Orders of the Day — Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill

House of Commons, 21 July 2000.

MEANING OF "FUEL POVERTY"

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

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

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from "practicable" to end of line 10 and insert— 'persons do not live in fuel poverty'. No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out "on lower incomes" and insert "in fuel poverty". No. 5, in page 1, line 10, at end insert— '(1A) For the purposes of this section "households in fuel poverty" are those which need to spend 10 per cent. or more of their income to provide adequate heat and energy.'. No. 33, in page 1, line 10, at end insert— '(1A) For the purpose of this Act "households on lower incomes" means households with a household income which is less than half the current average.'. No. 35, in page 1, line 10, at end insert— '(1A) For the purpose of this Act "household income" means the combined income of all those living within the confines of a set dwelling.'. No. 48, in page 1, line 18, leave out from "practicable" to end of line 19 and insert— 'persons in England or Wales do not live in fuel poverty'. No. 13, in page 1, line 18, leave out "on lower incomes" and insert "in fuel poverty". No. 14, in page 1, line 18, leave out "on lower incomes" and insert— 'in receipt of benefit payments'. No. 17, in page 1, line 19, at end insert— ',and ( ) provide a definition of fuel poverty which will facilitate achievement of the objectives of section 1(1).'. No. 51, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (7). No. 31, in page 2, line 16, at end insert— ' "fuel poverty" means households obliged to spend 20 per cent. or more of their (after tax and benefits) income to keep acceptably warm, having regard to such factors as the age and medical condition of the occupants and the external ambient temperatures;'. No. 39, in page 2, line 16, at end insert— '"fuel poverty" means the inability of a household to keep warm at reasonable cost'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Although we tend not to talk about such things, outside observers may sometimes be confused by our proceedings. There is no doubt that our customs are puzzling to those outside. However, I should say immediately that, as the promoter of the Bill, I have absolutely no complaints about the procedures and processes which others might describe as tortuous. There is no point in entering the competition, as I did last autumn, knowing and understanding fully the rules of engagement, and then griping when things do not go as smoothly as one would wish. Although some hon. Members think that the Report stage of a Bill is a complete waste of time, I do not agree: I find it extremely valuable and I hope that this morning we will discover at first hand how the new clauses and amendments that I hope to persuade the House to accept result entirely from the taking on board of points that were made in earlier debates on the Bill. I recognise the need to work with other parties and I have taken on board the concerns of other right hon. and hon. Members in order to obtain the widest possible support for the Bill. I am very grateful for the help and encouragement that has been offered by so many right hon. and hon. Members at every stage. The amendments are very much a reflection of that spirit. I hope that the House will agree that the proposed changes are sensible and will benefit the people whom we are most concerned to help—our constituents—enabling them to afford to keep warm during the winter months. Second Reading seems a long time ago, but at the time I told the House that I felt very uncomfortable with the term "fuel poverty". I was born and bred in the east end of London and some people may have thought that I was poor, as my family did not have a bathroom, only an outside toilet; however, I, and other children like me, certainly did not feel poor. When we talk about fuel poverty, we have to be very careful about our language as "poor" may not mean the same thing to different people. Without antagonising Labour Members, let me say as a Conservative that I felt that the term "fuel poverty" sounded rather socialist. Labour Members may say, "What is wrong with using socialist terms?", but having taken on board new Labour and everything it stands for, I felt rather uncomfortable with that term. As a result, I was happy when it was removed from the Bill in Committee and when the requirement on the Government changed from the requirement to end fuel poverty to the requirement to ensure that all lower-income households could keep their homes warm at a reasonable cost. That represents no change of substance to the Bill, as fuel poverty is simply the inability to keep a home warm at reasonable cost. I regarded it as indulging in semantics to talk about fuel poverty, but various concerns were raised and I revisited the drafting in order to address them and reinstate the term. The new clause defines fuel poverty as before, but with additional parts. It is inevitable that certain terms in the definition, such as "reasonable cost", "lower-income" and even "warm", are somewhat subjective. We discussed those phrases in Committee. I am pleased that the Minister confirmed that "lower-income" is a wider term than "low-income" and includes more than just people on benefits, because hon. Members were worried about that. We still face the dilemma of wanting clarity but not wanting the Bill to be so inflexible and narrowly defined that future improvements in measuring fuel poverty cannot be made without amending primary legislation. That is very important and it is why the new clause allows the finer points of the definition to be set by regulations. I hope that the House will agree that that represents a sensible balance. The remaining parts of the new clause refer to consultation, and I hope that the House will accept my judgment on those matters. Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 are consequent on the new clause, inserting the term "fuel poverty" as necessary. Amendment No. 51 is the final amendment that I hope hon. Members will support. It removes clause 1(7), which had initially been included so that, if a strategy for fulfilling the requirements of the Bill was published before it became law, we would not require it to be re-published needlessly, as quite enough documents are being published at great cost to the public purse. That subsection is no longer necessary because things have moved on in the Departments that work on the strategy, and it has become clear that no strategy will be produced before the Bill comes into effect. My amendments deal with the legitimate concerns reflected in the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), so I hope that they will not press their amendments and that my amendments and new clause will be accepted.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Bill has undergone an even more tortuous process than most Bills, so I want to explain where we are to those who may be mystified. The Bill started with high hopes and aspirations and wide support in the House, and about 140 hon. Members took the trouble to turn up and vote for it at an earlier stage. When we discussed the money resolution, the Minister said that the Bill enshrines current commitments and mirrors measures that we already have in hand. For that reason, we do not believe that anything in the Bill would increase public expenditure above and beyond current commitments.—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 945–6.] 9.45 am Does the Minister still believe that the Bill has no public expenditure implications? That was a mystery that arose at a very early stage, and then the plot thickened further, because in Committee, the Government, with the apparent connivance of Committee members—there were no Divisions—removed almost all the elements of the Bill that we had previously been told were vital, including the reference to fuel poverty. That would have been mysterious enough, but a group calling itself Friends of the Earth conducted a very odd campaign, involving letters flying about all over the place. A leaflet appeared in my constituency in which that group claimed that the Bill, designed to save pensioners' lives, was being wrecked by me. I shall quote from the leaflet—which, before you stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is relevant to the Bill—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. It is not so much the relevance to the Bill that I am concerned about as the relevance to the amendments and the new clause. Some outside group accusing the right hon. Gentleman of wrecking the Bill has nothing to do with those.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is fine. I shall come back to it later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall find a way of getting it in, because in it will get. That was just a trailer.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. At the moment, I am trying to find a way of keeping it out.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

And you have succeeded for now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give the matter further thought as we meander our way through. I know that you would not want to delay matters unnecessarily, so I hope that I can slip it in fairly quickly later. There was an odd sequence of events: certain provisions were deemed essential on Second Reading; then the Minister said that they would not in fact change anything; and then they were systematically removed. In Committee, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said: We need to know what definition of fuel poverty the Government intend to use. If amended, the Bill would cover only lower income groups.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 2000; c. 6.] That illustrates the point that Committee members, and campaigning groups that I am not allowed to mention, did not lift a finger when the Government removed provisions that they had previously called essential. At that point, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I smelled several rats.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My right hon. Friend is now on the key issue. The blame should not rest with members of the Committee. If members of Britain's foremost environmental campaigning organisation said that the gutting of the Bill was okay, I suspect that most Members of Parliament would initially believe that propaganda. Why does the new clause put back into the Bill those things that Friends of the Earth said could be taken out in Committee, although it thought that they were very important to begin with?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That poses a number of questions about these Friends of the Earth people, who seem to have taken some very peculiar attitudes, not to mention their systematic campaign of disinformation, to which, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may return later. Under new clause 12, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) proposes to reintroduce something that was originally deemed to be very important, but was then thought insufficiently important for people to bother much about it. About a month ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) wrote to the Minister for the Environment to tell him that we thought that the Bill would have relevance and meaning if the original drafting were restored; that it could then deliver what it was always claimed it would deliver; and that it would therefore receive our support. A few days ago, the Minister for the Environment replied that the Government were prepared to support the reintroduction of virtually everything that they had removed from the Bill in Committee. I am very pleased about that. My right hon. Friend and I put that proposition to the Minister for the Environment, and he replied positively. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In essence, my right hon. Friend and I believed that, if the Bill was to have any meaning, it should contain the provisions that it contained right from the start; we therefore insisted that they should be put back. No one else was involved. Friends of the Earth did not care whether or not those provisions were included. Its disinformation and its leaflets show that it did not give a damn what was in the Bill. All that it wanted was a Bill called "Warm Homes and Energy Conservation"; it was indifferent about the content. My right hon. Friend and I, taking our parliamentary duties seriously, persuaded the Minister for the Environment to provide the undertaking that is key to today's proceedings. I do not want to delay the House. I hope that the Bill will proceed, with all the amendments tabled by hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. My right hon. Friend and I will support those amendments. I hope that the Minister will confirm shortly that he will honour the commitment given by the Minister for the Environment. If so, the Bill may be able to deliver what it was intended to deliver; it cannot do that in its current form. If it is amended; if the Minister gives an undertaking; and if the House agrees with him, the Bill will emerge in a form that may genuinely provide help to those who need it in warming their homes. That is our hope. I do not want to prolong our proceedings, so I shall give my modest support to new clause 12. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be able to return to the matters that you discouraged me from mentioning.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I welcome new clause 12 and congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on tabling it. I also welcome the movement that has taken place and the fact that we can still improve the Bill. I hope and trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept, with some grace, that the process of bringing the Bill back to the House on Report has involved several meanders. It is worth acknowledging how difficult it is to get a private Member's Bill through the House. Any Member who wants to introduce a Bill is told that civil servants will scrutinise the proposals and that the preference will be to cause the least disruption to departmental plans. Hon. Members are told in no uncertain terms that, if they aspire to get a private Member's Bill through the House, they should be modest in their expectations. A private Member's Bill can be blocked and obstructed in a variety of ways, so considerable skill and deftness of thought are required to get a Bill through the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West on achieving such broad consensus. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the role of the work done in Committee. The clauses and definitions that we discussed during the Committee's first sitting left a lot to be desired. The contribution that hon. Members made during that sitting was that they gave the Minister and his advisers time to reflect on some of the obvious gaps in the original definitions. To be fair, the Minister proposed a much improved set of definitions and clauses, which the Committee was able to consider. It has been helpful to recognise just how much movement has taken place in people's thinking on those definitions. I welcome the proposed reinsertion of the term "fuel poverty". Hon. Members may recall that that phrase was used in Bills that some of us drafted early in our parliamentary days—I shall not rehearse them now. We have always talked about fuel poverty; it seems to be the most helpful peg on which to hang a definition of what the Bill should attempt to do. I am grateful to those who have helped in proposing the reinsertion of that phrase.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the credit for reinstating the original gravamen of the Bill lies with my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)? They forced the issue.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am happy to acknowledge the role that the right hon. Gentlemen have played in proposing that the phrase should be reintroduced, especially as they played a principal role in removing them in the first place. I am all in favour of Pauline conversions. During the debate on the money resolution, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said: I refute the whole concept of fuel poverty. It is nonsense, as I tried to point out in some of my interventions in the debate. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before I could make the speech that was bubbling up inside me. In a way, I am pleased that it has had a chance to bubble a bit longer. He continued: Much nonsense is talked about fuel poverty; I am not convinced of it as a concept, so I do not feel that it is relevant.—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 937.] I am grateful that, in the course of reflecting on the Bill, we have been able to construct a new consensus in which a recognition of the concept of fuel poverty is shared by the whole House.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I am so influential in the House that I had only to utter a few words in an intervention for the Government to act and remove that phase in Committee?

