by René Lavanchy
GOVERNMENT lawyers surprised campaigners this week when they said that the Government has no legal duty to make sure it meets its target for ending fuel poverty, despite having passed a law to do just that.
Barrister Jason Coppell made the claim in the High Court, at a hearing brought by Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged to decide whether ministers are breaking the law by failing to help over four million people estimated to live in fuel poverty.
Labour has set a target to end fuel poverty among vulnerable households by 2010, and for everybody by 2016.
But Mr Coppell said: “The obligation of the secretary of state is not to meet targets but to implement the measures which are set out in the strategy. Objectives and target dates are all part of the scheme, but the obligation is to implement the policies, the measures”.
And in response to criticism of Government funding cuts for energy efficiency programmes, he added that they were entitled to do that: “It’s open to the secretary of state to take policy decisions… notwithstanding that doing something different might have a better impact on short term fuel poverty figures”.
If the court finds in the charities’ favour, Mr Justice McCombe could issue an unprecedented order to Business Secretary Peter Mandelson and Environment Secretary Hilary Benn to change their policies.
Under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, the Government is legally obliged to publish and carry out a strategy “for ensuring… that as far as reasonably practicable, persons do not live in fuel poverty”.
But the campaigners say that ministers are failing to make sure that their current measures target the fuel poor.
Michael Fordham QC, for the charities, said lack of money was not an excuse: “If you’re going to say, ‘sorry, I’ve got a restricted budget’, it’s all the more important that you are evaluating and assessing options… in order to ensure that you’re doing your best with the budget available. Ultimately, the secretary of state cannot demonstrate that he’s done what he himself accepts is required.”
Last year, ministers cut spending on Warm Front, the insulation and heating subsidy for needy households, from £350 million a year to less than £270 million a year.
The move drew criticism from the Government’s own Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which said the fuel poverty targets would be missed.
Mr Fordham told the court: “You are going to miss your target in 2010… What don’t you do in that situation? You don’t take your best and most effective program, which is Warm Front, and cut it.”
He complained that winter fuel payments to the elderly, which he called the Government’s “major expenditure” against fuel poverty, were not targeted. Nine out of ten households who receive the cash payments are not fuel poor and may even be rich, he said.
Mr Coppell, responding, said the Government accepted that it was their duty to help people with energy prices, home insulation and household incomes. He added: “The precise amount to spend… is a matter of policy and politics, but there is a minimum standard.”
Judgement is expected next month.
