Official Report 189KB pdf
I welcome our guests and the public. You will be aware that the committee has already undertaken work on the issue of fuel poverty. I am grateful to the Scottish warm homes campaign for appearing today. We considered its petition on 26 April last year when, to a large extent, we were quite a different committee. It was decided at that stage to consider the matter further in the light of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Thank you, convener. Our approach is first to make a brief contribution on an issue that the Scottish warm homes campaign agrees should be central to any initiative to tackle housing in Scotland. Each of us will then make a brief contribution on aspects of the bill that lie within our individual areas of expertise. It is important to get into play the collective knowledge of our four organisations.
As a member of the Scottish Warm Homes Campaign, Shelter Scotland fully supports a target to end fuel poverty in Scotland. We see the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and especially the proposal within the bill to amend the current tolerable standard for housing, as the vehicle for achieving that. I want to address the tolerable standard this morning.
On behalf of Age Concern Scotland, I welcome the opportunity to give evidence as part of the Scottish warm homes campaign. We gave the committee fairly detailed evidence on 15 November. We welcome the Scottish Executive's central heating initiative, but we recognise that it is only the first step in a planned programme to eliminate fuel poverty in Scotland. That is one element that needs to be taken into account, but we must also ensure that advice is provided to people who take part in the initiative and that proper complementary services and programmes support it.
Before I hand over to Andrew Warren, I will add a comment on behalf of Friends of the Earth Scotland. The Housing (Scotland) Bill's policy memorandum considers the effects on sustainable development of the proposed policies and concludes that they will
Good morning. The Association for the Conservation of Energy is also proud to be part of the Scottish warm homes campaign. Normally, we are represented by our Scottish campaigner Malcolm Sayers, who is sitting behind me and who I think is known to several members. I am the UK director of the association and I hope that it is pertinent to talk about my recent experience. I chaired the steering committee that has met in Westminster for the past three years, and which included parliamentarians of all parties and a variety of organisations from the private sector, including my association, non-governmental organisations and unions. That committee was geared towards the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000.
Thanks very much for that comprehensive statement. I am sure that it contained much that members will want to reflect on, not only through questioning now, but later. We have also read the Scottish warm homes campaign's initial petition, and we will address some of the points that are contained in it as they relate to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
We must fall back on answers that were given by Jackie Baillie, when she was asked that question. Slightly confusingly, she used two different terms. She said in a written answer, that she thought that the initiatives that were being introduced by the Executive would take
We need better data on that. That information is available, but we are still waiting to see the analysis of the data that Scottish Homes collected from the Scottish house condition survey. We have the data from the survey that was published in 1997, but we are still waiting to see the separate data analysis that would show clearly the impact of the Executive's current initiatives and the shortfall in those initiatives because of the extent of fuel poverty in Scotland. I ask the committee to find out whether it can get hold of that information. The analysis has been prepared and was presented by Scottish Homes at an Energy Action Scotland conference 18 months ago. Those data would be very useful if they were available to us in their published form.
It would be reasonable to say that the initiatives that the Executive is taking are acceptable but not sufficient.
We have all welcomed those initiatives. I do not want to be churlish about this—we recognise that the Executive is doing something about the problem. However, the Executive's statements show that it recognises that those initiatives are not yet sufficient for the task.
If things proceed as some of us around this table wish, the new housing partnership initiative will result in considerable investment in housing in Scotland—especially in Glasgow—in the short term. It appears that the standards of work that will be applied in the many refurbishments that will take place are negotiable at the level of the individual transfers that will take place over the years. What is your view on the question whether there should be a tightening of the standard and extent of work that might be carried out, with regard to fuel poverty and energy conservation?
New housing will automatically reach the energy efficiency rating of 7 out of 10. We want refurbishments also to reach that standard. Our main concern is that, although we might achieve energy-efficient homes with substantial renovation of the stock through new housing partnership programmes, that will involve only a very small proportion of the Scottish housing stock The largest part of the worst stock is in the private sector, particularly in the private rented sector but also in the owner-occupied sector. We welcome any improvement to the housing stock. However, if we are to abolish fuel poverty, we must set a target for all tenures.
Yes, but you must appreciate that it is sometimes necessary to approach matters gradually. It is not possible to do everything at once.
No. We have set a target of 10 years.
Leaving aside the fact that only 27 per cent at most of the public sector housing stock is likely to be affected by the initiatives, do you feel that there should be a tightening of the terms and conditions that would be applied, to ensure that the work that is agreed to matches a specification that will maximise energy conservation?
Yes—absolutely. The refurbishments should meet the same standards as the new housing.
I think that I managed to get members whose initials are BA mixed up. Brian Adam wanted to raise those issues, so let us return to him now.
In your petition, you suggest that the energy efficiency improvements should eradicate fuel poverty within two sessions of the Parliament. You are talking about a period of 10 or 15 years, which parallels what should happen south of the border in eight, 10 or 15 years. Energy efficiency is only one aspect of fuel poverty, so is it possible to eradicate fuel poverty on this basis alone, and is it realistic to expect to do it within two sessions?
Our premise was the fact that, in the run up to the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the eradication of fuel poverty was one of the prominent proposals, particularly in the Labour party manifesto. We all welcomed the aspiration to eradicate fuel poverty within two sessions, although it seemed like a tall order. We were particularly disappointed that that was quickly dropped and that no substitute was put in its place. We want to see a target date—whether that is two sessions, 10 years or 15 years—by which achievement of that aspiration should be attempted.
I share that aspiration, because clearly it costs more to heat a house in most parts north of the border than it does south of the border.
I hesitate to step in and talk about the difference in powers—
To be fair, I was not asking you to highlight any constitutional difference. To what extent do we need to get the balance right between the social side of the issue, which is covered by another Parliament, and the environmental side, which is covered here? Unless we get that balance right, we will not make progress. To what extent will the current set of proposals strike that balance?
Again, I hesitate, having come here from London, to comment directly on the Scottish situation. However, on the English and Welsh position, during the course of developing the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill—which is now the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000—that balance was examined in some detail. There was recognition that, to achieve what we agreed was an ambitious but thoroughly necessary target of not only ameliorating, but abolishing fuel poverty, changes in policy would be required. There is no getting away from that. That has been recognised by the UK Government, which is why it is committed to producing, by November at the latest, a detailed strategy to demonstrate the necessary alterations, and to balance them in policies. That will achieve the objective within the 10-year period, which the Deputy Prime Minister has reconfirmed.
On older people, income has to be taken into account carefully because, as I said, about 33 per cent of older people do not take up the benefits to which they are entitled. Unless they can afford to heat their houses—which is difficult in some houses, in terms of energy conservation—there is no balance. Brian Adam's stress on balance is important, and we need to achieve that balance if we are going to eliminate fuel poverty properly and effectively.
I want to begin with a general question to get a feel for the extent of the problem in Scotland compared with England. There are more houses in England, so there is obviously a difference, but I want to know about proportionate differences. We have a colder climate than England has, but do we also have a higher number of houses needing attention and greater investment?
The Scottish house condition survey showed that there are clearly worse problems in Scotland. I am afraid that I cannot give the committee comparative data right now, but I can write to the committee with that information. We are looking at a repair bill of £10 billion—the state of repair of the Scottish housing stock is quite poor.
I asked that question because I wanted to know about the level of resources that would be needed in relation to the targets that have been set. You have highlighted the fact that the private rented sector tends to be a neglected area, where there are the worst conditions and the poorest people. The Executive's legislative strategy is to deal with the social rented sector first in the Housing (Scotland) Bill and to deal with the private rented sector later. There are also funding issues to consider. What do you think of that approach to the problems that you have identified?
The strategy that has been laid out involves setting up a task force and having an index of housing standards. We need something in statute now that will address the problems, and which local authorities will have to work to when drawing up local housing strategies for all the stock in their areas. We could wait 10 years before we see another piece of legislation to address the private sector. The problem has already gone on for too long. The Housing (Scotland) Bill gives us an opportunity to include a target for fuel poverty and we should take that opportunity. We have known for some time that Scotland has the worst housing and that there are real problems with condensation and dampness and that those problems affect health and education.
The issue has as much to do with the methods as with the resources. What is your view on the effectiveness of spending? There are different sorts of houses in the private and public sectors, some of which cannot easily be brought up to proper insulation standards. Is work being done to identify the houses that are easiest to deal with and to investigate how other houses might best be tackled? Are there some houses that the initiative might be unable to tackle? Is not that why the Executive is heading towards a quality standard and putting the framework in place first, to discover the nature of the problem, what must be done about it and how best to spend the money?
We need that framework. One purpose of the local housing strategy is to identify the nature and condition of the housing stock. That must be done in detail, not with a broad brush. One of the arguments that we have made in favour of energy auditing is that it would encompass not only the social sector but the private sector—including the owner-occupier and private rented sectors. It would allow us to know precisely the condition of our housing stock across all sectors.
How long would it take to introduce such a provision? I am considering the financial implications for people who have to have the audit conducted. The Executive and the committee have identified problems such as the possibility that landlords would be driven out of the private rented sector, which would exacerbate the problem. Should not the idea be tackled carefully, with sufficient resources to make the scheme effective? Are we not at risk of setting up a bureaucratic licensing system, which would cost a lot of money and, arguably, would not be very effective in achieving the objective?