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I was praising my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Benches. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had only to show a gap in his learning in an intervention to mobilise hon. Members on both sides of the House to explain the reasons why fuel poverty is a legitimate concept and why it is so important. I praise the House for successfully contributing to the education of the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I welcome the fact that that has taken place and that we can include the phrase "fuel poverty", because it clarifies the reality of the problems that beset our society, which are a scandal that needs to be addressed. I welcome new clause 12 and congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West on all the work that he has done on reintroducing those words, and I celebrate the fact that we all recognise that fuel poverty is a legitimate problem that the Bill must address.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I welcome the new clause and the fact that the Government will accept it. I am grateful that the Government have listened over the past few weeks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me. We wrote to the Minister to indicate that there were five essential things that we wanted put back into the Bill and that, in those circumstances, we would be happy for it to proceed. I am glad that the Minister, in discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), has conceded the point on fuel poverty. I have before me a Bill proposed in 1997 by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson): the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, as it was on Second Reading, and the Bill that we are debating today. There are considerable similarities between the 1997 Bill and my hon. Friend's Bill on Second Reading. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. I am not accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West of plagiarism, but large parts of his Bill, as it was on Second Reading, are similar. I have some concerns about the implementation and about costs but those are for the Government to explain to the taxpayer. I have greater concern about the deception that was wrought on Members of Parliament and the public not by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, but by Friends of the Earth and others who pretended that my hon. Friend's Bill is the same as it was at Second Reading—or, more importantly, the same as the 1997 Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Today, I have received my third letter from a Friends of the Earth supporter.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As many as that?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I have had as many as three from my own constituency. However, the letters that I have received from the rest of the country on the Bill have been instructive, and that is why I was keen for the Minister to put the points back in the Bill. I had letters from home insulation contractors, saying that they would make a lot of money because the Bill contained specific clauses on cavity wall insulation and loft lagging. I looked at the Bill again and discovered that they were talking about the wrong Bill. On fuel poverty, I have received letters from pensioner groups in other parts of the country, all saying that they would benefit because of the mention of fuel poverty in clause 3. When one studies the Bill as it is today, it becomes clear that they are talking about a totally different Bill.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has been neglected by his constituents and has received only three letters. There was a large gathering of pensioners in London this week.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

How many?

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

Probably about 50 people from different organisations. Importantly, people had come from the constituencies of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border with a box of cards that they had tried to deliver to both of them. I have that box, which I will happily hand over to the right hon. Members.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I may have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's surname earlier, but I have not forgotten the rules on interventions. His is too long.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

If any of my constituents come to the House and let me know that they are coming, I will be available to meet them, if it all possible. None of them let me know they were coming. If the hon. Gentleman provides me with the names and addresses of those constituents, I will be delighted to have them. Now that I have managed to work my word processor, I have an interesting package of information on the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill to send to all constituents. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South is making my point. Many pensioner groups and other organisations believe that the Bill is somehow identical to that proposed by him, and to an earlier Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), which had even more targets and was more specific.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is worse than that? Some of the literature that I have received states that the Government will install home insulation and efficient heating systems, resulting in warm homes. This sort of claim was made by Friends of the Earth, despite the Minister telling us that there would be no extra programmes and no extra money.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

We know that the Minister is a man of many talents; it is quite possible that he has his toolbox behind the Chair and is ready to install home insulation efficiency equipment. He would never do it on a moonlighting basis, because he does not believe in second jobs. My right hon. Friend makes the point that there is a huge misinformation exercise; not by the Government or my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. There is a vicious propaganda campaign led by Friends of the Earth for its own purposes. The only purpose is that Friends of the Earth is keen to get a slogan. It wants to be able to say that it pushed through the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. It is happy to have the Bill gutted and have nothing in it, so long as it has the title. It will carry on pretending that the Bill is the same as those proposed by the hon. Members for Nottingham, South and for Halifax. I appreciate that Labour Members will not want to say anything about worthy environmental campaigning organisations and risk exposing their shoulder blades to them. However, I hope that Labour Members will agree with some of what I have said regarding Friends of the Earth. I wanted to see the words "fuel poverty" put back in the Bill because I wanted to see how the Government deal with it. I am not sure about the concept of fuel poverty. I think food poverty is infinitely more important. If one looks at the statistics, one sees that many people are suffering because they do not have enough food or because they are not eating properly. There is a problem with elderly women whose husbands die, who decide that it is not worth cooking a meal and survive on a cup of tea and a biscuit. That problem desperately needs tackling by all Governments, and it is perhaps more important than the concept of fuel poverty.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On that point, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bromley health authority has kindly provided me with some figures about deaths in the borough attributable to cold? Tragically, five people have died from cold in the last eight years and, in my constituency, there has been one death since 1997. That official figure contrasts with the claims made by Friends of the Earth that, on average, 150 Bromley pensioners die every winter because they are cold in their homes. That is the disgraceful disinformation being peddled in my constituency by a dishonest organisation. There was one death, tragically, in actuality; 150 deaths were claimed in the rubbish that has been put round my constituency.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I have some slight sympathy for my right hon. Friend, but the figures attributed to him for mass murder are nowhere near as good as those attributed to me. I have been accused of killing 600 people in Cumbria. Until my right hon. Friend reaches that total, I do not think that he has much cause for complaint. Admittedly, he has real cause for complaint about any organisation that issues rubbish like that, but I have been accused of surpassing him. Unfortunately—or fortunately, of course—the statistics for my own patch are radically different. It is difficult to determine those who have died of cold in their own homes in Cumbria because the figures sometimes get mixed in with the figures for those who have died of hypothermia on the mountains.

John Austin (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although "hypothermia" may have appeared on only one death certificate, cold exacerbates conditions such as influenza, bronchitis, asthma, cardiac problems, strokes, and so on? Cold can be a major contributory factor to the deaths of elderly people from other illnesses.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Of course cold can be a contributory factor, but so can hot weather conditions and other aspects of our climate. [Interruption.] Ozone levels and fumes cause problems, too, and cause extra deaths at certain times of the year. It is utterly bogus, however, to attribute all excess winter deaths purely to lack of home insulation or to demand a comprehensive package to prevent excess winter deaths. It is an utterly bogus statistic.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am very interested in the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to propound. Does he not accept that in the context of eating and heating, we are talking about internal as well as external heating? Has he looked at the excess winter deaths in other countries which have a much colder climate than the United Kingdom? Surely he must accept that although hypothermia does not appear on death certificates, there are sensible reasons for accepting the statistics for these excess winter deaths. The problem must be addressed, which is why I support the new clause.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Of course I have looked at the figures for other countries. In my piles of paperwork, there is a booklet that includes them. I am not completely rubbishing the concept of excess winter deaths. Nevertheless, the statistics are grossly exaggerated by certain organisations for their own purposes. The point of the debate is to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I hope that the Minister will accept it—I will be very surprised if he does not. The new clause meets my demand that the term "fuel poverty" be restored to various parts of the Bill. I want it restored not because I completely understand the concept, but because I want to see how the Government will deal with it. The Government were happy to go along with the concept and they must be judged on how successfully they deal with it over the next few years. I also like the new clause because of its proposed power to make regulations that specify the definitions of fuel poverty and living on a lower income household. I was worried that after the Bill was gutted in Committee, it was rather vague on that aspect. The new clause would give it a bit more clarity and certainty. 10.15 am What made me suspicious of the Bill initially was the money resolution and some of the things that the Minister said and did not say in the debate about it. I am not blaming him entirely—he had his brief, and he had to stick to it at the time. I was very suspicious that there might be a ploy under way and that the Bill would end up gutted, with the key elements taken out—the power to make regulations, references to fuel poverty and a comprehensive package. I suspected that all the outside organisations would be told by Friends of the Earth, "This is really the same Bill as we had in 1997, and nothing has changed." Those people would be deceived. I do not want us to pass legislation that is hollow and merely aspirational verbiage, as my right hon. Friend said. Let us put the relevant terms back in and make the Bill what we say it is and what the organisations outside think it is. Then let us judge the Government on how well they do.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have an opportunity here, because the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations to enforce the toughest definition of fuel poverty?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Exactly. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend and I wrote to the Minister of State saying that we could do a deal. We said that the Bill was empty, hollow and rubbish, and that there was no point in passing it—it was nothing like the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. We said that if we could, with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, put in things by which the Government can be measured—such as a definition of fuel poverty and the power to make regulations—when the Minister brought those regulations before the House, both sides would know whether we were dealing with 50 people or 500, 000. The regulations will have to delineate those whom the Government consider live in lower-income households or in fuel poverty. At that stage we will be able to see whether the Government are trying to dodge their obligations by narrowing the focus of the Bill to dealing with a few thousand or a few hundred thousand people a year. If the regulations follow the spirit of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, we know that it will have to catch 500, 000 people a year. However, we will judge the Minister on that later—today is not the day. Today is the day to say that the new clause is an improvement, and I welcome it. It covers some of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and me. We do not wish to push any of our amendments to the vote but will be happy to accept the new clause.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I support the new clause. It is interesting that the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) seem to have spent most of their speeches slagging off Friends of the Earth rather than addressing the issues in the Bill. I have found Friends of the Earth of great assistance, generally speaking, in preparing for the debates on the Bill, although I have one small criticism. I was surprised on 9 June to see that the Bill had disappeared, having spent some time preparing to debate it on that day. Having discussed the issue with members of Friends of the Earth on several occasions in the previous couple of weeks, I thought that it was, at the very least, somewhat discourteous of them not to let me know the change of tactics on that day. I think that the way forward is that set out in new clause 12, which would provide for the Government to make regulations. When the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that he was not sure about the concept of fuel poverty, I wondered when he would get round to the amendments that he and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had tabled. At the end of his speech, he said that they did not propose to press the amendments. Nevertheless, those amendments are part of the group before us, and are subject to debate today. I intend to address those amendments shortly, because I think that the right hon. Gentlemen are trying to run with the hare and the hounds—perhaps to presage a forthcoming battle that we may have on the Floor of the House—in that they did not withdraw those amendments at an earlier stage, but left them on the Order Paper for today and available for selection. So although the right hon. Gentlemen may not press those amendments, they nevertheless form part of the first group of amendments on the selection paper.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The amendments are on the Order Paper because that was part of the agreement I made with the Minister of State. I said that even if the new clause and the amendment were forthcoming from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I would still leave our amendments on the Order Paper in case of accidents. It has been known for new amendments not to get on to the Order Paper, by accident. Were that to happen, at least we would have something to debate. Now that my hon. Friend's new clause and amendment have appeared on the Order Paper, I will honour our commitment to the Minister that we will not force our amendments to a vote.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I am grateful for that clarification. I can only assume that the amendments may have been put down on different days and that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst had forgotten what they had tabled previously. They contain many internal inconsistencies as well as vague and woolly definitions of what fuel poverty or income may be.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising the selection of amendments by Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I may have wanted—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman would not be suggesting that.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ofcourse I would not question Madam Speaker's selection of amendments. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentlemen put themselves forward as great champions of the poor and people who need warmer homes. On the other, their amendments are internally inconsistent, displaying a complete lack of thought about the issues. If anyone deserves criticism, it is those who see it as their business to scupper the Bill rather than working constructively with those of us who want progress.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the Bill's progress, how will he aid it by debating amendments that he has been told will be withdrawn?

