Climate Change and SustainableEnergy Bill

The vast mass of the scientific evidence is that carbon emissions produced from buildings and transport are the primary producers of the carbon that goes into the atmosphere. I find the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence such that none of us can dispute it. One of the candidates who stood against me at the last general election denied the existence of climate change. By the time that I come to defend my seat if my local party should choose to pick me as its candidate at the next general election, I very much hope that none of the candidates will dispute the existence of climate change. We must move beyond asking ourselves whether the problem exists. We will not make progress unless we accept the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence from this country, the United States of America and elsewhere. It has been pointed out several times that the UK produces only 2 per cent. of the world’s carbon emissions. If we are to take the issue seriously—welcome as the Bill will be in holding the Government of the day to account—it is essential that we have an international framework with real teeth to consider the issue on a global basis. The United Nations is the only possible organisation that could take that role and provide a moral lead. I return to points that are closer to home and more relevant to the Bill. Several hon. Members have quite properly mentioned the role of local authorities, of which I would like to mention three. We have heard about Braintree and its excellent scheme of giving council tax reductions to the local residents who have cavity wall insulation of a certain standard. That is practical and results in a meaningful financial gain to people and helps to reduce climate change emissions. Why are the Government and the Local Government Association not rolling that out across the country? If it works in Braintree and is sensible there, why is it not happening more widely? Perhaps the Minister could let us know if there are any moves to extend the measure to other local authorities. I also wish to comment on the local authority in Woking. Coincidentally, and like Braintree, it happens to be Conservative run, and it has been highly innovative in producing the first commercially operating combined heat and power station of its kind in the country. I understand that it is up to 90 per cent. efficient and produces very few serious emissions. Fuel poverty has been mentioned in the debate and it is covered by the Bill, and I note that pensioners in social housing in Woking have made savings equivalent to6 to 7 per cent. of their income. Owner-occupiers have made savings of between 7.5 and 10 per cent. It is a win-win situation. People who are often on low incomes and in need have money taken off their fuel bills and something is done about the carbon emissions produced in this country. Many hon. Members may know that Ken Livingstone, having seen what happened in Woking, pinched Woking’s borough engineer, Allan Jones, who now heads the London Climate Change Agency. Ken Livingstone has made the point that the great cities of the world produce about three quarters of carbon emissions globally. So there is a real opportunity for great cities, both in this country and around the world, to do something to make a difference as far as climate change is concerned. That relates to the points that several hon. Members have made about the inefficiency of the national grid. I hope that we will move away from the concept of a national grid in time. We know that, on average, coal-fired power stations are only 36 per cent. efficient, gas 46 per cent., and even nuclear only 38 per cent. Some 70 per cent. of carbon emissions from London are wasted in the transmission of power from centralised power stations to buildings in London. We will all be watching with interest as Allan Jones rolls out what he has done in Woking in London. That is very welcome. A great deal of new housing, across the country and particularly in the south-east, is planned by the Government. It is true that the Government have brought in new part L building regulations, which are compulsory, and which will, I believe, lead to a 40 per cent. increase in energy efficiency. That is good and welcome as far as it goes. However, I do not understand—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us today—why the Government have been so reticent in not enforcing the Building Research Establishment standards, which are known as BREEAM—the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method. For domestic housing, the term is EcoHomes. Those standards are voluntary and frankly there is not the will and they are ignored by developers at the moment. If the Government are really serious about the issue and about making progress, why are they not bringing those much higher standards into force? In my county of Bedfordshire, there is a firm called Agrifibre Technologies. I have no financial link with it, but its managing director is one of my constituents. He tells me that he is able to produce £40,000 affordable houses to extremely high environmental standards—in fact, they are all made from renewable materials. However, he gets pushed from Government agency to Government agency and is unable to roll that scheme out to the extent that he would like. I have seen recently from my constituency mailbag that the first wind turbine will be going up on a house in my constituency. I welcome that. However, as other hon. Members have said, the £265 planning fee for those domestic wind turbines seems excessive, as does the fact that one has to have planning permission at all. Sky dishes and antennae do not require planning permission, so that seems curious. Luton airport is close to my constituency. We know that the current Government projections for aviation growth show the entire quota of CO2 emissions being taken up, as far as this country’s international targets are concerned. There is a large issue in relation to aviation growth that is not being remotely squared. We wait to find a proper answer. Many hon. Members have referred to the issue of leaving electronic gadgets on stand-by. That seems to be yet another example of the House of Commons telling people to do as it says, but not as it does. I hope that moves can be made to ensure that more of the equipment in Members’ offices, and particularly the television monitors, can be turned off when we arenot here.