| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.7 pm
Mr. Oaten: I do not wish to delay the House as I hope that we can proceed speedily to other business. I thank hon. Members for their comments in this morning's excellent and mature debate. I hope that they will forgive me for not responding to their points in detail, but I wish to proceed.
Their congratulations to me are not in order. First, one's place in the private Member's ballot is due completely to luck. Secondly, the Bill was not my idea--I am sure that it would have been on the legislative programme of a future Government of whatever political persuasion. It was a handout Bill. Thirdly, my constituents chose the Bill: I held a ballot in my constituency and let the people decide. Therefore, the congratulations offered to me are completely unnecessary.
This is an important Bill which will make the entire system of intercountry adoption much more professional. It should give those working in the field in social services departments comfort that they can now receive training and resources to support their work. It will comfort prospective adoptive parents to know that they will be treated speedily, efficiently and effectively. Above all, the Bill will provide children with the rights and the protections that we have spoken of so warmly this morning. I hope that the House will support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I wholeheartedly believe that
It is unfortunate that more than 7 million homes in the UK suffer from fuel poverty: that is, the occupants would have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income keeping the house warm. Most do not spend that money because they cannot afford it, so they sit and shiver in cold homes. There is a mass of medical evidence demonstrating how that leads to increased risk of ill health. The incidence of cardiovascular diseases, bronchitis, flu and respiratory illnesses increases in cold, damp homes, and those diseases can kill.
The UK has a uniquely appalling record on excess deaths during the winter months. Of course, cold homes are not the only factor causing winter death rates to rise, but, in the UK, the death rate increases in winter by around 30 per cent, whereas in Norway and Sweden, the increase is closer to 10 per cent. That suggests that we should be trying to prevent at least two thirds of excess winter deaths. One of the obvious differences between the UK and other parts of Europe is quality of housing.
We should be concerned not only about excess winter deaths, but about quality of life. Although many chronic illnesses may not be fatal, they are debilitating and affect people's ability to enjoy life and participate fully in the economy and society.
To improve quality of life, which I am sure all hon. Members would agree is a worthy goal, we need
I ask the House to support the Bill because it will take steps towards achieving that integrated strategy. The health service spends £1 billion a year treating people suffering from cold-related illnesses. The health service suffers the consequences of a higher than 125 per cent. increase in such illnesses during the winter, which include overcrowding, trolleys left in corridors and long waiting lists. Health service involvement is central to any integrated strategy to tackle fuel poverty.
Innovative health authorities such those in Birmingham and Cornwall provided the inspiration for the Bill. They funded improvements to people's homes in cases where they considered that they could prevent illness. In Birmingham, improvements were made to the homes of elderly people and targeted at those whom general practitioners considered at risk of hypothermia. In Cornwall, the improvements were targeted at children with asthma in homes where it was believed that damp conditions and, therefore, mould spores might exacerbate the condition.
The results of the schemes are promising. In Cornwall, the time taken off school by children in the study dropped dramatically from an average of four days a term to half a day a term. Encouraging energy conservation can help children's education. In Birmingham, the GPs' professional opinion is that the scheme should be continued because of the benefits to old people.
Other health authorities have also run schemes. They cost little or nothing but make a difference to people's lives. Having heard about those schemes, I want to encourage other health authorities to consider similar ideas, and that is what the Bill aims to achieve. It will lead to more schemes and to more people benefiting from them. I assure any hon. Member who thinks that those schemes might take much-needed resources from the NHS that several schemes, such as publicising existing grants, cost little. Even the schemes that cost money need not be considered expensive when one takes into account the long-term savings to the health service.
Although the Birmingham and Cornwall schemes are still being examined in detail, many people have realised that money may well be saved by installing modestly priced insulation improvements because they prevent the need to treat people expensively in hospital. One doctor added:
I shall briefly outline the way in which the Bill will attempt to achieve that goal. Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to health authorities on including
Clause 1(3) sets out what the guidance may include. Subsection (4) requires health authorities and boards to have regard to that guidance. Subsection (5) sets out what is meant by an energy efficiency scheme, and subsection (6) defines some of the terms used.
Clause 2 will extend the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland, as requested by Northern Ireland Members. Clause 3 will enable money to be spent if required, although as I have said, the Bill will save rather than cost money.
Clause 4 extends the Bill to Scotland, where it enjoys much support, not least because of the colder climate that we experience most winters and some appalling housing conditions. Many years ago, I appeared on "Kilroy" in Glasgow with people from tenants associations. The depth of their despair about the quality of housing that they had to cope with and the fact that we have still not got round to tackling it are regrettable. I hope that we can give a firm impetus to getting on with tackling it rather than talking about it.
I finish with some thanks. I have received great help and support from health organisations, including the National Health Service Confederation, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners and its Scottish council, the Institute of Health Services Management, the Association of Community Health Councils, the Public Health Alliance and the Patients Association, as well as many other groups connected with health or fuel poverty. Their input, as the people who will have to work with the legislation, has been invaluable and has enabled us to produce a workable, desirable Bill.
I thank those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill and associated early-day motions. I thank them also for their comments while I was preparing it. There was some concern that it would be only a reporting exercise. It is true that it requires all health authorities and boards to examine the Cornwall and Birmingham schemes. That is common sense. They should not act willy-nilly, but should consider carefully what to do. What is good for Cornwall and Birmingham may not be exactly right for Sussex or Aberdeenshire. Local health authorities and boards know what is good for their areas. The Bill requires them to ask that question and then act. It is not a reporting exercise, but a duty to consider carefully before acting. That is a sensible way for public bodies to proceed. I hope that the Bill will make progress today. It is a step along the road to tackling fuel poverty.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman but I fear that I may not get in. I have a few concerns about his Bill, but I intervene on his last point. He hoped that it would make progress. I have received a letter from Rodney Bickerstaffe saying that, unfortunately, it appears that the Government are going to oppose the Bill despite the fact that they say that they want to develop a coherent strategy. He appeals to me as a Member of Parliament noted for my support of initiatives to end fuel poverty to urge the Government to not to oppose it today.
2.9 pm
"Social justice means many things, but nothing is more important than a decent place to live."--[Official Report, 3 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 840.]
Those words were spoken by the right hon. Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), now the Deputy Prime Minister.
"an integrated strategy across government departments to deal with fuel poverty",
according to the Minister for Public Health, who was speaking at a public meeting in her constituency on 10 February.
"Furthermore, once they have recovered in hospital, far too often we send them straight back to the place that made them ill!"
I hope that the Bill will deal with that nonsense by enabling health authorities to tackle the causes of illness rather than its symptoms.
"annual assessments of the ways in which they should promote or assist with the implementation of energy efficiency schemes in their areas."
The decision to rely on guidance was made following consultation with various health organisations and is supported by the national health service executive, the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and a considerable number of health authorities. The clause allows for flexibility in the guidance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |