Energy Conservation

HC Deb 26 July 1993 vol 229 cc894-906

2.1 am

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

I am glad to have this opportunity to say something further about my Energy Conservation Bill, which was first presented to the House as a ten-minute Bill on 24 February. I shall begin by briefly reiterating its main provisions. Its core provision is to require district and borough councils, after extensive public consultation, to draw up energy conservation plans for all domestic properties in their areas with the aim of achieving energy savings of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. The plans would assess the estimated reduction in fuel bills, the resulting reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and the cost of implementing the plans.

The relevant Secretary of State would set a date for the completion of the plans, which would be sent to him. He would then, at his discretion—I emphasise that—publish a timetable for the implementation of the plans and make arrangements for the funding. Local authorities would ensure that the works to bring about increased energy efficiency were carried out. Almost inevitably nowadays, they would do that in their role as enablers rather than as providers.

From that focused programme of activity, a whole range of benefits would flow. First, there would be environmental benefits. Under the Rio accord, the Government are committed to stablising carbon dioxide emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that that target will not bring about a stabilisation of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. To achieve that, the United Nations estimates that we need a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. I repeat that the Government's commitment is to stabilise by the year 2000.

With 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom's CO₂ emissions deriving from the domestic sector, a programme activated through my Bill could make a useful contribution. Of course, there would also be reductions in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Other instruments will have to be brought into play, as well as the one proposed in the Bill. The Combined Heat and Power Association advocates a target of 6,000 MW from combined heat and power—treble the present level—by the year 2000. Will the Minister say tonight whether the Government would be prepared to adopt that target? However, I say that merely in passing, and I shall now return to my Bill.

In addition to the reduction in atmospheric pollution, health gains would result from the elimination of cold and damp in homes, and there would be subsequent savings in social security expenditure for health authorities. Landlords, both public and private, would gain through reduced maintenance costs, which would slacken the upward pressure on rents. Newark and Sherwood district council has made an efficient attempt at quantifying many of the savings.

The quality of life, especially for poorer families, would be significantly enhanced. Their energy cost savings would release additional spending power. Another important consequence of the measure would be job creation—in manufacturing, distribution and installation. That would, in turn, result in an improved tax take for the state and a reduction in unemployment and social security benefits —a virtuous cycle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. At this hour, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that, as a general rule applicable to all substantive motions for the Adjournment, the subject to be discussed must not involve legislation, except by incidental reference. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in reminding the House, at this early hour, of the exciting prospect of his future legislation.

Mr. Dafis

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I was not aware of that rule, but I shall studiously avoid reference to legislation from now on.

There has been massive support for the proposals in principle—there is room for modification. A total of 110 district and county councils have expressed support for them, and the range of other organisations to have done so is truly impressive. It includes environmental organisations, ranging from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, through to the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

Other supporters include the Institute of Housing, the Trades Union Congress, the National and Local Government Officers Association, the Gas Consumers Council and the National Housing and Town Planning Council. Significantly. the list also includes groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Age Concern, Help the Aged. the Disabled Living Foundation and the Right to Fuel Campaign. In addition, more than 350 Members of Parliament have registered their support for such proposals. either by signing early-day motion 1483 or by letter to me from organisations that support the measures. There is wide-ranging and impressive support for such proposals.

Both because of the programme's intrinsic merits and the overwhelming support. the Government must take seriously the proposals and the topic. That is particularly true in view of the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel—a measure announced after I presented my ten-minute Bill. The proposals have suggested that funds for energy efficiency programmes and works should be through a levy on electricity and gas bills. I am sure that such a provision would rightly be regarded as inappropriate. as domestic fuel is to be taxed.

The Government presented their proposal for VAT on domestic fuel partly as an environmental tax. Now, it is a sine qua non of environmental taxation that it should be recycled in some form to correct the environmental phenomenon that the tax is supposed to address. If a proportion of the VAT proceeds are recycled to meet the cost of a domestic energy efficiency programme, the Government's claim that VAT is an environmental tax would gain some credence and some of the hardship that VAT on domestic fuel will impose on the less well-off, the elderly and the disabled would be mitigated. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Government have no plans for any major environmental legislation in the next Session.

I turn to some of the comments made by the Lord President of the Council in his reply to me and some of the supporters of my proposals. He referred to some of the Government's energy efficiency schemes and suggested that more could be achieved by encouragement than by introducing a mandatory requirement for the drawing up of schemes. I say two things in reply. First, some of the Government's schemes, especially the home energy efficiency scheme—HEES—are laudable enough but too limited in scope. That is recognised by the managers of the HEES Neighbourhood Energy Action whom I have met and who support my proposals.

Secondly, the plans that would be introduced under my recommendations would provide a source of information and data that would maximise the effectiveness of, for example, HEES, whether at the existing expenditure level or an expanded version of it. In 1992, HEES incurred Government expenditure of £45 million. In the same way, schemes introduced by the Energy Saving Trust, which is one of the Government's instruments for bringing about energy savings and environmental improvements, would find the framework provided by the comprehensive plans envisaged in my proposals invaluable. Clearly, there is a need for a comprehensive account of the need for energy, the scope and opportunities for it and the means to bring it about.

The support of many local authorities does not indicate an unwillingness to accept mandatory responsibility. Local authorities accept that it is something that they can undertake as long as financial provision is made by the Exchequer to meet costs. The core of my energy efficiency suggestions is the information-gathering process. Plans involving information would enable the work to he prioritised according to social need and environmental impact to achieve maximum efficiency. It is acknowledged that that is lacking in the haphazard collection of schemes operated by the Government at present.

Once the plans have been drawn up and are in place, the Secretary of State could timetable their implementation according to what is realistic in budgetary terms and in keeping with the Government's policy and priorities. My proposals would not commit the Government to a massive investment programme from the beginning of the process, although a substantial investment would be more than justified and bring about great benefits.

Suggestions for modifying the proposals would be welcome, and some organisations have already committed themselves on them. For example, regional energy boards have been suggested. Perhaps that would be a superfluous tier, and other details of that suggestion have been criticised. The Government may have reservations about strengthening local authorities and giving them a more prominent function in the development of energy efficiency. However, housing and environmental health departments are uniquely qualified to carry out the kind of survey work involved in preparing plans. They would have a crucial role, but not necessarily as providers.

Contractors who currently deliver the home energy efficiency scheme for Neighbourhood Energy Action, would be well placed to carry out installations. Organisations such as TECs could stimulate interest and carry out the training programmes that would be necessary to implement such ambitious proposals.

There is no problem about making changes, but comprehensive provision for a radical improvement in domestic energy efficiency is crucial for environmental, social and economic reasons. My proposals attempt to describe how such provision might be made.

2.16 am

Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)

I welcome the debate, but not the hour at which it is taking place. One of my colleagues who is no longer in the Chamber said that the best contribution that we could make to energy conservation would be to turn off the lights and go home. There is something in that, but our strange procedures require us to be here at this hour.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the immense amount of work and commitment that he has put into the issue of energy conservation. Labour strongly favours such a policy, and many months ago we published our policy document on energy efficiency for the environment and the economy. It contains detailed proposals for a scheme for household energy conservation which would have an enormous number of benefits, and, unusually in social policy terms, they could be obtained at limited cost.

Such a policy would contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We gave a commitment on that in Rio that must be met by the Government. I see in today's issue of The Times—today is still yesterday under the funny rules of the House—that the Secretary of State for the Environment is apparently about to announce proposals to increase energy conservation measures in business. I do not know whether the Minister will tell us anything about that. That is the first objective that would be met by Labour's scheme.

The second benefit of our scheme is enormously important at this time, because it would create thousands of desperately needed jobs that would enable people to cease relying on benefits and start making a contribution to their communities. That would also enable them to regain their independence and not have the humiliation of having to live on benefits.

Thirdly, it would help to solve the enormously serious problem of fuel poverty. Far too many of our citizens struggle from week to week to keep themselves and their children warm and to pay their bills. A serious programme of energy efficiency and conservation in households would help to relieve that poverty.

Fourthly, under Labour's proposals, the details of which I shall shortly present to the House, there would be no cost to the Exchequer because the scheme would be funded by requiring gas and electricity providers to invest in energy conservation measures and put on all the households that had been so improved a cost that would be less than the amount that was saved. In the long term, that would pay for the measures and create an incentive for energy providers to invest in energy efficiency. That would be better than their current incentive, which is to try to sell as much energy as possible, despite the damage to the environment and to people who suffer from fuel poverty.

Labour's proposals differ somewhat from those of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He said that he was interested in any proposals that might improve on his. I hope that he has read our document: I feel that it has some advantages, although we have exactly the same objective.

Let me tell a story about my constituency that encapsulates the enormous benefit that can result from this kind of social policy. The Ladywood ward of my constituency contains many maisonettes and tower blocks that were built in the 1960s. They are very badly insulated, with underfloor electric heating which was installed at a time when electricity was very cheap and was provided very inefficiently. Those blocks are now riddled with cold, damp and black mould; people often come to my advice bureaux bringing items of clothing covered in mould, and telling me about the number of times children suffering from asthma have been in and out of hospital. Evidence I saw a few years ago suggests not only that damp and cold heighten suffering from asthma and bronchitis, but that the spores in the mould damage children's lungs in the long term. The same story is told up and down the country.

In one block, Beale house, the tenants banded together rather than taking legal action individually against the local authority over the provision of unfit housing. They found a local solicitor, and acted collectively against the local authority—as citizens are entitled to do under existing housing legislation—on the ground that it had provided inadequate housing. They cited the damp and mould. They won their case in the first court: the local authority was ordered to improve the block and provide insulation and better heating.

Birmingham city council then had to decide what to do. It knew that if the case was upheld it would be bankrupt, given all the blocks and maisonettes in the city that were in a similar condition: much as it might have wanted to improve the heating and insulation in all those blocks, it had not the resources to do so. It told the Beale house tenants that it would appeal against the ruling, that the tenants could act collectively against the local authority, and that it would honour the victory of the tenants of that particular block.

The council got together with the Midlands electricity board to launch a programme of insulation in the block, and to install off-peak electrical heating. The results were truly wonderful. At that time—some years ago—a "hard to heat" allowance was still provided under DSS regulations; all the tenants receiving benefits received the allowance—which, of course, cost the Exchequer money.

The net result was the provision of jobs in an area of high unemployment. The block was insulated and equipment was installed—equipment that had been built in the west midlands. People's bills were reduced significantly. People were warmer, and had more hot water. Moreover, the Exchequer saved money because the "hard to heat" allowances were no longer required. That superb social-policy move brought benefits to the environment and individuals: it ended fuel poverty, and improved the health of my constituents' children.

The Labour party—and the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which we are not allowed to mention, but we can mention the suggestions that he has made tonight—proposes the adoption of such a policy on a national level. We should change the regulations controlling the providers of gas and electricity. The appointment of a regulator for the gas industry since deregulation has introduced some sensible provisions—for instance, the E-factor, which seeks to encourage energy efficiency in gas providers. However, there is no similar control on electricity providers.

As I said earlier, funding such investment through a premium on bills that was smaller than the saving that would come to individual citizens if we went for big packages of energy insulation would mean that the poor would be better off, no bills would go up, people would be warmer, there would be less fuel poverty and our carbon dioxide emissions would go down.

There would be no cost to the public sector borrowing requirement because the investment would be funded by private borrowing by the domestic fuel users. It is a wonderful scheme that would benefit everyone and would overcome many of the problems that the country faces.

It is shocking and surprising that the Government have not seriously considered the scheme and gone for it. In contrast, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, the Government propose to impose VAT on fuel. That is an enormously unpopular proposal which will probably cost the Government the Christchurch by-election, and rightly so. Yet again the measure will bite most heavily on the poorest people in our country. That is the record of the Government since they took power in 1979.

The Government claim that the reason for the measure is protection of the environment. That is a bogus claim. Anyone who has scrutinised the proposal objectively knows that the imposition of VAT on fuel is a tax-gathering measure at the cost of some of the least well-off people in our country. Other measure are available to protect the environment if the Government were really interested. The remedy is energy conservation.

In case the Minister intends to repeat the disreputable allegations made by the Prime Minister about current Labour party policy on energy, let me say that we are, have always been and continue to be opposed to the proposal to impose VAT on domestic fuel. We are currently engaged in a consultation about our environmental policy. We have asked members of our party to consult with local communities about the current European Community proposals for a carbon energy tax. As the EC is putting the proposal to all the countries of the Community, and the proposal appears to be favoured by most countries except Britain, we have asked for the views of members of our party on it.

The Prime Minister misuses that consultation to suggest that the Labour party is in favour of VAT on fuel. That is simply untrue. I hope that the Minister will not attempt to pursue such disreputable and not entirely honest allegations at this late hour of the night.

We in the Labour party welcome the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and his proposals for an improvement in energy conservation. We recommend to him, to the Government and to everyone else the Labour party's scheme as being slightly preferable, more efficient and less bureaucratic than some of the details of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I do not say that in a negative spirit. We have the same objective. It is a question of how best to achieve it.

We deeply regret that the Government have gone for VAT on fuel. That will hurt those who are fuel poor in our country who are not in a position to and will be even less in a position to invest in energy-saving measures. We further regret that the Government, in their great programme of deregulation, propose to reduce the standards for insulation contained in the building regulations rather than improving them. We suspect that that is partly because the committee which is examining deregulation for the Government includes representatives of the building industry who, of course, give funds to the Tory party. We regret that.

Even at this late hour, I suggest to the Minister that the Government should take up proposals for energy conservation and energy efficiency which would benefit all of us at little cost to the Government.

2.28 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has given us a useful opportunity to discuss energy efficiency.

I wondered how long the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) would speak before she came clean on the Labour party's proposals for VAT on fuel. I thought that she sought to get her retaliation in rather early to explain away the most recent Labour party briefing which recommended an energy tax. The hon. Lady's protestation that Labour had never contemplated value added tax on energy would carry more conviction if it were not the case that a Labour party document published in 1990, "Looking to the Future", stated: Proposals by the European Commission to remove the zero rating from Value Added Tax would impose new burdens on the poorest in our community. The House ought to take careful note of the next sentence: Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children's clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system. No mention there of VAT on energy or domestic fuel. I have no doubt that Labour's draftsmen chose their words very carefully—just as the hon. lady did this evening, in seeking to claim that suggestions for some form of energy tax, as proposed in Labour News recently, were part of a wider consultation exercise among constituency parties.

At least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up for this debate—unlike hon. Members of other parties.

Ms Short

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry that, at 2.30 in the morning, the hon. Gentleman repeats dishonest allegations made in the House by the Prime Minister. The Minister knows very well that an old Labour party document stating, "We don't support"—

Mr. Baldry

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady—

Ms Short

I am sorry, but the Minister did give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister has given way.

Ms Short

For the Minister to suggest that an old Labour party document saying that we did not propose the extension of VAT to items "such as" means that we were in favour of imposing it on domestic fuel is unreasonable and unworthy of him. The document to which the Minister referred is part of a consultation with party members as to their views on current EEC policy. May we please have an honest debate, not dishonest and misleading allegations?

Mr. Baldry

That was not worth giving way for, so I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady again. I have no doubt that in the run-up to the last general election Labour party draftsmen chose very carefully the words to appear in "Looking to the Future". However much the hon. Lady protests, she cannot disguise the fact that that document specifically excluded any reference to VAT on energy. She cannot deny that Labour's most recent consultation document recommends that party members should use Chris Smith's article to help you discuss the following questions: Economic Policy—In what ways can economic policy he developed to encourage environmental protection? You might consider Taxation Policy (e.g., energy tax…)". Most people would rely on a reasonable interpretation of those words, and most people can understand plain English.

As I said, at least the hon. Lady had the decency to turn up to explain her party's policies—unlike Liberal Democrat Members. I am sad about that, because I wanted to ask them a few questions. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) are in their places. Liberal Democrats have been scurrying around parts of the country saying how monstrous it is that we propose to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. That is surprising given that only recently the Liberal Democrats produced a paper entitled "Costing the Earth—Liberal Democrat Policies for an Environmentally Sustainable Economy". All good stuff, one might think. It states: Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrat candidate in Christchurch is explaining that to the local electors. The document goes on to say that The United Kingdom is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible", say the Liberals, to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nevertheless press forward, but phase them in at lower levels than otherwise—for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel. If a Liberal Democrat Member had bothered to turn up in the House this evening, I imagine that he or she would have sought to argue, as did the hon. Member for Ladywood, that that means something other than what it means in plain English. But in plain English, to end the zero rate of VAT on fuel means no more than that.

Mr. Dafis

Will the Minister address the suggestion that I made—that part of the proceeds from VAT, granted that that imposition is to be made, should be dedicated specifically to financing energy efficiency programmes?

Mr. Baldry

I noted the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I shall turn to it in a moment. First, however, I want to deal with the question of VAT generally and the policies of the Opposition parties towards it. The hon. Gentleman made his policy very clear.

The Liberal Democrats go on to say: we also recognise that the poorest income groups usually lack the capital required to invest in these items."— meaning energy efficiency appliances. Although we are clear that this problem must be addressed, we are equally clear that this must not" — the word "not" is in italics, so that we all clearly understand that the Liberal Democrats mean "not"— be achieved through granting exemptions to particular target groups; everyone must face the same incentives to use less and cleaner energy. The Liberal Democrats do not even intend, therefore, to mitigate the impact of their VAT proposals for fuel—

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry

No, I am not going to give way.

They do not intend to mitigate the impact of those proposals on the most vulnerable members of society.

Mr. Martlew

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry

No. The last time that I gave way to a Labour Member it was not worth doing so. I want to make some progress.

What is clear, therefore, is that the Liberal Democrats propose to introduce VAT on fuel and that they do not intend to grant exemptions even to the more vulnerable members of society. I hope that that is being explained throughout the country.

It should not, of course, come as a surprise to people in Dorset. As long ago as 1990, Liberal parliamentary candidates in Dorset made that clear. I have here the Dorset Evening Echo of 3 December 1990 in which the Liberal Democrat candidate for Dorset, South proposed that there should be VAT on domestic fuel.

I hope, therefore, that it is clearly appreciated that the Opposition parties would, if given the opportunity, impose VAT on fuel and that some of their protestations—

Mr. Martlew

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry

—are unwarranted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that the Labour party had no intention ever of so doing, he will simply repeat what his hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said. If he wants to make another point, I shall gladly give way to him.

Mr. Martlew

I am surprised that the Minister did not give way before, but we have to be grateful for small mercies at this time of night. Can the Minister tell me where it is said in the Conservative party manifesto that the Conservatives were going to put VAT on fuel?

Mr. Baldry

It did not say in the Conservative manifesto, in terms, that we were going to do that. However, the point that I am making is that the Opposition parties made it clear that they intended to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. It does not lie in their mouths to deny that, to oppose VAT on domestic fuel or to suggest that, if they had the opportunity, they would not have introduced VAT on fuel as an energy efficiency measure.

The Opposition parties make a suggestion and they simply attack it when the Government introduce the proposal. It would be more honest and straightforward if Opposition parties and Opposition candidates on the hustings made clear where they truly stand on such proposals.

I do not intend to take up much more time because I sense that the House would like to make progress. I should like to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North because he asked about energy policy.

The debate is timely because, in the past few days, the Government have published a consultation paper that sets out proposals for a national sustainable development strategy and proposals for completing the programme to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made those proposals clear in an announcement today.

Our sustainable development strategy will consider the state of the environment now and how it might change over the next 20 years on present trends. It will consider the way in which development in different areas of the economy can both harm and benefit the environment and ways in which we as individuals can promote the principles of sustainable development.

As I said, last week we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals on sustainable development. Indeed, we have led the field on sustainable development for several years by monitoring and reporting on our environmental policies. Since 1990, when we published our White Paper "This Common Inheritance", we have had an annual progress report on our environmental policies.

The key to our success has been in setting ourselves specific targets. Last year's report listed nearly 500 separate environmental commitments from Government Departments and other public bodies. We have already acted on the great majority of them and have committed ourselves to further action.

We have been at the forefront of international action to tackle the threat of climate change. We played a major part in brokering the framework convention on climate change in Rio last year, and we are committed to producing a national plan, setting out in full how we will meet our obligations under the convention by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced today our proposals for completing Britain's carbon dioxide programme. As no one referred to this earlier—perhaps because hon. Members had not realised that the Government had moved forward in that regard—let me briefly set out, for the benefit of the House, the elements of our proposals for completing our carbon dioxide programme.

We intend to strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office programmes of information and advice, to stimulate additional savings from industry, and to reinforce the work of the Energy Saving Trust to encourage households to use energy efficiently. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North called for that to happen, and it will happen through the Energy Saving Trust and we expect public sector bodies to provide a lead.

In addition, we intend further savings to be achieved in transport emissions and a further increase in the target for combined heat and power to 5,000 M W. That is a substantial increase. It may not be quite as much as the Combined Heat and Power Association would have liked, but it is a substantial move in that direction.

Earlier this year, we discussed widely our carbon dioxide programme. The issues that were discussed included the types of measures that the Government should take as part of the programme, and the role of other organisations and groups outside Government. Our view has been that an effective and efficient national carbon dioxide programme requires a partnership approach. We believe that our role is to provide the right fiscal, regulatory and financial framework for our programme to tackle carbon dioxide and to help to disseminate advice and information on the many actions that can be taken to achieve savings.

Decision makers in business and each and every one of us in our own homes throughout the country can take the action that will lead to lower emissions. We are looking to business groups, trade associations and voluntary and consumer groups to act as channels of information and encouragement.

Several measures have already been announced. They include those announced in the March Budget to increase the price of energy in domestic transport sectors, which I have already discussed, the establishment of the Energy Saving Trust to provide financial incentives to energy efficiency, and an increase in the objective for renewable energy. Taken together, those measures are expected to stimulate savings amounting to two thirds of our national target.

Last week my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy announced his proposals for further renewable energy orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation in pursuit of the new objective for renewable energy. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a trial of local energy advice centres being conducted by the Energy Saving Trust, with finance from the Energy Efficiency Office—again, a measure that I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and other hon. Members who are keen for energy efficiency to be promoted.

We have considered what additional measures should be taken to complete the programme. We have concluded that we should take further action to help business to make energy savings, so we shall strengthen the Energy Efficiency Office's programme of advice and information aimed at business, and we will discuss with business groups how to obtain the maximum response. Significant additional savings can be achieved in that sector. We recognise that public bodies should provide a lead, so we will be setting further targets for the Governments estate—that is, buildings in our control—which should take energy used by central Government down to well below 80 per cent. of 1990 levels by the year 2000, and looking to other public sector bodies to adopt similarly stringent targets.

We will also continue to provide information and encouragement to households to use energy efficiently, and we will increase the resources devoted to that, working with the Energy Saving Trust to reinforce the impact of the trust.

Concern has been expressed about the prospect of increasing transport emissions. We believe that it is reasonable to work towards further savings by the year 2000 over and above that which is expected to be saved as a result of the fuel duty increases that were announced in the March Budget. We also take the view that energy should be produced and delivered in a way that keeps carbon dioxide emissions at the lowest cost-effective level. consistent with our other environmental goals. That is primarily the responsibility of the energy industries. We will be working towards the achievement of 5,000 M W of combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000—an increase of 1,000 MW on our previous target.

The framework of our carbon dioxide programme is now in place. Many organisations have indicated their willingness to participate in the programme. We are substantially ahead of our international partners in meeting our programme for carbon dioxide emissions, and we look forward to their joining us so that, together, the international community can meet its obligations.

I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will consider the measures that we have already had in place for some time. For instance, I refer to the £60 million that we have been investing in the greenhouse demonstration programme; the best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office, which has been going on for many years; the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute, and which provides grants to help to provide basic insulation measures and advice to low-income households; the promotion of the take-up of home energy labelling; our consultations on proposals to strengthen provisions in the building regulations which set standards for the insulation of dwellings; and the setting up of the Energy Saving Trust, in partnership with British Gas and other energy providers to develop programmes designed to promote the efficient use of energy.

I hope that the House will accept that those measures, taken together, represent a comprehensive programme to promote energy efficiency in a manner that ensures that we can meet our international obligations and, at the same time, ensures our competitiveness.