---

12 midnight

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and to the House for not having been present for the Minister's opening remarks on this important subject.

Mr. Forth: He did not make any.

Mr. Maclean: In that case, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for not having been here to hear the bulk of his most erudite and interesting speech.

Mr. Forth: You can guess it.

Mr. Maclean: I was not paying attention to the Annunciator, because I assumed that the Government would want to make more progress tonight on the Freedom of Information Bill.

The money resolution relates to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. I draw the attention of the House to clause 2, which is entitled "Duties of the appropriate authority", subsection (2)(a) of which states that the strategy that the appropriate authority has to draw up should include

measures which the appropriate authority believes are required to ensure the fitting of a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures to the homes of persons in fuel poverty.

4 Apr 2000 : Column 940

We know that estimates of the number of homes of persons in fuel poverty range from 1 million to 4 million. However, the more homes are insulated and upgraded, the greater will be the number of people caught in the net of a new definition of fuel poverty--inevitably, as is the case with any definition of poverty, the threshold will be lowered over time.

Britain is urged, over a 15-year period, to catch up with Finland, Sweden and other countries that are regarded as having higher standards of home insulation, but I assume that those countries will not stand still during that period. As technology improves, so will their methods of home insulation, with the result that, in 15 years' time, we shall be told that, despite implementing the marvellous programme set out the Bill, Britain still lags behind other, more sophisticated and better insulated countries and that we must embark on further energy efficiency programmes.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on the way in which he steered his Bill through Second Reading. Even though he has not had the privilege of serving as a high-ranking Minister, despite being an admirable Parliamentary Private Secretary to other Ministers, on that occasion, he displayed the skill envied by Ministers of being able carefully to avoid answering all questions about the cost of his Bill. He said that cost was a matter to be considered in Committee, addressed in due course, discussed on Report. His masterful answers did not, however, satisfy those of us who are concerned about the cost implications of the Bill.

Given that clause 2(2)(a) refers to

a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures

for up to 4 million homes in this country, is it any wonder that some conclude that, over the time scale envisaged, the cost might total as much as £15 billion?

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Government amendment has been tabled that would delete that "comprehensive package"?

Mr. Maclean: That makes it all the more important that we get a firm statement from the Government on what the cost will be. I have been considering my hon. Friend's Bill. My concern, if I may say so in the nicest possible way, is that it is incredibly well meaning, but it lacks teeth.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend as he advanced his Bill in the House, and I was convinced that there was some merit in some parts of the Bill. I have been contemplating amendments to the Bill on Report which would give the targets some proper teeth--amendments that would specify sums of money. I was worried that my amendments would be out of order because the Government would probably not table a money resolution and I would not be able to advance them.

Now we have a money resolution, it is appropriate for me to consider amendments that would give the Bill some financial muscle and some certainty, so that the 4 million people out there in fuel poverty are not misled into thinking that the Government have supported a Bill that will make things better for them, only to find that it has no teeth.

4 Apr 2000 : Column 941

However, we find that the Government intend to delete the comprehensive package. When my hon. Friend proudly told the House that the Government were supporting his measure, was he aware that he would be stabbed in the back by them?

Mr. Forth rose--

Mr. Maclean: I give way to my right hon. and erudite Friend.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is starting to persuade me that the open-ended nature of the money resolution could be to the advantage of the Bill. If my right hon. Friend persuades me that we need to toughen the Bill up and make it effective, rather than waffle, an open-ended money resolution would provide the vehicle whereby large commitments could be made, so that the alleged problem of fuel poverty could be properly addressed. If my right hon. Friend works a little harder, he might take me with him.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and erudite Friend always has a certain logic about him. He may initially have been opposed to the Bill when it was introduced in a different form, without the considerable experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West brought to it. My right hon. Friend may have been opposed to the Bill because of the excessive burden that it may impose on the taxpayer for no apparent gain. Now, I believe that my right hon. Friend was concerned about the Bill because he thought that it might be meaningless.

The Bill was well sounding. It seems that the Government supported it only because they thought that it had no teeth. Now they are proposing to weaken it further by removing the word "comprehensive". If the Government are planning to support my hon. Friend's Bill and put it on the statute book because it will not cost them a penny, that would be gross sabotage of the Bill and would make a mockery of the money resolution that we are putting through tonight.

That will leave the 4 million people out there, alleged to be in fuel poverty, and mislead them into thinking that the Government are planning expenditure on the measure, hence the money resolution. The good news is that I may persuade my right hon. Friend to support me in the amendments that I am considering to my hon. Friend's Bill, to put some proper financial targets into the measure.

If the Government wish to remove the word "comprehensive" and insert the words "half-hearted or wishy-washy strategy for a partial programme of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures here and there in the country, whenever we feel like it in the future", I must tell them that alternative amendments will be tabled when the Bill comes back on Report. I look forward to my hon. Friend supporting them. His Bill is important.

We spent a whole day one Friday ensuring that my hon. Friend's Bill got through and was not sabotaged by the wreckers on the Government side, who block so many Bills on Friday. My hon. Friend had to do his utmost to persuade the Government Whips Department not to block

4 Apr 2000 : Column 942

his Bill and to let it through. We all know the record of those on the Government Front Bench on blocking Bills on a Friday.

We spent six hours ensuring that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West proceeded to Committee. Yet it appears that the Government have tabled amendments that make a mockery of the money resolution. What is the point of including in the Bill a money resolution that states:

There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses of the Secretary of State or of the National Assembly for Wales under this Act; and any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable under any other Act

if the Government have tabled an amendment to delete the first clause, which would make a difference to those in fuel poverty?

Clause 2(2)(b) provides for

measures which the appropriate authority believes are required to ensure that households in fuel poverty have access to appropriate fuel tariffs which encourage the efficient use of energy.

We can speculate that if 4 million homes are to be insulated to the Swedish or Finnish standard, it will cost £4 billion or £5 billion. However, neither the Government nor the briefing material from the special interest groups provide an estimate of the cost.

What measures would appropriate authorities deem suitable to ensure that households in fuel poverty

have access to appropriate fuel tariffs which encourage the efficient use of energy?

What does

access to appropriate fuel tariffs

mean? It must mean that tariffs for those in fuel poverty are cut or reduced. That means an element of subsidy, or heating payments, which must come from the taxpayer, not the appropriate authority. We therefore require a statement from the Government that outlines their calculations of the cost of the fuel tariff subsidy if clause 2(2)(b) is to be effected. I intended to explore the matter on Report.

The phrase, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, with the assistance of the parliamentary draftsmen, had incorporated in the Bill seemed cleverly and carefully worded. However, it does not have teeth. I wanted to consider clause 2(2)(b) in a little more detail. However, I wait to be advised about whether the Government have tabled an amendment to delete that provision. If so, it would underline the cynicism that the Government have displayed towards the Bill.

Clause 2(2)(c) requires the appropriate authority to devise a strategy on

any other energy efficiency measures which in the opinion of the appropriate authority will reduce the extent of fuel poverty.

What could those measures be? What would they cost? Are we debating an important money resolution when the House is not sure about the cost of clause 2(2)(c)? The Minister, with the excellent briefing that one receives from Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials, doubtless has some calculations. Perhaps if we had made further progress on the Freedom of Information Bill, we might be in a position to exact those details from the Government.

What does the Minister's brief say about the Department's estimated cost of clause 2(2)(c) and "any other efficiency measures", which may reduce fuel poverty? The Government

4 Apr 2000 : Column 943

must have an estimate of the cost. If those costs are too high in the Government's opinion, I suspect that they will either table an amendment to delete clause 2(2)(c) or insert a further delaying clause on Report. I suspect that it will suggest that the final implementation target will be set in the far distant future. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West would not like that; it would be a cynical Government move to provide for local authorities to draw up strategies, which will be put on the shelf to gather dust.

Clause 2(3) suggests that

The targets shall include a final target date . . . by which as far as is reasonable practicable no person will live in a home which cannot be kept warm at reasonable cost and shall also include at least one interim target.

When considering the money motion and the costs that the taxpayer could incur under the Bill, we must have an indication of the time scale in which it will operate.

---