ENERGY CONSERVATION (Hansard, 9 July 1986)

§ Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote methods of conservation of energy; and for connected purposes. I hope that every hon. Member is fully aware that this is Energy Efficiency Year. The Government have stated that we can reduce our energy bill by 20 per cent., which represents £7 billion a year at current prices. They have launched their biggest ever advertising campaign to achieve that objective, although I find the slogan a little unwieldy.
One might ask why there is a need for my Bill. The answer is straightforward. First, if these objectives are to be achieved real investment will be needed. Secondly, there will need to be a long-term commitment to secure the greatest energy efficiency, rather than a one-off exercise, however enthusiastically it might be backed by Ministers of the day. Indeed, Ministers of the day are expending a fair amount of effort on that.
Continuous permanent investment in conservation and energy efficiency could yield savings, not just of 20 per cent., but of 35 to 40 per cent. Certainly that is the view of many independent experts. In other words, we are talking about an annual saving of between £12 billion and £15 billion. At present value that is substantially more than the value of our entire North sea oil production. That is the prize that we are chasing. We need a permanent body to set standards and to provide a continuous stimulus to achieve the benefits of such massive savings.
My Bill proposes to establish an energy efficiency board, which would lay down minimum standards to be applied to plants and buildings and would administer the Government's programme of grants and loans for conservation. If such a body existed now, it would have a direct effect, for example on the homes insulation grants programme, the Government's handling of which, I regret to say, is something of a scandal. In recent years the take-up has consistently fallen about 30 per cent. short of the Government's allocation, and instead of finding ways to improve the take-up, the Government have now chosen to cut it. My proposed board would ensure a full take-up, and it is easy to identify how that would have happened. I am sure that the board would have recommended raising the grant ceiling, which is too low, and extending the grant to cover cavity wall insulation and thermostats.
My Bill would also impose a statutory responsibiltiy on gas and electricity boards to promote energy efficiency. That was a matter of some controversy in Committee on the Gas Bill. The Minister said that it was unfair to impose such an obligation on Britsh Gas alone, although the Government have now conceded just that in another place. I agree with the Minister. That is why my Bill would apply that requirement to both gas and electricity suppliers. That would lead to the energy utilities being prepared to give grants for greater efficiency to their customers. It would optimise their existing supplies and avoid wasteful overcapacity, such as we have in Scotland, where the addition of Torness, which the South of Scotland electricity Board is anxious to bring on stream, will give us almost exactly twice the generating capacity in Scotland that we can conceivably need under any circumstances.
The energy efficiency board would also investigate the scope for greater efficiency in the public sector, where too 315 often public and Health Service buildings fall short of their energy efficiency potential. Part of the problem is that the annual budgeting process makes it easier for public agencies, such as health boards, ridiculous though this may be, to pay inflated energy bills from current expenditure than to invest in the capital required to cut those bills, sometimes within two years, and release that saving for patient care, instead of it going up the chimney in smoke as waste energy.
Hospitals are particularly appropriate for small-scale combined heat and power systems. In a typical case—this has happened in one or two hospitals — a conventional generator and existing technology —nothing fancy — can provide the same hot water and heating as a comparable gas central heating system, using the same amount of gas, and can further provide 25 per cent. of the hospital's electricity, effectively, free of charge. The energy efficiency board would also be able to evaluate alternative energy schemes, for example the installation of combined heat and power for a small housing development of 50 houses.
Hon. Members should be aware that comparisons of Britain's achievements in energy conservation, even since the oil-price rise, with those of our European Community neighbours are not favourable. An energy commission report showed that between 1979 and 1981 the use of energy by industry in the United Kingdom fell by 7.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent energy. Of that total, the commission study attributes about 67 per cent. to structural changes, 23 per cent. to reductions in the overall level of economic activity—they are both nice ways of saying "closures" — and only 9 per cent. to improved efficiency. That compares with France and West Germany, where the figures for improved efficiency were 71.2 per cent. and 84.4 per cent. respectively. Although the position has improved since then, it has not improved dramatically.
We need a much more ambitious programme to secure real and fantastic savings in energy. The consequences of such a programme would be to lower substantially our industrial costs and to help cut energy costs generally by lowering the costs of electricity. We would use what we have much more efficiently, thus lowering the real capital costs of the energy capability installed. Lower domestic heating costs would have an immediate social benefit, because they would lead to less dampness in homes and to less hypothermia, and they would reduce all the other tragic symptoms of fuel poverty.
The real benefit of a programme such as my Bill envisages is in jobs—tens of thousands of jobs. If the Government's target were achieved, which it will not be without the kinds of measures envisaged in my Bill, over 150,000 jobs would be quickly attainable. If we can achieve the long-term aim of 35 to 40 per cent. energy savings, we could be talking about over 300,000 new permanent jobs. These would be distributed throughout the country and many would be for engineers and building trade members. There would be some extra concentration in the north of England and Scotland, where, with the right stimulus, take-up would be greater, and where more of the relevant engineering industries are concentrated. Intensive effort is sure to lead to advances in technology, and that in turn will give us valuable export opportunities.
Early-day motion 1078 on the Order Paper today in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) calls for a debate in the House on energy 316 efficiency. I agree. This is a matter of enormous potential to the United Kingdom which is nothing like being taken advantage of. One way to secure that would be to give my Bill a First Reading today and to allow time for a Second Reading as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. Member wish to oppose the Bill?

§ Mr. Walker
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak against the Bill because I am opposed to the setting up of further quangos to do what we are already capable of doing and what the Goverment are progressively doing. I see this as another means of establishing jobs for the boys and not, in fact, achieving very much.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that if Scotland went ahead with bringing on stream a nuclear generating power we would have twice the generating capacity that Scotland needs. He and the House know fulll well that Scotland has for decades generated more electricity than it needs. It has been the practice of Scotland to export electricity to England and Wales, and it has done so successfully and profitably for a long time.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should be looking at combined heat and power. He will be aware that in Dundee we pioneered the combined heat and power schemes and that proposals are now in hand in other parts of the country to link up with a combined heat and power programme.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the oil price rise had not produced the kind of ambitious programme that it had elsewhere. However, like all people who make speeches, he is selective. He chose 1979 as being the year of the oil price rise, but everyone knows that the first oil price hike was in 1973–74 and then again in 1979.
The hon. Gentleman is introducing a Bill to set up a quango which we do not require. We already have the machinery and mechanism to carry out the programme that he hopes to achieve. The Government's record is substantially better in this area than that of the Government of the Lib-Lab pact. I mean "substantially" because it involves a vast sum of money. Therefore, I wish to oppose the Bill.