Heath and Hughes on the Fuel Poverty Bill

• [Mar 20]: David Heath: ' . . MY Bill . . requires the Government to introduce a strategy to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016. It does that by means of a basket of measures, including insulation and sustainable energy . . it deals not only with the people who are living in those houses at the moment but with the generations to come. . . It introduces as an interim measure, on a statutory basis, social tariffs for the utilities, . . '

• I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I have religiously put in for the private Member's Bill ballot for the best part of 12 years, but I have never appeared anywhere on the list until this year, when I came second. That is perseverance rewarded.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour): When is my perseverance going to be rewarded?

• David Heath: And no doubt other Members' perseverance will be rewarded in due course.

Having appeared as No. 2 on the list, I cast around for an appropriate Bill to introduce. There were a number of very worthy topics-some have been debated on previous Fridays-that I carefully considered. I believe, however, that the Bill that I eventually chose to present is of crucial importance. For a start, it is supported by a huge range of organisations outside the House. I will not name them all, but they include the Association for the Conservation of Energy, Age Concern, Consumer Focus, the Disability Alliance, Friends of the Earth, Help the Aged, the Child Poverty Action Group and Unison. That will give Members some idea of both the scope of the Bill and the level of support for it among widely differing organisations.

It has been gratifying to receive the support of Members in all parts of the House, not just those who were happy to sponsor the Bill-to whom I am very grateful-but those who have simply wished me well, and those who have signed early-day motion 1069, tabled by Alan Simpson. As of today, 172 Members have supported the Bill by adding their names to the motion. I am grateful for the informal contacts that I have had with Members on both sides of the House, and particularly grateful to Labour Members, who have been fully engaged with the issues and have discussed some of them with Ministers. I am also grateful to Conservative Front Benchers, with whom I have had long discussions about the Bill. Although they favour the use of a slightly different mechanism to secure the Bill's objective, they have indicated that, should it prove necessary, they will support me in the Lobby.

The Bill is supported by many individuals, including councillors. I am sure that many Members will have received communications not just from their constituents but from their local councils, which have passed motions in support of the Bill's intentions. The reason for that is simple. The Bill is good for those living in poverty, a group that encompasses the old, young families and people with disabilities. It is good for the public health of the United Kingdom; it is very good for the environment; and, at a time when it is desperately needed, it is good for the economy. I believe that supporting it is a no-brainer.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat): My constituents are very grateful to my hon. Friend, because the Bill stands to assist thousands of people in Montgomeryshire who are not well off and who need such assistance desperately. Let me thank him personally for what he is doing for Montgomeryshire folk and others.

• David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It underlines a point to which I shall return shortly. His constituency, like mine, is extremely rural, and although many people see fuel poverty as an urban issue, it is very much an issue in rural areas as well.

Paul Burstow (Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat): I too am grateful to my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on selecting this Bill. In my constituency, 5,700 families are living in fuel poverty. Does he agree that the investment in energy efficiency measures that his Bill requires would not only help to eradicate fuel poverty across the country in a sustainable way, but would give a vital shot in the arm to our economy, particularly the construction trades which are so hard pressed at the moment?

• David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall say more about that issue shortly. I believe that the mixture of sustainability and the stimulus to sectors of the economy that desperately need it is a strong point in favour of the Bill.

Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley, Labour): Of course fuel poverty affects rural areas, but it affects rural and urban areas alike. No Member has missed out on it; it affects every constituency in the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the villains of the piece are the energy companies, with their immoral profits and the excessive salaries that they pay their chief executives? That is where the blame lies, and that is why the Bill is so important.

• David Heath: I am very tempted to pursue the hon. Gentleman's logic, but I have to say that I have had extremely helpful conversations with some of the energy companies over the past week, and I feel that I should put on record their support for elements of my Bill. I am a bit worried about alienating them too much at this stage, because I need their assistance to make the Bill work. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the fact that bills rose, but have not fallen at the same rate is a real issue. This appears to be an over-bloated industry, and that gives many of our constituents cause for concern.

Lorely Burt (Solihull, Liberal Democrat): I am delighted that my hon. Friend is presenting this Bill. Mr. Hoyle pointed out that fuel poverty affects rural and urban areas alike. I was shocked to discover that more than 15 per cent. of people are in fuel poverty in Solihull, which is hardly renowned for being one of the poorer parts of the country. That shows how pervasive the problem is throughout the United Kingdom.

• David Heath: That was a helpful intervention. If there is one place that those in ignorance might consider less likely to be affected, it is Solihull, which is an affluent borough in most respects. Yet there are people who, although apparently invisible to the authorities, live in squalid surroundings and are suffering as a result. That, too, underlines the need for the Bill.

Albert Owen (Ynys Môn, Labour): My constituency, like the hon. Gentleman's, contains a mixture of rural, urban and semi-rural areas. One of the reasons for fuel poverty in those areas is a lack of gas mains. That brings us back to the energy companies. Because many of them supply both electricity and gas, they have no incentive to install gas mains and alleviate fuel poverty.

• David Heath: That is a very good point. The-I have forgotten what the commission on rural areas is called. Could someone help me? [Hon. Members: "The Rural Commission."] The Rural Commission has provided me with the useful information that 42 per cent. of households in rural areas are not connected to gas mains-my constituency is very similar to that of Albert Owen in that respect-but half the communities that are not connected are within 2 km of a gas pipeline. I suspect that both a lack of will and a lack of investment are preventing many rural communities from benefiting. About 220,000 fuel-poor households, despite their proximity to a gas main, cannot take advantage of the dual-fuel discounts.

Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire, Conservative): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. Does he agree that a major economic opportunity is offered by energy efficiency and microgeneration measures-the sort of measures that are described in clause 2(3)(a) and that might provide the green jobs and green business that we need if we are to emerge form the recession with new skills and new opportunities?

• David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has identified one of my key proposals. The Bill does not merely propose a basic insulation scheme. It does not aim for easy targets such as cavity wall insulation, which is relatively simple to install. It contains a wider basket of measures. Microgeneration measures, for instance, would be more appropriate in many of the rural areas that we have been discussing. Put together, the measures could offer businesses a huge stimulus. They arrive exactly at the time we need them. There is an urgency to get the job done and there is the capacity within the system to help us to get it done. That is why the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat): Will my hon. Friend give way?

• David Heath: I must make progress but I am happy to take interventions at this stage.

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat): While my hon. Friend is on the subject of hard-to-treat homes, particularly those that rely on fuel heating oil, may I make the point that one of the great benefits of the Bill, which has led to the Highland Senior Citizens Network wishing to add itself to the list of groups that support it, is that it does not concentrate solely on easy-to-insulate homes but would allow the benefits to be spread much more widely? That is particularly important in rural areas such as the highlands, where many old, hard-to-treat homes are inhabited by people on low incomes, who are most likely to be in fuel poverty.

• David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not sure what the vernacular building material is in his area, but a lot of houses in rural areas in my constituency-I do not want to overstress the rural dimension but it is important-have rubble-built, solid walls with inadequate roofing. I do not know what the conditions are in the borders, but in Somerset they are damp. Cold and damp equals ill. If one is elderly, disabled or trying to bring up a young family, a cold damp home in the middle of winter is not a good place to be. That is the key.

What does my Bill do? As Members will see from the text, it requires the Government to introduce a strategy to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016. It does that by means of a basket of measures, including insulation and sustainable energy. Essentially it would require hard-to-heat and energy wasteful houses to be treated in a sustainable way. Therefore, it deals not only with the people who are living in those houses at the moment but with the generations to come. It will have a permanent effect. It introduces as an interim measure, on a statutory basis, social tariffs for the utilities, so that we deal with those people who are waiting for measures to be introduced in an effective way, so that we ease the burden on them and so that perhaps fewer people are cold and unhappy over the coming winters.

Mark Hunter (Cheadle, Liberal Democrat): I add my personal congratulations on the service that my hon. Friend has done all of us by introducing the Bill, which as we have heard from other hon. Members, would help constituents up and down the land. Does he not agree that there is a real urgency for the Bill to be introduced precisely because the Government have already admitted that they are not going to reach their existing targets? They have already effectively conceded that the targets for dealing with fuel poverty and vulnerable households by 2010 are not going to be reached. Does he agree that it is therefore even more difficult to understand the lack of support that is apparently coming from those on the Government Front Bench?

• David Heath: I am going to deal with the Government's position in a moment. I think that the Government are taking action. They are involved in reviews and discussions that will greatly improve performance in this area, but that is not incompatible with my Bill. This is a belt-and-braces approach. It recognises work where it is being done. However, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that we are barely scratching the surface. As a country we need to do much better. I believe that the Government are actively considering how they can do that. What I want to do is to set clear objectives, which, as I will discuss later, we thought we already had, in order to make that happen in a time scale that is recognisable and reasonable, considering the urgency of the situation. I now give way to my very patient hon. Friend Sandra Gidley.

Sandra Gidley (Romsey, Liberal Democrat): I too welcome the Bill, but is my hon. Friend aware of the briefing from the Energy Retail Association? He has been very kind about some of the energy retailers, but was he as concerned as I was to read that they are saying: "There are dangers that putting a customer on a social tariff could undermine the benefits of a competitive market"?

He may have an opinion on that. I do not necessarily subscribe to their view-I want to make that clear. He may recall that, a few years ago, tariffs designed to help old people were introduced at a very low rate and then there were swingeing increases year on year. People were trapped in the system. Does he trust the energy companies to deliver on this?

• David Heath: First, there is quite a difference in performance between some energy suppliers and others. Secondly, it is almost impossible to compare what is offered because the tariff arrangements that they suggest are complicated. Thirdly, there is enormous churn, with people being badgered into changing their accounts from one company to another on the assumption that they are getting a better deal, which often is not a better deal at all. Although I hear what the suppliers say and understand the need to maintain a competitive market, it is in their interests for there to be a statutory basis for a social tariff so that everyone understands what it should comprise of and they work on the same basis.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour): The hon. Gentleman has probably been talking to the same energy companies as I have. I will not mention the name of the company that I am referring to, but I was surprised to be told that the mechanism to decide on eligibility is more often than not income support. I asked the company in question how it checked that people were on income support, to which the answer was, "We don't." Therefore, it is a fairly open door, which may be good, but there is no mechanism by which to find out who is eligible and why. I do not think that that is terribly clever. I am sure that he would agree.

• David Heath: I agree. There are people benefiting from schemes at the moment who are not in fuel poverty. Others are not benefiting who should be given more support. That is one of the arguments for putting the scheme on to a statutory basis. It would involve the Government determining eligibility criteria; there is a precedent for that to an extent in a recent Pensions Bill. Again it is common sense. We need common criteria to ensure that these measures are targeted at the right people and that the right people benefit. Often that is not the case.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat): Will my hon. Friend give way?

• David Heath: Will my hon. Friend forgive me for a moment? I will come back to her but I should get to the end of my first page if I possibly can.

• Simon Hughes : How many pages are there?

• David Heath: Not many. This is what the Bill does. It offers a strategy to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016, to treat homes with lasting and sustainable improvements and, in the interim, to introduce a statutory social tariff.

I cannot believe, and a lot of Members here today find it difficult to believe, that in this so-called civilised country that is affluent even in modern circumstances, we can allow 3.5 million households at a conservative estimate-the figure is probably 5 million-to be in fuel poverty. It is a disgrace. I think that all sides recognise that that is a disgrace, so we are talking about how to deal with that issue.

It cannot be right that one in three older people live in one room over winter to keep warm. It cannot be right that one quarter of all older people stay in bed to keep warm. It cannot be right that one in 10 older people in this country cut back on essentials such as food and clothes to pay fuel bills because they cannot do both. That is a national disgrace and it is one that we need to address. It cannot be right also that every year people die because of the cold in this relatively temperate country of ours. The Government's own Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures from 2004 show that, each year in the United Kingdom, there are between 25,000 and 45,000 excess winter deaths-that is the clinical and unexpressive term that is used. That does not happen elsewhere; it does not happen in much colder countries than ours, such as Norway, Sweden or the other Scandinavian nations. They have severe winters, but they keep their citizens warm in their homes. We fail, and we as a House are responsible for the fact that that is happening. Also of course, for every person who dies from a cold-related death, many more are made ill or put in hospital as a result.

Given that we all identify climate change as the biggest and most urgent issue we face, it cannot be right that so many homes in our country leak energy-energy is wasted simply because the houses are not up to the necessary standard. If my Bill were implemented and the houses that we have identified as being lived in by people in fuel poverty were brought up to standard, their carbon emissions would be reduced by 59 per cent. Should that not be a priority for the House and the Government? If we are going to make a real difference on climate change, we must start with domestic households and stop wasting energy. Of course, that would reduce costs as well-not only costs to the individual, but costs to the state in providing support. It therefore makes sense to do something about such a loss of energy.

I have touched on the fact that this is a rural issue as well as an urban issue. Indeed, I have stressed the rural dimension, but I do not want Members who represent city constituencies to feel that I have left them out. We have heard from my hon. Friend Lorely Burt; I think I would describe her seat as a suburb constituency, but perhaps that is a dangerous thing to say. [Interruption.] There are perfectly nice and very pleasant suburbs; suburbs are good-country is better, but suburbs are good. My point, however, is that this is an issue for the entire nation.

Let me reiterate the economic dimension. It makes sense to create green jobs. I thought the Government wanted to do that. I thought they said that one of their initiatives to beat the recession was to stimulate areas of the economy that were going to produce sustainable work for the future. That must start with those jobs that provide an environmental benefit. There is huge scope here, as a lot of individuals will be involved.

My hon. Friend Annette Brooke has been very patient, so I shall now invite her to intervene.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on introducing the Bill. He has presented some shocking statistics on fuel poverty. Is it not also shocking that our poorest and most prudent constituents use prepayment meters and they are being rewarded with even higher charges? That is disgraceful.

• David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the tragedies at the moment that some of our poorest constituents end up paying the most for their fuel. They do so via tariff systems, and prepayment meters are part of that. I do not think, however, that we can draw an easy equation between those buildings with prepaid meters and the people who are poor. It is not as simple as that. It is true that a lot of people who are in poverty have prepaid meters, but many people who are not in poverty have prepaid meters, particularly in London where many private sector landlords install them as a matter of course. Often yuppies who work in the City live happily in those flats-perhaps we should call them the new poor, but I do not think they are poor yet. The equation is, therefore, not quite that simple, but my hon. Friend is right that this issue needs to be addressed as part of the social tariff arrangements.

The Government are discussing social tariffs with the Ofgem-regulated electricity and gas companies, but, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, a lot of people in this country do not heat their houses with gas or electricity-gas because they cannot get it, and electricity because that is not the way they have traditionally heated their home. They rely on liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil or solid fuel, and those fuel sources have increased in price the most over recent years. People who rely on them are now having the greatest difficulty in paying their bills. I should declare an interest here: my rural hovel relies on fuel oil and the bill has gone up enormously this year compared with last year. I can just about pay the bill, but I recognise that others will be in great difficulty.

There is a permissive element within the social tariff part of the Bill that permits the Government to bring other fuel sectors into the equation if they can- although I am not sure if it is possible. I would not necessarily want those sectors to be brought within the Ofgem bureaucracy, because that may result in more regulation than is required, but if we can find a way of extending the social tariff to non Ofgem-regulated fuel sources, that would be of great benefit.

Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat): I am glad my hon. Friend has mentioned the people who are not on the gas network and who rely on Calor gas as their only means of heating, because that is an even more uncompetitive market than the oil market. It involves a commitment to a tank, which effectively determines which supplier they are going to use. I hope that he will continue to stress, therefore, that there is a series of reasons why many people in rural areas are more likely to be fuel-poor, and that is one of them.

