---

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) rose—

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is a real issue, so I will give way to him.

Sir Robert Smith: The Minister is making a strong case on the importance of the issue. Has not this winter, with its very high fuel prices, shown that relying on fuel prices to end fuel poverty is not effective? Should we not instead think about the quality and energy efficiency of our buildings? Is that not a more robust, long-term way of ensuring that people can afford to heat their homes? In encouraging such action,
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1053
 
the Bill will take us in the right direction. The Government may have relied too much on fuel prices as a means of tackling fuel poverty.

Malcolm Wicks: There are two major ways of tackling the problem. One involves income-maintenance measures such as pension credit and winter fuel payments, which are subjects for another debate. The other, which I consider more important, at least in the long term, involves improving the energy efficiency of our housing. We have introduced energy efficiency measures that have been applied both to new build and to existing stock, but we need to go further.

I must confess that I have not looked at the English house condition survey for a couple of years—I have probably shocked my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning by admitting that it has not been part of my most recent bedtime reading—but when I have looked at that and similar data in the past, I have noted that there is still a great deal of housing that is not energy-efficient, lacking adequate insulation and good heating systems, and that there is a correlation between such housing and our poorest and most elderly people. Moreover, I think I am right in saying that it is the very elderly who are likely to live in the most inefficiently heated houses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in physiological terms they are most at risk from cold conditions.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister has pointed out that the poorest and the oldest people tend to live in the oldest properties. Should we not ensure, through exhortation if not through legislation, that home improvement agencies always take account of the energy aspects of their work? Energy efficiency is important, but should they not consider other energy measures that could give those people a quality of life that, as the Minister says, they are denied at present?

Malcolm Wicks: Absolutely. I am not complacent—none of us is complacent—but I am encouraged to note that more housing associations and other organisations, statutory, voluntary and private, are taking account of such issues. I hope that our carbon building programme, which involves some £30 million over three years, will enable us to earmark some of the money for dealing with fuel poverty. Apart from the issue raised by my hon. Friend, there is the problem of vulnerable households that are off the grid and not connected to gas mains. We should think imaginatively about how they can be helped.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Energy-saving light bulbs are more expensive than more energy-consuming bulbs, and poorer people may find it a more attractive option in the short term to buy energy-consuming bulbs. Might there be a more dynamic way of ensuring that those people receive assistance so that they can buy energy-saving bulbs? Have the Government considered withdrawing energy-consuming bulbs from sale? If they were not available, every household would have to replace them with energy-saving bulbs.

Malcolm Wicks: That is not on our agenda, but I have heard the argument before and it will doubtless form
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1054
 
part of an ongoing debate. Many agencies that deal with energy efficiency can provide vulnerable people with more efficient light bulbs. That is part of what is called, in the jargon, the eco-obligation on supply companies, which also involves insulation and draught-proofing.

James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I was about to do so permanently by ending my speech, but I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

James Duddridge: The Minister said that energy-efficient light bulbs were important, but he also said that they were not on the agenda. Why?

Malcolm Wicks: There is a great deal on our agenda, including our renewables strategy. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, our target is that 10 per cent. of our electricity should come from renewable sources by the end of the decade, and our aspiration is to double the amount by 2020. The issue of light bulbs has been put to us; no doubt it will be debated in future and the pros and cons will be weighed, but tackling climate change is an ongoing saga.

Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab): I do not wish to make my hon. Friend remain on his feet a moment longer than necessary, but new clause 4 is relatively permissive. Is he confident that it will do enough to encourage local authorities to search restlessly for the best ways of tackling climate change in their areas, rather than settling for minimal incremental improvements?

Malcolm Wicks: We discussed in Committee whether we should impose more mandatory requirements on local authorities. A balance must be struck between strong central direction and the new localism of which we have heard, and I hope that we have managed to do that.

Before I end my speech—

David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Wicks: May I finish my sentence first? It is quite interesting. It is a sentence that I think has at least some merit.

Mr. Forth: You found one merit, then.

