| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Robert Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. The Government's strategy on this Bill is confusing. If there is time, perhaps the Minister will explain it. The Bill is an important step, and I commend it to the House.
2.17 pm
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): I know that time is short, so I will be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on the Bill, whose spirit and detail are common sense and in line with the Government's overall strategy, regardless of how they think it might fit into that.
I speak as the secretary of the all-party warm homes group, which has campaigned for some time for a co-ordinated national strategy to deal with fuel poverty. Hon. Members will remember last year's Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill, which attempted to build support and to win the argument for a co-ordinated strategy to deal with the long-standing national scandal that we have inherited of the 7 million to 8 million households that live in fuel poverty.
There is now general agreement that fragmented measures do not work. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to establish an interdepartmental
fuel poverty review group, with the intention of bringing together the various measures of different Departments, central Government, local government and groups funded by, but not directly accountable to, the Government. It is crucial that we bring together that wide range of measures in a co-ordinated national strategy.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine outlined the scale of the problem, with 7 million to 8 million households living in fuel poverty, of whom 2.5 million are in severe fuel poverty. Most are pensioners, lone parents or people with mental health problems. Because of the impossibility of heating their homes through normal means, they spend three or four times as much of their weekly income on keeping warm as the average family. Therefore it is a matter of health inequality and of energy efficiency.
Whatever happens to the Bill today, the fuel poverty issue will not go away. I believe that the measure that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine has outlined is common sense. It is practical, it would have minimal cost and, as pilot schemes in different parts of the country have shown, it can work.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
The Conservative party will not obstruct the Bill's Second Reading. We all want homes to be energy efficient, but we have some questions to ask about the Bill's practical implications, such as the following. How does one conduct an audit of housing need in terms of fuel efficiency? How does one identify properties where help is needed? How does one establish whether the owner or occupier really needs help? I hope that all those matters will be considered in Committee.
The real dilemma today is that of the Government. The real issue is whether the Government, in their conduct, will be decent or disgraceful. More than half the Minister's Labour colleagues signed early-day motions in favour of the measure; the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) signed all three, and spoke as though the Bill would receive Government support. It obviously will not.
Even the Minister, in a letter to his own constituent, said--I paraphrase--"Of course, I am a Minister; I do not sign EDMs." The letter continued:
Likewise, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in a message to the campaign for the Warm Homes Bill, implies that he does not support a greater winter fuel payment on its own, because he says:
Mr. Duncan:
No. If the Minister were listening,he would realise that, in a situation of collective responsibility, it is a letter from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which perhaps carries more weight than his own letter.
Ministers therefore imply that they support the Bill, but I believe that they will not support it. It looks as though we shall get warm words and cold homes.
Many a Labour Member of Parliament has campaigned, implying to people that they will support measures such as this. Grubbing for votes, they signed the EDMs, and they have signed them again since the general election; but today we shall see the Government destroy the Bill's Second Reading. Will they put heat into homes--
Mr. Chaytor:
What did the previous Government do, during their 18 years of office, to tackle the problem?
Mr. Duncan:
It is time that the hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues, realised that he should take responsibility for the promises that he made before so deceiving an electorate; he should now fulfil the promises that he made in signing early-day motions. When he finds, in seven minutes' time, that everything that he said but four minutes ago is at odds with what the Minister will say and do, he will go away and eat his words.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton):
My goodness, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I do not know what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) had for breakfast, but, whatever it was, I hope that he will share the recipe with me. Before I respond to his objectionable and highly personalised comments, I remind him, whether he likes it or not, of the deplorable record of the previous Administration in all these matters.
I was intrigued by the--probably tongue-in-cheek--reference that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for whom I have a very high regard and respect, made to his record as a champion and defender of those in fuel poverty.
Mr. Maclean:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in the short time available to him. I was not claiming that myself. It was stated by Rodney Bickerstaffe in his letter to me. Whether he was right or wrong, I cannot judge.
Mr. Hutton:
I suspect that, on this occasion, Mr. Bickerstaffe may have been wrong. We had a lengthy opportunity in opposition to study the record of the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Minister in that Government, and he may correct me if I am wrong in what I am about to say.
We heard a great deal of noise from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about fuel poverty. Am I right in my recollection that it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who extended VAT to gas and electricity? When he was serving as a member of that Government, did he, or did the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton when he was a Back Bencher, at any time vote against that proposal? I believe that the answer is that they did not. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, we are unpersuaded of the need to accept any lectures from him and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Duncan:
The difference between me and the Minister is that I do as I say. I do not seek votes, then do the opposite.
Mr. Hutton:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman--if he seeks votes, he does not do it terribly well. We remember what happened on 1 May 1997. If that is the result of the hon. Gentleman's grubbing for votes, good luck to him and his right hon. and hon. Friends. They may continue in that vein for as long as they like.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Before the Minister leaves the issue of tax on fuel, will he comment on the fact that the argument for taxing fuel, both domestic and vehicle, was environmental? The idea was to reduce environmental pollution by increasing the tax, thereby making fuel use more efficient or lowering it. How does he justify the fact that his Government impose a penal escalator on vehicle fuel, but reduce the duty on domestic fuel, by implication encouraging its inefficient use and creating pollution?
Mr. Hutton:
I am anxious to speak about the Bill, contrary to the wishes of some.
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who may correct me if I am wrong, I understood that the fuel escalator about which he complains was first promulgated by his Government. I know that, as a member of that Government, he loyally supported that Government whenever such issues were debated in the House.
I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) in the health and well-being of people living in poor housing and, in particular, in fuel poverty. That interest is shared fully by the Government. We recognise that fuel poverty is a major health concern, and that there are many associations between poor housing and ill health. We accept that the links between cold and damp housing, and respiratory and cardiovascular disease are well established.
Accordingly, I stress to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government already have in place a series of initiatives, and proposals for a range of others, that are reducing inequalities and tackling the various factors that cause ill health, of which fuel poverty is only one.
At a national level, the Government are determined to do more to help households in need. We have reduced VAT on fuel, which the Conservative party was keen to impose, so that people can more easily afford to keep warm, and on energy-saving materials installed through Government grant schemes, so that people can more easily insulate their homes.
We have released substantial additional funds to help improve our housing stock. In total, some £5 billion is being made available over the lifetime of this Parliament for investment in housing. We have also allocated an additional £150 million specifically for tackling fuel poverty through domestic energy efficiency improvements.
That is in addition to the existing £75 million a year expenditure on the home energy efficiency scheme, our main programme for helping people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The scheme provides grants up to a maximum of £315 for energy efficiency improvements in the homes of people on benefits, the disabled and those over 60. Those aged 60 or over but not on a qualifying benefit are entitled to a 25 per cent. grant.
We recognise that many of today's pensioners face particular difficulties. That is why we recently announced an increase in the annual winter fuel payment to £100 for more than 7 million pensioner households.
When we came to office, we quickly set up an interdepartmental group to take a hard look at the issues surrounding fuel poverty and to work--
"However John does support the broad aims expressed in the motions. As a junior Minister in the Department of Health he will have some considerable input and influence."
Well, that remains to be seen.
"Simply shovelling money at people to heat the skies above our towns and cities is hardly a sustainable use of resources".
23 Apr 1999 : Column 1207
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton):
I missed the last document to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Is he claiming that that is a letter from me to someone?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |