LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 16 November 2004)

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute at this hour, but feel I must return to a question I raised at the previous stage which was not answered.
I accept that the objectives of this amendment, which is now in modified form a government amendment, are attainable in respect of new housing because regulations can be made. However, they cannot possibly be attained in respect of the existing housing stock, which is much larger, without either coercion or bribery—by that, I mean either tax breaks or subsidies of some kind—because no one will spend a lot of money on insulation they do not want without one or the other. The question is: which is it to be?

§ Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I was waiting for the Minister to reply to that question. He was asked it previously but he is not going to answer.

§ Baroness Maddock
My Lords, in that case, I will speak to the amendment. We thank the Government for tabling a better amendment than we tabled on the previous occasion. It is important because the Minister will remember that at our first meeting on the Housing Bill I pointed out a weak area. Although there are many good proposals in the Bill, the Government had failed to take the opportunity to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency in our domestic properties. As the months and weeks have passed while we have been sitting on the Bill, discussions about climate change here and elsewhere in the world have raged on. It is therefore important that the provision is included here and I appreciate that the Government are committed to it in other Bills.
On a personal note, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I like the new subsection (3) in particular. I sponsored the Home Energy Conservation Act in the other place and my noble friend dealt with it in this House. I also dealt with the Sustainable Energy Act when it reached this House. However, it is disappointing that, given the Government's commitment now, they were not able to concede to the earlier amendment. It is completely in line with what we are trying to do.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the increase is to the general level here. It is not specific to new build or otherwise. It is a broader benefit that does not just apply to new houses that come on stream. It is not about bribery; it is not about coercion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, it is about providing for the future and ensuring that we use energy efficiency savings wisely; that we invest in energy wisely; and that we conserve energy wisely, so that future generations will have access to sources of energy. That is something to which we will increasingly have to turn.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, those are wholly admirable objectives. I do not dissent for one second. But how will the Government get existing householders who do not want to spend money on improving the insulation of their houses to do so? I suspect that it is in fact bribery, which perhaps I may say is an entirely acceptable and respectable thing to do in view of what we are trying to achieve. The Commons originally disagreed to the amendment on the grounds that it would involve a charge on public funds. So I suspect that a charge on public funds is probably what the Government have in mind.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, it is about encouragement. I recently received from my local authority a form asking me if I wanted to insulate my loft. That information comes through one's door. It makes perfectly good sense. Therefore, one follows a logical course of action. No doubt we will turn to improvements to loft insulation in due course because those things are to the general good. As government, we have a responsibility to encourage people to act responsibly in those circumstances. Picturing it as bribery or corruption is obviously rather silly. I am sure that the noble Lord does not mean that at all. But it is something which we can all hope that future generations will share the benefit of.