Malcolm Wicks: On the terrible day of judgment, there will be a weighing of speeches to determine whose had merit and whose did not. I am particularly proud of this sentence—if I can remember it. During our interesting discussion about the Mayor and the GLA, I argued that we did not need to include them in the new clause because they were such exemplars. Nevertheless, I am advised, as they say, that a wider review of GLA powers is being undertaken. What I did not know until recently is that its involvement is being considered as part of that review.
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1055
 

10 am

David Lepper: I congratulate the Minister on the finely honed observation with which he finished. Before he finally sits down, will he deal with the following point? He has drawn attention to the fact that the Minister for Housing and Planning is also on the Front Bench today. Will he join me in urging her to ask her Department to review its guidance to local authorities on regulations in conservation areas? In my constituency, people in older properties in conservation areas who wish to install renewable energy systems frequently come into conflict with the requirements that the planning system imposes on those who live in such areas.

Malcolm Wicks: That issue is being looked at, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has of course heard what my hon. Friend said.

In conclusion, I point out that I oppose amendment (a) to new clause 4, and amendments Nos. 2, 14, 21 and 1.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) inadvertently gave the game away in his opening speech when he used phrases such as "direction of travel" and "prioritising climate change" in the context of local authorities' role, as envisaged in his new clause 1 and the Minister's new clause 4. It has already become apparent in our brief and so far friendly exchange—an opener to what will be a fascinating debate through today, and probably subsequent Fridays—that the risk is that this well-meaning Bill is neither more nor less than a gesture. I have a real problem with the concept that we in this House need endlessly to legislate to show what good people we are, what good intentions we have and how much we agree with this or that outside interest group; indeed, I find that rather offensive. Our job should be passing necessary and practical legislation that adds value to the statute book and the body politic, not endlessly loading the statute book with good thoughts and clever ideas. I am afraid that this Bill comes into the latter category.

We are already struggling to see—typically, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) elicited this from the Minister—just what value the Bill adds. It has already been claimed that we need not worry—there will be no new burdens on local authorities as a result of these new clauses. However, the very first sentence of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, says:

"Every local authority shall, after having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within twelve months . . . consider how the measures . . . in this section can assist the authority".

That immediately imposes a new burden on local authorities, and if it does not, it is not worth doing. So we begin to see, even in that first sentence, the potential for conflict. It is claimed that this is a relatively innocuous thing that everyone is doing anyway; indeed, the Minister gave examples of excellent local authorities that are already doing most of what is in the new clauses. So if we are not careful, we will either simply repeat what is already being done, or add new burdens to local authorities. It is incumbent on us to face such issues head on. If we are indeed asking our benighted local
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1056
 
authorities to do yet more—albeit in the best of causes and with the best of motivations—we should know about it and acknowledge it. We need an absolutely open and honest answer to that question before we can sign up to new clause 1.

New clause 1 goes on to specify the various valuable developments that it would doubtless bring about. In discussing later my amendment (a) to new clause 4, I hope to initiate a debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which this House has never had in a proper sense. As I have said many times in this House, I have serious doubts about that concept. In many ways, it is misleading nonsense and I want to explain why. Fuel poverty is a concept that everybody signs up to, saying—as the Minister said earlier—that is outrageous, disgraceful and awful and that we must deal with it. When I have finished discussing local authorities, I want to explore in a little more detail the claims made about fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in general or any other specific poverty, and how we can best deal with it—an issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).

For the moment, however, I want to concentrate on new clause 4, with which there are some problems. At the outset, it lays a new burden on the Secretary of State. It should not be imagined, as it often is when we are faced with such Bills, that we can ask more and more of Government Departments at zero cost. The Chancellor is boasting—is he not?—that we will see increased productivity and slimmer and more effective Government Departments, which will result in a saving to the taxpayer. At the same time, however, Bills such as this repeatedly come before the House that make further demands on Departments. These demands cannot be met at no cost, and if they can they are probably not worth meeting, or will not be met very well. At the outset of new clause 4, there is again this apparent conflict between the rival claims being made for the Bill. It either does something new, exciting and beneficial—if so, it will probably involve substantial additional cost—or it is simply a gesture to make us all feel better, in which case, it may well not.

New clause 4 contains another of these mandatory requirements. Subsection (2) states:

"Every local authority must, in exercising any of their functions, have regard to the most recently published energy measures report".

So it is surely unavoidable that at least one official in each local authority will have to spend time having regard to such a report. Someone who could have been looking after old people, young people or people with disabilities will instead have to beaver away studying an energy measures report, doubtless having to reach a conclusion on what positive contribution their local authority can make to all the good things in the Bill.

---