Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
(1) the contribution of the policies in the Heat and Buildings
Strategy towards the United Kingdom’s (a) net zero emissions
target, and (b) carbon budgets, and (2) the co-benefits of the
transition to net zero.
(CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper, and in so doing declare my interest as a
director of Peers for the Planet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, to meet net zero, virtually all heat in buildings
will need to be decarbonised. The net-zero strategy outlines that
we expect that emissions could fall by between 25% and 37% by
2030 and 47% to 62% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels, based on
an indicative heat and buildings pathway. The heat and buildings
strategy shows our robust plans to do so.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Order!
(CB)
I thank the Minister for that response. Although I welcome the
heat and buildings strategy, including the clear focus on heat
pumps, it was silent on embodied carbon, which forms a large
proportion of emissions from the built environment— 50 million
tonnes in CO2 equivalents a year, equivalent to aviation and
shipping combined—so there is a strong case to report and
regulate. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have
towards mandatory reporting of carbon emissions in the built
environment, along with regulating to limit carbon emissions in
construction projects?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We need to look at
embodied carbon much more closely. Indeed, I attended and
launched a session on exactly that at the COP climate change
talks. We will work with industry practitioners to see what more
we can do in this important area.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for my premature intervention. Are all
domestic new builds taking place since the Glasgow COP meeting
last month being built to the new specifications required by the
Heat and Buildings Strategy? If not, why not?
(Con)
The new building regulations for net-zero homes will take effect
from 2025, but of course we are not waiting that long to take
action. The new Part Z of the building regulations will kick in
from next year.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that living standards
generally can rise only if we produce more output per head?
Conversely, living standards will fall if we need more workers to
produce our existing level of output of energy or heating. Yet
this strategy says that upgrading our homes and buildings to warm
them without using fossil fuels will require 240,000 more workers
than at present, who will no longer be able to produce other
goods and services. Does my noble friend think that reducing the
average living standards of the country is what people voted
for?
(Con)
I am sure people did not vote to have their living standards
reduced. Indeed, we have an excellent record of both
decarbonising and growing the GDP per head of population. We have
a very successful record of doing that so far, and I hope we will
continue to be able to do so. I remind my noble friend that
whatever our individual views on this, we now have a legal
obligation to meet net zero.
(CB)
My Lords, while complimenting the Minister and the Government on
getting on with the SMR programme, I ask him whether sites are
being sought for these reactors where the heat they produce can
be used in district heating systems for buildings, industry and
horticulture.
(Con)
The noble Lord links together two important facets of this work:
the importance of getting on with building new nuclear capacity,
which I think is widely recognised, and the importance of
developing heat networks. We do not have such a tradition of heat
networks in this country, but they are rapidly expanding and we
are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in future heat
networks.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that after the publication of
this strategy, he indicated that the decision on hydrogen-based
heating for homes would not be taken until 2025? If so, what
advice does he give now to householders whose boilers are running
out of time? Should they buy a heat pump or a hydrogen-ready
boiler, or wait until the price of air pumps comes down and a
decision is taken in at least four years?
(Con)
The noble Lord is correct about the timescale for taking a
decision on hydrogen. It is not yet a mature technology in terms
of whether it would be available in sufficient quantities on a
wide enough scale to be used for home heating. We are funding a
large series of trials, moving towards a hydrogen neighbourhood,
a hydrogen village and then a hydrogen town-level trial before we
can advise people to take that forward. In the meantime, we have
set our ambition to phase out the sale of gas boilers by
2035.
(LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by the
Climate Change Committee over the lack of an integrated offer on
home retrofit for home owners who want to upgrade the energy
efficiency of their homes? What do the Government intend to do to
work with industry to correct this clear market failure?
(Con)
We are working closely with industry to work up the offers we
have to householders, as well as the myriad government schemes
targeting mainly low-income families: the £800 million social
housing decarbonisation fund, the £950 million home upgrade
grants, et cetera. Then, of course, we have the £450 million
boiler upgrade scheme launching in April next year to subsidise
the installation of heat pumps.
(Con)
My Lords, to follow the question from the noble Lord, , now that the debate on net
zero is maturing and we are talking about the costs of reaching
net zero, should we not have a cost-benefit analysis from the
Government on how all this is working out?
(Con)
The legislation has, of course, already been passed by this House
to make net zero legally binding, but extensive impact and
cost-benefit analyses were done at the time.
(Lab)
Decarbonising heat is still a massive challenge, which, as has
been mentioned, can be made less so through energy efficiency
measures. Given that there are 19 million homes below EPC band C
standard, and given the collapse of the green homes grants
scheme, can the Minister clarify how many of these homes will be
helped by the energy efficiency announcements in this strategy,
and by what date?
(Con)
The noble Lord is correct that energy efficiency is extremely
important. It is very much a “no regrets” approach; we should
always take a fabric-first approach to upgrading properties. As I
mentioned, we have a substantial series of financial commitments:
the social housing decarbonisation fund, the home upgrade grant,
the boiler upgrade scheme, et cetera, to contribute towards the
cost of these. The other things we need to look at, of course,
are the green finance offers, which will enable people to upgrade
their homes in a cost-effective manner.
(CB)
My Lords, heat pumps appear currently to be the only proven and
viable off-the-shelf option for decarbonising home heating, yet,
as we all know, electricity is prohibitively expensive and the
cost of the necessary insulation exorbitant. How does the
Minister think the Government’s target of 600,000 heat pump
installations within six years can be achieved?
(Con)
The noble Lord is correct about the target that we have set. I
mentioned the boiler upgrade scheme starting next year. We also
have changes to the building regulations, as referred to in
earlier questions, which will kick in in 2025, making it
virtually impossible to install fossil-fuel heating systems. That
will produce a large increase in heat pump installations, as will
the other schemes that we have talked about; low-carbon heating
can be installed under all of them.
(GP)
My Lords, the campaign group Insulate Britain, which has annoyed
people so badly, was asking for a national programme to ensure
that homes are insulated to be low energy by 2030. The Government
are nowhere near on track to do that, but it is a sensible
request; it would ensure that not only would millions of people
use less energy, they would be able to pay for what they use. Why
not do it?
(Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that Insulate Britain
has managed to annoy everybody. I cannot remember a campaign in
this country that has been less effective at mobilising public
support behind an important issue. We need to take people with us
on this; irritating them, disturbing their daily lives and
stopping them going about their lawful business is really not the
way to do it. I hope that the noble Baroness will not continue to
support these ridiculous, irresponsible campaigns. Having said
that, we are spending £3.9 billion over the next few years to
insulate homes, upgrade their performance and install low-carbon
heating systems. We are getting on with the job quietly and
successfully.
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, of Cheltenham, wishes to speak
virtually. I think now is a convenient point for me to call
him.
of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is estimated that 50,200 heat pump installers will
be needed to install a million heat pumps by 2030. Currently,
there are only 1,100 MCS-registered installers and the necessary
training courses are expensive. What are the Government planning
to do to train another 49,000 of them?
(Con)
We are working very closely with the industry to do precisely
that. The Heat Pump Association has recently launched an
excellent conversion course for existing heating engineers to
convert their skills. I have visited a couple of the training
workshops being launched by some of the big heat pump
manufacturers in this country. Of course, we are also working
very closely with the DfE, which has responsibility for the
skills to make sure that there is an appropriately qualified
workforce to take this important work forward.
