Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2021-05-17
Topic: Environment
John Seymour (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, this Queen’s Speech proposes many Bills. Some are controversial, and some will have a long-term effect on sections of the population. One such Bill is the flagship Environment Bill, because the Government seem determined to push on with achieving net-zero carbon—and rightly so. This is laudable, but we must also consider the practical and downside effects Let us take energy performance certificates, which currently apply to rental properties. I declare my interest as an owner of such places, and hope that this does not bar me from pointing out the flaws in the scheme. First, why only rental properties, which account for 20% of the housing stock? Can the Minister confirm that all houses will be subject to the higher criteria by 2025 Secondly, the Government propose increasing the landlord cap to £10,000 spend every five years. This is a huge percentage of capital and rental value, and will, as many agencies, and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, have pointed out, lead to a rush of sales as landlords realise the unpalatable economic effect on their investment. This will have an exacerbated effect in rural areas. Where will farm workers move to when their landlord informs them that he can no longer physically or economically improve the energy efficiency of his traditional home so can no longer legally let it The flaw is in the assessment methodology, where unchangeable physical criteria such as solid wall construction and off-gas heating automatically downgrade the result because the formula was designed for modern buildings. The conflict between energy costs and carbon reduction must be reassessed urgently, long before the 2025 rules come into force. There is equal concern about the damage done to heritage buildings in attempts to retrofit crude efficiency patches in order to continue letting them The Government are pressing on with banning the sale of diesel and petrol cars by 2030. That is splendid but, again, the practical consequences appear to be being overlooked. That date will be here in nine years, yet working charge points are way behind schedule and the £20 million fund will not ensure that these points are installed in sufficient numbers. So who will supply and pay for them? Where will the electricity be generated, given a peak demand forecast of a 10% increase on present use? I was interested to see today that the Services Committee has commissioned a demand survey for such things on the Parliamentary Estate Electric vehicles are not a panacea. A lithium ion battery, giving a 250-mile range, takes 20 tonnes of CO2 to manufacture. Batteries also need rare-earth metals, which cause environmental degradation in their mining. So, I wonder, are the Government turning their back on hydrogen cell vehicles when hydrogen is probably the cleanest fuel and the most suitable fuel for HGVs and trains, and should be developed in tandem with EVs? Once again, an infrastructure lacuna appears Today’s debate topics include welfare. Does this include the welfare of harmless foreigners caught up in the Government’s aggressive war on immigration? From asylum seekers in Glasgow to those looking to find work legally being detained at Gatwick and taken to Yarl’s Wood, this confrontational posturing to exclude anyone not deemed useful to this country is very unattractive and creates bewilderment and fury. Of course, it will be reciprocal, and the EU will react tit for tat by coming down on Britons living out their retirements in Spain and France when they do not have their paperwork in order in time Brexit may be done, but that should not mean punishing well-meaning people so harshly. Who came up with the 90/180-day rule for non-workers, which will impact on people’s lives so unnecessarily? Surely a gentler formula that looks after the welfare of all citizens could be found. Petty aggression from Border Force officers—such as confiscating phones, crowding detainees into holding rooms at risk of Covid and ignoring offers to buy an immediate return ticket—are unacceptable actions in a civilised society. The Home Office rules explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend job interviews, so why this humiliating and traumatic treatment? Welfare? What welfare?