• David Heath: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat): I have discovered that a number of people living in social housing in my constituency use LPG. It is the council that orders the LPG, but the LPG company sets the tariff, so the customer has no control at all. They have no involvement with the supplier, and the council obviously has no incentive to work on their behalf. Does the Bill contain any measures that might address those problems?

• David Heath: That is a very interesting observation. First, one wonders why the council feels it has no duty of care to those people; a council should have regard for the poorer people whom they house. There is certainly no barrier to that issue being addressed in the Bill.

Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute, Liberal Democrat): I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. I want to emphasise the point made by the two previous party colleagues who have spoken. In large rural constituencies such as mine, many houses are well outwith the 2 km distance from the gas network that my hon. Friend referred to earlier. There is no possibility of those properties ever getting gas, and they are reliant on a variety of other sources, such as oil, Calor gas and solid fuel. I hope the Bill gets its Second Reading today and that when it reaches its Committee stage, we can explore ways of bringing these types of heating systems within regulatory networks, so that they too can benefit from regulation. Last year's spike in oil prices is causing severe problems for people with these types of heating systems.

• David Heath: That is absolutely right, and I suspect that in the highlands and islands, part of which my hon. Friend represents, there is also an additional premium because of the distances involved in delivering to those far-flung areas-far-flung from us here, but not far-flung from them there. This part of the Bill covers Scotland and Wales, although I have to emphasise to hon. Friends representing constituencies in Scotland and Wales that the part that deals with statutory matters does not cover them because of the devolved arrangements. I hope that if we can succeed in getting the Bill through this House and on to the statute book, it will serve as a pattern for the devolved Administrations, so that they, too, will wish to do something similar in their own areas.

Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk, Liberal Democrat): May I be the latest in a long line of colleagues from all parts of the House to compliment my hon. Friend on this fantastic Bill and speak about its importance for all our constituents? The fact that, as he says, the entire United Kingdom is covered by certain parts of the Bill is very important. Clause 10, which relates to the energy assistance packages, is also important because it would require a supplier to supply energy to eligible customers at a lower tariff than any other rate available from that particular supplier. Earlier, he said that he had had some constructive discussions with the suppliers about that, so can he give us an insight into their response to that particular proposal? How can we make sure that those packages work as effectively as they need to do?

• David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Opinions differ-suppliers are not all united-on this; some think that the packages pose a potential difficulty in terms of their competitive structure, whereas others are worried that the social tariff that they have introduced provides for a better deal than is likely to emerge in a universal concept. There are many discussions still to be had, but I know that Ministers are having such discussions at the moment and are committed to making progress. It would be wrong for me to prescribe in a private Member's Bill anything that would cut across current work, and I have stressed that throughout in my discussions with everybody on this. My Bill is essentially a permissive one-it would put a duty on the Secretary of State to provide the strategy and it would permit the Secretary of State to bring in a statutory social tariff, but the elements making up that strategy and tariff would be left to the Secretary of State. I make no apologies for that, because this is a highly technical issue and the last thing I want to do is torpedo work that is in progress, but I want to focus that work in the right direction-the one that I think will achieve the best results.

James McGovern (Dundee West, Labour): May I take the hon. Gentleman back a couple of minutes to when he mentioned the impact of his Bill on Scotland? I am sure that he will be aware that it appears that no Member from the Scottish National party is here. Does he agree that far from standing up for Scotland, as is the party's slogan, more often than not its Members do not turn up for Scotland?

• David Heath: It is very noticeable that the SNP Members are not here today. I would have thought this matter ought to have interested them, and it is noticeable that Members from all the other parties, who have interests in all parts of the United Kingdom, are here-I shall leave it at that.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing his Bill, which I assume he is now getting on to discussing. I would particularly like to talk about the question of duty and clause 2. He knows that a legal action was brought for judicial review under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 and was dismissed. Is his intention to create a duty that is fully justiciable against the Secretary of State, so that the courts could second-guess and, indeed, overrule the Secretary of State if we were not to meet the duties set out in clause 2?

• David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, for signing the early-day motion that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and for the fact that he is committed to the Bill's progress today, because his interest in the matter is much appreciated.

I was about to come to the contents of the Bill. The first thing that we need to address is the fact that this is not a new concept; there are Members in all parts of the Chamber who have achieved a huge impact on this policy area in previous Bills that have been taken through the House. A series of Bills and of initiatives have dealt with fuel poverty, and that tells me that there is an appetite within the House for tackling it effectively.

Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat): rose-

• David Heath: May I just deal with these issues for the moment? The most important is the one to which Mr. Dismore referred. The most recent enactment was the 2000 Act, which we all felt put a clear duty on the Government to eliminate fuel poverty, with a time scale in which to do so. I do not think that there was any dubiety among Members of the House or among members of the Government as to the duty that that particular enactment conferred. That was the case until 17 October when the High Court determined that it was not a duty in the sense that any of us understand a duty and that it was merely a desirable outcome as far as the Government are concerned.

That brings me to the justiciability of the duty. I have carefully set out in this Bill a duty to produce a strategy. That is a perfectly reasonable duty and I think that any court would hold that it is a perfectly reasonable duty for the Government to have. It is not a duplication of the previous duty-the one struck down by the High Court in a decision that, I believe, is still subject to appeal-because that would be a futile action on the part of the House. My proposal is framed in an entirely different way, but it reinstates what I believe to have been and, I assume, still are, the Government's intentions.

I have good reason to believe they are the Government's intentions because they have said so repeatedly. Labour's election manifesto in 2005 stated: "Our goal is to eliminate fuel poverty for vulnerable groups by 2010, and for all by 2015."

That target has slipped a little, but my Bill's provision in respect of 2016 is consistent with Labour's manifesto. The then Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ian Pearson, said in May 2006 that "the Government remains committed to achieving...the targets"-

set pursuant to the 2000 Act.

He went on to say that "we aim to eradicate the range of consequences of fuel poverty". The Minister who sits on the Treasury Bench today, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Joan Ruddock, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 14 January-only a couple of months ago-said that the Government "do not intend to miss the 2016 target". There is a very clear intention on the part of the Government to do what my Bill requests.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this Bill. I understand the circumstances of a private Member's Bill, which mean that he has to be as kind as he possibly can be to the Government. The problem is that the Government themselves told the High Court in October that "it is not considered reasonably practicable to take all of the measures that would be required to eradicate fuel poverty, as such measures are not necessarily cost effective and the resources are not available to pay for them".

This Bill rightly would introduce a clear duty on the Government to carry out their previous promise, and I do not think he should be at all vague about that, because it is at the heart of the Bill and it is the reason I am here to support it.

• David Heath: I do not think I am being at all vague about it. I am merely saying that I am hopeful, even despite the performance to date, that the Government have the intention of meeting the targets in the Bill. That is one reason why I do not believe-I hope that I am correct-that the Government will disagree today with the Bill's progress into Committee.

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): I simply wish to reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has just stated, because that is, indeed, the policy of the Government and will continue to be so. The argument that I shall come to when I get the opportunity to speak is about the absolutist position embodied in the Bill and the fact that current legislation does say "as far as reasonably practicable".

• David Heath: I am not sure that my Bill is absolutist in any sense of the word, although we shall discuss that further.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour): I assume that the answer to my previous question is therefore yes-that it is intended to be fully justiciable. I wish to correct something that the hon. Gentleman said. The duty would not only be to produce a strategy. The duty would be to achieve an objective, with no qualification, by 2016, no matter what happens, in this country or the rest of the world. Clause 2(1) would impose an absolute duty to achieve that objective, and that is one of the concerns that I have about the Bill. I support what he seeks to achieve in policy terms, but I am concerned that the Bill could create a duty that might prove to be impossible to meet, and the court could force the Government to prioritise it over all the other things that they have to do.

• David Heath: That is an interesting discussion that I will be happy to have in Committee. I do not want to resile from the objective, because it is very important. The Labour party manifesto did not put any conditions on the promise: it was a clear goal, and that is what I hope to achieve. But the Bill would provide sufficient flexibility within the strategy for the Government to adjust to circumstances and apply resources as appropriate.

We have to decide whether we are serious about dealing with climate change and ending fuel poverty. We cannot say, "But it might get a bit difficult." It is a priority. People are dying every year, so I make no apology for making it a priority.

Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend has said that this is not a new issue, and he gave some examples from recent years. I first became politically active in 1983, when I joined a political party during the general election that year, and one of the policies of the then SDP/Liberal Alliance-the forerunners of the Liberal Democrats-was a massive programme of home insulation, to cut the fuel bills for those in fuel poverty and create labour-intensive work to get people back into employment to counteract the Thatcher recession. The 18 per cent. of my constituents who live in fuel poverty today cannot understand why, a quarter of a century later, these issues still need to be raised and the Government need to be pushed to take effective action on such a serious issue.

• David Heath: My hon. Friend underlines why simply having good intentions is not enough. We have all had good intentions for a long time, but they have not delivered and that is why we now need something more concrete.

I am being nice to the Government, as my hon. Friend David Howarth suggests, because I have talked to the Minister, and I am grateful for the time that she spent telling me about what the Department is doing. I recognise that it is travelling in a similar direction, and I hope that out of its reviews will come a recognition that the present approach is insufficient and that more energy and resources need to be directed at the issue. I see no difficulty in reconciling what is happening with the Bill. It is a belt and braces approach that says that this Government, or any other Government, need to address the issues. There is a deadline and it is not good enough simply to produce policy papers: we need action.

One issue was a sticking point in my discussions with the Government, and that was the requirement that buildings be brought up to an energy-efficient state consonant with the current band B designation. Ministers were unhappy with that, because they thought that it was a very expensive commitment and would be very difficult to achieve. I do not apologise for putting the band B requirement in the Bill. It is the standard that the Government have designated necessary for all new build, so it is not an absurdly high standard. It is what the Government hope will become the norm for private dwellings, in which case it should be the norm for people in fuel poverty. We should not short-change those people. However, I am happy to make a concession on this point if that will be helpful to the Government, because I do not want the best to be the enemy of the good. I have therefore written to the Minister to say that if she is so minded, I will accept an amendment in Committee to bring the band B requirement down to band C. It will still achieve most of my objectives, such as a step change in the way we address this issue, but it will reduce costs and some of the technical difficulties. It is much more important to achieve consensus on this issue, rather than confrontation, if at all possible.

Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour): How much will that compromise on band C cost, and where will the funding come from?

• David Heath: My compromise would save money, and the Government were concerned about the cost. According to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, there are 2.4 million households in fuel poverty in England. The change from a band B requirement to a band C requirement would slightly reduce the number of fuel poor from 82.9 per cent. to 76.8 per cent., but it would reduce the cost involved significantly from £24 billion to £12.9 billion. The average cost per fuel-poor household would fall from £9,890 to £5,290. If cost is the blockage, let us make that change. If we achieve band C across the piece we will have done much to take people out of fuel poverty.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Ealing North, Labour): Pursuant to the intervention by my hon. Friend Janet Anderson, DECC officials calculate that the fall will be from £50 billion to £20 billion, rather than the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just given. Will he explain the origin of his figures and in so doing, perhaps he will address the point that my hon. Friend made?

• David Heath: I cannot give the House any provenance for the figures quoted by civil servants, because they do not accord with those given to me by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which advises the Government-and has advised me-on this issue. It is difficult to reconcile those high figures with what I have been told. I have given the House figures that I believe to be reasonably accurate, and they are supported by experts in the field, including the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which estimates that raising two thirds of the properties concerned to band B would cost between £1,780 and £7,780 per property. The £4,780 figure per household is therefore reasonable. The hon. Gentleman has no way of crunching the figures, and nor do I, other than to take the advice of experts, and that is what I am doing.

Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley, Labour): People are concerned about where the money will come from. I think that we should have a windfall tax on the huge profits made by the energy companies. Is that an approach that the hon. Gentleman would consider?

• David Heath: That is part of our party's policy, but this is a permissive Bill. It would allow the Secretary of State to take a view on how its objectives would be best achieved. I do not want to force everybody into the framework of my party's policy. If there is a better approach, I will listen. It will be in the hands of the Government as to how to implement the Bill.

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): DECC was sent a paper yesterday by the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which is a report that it has compiled with the Centre for Sustainable Energy, on modelling the refurbishment scenarios. It concludes that a retrofit programme to bring 83 per cent. of fuel-poor households to a standard assessment procedure-SAP 71-rating, which is band C, by 2016 would cost around £21 billion to £24 billion. I understand that those figures have been presented to the hon. Gentleman, but they are clearly at odds with the ones that he has just quoted.

• David Heath: If the Minister looks at the figures, I believe she will find that the percentages are slightly different in that respect and that we are perhaps dealing with a different total. As I just said, the 2006 estimate was that 2.4 million households in England were in fuel poverty. The higher estimate-4 million-was made after the end of 2006 and reflects the increase in fuel prices. Clearly, estimates drawn up in different ways result in different figures. I think that that is where the hon. Lady's confusion comes from.

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not confused. His Bill suggests that the counting must begin in 2008. He is well aware that the 2008 estimate exceeds 3.5 million. I have no doubt that the paper I quoted is accurate when it states that the cost of reaching 87 per cent. of those people by 2016 would be between £21 billion and £24 billion.

• David Heath: The hon. Lady uses estimates which I accept are probably accurate. What she has not mentioned is the fact that, with the larger figure, the estimated average cost per household falls to £4,780. We could argue figures for the rest of the day, but the Minister is committed to dealing with fuel poverty, is she not? We are talking about figures and costs which she and I, if we both have our way, will have to make meet in some way. That is the crucial point.

John Leech (Manchester, Withington, Liberal Democrat): Has my hon. Friend assessed what effect the compromise position, if it were adopted, would have on the number of jobs directly created? I understand that the Bill would create 35,000 jobs a year: is that based on the compromise position, or on reaching the band B standard?

• David Heath: The original estimate was based on reaching band B, but I do not think that there would be a huge difference in the number of jobs created if we went for band C. Many of the hard-to-reach homes will still need the most work to bring them up to the band B standard; it is a question of what exactly the retrofit involves.

I have spoken for some time now, so let me conclude by running through the clauses. Clause 1, "Purpose", is self-explanatory. Clause 2 makes clear the Secretary of State's duty to eradicate fuel poverty-the duty that the House, until a few months ago, believed it had already enacted. The clause also contains provisions on energy performance certificate measurements, on which I have made it plain that I am happy to compromise with the Government, if that would be helpful.

Clause 3 deals with the key element: the fuel poverty strategy. Under that clause, the Government must produce their plans within six months of the Bill's enactment. That is where I hope the Department's current work will come to fruition, so that an effective strategy is developed. The most important element-the most important difference from previous legislation on this subject-is subsection (3)(a), which refers to

"policies to promote energy efficiency measures and the use of microgeneration installations and locally supplied sustainable energy in existing buildings",

which refers to measures such as fuel pumps, which are not used enough at present and which have huge potential, particularly for harder-to-reach properties. I hope that the Government will take up such measures.

The fuel poverty annual report required under clause 4 is very much in line with what the Government are already doing, because of previous legislation. Clause 5 deals with changes to the number of properties involved and provides flexibility for the Government either to accelerate or to decelerate-I regard that as unlikely-the scheme to meet changing circumstances. Clause 6 acknowledges the fact that some properties are harder to treat than others. Let us be honest: some properties will not be brought up to standard even if the Bill is enacted, because some people simply will not be interested in treating their houses. Some people will never seek help or let anyone into their house, and we have to accept that.

