Energy Conservation Bill

HC Deb 01 November 1994 vol 248 cc1356-415

Madam Speaker

I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.47 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)

I beg to move, That this House deplores the Government's action in blocking the Energy Conservation Bill which was introduced by the Right honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with support from all parties; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill itself in the coming session. After the large number of debates on the private Member's Bill, some hon. Members may wonder why the Liberal Democrats feel that the Energy Conservation Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is important enough to warrant a further debate today.

I shall start by addressing what the Bill calls for. It places a duty on local authorities to promote energy conservation and a requirement on them to carry out energy audits. That collection of information would show how resources could best be used to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.

The Bill is simple, practical and effective, yet the Government amendment today argues—if argues is a suitable word—that the proposals are deplorable, unnecessary and an example of what is apparently the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats". That is an extraordinary accusation from a Government who have certainly used deplorable tactics to block a Bill that has such widespread support across the parties—including Conservative Members.

For example, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said in a letter to the director of the Association of Conservation of Energy: I most certainly endorse the Bill…I will certainly encourage my colleagues to put their names to the EDM. That comes from the deputy chairman of the Conservative party.

The Government amendment is all the more extraordinary, given their own muddled approach to the Bill. A majority of the House—almost 400 Members—have declared their support for it, including the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). He chaired the Environment Select Committee when, in its fourth report, it concluded from its investigation into energy efficiency in buildings that present Government assistance—on energy conservation—through the home energy efficiency scheme, the green house programme, the housing investment programme and the establishment of the energy saving trust—welcome and worth while initiatives although they are—does not constitute a sufficiently comprehensive nor an adequately funded programme of action. Yet apparently the Minister will speak later tonight. in support of his Government's amendment.

Nor is support for the Bill apparent only in the House. It is backed at every level by every major environmental organisation, every major society that represents the elderly, people with disabilities and those on low incomes, and many others. More than 500 parish, town and community councils have declared support for the Bill. More than 160 local authorities have called for it. As they will be directed to act under the Bill, their support is both particularly welcome and particularly instructive. That support proves how important they feel the issue is. I might add that it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how many hundreds of letters the Department has received from parish, community and town councils across the country supporting the Bill.

In response to the Bill, the Government have argued that it is not necessary to place a statutory requirement on local authorities regarding energy conservation. Yet without that, the Bill would not ensure that local authorities acted. If we took out the statutory requirements, the Bill would simply give councils the power to do that which they already have the power to do. That would certainly be an example of ministerial muddled thinking.

The best local authorities may act anyway already, but action from only the best will not provide the national impact that the Bill is designed to achieve. In that context, it is certainly deplorable that, despite the huge support that the proposals for energy conservation received—almost 400 Members of Parliament supported it—the Government blocked it on Report and Third Reading. The introduction of 216 amendments and seven new clauses at that late stage meant that the time allocated to the Bill inevitably expired, and it was successfully talked out.

The Government's amendment today says that the Bill is unaffordable and that it would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government". That is ludicrous, as the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, who will sum up tonight for the Government, should know full well, given his previous unconditional support for the Bill. Ministers have said that to draw up energy conservation plans will be a costly process; that it will be money wasted on bureaucracy, not energy efficiency. That was the reason given by Ministers in the debate on Report when it was apparent that they had blocked the Bill. Yet that argument assumes that local authorities would be required to carry out a full energy audit for all dwellings. The Bill does not require that. It simply demands an audit of the best method of achieving energy savings.

The Government's accusation that the Bill would cost too much, and that between £11 million and £23 million would be required before energy savings were made is simply incorrect. That calculation is based on a costing carried out by two local authorities of the task of a full energy audit of every property. The Bill does not require that. It requires every local authority to identify the best and most cost-effective way of saving energy.

The Association for the Conservation of Energy asked the two local authorities to cost the full audit to show what the cost would be if that was the way in which a local authority chose to proceed. But the Bill does not say that an audit is the best way. Each local authority will decide the best methods to use in its area. That may differ between local authorities from Cornwall to Durham to Thanet.

Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how a local authority could introduce energy-saving measures for individual properties that have particular problems and require attention without investigating those properties?

Mr. Taylor

Many local authorities will know of building structures, such as blocks of flats erected during the 1960s, which are particularly energy-inefficient, and they may want to identify the level of that inefficiency and programmes to deal with it. The Bill asks them to look at the most cost-effective way to cut the energy bill. It does not require them to identify every property in one year, as that may not be an efficient way to go about this business. The aim of the Bill is that the best, most cost-effective and energy-efficient method is found and acted on to deliver energy savings of up to 30 per cent. I simply do not believe that every authority would engage in the process of looking at every individual dwelling.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position within the Liberal Democrat party.

Many of us read "Costing the Earth", the Liberal Democrats' 1991 policy document, which they now disown and say was not their policy. Some of us believed that there was a consensus in the House to introduce VAT on fuel—it was Liberal Democrat policy and the candidate who opposed me in the general election campaigned for it—so we were somewhat surprised at the Liberal Democrats' reversal in policy. Will the hon. Gentleman now give a commitment on behalf of his party that, if councils go ahead with that energy audit, even though they may not be obliged to do so under a Bill, the Liberal Democrats will then support councillors who decide to put up council house rents to pay for the energy-efficient measures being put into council houses?

Mr. Taylor

Under the Government's current rules on the ring fencing of councils' housing budgets, that investment would probably be required to be recouped from rents. However we expect people to benefit from energy-saving measures because they would cut their bills, including those increased by VAT on fuel. At this stage, I do not want to go too far into the Liberal Democrats' previous policy. Suffice it to say that we looked at the possibility of VAT on fuel, and the manifesto on which we fought the previous general election specifically ruled it out. To have looked at something and then decide that it was not a good idea strikes me as more honourable than to fight an election saying that one would not do something and then do it afterwards.

Ministers have defended their destruction of the Bill also on the ground that the proposals would force people to have energy conservation measures in their homes. They have obviously not read the Bill because not a word of it requires that. The Government seem intent on destroying the Bill for reasons of their own, not for the given reasons. At least their amendment today is unambiguous on the subject, in contrast to their previously stated partial support and practical opposition. Ministers' action in blocking the Bill on Report goes to the heart of our process of government. We have heard much recently of the sleaze that seems to have become commonplace within the Conservative party. The Government constantly tell us that the scandals within their ranks are being exaggerated by the media and Opposition and that our system of government is in safe hands. In my view, the sleaziest actions of the Government can be found not in the occasional financial scandal but in the systematic abuse of the House's procedures. Nothing is as sleazy as the Government's technique for blocking private Members' Bills. This parliamentary year, Ministers managed to block not only the Energy Conservation Bill but the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which both had majority support on both sides of the House and throughout the country.

So whom do the Government represent? Is it the people or the Treasury and self-interest? It left a sour taste to see the Government table more than 200 amendments after the Bill had passed through its Committee stage, in the sure knowledge that that would mean that the Bill could not proceed, despite the fact that it had the support of more than half the Members of the House. It leaves an even more sour taste to see former supporters of the Bill become loyal Government opponents of it as soon as they gain ministerial office.

Mr. Peter Butler (Milton Keynes, North-East)

As someone who has not gained ministerial office, I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to reply to one point. He makes a good point when he says that the Government were wrong to block the Bill on the ground that it would cost too much to insulate a lot of houses. I do not recall that from the debate at which I was present on 22 April. The hon. Gentleman was not present at that debate, but may have read the proceedings in Hansard. If that was why they blocked it, it would be a ridiculous basis on which to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite its enormous cost, the Bill's passage would not result in a single dwelling being insulated?

Mr. Taylor

I believe that it would result in that, but the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill is about considering the problem and identifying ways to overcome it, not requiring people to insulate their houses directly. It is a process of setting out the identification of the problem and the ways to tackle it. It would be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman asked the Ministers that question; they have repeatedly referred to the cost of the Bill as a reason for opposing it.

The Government believe that the tactics used to defeat the Energy Conservation Bill were acceptable—but they believe that they have taken adequate action to encourage energy efficiency. In fact, in spite of the Government's Helping The Earth Begins At Home campaign, energy use by the domestic sector is increasing. In 1993, total domestic energy use increased by 3 per cent. That trend continued in the first half of 1994, when domestic energy use increased by a further 6.2 per cent. on the first half of last year.

Furthermore, it is significant that, after several years of decline in the UK's energy ratio—the amount of primary energy needed to produce a unit of gross domestic product—it has begun to increase again. Since 1990, the actual energy intensity of the UK economy has steadily increased. Therefore, the increase in energy use cannot simply be attributed to economic growth. It is obvious from that that the Government's measures to improve energy efficiency are simply not delivering the goods. Not only has the energy ratio increased, but sales of energy-efficient goods continue to be below the 1989 figures.

The Energy Conservation Bill is simple, and will place a duty on local authorities to improve energy conservation. The Environment Select Committee emphasised the importance of real action to improve energy efficiency when it said: The UK is bound by international obligations concerning the global environment. It also has domestic responsibilities which require it to address both fuel poverty and ill health. We believe an integrated package of measures therefore needs to be co-ordinated between several Government Departments in order to turn convictions and commitments into action. Let me sum up why Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill is so important—socially, environmentally and economically. First, the social benefits of the Bill are obvious. Throughout the country, many homes are cold, damp and costly to heat. More than 7 million households cannot afford to heat their homes—homes occupied by elderly people, people with disabilities and people with low incomes. It is estimated that there are more than 40,000 deaths each winter as a result of inadequate heating. With the second-stage increase in VAT on fuel still to be introduced, action to tackle that could not be more immediately necessary.

The Energy Conservation Bill would help alleviate that misery among low-income groups. By insulating houses and improving heating systems, energy savings of as much as 30 per cent. can be made, and the Bill would help to identify the ways of doing so. However, the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, who will reply for the Government, knows that—he backed the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I am simply trying to understand what the Liberal party policy is on energy efficiency. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House unequivocally: does it or does it not support VAT on fuel? Also, as the hon. Gentleman is going into the Bill in such detail, will he tell us whether he has done any detailed costing as to what it would cost the country to implement?

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware by now that we have opposed VAT on fuel, and continue to do so. I hope that he will join us in opposing the second-stage increase in VAT that will come through—contrary to the platform on which he fought the previous general election.

I have already discussed costings. The Government have put forward figures at the highest possible end of the scale, in which every single property is identified. On the Government's figures, that would cost between £11 million and £23 million, on the basis of surveys. We have argued that that is not what the Bill requires. It will cost very little to implement the Bill. Some local authorities will be able to do it at almost no cost, using their existing personnel.

However, the key point is that, without the Bill, we cannot be serious about the concerted action that is needed, and we agree with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West in his previous incarnation off the Government Benches, and with the Select Committee, that it is the most sensible use of resources if we are to reach the Government's own targets, which patently, on the figures that I have given, we are failing to reach.

Secondly, the environmental benefits of the Bill should be obvious. The Bill is designed to help people conserve natural resources and reduce emissions of greenhouse and other gases. The domestic sector in the UK is responsible for nearly a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions. At a time when air pollution and its adverse effects on health are causing increasing concern, the Government should support a measure that will cut emissions.

Recent evidence suggests that the generation of electricity and the resulting emissions have contributed to the rise in asthma attacks in recent years. The number of people suffering from asthma has doubled—it now affects one child in seven, and 2,000 people die from it each year. The Bill would help to cut the emissions that are exacerbating such illnesses.

The Government have recognised those arguments and have pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the air to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Bill would reduce the amount of energy that people need to heat their homes and would help achieve the important goal that the Government are signally failing to achieve. The Government have identified improving energy efficiency as likely to be the most cost-effective means of limiting the environmental impact of UK energy consumption". That quotation is from the consultation paper "UK Strategy for Sustainable Development".

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed summed up the Bill's social and environmental benefits when he said: Energy conservation makes sense, whether one views it from the perspective of global warming or from that of pensioners struggling to keep warm."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1142.] The Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency who will be summing up for the Government knows that: he lobbied for the Bill.

In the economic context, at a time when so many people are unemployed, the Bill would help to promote economic regeneration by providing jobs and work for local businesses. The technology, equipment and materials already exist to make homes easier to heat at less cost. The companies exist to carry out the work and the unemployed are waiting for that work. The Minister knows that, too, and should not need telling. He was one of the original supporters of the Bill.

On 2 December last year, he said at the formal promotional launch of the Bill: I am very glad to support the Energy Conservation Bill. It is a measure that is long overdue. I shall urge my colleagues who have been successful in the ballot to adopt it and I shall urge the Government to support it. However, he need not feel too embarrassed, because the Government amendment does not reflect the recent position of some Ministers. As recently as Second Reading earlier this year, the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), expressed concern about some parts of the Bill, but said: The Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the very important issue of energy conservation. It also provides a useful opportunity for advancing energy efficiency in our housing."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.] He did not suggest that it was deplorable.

The question should be not whether the Bill is necessary, because clearly the overwhelming majority of hon. Members believe that it is: it has all-party support. The real question is how on earth the Government can table an amendment that not only contradicts the position that Ministers took earlier this year but flies in the face of the view that was advanced so strongly by the Minister who will reply to the debate. At no stage during my speech has the Minister sought to intervene to correct me, so I assume that he agrees that everything that I have said is correct. Perhaps more relevantly, he does not want to put his current position on the record and allow other hon. Members who speak in the debate to comment on it. That is a shame, and I look forward to his explanation—if he has one—for backing such an extraordinary amendment.

4.8 pm

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in the Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it. I am delighted that the subject of energy conservation has been raised. It provides an opportunity for a useful discussion on an important subject. Liberal Democrat Members obviously do not agree, because most of them are now leaving the Chamber. As this is the Liberal Democrat Supply day, one would have hoped that they would turn out in all the massive force that they can offer.

The debate gives me a chance to explain to the House the importance that the Government attach to energy efficiency, and the steps that we are taking to encourage it. We attach enormous importance to the efficient use of energy to run our homes and businesses. We aim to spread the message that energy efficiency makes sense when it saves money which can be used to develop businesses, improve homes and living standards and boost the economy.

There has already been significant progress. The United Kingdom economy has grown by about 25 per cent. since 1979, but it still uses roughly the same amount of energy. There is, however, always scope for cost-effective improvements, saving as much as 20 per cent. of current energy demand.

Cost-effectiveness is not the only reason why we continue to beat the energy efficiency drum. Energy efficiency helps to protect the environment by reducing the threat of climate change, and the framework convention on climate change, which was negotiated at the Earth summit in Rio, commits us to return our emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The convention was ratified in December 1993 and came into force in March.

We are determined to meet our commitments. Energy efficiency can help us to move towards sustainable development. It is our first priority for limiting carbon dioxide emissions, as it can also bring economic and social benefits.

Nearly half the savings we are seeking in the climate change programme are expected to come from reducing energy consumption in the home. Recent research shows that the average household may be wasting more than £100 a year on fuel bills—money which could be saved by implementing few cost-effective measures. The business and transport sectors are both expected to contribute a quarter of savings, and a tenth are expected to come from the public sector.

We have substantially increased our expenditure on energy efficiency. In 1994–95, that expenditure will increase to more than £100 million–17 times the level of expenditure in 1979–80. We are also providing a framework to encourage energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Office in my Department carries energy efficiency policy forward by promoting cost-effective energy efficiency in the workplace and the home, and strengthening environmental protection by reducing energy use.

There are four main planks to our efforts. We use publicity to ensure that everyone is aware of the importance of energy efficiency; we provide encouragement and technical advice to enable people to take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency programmes; where necessary, we provide financial incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures, and, where appropriate, we promote regulation.

We have a wide range of programmes to encourage improved energy efficiency, each one aimed at a specific audience. For example, we provide publicity through our new campaign, "Wasting energy costs the earth", which encourages energy efficiency in the home. Television adverts —with the dinosaurs Ron, Brenda and Billy—feature the Energy Saving Trust's energy-saving light bulb initiative. Funded by the regional electricity companies of England and Wales and lighting manufacturers, the initiative is expected to win sales of 1 million.

A nationwide tour by the Dino Dome road show, which is being sponsored by a number of leading manufacturers, will give further publicity to energy efficiency measures. It was launched in Oxford last week, and opens in Birmingham on Thursday 3 November. Manufacturers and retailers are synchronising their activities with our campaign, and I can announce today that we shall be holding another energy advice week next year as part of that campaign.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that the Energy Saving Trust, whose initiatives he has just commended and for which he has expressed support, has declared itself firmly in support of the Bill, and that its chairman has made a particular point of doing so.

Mr. Atkins

We also have a comprehensive package of measures to provide encouragement, information and advice to help people take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency.

We help building professionals and housing manufacturers in four main ways. Our best practice programme provides authoritative advice and information for professionals and managers on improving energy efficiency. It produces energy consumption guides to show energy users how their consumption compares with others, good practice guides and case studies describing good practice, and new practice case studies promoting novel measures.

Secondly, the "making a corporate commitment" campaign invites the chairmen and chief executives of companies and organisations to make a declaration of commitment to responsible energy management. It asks them to formulate, adopt and publish a corporate policy on energy efficiency, to increase awareness of energy efficiency among their staff and to set targets for improving their performance.

More than 1,750 organisations have signed up. The campaign has increased the willingness of two thirds of them to invest in energy efficiency. As that helps the bottom line of most companies in real terms, it is something that they willingly recognise and adopt.

Thirdly, the "green house" demonstration programme made £60 million available over three years to encourage local authorities to develop and apply energy efficiency strategies to their housing. To follow up on that, the Government have advised authorities to make energy efficiency a more explicit and integral part of their annual housing investment programme submissions.

Fourthly, a network of 11 regional energy efficiency officers promotes good environmental management and energy efficiency measures across the United Kingdom. They provide an independent source of advice that enables energy consumers to take action. They are able to signpost the Department's programmes and provide information on energy-efficient techniques and technologies.

Not content with all that, we are providing help for individuals—for example, by promoting home energy rating—

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)

Does the Minister accept that any fair energy tax would have to include a full tax on nuclear power to take account of the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal? Does he agree that that cost should fall on the present generation, and that future generations should not have to pick up the tab for our wastefulness?

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman takes me down byways that are not appropriate in this debate. Perhaps he would like to table yet more questions on this matter, which I shall endeavour to answer.

The home energy rating provides valuable information for owners and buyers on the energy efficiency of a property. We have established a uniform standard assessment procedure, and we are working with the mortgage lenders to incorporate home energy rating into their survey reports.

We are encouraging mortgage lenders to offer green loans to help people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We are encouraging voluntary appliance labels to give consumers a guide to the energy efficiency of the appliances they buy.

Where necessary, we provide financial incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures. The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for basic insulation measures and advice for low-income households. Since the scheme began in 1991, more than 800,000 homes have been treated. From 1 April, provision for the home energy efficiency scheme was almost doubled, and the scheme extended to those over 60 and disabled people.

The additional £35 million per year for the United Kingdom will provide grants for more than 200,000 extra households per year, bringing the total number of households receiving grants to almost half a million a year. It will reduce the fuel bills of recipients, save energy and help to fight the threat of global warming. It will also create about 1,500 jobs, boost a specialist sector of the construction industry and materials producers, and improve the housing stock. That is not a bad summary of the assistance being given by the Government. Some £69 million of my Department's estate action funds were spent on energy-related works in 1992£3.

Even in a deregulatory age, we encourage regulation where it is appropriate. For example, the regulations governing energy efficiency standards in new buildings in the United Kingdom have been tightened several times over the past 20 years. Revised regulations will come into force in July 1995. The new regulations include the provision of double glazing, improved insulation, better heating controls for the first time and the need to have a home energy rating. They should lead to an improvement in energy efficiency of 25 to 35 per cent. compared with the previous regulations.

We also practise what we preach. The Government are committed to a 15 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency for the Government estate over the five years to March 1996. The new headquarters for my Department will be one of the most energy-efficient buildings in London. It has been designed to make the most efficient use of energy, and it will have an economical and environmentally friendly combined heat and power system.

But we know that the task of achieving energy efficiency savings is not one which the Government can or should be expected to achieve on their own. We can set the framework, but others have the crucial part to play of encouraging energy efficiency in the home.

That is why we have worked with the gas and electricity industries to set up the Energy Saving Trust to develop and manage new programmes to promote the efficient use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. The trust has a major role in carrying forward the Government's climate change programme. Hon. Members will know from discussions within the House and elsewhere that arrangements for funding the trust are being reconsidered.

Mr. Llew Smith

Does the Minister understand that a full tax on nuclear power, in order to take into consideration decommissioning and waste disposal, would be a remarkable act of energy conservation, because we know that nuclear energy is the most ineffective and inefficient energy form known to man today?

Mr. Atkins

I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which is obsessed with putting yet more tax on everyone, but it is interesting that he is advocating such a tax at the same time as being opposed to VAT on fuel. He must make up his mind which side of the argument he is on.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's plan to educate people to insulate their own homes, if necessary by a contribution from their gas and electricity bills, is a much better way of approaching the subject than asking local authorities, which are not experts in energy efficiency, with all the bureaucracy and costs that that would involve, under the proposed Energy Conservation Bill?

Mr. Atkins

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a member of the Select Committee. He has taken a great deal of interest in these matters, and, as usual, as is often the case with Conservative Members, he has put his finger on the exact problems to which I shall refer later. He is of course quite right.

The Energy Saving Trust has made an excellent start and recruited a core of high-quality staff. Its successes so far include a scheme to encourage the sale of low-energy light bulbs to domestic customers, run in conjunction with industry, which has resulted in the sale of three quarters of a million low-energy light bulbs in eight weeks—about the same number as sold in the whole of 1992.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

The Minister referred a moment ago to the funding arrangements for the Energy Saving Trust having been worked out successfully. Will he elaborate on that, because the director of Ofgas has refused to levy the E factor on the bills, effectively undermining the trust's funding basis? Will that problem be solved?

Mr. Atkins

I did not say that we had resolved those difficulties; I said that they were being reconsidered. It is in the knowledge of the House and probably the hon. Gentleman that the electricity industry has already continued the funding to which it is committed. The matters relating to Ofgas in those discussions are still under consideration. The ball is firmly in Ms Spottiswoode's court at the moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will doubtless tell the House more about that, and in future, when the matters are resolved.

Another example of what the trust has achieved is an incentive scheme for gas condensing boilers, which has resulted in 3,000 rebates of £200 being claimed by owner-occupiers by the end of 1993. As a result—this is good for industry—new manufacturers and products have entered the marketplace. In addition, a residential combined heat and power scheme has been heavily over-subscribed in the first tranche, and a pilot of local energy advice centres for the domestic and small business sectors, partly funded by the Government, is proving successful.

The Government are also working closely with the European Union to improve domestic energy efficiency. A directive setting energy efficiency standards for central heating boilers came into effect on 1 January 1994. A directive on appliance labelling will introduce labelling for refrigerators, freezers and fridge-freezers by the end of 1994. We are pressing the Commission for action setting minimum energy efficiency standards for other appliances.

Local authorities also have a vital role to play. The energy bill for local authority housing comes to nearly £3 billion a year, so their efforts are crucial if we are to complete our energy efficiency programme.

Central and local government are already working very closely together through the Central and Local Government Forum to carry forward the energy efficiency campaign in local government. The local authority associations have endorsed and encouraged their members to adopt a target of reducing energy consumption in their non-housing buildings by 15 per cent. over a five-year period.

However, as well as energy efficiency on their own estates, local authorities can fulfil a valuable role in pulling together energy thinking in their areas. Industry, schools, further education institutions, commerce and, of course, householders, can all make contributions to energy efficiency, and can produce genuine savings towards our carbon targets.

Local authorities are in a good position to pull together and co-ordinate thinking in their areas, possibly through establishing targets whose achievements can be monitored. We do not believe that that needs to be a resource-intensive exercise; rather, it is one aspect of the functions that authorities should already be carrying out when ensuring that people are thinking ahead and looking for a sustainable future.

We are not complacent in any way about the programme of work, and we are continuing to adapt it to meet changing circumstances. In the future, we hope to use our efforts to emphasise the importance and the value of energy efficiency to all those with an interest. We will continue to work with the Energy Saving Trust to develop our dialogue with industry, and to work with the European Union.

Despite that substantial record and our enthusiasm for energy conservation, we have been concerned about proposals for legislation, which have been in the House this Session, and about a proposed Energy Conservation Bill, which has been widely circulated. We do not believe, for reasons which I think the House has dealt with over a long period, that legislation is the best way forward. We do not think that it will give us the best possible value for money.

First, we know that we must keep public expenditure under control if we are to sustain our hard-won economic recovery. The tight financial settlement for this and future years leaves no spare resources to fund new initiatives; nor is there scope to "absorb" new initiatives by doing other things at less cost. Any additional cost arising from new functions for local government would have to be found by offsetting savings elsewhere. In addition, as hon. Members know, we will not add to the burdens of local authorities unless it is unavoidable. We are concerned that the proposed new legislation on energy conservation will impose a further burden, which we believe to be unnecessary. Many local authorities are already doing a great deal to improve energy efficiency.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

Any party will understand the concern about expenditure, but given the Government's commitments to cut energy use and emissions in this country, and given the failure at present of policies to deliver that—energy use and energy inefficiency are rising rapidly at the present time — what new initiatives does the Minister believe will deliver this ground? If not the Bill, what about the very substantial list of proposals and recommendations that were made by the Select Committee?

Mr. Atkins

I have to say that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I happen to think that we are beginning to achieve success with energy efficiency, as I demonstrated with the figures with which I opened my speech, and the continuing programme, which, in many areas, has been doubled or even multiplied by a greater factor.

It is certainly the case with industry that, if we can make it understand—it is not proving to be as difficult as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe—that it is in its own financial and commercial interest, let alone the environmental interest of its own operation, to adapt and to adopt energy efficiency programmes, I am sure that we will continue to achieve success in that area, as we have in the past.

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although most local authorities are making a very strong effort on environmental measures, one of the authorities that is not is Tower Hamlets, which was recently criticised in The Guardian for failing to use recycled paper?

Mr. Atkins

Tower Hamlets, of course, is an authority which I seem to remember was controlled by the Liberals at one stage. They certainly had an active role in it. I should be interested to have more information about what Tower Hamlets has failed to achieve.

Mr. Heald

rose—

Mr. Atkins

Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.

Mr. Heald

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because The Guardian was not just criticising Tower Hamlets for not using recycled paper. Indeed, it said: it even ignores obvious cost-free gestures such as the use of lead-free petrol, CFC-free aerosols and recycled paper…it does not offer pooper-scoopers in parks.

Mr. Atkins

That strikes me as a record about which we ought to know more. Perhaps my hon. Friend could do some research and let us know the results; I am sure that we should be fascinated.

Some 250 local authorities have agreed to sign up to my Department's "making a corporate commitment" campaign. Many authorities—with the exception of Tower Hamlets—are also taking steps to improve domestic energy efficiency, and my Department encourages it. Local authorities already spend around a quarter of their council house repair and improvement budgets on energy-related work such as new heating systems. Better output can be obtained through the application of the lessons of my Department's green house programme.

The green house programme was launched in 1990 to establish a network of energy efficiency demonstration projects to show local authorities in England how the energy efficiency of council housing could be improved. Over three years, some 180 schemes in 130 local authorities have been undertaken; the results are very encouraging, with schemes achieving fuel cost reductions of up to 40 per cent. and carbon dioxide reductions of up to 50 per cent.

Last year, drawing on experiences gained from the green house programme, we asked local authorities to include energy efficiency as an integral part of their housing strategies and investment programmes. In June, we issued a guide called "Energy Efficiency in Council Housing" to help local authorities to obtain the best value from their resources: it provides useful guidance on how best to develop sound and fully integrated energy policies and programmes.

Similarly, we are keen to avoid unnecessary burdens on central Government, and, above all, unnecessary regulation. As we all know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is having a bonfire of unnecessary controls; we are determined not to introduce new controls as fast as the old ones are turned to ashes.

The Government are keen to encourage energy efficiency, and to do so efficiently. We must make the best possible use of limited resources, and we must not impose unnecessary regulation or burdens on others. In our view, the best way forward is for the Government to work in close partnership with local authorities, businesses, other organisations and individuals. That does not require new legislation, which would be time-consuming and costly to prepare and implement. We prefer to devote our efforts to getting on with the job.

Mr. Beith

The Minister said that it would be costly to prepare new legislation. Has he estimated the cost of preparing more than 200 amendments—a task carried out, quite unnecessarily, by parliamentary counsel in respect of the existing Bill?

Mr. Atkins

I beg to differ. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was associated with the Bill during its Committee stage; I made it clear then that I did not approve of the essence of what the Bill was trying to do in terms of costs and burdens, and that I would have to seek further advice on whether I should consider tabling amendments—which is, indeed, what happened. I make no apology for that. During the assessment of Government business, one uses officials to produce amendments so that they can be tabled; that is a perfectly legitimate stance, and one from which I do not in any sense resile.

Mr. Butler

My hon. Friend may recall that, in Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said: The Minister mentioned several matters that might need to be tackled on Report or in another place. I am willing for that to happen".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 10.] Does my hon. Friend recollect that, when the matter came before the House, the only accusation made was that we had tabled amendments in an attempt to wreck the legislation? There was no acceptance that those amendments were necessary.

Mr. Atkins

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. Hon. Members will not want to confuse the issue with the facts, but that is exactly what happened at the time, and exactly what resulted.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

The Minister said that he believed that the cost of the numerous amendments was appropriate. Can he explain—in the context of private Members' Bills, which are given limited time on the Floor of the House but can deal with detailed amendments in Committee—why he did not seek the amendments from his officials so that they could be tabled in Committee, but tabled them on the Floor of the House, where they would inevitably wreck the Bill? Will he also explain why hon. Members were seen to vote against their own amendments?

Mr. Atkins

I cannot speak for other hon. Members; I am speaking for the Government. It was clear at the time that we wanted to examine the Bill properly. We allowed it to go into Committee—that was a perfectly legitimate stance—and discussed the matter during what I recall was a particularly amenable Committee morning. I promised the Bill's promoter, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that I would consider the effects of what he was saying, and said that I would have to table amendments and clauses accordingly; and that is precisely what I did.

Mr. Dafis

I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that the Government had not had sufficient time to consider their attitude to the Bill months before it went into Committee. He knows very well that the Bill was the subject of discussion around the House; he also knows that I had a meeting with his predecessor to discuss it well before its Committee stage. The Government had plenty of time, but they failed—perhaps deliberately—to table amendments in time for the debate.

Of course it is clear that, during the Friday Report stage, there was a deliberate wrecking process. Everybody must understand that there were far more amendments than could possibly be debated. I remind the Minister that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed offered to accept some of the amendments, but the Government would not divide on them.

Mr. Atkins

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I reiterate that the position is clear. The Bill was considered in Committee; I said that there were concerns, and that I would table amendments. That is what I did. It is a perfectly legitimate stance. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has experience in these matters, and he knows that, if there are concerns about a Bill, there is a process for ensuring that it does not come to fruition. That is a legitimate stance that the Government have adopted and will doubtless adopt again, whichever party is in power.

It perturbs me and many of my colleagues that the Liberal Democrats appear to be all things to all people on all issues at all times. [Interruption.] My comment comes not from a central office brief but from experience as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament. Whichever doorstep they are on, they say what people want to hear. They say one thing in their documents, another in their election addresses, another thing here and another in the country. It is time that the canard was nailed.

I am led to believe that the Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of carbon taxes and taxes on energy. I believe that, in a document published some years ago, the Liberal Democrats said that, if it proved impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes … we will nevertheless press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate on VAT on fuel. I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) say that they were opposed to VAT on fuel. They cannot make up their minds whether or not they are in favour of carbon taxes and energy taxes.

It is time that we nailed this once and for all. We can no longer allow the Liberal Democrats to go around the country pretending to be against things because they discover that one or two people are against them, when they have said originally that they are in favour of them. This is a classic example, and I know that will be referred to during the debate by my hon. Friends and by my hon. Friend the Minister when he is winding up.

Our position is clear. The Government have a superb record on energy efficiency. We are continuing to devote resources and support to it, and we shall continue to take our case around the country to ensure that industry, local government and ordinary domestic users recognise the importance of this great issue. I urge the House to support our amendment.

4.37 pm

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on taking the opportunity for a further debate on this important Bill, about which, I am sure the House will understand, I feel a little proprietorial.

This debate needs to be seen in conjunction with last night's debate on transport. The issues spring from the imperative for radical action to protect the natural environment and, at the same time, to shift the emphasis of economic policy.

This is a radical issue because we are talking about shifting the emphasis of economic policy so as to give priority to social welfare, employment creation and the quality of life and not to the spurious and dated addiction to undifferentiated growth, measured by gross domestic product, which it has been assumed for many years is the way to consider things.

It is worth bearing in mind that Sir John Houghton, chairman of the royal commission whose report on road traffic appeared last week—he is a Welshman from Meirionnyddshire—is also chairman of one of the most important committees of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In the next few months, the IPCC will announce that the problem of global warming is every bit as serious—and probably more so—than earlier studies led us to believe. I am told that, when the report appears in about three months, it will confirm that stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 is an inadequate target. Whatever the Minister says, the United Kingdom is unlikely to meet even that hopelessly inadequate target. Without a significant change in policy, we shall fail, primarily because of an increase in road traffic and the inadequacy and disarray of the Government's programme on energy efficiency in homes.

The Energy Saving Trust has been mentioned. It is astonishing that a tussle is continuing between the Government and the director of Ofgas over the trust's funding. I have some sympathy with the principle that the director of Ofgas is advancing—that the E factor, just like the K factor in relation to water, is a regressive tax and that the trust should be funded more progressively. It is astonishing that the trust cannot carry forward its programmes because of the deficient way in which the privatisation of gas was conducted and because the director of Ofgas is particularly unco-operative.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

Would not one source of funding at least help—the windfall returns that companies receive from advance payment on bills, by which their customers avoided paying VAT? Companies attempted to argue that they had not made a profit out of that, but two companies have now broken ranks and acknowledged that they did make a profit and put money towards the trust. Is it not it time that the rest were a little more honest with the public and a little less worried about a windfall profit for their shareholders?

Mr. Dafis

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The way in which companies have been able to make use of advance warning of the imposition of VAT to make considerable savings from advance payments is almost an embarrassment. Of course, they should be ploughing a lot of those resources back into energy efficiency programmes to benefit people who need them in their homes.

We cannot begin to tackle the environmental crisis without the development of a radical policy for transport and domestic energy conservation. I have heard nothing in the debate tonight, and I heard little in the debate last night, as much as I heard of it, to suggest that the Government are considering radical development in those two policy areas.

For the reasons that I have already mentioned, this is a serious matter. It is serious, too, because thousands of people are suffering from fuel poverty, which will be intensified by the imposition of VAT. The compensation programme is welcome, but all hon. Members know that compensation is, inevitably, a blunt instrument.

We may assume that in many cases compensation will cancel out the effect of the increase to 17.5 per cent., but before it was introduced many people suffered from fuel poverty—a serious deprivation. Widespread sickness results from fuel poverty. It is caused by cold and damp in homes and by emissions of pollutants from the energy-generating process.

This is a serious matter because hundreds of thousands of unemployed people should, could and would love to be engaged in the sort of labour-intensive employment that is a part of energy efficiency schemes. We are talking of no less than a redirection of the productive resources of society to satisfy a crying social need. That should be fundamental to economic policy as well as to environmental and social policy.

It is clear, therefore, that we need a major programme. Perhaps in the course of debates on this subject we have emphasised the not too radical nature of the Bill to gain the Government's acceptance of it. It is now time for us to talk seriously about the matter. We need a major, United Kingdom-wide programme and a co-ordinated and concerted effort. It is not good enough to have a lot of disjointed and separate schemes.

The Bill's provisions are essential to make progress because, first, we must have meaningful targets. The target set for carbon dioxide emissions by 2000 is inadequate and does not deal with what will happen after 2000. We need targets for the reduction of energy use in homes.

Secondly, the Bill is essential because such an ambitious programme cannot be implemented without the active involvement of local authorities, whose housing and environmental health departments are uniquely placed to carry out the work. Conservative Members have suggested that local authorities do not need to be involved but there is no other organisation through which this matter can be properly and expeditiously dealt with.

Local authority housing and environmental health departments have the expertise, the knowledge, the staff and the ability to organise and to commission work. They provide the essential mechanisms without which the work will not be done. Unless they are statutorily required to carry out the programmes, many of them—more than likely, the majority of them—will not do it. The statutory requirement is essential.

There is no conflict between that proposal and the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the energy efficiency programme can be paid for by placing a levy of 2 or 3 per cent. on electricity and gas bills after a programme has been put in place. That is an acceptable method of funding. No contradiction exists between that proposal and those in the Bill, which provides the framework within which such a measure would operate.

Thirdly, the provisions of the Bill are essential because the gathering of information and the drawing up of plans are needed to ensure cost-efficiency.

Mr. Heald

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the cost of the scheme that he proposes would be about 3 per cent. of the annual energy bill? If so, is he saying 3 per cent. of £50 billion?

Mr. Dafis

I am not getting into that sort of issue. A Conservative Member suggested that the imposition of a levy on electricity or gas bills after the implementation of an energy efficiency programme in a home would be a sensible way of funding the scheme. Whether the levy is 2 per cent. or more, that is a reasonable way of funding it. Savings in bills would amount to 10, 20, or 30 per cent., although some people have suggested that they would amount to even more. An additional levy, therefore, would be more than compensated for by savings in bills.

The gathering of information and the drawing up of plans are essential to ensure the cost-efficiency of the programme. Without that basic requirement, such activity could be wasteful, inefficient and hit or miss. The Government and Conservative Members are taking their suspicion of local authorities, bureaucracy and planning to ridiculous lengths. There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy in itself. Of course, we need bureaucrats and people to plan and to ensure that schemes are carried out in an organised way with foresight and understanding. The Government's objections to the Bill are nonsense and always have been. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. This is not a side issue but one of major importance. The Bill is simply common sense.

I shall cite Lord Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust, which the Government claim is one of the main instruments necessary to deliver energy efficiency programmes. He said: The Trust strongly supports the primary aim of the Bill which is to place an obligation on all district and borough councils to create an energy use profile of the dwellings within their area … This information will be invaluable for all organisations attempting to target energy efficiency programmes … The Trust also support the second objective of the Bill which is to place an obligation on the relevant local authorities to draw up an Energy Conservation Plan for their locality, setting out what works would be required in order to achieve a minimum amount of energy savings. They are the words of one of the people who is supposed really to understand energy conservation.

Mr. Butler

The problem is that the hon. Gentleman wishes to set targets and draw up plans, but that costs a great deal of money, which will then not be available for insulation or other energy efficiency work. Does he recall that in Committee, in answer to a question about whether people would be required to install double glazing, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said: The Bill does not contain a requirement but it calls on local authorities to set out what could be achieved by certain levels of energy conservation. No one is required to achieve those levels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 25.] In other words, the Bill would not require anyone to do anything to aid energy saving. That is not nonsense but a fundamental objection.

Mr. Dafis

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that individual householders should be compelled to carry out energy efficiency work. That was one of the spurious objections raised by Conservative Members in previous debates. The most recent version of the Bill makes it clear that there will be no compulsion to participate. It is clear that there would be no need for it. Of course, some eccentrics might say that they do not want their homes improved even though energy efficiency schemes would save money and provide extra warmth and comfort. There is no element of compulsion in the Bill, and neither should there be. The hon. Gentleman should understand the need for organisation and planning and for local authorities to be able to see the whole picture to make the most efficient use of resources and prioritise the types of property that need energy efficiency programmes first.

Mr. Butler

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill in its latest form, but the motion that we are debating refers to the previous form. If we are dealing with the revised Bill, I would greatly appreciate a copy before I make a speech—or are we dealing with the original Bill? I apologise for asking, but the motion refers to the previous Bill.

Mr. Dafis

The hon. Gentleman should know that the Bill has been revised several times and the part to which I was referring states: for the avoidance of doubt … nothing in this Act shall be taken as … conferring any power of entry"— Conservatives spoke of authorities having power of entry into individual properties but we have clarified that point— on any energy conservation authority to compel any other person to carry out any works or repairs on any property. I stress that there is no compulsion in the Bill although the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there should be.

I have already quoted Lord Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust. This is a common-sense Bill, which is why he supported it and why it has been supported by so many Conservative Members. It was endorsed for the same reason by the then Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)—which produced an excellent report. His words have already been cited so I shall not repeat them, but I was there when he uttered his historic words. He climbed on a chair in the Jubilee Room, where I was hosting a reception, and declaimed with great enthusiasm his support for the Bill and said that he would be urging the Government to proceed with it.

An extraordinarily impressive array of organisations that work for energy efficiency, which know about fuel poverty and which understand the social and economic agendas, have studied the Bill and support it. Sir Crispin Tickell, the special adviser to the Government on sustainable development, is on record as supporting it. Some hon. Members may recall that, on Third Reading, I asked the then Minister to tell us whether he had been informed of Sir Crispin Tickell's position, and his reply was ambiguous.

Now, however, Sir Crispin Tickell's letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment is available to us. He wrote: As a veteran non-signer of manifestos or round robins, I am reluctant to bother you on a specific cause. I only do so because I believe that the nature of the Energy Conservation Bill is critical to the success of the work which you and the Government generally have been doing to bring the environment into decision making, and make energy efficiency and conservation a central element in energy policy. What remains to be said about the importance of the group that he chairs and which offers advice to the Government on how to create a sustainable development strategy? If energy efficiency in the domestic sector is not one of the first steps in moving towards sustainable development, I do not know what is. Sir Crispin Tickell understands the significance of that.

I should be surprised if Sir Crispin Tickell did not understand that he was, in fact, writing to the wrong Minister. He assumed that he needed to persuade the Department of the Environment, but we all know that the objections to the Bill come from elsewhere. The crux of the matter is that the objections come not from the Department of the Environment but from the Treasury, which has probably not even heard of sustainable development. The Treasury's interest is in deregulation and, especially these days, in the selling off of PowerGen and National Power. That is what lies behind the present agenda. Is it not shameful that we allow such considerations to drive policy?

On Second Reading, I read out a list of Tory Members who were on record as supporting the Bill. Their names are listed in Hansard. The disgraceful blocking tactics—the Minister has now admitted that they were blocking tactics—adopted on Second Reading, led by the people whom I called the abominable seven, meant that those Tory Members did not have to vote or take sides. What are they going to do tonight? Will they support the Government? Will they support the amendment to the motion that deplores a Bill that they endorsed and that they promised their constituents they would support? Will they vote against the motion? If so, what of their undertakings to their constituents and their political integrity? If they betray the trust that their constituents have placed in them, they will have to pay a heavy price, and we know how it will be paid.

The Government must support the Bill in some shape or form or—we would be satisfied with this—they must make their own equally effective proposals. Perhaps that is what the Government have in mind, and perhaps the Minister will tell us about them when he replies. If the Government have their own proposals, they must encompass the provisions of this Bill to be effective. However, if the Government are not prepared to accept the Bill or offer their own equally effective proposals, they will be seen not only as perfidious—I believe that "perfidy" is a better word than "sleaze"—but as irresponsible, as having only short-term considerations, and as rapidly going crackers.

4.58 pm

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I hesitate to do so in my first contribution to such a debate as the newly elected Chairman of the Environment Select Committee. However, I distinctly heard my hon. Friend say in his closing remarks that the Liberal Democrats had to make up their minds on the issue. He indulges them by crediting them with an intellectual eminence that an objective observer would find quite unjustified. Clearly, to make up one's mind one has to have a mind in the first place.

In 1991, domestic, public and commercial buildings accounted for 43 per cent. of final energy demand in the United Kingdom, contributing half the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide. Noting that fact led the Select Committee to produce, in 1993, a focused report on energy efficiency in buildings. That report has already been mentioned. When it was published, the then Chairman of the Select Committee—now the Under-Secretary of State responsible for energy efficiency—expressed concern that so little progress had been made in implementing energy efficiency since the Energy Select Committee's report on the same subject in 1991.

The Committee's inquiry was undertaken between May and July 1993; 20 groups of witnesses appeared before it, and more than 100 pieces of written evidence were received. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee visited Newcastle and Glasgow to see the work of the agencies involved in improving energy efficiency in housing occupied by low-income groups. We also visited the United States, to learn about the American experience of least-cost planning and demand-side management.

Our report was well received, and the Government's response was positive in tone, even if not all the Committee's recommendations were accepted in full. Since the inquiry proper, the Committee has continued to pursue the subject of the attitude of the Director General of Gas Supply to the funding of energy-saving measures. I shall say more about that later.

I especially commend the Department for its advertising campaign based on the slogan, "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth". More than 25 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from energy used in the home.

Energy conservation and energy efficiency are not the same thing. It is possible to conserve energy and yet continue to use it inefficiently. It is also possible to improve the efficiency with which energy is used, but also to use more of it. The Committee saw a classic example of the latter phenomenon in the United States, where consumers were encouraged by Government-sponsored money-off offers to buy super energy-efficient refrigerators. The problem was that the Americans bought the fridges but kept their old fridges, too, to store their beer. The net result was an increase in energy consumption.

We discovered that even when there was an attempt to collect up the old fridges as part of the bonus scheme that went with the purchase of more energy-efficient fridges, the old fridges were sold on to low-income groups, usually Hispanic, who could least afford their high energy consumption and running costs. We were told of another similar system—an attempt to take gas-guzzling cars off the road—and those, too, were sold on to low-income groups.

In taking evidence in America—in California, in fact—the Minister himself, when he was Chairman of the Select Committee, observed that there was not a clothesline to be found. Apparently every American housewife uses a tumbledrier—although it is true that much work has been done on producing more energy-efficient tumbledriers. When my hon. Friend inquired why there were no clotheslines in that beautiful sunny climate—incidentally, the peak energy demand there is in summer, because of air conditioning, not in winter as in our climate—he was told that any alteration would interfere with the American way of life, and people's right to decide how to live their own lives. Tumbledriers were apparently part of the American experience; clearly, clotheslines were out. After my hon. Friend made that point, we all carefully looked out of the bus windows wherever we went, but I do not believe that we spotted a clothesline the whole time that we were there.

Having sounded that note of caution, I must add that the Committee found that most measures to encourage energy efficiency lead to reductions in energy consumption, and its recommendations were formulated accordingly.

Some of the least energy-efficient buildings are the houses lived in by those least able to pay high fuel and power bills. In Glasgow the Committee saw how improvements to 1960s tenement blocks could achieve dramatic savings in fuel bills. We therefore called for the Government's excellent home energy efficiency scheme—or HEES—to be extended, and for investment in such measures to be increased. The Government duly obliged, doubling the provision for HEES in the Budget.

We noted that the imposition of VAT on fuel was welcomed by Friends of the Earth. I cannot lay my hands on the precise part of the evidence, but I recollect that the witness from Friends of the Earth said that he thought that the VAT would be a kick in the pants for energy efficiency.

As for new housing, the Committee supported the greater use of home energy labels, and suggested that mortgage lenders could take the energy efficiency rating of a house into account in their calculations, because lower fuel bills should enable buyers to make higher mortgage repayments, and would also enhance resale value. In their response, the Government said that officials were in discussion with mortgage lenders on that and related subjects; so perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will tell the House about the outcome of those discussions.

On keeping the Government's own house in order, the news is not at all good. Although some Departments have succeeded in reducing energy consumption and bills, others have had less success. The Department's response said that the Energy Efficiency Office was pressing strongly for greater energy efficiency on the Government estate". The Minister has told us that the new Department of the Environment building will be energy-efficient, and will incorporate a combined heat and power unit. The Select Committee welcomes that news. However, what the Government say about the EEO makes it sound as though it may be meeting some resistance. Wasting energy makes no sense from an environmental point of view, and in terms of public expenditure too, it is nonsense.

The Department of the Environment needs to get tough with other Departments, especially the Ministry of Defence, which did not even know how much energy it was using, let alone how much it was wasting. The new Minister responsible for energy efficiency is just the man to get tough, and to tell Sir Humphrey to switch that light out. Indeed, we read in the papers this week that Sir Robin Butler's replacement may come from the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to the Cabinet a beauty contest for that post, on the basis of energy efficiency, so that the senior civil servant who has reduced the Government's energy costs most will be appointed as the new Cabinet Secretary. Who knows?

The Government must look ahead and develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions beyond the year 2000. The Committee was somewhat astonished that, despite all the commitments that they had rightly entered into, the Government had failed to map out how they intended to achieve the necessary further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the next century. The Committee found the Government's attitude somewhat complacent. I am sure that the new Minister has brought some fresh ideas with him to the Dispatch Box, and that he will share them with us later.

Setting up the Energy Saving Trust was supposed to be a key part of the Government's strategy for energy efficiency, and for meeting the national target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, as the Select Committee has said before, that work has been stymied by the actions of the gas and electricity regulators. Unfortunately, the trust has been unable to raise the £1.5 billion that it is generally agreed that it needs to achieve the targets that the Government have set for it.

That is not completely a problem of the trust's own making. It was always envisaged that the money would come from the producers, suppliers and consumers of the energy that needed to be saved. Unfortunately, the electricity regulator has agreed to raise less than one tenth of the sum required, and the new Director General of Gas Supply has so far adopted an unhelpful and even hostile approach towards the trust.

The Committee, under the chairmanship of the Minister, twice summoned Ms Spottiswoode to justify her failure to allow the trust's schemes to go ahead, and twice she failed to convince the Committee that she was right. She came with a remarkable set of preconceived ideas and I likened her to Boadicea in the way in which she gave evidence and, at times, contradicted herself. Has she convinced the Government? How do Ministers intend to resolve the question of the funding of the Energy Saving Trust, and whether the gas regulator will henceforth be playing a full and positive role in that process?

It is estimated that it will cost at least £1. 5 billion to meet the target of reducing carbon dioxide production by 2.5 million tonnes by the year 2000. In July 1993 the Office of Electricity Regulation agreed to £100 million over four years under the supply price control, but Professor Littlechild rejected doing anything similar under the distribution price control which he announced in August.

The EST submitted proposals to Ofgas in July for a £25 million a year package. Ms Spottiswoode has not yet responded, but she looks unlikely to agree to most of the package. Ofgas promised to publish a paper setting out its approach to energy efficiency and the E factor. This was originally scheduled for July, but it has yet to be published, although I understand that the Departments have seen a draft.

Since April, John Hobson—director general of the Energy Efficiency Office—has been chairing an interdepartmental group of officials which is supposed to be working on alternative funding options for the EST. So far, the group has met infrequently and seems to have made little progress. With a gas Bill now looking increasingly likely in the Queen's Speech, there would be an opportunity to introduce some form of levy on gas suppliers to fund energy efficiency, although that would not address electricity. However, another suggestion has been that the Government could change the non-fossil fuel obligation—a 10 per cent. levy on all electricity customers, which goes mainly to support nuclear power, with some money for renewables—to enable some of the money raised to fund energy efficiency. Which—if any—of those options are the Government seriously exploring to secure the trust's future?

As for the environmental duties of the regulators, the Select Committee recommended that the Government place stronger duties on Ofgas and Offer to protect the environment and ensure that the energy sector makes the fullest possible contribution to meeting the UK's commitment to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The Government told the Committee that they could review the duties and powers of Ofgas and Offer if necessary, and the Government should be giving further consideration to that for several reasons.

First, the EST looks unlikely to make a contribution to the year 2000 target. Secondly, opening up the gas and electricity markets to full competition will have far-reaching effects on energy supply and use, which could have an environmental implication. Thirdly, the Government will soon have to consider targets beyond the year 2000.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) commenced the debate by praying in aid the support of parish and town councils. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been. He has certainly not been visiting the grass roots of the parish and town councils in his own constituency, because they are among the worst offenders with regard to energy conservation. The councils either meet in a village hall which has all of the warm welcome of a deep freeze and more draughts than a log cabin, or they sit in their shirtsleeves in a sort of civic sauna.

We heard strictures from the hon. Gentleman about emissions and pollution in the atmosphere. The Liberal Democrat party accepted from the British School of Motoring one of the largest contributions to a political party ever made. That organisation has probably put more people on to the roads of Britain than any other, which shows up that party's hypocrisy in the debate.

5.13 pm

Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

In following the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I must say that I rarely find myself having any sympathy with anything said by Conservative Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman made some useful points today, and the Minister will have to rise to the challenge when he tries to respond to the pertinent points made by his hon. Friend.

I come to this debate in support of the motion standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his colleagues, and to deplore the amendment tabled by the Government. The latter is yet another attempt by cynical Ministers to claim exaggerated green credentials for minimalist programmes.

The efficient use of energy requires a degree of strategic thinking and planning that is entirely at odds with the Government's philosophy. While today's debate is quite properly concerned with the domestic sector, we must remind ourselves that considerations of energy conservation and efficiency begin a lot earlier than the electric switch or the gas tap in the home.

The Government have no strategic view beyond market forces. They have squandered the resource of North sea oil, abandoned our coal reserves and failed to set targets for individual energy sectors. They have no strategy for heat conservation at the source of generation, and they have signally failed to demonstrate any real commitment to renewable energy sources.

Combined heat and power is a case in point. Most power stations are only around 34 per cent. efficient, while combined heat and power systems are at least 80 per cent. efficient. The Government have—on environmental grounds, they tell us—set a target to more than double the use of CHP, but they have not spelled out how that will be achieved. The Combined Heat and Power Association states in a briefing produced for today's debate: CHP can work either in a regulated market—or a free market—but not one in which the energy regulators and the DTI are all pulling in different directions. Privatisation of the utilities has made energy efficiency much more difficult. The maximisation of profits by maximising sales clearly undermines any energy efficiency objective. The framework of regulation militates against strategic planning and, as we have seen recently, the regulators on their own account may decide not to accept responsibility for energy efficiency.

In the Labour party, we believe that energy efficiency is one of the most important goals of public policy. We propose a national programme of energy efficiency works, with the linked objectives of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and generating substantial amounts of long-term employment. In line with that policy, my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), and a great many Opposition Back Benchers, supported the private Member's Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) at all stages in this House. We join the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) in thoroughly deploring the way in which Ministers destroyed that Bill. It was a modest, but important, measure providing a mechanism for producing an audit of energy needs area by area around the country, and developing a schedule of work which could be carried out to meet those needs. The Government's tawdry tactics in defeating that Bill fly in the face of common sense.

Let me say why the Labour party supports energy efficiency measures. First, there is the scale of the problem. Some £10 billion-worth of energy is wasted every year. There is also the impact on the environment, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. Power stations are major contributors to the production of greenhouse gases, and without a much more comprehensive energy efficiency programme Britain is unlikely to make her proper contribution to the Rio objectives.

In that context, it is salutary to note that the United Kingdom accounts for 3 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, but only 1 per cent. of the world's population. Furthermore, our production of carbon dioxide actually increased in 1991 and 1992 and, although I acknowledge that it did decrease in 1993, we are not fully confident that the Government will meet their targets. Energy efficiency offers one of the best options, not just for stabilising but for reducing carbon dioxide production. Yet I am told—my figures are entirely at odds with the Minister's, so I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will give me some further advice on the subject—that investment in energy efficiency declined in the United Kingdom by 28 per cent. between 1989 and 1992.

As significant as the environmental case for energy efficiency are the compelling social reasons for it. Simply, people ought to be able to afford to keep their homes warm, dry and comfortable. As others have said in previous debates, an estimated 7 million British households live in circumstances in which they cannot heat even one room to the minimum standard recommended by the World Health Organisation.

It is well known and accepted that those who spend the longest periods at home, particularly when sedentary, require the most heat. Yet pensioners, people with disabilities and mothers with young children, who are all more at home than most, include most of the poorest households. Fuel poverty is a national disgrace. Yet rather than seek a thorough programme of assistance to poorer households, the Government impose the burden of value added tax on fuel. Then they have the audacity to call it a necessary measure to meet the target reductions agreed at Rio. Allowing elderly people to freeze to death is hardly a strategy that commends itself to environmentalists.

The provisions of the Energy Conservation Bill provide the basis of a proper audit of needs, a proper system of planning and proper assessment of priorities. Few Members of Parliament can have undertaken winter surgeries without having constituents, particularly the elderly, complain that they cannot heat their homes. Cost is always a major concern, but so, too, are structural deficiencies, gaps in windows and doors, the leaking roof, the cold corner flat in the concrete block and the frustration of using inadequate heating that then leads to condensation and mould growth. It is estimated that 3 million homes suffer from the latter.

It is surely obvious how many worthwhile jobs could be created by attending to the vital need to improve people's ability to keep warm. In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to several studies of the job creation potential of energy efficiency work in Britain. A broad average showed that, for each £20 million of expenditure per year, about 1,000 new jobs could be created. Then the Government tell us that it is too expensive.

In brief, we could help to conserve our environment, keep people warm, reduce heating costs and create worthwhile jobs. The Government claim to share the same objectives, but their schemes are piecemeal—soon started and soon ended. Schemes come and go. The Minister has already mentioned some of them, including the green house programme. Funding was £45 million last year, £5 million this year and is then to end. There has been an increase in funding for the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the Minister also referred. Of course it is welcome, but there are limitations on the types of insulation that can be undertaken under the scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the funding is to be maintained, or even increased. Even with the current level of funding, it will take two decades to insulate only the low-income households in Britain.

Then there is the Energy Saving Trust. I am surprised that the Minister was able to bring this to mention, given the chaos that exists. The trust was trumpeted as the Government's energy conservation flagship, central to their strategy to achieve their international climate change commitments, but already the trust has said that it doubts its ability to meet the targets set for it.

Clearly, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the trust does not have anything like the resources required to do the job for which it was set up. I believe that it needs £300 million to £400 million a year. It has only £25 million. We are not impressed by the actuality of Government programmes. They give plenty of advice but far too little investment.

Local authorities, by contrast, have done very significant things on very limited resources. In earlier debates my hon. Friends have paid tribute—and I do so again today—to the excellent work of Leicester city council, which has filled cavity walls in almost 13,000 council homes and achieved cost savings of 50 per cent. That council is conducting an energy survey of all its council housing stock.

Newcastle has carried out a project, with the European Commission, British Gas, Northern Electric and British Coal, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the city by the year 2000. Nottinghamshire county council has had a programme of energy conservation work in its buildings for 14 years.

I want to add to those examples my borough of Lewisham. It is a poor borough that has often had great needs to meet in many areas of its work. Yet it has shown considerable imagination in trying to bring better services to its residents. Lewisham has carried out energy surveys of most of its local authority buildings to identify the scope for investment in energy saving techniques. Before the introduction of local management of schools, all schools were surveyed.

Lewisham has recently installed new boilers in schools and other buildings, creating new savings. Energy management systems and boiler controls have led to further reductions. Improvement of the insulation within council housing stock is also an aim, and Lewisham has used money allocated through the housing investment programme to undertake insulation measures on council stock. In addition, the council has undertaken an energy audit of all its housing stock to set a benchmark for improving the energy efficiency of the stock in the future.

Mr. Butler

Does not the fact that those councils have undertaken energy efficiency work demonstrate—more effectively than any Conservative Member could do by merely declaiming it—the fact that the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is unnecessary? Councils can do it now if, as we are told, they want to do it.

Ms Ruddock

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that councils can do it now, and some of them do, but they do so with great difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, most councils in Britain have programmes that are desirable and wished for by their residents, but which they cannot undertake for lack of resources due to Government cuts and restraints on local authority spending.

Mr. Butler

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Ruddock

Let me continue.

We fear that only a minority of local authorities have undertaken energy audits. Most of the councils whose records the Government have applauded and mentioned in debates are Labour local authorities. We applaud those which do the work voluntarily, but if we are to have a nationwide scheme, which is what we need, a nationwide audit and a basis on which to bring homes up to standard nationwide, every local authority must undertake that work—and that will require legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones)

I must correct the hon. Lady. It is not a minority of local authorities that act in this way. It is a huge majority. Even those which are not quite that far down the road have plans to take action in the near future. It is not simply a question of Labour, Conservative, Liberal or hung authorities. It is authorities of all political persuasions. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in paying tribute to the efforts that they have made.

Ms Ruddock

The Minister is aware that I have just paid fulsome tribute to the efforts that have been made. We may have a debate about this, though probably not in this House. But we should be interested to see the list of those who have been carrying out audits that are in line with the proposals in the Bill that the Government defeated. It seems odd that the Government should have defeated a Bill when it is so easy and desirable to carry out the Bill's proposals and when the Government support those proposals. Why, then, did they choose to defeat the Bill? What the Minister said simply does not add up, and this debate will be pursued.

Mr. Butler

If something can be done and is increasingly being done, why set up an enormously expensive bureaucracy, with further public moneys going towards it, to achieve nothing extra?

Ms Ruddock

There is no evidence whatever that it will be an enormous and costly bureaucracy. I repeat that, if those measures are so desirable and efficacious, it makes sense that all authorities should have a duty placed on them to undertake that work. We all know that, when the work is undertaken, the savings are considerable. In this year alone, the small programme that my local authority of Lewisham has been able to institute against all the odds is reckoned to save £600,000 in that area alone.

We are certain that much more could be done and that, if the Government were really committed to energy efficiency, they would have supported the Energy Conservation Bill. Labour has a comprehensive programme of energy conservation and efficiency, but today I simply emphasise our support for a proper national programme of energy conservation work in people's homes. The work could be carried out free at the point of installation, but funded over a period by a small premium on the unit price of gas and electricity. People would still be better off, because they would save substantially on their energy bills. In short, people would be warmer, the housing stock would be improved, and jobs would be created—not a bad package, as the Minister would say.

I shall support the motion today and I have no doubt that, if the Government do not change their attitude and should the opportunity arise through success in private Members' ballots, someone on the Opposition side of the House will be back to press the Government again and again on this vital issue of energy conservation in people's homes.

5.31 pm

Mr. Peter Butler (Milton Keynes, North-East)

The closing remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) remind me of the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on an earlier occasion, when he said that this debate would not go away, and that, if the Government were still in power in November—he seemed to doubt it—the Bill would be put back before the House. Although the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber now, I hope that he will accept that we will still be in power in November and that, if the Bill returns, it will again fail to meet approval. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I have been practising the pronunciation of "Ceredigion" since the last occasion, when I took advantage of the Official Reporters' skill and referred to him as "the Member for Wales" throughout the debate, which they then corrected in the Official Report. Even in his absence, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do the same again today.

May I start with agreement, especially as we are unlikely to end the debate with it? We all agree that action is needed to secure better use of less energy, not just in homes or offices, be they Government or private, but throughout all the sectors in our society where energy is consumed. I agree with the need for action but not with the need for the Bill, which forms the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats.

Subsequent to the last debate on this matter, I met the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to try to seek common ground. We found quite a lot of common ground, but not enough. When this Bill was last debated, I also took the opportunity to come out in public as having for some time been a member of an organisation known as Friends of the Earth, and to compliment it on some of the excellent publications that it has produced over the years, and the stalwart, ground-breaking work that it has done in looking at problems, including energy conservation. I said that I regretted, however, that, when it strays into party politics, for some inexplicable reason it seems to come down on the wrong side.

Having agreed the need for energy efficiency, we must be clear what we mean by it. We do not mean being able to turn up thermostats and heat houses at an unnecessarily higher level for the same cost. It is certainly not meant in the sense in which one often hears it: "My heating system is efficient," implying that it heats the house to a high temperature. We mean using less energy to achieve the necessary levels of heat. We should be clear about that. In my experience—for instance, in the Palace of Westminster—many rooms are heated to a ridiculous temperature. That is not energy efficiency but simply waste.

Wasting less energy is the other part of energy efficiency. We must use less and waste less. Many of us live in houses where the best we can hope to do is heat the wind as it passes through. Clearly, in such homes, draught-proofing or, in the more extreme cases that we often find in north Buckinghamshire, wind-proofing is the most effective form of energy saving, and is far better than merely adding more heat.

We should therefore be clear that often in this debate we are discussing relatively low technology. We are talking about draft excluders, bits of plastic and rubber nailed to doors, and straightforward secondary double glazing, not exclusively about high technology boilers or the replacement of complete systems.

As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as you are, I hope, familiar with it—my constituency is in Milton Keynes, which, proudly and incontrovertibly, can boast that it is Britain's greenest city. After the last debate on this Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside opened a materials recycling facility that has so far cost some £6 million. He opened it extremely effectively, and I invite those who have not yet visited the facility to do so, especially the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North.

The waste stream comes into that facility, directly collected from individual houses. I am involved in the audit with some companies to see whether we can involve them as well. The waste is collected from houses in the borough and is then sorted, partly by hand, partly by magnetism and partly by some astonishing system that rejects certain types of plastic and separates them from others.

Next week, the Minister will address a conference in London about what comes out at the end of the waste stream. Opposition Members in particular may feel that it is entirely appropriate that a Minister of the Crown should address a conference about what happens at the end of the waste stream. At that conference, a paper will be delivered by an officer of Milton Keynes borough council. I hope that the Minister will be able to stay to hear that. He will talk about the excellent recovery of energy carried out at that materials recycling facility.

What happens at the end of that waste stream is that chits of molten plastic of a uniform size and type are selected and separated by means of some extremely high-technology equipment, which is basically a large tank of water. The stuff to be collected floats, and the stuff to be rejected sinks. That which floats is collected and returned to a company called Plysu, whose international base is in my constituency, and it recycles it. The cost of so doing is less than the cost of using new materials.

That is an example not of hot air and theory but of practical application, good energy efficiency and recycling practice. Because it takes place in Milton Keynes, I invite any hon. Members with a genuine interest in the subject to visit the facility. I should be happy to arrange such a visit. I formally congratulate the Government on enabling the borough council to raise the necessary funds to do that.

I have in recent months welcomed the challenge issued to the packaging industry last July to deal with waste packaging, to try to allocate by means of the producer responsibility group the responsibility for the cost of that packaging between those who produce it, those who fill it, those who sell it and, to an extent, those who subsequently recover it.

There are difficulties with the present proposals, because they seem to impose an inordinate proportion of the cost on those who produce. The allocation of the cost seems to be in inverse proportion to the representation of that part of the industry on the producer responsibility group. Obviously, someone must correct that. None the less, the initiative is more than welcome, and, in due course, it will put into effect the proper dictum that the polluter pays.

All that will lead to another packaging revolution, accelerating the progress that we have made towards minimal packaging, and therefore minimal waste and minimal use of energy.

In debating the motion, we are debating the Energy Conservation Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which contained fundamental defects. The first, to which I referred in an intervention, is that the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that no one is required to achieve those levels. To translate that, he means that no one is required to do anything to any single dwelling. It would achieve no insulation—not a single door draught-proofed, not a single window double-glazed, not a single draught diverted or stopped. It follows that it would achieve no energy saving or increase in energy efficiency.

The Bill would merely enable one to look at a map and say that there was a house there that, if it did not already have insulation, would need insulation. I put it in those terms because—I think that I follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed correctly—there would not be, as he interprets his Bill, individual audits of houses. It would simply be said that a specific type of house should have a certain amount of insulation of a general description, but one would have no idea whether it already had it. I repeat, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded in Committee: not a single piece of insulation would take place, and no energy saving would be achieved by the Bill.

The second, and almost alternative, pleading is that the Bill is unnecessary. I know that the right hon. Member for Deptford disagrees with that, but to say that local authorities have already done what the Bill requires must undermine the argument that it is necessary to force them to do it. If they have the power to do it, and if, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and others have assured us, they all want to do it and there is a groundswell of enthusiasm for it, the Bill must be unnecessary.

The Bill would create bureaucracy. It contains a clause to allow the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. There is a clause allowing money to be handed out for that purpose—not for the purpose of insulating or saving energy, but for the purpose of drawing up the audit. Drawing up the audit is relatively simple, to the extent that one can look at a house and say that it should have insulation. If we are going to go further than that, either it can already be done or it is unnecessary to do it. What is necessary is to put money into insulation in specific houses.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to two local authorities on a previous occasion; the right hon. Lady for Deptford—the hon. Lady: forgive me, I was premature—has now referred to many other local authorities. I would argue that, if two have done it, more, or all, could do it.

I believe that any local authority could undertake such an audit today. It could start first thing in the morning, at 9.30 or whatever time it starts work. The Bill is concerned with mandating and forcing that that should be done. That is the crux of the matter, and it was the matter, I believe, on which hon. Members supporting it and the Government opposing it fell out last time—that the Bill mandates rather than permits.

Surely the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I have learnt, if nothing else, in the past couple of years, that, if one is going to mandate the ends, one must also mandate the means.

That brings us back to the central issue of the proposed Bill, to which the motion refers—does it mandate the means? In other words, does the clause—clause 3(4), according to the version of the Bill that I have—which relates to the Secretary of State making regulations to secure the putting into effect of a plan, mean anything or not? If it means nothing, no funds will flow. Authorities will be in no better financial position than they are now, and could be left to get on with it voluntarily—as many, we are told, are now doing.

If the clause means something, we return to the problem that we would then spend money on the bureaucracy to which I referred. I accept that "bureaucracy" is a terribly generalised and devalued word, much like "community" or "endogenous zone" or any of those clichés, but none the less I think that the House understands what I mean by it. The money will be spent on that rather than on insulation.

Therefore, either we mandate the means—in which case my submission is that it is a waste of money to use it in that way—or we are simply mandating the end without mandating the means, which is a useless and spurious exercise. I therefore reject—

Mr. Heald

I understood that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was arguing that we should impose a levy of approximately 2p in the £1 on energy bills, and that the effect would be that approximately £1 billion extra would be available for energy efficiency measures. In other words, she was making a spending pledge and she was providing the means, because she was saying that there would be a 2 per cent. levy on the total energy bill of £50 billion, and that that money would be available. What is my hon. Friend's opinion about that?

Mr. Butler

I think I am right in saying that it was not the hon. Member for Deptford who suggested that, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North.

Mr. Taylor

I am sure he said that.

Mr. Heald

She meant it.

Mr. Butler

I note the apology that is being offered across the Floor by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to the hon. Member for Deptford, and I note that she accepts it. Perhaps, therefore, I may pass on.

I wish emphatically to reject what I believe is a simplistic, and indeed insulting, contention—that it is necessary not only to support the idea of energy conservation in principle, but to support the wording of the Bill, in order to prove that Members care about the environment and energy efficiency. I reject that. It is nonsense.

I welcome enormously enthusiastically the title of the Bill. I congratulate the people who drafted the title of the Bill: Energy Conservation Bill, very effective. I regret that thereafter they handed over to others the responsibility for drafting the wording of the Bill, and it was not done nearly as effectively.

I think it is sufficient to mention one more defect in the Bill. If it means anything, it places a statutory duty on a local authority to do audits. It follows that, if I wish to find out how to save myself from heating the wind as it goes through my house and to stop those draughts, I would be entitled to go to the court and seek judicial review to force the local authority to do an individual audit on my house, at public expense, to discover how I might save on my fuel bills.

I cannot believe, in spite of his known generosity with public money, that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seriously intended that to be the case, for my house or for his.

Mr. Beith

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is hoping to obtain legal aid to obtain that injunction, because his lawyers will have great difficulty in basing such an injunction on the content of the Bill.

Mr. Butler

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It would not be an injunction—it would be certiorari mandamus, but that is perhaps a legalistic point. I can also assure him that, if he examines the Register of Members' Interests, he will see that I am probably eligible for legal aid in any event.

I return to the main defect of the Bill—it does not insulate a single house. I repeat my welcome for the idea behind the Bill. The title is good; the contents are not. After the debate, let us continue the discussion that I and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have had in seeking a solution to one of the most serious problems that confront us—the apparently rampant and uncontrolled use of finite energy resources.

The problem must be tackled. My hope, which I believe will be shared by all Conservative Members—and, I suspect, Opposition Members—is that we may be able to find a common way forward on that, and before too long, because I think that we can also agree that we do not have very long.

5.48 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye at this time of the night, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This has been an energy-efficient debate, because we have had a little heat from the Opposition Benches but very little light on what the Opposition's policies are. We have learnt that the Liberal Democrats' policy is not now to impose VAT on fuel, although they were in favour of it until the Government introduced it.

Mr. Beith

No, we were not.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

In the paper that they produced in 1993—

Mr. Matthew Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown

I will certainly give way.

Mr. Taylor

I have not denied that we canvassed the idea in a policy document in the early 1990s. But we rejected it for good reasons, and our manifesto specifically opposed the idea. The Conservative manifesto was rather more energy-efficient than ours, because it did not mention the idea at al—but the Government then introduced the tax.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

The Liberal paper entitled "Taxing Pollution, Not People", which was produced in September 1993, showed that the party supported a tax on energy sources, and claimed that the measure would raise more than £5 billion by the year 2000. The hon. Gentleman still denies that there would be a tax on energy, even if it is not specifically VAT.

Mr. Taylor

I have no intention of misleading anyone on this issue. We have supported a carbon tax, but that is not the same as VAT on fuel, which falls directly on the consumer and does nothing to discourage inefficiency among generators. We argued for a carbon tax on that principle, and for those who were worried about its effect on the competitiveness of British industry, we said that the tax should be Europewide. That idea is still being canvassed.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

We have not learnt from that exchange whether the Liberal Democrats are still in favour of a carbon tax. I gather from Liberal Democrat nods that the party is in favour of a carbon tax on top of the VAT on fuel that we have introduced.

Mr. Taylor

I am happy to make the matter clear. I think that I have made it clear that we are against VAT on fuel. We have argued for a common European carbon tax and have said that VAT should be cut to the European minimum. I appreciate that we cannot get rid of it altogether, but we should cut it to 5 per cent. We do not suggest a carbon tax on top of existing and planned VAT.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

My understanding is that the 1976 sixth directive on VAT would not allow us to reduce VAT to the level that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We would have to maintain it at 8 per cent. I am still not clear whether the hon. Gentleman would seek dispensation from Brussels to that effect, or whether he would wish to introduce carbon tax on top of the proposed rise in VAT to 17.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman nods, but I am still not sure of his position.

Mr. Taylor

I was not nodding, I was shaking my head. I think that it would be possible for Britain to reduce the rate to 5 per cent., and that is what we plan to do.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

I am grateful for that clarification.

We got a little more light from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis)—or as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) called him, the hon. Member for Wales—who said that he favoured a 2 per cent. levy on our total energy bill of £50 billion. That would realise £1 billion a year.

Mr. Butler

Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend on Liberal Democrat policy.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

I doubt it.

Mr. Butler

I accept that no one could do that satisfactorily, but I shall try.

It is a red herring to speak about 5, 8 or 15 per cent. VAT plus a carbon tax. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said at the Liberal Democrat conference, we must not deviate from paying the real cost for our energy, although at times it might be comfortable to do so. The hon. Gentleman said more than that: I am not seeking to give selective quotes.

It matters not to the consumer whether he pays VAT or a carbon tax. What is important to him is the cost. The Liberal Democrats were in favour of upping the cost, but we have done that, so they are no longer in favour of it. I hope that, in those few seconds, I have elucidated the Liberal Democrats' "jelly-may-stick-to-the wall" policy.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

There we have it. The Liberal Democrats should retain my hon. Friend and use his legal skills to write their next election manifesto. Perhaps they would then have a clearer policy, which we would be able to understand.

Mr. Heald

If my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North-East (Mr. Butler) wrote the Liberal party manifesto, people would know what it stood for, and Liberal Democrat Members would not be able to jink and jive from one election to the next. Far from the Liberals being committed to a carbon tax, if they can persuade their European partners to have it, they have made it clear that, if Europe will not do it, they will nevertheless press forward, for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel. That shows that, if they cannot do what they want with the consent of Europe, they will do what we did.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

I am grateful for that clarification.

A little light was thrown on Labour's policy, because we heard that the Opposition will impose a consumer tax on electricity and gas bills. However, it was not clear from what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said whether they were in favour of VAT on fuel and a carbon tax as well.

Ms Ruddock

That can only be because the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the debate. Our total condemnation of VAT on fuel has been made clear time and again in the House. There can be no doubt about that and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. We await an explanation from the Opposition's Treasury spokesman about where they will find the £3 billion shortfall when they abolish VAT on fuel—if the European Union allows them to do it.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. He is the former Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I look forward to his contribution, because he is extremely knowledgeable on these matters and made an important contribution to the Select Committee of which I had the privilege to be a member. I am privileged to speak following the thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), whom I congratulate on becoming Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment.

As I have said, we spend £50 billion a year on energy, a figure that was quoted in evidence to the Select Committee during its inquiry into energy efficiency in buildings by officials from the Department of the Environment. They estimated that we could save 20 per cent. of that amount, which is about £10 billion. That is a massive sum, and, in economic, environmental and social terms, we should make every effort to achieve maximum energy efficiency. The Government have an excellent record on encouraging industry, governmental and non-governmental agencies and individuals to achieve efficiency targets.

As the Minister has made clear, in December 1993 the Government ratified the climate change convention that emerged from the Rio conference. That convention committed this country to stabilising CO² output to 1990 levels by the year 2000, thus helping to reduce global warming and the greenhouse effect.

There are also the social consequences of energy efficiency. Most of our housing stock is occupied by the poorest in society. During the Select Committee visit to Glasgow housing department, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, we saw examples of houses that had been excellently refurbished at £4,000 each. The energy bills of those tenants were cut dramatically.

During that same visit, we saw tower blocks of flats where, during the worst winter days, the temperature inside was lower than that outside, even though the tenants spent £20 a week on energy. That is why I welcome the Chancellor's announcement in his November Budget that the Government would double the resources available to the home energy efficiency scheme, from £35 million to £70 million, thus enabling help to he provided to about 500,000 homes this year. A further 4 million homes are eligible for the scheme. That is a worthwhile scheme to help the poorest in society.

The Government have a positive programme to encourage energy efficiency, especially via the Energy Efficiency Office. As we have heard, much of its work has been delegated to the energy savings trust. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister said that the Energy Efficiency Office budget has been increased to more than £100 million for 1994–95".—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 302.] That is a large figure; it is 17 times the level of expenditure when the Opposition were last in power in 1979, so no one should lecture us that the Government are anything but highly committed to energy efficiency measures.

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)

Is not the argument that much stronger, therefore: that, if such a huge amount of money is to be spent, we should know where it should best be spent? That is exactly the point of the original Energy Conservation Bill.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

Although I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, I do not agree with the way in which his party would achieve it; I shall come to that later. I totally agree that we need to know how that huge sum of money should be spent, and that it should be spent effectively.

The Select Committee inquiry into energy efficiency in buildings received evidence from the Energy Saving Trust, for which the Government have set a target of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon saving by the year 2000. It stated that, to achieve that target, which is a vital part of the climate change convention to which Government committed us, it required a budget of some £1.5 billion over the next six years or so.

The evidence continued: if this investment is spread across all consumers, the maximum average impact on bills is at most only 1.5 per cent. decreasing rapidly thereafter as the savings take effect. It also stated that other benefits include the creation of about 40,000 more jobs in the energy efficiency field and an improvement in the balance of trade of about £300 million a year by the year 2000.".

It is of great importance that we get the funding correct for the Energy Saving Trust. As has been mentioned this evening, funding is to come largely from the electricity and gas industries. Funding will be raised from the electricity industry via the K factor recently revised by the director general of Offer and from the gas industry via the E factor.

We took evidence from Clare Spottiswoode, the director general of Ofgas, who took a fairly narrow legal interpretation of the Gas Act 1986 and reached different conclusion from her predecessor, Sir James McKinnon, that she was not allowed to spend via the E factor anything more than a minimum amount on energy efficiency measures. So the Government have a problem as to how the shortfall to the Energy Saving Trust is to be achieved.

I am sure that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will have something to say about that, and I look forward to his speech. However, if the director general of Ofgas is not prepared to alter her stance—it seems that there is an overwhelming case for her doing so, because it is in the interest of all gas consumers and everyone else that she should—my hon. Friend should have discussions with the gas industry to encourage it to raise a sum similar to the one being raised by the electricity industry, so that there is complete fairness in competition between the two energy industries.

The Government have a positive energy efficiency programme in their own estate. As we have heard this evening, they have set themselves a target of a 15 per cent. reduction in energy use over the next five years, so that consumption should be 80 per cent. of the 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Some Government Departments have made great strides in that direction. I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that the new Department of the Environment office has been designed primarily with energy efficiency in mind, but other Departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, have not made such progress. I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that this evening, and will use his influence to ensure that the Government set the highest possible example to industry and private consumers.

In the corporate sector, great efforts are being made to encourage reductions in energy consumption. The Government's corporate commitment campaign involved 1,500 major firms making a corporate commitment to improve energy efficiency. When it gets going, that campaign will have a massive effect.

The energy management assistance scheme gives small firms free advice on how to promote energy efficiency schemes and grants towards implementing them are available. In the corporate sector—one of the largest sectors of energy consumption—real progress is about to be made, and we look forward to seeing demonstrable results.

On the domestic side, the Government are putting even more effort into energy efficiency. I have already mentioned the home energy efficiency scheme—a worthwhile scheme for the worst-insulated houses in Britain.

I was invited by the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust to witness the implementation of such a scheme by a unemployed person in my constituency. The difference produced for a very small expenditure was phenomenal. Just a little draught-proofing around the windows and doors, proper insulation in the roof and a proper timer switch and thermostat on the hot water cylinder, reduced fuel bills by about a quarter. That is very worth while for anyone on a low income, and I thoroughly recommend the scheme.

The Energy Saving Trust is tasked with producing other energy-saving measures promoted by the utilities, which have suggested some excellent schemes already, although their progress is being hampered by lack of funding. One issue that they are pushing is contract energy saving management—a worthwhile and cost-efficient way for the utilities to promote energy efficiency, as they can employ specialists to carry out their entire energy efficiency promotional programme.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, great progress is being made in the United States. By offering the carrot of reduced electricity bills, electricity utilities were able to send out detailed questionnaires to each consumer in their area. They had a response of well over 70 per cent. They were then able to feed those responses into a computer, which produced a programme of the best energy efficiency measures that each consumer could take. That is just one shining example of the progress that we learned in the United States of the steps being taken to promote energy efficiency. The United States is a long way ahead of Britain in energy efficiency.

I said that there were possible savings of up to £10 billion on energy-saving measures. We saw measures in the United States that have already saved millions of dollars, so there are lessons to be learned from the United States. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to point to further positive steps that we are about to take.

We believe that energy efficiency is best carried out by individual education promoted by self-interest—the very point that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East was making. We believe that it should be achieved through voluntary effort rather than by costly and bureaucratic methods prescribed to local authorities. That is not the way forward; it would be very costly and intrusive into people's private affairs. I much prefer the idea that people should produce energy efficiency measures for themselves.

As I have already demonstrated with evidence from the Energy Saving Trust, the payback can be extremely short—sometimes as little as a year. Most energy-saving methods have a payback of only three years, so it is in everybody's self-interest that they should devote resources to producing energy-saving measures.

For that reason, I oppose the Energy Conservation Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am sorry that I have to do so, because I approve of the aims of energy conservation. I have shown that I applaud any aim to improve energy conservation, but not by prescription.

This is an important subject. We still have a long way to go, and I am sure that, under the Government's stewardship, we will be able to meet our Rio target. I look forward to positive steps being taken in that direction.

6.10 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for setting aside one of the relatively few half-days at our disposal to discuss this subject, which has clearly aroused interest among a number of knowledgeable hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to return to a subject to which we have devoted a number of Fridays, but without the success in getting it on the statute book that the Bill deserved. Give or take a phrase here and there, we have had a good and constructive debate, in which a great deal of knowledge about, and interest in, energy conservation matters has been shown.

The Minister has been involved in the Bill's progress—he has not assisted it very much but I could not say that he has blocked it very much either. He described the Government's policies at some length but failed to explain how they could deliver the reduction in carbon emissions to which we are committed. He made a fair statement of what the Government have done so far and quoted a number of commendable efforts, but the gap remains.

I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for his strong support for my Bill. Indeed, it is based on one that he introduced in a previous Session, although it is not the same in all respects.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) decided to attack the intellectual high ground. That amused us at first, but then he did himself more than justice because he made a good speech and gave a useful review of the Environment Select Committee. Indeed, he underlined a point that I have just made, because the Committee was not satisfied with the Government's proposals for achieving the target. The whole burden of the report shows that there is not enough in place to achieve it.

Energy use has continued to rise—by 6.2 per cent. in the first half of 1993—and the energy ratio is rising. The cause is not just the recovery from recession, but the underlying problem. Even the worthy measures in the Government's programme are not sufficient to deal with that.

I welcome the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) to her post on the Labour Front Bench. As I am sure she does, I wish it were a shadow Cabinet post—both for her own sake and for the sake of the importance that should be attached to energy conservation. She followed the example set by her predecessor, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who was also a committed supporter of my Bill. He encouraged Labour Members to turn up and support it on the days that it was before the House.

I would have welcomed a Labour Back-Bench endorsement as well. However, I do not think that the Labour party is yet facing up to the energy pricing carbon tax issue, which eventually it will have to do. I hope that, during the hon. Lady's tenure of office, she will bring her party face-to-face with some of the difficult issues.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) reminded us that he had come out—he told us that he was a member of Friends of the Earth. He made a constructive speech about energy conservation matters, although I disagreed with his conclusion about my Bill.

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was confused initially about VAT and carbon energy tax. However, through a series of interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was able to help him. Indeed, it became a seminar on policy. There is nothing to be said for inaccurately representing the policies of other parties. I have to deal with enough things that are wrong with Government policy without inventing things that they have not yet got wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could find measures that we are in favour of with which to disagree rather than those that we do not favour.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

Despite the previous exchanges, I am still not entirely clear what the Liberal Democrat policy is. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stick to the present level of 8 per cent. VAT plus a carbon energy tax or does he want a dispensation from Europe to get rid of VAT on fuel?

Mr. Beith

The hon. Gentleman goes straight to the special needs class. I will have to repeat the lesson given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. The system in Europe to which the nation is committed does not allow us to reduce the VAT on fuel below 5 per cent., but we are committed to reducing it to that figure. The carbon energy tax would be on top of that. However, if the Government agree to a European carbon energy tax, it would be on top of 17.5 per cent. VAT. That would be unacceptable, but we think that they will be landed with something like that.

Mr. Butler

I want to clarify this issue. The Liberal Democrats would maintain—because they would have to, not because they wished to–5 per cent. VAT with carbon energy tax on top of that. How much would that additional tax be?

Mr. Beith

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that has the power to negotiate that. There is no known rate for carbon energy tax. That has still to be negotiated between the member countries of the European Union, but it would have to be at a rate that would achieve the effect that we have been discussing. A 17.5 per cent. VAT rate with the carbon energy tax on top of that would be unacceptable. We have made it clear that that would not be a sensible way to approach the matter.

Even the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, despite his partisan opening remarks, made a number of constructive points and described practical measures that would help people on low incomes. The assessment of appropriate energy saving measures called for in the Bill would identify where they would be most effective. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in many types of housing much could be achieved through measures that are less expensive than, for example, elaborate double glazing—such as simple draught-proofing, alterations in the pattern of energy use that would not leave people cold but would be a more efficient use of energy, and simple—not hi-tech—changes in the equipment used.

The Bill's purpose was to put an end to the amazing lack of information on energy efficiency in the housing stock by requiring local authorities to evaluate the energy efficiency of housing in their areas, both in the public and the private sectors. That information would enable the drawing up of local energy conservation plans in consultation with local interests. It is a feature of Government policy that all sorts of local groups—environmental, consumer, trade organisations and residents—should be involved in developing energy conservation. On the basis of the information provided, they could make real progress in developing energy conservation plans.

Mr. Barry Field

How will the right hon. Gentleman achieve that? Will there be a phalanx of thermal thought police from the local authority knocking on doors? Most of my constituents already think that the local authority is a bit of a busybody—a big brother—without having a great army of thermal thought police banging on their doors.

Mr. Beith

Only the hon. Gentleman could even envisage, let alone appoint, thermal thought police. There will be no such thing. Local authorities already have to carry out housing condition surveys, and therefore have the mechanisms to do that. We want to incorporate into that process a specific commitment to evaluating the energy efficiency improvements that could be achieved. That requires nothing like the draconian measure envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.

Such an evaluation would fit well with the existing duties of local authorities, which the Department of the Environment requires them to fulfil. In the private sector, section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 specifies that at least once in each year local authorities should consider the housing conditions in their districts. Those surveys are usually carried out by environmental health officers and they could easily embrace the energy efficient element. That view is shared by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, which has campaigned in support of my Bill. It would not require a physical survey of each home because much of the information is already known and the gaps could be filled using, in some cases, a sample of the properties. No household would be forced to take part against its wishes.

That was such a reasonable set of proposals that it achieved all-party backing. Only five amendments were tabled in Committee. At the end of the day, we had the same tactics as were employed in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, except that the Secretary of State did at least in this case table 50 of the amendments in his own name. Only the remaining 150 had to be fanned out to hon. Members who began the day a little unsure of the purpose and significance of the amendments. Every single amendment drafted to the Bill was tabled by parliamentary draftsmen instructed by the Government—every single one.

How strangely the Government's attitude to the Bill has changed during its passage through the House. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who has gone off to foreign pastures, said: It is a constructive Bill, on which there is clearly considerable consensus, demonstrated by the fact that the supporters are drawn from both sides of the House. That consensus has been echoed in the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.] He went on to explain the Government's specific concerns about the Bill, but the burden of what he said was that those concerns could and should be met in Committee.

Mr. Rendel

Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Bill met with considerable support not only from both sides of the House but from a number of local authorities—including, I am proud to say, my own in Newbury, which, with my full support, passed a motion in favour of the Bill and asked me to promote it in the House? Of course, it is not only Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities that supported the Bill; a number of Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities and some with no overall control also did so. That should be mentioned.

Mr. Beith

My hon. Friend is right. A large number of local authorities supported the Bill and were totally unimpressed by the Government's new role as the saviour of local authorities from unnecessary burdens and requirements. Any claim to such a role is totally unconvincing. Local authorities were strong in their support for the Bill.

Mr. Butler

I return to a point made earlier in the debate and not yet answered. If local authorities are so much in support of doing this and they can do it already, why do they not simply do it?

Mr. Beith

I am making my speech slightly out of order, but the hon. Gentleman must know that, within the constraints under which local authorities now operate, permissive responsibilities take second place to statutory requirements. They are influenced by the way in which the standard spending assessment system works and by a number of other aspects of central control.

In addition, local authorities are increasingly compared unfavourably with each other by the Government if they go beyond what the Government consider to be the minimum range of duties. They are open to criticism from Ministers if they do so. Therefore, to invite local authorities to go out on a limb is to do almost the opposite of what Ministers are doing. I shall return to that point, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. It will feature again later in my speech.

I simply wanted to develop the history of the Government's attitude to the Bill. It was around the time of Second Reading that I had a discussion with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made it pretty clear that the Government merely wanted the Bill to be a permissive one. It could go on the statute book as long as it did not impose a requirement on local authorities.

My view was, and remains, that there would be little point in that, because local authorities have the power to carry out those functions at the moment. The problem is that it is merely a permissive power, but not one which a lot of local authorities are reluctant to carry out, although some are. Many cannot put it as high on their list of priorities as their compulsory statutory duties. That is why I regarded that as important.

Nevertheless, one could envisage the Government tabling an amendment to achieve that particular change and perhaps carrying it so that the Bill became acceptable. Therefore, we were talking about a Bill with which the Government were in broad sympathy but with which they had a specific disagreement. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, said that the Bill would have had his support if it had been permissive. A number of hon. Members who are now Ministers made similar or more fulsome statements at the time.

In Committee we had the privilege of the assistance of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He said: We have considerable sympathy for what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. However, we have reservations about the practicalities and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government inevitably have the problem of persuading the Treasury about what does or does not need to be done in certain areas. That is why the amendments were put down late and why you, Mr. Hughes"— the Chairman— were unable to accept them, which is correct according to procedure. Obviously, the Minister had been fighting valiantly for the Bill in the corridors of power and had been done down by Treasury Ministers, but his sympathy was clearly there.

A little later, the Minister said: My response, in part, is that because local authorities are already doing many of these things, and the Government propose that there should be permissive legislation to encourage them—we are at one in recognising that something needs to be done—we do not believe that it should be incumbent on local authorities to spend money in that way if they, as elected authorities, choose not to do so. The only argument between us was whether local authorities should be put under the obligation. Therefore, this can hardly be a Bill that the Government deplore.

On Report, the hon. Member for Banbury had become a little more warlike in his approach to these matters, and his interventions, although rarely addressed to the principle of the Bill but rather to some of his 200 amendments, did not show the same sympathy. For us then to find, as we did on the Order Paper today, a motion deploring the Bill in terms so strident that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) felt it necessary to go hotfoot into the Table Office and table an amendment to remove the word "deplores" and replace it with the word "notes", showed a significant change in the Government's position.

The Government have got themselves worked up. Because the Bill keeps coming back and the issue keeps being forced back on to the agenda, they have become more and more strident in their denunciation of it, even though, from the beginning they recognised that the work should be done. That is the common ground. The work of carrying out an assessment of the way in which energy efficiency can be improved in housing should be done, the Government say, by local authorities, but they should not be obliged to do it. That is a narrow division indeed.

Some Conservative Members who assisted me in support of the Bill were fulsome in what they felt could be achieved by the Bill's approach. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said: We should not simply dismiss the Bill by saying that we must not burden councils with the measure. The hon. Member for Eltham said that he was not sure that the Minister's proposal for modification of the Bill in future was convincing. He went on to say: The results of the Bill … will go way beyond people's expectations. The Bill will promote well-being. There will be an increase in welfare and in disposable income which can be spent on other goods such as fuel. The Bill could have the plain English title, the Money Saving and Comfort Increasing Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 7-28.] That is the Bill that is deplored.

The Minister responsible for energy efficiency has long been a supporter of the Bill's principles. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) declared support for the Bill. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People introduced a Bill on those lines himself some time ago. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) who has been scurrying about the Chamber today handing out sheets of paper to assist Conservative Members in their speeches is, I suspect, himself a supporter of the Bill.

Mr. Butler

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harlow, but not to anyone else.

The views of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) were quoted earlier, and she was a persuasive advocate. She made it clear that the Bill deserves support. Other hon. Members who have become Ministers were among those who supported the Bill which is now deplored.

Mr. Butler

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith

This is the hon. Gentleman's last chance.

Mr. Butler

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me yet another last chance. I just want to put on the record the fact that none of the notes passed out by the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was the slightest bit useful.

Mr. Beith

I am a charitable man, so I prefer to attribute that to the known sympathy of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the objects of the Bill rather than to any incompetence on his part.

Much has been said this afternoon about the cost of the Bill's proposals. We have often referred to the Government's own estimates, which we regard as very much on the high side because they use the fullest technique of assessment, which was tested in two authorities. That has produced figures from £11 million to £23 million. I remind the Government that those are relatively small figures compared with the amounts of waste that can easily be found. For example, it was no less a person than the hon. Member for Banbury who told my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that office accommodation left vacant by the Government is costing us £51.9 million a year, plus a further £4.9 million in SW1 alone. Those sums fall well within the Government's known waste margin in other sectors.

Perhaps the most important point about cost, which I want to remind hon. Members about before we vote on the matter, is that money can easily be wasted or misdirected in energy efficiency. Gullibility in relation to advertising, the promotion of the wrong products, or just getting the wrong idea about how to save energy, can do a considerable amount of harm. Our resources as a nation are not infinite. We want to use them as wisely as we can, to enable people to keep warm and to reduce the pollution associated with energy misuse. We can best do that if we have information about how the resources can be well directed. We can enable people to keep warm at less cost with less pollution if we know where the funds can best be used.

One of the weaknesses of the Government's position is that they concentrate their efforts entirely on the local authority sector. That does not mean all of the measures that they referred to earlier, but the largest amount of effort that they can quote in their defence is made within the local authority sector. It is their policy that that sector should be reduced as a total of the whole, and it has been throughout my time in the House of Commons, through people purchasing their own council houses and through building in other sectors.

Some 57 per cent. of householders over pension age are owner-occupiers. Many of them, although they possess a house, perhaps still mortgaged, do not possess substantial resources with which to make it more energy-efficient. The house may be their only asset, and their income may be very low indeed. Within the private sector are important areas for energy efficiency work, which we need to identify. It is no use simply using the local authority sector, as the Government can, using existing local authority procedures. They must recognise the value of the Bill in looking at the whole of our housing stock.

I am bound to ask where the real objections to the Bill lie. I cannot take seriously the Government's pretended role as the saviour of local authority independence, because it sits so ill with almost anything else that they have done throughout their term of office. I find it difficult to take seriously their arguments about the cost of the measure itself—the cost of carrying out the assessments—because, as I have argued, it is so relatively small.

I can think of only two other explanations. One is that they are frightened of the need for energy efficiency work, which the assessments will demonstrate; the other is that they are panicked by the possibility of discovering that considerable capital expenditure might be desirable and might yield marvellous results. The mere fact that it could demonstrate a need for that expenditure might well be what is frightening the Treasury to death.

The only other explanation that I can think of was the one adduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—that the Government are frightened by the possibility that pressure for energy efficiency will damage the prospects for the flotation of PowerGen and National Power. I believe that the Government once denied that, but it would be quite nice to hear them do so firmly and categorically once more. Indeed, the most effective way to do that would be to make it much clearer that energy efficiency and energy conservation should be an objective of electricity generating and distribution companies. That has never been clear enough in statute. It should be a great deal clearer.

I think that the Government never resorted to out-and-out opposition to the Bill because their objections were so misdirected and inadequate. One of the only hon. Members whom I have ever heard produce the words, "I oppose the Bill" was the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who did so earlier. He is a very lonely figure, because most hon. Members, on both sides of the House, either support it or say that they support it in general terms but think that it should not be mandatory. The Government as such have never deployed outright opposition to the Bill. They chose instead to use the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill tactics, and to deluge the amendment paper with amendments that were not tabled in Committee.

The ultimate absurdity of the Government's tactics was demonstrated when the Bill returned before the House for a second bite, on Report. I said that I had been so persuaded by the long speech of the Minister some months previously that I was disposed to accept the amendment that he had moved at that time. So what happened then? The Government opposed the amendment that they themselves had moved, putting Tellers both for and against the motion to agree the amendment. The absurdity of their tactics was plain for all to see.

Mr. Barry Field

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith

No, I am concluding my remarks.

The Bill is clearly widely supported both inside and outside the House. It was clearly a modest and sensible way of pointing the way to the efficient use of resources to help people to keep warm and to cut pollution. The objections to it were so flimsy that the Government had to resort to those tactics. I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and sincerely hope that his record of support for the measure in the past will lead him, even if he does not concede to us tonight, to set about his Department and move it in the direction of the proposals contained in the Bill.

6.35 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones)

Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in opening the debate for the Liberal Democrats, and to the numerous references to what I might say in response, I must say that mine must be the most trailed winding-up speech ever heard in the House. I may not be the Lion King, but at least my speech was trailed as much it was.

There is no doubt that we have had a very useful debate. I want to pick up on the last remarks that were made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Even if there was disagreement about the Bill, there was a need to drive forward some of the principles in it. It seemed to me that there was a lot of common ground between hon. Members on both sides of the House about what was desirable, even if there was some controversy about the provisions of the Bill.

As someone who has tried to introduce a private Member's Bill, the Hedgerows Bill, which was blocked on that occasion by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I understand how possessive one gets about one's own private Member's Bill. My sense of possessiveness about the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, slightly diminished by the fact that I was not its chief sponsor, has not in any way undermined my commitment to energy conservation, because it is extremely important.

If we are agreed on the ends, we must debate properly in the House—not just across the Floor of the Chamber, but in the important arena of the Select Committees and so on—how we are to will the means to those ends. It seems self-evident that energy efficiency is desirable: for the environment, because of global warming, and none of us wants to see people waste money on energy when they could be spending it on other things; and for the competitiveness of industry, because if we are using less energy, we can compete more ably in world markets. It is highly desirable from the point of view of the fuel poor, which was rightly referred to by many of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.

So if this is not a dispute about the desirability of the Bill, for some hon. Members, it certainly is a dispute about methodology. I shall return to the aims of the Bill in a moment. Oscar Wilde was right when he said: The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. That applies to the contents of the Bill and its aims.

There can, of course, be considerable debate about the level of resources devoted to energy conservation. I have no doubt that Opposition Members will have different views on that from Conservative Members. That is perfectly proper, but it does not seem to be at all relevant to whether one considers the Bill desirable.

I shall remind the House of what the Bill said, and of the key point in it, which was to provide for a duty on a local authority to carry out an investigation of residential accommodation with a view to deciding what measures are, in its opinion, desirable and practicable, to achieve greater energy conservation". It would also have a duty to prepare and update plans setting out arrangements to achieve that. That recognises the importance of energy conservation in buildings and the effect of the use of energy on the environment, because 50 per cent. of global warming gases come from the use of buildings, directly or indirectly. The efficiency with which energy is used in those buildings—or used to provide the fuels that operate equipment in them—is therefore critical.

Let me deal next with housing. Energy conservation is extremely important to council housing, for instance. Hon. Members have referred to the level of income of those living in council houses, which form a large percentage of our stock, although not the majority. The Government have taken steps to ensure that we deliver, because delivery is what this is about: it is about not intent but achievement—achieving improvements in council housing stock. Our principal tool is the housing improvement policy strategy. Let me explain what we expect local authorities to do.

We are looking for evidence of a properly formulated energy efficiency policy. Key ingredients are clear objectives for aspects such as affordable warmth, management and maintenance costs and carbon dioxide reductions. We should also consider longer-term targets to measure achievements and energy rating for council stock as the basis for establishing the policy. Guidance on energy efficiency in council housing provides practical advice on how to develop a sound and fully integrated energy efficiency policy.

We have found that the vast majority of local authorities are responding. I do not say that they are all doing so, but far more are responding than the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) suggested when she rightly praised her local authority in Lewisham, or other hon. Members suggested when praising their own authorities. We know from their housing investment programme submissions, and from the national home energy rating—NHER—that huge numbers of authorities are currently surveying their stock or have completed their surveys.

Let me cite some of those authorities. I do not suppose that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be surprised if I start with my own authority, as I have the privilege of representing part of Dacorum. Its plans include ensuring that all housing stock has an average NHER rating greater than 6 by 1998, reducing average carbon dioxide emissions for its stock by at least 1 tonne per year per dwelling by 1998, reducing condensation complaints by 25 per cent. per year and training all front-line housing staff to offer advice on the efficient use of heating systems by mid-1995. That is very commendable.

Naturally, I asked for the targets of authorities in the Northumberland area, because I knew that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would be interested. Alnwick has conducted an energy survey of all its rented stock; Berwick-upon-Tweed planned to rate all its housing stock by August 1994—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether it completed the process on time. Energy conservation, including the use of renewables, is one of the main aims of Blyth Valley's urban plan. Tynedale has undertaken a stock profile for each home in council ownership, and aims to bring all housing stock up to an NHER of 7 in six years. Wansbeck has, to date, rated 35 per cent. of its stock, using the Government's standard assessment programme; and even the least active authority, Castle Morpeth, has commissioned an energy audit of its stock.

Mr. Beith

The point that the Minister is making demonstrates that local authorities are carrying out the work that he commends without being bureaucratic or wasting money. It also underlines the fact that the proportion of total housing stock that their stock represents is smaller than it used to be: I am sure that that is true in Dacorum, and in many other authorities.

Mr. Jones

I think my point demonstrates that all this is happening without legislation. I shall, however, deal with the private sector, because it is important.

The housing association sector also contains a high concentration of people with limited means. The Housing Corporation has laid down a minimum standard assessment procedure rating for all new developments, which will mean that housing association developments will be extremely energy-efficient. I know of few housing associations with old properties—for instance, the big charities such as Peabody, Sutton and Guinness—that are not taking a good look at their older stock with a view to taking appropriate steps.

Some local authorities are using their involvement with housing associations through the HIP process to ensure that they secure the maximum energy efficiency out of new developments by running competitions. I praise, for example, the London borough of Richmond—controlled by the party of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—which has sponsored a competition to achieve the maximum energy efficiency in developing a new site. The authority kindly invited me to launch the competition, and I happily said that I would, because I feel that all local authorities should emulate that approach.

In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being too generous to the Liberal party, let me also single out Stafford borough council, which is controlled by my party—thanks to two councillors who left the Liberal party because they were so disgusted with its policies. It has done exactly the same with a large new site. I am pleased to say that a very energy-efficient development will be carried out on that site by the William Sutton trust—as it now is—whose headquarters are in my constituency. A great deal is happening on the housing association front; that, I think, is due to the initiative of not just individual associations but the Housing Corporation—at, I might add, the Government's suggestion.

I believe that the private sector is the most difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) pointed out, we cannot simply send in the thermal thought police; but there are some things that can be done. For instance, the home energy efficiency scheme has been very valuable to those on low incomes; increasing the number of building regulations has been useful to new building of private houses. Educating residents, whether they are council tenants or private owners, is also useful—hence the rationale for the Wasting Energy Costs the Earth campaign, which has received a substantial amount of taxpayers' money. There is also the renewal strategy pursued by local authorities for individual areas. It seems to make sense to combine energy-efficiency measures with other measures where stock is being improved.

The real point at which all that bites, however, is the point of sale. That is what the Select Committee said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight referred to it earlier. If lenders adopted a different attitude, encouraging purchasers to think more about the energy efficiency of the properties that they were choosing between, a great deal would be achieved. I am pleased to tell the House that the Nationwide building society already incorporates SAP ratings in its surveys, and the Halifax is doing so on a pilot basis. We are holding discussions with lenders in an attempt to build on that: it is critically important for them to take a positive view.

That also makes sense from the lenders' point of view. It is crazy to be prepared to lend two and a half times someone's income on the basis of valuation of a house without taking into account the purchaser's ability to afford repayments on the mortgage. If the purchaser's energy costs are low, however, his ability to meet those repayments will be greater.

Ms Ruddock

The Minister has just given us an impressive list of housing sectors and the programmes by which they might be brought up to a proper standard of energy efficiency. Will he give us the global view? What percentage of Britain's housing stock meets appropriate standards now, and what is his prediction for the next five or 10 years? When will our housing meet appropriate modern energy-efficiency standards?

Mr. Jones

The answer to the first question is that I do not know. The answer to the second is "more"—but the rate will depend on what happens in terms of individual decisions. That is why the role of education campaigns is so important.

Mr. Dafis

rose—

Mr. Jones

I shall return to the hon. Member for Truro first: if I give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) at this point, I shall not be able to deal with his points later, which I think he would want me to do.

The hon. Member for Truro, said that the best authorities would do what they were doing in any event—but only the best. I must tell him that such is the mechanism of the HIP allocations that local authorities have a powerful incentive to present proper strategies, in order to be rewarded with additional resources to develop housing in their areas. That is different from the position in 1993, when I sponsored the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is one of the key ingredients that has led me to the conclusion that we can do better than the Bill. That is the argument that we support.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

I am glad that the Minister is addressing a change of mind and that he acknowledges that. I do not want to prevent him from saying more about that. However, surely his point about the HIP allocation process shows that it is a form of compulsion, which he said is his reason for objecting to the statutory requirement.

Mr. Jones

I did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, let me remind him that I said that it was unnecessary because local authorities were well down the road suggested by the Bill and I want to get them further down that road. I regard it not as compulsion but as a powerful incentive, and incentivising is what Conservatives are all about.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Truro for quoting the Select Committee at such length. I am not so far away from my membership of that Committee that I do not appreciate the work that it did and all the reports that it has produced on this and other subjects. It is close to my mind and I am constantly cross-referring to what was said. There is a great deal of sense in its recommendations, and the report on energy conservation pulled together a great deal of information and made many recommendations for which we are grateful. That is why the Government used a positive tone in responding to the report.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the key issue of the financing of the Energy Saving Trust. That issue is more key to the debate than is the Bill. We are awaiting a response from the Director General of Gas Supply to the various proposals from the Energy Saving Trust.

You may feel, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Ofgas should be quick about it. There is a need for a fairly early response so that the trust knows where it stands. I have had conversations with the Gas Consumers Council and Clare Spottiswoode, and I have stressed the importance of dealing with that so that we can think about the medium and long term in the light of justified knowledge about her position. As we understand it, she is currently considering the schemes on their merits and we do not know what answers she will come up with.

To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, he said that British Gas should come up with the money irrespective of what is said by the Director General of Gas Supply. I am afraid that that is not possible. The guidance and what is allowed is much more fundamental than whether the response is positive or negative.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to targets and the need to have targets beyond the year 2000. The climate change convention provides for the commitments to be reviewed in spring next year and before 1998. That will be built in automatically, and I agree that it is important to think about that in the medium and long term.

I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about a levy of 2 to 3 per cent. on electricity bills. I should welcome it if he were to put that to the Director General of Offer to see what his reaction is. The hon. Gentleman said also that it is up to the Government to introduce their own proposals or to accept the Bill. I hope that what I have said so far demonstrates that, in addition to what has already been announced or what was referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech, there is clear evidence that our strategy through the HIP process is working.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

rose—

Mr. Jones

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been present for much of the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) deserves a response to his thoughtful and interesting speech.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on his appointment. I have a high opinion of him and I wish him well. He referred to the labelling of domestic appliances. From January 1995, fridges and freezers will bear energy labels. The Commission is developing directives to cover washing machines, tumble driers, washer-driers and dishwashers. That is important because they use 60 per cent. of the electricity used in homes and produce 6 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. All new models are about 15 to 25 per cent. more efficient than the old models.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, it is important that the Government demonstrate their commitment through their own estate. He was kind enough to refer to my Department's plans for our new headquarters. He mentioned the combined heat and power ingredient and so on. The Government have set a demanding target of a 15 per cent. reduction in the years leading to March 1996. My hon. Friend said that I should be tough with other Departments. We apply as much pressure as we can to other Departments, but it is also up to the Chairmen and Chairwomen of Select Committees to scrutinise their own Departments. We would welcome some assistance.

The hon. Member for Deptford made a number of points, one of which was about combined heat and power. In 1990, the target was set of 4,000 MW capacity by the year 2000 and it was revised in 1993 up to 5,000 MW. The Labour party never set a target for CHP. We are extremely pro-CHP and there are now over 1,000 sites in operation with 2,900 MW of capacity, which is 5 per cent. of all United Kingdom generation.

The hon. Lady referred also to the VAT issue and she could not understand that environmentalists might have a different view from her. In its Budget briefing on that subject, Friends of the Earth said: Increasing the price of domestic fuel is an important signal to householders that energy use should be cut. Cutting energy use is vital to reduce Britain's production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and other energy related pollutants. Friends of the Earth therefore welcomes the Chancellor's commitment to increasing domestic fuel and power prices over the next two years through the gradual imposition of VAT. The hon. Lady said that energy efficiency investment has fallen by 28 per cent. I was baffled. I do not know where she found that statistic. I am not aware of any reliable measures of such investment, partly because that is difficult to collect and partly because it is difficult to define. It is estimated that, thanks to the new building regulations, homes will be over 25 per cent. more efficient, but the extra cost is negligible. Is that ineffective simply because there is a lack of investment? I think not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) made an excellent speech in which he referred to the need to use less and waste less. That is an important message for the general public and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. As my hon. Friend said, the Palace of Westminster is notoriously hot on occasions, but I can reassure him that it is on target for its 15 per cent. reduction by 1996.

We should not be deluded into thinking that energy efficiency is entirely the preserve of housing and buildings. We need greater energy efficiency in industry and that will come about as a result of all the schemes that the Government have promoted such as EMAS, ecoaudit, BS7750, best practice programmes or whatever. All that is important, as are alternative vehicle fuels. I have tried the gas-powered vehicle and was extremely impressed with its quietness and energy efficiency.

Let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that, like him, we think that the HEES scheme is extremely important. It has received double the amount of the previous year and very soon we shall have the millionth beneficiary.

My conclusion from all those arguments is that, if one judges the Government by their achievements in housing and in everything else, they have an excellent record, so I commend the Government's amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 292.

Division No. 317]	[18.59 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Ainger, Nick	Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Alton, David	Burden, Richard
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Byers, Stephen
Anderson, Ms Janet	Callaghan, Jim
(Ros'dale)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Armstrong, Hilary	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ashton, Joe	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Austin-Walker, John	Cann, Jamie
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Chidgey, David
Barnes, Harry	Chisholm, Malcolm
Barron, Kevin	Church, Judith
Battle, John	Clapham, Michael
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Bennett, Andrew F.	Clelland, David
Benton, Joe	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Blunkett, David	Coffey, Ann
Boateng, Paul	Connarty, Michael
Bradley, Keith	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Corston, Jean	Keen, Alan
Cousins, Jim	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Cox, Tom	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Cummings, John	Khabra, Piara S.
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Kilfoyle, Peter
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Kirkwood, Archy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Dafis, Cynog	Lewis, Terry
Dalyell, Tam	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Darling, Alistair	Litherland, Robert
Davidson, Ian	Loyden, Eddie
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Lynne, Ms Liz
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Macdonald, Calum
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Denham, John	Maclennan, Robert
Dewar, Donald	MacShane, Denis
Dixon, Don	Madden, Max
Dobson, Frank	Maddock, Diana
Donohoe, Brian H.	Mahon, Alice
Dowd, Jim	Mandelson, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Marek, Dr John
Eagle, Ms Angela	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Eastham, Ken	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Enright, Derek	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Etherington, Bill	Martin, Michael J, (Springburn)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Maxton, John
Fatchett, Derek	McAllion, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	McAvoy, Thomas
Flynn, Paul	McCartney, Ian
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McFall, John
Fyfe, Maria	McKelvey, William
Galbraith, Sam	McLeish, Henry
Galloway, George	McMaster, Gordon
Garrett, John	Meale, Alan
George, Bruce	Michael, Alun
Gerrard, Neil	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Godsiff, Roger	Milburn, Alan
Golding, Mrs Llin	Miller, Andrew
Gordon, Mildred	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Graham, Thomas	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Morgan, Rhodri
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Morley, Elliot
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Grocott, Bruce	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Gunnell, John	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Hall, Mike	Mudie, George
Hanson, David	Mullin, Chris
Hardy, Peter	Murphy, Paul
Harvey, Nick	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Henderson, Doug	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Heppell, John	O'Neill, Martin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Olner, William
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Home Robertson, John	Patchett, Terry
Hood, Jimmy	Pendry, Tom
Hoon, Geoffrey	Pike, Peter L.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hoyle, Doug	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Prescott, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Primarolo, Dawn
Hutton, John	Purchase, Ken
Illsley, Eric	Randall, Stuart
Ingram, Adam	Reid, Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Rendel, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Jamieson, David	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Janner, Greville	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofin)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Ruddock, Joan
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Salmond, Alex
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Short, Clare
Jowell, Tessa	Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis	Walley, Joan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Watson, Mike
Spearing, Nigel	Welsh, Andrew
Spellar, John	Wicks, Malcolm
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Steinberg, Gerry	Wilson, Brian
Stevenson, George	Winnick, David
Stott, Roger	Wise, Audrey
Strang, Dr. Gavin	Wray, Jimmy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Wright, Dr Tony
Taylor, Mrs, Ann (Dewsbury)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Dennis	Tellere for the Ayes:
Tyler, Paul	Mr. Simon Hughes and
Wallace, James	Mr. Don Foster.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Couchman, James
Alexander, Richard	Carn, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Amess, David	curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Arbuthnot, James	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Day, Stephen
Ashby, David	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Atkins, Robert	Devlin, Tim
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Dicks, Terry
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Dover, Den
Baldry, Tony	Duncan, Alan
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Dunn, Bob
Bates, Michael	Durant, Sir Anthony
Batiste, Spencer	Dykes, Hugh
Bellingham, Henry	Eggar, Tim
Bendall, Vivian	Elletson, Harold
Beresford, Sir Paul	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Body, sir Richard	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Booth, Hartley	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Boswell, Tim	Evennett, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Faber, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Fabricant, Michael
Bowis, John	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Fishburn, Dudley
Brandreth, Gyles	Forman, Nigel
Brazier, Julian	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bright, Sir Graham	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Forth, Eric
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Budgen, Nicholas	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Burns, Simon	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Burt, Alistair	French, Douglas
Butler, Peter	Fry, Sir Peter
Butterfill, John	Gallie, Phil
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Gardiner, Sir George
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Carrington, Matthew	Garnier, Edward
Carttiss, Michael	Gill, Christopher
Cash, William	Gillan, Cheryl
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Churchill, Mr	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Clappison, James	Gorst, Sir John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Coe, Sebastian	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Colvin, Michael	Grylls, Sir Michael
Congdon, David	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Conway, Derek	Hague, William
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Monro, Sir Hector
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hannam, Sir John	Nelson, Anthony
Hargreaves, Andrew	Neubert, Sir Michael
Haselhurst, Alan	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hawkins, Nick	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hawksley, Warren	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hayes, Jerry	Norris, Steve
Heald, Oliver	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Oppenheim, Phillip
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Ottaway, Richard
Hendry, Charles	Page, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Hicks, Robert	Patten, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Pawsey, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Horam, John	Pickles, Eric
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Porter, David (Waveney)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Rathbone, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunter, Andrew	Richards, Rod
Jack, Michael	Riddick, Graham
Jenkin, Bernard	Robathan, Andrew
Jessel, Toby	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Key, Robert	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Kilfedder, Sir James	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Knapman, Roger	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knox, Sir David	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Shersby, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Sims, Roger
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Legg, Barry	Soames, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lidington, David	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lightbown, David	Spink, Dr Robert
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Spring, Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)	Sproat, Iain
Lord, Michael	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Luff, Peter	Steen, Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Stephen, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stern, Michael
MacKay, Andrew	Stewart, Allan
Maclean, David	Streeter, Gary
Madel, Sir David	Sumberg, David
Maitland, Lady Olga	Sweeney, Walter
Malone, Gerald	Sykes, John
Mans, Keith	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marlow, Tony	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Thomason, Roy
Mates, Michael	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Thurnham, Peter
Merchant, Piers	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mills, Iain	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David	Whitney, Ray
Trotter, Neville	Whittingdale, John
Twinn, Dr Ian	Widdecombe, Ann
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Wilkinson, John
Viggers, Peter	Willetts, David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Wilshire, David
Walden, George	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Waller, Gary	Yeo, Tim
Ward, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Waterson, Nigel	Tellers for the Noes:
Watts, John	Mr. Sidney Chapman and
Wells, Bowen	Mr. Tim Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 174.

Division No. 318]	[19.14 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Clappison, James
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Alexander, Richard	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Amess, David	Coe, Sebastian
Arbuthnot, James	Colvin, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Congdon, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Conway, Derek
Ashby, David	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Atkins, Robert	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Couchman, James
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Cran, James
Baldry, Tony	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Bates, Michael	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Batiste, Spencer	Day, Stephen
Bellingham, Henry	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Bendall, Vivian	Devlin, Tim
Beresford, Sir Paul	Dicks, Terry
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dover, Den
Booth, Hartley	Duncan, Alan
Boswell, Tim	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Dunn, Bob
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Durant, Sir Anthony
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Dykes, Hugh
Bovis, John	Eggar, Tim
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Elletson, Harold
Brandreth, Gyles	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Brazier, Julian	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Bright, Sir Graham	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Evennett, David
Budgen, Nicholas	Faber, David
Burns, Simon	Fabricant, Michael
Burt, Alistair	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Butler, Peter	Forman, Nigel
Butterfill, John	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Carrington, Matthew	Forth, Eric
Carttiss, Michael	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Cash, William	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Chapman, Sydney	French, Douglas
Churchill, Mr	Fry, Sir Peter

Gallie, Phil	Maclean, David
Gardiner, Sir George	Madel, Sir David
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Maitland, Lady Olga
Garnier, Edward	Malone, Gerald
Gill, Christopher	Mans, Keith
Gillan, Cheryl	Marland, Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Marlow, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gorst, Sir John	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mates, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Grylls, Sir Michael	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Merchant, Piers
Hague, William	Mills, Iain
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Moate, Sir Roger
Hannam, Sir John	Monoro, Sir Hector
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hargreaves, Andrew	Nelson, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hawkins, Nick	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hawksley, Warren	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hayes, Jerry	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Heald, Oliver	Norris, Steve
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hendry, Charles	Ottaway, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Page, Richard
Hicks, Robert	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Patten, Rt Hon John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Pawsey, James
Horam, John	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Pickles, Eric
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Porter, David (Waveney)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)	Rathbone, Tim
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Richards, Rod
Hunter, Andrew	Riddick, Graham
Jack, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Jenkin, Bernard	Roberts, Rt Hon Sri Wyn
Jessel, Toby	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Key, Robert	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kilfedder, Sir James	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knapman, Roger	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Knox, Sir David	Shersby, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Sims, Roger
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Speed, Sir Keith
Legg, Barry	Spencer, Sir Derek
Leigh, Edward	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lidington, David	Spink, Dr Robert
Lightbown, David	Spring, Richard
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Sproat, Iain
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)	Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)
Lord, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Luff, Peter	Stephen, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Stern, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Allan
MacKay, Andrew	Streeter, Gary

Sumberg, David	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Sweeney, Walter	Walden, George
Sykes, John	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Waller, Gary
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Ward, John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Waterson, Nigel
Temple-Morris, Peter	Watts, John
Thomason, Roy	Whitney, Ray
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Whittingdale, John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Widdecombe, Ann
Thornton, Sir Malcolm	Willetts, David
Thurnham, Peter	Wilshire, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tracey, Richard	Wolfsol, Mark
Tredinnick, David	Yeo, Tim
Trotter, Neville	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Twinn, Dr Ian	Tellers for the Ayes:
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Mr. Timothy Wood and
Viggers, Peter	Mr. Bowen Wells.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Donohoe, Brian H.
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Eagle, Ms Angela
Alton, David	Eastham, Ken
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Etherington, Bill
Armstrong, Hilary	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ashton, Joe	Fisher, Mark
Austin-Walker, John	Fisher, Mark
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Galbraith, Sam
Barnes, Harry	Galloway, George
Barron, Kevin	Gerrard, Neil
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Godsiff, Roger
Bennett, Andrew F.	Golding, Mrs Llin
Benton, Joe	Gordon, Mildred
Berry, Roger	Graham, Thomas
Boateng, Paul	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Bradley, Keith	Grocott, Bruce
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Gunnell, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Hall, Mike
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Hanson, David
Burden, Richard	Hardy, Peter
Byers, Stephen	Harvey, Nick
Callaghan, Jim	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Home Robertson, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hood, Jimmy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cann, Jamie	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Chidgey, David	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clapham, Michael	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hutton, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Illsley, Eric
Connarty, Michael	Ingram, Adam
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jamieson, David
Corston, Jean	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cox, Tom	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cummings, John	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dafis, Cynog	Keen, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Davidson, Ian	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Khabra Piara S.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Lewis, Terry
Dewar, Donald	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dixon, Don	Litherland, Robert

Loyden, Eddie	Reid, Dr John
Mackinlay, Andrew	Rendel, David
Maclennan, Robert	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
MacShane, Denis	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Madden, Max	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Maddock, Diana	Rooker, Jeff
Marek, Dr John	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Ruddock, Joan
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Salmond, Alex
McAllion, John	Simpson, Alan
McAvoy, Thomas	Skinner, Dennis
McFall, John	Spearing, Nigel
McKelvey, William	Speller, John
McLeish, Henry	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
McMaster, Gordon	Steinberg, Gerry
McNamara, Kevin	Stott, Roger
McWilliam, John	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Michael, Alun	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Milburn, Alan	Tipping, Paddy
Miller, Andrew	Tyler, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Wallace, James
Morley, Elliot	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Watson, Mike
Mullin, Chris	Welsh, Andrew
Murphy, Paul	Wicks, Malcolm
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)	Wilson, Brian
O'Hara, Edward	Winnick, David
Olner, William	Wise, Audrey
Pendry, Tom	Wray, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.	Wright, Dr Tony
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Prescott, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Primarolo, Dawn	Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Purchase, Ken	Mr. Don Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in ihe Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it.