Agenda item

The Committee heard witness evidence from William Baker, Head of Fuel Poverty Policy, Citizens Advice and Peter Smith, National Energy Action (NEA) who led on policy and research functions. Both witnesses also sat on the government’s fuel poverty advisory group.

In William Baker’s presentation the following points were made:

·         The government was consulting on the draft Fuel Poverty Strategy. This was the first strategy since the original in 2001.

·         The strategy proposed a new fuel poverty target as it was recognised that the previous target to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016 was not going to be met. Fuel poverty had increased since 2001. The new target was to get as many fuel poor homes as was reasonably practicable, to achieve a minimum energy efficiency standard of Band C, by 2030.

·         Citizens Advice supported the principle of setting a target for minimum energy efficiency and a date for this to be achieved as well as the interim targets which had been set. However it was concerned that as the target was just for fuel poor households, this would help those in fuel poverty but not prevent people from getting into fuel poverty.

·         William Baker raised concern that current programmes were not capable of meeting the targets. Suppliers were currently responsible for the delivery and the system was not set up to meet the multiple needs of those in fuel poverty. There were national programmes in Scotland and Wales but there was no longer one in England. Decentralising power to local authorities and registered social landlords could start addressing how the target could help to achieve the target.

In Peter Smith’s presentation the following points were made:

·         The government acknowledged the previous target would not be reached following a two year evidence based review. It was then considered that the target and timeframe should be changed.

·         People’s incomes had grown little in the last 4-5 years and the poor had become poorer.

·         The price of fuel had risen by 120% since 2005.

·         Professor John Hills, London School of Economics, had established a new definition of fuel poverty. If a household had an income of less than 60% of the national median and energy costs above the national median, it was deemed to be fuel poor.

·         The fuel poverty gap calculated the depth of fuel poverty for each household.

·         Approximately 255,000 households in London were fuel poor, with approximately 6,600 of these being in Islington.

·         The health agenda and the Seasonal Health Intervention Network (SHINE) were examples of the ways in which the council could help.

·         When a person was eligible for assistance and had applied, there should be a guarantee of assistance to include meaningful engagement, energy efficiency advice, checks to confirm they were on the right tariff and equipment checks to confirm it was working correctly.

·         Energy efficiency measures could reduce bills by £350-£400 per year. Generally, those on the lowest incomes returned money to the local economy more quickly than those on higher incomes so this could stimulate the economy.

·         Less fuel poverty resulted in benefits such as better mental health, attainment and improved air quality as less energy had to be generated.

·         The money the Treasury received from London gas bills was £110m per year and from London electricity bills was £240m per year. This came out of energy consumers’ bills and did not take into account income as income tax did.

·         Fuel poverty was a particular problem in the private rented sector. The council had environmental health powers to address problems of private landlords not meeting standards. Newham Council had done this with problematic Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

·         Local authorities could set standards for their own housing (or those they paid housing benefit to) and there could be an energy efficiency target for social housing with housing associations encouraged to work towards the same target.

·         Health and Wellbeing Boards could identify fuel poverty as a priority and set up a referral system.

·         It was important to ensure that people claimed and received the benefits they were entitled to receive.

·         The council had in place a crisis payment scheme.

·         Section 106 agreements had provided funding in the past and would be used in the future.

·         More investment was required and the Mayor for London recognised this. The council could lobby the Mayor for funding.

·         Islington was one of the most proactive councils. Sharing best practice would help other local authorities reduce fuel poverty.

·         In 2016, tenants would have a right to ask their landlord for energy efficiency measures to be installed in their home. By 2018, landlords would not be able to rent out properties with F and G energy efficiency ratings unless they met the exception criteria. National Energy Action was of the view that there should be no exceptions.

·         Landlords were expected to provide their tenants with an energy efficiency rating for the property. This would advise them what could be done to improve the energy efficiency of the property. The landlord, and not the tenant, was responsible for any work. The average costs of improvements was £1,500.

·         Some landlords did not realise that there was a tax allowance for energy efficiency work. National Energy Action produced guidance for landlords and was doing outreach work.

·         Green Deal Finance was not generally suitable for low energy use households.

·         Fuel poverty could exacerbate dampness in homes and this could have health impacts such as respiratory illness. This was increasingly being recognised by health professionals who had started to refer patients for help where appropriate. The Department of Energy and Climate Change had stated that there were health benefits associated to improving homes. Fuel poverty increased the number of hospital stays and operations such as hip replacements.

·         There were economic reasons for tackling cold homes at the source.

·         Energy Performance Certificates lasted for 10 years and if work was done, the certificate did not have to be reissued.

·         Households where the primary heating source was non-gas were not energy efficient.

·         Where there was a mixture of tenures on estates, this could make upgrade work more difficult and freeholders could decide whether or not to get work done. Households could be subsidised where necessary.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the evidence be noted.

2)    That Peter Smith provide the Committee with the following additional documentation: The NEAs response to the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s consultation ‘Cutting the Cost of Keeping Warm: A New Fuel Poverty Strategy for England’: The NEA’s response to ‘An End to Cold Homes: One Nation Labour’s Plans for Energy Efficiency’ and the NEA’s low cost energy efficiency measure calculator.