| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): As usual, my right hon. Friend is playing a robust role in testing the value added of proposed legislation, but surely subsection (3)(d) of new clause 4 merely recognises that a side benefit of promoting greater energy efficiency, which is of increased strategic importance to this country, will be that we shall be
It is not the main driver of the Bill but an important side benefit, and should be seen in that context.
Mr. Forth:
It might be—I do not know, nor do I think that it is as self-evident as my hon. Friend suggests, because it implies that we can make a direct, practical, on-the-ground connection between identifying those
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1067
who are genuinely in so-called fuel poverty and the ability to help them directly by microgeneration. That may or may not be so in individual cases, but the application is not as general as the Bill and its supporters suggest.
I remain to be convinced about the whole idea of fuel poverty. It needs to be explored in much more detail. I worry that, as ever with such things, we shall raise people's expectations and make them think that somehow the Bill contains ready solutions to problems. I, for one, do not see that. We require much more explanation. I have raised many questions—as have other Members—which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer, to persuade us that new clause 4 is worthy of our support.
10.45 am
Mr. Chope: To follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just said about fuel poverty and his amendment, I have always been rather an enthusiast for eliminating fuel poverty and thought that the Government were, too. Indeed, I thought that Labour's 1997 manifesto included a commitment to that effect. In those days, the Government defined fuel poverty as occurring when a household had to spend more than 10 per cent. of its gross income on fuel. Since then, however, they realised that they would be unable to meet their political promises so they changed the definition of fuel poverty and watered it down to a much woollier concept. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is now a meaningless concept; it sounds good, but what will it actually achieve in practice?
About two or three years ago, I developed the idea—I should like to claim the credit for originating it—of describing the plight of pensioners whose council tax bills are so high that they take more than 10 per cent. of their annual income as pensioner council tax poverty. I took the view that it is unreasonable to expect old people, who obviously have heating costs and other bills and liabilities, to have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their gross income on council tax.
However, I received no sympathy for that proposition from the Government. Indeed, they pooh-poohed the idea and seemed to think it perfectly reasonable that some people might have to pay out 20 per cent. of their gross income—as they do in my constituency—on council tax, which delivers few direct benefits for them and goes towards paying the costs of education. They may have grandchildren or great-grandchildren in education, but many of my constituents feel that the burden of council tax going towards the cost of education is at breaking point—indeed, beyond breaking point. Instead of paying such high council tax, they would much prefer to have the money in their pocket so that they could pay their fuel bills without needing to be dependent on subsidies from the Government.
If we want efficient use of energy, we should allow the market to operate, as it has been doing recently. The cost of fuel has been rising and as a result, I suspect that many people are using less. Of course, one consequence
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1068
of the market operating is that the cost of fuel is rising for elderly people and households such as I have described.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the long-term secular trend of fuel prices both in real and relative terms in households has gone down steadily over 20 or 30 years, or more, so although there may be an increase at present, if we accept the argument that there should be an additional effort to offset it, does not he think that if fuel prices were then to go down again, relatively, that would justify reducing that effort? Or does he believe that the market mechanism alone is to be relied on?
Mr. Chope: I believe in the market mechanism. One of the ironies about the figures on the proportion of household income spent on energy to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention is that the proportion is declining in richer households while it is rising for poorer households; for example, people living in park homes in my constituency who have high council tax bills and cannot install insulation. As the Minister knows, it is not easy to heat or insulate park homes efficiently. Such people have high fuel bills plus high council taxes. I should like something to be done to help them, but I do not think that adding to their burdens by pushing up the cost of electricity by requiring suppliers to buy microgenerated electricity, which is not economic to them, will help to lower fuel prices.
Mr. Newmark: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the link between council tax and energy efficiency. Braintree council gives a £100 council tax rebate to those who insulate their houses. That local initiative encompasses energy efficiency and lowering council taxes.
Mr. Chope: That is an exemplary form of what we call localism. Each council is left to make its own decision on whether it is more important to take part in the gesture politics of dealing with global warming or whether it is better to give some practical help to the people who live in its area, by providing them with proper insulation.
Greg Clark: Does not the Bill meet precisely the objection that the Minister raises? Clause 1(2) requires:
"the relevant persons and bodies shall have regard to . . . the desirability of alleviating fuel poverty".
If my hon. Friend is right and such measures would increase the cost of fuel, that is precisely something that needs to be taken into account by the relevant persons, so that subsection deals with the problem either way.
Mr. Chope: I suppose that the subsection does so in a sense—my hon. Friend is right—but the trouble is that the two possibilities that he describes are contradictory. If the costs of microgeneration are uneconomic and local authorities are required to increase the amount of microgeneration even though it is uneconomic, that will push up the cost of energy, thereby exacerbating the problem of fuel poverty.
Greg Clark:
Does that not, perhaps inadvertently, precisely meet the requirement? It might protect people from fuel poverty and from fashionable impositions in
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1069
quite the way that my hon. Friend desires, so perhaps his alternative proposals are not necessary to meet his concerns.
Mr. Chope: I am addressing my remarks to new clause 4 and amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Under new clause 4, as my hon. Friend will know, it is left to the opinion of the Secretary of State as to which of those approaches is better. Why not trust local authorities to make their own assessment of whether promoting a lot of microgeneration, where it is uneconomic, is preferable to reducing the fuel bills or increasing insulation in the houses of the poorest citizens of their locality? Surely we should leave that decision to the local authorities—indeed, they have the powers to do so at the moment—and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) has referred to the way in which his council exercises those powers very responsibly. Of course, the trouble is that the Government are dictating so much council activity from the centre that the discretion to do such worthwhile things is being reduced, because of the way in which the Government are manipulating council tax grants.
Mr. Newmark: The spirit of the Bill is intended to deal with climate change, and as I read it, the phrase "have regard" is not a compelling function, but merely tells people to consider what councils, such as Braintree, are doing and perhaps take on those examples in their own local communities and councils.
Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend, but nothing under present legislation stops Braintree council having regard to such things. Indeed, he has introduced into the debate an air of reality. If councils want, they can already do such things, and if they are not doing them, it can be an issue at the local elections. Perhaps councillors who want to do so will be elected at by-elections or district council elections. Of course, we hear that the Government want to defer the district council elections in 2007, but that is a side issue.
If there are elections and the Government do not abolish them, it is possible for people who want their councils to become more involved in tackling climate change, global warming, fuel poverty and so on to press for just that: they can stand for election or promote candidates who want their local council to promote such policies. Surely that is what localism is all about, and it is why the Minister has been squeezed between saying on the one hand that new clause 4 is tremendously important and accepting on the other that it will not increase the burdens or responsibilities placed on local authorities one iota. It cannot work both ways.
If new clause 4 would leave the law alone—it just engages in a bit of gesture politics—that offends against all the principles of deregulation that the Government propose. I have spent much of the past two weeks as a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which would, if implemented—perhaps you would be pleased with this, Madam Deputy Speaker—completely negate the purpose of any Friday sittings. Any such Bill could be pushed through by the Government without the need
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1070
for any primary legislation. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members cheer because they think that the Executive are on their side. I am not so sure whether they would be cheering so much—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |