| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), I spoke in the debate last year on the Home Energy Conservation Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). I struck a somewhat discordant note in that debate, as most hon. Members were very much in favour of the measure.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham now appears to have some concerns about that legislation. Although he took me to task this morning, I remind him that, last year, he said:
Mr. Merchant:
For the sake of clarity, let me assure my hon. Friend that I oppose the Lords amendment, not the Bill. However, I have always considered the Bill to have a limited purpose, and I referred to its light touch at the beginning of my speech.
"I strongly support the thrust of the Bill, and . . . the amendment . . . it has a light touch and yet goes to the heart of the problem."--[Official Report, 17 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 1139.]
However, my hon. Friend now acknowledges that, since the Bill was enacted, some of the problems to which I referred last year have transpired, although the House did not accept my arguments at the time. I was speaking to an amendment in respect of mobile homes.
1.45 pm
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that clarification from my hon. Friend. If the amendment were not accepted, the Bill would apply only to homes in multiple occupation. I suspect that many of the arguments expressed by my hon. Friend and others this morning would apply--albeit less forcefully--to homes in multiple occupation. To repeat a point that I made last year, whether the Bill relates to houseboats, mobile homes or houses in multiple occupation, it is fundamentally a worthless approach to home energy conservation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) made clear, the best way to encourage people to conserve energy is through the price mechanism. That is why we all conserve energy. We cannot encourage people to conserve energy merely by compiling reports that will gather dust in local authority offices. The burden placed on rural authorities with limited resources by central Government and the legislature in requiring them to compile increasing numbers of reports--on houseboats, mobile homes or anything else--is becoming increasingly significant. Authorities such as West Lindsey district council employs not thousands of staff, as some London boroughs do, but hundreds. The proposed activity which we are discussing would place significant burdens on them.
As has been said, the amendment is fairly worthless. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) tabled a similar one last year. He argued cogently that the legislation should cover houseboats and he made the fair point that houseboats were potentially dangerous because people relied on paraffin heaters and often there was insufficient ventilation. He pleaded with the Minister to include houseboats, but at the time the Minister, in a devastating response, argued that the Government could not accept his amendment and that there was a good case for not including houseboats because they were made of wood, had very small windows and were difficult and extremely expensive to adapt, even if there was a waste of energy; therefore, such a requirement would place too great a burden on houseboat owners.
The amendment covers a matter that was addressed satisfactorily last year by my hon. Friend the Minister, so there is absolutely no need for us to accept it. I very much
hope that the Minister will not find it necessary to accept the amendment. However, the procedures of the House probably mean that we shall be lumbered with it, on the Bill will probably not become law, although I suspect that that would not matter very much in any case.
Mr. Clappison:
I support the motion and the amendment. I intend to be brief, but given some comments about the Bill, and the definitions within it, and particularly bearing in mind that the amendments were moved by my noble Friend Lord Lucas in another place, it is appropriate that I say something about them.
Let me first thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) for the remarks at the beginning of his speech. I am sure that my officials are most grateful to him for his kind comments.
As we know, the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 requires local authorities to prepare, publish and submit an energy conservation report setting out measures that would lead to a significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in their areas. The Bill is about widening the definition of residential accommodation to include houses in multiple occupation. The amendment would bring houseboats within the scope of the 1995 Act.
Some of my hon. Friends have commented on what was said in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Luff) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) referred to that. There was a discussion on houseboats when an amendment on caravans was debated.
I understand that, during that debate, one of my hon. Friends suggested that houseboats, too, should be brought within the legislation. That did not immediately commend itself to my hon. Friend the Minister, but the Bill now gives us the opportunity to think again about whether other improvements, as well as that originally suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, could be made to the definition of residential accommodation in the 1995 Act.
Having heard the debate, I see no reason in principle why houseboats should be treated differently from other sorts of accommodation that are people's permanent homes, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South shares that view.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are purely drafting amendments which would pave the way for the substantial change to the Bill made by Lords amendment No. 3. When we were drawing up the wording of amendment No. 3, we took care to ensure that it was workable and would not place a significant burden on local authorities.
The definition of a houseboat in the amendment ensures that pleasure boats are excluded. We have heard a lot about definitions in the debate. I do not want to speak at length on the subject, but as I said in my intervention--I apologise if it was rather long--I should like to draw to the attention of the House one or two points that immediately strike me. I do not, however, seek to give a concluded and considered account of the differences between the definitions. As hon. Members will realise, they are of a technical nature.
Given the comparison made between the definition in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, with which we dealt earlier this week, and the definition
now before the House, it would be appropriate for me to make a few comments. For the benefit of my hon. Friends who have drawn attention to the difference between the two definitions, I shall examine the definition in section 78(5) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which says that a
We did not wish that to happen. We saw no reason why the fact that a boat could be moored in different places should deprive its owner of the opportunity of applying for a home repair assistance grant, so we tabled amendments to give effect to that wish on Report, earlier this week.
The problem arose especially in connection with the three-year residential requirement, which is an important qualification for the home repair assistance grant. As I suggested in my intervention, different considerations arise under the other Bill, under which the intention was to provide for houseboat owners to receive home repair assistance grant, from those that arise under this Bill.
It is obviously important for local authorities to prepare reports and to carry out their other work, and having to follow houseboats from place to place would be a burden. That might be the reason for the qualification contained in subparagraph (ii), which excludes boats adapted for self-propulsion. It seems to me that the difference between the two regimes is sufficient, and I do not think that the definitional problems to which some of my hon. Friends referred exist.
The underlying definitions are the same, although the qualification reflects the different purposes of the two Bills. In the case of the renovation grants legislation, the purpose is to provide for houseboat owners to receive a grant. In this case, the purpose is to have reports prepared by local authorities. On the face of it--and without giving a concluded version--I believe that that is an important difference, to which I draw the attention of my hon. Friends who are concerned about definition.
In addition, we have followed for England, Wales and Northern Ireland the pattern of definition of a mobile home in the Act by requiring that a houseboat that is to be regarded as a dwelling for the purposes of the Home Energy Conservation Act should also be regarded as a dwelling for the purposes of council tax, or the equivalent in Northern Ireland. The same linkage cannot be made in
Scotland because of differences in the council tax legislation that applies north of the border, but the other conditions will of course apply.
"house-boat means a boat or similar structure designed or adapted for use as a place of permanent habitation".
My hon. Friends will realise that that bears some similarity to the definition of a houseboat in Lords amendment No. 3, which defines a houseboat as:
"a boat or other floating decked structure--
There is an additional qualification to that definition, because sub-paragraph (ii) adds:
(i) designed or adapted for use solely as a place of permanent habitation".
"not having means of, or capable of being readily adapted for, self-propulsion".
It is that second point that seems different from the original definition in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill. When the definition was debated in Committee, concern was expressed by Opposition Members, who suggested that the definition was technically defective and would prevent people who owned and lived in houseboats from applying for a grant if their houseboat could change its moorings.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |