HC Deb 23 January 1998 vol 304 cc1310-24

Order for Second Reading read.

1.32 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have great pleasure in introducing the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on successfully leading the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill to its Committee stage. I wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book.

I was successful last year and came eighth in the ballot for private Members' Bills. My Bill, which dealt with the DNA testing of prisoners already convicted and in prison, passed all its stages in the House in one day. I hope that I am going to be as successful now, and that this Bill does the same. I see no problem with that. I shall be shocked if the Minister allows that but, in view of some of the things that were said 12 months ago, I ought not to be.

I am grateful to pensioners and pensioner organisations for their supporting the Bill and writing to hon. Members. I understand that some of them are lobbying hon. Members today. I also pay tribute to Age Concern for its tireless support of legislation now and in previous years, particularly when the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) introduced her Bill 12 months ago.

We have all heard about the woman found dead from hypothermia in her home, about elderly people being too scared of getting into debt and not turning their heating up, or not turning it on, and about people having to choose between heating their homes and eating. Every winter, the tabloid newspapers carry such stories. In Scotland, The Press and Journal reported that there was no cold comfort for the old and the poor and that blizzards failed to trigger payments. We read such stories year in, year out.

Among elderly people, there is a massive number of excess winter deaths. In 1996–97, 45,600 more elderly people died during the winter than during other seasons. In 1996, 356 elderly people died of hypothermia in England and Wales. I asked the Library of the House of Commons to find out the temperatures around the country at noon today. I picked places at random and included Ribble Valley for good measure, as it is my constituency. To my amazement, Ribble Valley is the coldest of the areas that I chose, at 1 deg Celsius. The temperature in Llanelli is 2 deg, in Glasgow, amazingly, it is 8 deg; it is 4 deg in the Orkneys, and in Poole, where one would expect it to be warmer, the temperature is 4 deg. There is a clear disparity between temperatures in the north of Britain. In London, the temperature is 3 deg, and we know how cold it is outside today.

I have visited the homes of elderly people, as I am sure that all hon. Members have done, and experienced how cold they are. Some senior citizens live in just one room, which they heat. They do not heat other rooms in order to save money. Many belong to a generation that is very careful with money. They do not want to get into debt, so they do not heat their homes unless they can afford to do so and they do not switch on the heating unless they find it absolutely necessary. Pensioners need our support. They need cold weather payments to be based on a more realistic measure of the temperature.

The Labour party recognised that need before the election, but not now. Now is the crunch time for the Government either to back the Bill and honour the commitments that they made 12 months ago or to destroy my Bill and betray the pensioners.

The Home Secretary is touring the country trying to restore people's faith in the Government and politicians. It is a bit rich for the Home Secretary to try to restore faith in politicians if his party, having said one thing to the pensioners 12 months ago, does not support the measure in the House today. If they stop the Bill making progress, the Home Secretary will have a very tough battle to restore credibility and the faith of pensioners especially.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, having betrayed pensioners at other income levels with taxes on private health insurance and pensions in general, it would be the biggest and most cynical betrayal of all for the Government to deny and turn their back on the promises that they made to those least well off?

Mr. Evans

I agree. There is no sector of the population that the Government have not attacked, including students. Before the election, they said that they were the friends of students, but as soon as they got into government, they introduced fees. It is the same with pensioners at all income levels.

The Bill is intended to help the poorest sector of the population living in the coldest parts of the country.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the Bill does not proceed, the news will be greeted with considerable anger by people in the north-east of England, where the wind chill factor makes the temperature much colder? There has been a strong campaign in the local media in favour of the proposal.

Mr. Evans

Yes, of course I agree. We cannot be ignorant of the concept of wind chill any longer because it is mentioned in weather forecasts time and again. We hear stories of the freezing temperatures in the United States and Canada. People are familiar with the use of wind chill in calculating temperatures. Not just people in the north-east, but people in Scotland, Wales and all parts of the United Kingdom are affected when it gets very cold. We are trying to help the poorest pensioners in those areas.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem of wind chill is also well understood in East Anglia? That is why so many of my constituents have backed the Bill in the local press. He should be aware of the Siberian winds that blow across the North sea, affecting many of my constituents in Bury St. Edmunds.

Mr. Evans

I welcome the support that my hon. Friend gave the Bill as soon as he heard about it. Siberian winds will blow not just through his constituency, but through the House if the Government decide not to give proper attention to the measure, which, as the Opposition, they thought so important when the hon. Member for Preston introduced it just 12 months ago.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

Will my hon. Friend absolve from criticism the four Labour Members who have put their names to the Bill?

Mr. Evans

I shall refer to the all-party support for the Bill. It had all-party support in the House last time as well. I pay particular tribute to Sir Andrew Bowden, who no longer sits in the House. I was in the Chamber when the Bill was debated 12 months ago. Sir Andrew suggested a constructive initiative with Labour Members to take the measure forward. We wanted to draw up a letter to the leaders of the main political parties so that they could make a commitment before the election that whoever was elected would introduce a measure to take the wind chill factor into account for cold weather payments. He is sadly missed in the House.

The Bill is designed to do a specific job. It is a simple and effective measure that will put an end to the current sad state of affairs. The present system of cold weather payments works well up to a point. It is designed to give extra help to those who qualify when the temperature is at or drops below 0 deg Celsius for seven days. When that happens, those eligible receive £8.50. In 1996–97, payments under the scheme amounted to just over £42 million. The payments are made automatically to those who qualify. The Benefits Agency is obliged to announce it through the local media. The system is easy and the money quickly reaches those to whom it is targeted—the poorest pensioners.

Because payments are made quickly, fuel bills can be paid on time. The Government's one-off payments do not allow for that. That is important to many elderly people, who are being disadvantaged by the lateness of the proposed payments. I urge the Government to ensure that the payments are hurried through the system, because otherwise it will be spring before the money arrives for some. That will be far too late for many pensioners who rely on it.

Although the system works well in general, it has failings. For example, despite drifting snow and gales in Scotland over the past few weeks, the Benefits Agency has confirmed that not a single region has qualified for cold weather payments. That shows that the system needs finer tuning to ensure that all pensioners and others who qualify have enough heat to keep warm without having to take any food off their table.

This Bill is very similar to legislation that the hon. Member for Preston introduced last year. Supporters of the measure include the hon. Lady—she is at least consistent in her support for it—my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—both of whom are in their places—my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), and for Cheadle (Mr. Day), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who is also in his place. Other supporters include the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) for correcting me. My Scottish pronunciation is not as it should be. I am travelling to Edinburgh tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be able to tell you what the temperatures are there—even if I cannot pronounce the Scottish place names.

I thank those hon. Members for the all-party support that they have given to the Bill. It is important to recognise that support for the legislation has come from all parts of the country, with temperatures that may differ greatly.

There is no technical reason why the system should not be implemented. It is a simple measure that would put little extra strain on the public purse. Age Concern has examined the statistics for the past three years and has estimated that the proposal would add about an extra £8 million a year—or 0.008 per cent.—to the total social security budget of about £100 billion. However, it appears that the Government will not support the legislation.

Where are those Labour Members—many of whom are now members of the Government—who foretold doom and destruction if the measure were not introduced by the previous Conservative Government? In a press release of 26 December, the Secretary of State for Social Security declared—just as she did about bovine spongiform encephalopathy—in melodramatic terms: the stark truth is that Britain's poorest pensioners may have to choose between heating and eating. As late as 13 January this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—who is in his place—wrote: we are not prepared to allow another winter to go by, when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating because they do not know whether they will get the help they need with their fuel bills. At least the hon. Gentleman did not sign the early-day motion of 21 November 1996, which enjoyed all-party support. Many Labour Members, who are now Ministers, supported that early-day motion, including the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) and for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). I repeat: where are they today? Some 176 hon. Members signed that early-day motion on 21 November 1996, yet many of them are not present today. It is important to recall the text of that motion. It stated: That this House expresses concern at the ineffectiveness of the cold weather payments system in helping older people to meet fuel bills in winter; notes that the Government has increased the number of weather stations used to calculate cold weather payments from 55 to 70; considers that this, whilst welcome, is an inadequate response; and calls upon the Government to agree to the amendment of the cold weather payments system, as proposed in the Cold Weather Payments (Windchill Factor) Bill, so that the windchill can be taken into account, and also to review how to improve the system for the benefit of Britain's oldest, poorest and coldest pensioners. I quote the text of that motion because I know the sorts of responses that I shall hear from the Government Benches today regarding the support that the Government have announced already for pensioners. I shall leave it to the Minister to outline that support, which we have discussed in the past. Such assistance is welcome.

However, the early-day motion makes the point that the current system of cold weather payments is not as effective as it could be. In announcing support over two years, the Government have not said that they will suspend cold weather payments. As I understand it, that system will remain in place. If the trigger mechanism is activated, those who are eligible will receive a payment' of £8.50. We accept that cold weather payments are necessary in order to assist the poorest pensioners in the coldest areas. However, I contend that this legislation would allow cold weather payments to kick in earlier for the poorest pensioners living in the coldest parts of the country. That is all that we are asking for.

I am sure that the Minister will soon be talking about the support that the Government have given to pensioners. However, I understand that that will be for a fixed two-year period. After the two years, there is no security or long-term planning, and pensioners do not know whether they will still get the support.

What "equality" means for the poorest pensioners living on income support is that the support that the Government have already announced will go to all pensioners, irrespective of where they live. It will be paid equally to pensioners throughout the country. That does not recognise the needs of the poorest pensioners living in the coldest parts of the United Kingdom.

My measure would simply ensure that, irrespective of the extra support, when the cold weather payments come in, they will do so a little more quickly. That is why I believe that my measure is so essential.

I shall finish now because I know that others want to contribute, and I welcome that. I can see the hon. Member for Preston in her place, and I congratulate her on the work that she did 12 months ago in raising the issue. I am delighted to see her here today.

We do not need the Minister to say either that there is no way in which he will even touch the Bill, or that it will go through as it is. He may say that improvements could be made. What we seek today from the Minister is a commitment that will keep faith with what was said by Members belonging to his own party before the general election, because they felt that the subject was so important.

The subject was raised by the hon. Member for Preston and debated fully in the House by a number of Labour Members in opposition. The early-day motion was tabled, too, and many pensioners were persuaded to support Labour at the general election, thinking that, when the Labour party became the Government, such a measure would be introduced.

Six or seven months on, I should have thought that the Government would have taken up such a measure as a matter of urgency, so that pensioners this winter could be assured that, if the temperature dropped below a certain level, the cold weather payments would be triggered earlier. I plead with the Minister on behalf of all the pensioners on income support throughout the country, who will listen carefully to what he says today. Please give them the support that they were promised 12 months ago.

1.51 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East)

It is a sad sign of the times when a Government have to consider such a measure to help our less well-off citizens keep warm in their own homes. I am all in favour of any measure that would get people out of the terrible fuel poverty that exists in this country. However, I believe that there are far more common-sense measures than the complicated scheme that the Bill would introduce.

Surely the real way to help pensioners and others to keep warm, as we should in a civilised society, is to ensure that their houses are warm, dry and well insulated and that they are financially well provided for, and can meet their fuel bills.

In that respect, I remind the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that the Government have set up a major inquiry into the value of current pensions. I remind him also that the previous Administration, run by his party, decoupled pensions from wages and coupled them instead with prices.

For a single pensioner, that has reduced the real value of the pension by an average of £22 a week

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)

rose—

Mr. St. Aubyn

rose—

Mr. Ruffley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Iddon

In a moment.

There lies the crux of the problem. If the previous Government had not got us into that situation, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley would not have had to introduce his complicated measure.

Mr. Heald

Aside from his weasel words—Labour is not proposing to reintroduce the earnings link—will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? If the heating of a home is to be paid for, so that it becomes the kind of warm home about which he talks, must not more money be spent on a home exposed to cold winds and where there is a high wind chill factor than on other homes? That is the purpose of the Bill—why will he not support it?

Dr. Iddon

More common-sense measures could be taken to get people out of fuel poverty across the country, including in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

When I was the chair of housing at a local authority—I held that post for 10 years, taking over in 1986—I recognised the problem, and it was not as bad then as it is now. I recognised that many people did not have decent heating systems, so we decided to introduce an affordable—modular—heating scheme for all 26,000 council tenants in my borough. That was done extremely quickly so that every house in the public sector was given warmth.

We recognised also that the exterior fabric of the houses was in a poor condition, and our second major programme was to abandon internal refurbishment for a while to concentrate on externally refurbishing every council house, with priority given to double glazing. Indeed, we even set up our own UPVC double glazing plant. That programme is almost finished and fuel bills have gone down greatly for the people who have benefited from those two major schemes.

By reducing housing expenditure across the public and private sectors, the previous Government severely damaged attempts by people to keep warm because the fabric of houses deteriorated dreadfully. In my borough, the amount of money available to spend on housing was cut by the previous Administration by almost 70 per cent. That was one of the problems that they caused. It is remarkable that a member of the previous Administration is proposing to tinker with an existing Act in such a minor way, when they created the major problems in the first place.

Mr. St. Aubyn

Is not it a fact that targeted benefits can help those most in need, and that the Bill proposes a targeted benefit? Is it not a fact also that, in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's, council housing expenditure may have been reduced, but expenditure by the Housing Corporation and local housing associations grew substantially under the previous Government?

Dr. Iddon

It did not grow to the extent that it replaced the devastating cuts in expenditure in the public sector in particular, and in other sectors. Overall, the previous Administration devastated housing in this country. The sole reason why I came to Westminster was that, when I was the chair of housing in a local authority under the previous Administration, I clearly saw that I could do nothing else for the borough of Bolton—Westminster was the only place to get action by arguing for housing to be moved up the agenda.

This Government have done something that previous chairs of housing like me asked the previous Administration to do over many, many years—10 years in my case, but the 18 years of the previous Administration for others. The previous Government refused to release capital receipts from the sale of council houses—purely because of political dogma—and local authorities could not take measures to prevent the fuel poverty about which we are talking. I am pleased that, over the next two years, the Government will allow £800 million of capital receipts to be put into the market to allow for the introduction of common-sense measures to reduce fuel poverty by making homes warm and well insulated.

Mr. Evans

It is absolutely right to insulate homes to conserve energy, and to keep pensioners warm. However, how many pensioners is the hon. Gentleman prepared to see die over the next several years—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is what Labour Members were saying when they were in opposition. How many more pensioners will die in the next five years before something is done? The Bill is a short-term measure and will target support on the poorest pensioners in the coldest parts of the country. The measure about which the hon. Gentleman talks is long term and will take 20 or 30 years.

Dr. Iddon

That is a shameful question and I shall turn it on its head and ask the hon. Gentleman how many pensioners died under the previous Administration because of their policies.

The Government have also reduced value added tax on fuel, a fact which is well known and has been well publicised. It is a shame that we were not able to reduce it to zero. We could take it only to 5 per cent. because of European regulations. Who put the VAT on fuel in the first place and who would have increased it to 17.5 per cent. if they had now been in government instead of Labour?

Mr. St. Aubyn

rose—

Dr. Iddon

I shall not give way, as I want to finish my remarks and time is short.

I must also mention the home energy efficiency scheme which, admittedly, was introduced by the previous Administration. However, soon after its introduction that Administration severely cut the money available for the scheme. This Government are increasing it again and have substantially reduced the VAT on energy-saving materials for that scheme, which will allow a large number of homes to be insulated. Indeed, 40,000 homes will benefit from the VAT reductions.

I have tabled a parliamentary question, which I hope will be taken seriously. I have asked the relevant Minister if the Government will consider extending the reduction on VAT for energy-saving materials beyond the existing Government schemes, so that all senior citizens can benefit.

This Government have also delivered extra money, far in excess of the amount that the Bill would deliver, by sending £50 to pensioners on income support, which they are receiving this January. Other pensioners will benefit to a lesser extent by the end of March. That is paying out more to pensioners than this small tinkering with an existing measure would ever do. The money is being paid automatically and without the need for pensioners to make claims.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Although I agree with my hon. Friend on home insulation and the money that has been paid to enable people to keep warm during the winter, does he accept that the wind chill factor must still be taken seriously? Every home, whether insulated or not, is obviously adversely affected in a cold area with a high wind blowing. Therefore, the residents of such homes ought to get a higher benefit to pay for the extra heating costs.

Dr. Iddon

I accept that argument. The Government are not abandoning the original cold weather payments Act. I look forward to the day when even that Act will be redundant because pensioners do not need that money.

Standing charges on fuel bills are a substantial part of a pensioner's bill. They hit the poorest far harder than richer people. I urge the Government to consider the current level of standing charges. I also hope that they will urge local authorities to encourage pensioners and other members of society who are not taking up all their benefit entitlements to do so. Many thousands of pensioners who are entitled to benefits do not claim them out of pride or ignorance, or for some other reason.

I repeat that the best way to help those people who have difficulties in paying their fuel bills is to ensure that they are adequately provided for financially and that they live in warm, dry homes. If we raised pensioners' economic level, we would not need measures such as the Bill.

2.4 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on promoting the Bill, which is designed to give pensioners genuine help over the long term.

I am pleased to see my colleague from East Anglia, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gartner) here. They are both sponsors of this important Bill.

Audrey Wise (Preston)

rose—

Mr. Burns

I am also delighted to see the hon. Lady, to whom I now give way.

Audrey Wise

I thank the hon. Gentleman. But what did he think, let alone say, about the Bill that I promoted last year? I agreed without hesitation to be one of the Bill's sponsors when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked me, but he gave me no support whatever on my Bill last year. He said that that was because he was a parliamentary private secretary. His priorities were clear. The then Government gave no satisfaction and did nothing at all to facilitate my Bill; in fact, they talked it out without taking any other measures to help pensioners.

Mr. Burns

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that history lesson about what happened last year. The straightforward answer is that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was a PPS at the time, and I was a junior Minister in another Department. I thought that the principle behind last year's Bill had merit, and I was pleased that the Government set up a review late last year to consider how the existing system could be improved.

Given that the Government intend to talk out the Bill today, I might point out to the hon. Lady that last year there was an early-day motion on her Bill, signed by 16 members of the current Government, including the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), yet today his colleague will do all he can, with the help of the Government Whip, to ensure that the Bill makes no further progress.

I support the Bill because it is simple and would make a small change to existing arrangements to take into account the wind chill factor, which is extremely important in the more exposed parts of the country, such as Scotland, parts of Wales and the coastline, where temperatures are colder for longer. The Bill would give pensioners automatic help with their fuel bills. It would become the bedrock of the scheme, enshrining it in legislation.

In his pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor announced payments for pensioners for the next two years. No doubt, the Minister will make a great deal of that, to cover his embarrassment over refusing to support the Bill. Frankly, from a party political point of view, I do not blame him. I am not sure why the Government have to spend so much money on a national advertising campaign for a universal benefit that is to be paid automatically, but that is another issue.

The scheme announced by the Chancellor is for two years only, to be paid for from the £400 million in savings on our contribution to Europe. There is no guarantee that it will operate every year thereafter. Pensioners may be getting extra help this year and next year, but the Government have given no commitment to operating the scheme in perpetuity. The Bill would ensure that when that Government help ended, the cold weather payments scheme would take the wind chill factor into account and help with fuel bills for pensioners would be enshrined in legislation. The Government should think again, reverse their opposition to the Bill and allow it to be considered in Committee.

It is ironic that the Secretary of State for Social Security is becoming known as the soundbite sister. All that she seems to be interested in is an instant soundbite for tomorrow morning's newspapers. I well remember the obscenity—given the Government's attitude towards the Bill—of the right hon. Lady going round the studios on her soundbite journey and condemning the review set up by the previous Government. She claimed that winter need could kill more than 25,000 pensioners and that pensioners might have to decide between heating or eating. We do not hear such crass remarks from the Secretary of State now that she has conned all those people into voting Labour. However, when she got into government, she abandoned them. We saw student politics from the right hon. Lady before the election: now, she is reaping the whirlwind of the Government's hypocrisy. The Government found that out to their cost only a few weeks ago when they treated lone parents as they have treated pensioners over the wind chill factor. That behaviour is despicable, but it is ironic and, sadly, typical of this Government that they will now refuse a Second Reading to legislation for which, only some 12 months ago, they were clamouring. However, we have come to expect that from this Government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley on his Bill, but I am disappointed by all those Labour Members who last year supported what this Bill is trying to do, including 16 members of the Government and, indeed, one junior Social Security Minister. They will follow the Government's line today and seek to kill the Bill.

2.12 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)

The Liberal Democrats support the Bill and have consistently supported previous attempts to introduce such a measure. Cold weather payments are triggered by the temperature remaining at a target low for a set period of time. However, temperature is not the only factor: wind chill can cause freezing conditions. Senior members of the Labour party said, before the general election, that the then Government should agree to the amendment of the cold weather payments system, as proposed in the Cold Weather Payments (Windchill Factor) Bill, so that the windchill can be taken into account, and also to review how to improve the system for the benefit of Britain's oldest, poorest and coldest pensioners. Those were the words of an early-day motion whose signatories included a Social Security Minister, a Home Office Minister and two Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

The Government may argue that they have a budget ceiling and that incorporating the wind chill factor would force down the level of the payment or lead to a reduction in the temperature level at which payments kicked in. However, it would be a nonsense to oppose the Bill on the ground of budget limitations, because no money is set aside for cold weather payments. The conditions, and therefore the payments, are entirely unpredictable.

The Government may also argue that they are sticking to the Conservative spending plans. That is odd. When Mrs. Thatcher came to power, she did not say that she would stick to Labour's spending plans for the first two years: she got on and did things her way.

It is a false economy to scrimp and save in regard to keeping pensioners warm in winter. Conservative Members mentioned a number of regions where there is a particular problem. I come from the south-west, an area which—particularly the far south-west—traditionally has a milder, more moderate climate than other areas in the winter months. When the south-westerlies are blowing, however, we have freezing wind chill all along our coastline, right into the middle of Devon and Cornwall. We may be experiencing such a wind chill, but there may be no snow on the ground, while people in other parts of the country are snowed in but not suffering from the windchill factor. Pensioners in those areas will receive payments, while those in my part of the world will not.

Countries that are much colder than Britain—most notably the Scandinavian countries—have less of a problem with hypothermia than we do. As well as passing the Bill, the Government should take a number of steps to make Britain's homes warmer. They should, for instance, lower the rate of VAT on home insulation products from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. as part of a longer-term strategy. The most important aspect of the Bill is the fact that it would provide help immediately; most pensioners would not be able to have their homes insulated in a 12-month period.

We call on the Government to allow this Bill to become law. It has our full support.

2.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his success in the ballot, and on raising a subject that is of great concern to all hon. Members. I also pay tribute to Age Concern, the Bill's main sponsor, for its many tireless efforts on behalf of older citizens.

I do not think there can be any doubt about the Government's commitment to helping to ensure that vulnerable people—especially pensioners—can be warm in their homes in winter. This morning, as on other mornings this week and next week, thousands of pensioners throughout the country who are on income support will have received giro cheques for £50 as part of the winter fuel payments scheme.

Mr. Burns

Of course the Minister is right, but will he explain why all the other pensioners who are not on income support will not receive that badly needed money until March at the earliest? That will be particularly onerous for pensioners who are just above the income support level, who may have to pay hefty fuel bills in the eight weeks before they receive the money. Why could the Government not get their act together and pay all the money at once, instead of discriminating?

Mr. Denham

The hon. Gentleman says that the money is badly needed. For 18 years, it never occurred to his party's Government that it was badly needed; they did nothing at all to help Britain's pensioners.

Mr. Burns

Answer the question.

Mr. Denham

The answer to the question is that, in the first year of operation of an unprecedented exercise, this is the time that it takes. Would the hon. Gentleman have preferred the Government not to give support to all pensioners, as his party's Government did not, year after year?

Mr. Burns

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Denham

No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and it was not worth it.

The winter fuel payments scheme will help all pensioners, but will give the most help to the poorest. It is an unprecedented initiative, which dwarfs any action by any other Government to tackle winter cold. We recognise that the problem is real. Every winter when it is cold, the number of pensioner deaths increases greatly. The issues, and medical opinion, are complex. Outdoor exposure may be a more important problem than cold indoors, but that does not mean that we can be complacent about older people living in cold houses and flats. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) pointed out, too many houses are not energy-efficient: many are damp, cold and expensive to heat. That is why the Government have launched new initiatives across Departments to tackle the problems experienced by vulnerable people. The new Labour Government have already taken action to cut fuel costs, which are 5 per cent. lower overall than they were a year ago. The annual fuel bill for people who are eligible for cold weather payments is estimated to be £60 million lower than a year ago, and that fall in itself is equivalent to almost three cold weather payments.

I should like to set out the measures that we have already implemented to cut fuel costs and make homes easier to heat. As I have said, we have launched the winter fuel payments scheme. Every pensioner household will receive a payment of £20 and the poorest pensioners, those on income support, will receive £50 for this winter and next. The Government were not prepared to allow another winter to pass in which pensioners were fearful of turning up their heating because they did not know whether they would get the help that they needed with their fuel bills. That is why we have launched an advertising campaign. It is critical that pensioners can be confident about turning up their heating in the knowledge that help is on the way. That is why we have taken the step of making sure that pensioners know that. No doubt the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) would have preferred us to keep that information secret. He is wrong: the issue is about enabling pensioners to know that they can turn up their heating.

Mr. Burns

The Minister does not seem to understand that a universal payment to all pensioners does not need to be publicised in a party political way for the aggrandisement of the Government. That is the purpose of the spending of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Denham

There is no question of party political aggrandisement. There is no point in allowing pensioners to go through the winter not knowing that they will receive the payment and being afraid to turn up their heating.

I shall put the winter fuel payments in context. The payment of £50 which is not triggered by cold weather to all pensioner households on income support is equivalent to almost six cold weather payments. Over the past three winters, the average paid out in cold weather payments was £35 million. The total in winter fuel payments alone this winter will be about £200 million. As I have said, this is the first time that any Government have made a payment to all pensioners towards their heating costs.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was wrong to accuse us of breaking promises. The Government have kept the promises that they made to pensioners at the general election. In our manifesto we promised to cut VAT on fuel and in his first Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor kept that promise by cutting VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent.

Audrey Wise

I fully acknowledge that the Government's action on fuel payments for pensioners is worth far more than the provisions of the Bill that I presented last year. The Bill that we are debating and of which I am a sponsor has the same title as mine. There is not an advertising campaign to promote the Government. The campaign informs people of their entitlement and tells them what to do to put matters right if they do not get it. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that cold weather payments affect people on income support with children under five and those on disability premiums and special steps have not been taken for either group. They would benefit if the wind chill factor were taken into account. Can my hon. Friend please look at that?

Mr. Denham

The Government have defined their priority for pensioners and for the poorest pensioners in particular. There are other vulnerable people and that is why it is important to take a series of measures so that all vulnerable people are assisted in heating their homes.

I spoke about the cut of VAT on fuel, which was the first of our promises to be kept. That is in stark contrast to the actions of the previous Government. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who presented the Bill, and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will remember that they voted to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. and voted against attempts to cut it. Neither hon. Gentleman can talk about hypocrisy when their record is so clear.

Mr. Evans

Does the Minister accept that when the provision was introduced, VAT never went to 17.5 per cent., but the support to pensioners on income support did kick in at 17.5 per cent. and was never clawed back?

Mr. Denham

If it did not go to 17.5 per cent. that had nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman, who did his damnedest to ensure that it did.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also cut VAT on energy-saving insulation schemes, which will enable another 40,000 homes to be insulated each year. The gas levy has been reduced to zero and we have kept the five promises that we made when the wind chill issue was debated last year. We cut VAT on fuel. We have said that we will help pensioners to insulate their homes through the environmental task force, and the announcement of that task force has now been made; we expect it to include a programme of energy efficiency improvements. In addition, nearly £800 million-worth of capital receipts has gone to local authorities, many of which will be using the money for energy conservation measures. There are similar provisions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We said that we would help the poorest pensioners who are entitled to cold weather payments but do not get them. Some of them will get the £20 this year, but 1 million pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled—an issue that was neglected year after year by the previous Administration: they did nothing about it; they did not care about it. We have already set under way research into why those people do not claim the income support to which they are entitled.

In the pre-Budget statement last November, we announced that from April there will be a number of pilot schemes to find the most effective ways of enabling and encouraging pensioners to claim their income support. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) did not do a single thing to help pensioners take up their income support when he was doing my job under the previous Administration.

We said that we would improve the notification of cold weather payments by better targeting of information, and we have put that in hand this winter so that if a payment is triggered—the first one was triggered in one part of Scotland yesterday—pensioners know that it is being triggered as soon as possible so that they can turn up their heating. We said that we would review the operation of cold weather payments, and we have introduced two more weather stations in Scotland for making decisions about cold weather payments to make the system fairer.

We have kept the promises that we have made, and not just within the Department of Social Security. There are a number of Government-wide reviews and initiatives currently under way. We have a review of utility regulation that will consider the social implications of increased competition in the utilities market. An interdepartmental working group has been set up by the Under- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle).

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Denham

No, I should like to make progress.

Our pensions review will be of great importance. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley knows that primary legislation is not needed to implement the proposal that he has put forward. For that reason alone, the Government would see no need to support the Bill. We have been able to concentrate on the issues today, although the debate has been curtailed.

The best way forward is to take stock over the coming year or so of the outcome of the measures that we have already put in place, such as the winter fuel payments system and the other initiatives across Government, to identify the most appropriate ways of helping pensioners and the vulnerable to keep warm in winter. That is how we intend to proceed and I believe that that reflects the approach advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East.

The cold weather payments scheme should be accompanied by four basic principles. It should deliver extra help to those who need it; it should be easily understood so that it provides a degree of certainty that a payment will be made; it should be seen to be fair; it should be felt to be fair. That approach was reflected in the review of the cold weather payments scheme that the Government undertook prior to this winter. One of the positive aspects of the cold weather payments scheme is the ability to make payments more quickly by using a Meteorological Office forecast. That enables entitlement to a payment to be announced at an earlier date, and the payment process to begin at the beginning of a cold spell rather than after seven days.

One of the real problems with the Bill—and there is not time to debate the detail of wind chill at great length—is that it could put at risk that ability to have a forecasting system. It would increase the uncertainty of the scheme, as I would have demonstrated had I been able to speak at greater length. It would not achieve the fairness that we have been seeking in the development of the cold weather payments scheme, between people in different parts of the country and between people in different sorts of housing.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley must know that nine out of 10 pensioners would not benefit from his proposals. It is important not to give the impression that the Bill could bring any benefit to the vast majority of pensioners, because the Bill would not work in that way.

The wind speed and its effect on temperature is commonly referred to as wind chill. That term has attracted—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 30 January.

Mr. Evans

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister gave the House the impression that he has been so constrained by all the other measures introduced to help pensioners that my Bill could not also be introduced. However, at the same time—as has been shown in answer to a parliamentary question—Downing street is spending millions of pounds on entertaining pop stars—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The way that Ministers respond to debates is entirely a matter for them and is not a matter for the Chair.