---

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): The most sensible place to live is, of course, in a block of flats in the centre of a city. All the facilities are available--transport, shopping and schools--and a flat is also sound in terms of energy conservation. People can share their energy source and have good insulation.

However, many people do not want to live in flats in the middle of cities. They like to live in a different way, with gardens. They like to get out into the country, and to have their own patch of earth and some contact with the natural world. Some people go further, and live on boats. The overwhelming majority of those who live on boats do so from choice. It is their decision. I declare an interest: I am on their side, as one would expect of the Member of Parliament for Gosport, a seaside location.

We have houseboats in the Gosport area, and I have been on board some of them. I know that they are not the most convenient places to live; in some ways, they are most inconvenient, and they can be uncomfortable. But anyone who has slept on a boat--I mean a proper boat, not those floating shoeboxes that transport people and cars between England and France--knows that the feeling of the salt air, and the wind in one's hair in the early morning, is absolutely marvellous. People who live on boats are independent souls. They have opted for a way of life which gives them pleasure and a feeling of freedom--freedom from the regimentation that affects most people.

What is the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 all about? According to the background notes, it laid a duty to

"prepare, publish and submit . . . an energy conservation report"

on each local authority. It was introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who is a Liberal Democrat, and when I think about such legislation, I sometimes think that there may now be a Lib-Con pact, rather like the Lib-Lab pact in 1978 and 1979, which was notorious.

The Lib-Lab pact produced some of our worst legislation, and just about the worst legislation ever to pass through the House was the homeless persons legislation which emerged from the pact. That queue-jumpers charter enabled someone who could demonstrate that he was homeless to jump the council housing queue ahead of people from the area who could not prove homelessness in the same way. That was monstrous.

The Lib-Lab pact produced some bad legislation, and I sometimes wonder whether the apparent Lib-Con pact is producing something similar. The energy conservation plan which has to be produced by every local authority will presumably mean that there will be an energy conservation adviser in every town hall, with an office between that of the dog warden and that of the noise control officer, whom we have been discussing in our debate on the Noise Bill. There will be three of them side by side--the energy conservation adviser, the dog warden and the noise control officer.

How will it all work? According to the Department, the point of the Home Energy Conservation Act was to arrange for the provision of common-sense advice on measures, such as switching off lights and appliances and not using more heating than necessary. If that is not the nanny state, what is?

The hon. Member for Nottingham, South has been piloting a private Member's Bill on the matter through the House, and I must tell him that I have no objection to

12 Jul 1996 : Column 724

extending this legislation to houses in multiple occupation. The Act is there--it might as well apply to HMOs. If there is any validity in the original Act, which I doubt, it should apply equally to HMOs. But let us at least save houseboat owners from this.

Mr. Thomason: How does my hon. Friend envisage the legislation applying to houseboats, of which he clearly has great knowledge? Are there schemes of energy conservation that can apply to all houseboats? Are the boats all broadly of the same design? Do they all have similar energy losses? Or is there such a wide variety of boats that energy schemes could not easily be implemented that could apply to them all? Would not the degree of supervision and preparation of such a scheme for houseboats be greater than would apply to ordinary houses?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I want to refer to a related matter. After many years of involvement in sailing and yachting interests--including the House of Commons yacht club--I have concluded that the Whitehall machine does not really like the yachting and sailing interests, because it cannot control them as much as it would like. We do not know exactly how many houseboats there are, and we heard conflicting numbers from both sides of the House--the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said 10,000, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said 1,000. The briefing notes which I have read lead me to believe that the Government do not know exactly how many houseboats are used for domestic occupation.

What is the first thing that a civil servant will advise a Minister to do? It will be to have a survey to find out how many houseboats there are and, no doubt, local authorities will be instructed to carry that out. We have been here before on a piece of legislation indirectly related to this matter. The Government were minded to impose domestic rates on boats that are on swinging moorings. For those who are not conversant with boating, one can either tie up a boat alongside a quay or one can have it on a swinging mooring. Most of the yachts, dinghies and sailing boats in my constituency are on swinging moorings, which means that they swing on the tide.

The Government did not how many boats were on swinging moorings, and they wanted to impose general rates on the swinging mooring itself in an attempt indirectly to impose a tax on the boat. It became clear that the Government wished to establish a register of boats and yachts. I am certain that the same thing will happen to yachts and other boats as happened to motor cars, which is that, as soon as a register exists, there will be an ability to tax and the Government will start taxing boats and yachts. If the legislation is passed, I am certain that there will be register of houseboats. Greater control was implied by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, who stated that environmental health officers do not have as much control over houseboats as they would like. Here come the Government inspectors.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West): I can understand my hon. Friend's fears, but I can offer him some reassurance. I shall be referring to this matter if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In making up a register of houseboats, the Government will inevitably rely on local authorities, and we know that

12 Jul 1996 : Column 725

that will be an excuse for extra local authority spending. Judging from the experiences of councils such as Bristol with the poll tax, one way of not getting an accurate register is to make sure that the local authority collects the information. That is particularly so when the authority is not keen on collecting it in the first place. That should go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend.

Mr. Viggers: I am not sure how reassured I ought to be, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intentions are always interesting.

We must exempt houseboats from this legislation. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, I believe that those who live in such boats do so from choice. They are free souls, and the last thing they want is someone from the town hall coming up the gangplank to advise them on turning off lights and choosing electrical appliances. If that happens, I hope that the houseboat resident will tell the man from town hall in salty language to take a long walk off a short pier.

1 pm

Mr. Luff: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and the sincerity with which he introduced the amendment, but I do not share his views. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I am deeply sceptical about the Act that the Bill would amend. I accept, however, that, if we are to have an Act, it should be made effective. Therefore, I accept the case for including houses in multiple occupation in the Bill. At the same time, I do not accept the logic of including houseboats. I am also concerned about the way in which it is proposed to do that.

I recognise the difficulty that I face. If I oppose the amendment--I am tempted to do so by forcing a Division--I risk throwing out the entire Bill. The time that is available in this place and the other place extends only to the end of the Session. Therefore, I find myself in an invidious position. At the same time, I believe that it would be a serious error of judgment to include houseboats within the provisions of the Bill.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak on these matters. When I was the parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, I was not able to express my views. Freed from that constraint, I can say frankly what I think.

I doubt the need for the amendment because of the limited scale of the problem. I shall deal with that in more detail. I doubt the effectiveness of the amendment because it does not reflect a proper understanding of the sort of houseboat that should be caught by the proposed legislation, if a houseboat needs to be caught in the first place. I have serious worries also about the inconsistency of legislation bearing on houseboats. There are different and competing definitions on the statute book, and in this instance we are using the wrong approach.

It is important to remember that the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which the Bill would amend, imposes a duty on every energy conservation authority to prepare a report. Every local authority that had to implement the Bill, when enacted, would have to prepare a register of houseboats. It would have to be satisfied how many such boats were in its area. That would be a huge duty for small gain. Section 2(2) states:

12 Jul 1996 : Column 726

"The report shall set out energy conservation measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in its area."

Whatever measure is used, including even the large figure used by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, the numbers of houseboats throughout the country are not great. The amendment is not orderly when set against the 1995 Act. It cannot possibly be claimed that it would deliver a significant improvement in energy efficiency in residential accommodation.

What will the amendment do for houseboat owners? The Act does not do much for ordinary home owners. The Act does not confer any grant-making powers. Those who live in fuel poverty in houseboats will not be able to obtain grants to improve their situation, even if there are the 10,000 that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South talked about. No money will be conferred on them. They will merely have the comfort of knowing that the local authority can help them take such steps as it "considers desirable", under section 3(2)(b),

"in order to assist with and to encourage other persons to assist with the measures set out in any such report."

The Act is weak and inconsequential in any event. Against that background, why put a huge duty on local authorities by including houseboats within its ambit?

I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport that local authority officers will have no power of entry. Salty sea dogs will not be confronted by local authority officers demanding entry to their houseboats.

I was happy to go along with the proposition that we should amend the 1995 Act to include houses in multiple occupation. In this instance, however, we are faced with a dramatic amendment and little gain. The issue has not been debated by the House in considering the Bill. We suddenly find ourselves presented with an amendment at the 11th hour. In my view, it is ill thought through. The amendment defines a houseboat in a particular way. It is extraordinary that, under clause 2(3), the Secretary of State

"may, in particular, make such adaptations of sections 2 to 4 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 as are necessary to enable an energy conservation authority to prepare a separate report under section 2 on houses in multiple occupation"--

as are houseboats. So we shall have separate reports from every authority in the land on whether houseboats have been included in their analysis of energy requirements and energy inefficiency problems in their areas. That is madness. There would be separate reports on the tiny numbers of houseboats in the United Kingdom.

Is it necessary to include houseboats? I think not. We have no realistic or reliable estimate of the number of houseboats to be found in the United Kingdom. I suspect that there are very few. I go along with the lower estimates that have been provided by my hon. Friends. In certain London boroughs, and perhaps in some coastal areas, there are a few more, but on the whole they are few and far between. It will be a huge increase in effort for local authorities to track them down, and for very little benefit.

12 Jul 1996 : Column 727

The figures that I have obtained from British Waterways for houseboats on inland waterways are interesting. I am told:

"The number of Houseboats which are registered as such by British Waterways is 309 . . . In addition there is a further group of about 350 boats which are covered by the Houseboat Moratorium. These are boats which are lived on by their owners and would normally carry a licence for a Houseboat but their status is covered by a moratorium and they are licensed as Pleasure Craft . . . The consensus in the office is that those without their own means of propulsion would be a small proportion of the total."

In other words, the amendment would not catch those houseboats because they have their own means of propulsion.

The letter continues:

"In addition there are a significant number of boats on which people live and which may form their home but who would not be covered by the categories above. These are people who are 'Continuously Cruising'. That is they don't stay in any one place for more than 14 days and as the term suggests they move around the system."

I think that they are entitled to the same assistance as those whom the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and Shelter identified, but there is no provision in the Bill to catch them. The amendment is simply inadequate.

There is one other telling fact. We debated the inclusion of houseboats when the House considered the Home Energy Conservation Bill. Last year, the Minister said:

"I do not think that most canal boats are energy inefficient because of their wooden structure and the fact that their windows are small in comparison with the general surface area. I suspect that they might turn out to be more energy efficient than many permanent and non-moored homes. In any case, it is simply not possible to apply the Bill's provisions to them. How is a local authority to draw up a strategy for boats which might well move from place to place during the year? When they retire, many pensioners choose to spend a few years sailing around the country, spending a few weeks here and there. There are practical difficulties in including boats in the Bill's provisions."--[Official Report, 17 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 1182.]

---