| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
James Duddridge: I disagree with my right hon. Friend in relation to climate change and the priority that it is given. It should be given greater priority. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that local authorities should decide on priority. Knowing that he is a great friend of America, does he recognise that while the American federal Government have certainly not done enough on climate change—I regret that they did not sign up to Kyoto—some federal states are quite innovative, such as California, in respect of the environment. Perhaps it would be better if we allowed local government to be genuinely independent and to prioritise so as to promote best practice to increase climate change and to give that the correct priority.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I support President Bush and his Administration 100 per cent. in not signing Kyoto, which I think is nonsense. I hope that we will have an opportunity on Third Reading, or on the second Bill due for consideration today, to explore at great length why Kyoto is both dangerous and damaging. None the less, I accept my hon. Friend's point and I agree that as much decision making as possible should be done at local level. However, if local authorities were to pay any attention to this Bill—I hope that they do not—and give climate change priority over other matters, they should tell local voters and taxpayers that that is what they are doing, and why. I do not want us to all pretend, in the usual cosy way on a Friday, that by saying climate change should be prioritised something magical will happen and nothing else will suffer. We should be up-front about this and explain to people exactly what the prioritisation of climate change would mean.
New clause 4(5) contains our good old friend consultation—another favoured word in private Members' Bills and other legislation. It is usually designed to make people feel a little easier and more relaxed about what is suggested. If we have consultation, everybody will be involved and we can reach out, embrace, cuddle and hug all sorts of people, and all will be well. However, I would like to know a little more about who the "representatives of local government" will be. Will they be a random sample or will they be carefully selected—or does that phrase mean the body that has already been described as wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill?
Even more intriguing is the reference in subsection (5)(b), whereby the Secretary of State must consult
That is a clever formulation, because we do not usually see "if any" included. Such legislation usually refers to such other persons as are deemed appropriate, relevant, knowledgeable, friendly or whatever it may be. The phrase "if any" suggests that the Secretary of State may not bother to consult anyone else at all, in which case it will be only local government that is consulted. If I had
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1061
been able to see the new clause a little earlier, I might have suggested that we delete paragraph (b), if it meant that nobody consulted the single interest groups that have a perverse influence on our policy making now. We need to know a little more about what subsection (5)(a) and (b) mean before we rush to give the new clause our support.
I now come to what is potentially the most difficult and complex area of the new clause, subsection (6), which states:
"a county council . . . a county borough council . . . a district council . . . a London borough council . . . the Common Council of the City of London . . . the Council of the Isles of Scilly . . . a parish council"
That raises all sorts of interesting possibilities and potential conflicts. The first question is what would happen if, in that sea of excellence, some of those authorities disagreed with some of the others? It would be perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It is not, after all, unknown for district councils to be at odds with county councils or London boroughs to be at odds with the London Assembly or the Mayor, although the latter two are not mentioned here. It is not unusual for different levels of representative Government to take a different view. We know nothing of what will happen if some of those bodies take different views of the energy measure reports and their new responsibilities—which will, apparently, be seamless and costless.
If we zero in on parish councils and community councils, we may ask where they will get the resources to fulfil the requirements laid on them by the new clause. It is one thing for county councils and county borough councils—and maybe even district councils—to do so. It appears that my borough council will have to spend much of its time dealing with such matters, although it has not told me how it will manage that; it is, of course, entirely a matter for the council itself. What really bothers me is whether we may expect parish councils and community councils to be able to fulfil the requirements and aspirations in the new clause in any meaningful way. If we do expect that, how will they do it, where will they get the resources, do they have the staff and the expertise, and is it any part of their remit, other than as provided by the new clause?
Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that putting parish and community councils on a par with larger councils offends against the principle of proportionality, to which the Government pay lip service when talking about the importance of deregulation?
Mr. Forth:
I agree that there is that risk. Before we sign up to new clause 4(6)(g) and (h), we need to hear much more from the Minister about how a parish or community council can fulfil the requirements set out in any meaningful, efficacious or practical way. Otherwise, the new clause starts to look aspirational, or like gesture legislation, not meaningful legislation. It is time the
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1062
House put its foot down and put a stop to such nonsense. I lived with it for five years in my service as a Member of the European Parliament, and I thought that I had seen the last of it when I came here to Westminster, but apparently not. Here we are, in the 21st century, still proposing gesture legislation, in a very European way—which is among my many objections to things European. I hope that this is not an example of gesture legislation, but I wait to be persuaded.
James Duddridge: I see no mention of unitary authorities in subsection (6), and I am conscious that 60,000 of my 72,000 constituents live under a unitary council. In my right hon. Friend's assessment, would unitary councils be covered by subsection (6)(h), which mentions community councils—a term with which I am not entirely familiar?
Mr. Forth: I do not know. I can say that because it is not my new clause and I do not have to explain it. Indeed, I am beginning to have more and more severe doubts about it as time goes on. The first question that the Minister was unable to answer was about the role of the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor, and now we have a question about whether unitary authorities are subsumed under, or contained within, any of subsection (6)(a) to (h). I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to hear the Minister's answer to his question, along with all the questions that I have posed, before the House can dream of giving the new clause its support.
Mr. Chope: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new clause 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) does not apparently intend to press, specifically refers to unitary authorities, although they are excluded from new clause 4?
Mr. Forth: Funnily enough, that reassures me, because it shows that our Front Benchers are not totally in bed with the Government on this issue. That discrepancy reassures me that there is at least the slightest smidgen of difference between our Front Benchers and the Government, which makes me—as a traditionalist—feel rather comfortable. However, I shall not hold my breath waiting for much more evidence of that.
I shall now conclude my preliminary observations on new clause 4, turn to my amendment (a) and initiate what I hope will be a vigorous and extensive debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which has bothered me for some time. It encompasses a wide variety of different concepts, which have not yet been addressed or dealt with. There is the concept of poverty itself, which is well known but not yet fully explored in terms of whether we mean absolute or relative poverty. There is also the role that fuel, as opposed to other essentials, plays in the household budget. There are historic comparisons to be made, with fuel prices past and present, and lifestyle choices. One of the issues that we must explore is whether the frequently made claims that people are fuel poor have anything to do with their lifestyles and their personal priorities.
One of the reasons why I have sought to initiate a debate on fuel poverty, by seeking to remove the reference to it from the new clause and throughout the
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1063
Bill, is that I am not sure that it has any place in a Bill on so-called climate change, emissions, microgeneration and all that. Fuel poverty is a completely different subject and should be covered by a different policy direction. In any case, I remain to be convinced that fuel poverty is a legitimate concept.
10.30 am
When one looks at definitions of poverty, one comes across "want of necessities", "indispensable things", "wanting means of subsistence" and "minimum resources to sustain life". Those definitions are all unexceptional, and nobody would disagree with them. But when I began to think about what fits into those descriptions, I made a little list: accommodation, food, clothing, heating, perhaps transport—and then I got to alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and the like. I then began to wonder in what order one should list them in terms of the minimum resources to sustain life, subsistence or want of necessities. That immediately brings us to the time-honoured debate, which I do not think we have ever resolved—perhaps because we do not really want to confront it—about whether poverty is relative or absolute. In a very wealthy society, which we pride ourselves on being, if one defines poverty in relative terms, one gets some rather peculiar outcomes. People who enjoy things that could hardly be called necessities are suddenly regarded as being in some way poor. On the other hand, if one looks at poverty as an absolute, which would be my preference, it starts to take on a different context.
If we are really talking about necessities—the minimum resources to sustain life—I originally put accommodation first, but then I thought that food should be first, because if people do not eat they do not survive, and we know that there are people who choose—many, but not all choose—to live on the streets. They can survive almost indefinitely without conventional accommodation, but they need food and clothing. The point that I am working towards is that fuel does not feature very highly in what people need to survive and maintain themselves. So why do we not talk about food poverty or clothing poverty? Why do we not talk about poverty in other essential aspects of life? Why are we obsessed with the concept of fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in other aspects of life?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |