House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 1998 (pt 5)

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Is not it true that many of those 3 million homes are occupied by the very poor or by those who have least choice about their housing? Although I do not wish to overload this Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that the House should consider young people housed in bedsits who must pay £12 per week for heating which, in energy-efficiency terms, is equivalent to the cost of heating a five-bedroom dwelling? Many elderly people are protected tenants in privately rented accommodation that has had virtually nothing spent on it. They are often on income support and they have to pay two or three times as much to be cold as many others pay to be warm. I am not saying that the Bill should address their problems, but my hon. Friend is right to point out the number of homes and people who will not be helped by the Bill and who need help in some other way.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend has anticipated one of my arguments. Private Members' Bills cannot, of course, incur expenditure for the Government because that is outside their scope. I have a strong suspicion that the true problem that the Bill is designed to address would be best solved by offering increased expenditure and increased grants to precisely the type of people my hon. Friend has described. I am encouraged that the Government are taking that matter seriously because I believe that it is the real route to solving the problem. It would be unfair to say that the Bill is mere window dressing, but it is a modest contribution to the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

Angela Eagle: It may help hon. Members to know that the Government have established an interdepartmental committee on fuel poverty and that we are studying precisely how we can target help at the problem the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has described. We are also reviewing the home energy efficiency scheme. Initial results appear to suggest, as the hon. Member said, that a serious problem in the private rented sector remains unaddressed. We are putting our mind to considering what we can do to achieve results in that sector, where they are most needed.

Mr. Luff: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. I am also pleased to note the mood of

6 Feb 1998 : Column 1360

consensus that seems to exist in the House--such sentiment is important when considering energy efficiency. I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks. We all agree about the important health implications, particularly with an aging population, of ensuring that energy efficiency is delivered. It is the elderly who are most susceptible although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) reminded us, the young poor often live in inadequate conditions.

I do not oppose the principles of the Bill, but I have some reservations about its likely contribution to energy efficiency. I also have some concern about its practical effects. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon was right to say that the Council of Mortgage Lenders supports the Bill in principle. It has noted, however, that it is important to ensure that it is "practical and workable". In the past, the council has been sceptical about such measures because of their cost implications and because it felt that there was insufficient public interest in energy efficiency. I believe that we can now accept that public interest in energy efficiency has grown, so perhaps concern about public lack of interest no longer exists. I accept, however, that the implementation costs should be considered in Committee.

We should pay tribute to what some mortgage lenders have done voluntarily to help those who have taken on new properties to understand their energy implications. I congratulate the many lenders who promote the work of the Energy Saving Trust. One can give people advice, but will they act on it? We can take a horse to water, but can we make it drink?

A recent housing finance survey revealed that 48 per cent. of respondents would not pay for the cost of an energy-efficiency survey and that 11 per cent. did not want to pay more than £25. That is a modest cost and I accept that it can be afforded by most people. The estimated cost of the improvements that flow from such a survey is about £300--that is the figure suggested by most involved in energy efficiency. That is quite a lot of money for someone who has moved into a new property. Often, they are precisely the people who need to ensure that their house is energy efficient. That is why I believe that grants and practical assistance are more important than forcing people to have an energy-efficiency survey. The survey would not have any value unless the Government took further steps to ensure that action was taken as a result of it.

When I first bought the house in Battersea that had the problems I described earlier, the last thing I could have done was make any improvement that cost £300. I had to live in pretty ropy conditions for several years and my priority was probably a new carpet rather than energy efficiency.

I was grateful to hear what the Minister said about tenants and people in social housing. I am not aware of much research on the likely impact of the Bill on owner-occupiers, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an interesting survey just last month on the effectiveness of energy advice to tenants. It contains some lessons for the Bill. In its summary that report states:

"Although much information exists in relation to the costs and benefits of capital works to property to improve energy efficiency, little has been done to date on the cost-effectiveness of energy advice as an energy-saving 'tool'. This project, undertaken by BRECSU (the Building Research Institute Energy Conservation Unit), aimed to determine the costs and benefits of providing energy

6 Feb 1998 : Column 1361

advice alone to social housing tenants. The research surveyed 100 households before and after energy advice was delivered, and found"--

it is an important conclusion--