Clause 7 is about prioritising, because one of the National Audit Office's concerns about the present scheme is that it is not well targeted and seems to miss many fuel-poor people. Clause 8 allows for revision of the fuel poverty strategy and clause 9 imposes a duty to consult, which is always important before the Government publish any measures. Clause 10 deals with social tariffs, but in the form of energy assistance packages. The packages will go slightly wider than simply providing a social tariff and will, I hope, as a result of Government action, impose obligations on the energy suppliers.

Clause 11 is a safeguard: if the energy performance certificate scheme is changed, we will not need new primary legislation to effect those changes in definition. Clause 12 is the money clause and clause 13, "Interpretation", sets out the definitions of the various terms used in the Bill. Clause 14 sets out the short title and the extent of the Bill's effect. Most of the Bill will not cover Scotland and Wales, but I hope that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly will follow its lead.

What are the arguments against the Bill? I accept that there are potential arguments based on cost. In response, I argue that we cannot afford not to take these measures. The Government are already committed to incurring substantial costs and need to be committed to much greater expenditure if they are to meet their targets. The second argument is that the time is not right, because of the High Court ruling. I have disposed of that argument: I do not believe that the Bill seeks to overturn that ruling or that it cuts across the Government's current consultation. If the Government are going ahead, that is good news and is entirely compatible with the purposes of my Bill.

It seems to me that the Bill is urgent. There are always arguments why the time is not right, but, as my hon. Friend Paul Holmes said, we have been waiting for decades for action and good intentions are no longer enough. In addition, the measures in the Bill will create jobs at a time when it is necessary to make jobs, and will deal in part with the problems of climate change at a time when there is a desperate need to tackle climate change. Whether the Bill passes is a litmus test of how serious the Government are and of whether the Department of Energy and Climate Change is worthy of its name. Finally, the Bill is urgent because if we fail to take these measures, we fail the poor, the elderly and the disabled-we fail people who are living miserable existences, whom we can do something here and now to help.

The least satisfactory outcome of this morning's debate would be hon. Members deciding to use procedural rules to talk the Bill out. I would prefer it if the House voted on Second Reading and I lost that vote because the Government had decided to oppose the Bill. Many people outside will not understand if underhand tactics are used. The Bill is very important. I hope that it will at least reach Committee, where we can have all the discussions that the Government and others want and we can make it a better Bill-one that secures consensus.

. . • Simon Hughes : I am happy to follow Mr. Dismore and to discover such broad support around the House for the Bill's objectives, even though, of course, points have been made that can be properly taken up in Committee.

Throughout my youth, it was customary just before midnight on new year's eve for someone-usually the darkest person-to go outside the door of our home and to come back in with coal, bread and a coin. Those were the three things that every household was thought to be in need of. They symbolised prosperity and a satisfactory life-and the coal was not irrelevant.

James McGovern (Dundee West, Labour): rose-

• Simon Hughes : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will be brief, as the Minister and possibly other colleagues are still to speak. As I was saying, coal was one of the three, because energy and the ability to keep warm was fundamental to everyone's happy existence.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Heath on introducing his private Member's Bill, which he said would be good for the vulnerable, good for health within the UK, good for our environment and good for the economy. It rises to the four great challenges of our age: we need a more equal society, to which the Minister and the Government are committed; we need to protect our environment, to which the Minister has shown a lifelong commitment; we need to rescue our economy from its difficult times; and we need to give maximum employment to people-and there is no more obvious contribution to getting us out of a recession than expanding the construction industry. The Bill's objectives will allow us to save carbon, save money, save jobs and, most importantly as my hon. Friend said, save lives.

Members have put the situation we face on the record. Dealing with inadequately heated homes-fuel poverty is the technical term, but I am never very comfortable with it, because it is not the sort of phrase people use on the Old Kent road-has been a challenge for decades. As my hon. Friend Paul Holmes said, it was that problem that brought him and people like him into politics in the '80s.

There is the old phrase that "An Englishman's home is his castle"-it applies in Scotland, too, and to a lesser extent in Wales-but castles were often draughty. Although most Englishmen and women do not live in castles, the reality is that most of their homes are still draughty and not well insulated. After an exchange at Question Time on 20 January, the Minister for Housing wrote to me, confirming that only 1 per cent. of current housing stock in the country reaches the rating of 81 on the standard assessment procedure, which is recognised as the best way to assess what counts as a satisfactory energy-efficiency rating. Thus only 1 per cent. of our housing stock is adequately insulated and 25,000 people or thereabouts die every year unnecessarily-and we should not pass over such figures lightly. Many more people are ill and are looked after at huge cost to the NHS. We must not forget to put the costs of the current position on one side of the balance.

Furthermore, figures are available showing how many people are in fuel poverty in every single constituency in the country. I looked at the figures for London and found that 15 out of 100 homes in the Minister's Lewisham, Deptford constituency are in fuel poverty. The figures for the two other constituencies in my borough-15 in Dulwich and West Norwood and nearly 15 in Camberwell and Peckham-are about the same. Most amazingly, although there is an explanation for it, my constituency with 13 out of 100 has the least fuel poverty in London. I think that the explanation is that we have the largest amount of council housing stock. If anyone ever wanted an argument that council housing has been good for people, there it is, as it is much better heated than privately rented or owner-occupied property. The figures are there for all to see.

To any colleagues in the House who are nervous about the Bill, perhaps including Stephen Pound and the hon. Member for Hendon, I would say that where there is a will, there is a way. We have to take this Bill and turn it into legislation that can deliver what we want, which is a job for a Committee, not for proceedings here. I endorse what Mr. Cox and Charles Hendry said about the inadequacy of the present system. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome is seeking to deal with a system that is not just piecemeal but confusing.

There are three failures. There is the problem that although some people are being targeted who should be targeted, others are being targeted when they should not be. Apparently, more than 100,000 households with a combined income of more than £100,000 a year receive the winter fuel allowance every year. Members of the House of Lords have told me that they receive it because they are pensioners, but clearly they do not need it. That is a nonsense of a system.

Secondly, the explanation of the tariff options is very confusing. I looked at the Consumer Focus website, which customers are supposed to consult. With the best will in the world, I do not think that people should require a table that takes up an entire page. The eventual figures depend on whether people are low, medium or high users, on whether they use gas, electricity or dual fuel, and on who supplies their fuel. Then there is the small print. If any of us tried to read all that, we would be lost for accurate answers.

The third failure-Fiona Mactaggart made this point very tellingly-is the prepayment meter system, under which in many instances the poorest and those who use least will pay more.

We live in a country that provides us with huge amounts of our own fuel-gas, oil and coal-along with the potential for renewables. We also face a huge challenge in dealing with carbon emissions, 27 per cent. of which emanate from domestic households. What should we do now? Mr. Amess introduced a similar Bill in 2000, and my hon. Friend Andrew Stunell introduced another in 2004. The Bill presented today by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome seeks to pick up where the law appears to have left off after last year's High Court judgment-which, I should point out to the hon. Member for Hendon, is currently on appeal. We do not know what the final judicial decision will be.

As other Members on both sides of the House have observed, this is exactly the sort of Bill that gives credibility to Parliament. These are the issues that matter to our constituents. The Bill is central to what we should be doing. It is in the great tradition of the social legislation that gave us pensions, national insurance and the national health service. We have a job to do in dealing with the social issues of the day, and the Bill gives us an opportunity to do that job now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the huge amount of support that he had received. I echo the tributes paid to Ron Bailey and others. The fuel poverty charter movement involved a range of supportive non-governmental organisations. Members in pretty well every corner of the House have signed the relevant early-day motion: many Labour colleagues, Conservative colleagues, Plaid Cymru colleagues, Democratic Unionist colleagues, Scottish National party and Social Democratic and Labour party colleagues, and independent colleagues, as well as a large number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

I commend the local press-many local papers have taken up the issue-and the national press, particularly Nigel Nelson and the Sunday People. As soon as my right hon. Friend Mr. Clegg became leader of our party, he chose this as the first subject on which to challenge the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. We have published our proposals, which, like those of Charles Hendry, include a national programme to ensure that not a single household would not benefit from the scheme, except those that did not wish to do so. The finance can be raised by the utility companies, and the system would save money as it proceeds.

Finally, let me point out to the hon. Member for Hendon and others who are worried about the duty in this Bill that the Climate Change Act 2008 clearly imposes a duty on Government. If we are determined together to implement the Government's policy, we must set ourselves a duty. The wording may need to be changed, but I hope that today we will have the conviction-

Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Simon Hughes : No, I will not.

I hope that today we will have the conviction to give the Bill a Second Reading and send it into Committee. I am sure that our constituents will want that to happen. I hope that the Bill will receive positive encouragement from the Minister so that it can move to its next stage, and my hon. Friend's aspirations can be fulfilled this very afternoon.

• . . David Heath: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 2. . . The Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion (Standing Order No. 37).

Debate resumed.

• . . David Heath: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that I have already said that this is a matter that we can discuss in Committee. She is clearly determined to talk the Bill out today. I want her to address one issue. She has returned time and again to the legal duty, which she says is so abhorrent. I have a quotation from Mr. Woolas, a former Minister in the Department. He said on 27 November 2007, only a couple of years ago, "I can assure you all that we remain committed to our legal duty under the Warm Homes Act to ending fuel poverty by 2010." There were no caveats then. When did the Government change their minds on whether they should have a legal duty? Was it the Treasury, or was it simply because they are failing in their targets?

Joan Ruddock (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): The hon. Gentleman has completely ignored the points that have been made consistently from the Labour Benches. It is in the original legislation that was passed by the House-it is about what is reasonably practicable. We have not changed our mind. I have said repeatedly that we remain committed to our target.

The estimated cost of bringing a property up to the band C rating would be between £10,000 and £20,000, depending on the type of property. We think that to bring all properties currently occupied by fuel-poor households to at least SAP 81 rating, or indeed SAP 69 rating for hard-to-treat homes, would cost in the region of £50 billion. Although the technology is improving all the time, we cannot be sure at this stage that the technology will exist to bring all existing homes up to the required standard, by the time proposed in the Bill. Regrettably, therefore, we cannot accept these proposals as the right way forward, but that does not mean that we do not accept the imperative to make a step change in domestic energy efficiency to meet both our climate change and fuel poverty agendas.

Since my Department was formed just six months ago-

• The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)). Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 12 June.

Related Links

• • Full Debate