Energy Bill [HL]

I have listened to this debate with some sense of nostalgia. From 1961 to 1963 I was chairman of the housing committee for Hornsey Borough Council, later to become the London Borough of Haringey. This was a period even later than that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and my clear recollection is of the overwhelming pressure to build more houses and flats. To digress for a second, we had the problem of a large number of tenants who were sitting in houses which were badly needed for social housing. I think I was the first housing chairman to propose we should offer them a sum and a mortgage to move elsewhere, within 10 miles of the borough, to get some vacancies, clear some slums and build more houses. To imagine that at that stage we should have been building more energy-efficient—and therefore fewer—houses is unrealistic. It is easy to be wise after the event. Others may have longer memories than I do, but having been a housing chairman at that time, I know that was the overwhelming pressure. I turn to the amendment. Of course one must broadly support the intention but, even with the caveats that my noble friend Lord Teverson has included in his amendment, it verges on the unrealistic. Indeed, recent research by one of our leading professional bodies, Knight Frank, has said that to make sure that all the new houses being built by 2016 are carbon neutral is, in its words, ““looking increasingly unrealistic””. I have some hesitation about writing this into legislation when extremely well informed people are saying from the outset that, however good the intention, it looks increasingly unrealistic. Next, there is the question of cost. I am told that to build a carbon-neutral domestic dwelling now—it may well be that the differential will narrow in the years ahead—will add £30,000 to £40,000 on to every unit produced. If housing budgets are constrained, as they are inevitably are in our situation at the moment, that means that there will be fewer houses, because with any sum of money fewer houses will be able to be built. In those circumstances, that too might be an undesirable consequence of trying to pursue and put into the Bill an unrealistic environmental objective. My third anxiety about my noble friend’s new clause lies in subsection (5). He has said that it is an advantage that he is not being prescriptive but leaving the determination of what is a carbon-neutral construction to the Secretary of State, following consultation. I am told that the question of what is a zero-carbon house is highly technical and that there is as yet no agreement between the various bodies involved. I suspect that this includes the Minister’s department and CLG, the other housing department. A conclusion has not yet been reached on this. The question of indoor air quality is also poorly understood, and it is essential on all these issues that time is allowed to ensure that we have sensible definitions if we are going to pursue these objectives. To have an undeliverable target and a completely uncertain definition of what you are trying to achieve is not appropriate for inclusion in legislation. As my noble friend indicated, what he is trying to get is in the Bill, but it is not very sensible to put it in a Bill when there is such a high degree of uncertainty about it. It may be possible, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, to frame something that really is an aspiration and something to be aimed for, but without putting in firm dates or such firm details as saying that it has to be zero carbon. I understand that this is desirable and that over the years ahead more and more carbon-neutral buildings will have to be built; that is part of the process of fighting climate change, to which we are all firmly committed. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, though, that I hesitate to accept my noble friend’s suggestion that this new clause should be included in the Bill.