English House Condition Survey 1991 (Energy Reports)

Adjournment Debate - 22 January 1997

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Last week the Birmingham Evening Mail published a letter from Mr. Thornton of Weoley Castle, who is a war veteran in his seventies. He stated:

"At the time of writing, the temperature in the kitchen is 42 deg F"--

that is about 5.5 deg C--

"and in the bedroom it is 34 deg F"--

about 1 deg C above freezing.

As the Minister knows, such conditions do not meet even the minimum Government standards for safeguarding health. Sadly, Mr. Thornton's conditions are not an isolated case, as is amply demonstrated by the house condition survey report. I commend the Government for commissioning the detailed work in that hefty document. It has been a long time coming--the survey took place in 1991-92. Although the report states that there has been little change in the situation since then, a new survey is to be undertaken.

It has taken several years for the report to be published. Its publication was originally planned for the summer. I do not know why it was not ready then; the Government were probably aiming for it to be published in the recess. In the event, it was published two days after the Budget and, unfortunately, received little publicity. No one seems to have seen the Department of the Environment press release on the subject. I am pleased that this Adjournment debate allows me to give the Government the opportunity to discuss such an important report.

In 1983, the Conservatives promised to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe. The contents of the survey show how badly they have failed in that aim. The report is an indictment of almost 20 years of Conservative government. It shows that one in five dwellings in the social housing sector, two in five in the private rented sector, and even one in 10 in the owner-occupied sector have energy ratings that show them to be grossly inefficient. On the Government's standard assessment procedure scale, which goes from one to 100--100 being the most energy efficient--those are the proportions of types of homes that are less than 20 per cent. energy efficient. Although I gave the proportion of only one in 10 homes in the owner-occupied sector, that represents 1.3 million dwellings, which is the largest number of dwellings in any sector that are grossly inefficient.

The report states that when the temperature is 4 deg C, which is above the temperature that triggers cold weather payments to people on low incomes, 50 per cent. of owner-occupied housing, 62 per cent. of council and social housing in the housing association sector and 95 per cent. of private rented housing fails to achieve even the minimum standards to safeguard health as laid down by the Government. More than one in three households would need to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on fuel to achieve the more comfortable standard heating regime. By that standard, more than 60 per cent. of lone pensioners underspend on heating. No wonder in the first two weeks of this year the Government's Office for National Statistics reported 10,000 excess deaths. Mr. Thornton is, indeed, not an isolated case.

The report states that, despite the mild weather in 1991-92, only 25 per cent. of the homes surveyed fully met the standard regime for temperature, and only 70 per cent. conformed with the minimum regime. It is reckoned that, to achieve the 30 per cent. energy efficiency savings laid down in the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, expenditure of £80 billion will be required. The Government have accepted that target.

The Department of the Environment circular on the 1995 Act issued in early 1996 states that the Secretary of State takes the view that improving the energy efficiency of residential accommodation is important because of the environmental impact of energy use in the domestic sector--estimated to be responsible for more than 25 per cent. of emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide--and because of the desirability of ensuring that every household has access to affordable warmth. I am sure that all hon. Members support that aim, but the report shows how far we are from achieving it.

The guidance notes go on to say that the Secretary of State takes the view that an overall improvement in energy efficiency of 30 per cent. in residential accommodation covered by the Act in England alone is to be regarded as significant, and gives advice accordingly.

The report states that £25 billion to £80 billion is needed to meet that target. It also states that one in five homes cannot be improved to current building regulation standards, and recommends that they should be replaced with new homes. That would mean a massive increase in the house-building programme, in line with the building programme that occurred after the war.

I am sure that the Minister will say that the report tells us that most households are satisfied with their heating systems--only 13 per cent. are not. It is difficult to square that with the objective findings that show the appalling state of our housing stock in terms of energy efficiency.

In case study 4, which deals with a family of owner-occupiers who bought their low-rise flat from the local authority, the family stated in the questionnaire that they were fairly satisfied with their heating system, which was a rather old central heating system. The report notes, however, that at the start of the interview the family voluntarily identified heating as something that they were unhappy about. There seems to be a problem with the collection of the statistics. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Government on the report, which shows how much work needs to be done to bring our housing stock up to scratch.

What have the Government done to bring about such a sorry state of affairs? When I first became involved in politics as a councillor in Birmingham, we had a housing investment programme of £75 million a year. I have checked with Birmingham council, and the housing investment programme allocation for next year is £28 million. One must take into account the difference in prices between the 1979-80 figure of £75 million and the 1997 figure of £28 million, which demonstrates the enormous reduction in investment not just in the council housing sector but in housing associations.

In its 1992 election manifesto, the Conservative party claimed that it was spending £2 billion a year on the housing association sector. That expenditure was reduced to about £650 million in this year's Budget--a massive cut that exemplifies the Government's failure to honour their pledge to the country in 1992. It is just another in a series of broken Tory promises.

Reduced investment leads to all sorts of misery. I know from my surgeries the appalling conditions in which many of my constituents are living. Only 5 per cent. of council-owned stock in Birmingham has energy ratings that meet current building regulation standards of 70 per cent. energy efficiency. Some 15,000 homes are below the national average of 35 per cent. energy efficiency--which is itself too low and needs attention. It is reckoned that it will cost £1.3 billion to raise council housing in Birmingham to modern standards--and, as I have said, the council's housing investment allocation this year is only £28 million. That illustrates the Government's sorry record in this area, particularly their failure to honour their manifesto commitments.

The Government's energy efficiency programme also comprises the home energy efficiency scheme. The Chancellor increased spending on the scheme to £100 million in his 1994 Budget Statement--a mere drop in the ocean in view of the scale of the problem. However, the Government could not maintain even that level of spending and, despite promises from the Chancellor and two other Ministers to maintain it for three years, in November 1995 it was cut to £75 million. That caused many redundancies in firms operating home energy efficiency programmes. Expenditure has not increased this year, and remains at £75 million. We should contrast that figure with the £60 million in assistance provided to those on low incomes through the cold weather payments scheme.

We must invest in our housing stock. There are many ways to do it, but the Government are failing in that task. Although £80 billion sounds like a lot of money, the same sort of sum was spent on Trident. We cannot bring that money back, but it would be good if, as we approach the 21st century, the Government--hopefully, there will be a new Government after the election--would give a commitment to tackle the problem and make Britain the best housed nation in Europe. It is not an insuperable problem: it could be done. The Government recently announced their intention to spend £15 billion on the Eurofighter aircraft. Those aircraft were conceived during the cold war and are now unnecessary. That money could be used to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock, which would have a favourable impact on global warming and do more to ensure global stability than military spending of that nature. Perhaps that funding could be targeted.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has committed the next Labour Government--which I am sure will soon be in office--to a programme of energy efficiency funded by the windfall levy on public utilities. It is most appropriate to spend the excess profits of the gas and electricity industries on a programme to improve energy efficiency, reduce fuel consumption and make people more comfortable.

The debate gives the Government an opportunity to announce their plans for the future. They have failed to tackle the housing problem in their 18 years in office--I wonder what commitments they will make in their next manifesto. The Government must pull their socks up if they are to perform at a level anything like that needed to make Britain the best housed country in Europe--an aim that we must all share as we approach the millennium.