| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Viggers: The point I sought to make was that a Government do not have to be Stalinist to impose the kind of life envisaged by George Orwell in his book "1984". It is often well-meaning do-gooders who encourage Government and local government to extend their powers, which may result in the world of "1984". Such people are not necessarily Stalinist.
Mr. Greenway: I would be glad to get into a discussion on "1984" with my hon. Friend; I taught it as an O-level set book many times. We could discuss whether the Bill was Stalinist in the sense of "1984". I do not think that the book was preaching Stalinism; I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would allow me to go far down that road. I simply say to my hon. Friend that I quite understand his point. The Bill seeks to regulate social and neighbourly behaviour. In that sense, one cannot avoid censuring people's bad behaviour. The amendments will ensure that.
I realise that time is short, but I want to respond to my hon. Friends who have taken the trouble to attend this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) has been answered by the Minister on his point about the circumstances in which the new powers would be taken up. I hope that the Minister's answer was satisfactory to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said that the Bill did not go far enough, and he wanted universality. I also want universality, in the sense that I want the Bill to apply everywhere it is required. I hope and believe that the amendments will ensure that. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) supported me on that point in a number of interventions, and I am grateful to him for that.
Mr. Waterson:
I hope and believe that my local authority, although it does not always get things right--far from it--will see the sense of adopting the provisions, so, in the context of Eastbourne, the Lords amendments are neither here nor there. However, there are people in the grip of maverick authorities, such as Ealing, who may not benefit from the Bill.
Mr. Greenway:
My hon. Friend is making the point that I thought he was making. I am happy with what he says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who is not in his place at present, said that legislative powers should be limited. As a principle, I strongly agree. I believe, however, that my hon. Friend accepts the importance of the Bill, and I am grateful to him for that.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) for flushing out the way in which the proposals will be financed in local authority terms when the Bill becomes law, as I hope and believe it will.
I very much thank the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for the consensus on the Bill. It is very important to the Bill, to me and to everyone. For the record, I am in my 18th year as the hon. Member for Ealing, North--
Mr. Greenway:
As he kindly says, it does not show, and long may that continue.
I could not, however, allow him to give the impression that Ealing council is dominated by the Labour party. During my 17-plus years, it has been controlled by the Conservative party for 11, and the Labour party for six. There is no sense in which the Labour party has run Ealing council all the time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister again for his response to this very good debate, and for his explanation of the way in which his Department views the implementation of the amendments, which we have debated so thoroughly.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Mr. Greenway:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is purely technical, but I should explain it to the House. The subsection was required when the Bill contained a regulation-making power in the schedule. When amendments removed that power, the subsection should also have been removed. I am grateful to their Lordships and their Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for noting that, and making the necessary amendment, which I commend to the House.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Energy Conservation Bill
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South):
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
Mr. Simpson:
I thank the Minister, his staff, hon. Members on both sides of the House and the staff of the Association for the Conservation of Energy who helped to put the Bill together. I am pleased to support the amendments because they, along with those moved in Committee, came from the Government and only strengthen the Bill's provisions.
I remind the House that the intention behind the Bill is to fill in gaps of which we were aware following the passage of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. We brought that Bill before the House on the clear understanding that we waste energy amounting to £1 billion a year in home energy bills mainly or entirely because of the fuel inefficiency of housing. By far the most distressing aspect of that are the 50,000 avoidable winter deaths from fuel poverty in Britain every year.
The Bill was originally introduced to recognise that one of the most important omissions from the 1995 Act was the failure to include houses in multiple occupation in its scope. The Lords amendments add to that recognition the need to incorporate provision for houseboats.
I initially read the Lords amendments with a certain amusement, as I had an immediate vision of a film that I saw as a child. It was called "The Bargee" and portrayed a splendid life style that was fresh and free from complications. However, my subsequent discussions with Shelter made me see life in houseboats in a different context. I am aware that tens of thousands of households live on houseboats.
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester):
This is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate houseboats and the first intimation--in either the House or in legislation--of the size of the problem. However, my information differs from that provided by the hon. Gentleman. Where are those tens of thousands of houseboats located?
Mr. Simpson:
I cannot produce a map, but I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the information that Shelter gave me. Shelter estimates that some 10,000 people in Britain live on unsatisfactorily insulated houseboats. That is the scale of the omission from the original legislation. My original concern was that the Bill should meet the needs of the 1 million people living in
I now turn to the reason why people live on houseboats. It is not necessarily a positive choice. According to Shelter, the majority of those households do so because of a lack of choice rather than a positive choice. It is not a matter of people seeking to associate themselves with the nautical traditions of the great explorers of our time. The Lords amendments specifically discount that possibility, as they stipulate that the houseboats must have no means or capability of being readily adapted for self-propulsion, so the Bill does not allow for an exploration context in the nature of that accommodation.
The Bill applies to those who live in poor housing conditions on houseboats. Shelter pointed out that many of those people live in extreme damp and cold. The amendments would bring within the scope of the Bill the possibility of assisting those households to raise the standards of home insulation to the level that they have a right to expect.
The Bill also covers a grey area in existing law. At present, it is not clear to what extent environmental health inspections apply to houseboats. By incorporating them into the Bill, the amendments will ensure that they are dealt with on the same basis as any other permanent accommodation.
Shelter brought home to me the fact that the amendments do not seek to add a trivial element to our discussions.
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove):
The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not a trivial measure. I understand his point; however, I understand that only some 600 residential boats are registered on general waterways in the manner covered by the measure and there may be another 500 in the Norfolk broads. Therefore, only some 1,000 houseboats can fall within the definition in the Bill. Does that not make it relatively trivial?
Mr. Simpson:
The issue that the hon. Gentleman is raising may involve the definition of what is required for registration. What he says certainly does not square with the information that Shelter provided about the number of people that it considers would be affected by the Lords amendment. I simply suggest that as an item for us to consider as we go along.
The argument should not necessarily be conducted on the basis of numbers and head counts. The question is whether people living in permanent accommodation, whether in houseboats, in houses in multiple occupation or in single residences, should all be covered by the provisions in the Home Energy Conservation Act. The broad support for that Act as an all-embracing piece of legislation should be given to the amendments, too.
Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |