in 1996-97 with a lottery grant of £725,500. This was because retention of the sports hall would have meant the whole project being treated for tax purposes as a refurbishment rather than new build, so incurring a VAT liability estimated at £4 million.[74] Such profligacy with resources makes a nonsense of sustainability.

7.32.  Various bodies have urged a relaxation of VAT rules in order to promote energy efficient goods. However, the Government's application of VAT is determined by the EU, in particular the sixth VAT Directive, which can only be amended by the unanimous agreement of the Member States. The Sustainable Buildings Task Group urged the Government to "to negotiate in the EU to establish amendments to the VAT Directive that allows lower VAT rates to be applicable to a wider range of environmentally efficient products", but the Government's response concluded that such a change "has not been agreed, and nor does it appear likely to be, by other Member States". Nevertheless, the Government pledged to continue to press for changes in VAT that would "incentivise the purchase of energy efficient products and energy saving materials".

7.33.  The Government have already had some modest successes, and VAT is charged at a reduced rate of five percent on the installation in residential properties of certain energy-saving materials, such as insulation. In Budget 2004 this concession was extended to ground source heat pumps, while in Budget 2005 the Chancellor announced a similar reduced VAT rate for micro-CHP and air source heat pumps. The Chancellor also undertook to "continue to negotiate with European partners to extend the categories of permitted reduced VAT rates to include energy-saving materials for DIY installations and energy-efficient products".[75] However, VAT at the full rate is still charged on a range of energy efficient goods—including windows, A-rated appliances, boilers and lighting.

7.34.  Such changes could be combined with a more stringent regulatory regime for building extension and refurbishment. As the Action Plan notes, Building Regulations "can only be applied to the works in prospect. They cannot be used to oblige people to carry out work they did not propose for themselves—to improve the overall insulation of the existing structure for instance when undertaking an extension." (p 61) The passage of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004, which broadens the purposes for which Building Regulations can be made, would allow more regulations to be made aimed at existing buildings, and the options for making use of this power have been one element in the Government's current review of Building Regulations.

7.35.  Simply to impose additional costs upon property-owners, by requiring them to upgrade the entire building at the same time as extending it, could be a significant disincentive to extension and refurbishment. Therefore the power contained in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act must be used cautiously. However, if counter-balanced by other incentives, such as a reduction in VAT, an extension of Building Regulations could over time have a powerful impact on the energy efficiency of the building stock.

7.36.  We welcome the Government's commitment to arguing within the Council of Ministers for further revision of VAT rules in order to stimulate energy efficiency. The changes that have been agreed so far, such as the reduction of VAT on micro-CHP, are relatively peripheral. Far more important is the perverse effect of the current application of the full rate of VAT to building extension and refurbishment. We recommend that the Government redouble their efforts to persuade the European Union of the need to give strong fiscal signals to encourage energy efficient refurbishment of existing buildings.

7.37.  We welcome the consideration that the Government have been giving to extending Building Regulations to cover existing buildings. However, in order to avoid creating a disincentive to building improvement, we recommend that the cost to property-owners of any extension of regulation in this area be offset by financial incentives such as a reduction in VAT.

The Public Sector

7.38.  According to the Sustainable Development Framework for the Government Estate, published from 2002-2004,[76] the Government estate comprises some 50,000 buildings, totalling 74 million m² (of which the vast majority is occupied by the Ministry of Defence). Overall environmental targets include a reduction in carbon emissions of 12.5 percent between 1999-2000 and 2010-2011, and a 15 percent improvement in energy efficiency (measured in kWh/m²) over the same period. In addition, there is a target to source at least 15 percent of electricity from good quality CHP by 2010.

7.39.  These are welcome targets. However, they may not in reality be quite as clear-cut as they appear. The CHP Association told us, for instance, that the huge National Health Service estate is in fact excluded from the CHP target (Q 663). Furthermore, generalised targets such as these do not necessarily reflect the opportunities that may exist in particular sectors—the current programme of renewal of school buildings, for instance, offers the chance to go beyond these relatively modest targets.

7.40.  As far as new buildings are concerned, paragraph 136 of the Action Plan notes that the Government are "currently responsible for around 30 percent of new build spending", and continues by stating that they will "in future procure only buildings in the top quartile of energy performance for the central Government estate". Such procurement standards will apply to purchases, leases, or procurement through PFI.

7.41.  This too is a welcome development. However, while public procurement policy can exert a considerable influence on the market for commercial property, we are unclear how much of the public estate is in fact excluded from the commitment to procure top quartile buildings for the "central Government estate".

7.42.  We welcome the Government's targets for sustainable development in the Government estate, in particular the announcement that they will procure only buildings in the top quartile of energy performance for the central Government estate. We agree with the Government in believing that this will have a marked effect on the wider commercial property market.

7.43.  However, uncertainties remain over the coverage of these targets: for example, the target for central Government energy use contained in the Action Plan is not in itself adequate, given the huge size and the diversity of the public estate. We therefore look to the Government to extend their initiatives on procurement and energy use to all parts of the public estate as soon as possible.

The Parliamentary Estate

7.44.  The Parliamentary Estate presents unique challenges in terms of energy efficiency, and we therefore thought it appropriate to devote one public meeting to a discussion of current and possible future initiatives. Not only does the Estate include a World Heritage Site, and a Grade I listed building, but it is extremely heavily used, at unpredictable times, and by very diverse groups, including Members of both Houses, permanent staff, Members' staff and researchers, and visitors. It is also occupied and administered by two separate and independent organisations, though on a day-to-day basis the management of the Estate is the responsibility of the Estates Directorate, which serves both Houses. As a Committee of the House of Lords, our recommendations are necessarily directed to the House Committee and the House of Lords administration; however, some recommendations inevitably either have an impact upon the Commons, or are impossible to implement without co-operation with the Commons authorities.

7.45.  The written evidence submitted by the Estates Directorate demonstrates Parliament's commitment to energy efficiency. The parliamentary Energy Policy commits both Houses to improving energy efficiency. There is a CHP plant at Canon Row capable of generating 150 kW electricity; new boilers have an operating efficiency of 82 percent, instead of the 45 percent efficiency boilers which they replaced; heat pumps are installed in 7/8 Old Palace Yard and the newest House of Lords out-building, Abingdon House; ten percent of electricity is derived from renewable sources. An Energy Group, chaired by an engineer from the Estates Directorate, provides advice and help to staff of both Houses.

7.46.  However, the results achieved so far have been variable. From 1990-1991 to 2003-2004, degree-day adjusted energy consumption fell by 6 percent, from 378 kWh/m²/year to 356 kWh/m²/year, and the Director of Estates, Mr Henry Webber, expressed confidence that Parliament was "well on target to achieve the 10 percent target saving against the base line" for 2004-05. However, this achievement is undermined by an increase in electricity consumption since 1996-97 of around 50 percent (to some 159 kWh/m²/year), thanks in particular the vastly increased use of IT equipment and the installation of air conditioning. As electricity is more carbon-intensive than the use of gas for heating, the net result is, in Mr Webber's words, "that we have not actually shown a reduction in carbon emissions" (Q 608). This contrasts with the Government's estimate that public sector emissions have fallen by 30 percent since 1990.[77]

7.47.  Furthermore, in the course of our inquiry, on 16 February (the day the Kyoto Treaty came into force), thermal imaging photographs of the river front of the Palace were published in the media, along with photographs of other public buildings.[78] The photograph of the Palace vividly demonstrated the extreme difficulty of preventing heat loss from an old, historic public building. However, the Director of Estates, Mr Henry Webber, argued that this did not necessarily demonstrate waste—the windows along the Committee Corridor had been double-glazed, and were thus "as reasonably insulated as they could be", while those areas which showed brightest in the photograph were either yet to be double glazed (the Pugin Room, the Library) or were inherently difficult to insulate (the canvas tent on the Terrace).

7.48.  The force of this defence is somewhat undermined by the fact that the double glazed windows in committee rooms, which are immediately above the heating units, can be found open more often than not, even when the temperature outside is below freezing. The explanation offered by Mr Webber on the day of our meeting was that an earlier committee had asked for the windows to be opened. In such circumstances, staff currently have no choice but to accede to the request.

7.49.  This highlights a particular problem within Parliament—the many different categories of occupant. While instructions can be given to the staff of the two Houses, there is no simple way to control the behaviour of Members, and their staff and researchers. As Black Rod, Sir Michael Willcocks, told us, "I can order staff … to do things but I would not dream of trying it with your Lordships" (Q 614). Yet assuming air conditioning systems function correctly, there is no justification for double glazed windows, installed largely in order to improve energy efficiency, being wide open in the middle of winter. If Members request that they be opened, staff should be authorised to refuse their request. This will only be possible if domestic committees show strong leadership.

7.50.  More broadly, we are not convinced that energy efficiency is a sufficiently high priority within the Administration. There is no mention of reducing energy consumption or carbon emissions within the House of Lords Corporate Business Plan; the annual budget for "tactical energy saving works", at £30,000, seems extremely low; and the monitoring of energy consumption in various parts of the Estate, and the dissemination of data, in the form of monthly targets, seems rudimentary, and in marked contrast to the sophisticated monitoring of energy consumption we saw in Leicester or Gothenburg.

7.51.  We also understand that the Energy Manager, who works within the Estates Directorate, is not devoted full-time to energy management. The annual spend on energy across the Estate is around £1.75 million, and the following comments from a recent report by the Welsh National Audit Office are therefore pertinent:

Best practice guidance recommends that a full-time manager should be engaged where energy expenditure exceeds £1 million per annum. This is based on one hour a week per £25,000 expenditure on energy, and reflects the general principle that these posts should be self-financing from the savings they can deliver.[79]

We have no doubt that within the Parliamentary Estate the scope for financial savings by means of energy efficiency would more than justify a full-time post, ideally at a more senior level than at present.

7.52.  We commend the authorities of both Houses for their achievements in controlling energy use within the Parliamentary Estate. However, we believe that Parliament should seek to set an example for the wider public sector. We therefore make the following recommendations to the House authorities:

• That the House of Lords Corporate Business Plan include specific targets for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and that Office Business Plans incorporate specific initiatives to deliver these targets;
• That Black Rod's Office, together with the Serjeant at Arms' Department in the House of Commons, explore the feasibility of acquiring for Parliament an information system that would collect and monitor energy data, so as to facilitate real-time management of energy use;
• That regular reports on trends in energy consumption be presented to the appropriate domestic committees of both Houses;
• That, in accordance with best practice guidance, a full-time Energy Manager be appointed, and that his role be strengthened in order to reflect the higher prominence of energy within the House of Lords Corporate Business Plan;
• That the Energy Manager be tasked with strengthening the existing energy strategy, with a view to meeting the agreed targets;
• That domestic committees be invited to endorse the strategy and to establish clear guidance for both staff and Members on energy use;
• That ambitious energy efficiency targets be incorporated into the project to prepare the Millbank island site for occupation by the House of Lords.

64   See P F Smith and A C Pitts, "Buildings and the environment: a study for the National Audit Office", University of Sheffield, 1993. See also RCEP, 22nd report, Energy-the Changing Climate, 2000 (Cm 4749), paragraph 6.95. Back

65   Improving domestic energy efficiency-a technical overview, paragraph 7. Back

66   Market Transformation Programme briefing paper BNDH06-see http://www.mtprog.com/.  Back

67   These figures represent the initial capital investment required, and do not take account of ongoing savings. However, according to Mr Eyre, of the Energy Saving Trust, the net cost to the economy as a whole of EEC is actually negative-in other words, the economy benefits by £100-200 for each tonne of carbon saved (see QQ 297-298). However, the methodology underlying this calculation is not clear. Back

68   From April 2005 all new boilers have to be at least B-rated, or at least 86 percent efficient, which means in practice only condensing boilers will meet the new standard. Back

69   See written evidence from Ofgem, p 308. The EEC interacts with other Government programmes in addressing fuel poverty, notably the Warm Front scheme, which provides grants to households receiving a range of benefits; and the Decent Homes programme, which sets minimum efficiency standards for social housing. Back

70   Action Plan, Annex 6. Back

71   Supplementary written evidence (not printed). Back

72   Supplementary written evidence (not printed). Back

73   Achieving the 40% House scenario, pp 87, 88. Back

74   See the Evening Standard for 18 March 2005. See also the answer provided by Councillor Morris, of Lewisham Council, in February 2005 (http://www2.lewisham.gov.uk/lbl/CouncilMeetings/Committees_post0502/FullCouncil/documents/Feb2005/full_cncl_membersques_9feb05.pdf). Back

75   Budget 2005, Investing for our future: Fairness and opportunity for Britain's hard-working families, paragraph 7.28. Back

76   See http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/delivery/integrating/estate/estate.htm.  Back

77   Review of the UK Climate Change Programme, p 80. Back

78   See the Evening Standard, 15 February, and The Times and Daily Express, 16 February 2005. Back

79   National Audit Office of Wales, Energy and Water Management in the Higher Education Sector in Wales, March 2005, p 19. Back