The licensing of houses in multiple occupation provides a model that we could use. HMO licensing is expensive, but if the whole private rented sector were included in the scheme, I think that the costs would be reduced. The provision would take time—that is why we suggest 10 years. However, similar models already exist.
I have a question that relates to the European convention on human rights, the private rented sector and local authorities. If the bill does not give people who rent in the private sector the same rights as others, could they approach the European Court of Human Rights and argue that they have been discriminated against?
I will get back to you on that question, but I do not think that they could. The single social tenancy, or Scottish secure tenancy, has been examined with a fine-toothed comb to ensure that tenants' rights comply with the ECHR. I cannot speak with any authority on the subject, but I will get back to you.
I will continue with the issue of energy auditing, which Kevin Dunion mentioned in his supplementary briefing to the committee and in further discussion today—almost every question to him has referred to it. I have some sympathy with the proposals, but will you clarify how the system would operate? Are you suggesting a central register? If so, who would hold the register? Will you clarify and define the proposal?
I will try to do so. Friends of the Earth and the Association for the Conservation of Energy are preparing a report, which is being funded by the Energy Saving Trust and Transco. That report will be sent to the committee by the end of this month. It tries to address some of the specific questions that have been raised about the way in which energy labelling and auditing would work.
Did you say that you have commissioned work on that?
Yes—we have almost completed it. We have been working on a report, funded by the Energy Saving Trust and Transco, for the past six months. It is in draft form, but we intend to submit it to this committee by the end of the month. It will be published shortly thereafter.
I look forward to reading it. The Executive recently made announcements on the establishment of the housing improvement task force, which will address some of the issues that Liz Nicholson raised on tolerable standards. How would you change the tolerable standards to improve energy efficiency in Scotland's housing?
The tolerable standards should include energy efficiency ratings. At the moment, around 93 per cent of Scottish housing does not meet the energy efficiency standard for new housing—that is how big the task ahead of us is. Energy efficiency is one area that must be addressed; condensation is another. Not to include condensation in the considerations for the tolerable standards is a big omission.
How do you define condensation? Tenants who have lived in rented housing over the years may be convinced that they have a dampness problem, but a professional will come along and say that it is condensation.
Some of the condensation may be caused by the structure of the housing. The majority of the condensation problems in Scottish housing are in the multi-storey blocks and other buildings that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Occasionally, the condensation may be caused because people are too poor to heat their homes. That can be tackled by making housing energy efficient and by eliminating fuel poverty.
The Executive plans to extend its scheme of care and improvement grants. I would be interested to know your views on that. I would also like Maureen O'Neil to expand on her concerns about the way in which the proposed changes might affect the elderly.
The improvement grants that are administered by care and repair organisations have a significant impact throughout the privately owned accommodation sector. We have already said that that sector is often property rich but income poor. Therefore, the availability of grants enhances both the property and the well-being of the individual. Housing stock also benefits and—to answer the point that was raised earlier—social consequences arise from people not being able to do work under improvement grants.
I do not have much to add on the specifics. We have been concerned that, although the Housing (Scotland) Bill makes provision for local authorities and for improvement grants, the level of grants available are insufficient to provide adequate heating systems or adequate thermal insulation, which can be relatively expensive. In the past year, local authorities spent around £35 million on improvement grants across all types of work. While we welcome the bill's provisions, questions continue to arise about whether there are sufficient resources behind them.
You referred to the importance of resourcing the repair and improvement grants. What would your views be if that money were ring-fenced to ensure that it helps those who need it most? Would that be appropriate?
At present, an element of the improvement grant is ring-fenced. Questions arise over how that ring fencing is applied, as it is done on a bidding system. Sometimes, the grant is not given the important priority by local authorities that all of us around the table would give it. There is an uneven spread of and an uneven commitment to improvement grants. The system could be simplified, by concentrating on the standard of properties in a particular area that have been identified as requiring work and by setting a target date.
The current tolerable standards already cover dampness, but how would you improve or strengthen that standard?
Dampness is mentioned, but condensation is not. Dampness is caused by condensation, and we are concerned that condensation has been omitted.
I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to the witnesses' evidence and reading their papers. As they rightly say, this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we can put through the Scottish Parliament—the first housing bill in, I think, 13 years. Dampness, fuel poverty and condensation are especially important issues: they must be eradicated.
Drawing on my European experience, I will try to put the issue in context. Robert Brown asked how quickly we could achieve what I think everybody here wishes to achieve—the abolition of fuel poverty.
