| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is another consequence of the Bill--that there will not be a need to produce as much energy? That will mean that the countryside in Scotland and Wales will not be scarred with dreadful wind turbines--a policy that masquerades as being environmentally friendly, but the results of which damage the environment. The Bill will ensure that the countryside is saved.
Mr. Amess: I greatly admire my hon. Friend's style. It seems to have met with some good reaction and some adverse reaction in the House. I am trying to be as consensual as I can. I shall reflect on his point.
To sum up, the aim of the Bill is to end fuel poverty and the disgrace of so many people shivering--yes, genuinely shivering--through the winter. It has massive support. I have received messages from a range of organisations: the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, Help the Aged, the Green party, Friends of the Earth, energy efficiency industries, the Royal British Legion, Age Concern, professional footballers, the Royal College of Nursing--[Hon. Members: "Professional footballers?"] I asked why they were interested. Apparently it is a big issue for the new national football stadium at Wembley.
Mr. Amess:
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend wants to be added to the list, but I shall give way to him.
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend has been unprepared to put any cost on the exercise over any period, even during the debate today. Does he accept that it is easy to garner support for what appears to be a cost-free benefit? Does he concede that it is just possible that, if he had been prepared to put even a ballpark cost on the proposals and
Mr. Amess:
No, I do not accept that admonishment from my right hon. Friend. I would be stupid to give a figure that would be used in evidence against me. We can pluck any figure out of the air.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North):
We are talking about the costs of capital installation. The long-term costs may be lower but, in the short term, the investment will be expensive.
Mr. Amess:
The hon. Gentleman makes the point far more cleverly than I have been able to. I was hoping that my broad brush statement that the Bill will save money would be accepted. No doubt, the argument will continue.
Liz Blackman (Erewash):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the costs that we are talking about, there is a cost in human misery from being fuel poor? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will not mention that.
Mr. Amess:
I agree with the hon. Lady. My main interest is health. There is a terrible cost to the health service at the moment. It is not right to analyse the matter starkly. If the Bill became law, it would be cost-effective and a huge number of lives would be saved. If it were as successful as I anticipate, it would bring money into the Treasury.
Mr. Bob Laxton (Derby, North)
rose--
Mr. Amess:
I was giving way to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton).
Mr. Laxton:
That shows what the merest twitch in the Chamber can achieve. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There are various estimates on the issue. For example, savings to the national health service could amount to £1 billion as a result of the Bill.
Mr. Amess:
The hon. Gentleman is right. I am disappointed that the House did not think that I had a flourishing end to my speech, and I am now about to deliver it. I was not simply going to sit down.
I am delighted with the huge turnout of Members of Parliament today. Fridays have become rather unpopular and unfashionable for all sorts of reasons. It never used to be like that. Fridays give an atmosphere that enables us to engage in constructive debate, so I welcome this opportunity. I pay tribute to all those who have supported my endeavours. I am very mindful of those who have cancelled constituency engagements or opportunities to spend time with their families. I am only too well aware of all those matters.
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on raising such an important issue, which affects all of us in our constituency work. I welcome his move from the warmth of Basildon to the cold east coast of Southend. It seems to have sharpened up his politics no end. He sounded semi-socialist at one point, which worried me slightly.
One of my abiding memories of being brought up in Scotland was the cold, crisp mornings when it was a delight to put my clothes on under the blankets. That was absolutely essential. I see that some of my colleagues are remembering their childhoods, too. I remember also when the coalman did not come, and the only chance of getting heat in the house was to find a combustible Englishman. I am only joking, but this is a serious issue.
It is intolerable, degrading and uncivilised that we live in a society where individuals shiver in their homes and beds, and some stay in bed all day because they cannot heat their homes. They contract illness because of that, and that is what I want to speak about. The effect of cold temperatures on human bodies and organs is an under-researched field. We do not know the full effects on our functions and organs, and I am pleased that research councils are now putting resources into that kind of study to reflect the problems of the elderly in society and across the world.
I was stung into action by a recent headline, "Killed by the cold", and a story by Simon Parkin, the local health correspondent for the Evening News in Norwich. This reflects badly in terms of the interest in the elderly in Norwich, Norfolk and society generally. The scandal of the politics of cold is that cold damages people's health, makes them susceptible to infection and causes increased deaths. These effects are accentuated in rural areas such as East Anglia, where many homes predate the heady days of 1945 when Aneurin Bevan built homes in this country at a fantastic rate. Many homes in rural areas and cities predate those days.
I am grateful to a colleague of mine--a consultant for the care of the elderly and elderly medicine at the West Norwich hospital--who has released his research on the subject to me. Much of it has been published in The Lancet. The research concerns death and disease among older people in winter. It is estimated that 20,000 and 60,000 extra deaths occur every winter in England and Wales. The definition used is that of a man called Curwen, who has done the definitive work in this area.
The calculation is the number of deaths in the four winter months from December to March, less the average of the numbers in the preceding autumn, August to November, and the following summer, April to July. Greater numbers of deaths are associated with both colder winters and the increased prevalence of influenza. Some 55 per cent. of those extra deaths are vascular--heart and stroke problems. Some 33 per cent. involve chest diseases. Accidental hypothermia accounts for no more than 1 per cent. and is usually secondary to serious underlying illness, rather than the primary event.
The percentage of excess winter deaths increases from 12 per cent. at ages 45 to 64 to 18 per cent. at ages 65 to 74, to 27 per cent. at ages 75-plus. The elderly are more
at risk from winter. There is a tendency also for increasing winter mortality as we move from social classes 1 to 5. Excess winter deaths by country have been mentioned. In England and Wales, the excess percentage is 21, and in Scotland it is 20. Interestingly, in Norway, Finland and Canada, the figures are 7 per cent., 8 per cent., and 9 per cent. respectively. The fact that the coldest countries do not have the worst winter mortality rates has been attributed to warmer housing and behavioural adaptations, including wearing more clothes and being more active when outdoors.
The death rates increase linearly as the mean daily outdoor temperatures fall from 18 deg C to 0 deg C. That reflects on events inside, as well.
Cold-related death rates have been decreasing somewhat in recent years, and this has been attributed to improved home heating and to reduced outdoor exposure. Some argue that it is a result of increased car ownership. The important issue is that the poorest in our society tend to have the most energy inefficient housing--that is, homes that cost more to heat. Another interesting fact is that winter respiratory infections trigger strokes and heart attacks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |