§ 2.38 p.m.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can elaborate on their recent energy conservation policy Statement and announce proposals by way of grant or tax remission for encouraging house-owners to bring their dwellings up to an acceptable standard of insulation.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, the Secretary of State for Energy stressed in his Statement that the energy conservation programme is a continuing one. The "Save It" campaign is designed to bring home to house owners that there are strong incentives in the form of lower fuel bills to encourage them to insulate their homes themselves.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I should like to ask him whether he can assure the House that the Government are really serious in this matter. For example, why did the first paper for the Energy Commission dismiss the whole subject of conservation in 10 lines out of about 40,000 words, or in two paragraphs out of 236? Would not the noble Lord agree that it does not ring very true?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, we are already providing a valuable service through the "Save It" campaign and we are looking at further measures which could be taken to increase the number of insulated houses. With regard to the more general question, we estimate that our present policies have contributed to energy savings estimated approximately to be worth £2,000 million over the last four years.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that to seek to insulate houses in the public sector without making available a corresponding sum for houses in the private sector implies a contradiction and a lack of conviction about the merits of the policy itself?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, we have an open mind about this, and there is, of course, the question of cost. If we were to help the private sector in the same way as we are helping the public sector, it would cost about £60 million a year. If that is the policy put forward by the Opposition, they should say how they equate it with their wish to reduce public expenditure.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, the point is really one of timing, because from this Bench we welcomed the Statement involving the public sector, which had been awaited for some time. But, in the private sector, will the Government take a decision and announce it soon? Otherwise there is a danger that householders will delay doing anything about insulation because they will think that there will be grants or some other form of assistance coming in some future scheme.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, our present policy in regard to private house-holders is to provide information on the costs of insulation and the financial savings that can be obtained. We have estimated that for an expenditure of £50 on insulation there would be a saving of £20 a year, so it should pay for itself within two years and, after that, would reduce the bills by that amount.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLISMy Lords, can the noble Lord give an undertaking that spending money on insulation 95 will not mean that the rateable value and the rates payable will be increased, such as happened when people in smokeless zones put in central heating, only to find that they had to pay higher rates?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I would not think that was related at all.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, might it not be worth while to consider at any rate using part of the revenues from North Sea oil with a view to the future conservation of energy when North Sea oil runs out?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, that is a very different question. As the noble Lord knows, our depletion policy is under review, but at least we shall be able to control that, which would not have been the case with a Conservative Government.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, if somebody takes a sensible measure to save himself money, why on earth should he have a tax remission for doing so?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, as I said, with this expenditure the private householder will be able to save a considerable amount of money on his fuel bills and so recoup the initial cost of the insulation.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the same argument applies to tenants of houses in the public sector and that they are being cushioned in this fantastic way?
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does my noble friend not think it is a great pity that this fuel-saving policy was not introduced by the Conservative Government?
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords, I think it is one of many things which it is a pity were not introduced by the Conservative Government.
Lord HAWKEMy Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that I piloted through this House on behalf of a Member of another place a Bill for this very purpose but in regard to commercial buildings?
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords, that was during the Macmillan period—a Prime Minister I very much admired.
§ Lord MOYNEMy Lords, would not the Government consider encouraging the wearing of more clothes, thus avoiding the need for this expensive process of insulating houses and at the same time helping our sheep farmers and our clothing industry?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am sure that is a very interesting suggestion which I will pass on and I will ensure that it includes the wearing of decorative waistcoats.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, I think noble Lords have had a good run on this Question. And if you wear more clothes, all the better.