I would like to ask Maureen O'Neil about standing charges for the elderly. Obviously, we cannot insist that those be removed, but would you say that abolishing standing charges would go a long way towards eradicating fuel poverty for pensioners?
That is certainly a big issue with pensioners, who often reduce their usage of fuel in order simply to cover the standing charge. We have often spoken to the power companies about that. We also have to educate people with proper heating to use it wisely and to be aware of the effectiveness of well-heated houses. We must also consider the balance between having an income that is sufficient to heat a house and having a house that has efficient heating. All those issues go in tandem, and there is a lot to be done on them.
On the cost and delivery of fuel, if we all had energy-efficient housing, it would cost us less to heat it. When the committee took evidence from Communities Against Poverty, a large part of whose agenda concerns fuel poverty, I was shocked by just how difficult it is for people who might be living in energy-efficient homes to afford to heat them properly. In particular, the cost of electricity seems much higher when fuel cards are used. The regulation and control of energy companies lies with Westminster. Have you raised that aspect of fuel poverty through the committee system down there?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that he has sought to address that issue in the Christmas donations to pensioners—I was about to say "handouts", but that sounds pejorative—which he increased this year with the intention of directly helping people to purchase fuel. However, the key issue is best illustrated by the analogy of trying to pour hot water into a bath. Obviously, one must be confident that, if one turns on the taps, hot water will be provided. However, there is no point in providing the hot water if there is no plug in the bath. If we think of the house as equivalent to the bath, we are trying to ensure that fuel is sufficiently affordable to enable people to have a basic standard of bathing and that the bath has a plug in it so that the water does not continually run out.
You have suggested that we set ourselves a target date and England has already set such a target—
As has Wales.
Yes. However, there are issues that we could be addressing now. Energy efficiency will see everything working in the end, but we are currently facing issues in relation to fuel affordability and the poor. I can buy fuel more cheaply than some of the poorest people from Communities Against Poverty who gave evidence to the committee. Is your organisation lobbying and campaigning to make changes in that area?
I want to make two points on that. You are right to say that fuel poverty is about not just energy efficiency but cost. When the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution made its energy report two years ago, we brought to its attention initiatives that were under way in Italy and elsewhere, where the first element of electricity that is used is much cheaper than what is bought later. For example, after the basic amount of electricity that a household would require is established, if a person wants to run a tumble dryer or 10 televisions, they pay more for that electricity than they did for the first basic element. In the UK, it is the other way around: a volume user pays less at the higher end.
I am sorry to interrupt you, Kevin, but that does not require a change of legislation: it requires merely a change in the rulings of the regulatory office, Ofgen, which deals with the matter. Westminster politicians—including ministers—have been urging the regulator to end that rule, which argues strongly against the economics of an electricity or gas supplier helping their customers with energy-saving measures. The suppliers are worried about the fact that a customer can, under current arrangements, move every 28 days. It is not the Government that decides on the matter, but the regulator. We would welcome any pressure that you could place on the regulator in Scotland concerning this matter, as we have made the point time and again without success.
Thanks very much for that. We can afford a further five minutes of questioning before we finish.
I have a question for Maureen O'Neil. There is strong evidence to show that older people are much more reluctant to apply for benefits than younger people are. Is there any evidence to show that the same is true of applications for repair and improvement grants for houses? If so, do you have any suggestions of ways in which that might be addressed? Many houses in the private sector are of a poor standard and we must do something to bring them up to the appropriate standard. I am concerned that the elderly may be reluctant to go through the appropriate processes.
The issue may not be reluctance; people may not be well informed about the ability to access a grant. A lot of older people are put off because the procedure is quite complicated, which is why care and repair schemes, which assist older people through the process, are valuable.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill proposes changes to the grants for improvement and repairs. Are the grants as complicated as they were in the past or has there been an improvement? Liz Nicholson and Maureen O'Neil both mentioned that the repair and improvement grants system will not allow tenants to apply for grants. However, as far as I can see, the system will allow tenants to apply if they have been responsible for two years for the specific problem for which they are applying for a grant. Is that change an improvement?
As I understand it, the proposed change in the Housing (Scotland) Bill will not permit tenants in the privately rented sector to apply for improvement grants.
Perhaps we can clarify that. That is certainly not my understanding.
That was a major concern of ours, because of the issues that we have raised.
I did not pick up that potential problem. I have been back at work for only two days. I read the bill, but I did not pick that up.
Thank you for speaking to us. We will reflect on what you have said. We look forward to receiving the additional information that you will give us as consideration of the bill progresses. As you have said, you may want to highlight further points as we reflect more on the substance of the bill. No doubt we will meet again.
Previous
Convener