La-la-la-la I can't hear you. Continuing reflections on fuel poverty from Sir Alan Beith

So, a recap. Alnwick Area Friends of the Earth held a public meeting with Sir Alan where we pressed for legal minimum standards of energy efficiency for private rented housing before they could be let. We asked for the minimum to be a standard of E (on their Energy Performance Certificate) by 2016.

Alan who had previously signed Early Day Motion 653 (an MP's petition) to that effect, argued that this would be impossible for all manner of bonkers reasons. Weeks later, the Department of Energy and Climate Change led by Chris 'Zoom' Huhne,  announced a very sensible change of policy.

From April 2018 the government will make it unlawful to rent out a house or business premise which has less than an "E" energy efficiency rating, ensuring at least 682,000 properties will have to be improved.

Let's take up the rest of the story in letter format, like one of those Regency-period novels, but with a bit less of the 'my dearly beloveds'.

 
I wrote:

Dear Sir Alan


You'll note that the 2nd bullet point in Chris Huhne's announcement below is what you specifically ruled out at Alnwick Area Friends of the Earth's event about Fuel poverty and the Green Deal on April 1st, albeit on a slightly longer timescale. I recall your argument was that landlords would simply opt not to let their properties when faced with such a restriction. Clearly the Secretary of State for Climate Change does not share this fear.

I'm very disappointed that you felt unable to support Friends of the Earth's proposal, although I am pleased that other members of the Liberal Democrats have been more positive.

One of the consequences of unstinting loyalism toward the party is that one is left unable to take any of the credit when the government suddenly changes its mind. I recall a similar failure to seize the initiative over the privatisation of the forests. Perhaps back-bench Liberal Democrat MPs also need to consider their responsibility to be more assertive within the coalition.

Alan writes back (next day):

Dear David,


Thank you for your e-mail.. You are right on your main point. Within hours of the meeting in Alnwick I gave the issue further thought and went back to what had been my earlier view, that the potential from the proposal outweighed the risk of fewer properties being available. I am glad the Government has come round. My comments had nothing to do with “loyalism” – the issue was how best to deal with the current housing needs in my constituency.

Yours sincerely,

Alan
(Dictated by Sir Alan Beith, M.P. and sent on his behalf)

I wonder what we're being taken for. Our democratically elected member of 37 years standing originally agrees with our position, then attends a meeting where, presented with the arguments which support his original position, decided to change his mind and deny he held the original view in the first place. Then, within hours of walking out of the meeting, he changes his mind back to the original position (which he now accepts he did hold), but doesn't see fit to inform the people who had pressed him on the point until he is approached over the government's about-turn. This stretches credibility.

Allow me to present an alternative scenario which is more believable.

Sir Alan originally signs the Early Day Motion, as he does many, without really thinking through the consequences. "There are lots of these things, they never come to anything [scribble]". He shows up at the public meeting forgetting what he's signed and what he hasn't and his office haven't bothered to tell him. He gets in a flap as he realises that he is being asked to show the backbone he long ago removed in order to prop up the fence he's been sitting on for 37 years, and comes up with nursery-school arguments about people liking the cold and how it's all too difficult. Then when he is prompted that the party has had a change of heart, he realises it's safe to return to the original position he'd never really had 'cos he'd never thought about it. Result!

Based on what we've learnt, and farrago about the forests (walking out of the chamber to avoid voting) and tuition fees, which interpretation do you believe?