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

The answer to that is straightforward. The amendments are before us for debate. The right hon. Members who tabled them may not press them, but other hon. Members may speak about them. We should discuss the issues, criticise the amendments for their poor drafting and highlight the tactics that may lie behind them. As they were selected for debate, I am right to spend a few moments highlighting the inconsistencies in the positions adopted by the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst so that I can say why their approach is misguided. I make that point in the spirit of the Friday team: Bromley has the most pensioners in London and my borough, Barnet, has the second most, although we pip Bromley on pensioners in the older categories. In amendment No. 5, to clause 1, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would define "households in fuel poverty" by reference to income, but offers no definition of whether that means gross or net income, includes savings income, or means only earned income. In amendment No. 33, for the whole Act, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border offers a different definition—household income at "half the current average". The average of what he does not say. Amendment No. 35 refers to the combined income of all those living within the confines of a set dwelling, but the right hon. Gentlemen must be aware of significant problems arising for the administration of housing benefit from a similar definition. That requires frequent recalculation of benefit because of the need to aggregate household income under present rules. Amendment No. 14 substitutes for people "on lower incomes" people in receipt of benefit payments. There are three types of benefit: universal, contributory and means-tested. The bulk of households, including those that do not consider themselves to be low-income, receive some benefit, such as child benefit, which is paid to tens of millions of families. The definition proposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would, as they are in receipt of benefit, include everyone from a duchess to a lone parent living in poverty on one of my council estates. Contributory benefits are paid as of right, and many people who receive them do not consider themselves poor. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean only means-tested benefits? The amendments are not clear, and even if the right hon. Gentlemen do not intend to press them, I urge hon. Members not to support them. In amendment No. 31, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst makes a series of vague suggestions. He says that homes should be "acceptably warm". Acceptable to whom? He has had one person die of hypothermia in his constituency, so should it be acceptable to him? Or should it be acceptable to the pensioners who need and benefit from the winter fuel payment—soon to rise to £150—which is a vital contribution to dealing with fuel poverty and heating homes, and which the Conservatives intend to abolish should they win the next election? One of the Government's first acts was to reduce value added tax on heating bills, which was of great importance to those who need to keep their homes acceptably warm. We cut VAT to 5 per cent.—the lowest amount permitted by law—from the horrendous rate levied by the Conservatives on those who need to pay their fuel bills to keep themselves warm and fend of hypothermia.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As he gives his list, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will mention the benefits of global warming as well as the home warming packages inherited from the previous Government. Will he also mention the consistent fall in domestic fuel prices since privatisation of the energy industry? That continues to this day and my constituents and his gain from it. That would give the full picture of the extent to which people can already enhance the warmth of their homes.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point. On privatisation, I can say only that I have had many complaints from people, particularly pensioners, who have been doorstepped by spurious salesmen trying to persuade them to sign over their fuel contracts. People have been harassed and browbeaten into changing contracts without realising what they are signing, and I have had to make more complaints to the various regulators about that than about anything else. The right hon. Gentleman may have a point about bills—he has, perhaps, studied that more closely than I have—but I know that complaints have arisen against the plethora of companies vying dubiously for contracts, particularly among pensioners confused by what is going on. We do not know what "acceptably warm" means. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would, should the Conservatives win the next election, vote to abolish the winter fuel payment. I hope that he never has the chance, because pensioners tell me how valuable it is in keeping homes acceptably warm and dealing with fuel poverty. The amendment also refers to "external ambient temperatures". I am not sure whether that is some obtuse reference to global warming. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods and says that it might be. That is a peculiar position to take. It would return us to the inadequate attempts of the cold weather hardship payments to deal ex post facto with keeping people's homes warm. That was a terrible way to deal with the problem. Homes had to be cold for days on end, and the money could be claimed only retrospectively. If on only one day the temperature went a degree above the limit, the pensioner received nothing. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to return to that, rather than having £150 paid in the autumn before the cold weather, he will not find favour with many pensioners. I am also worried that there may be different rules for people in the south and in the north, as there were under the old system. I hope that I have highlighted the lack of thought behind the attacks mounted by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border during the Bill's passage through the House. The solution proposed by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), presumably after discussions with the Government, is the way forward. In the regulations, the Government will be able to provide sensible answers to questions about income levels, acceptable warmth and so on. They will be able to use objective criteria such as temperature, and I see that later amendments contain suggestions in that regard. 10.30 am The organisation Friends of the Earth has made a major contribution to the Bill and has been unfairly traduced this morning. The hon. Member for Southend, West deserves congratulation on his constructive work with the Government. The Bill will help to tackle fuel poverty and ensure that pensioners do not have to suffer from hypothermia and cold homes. The winter fuel payment and the cut in VAT on fuel show that progress is being made, but if we make sure that homes are warm as a result of insulation, for example, that money will go a lot further.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The Bill has benefited from detailed scrutiny in the House, and also in the exchange of letters between the Minister and my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). To keep up that level of scrutiny, I have a few practical questions that arise out of the amendments. However, I shall begin by dealing with the extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I assume that he is happy with the Government's miserly pensions increase this year, which would be massively improved by the consolidation of various benefits proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I also assume that Labour Members are happy with the way in which the Government fiddle the inflation figures. The calculation of the rate of inflation is lower when it comes to determining the increase for pensioners than it is when the Government wish to raise petrol prices. If the hon. Gentleman is happy with both those things, he will have some explaining to do to pensioners in his constituency.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

Many pensioners receive occupational pensions, and so pay tax. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that paying the £150 winter fuel allowance weekly would have attracted tax, and that pensioners would have received less of the money?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I note that Labour Members do not want to deal with the amount of the increase introduced by the Government, or with the fact that the Government offer no guarantee about how they will calculate inflation next year. However, I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might consider a wider debate about the Government's miserliness towards pensioners to be out of order. The second extraordinary point about the speech by the hon. Member for Hendon was that he devoted almost all of it to a discussion of amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border had said that he intended to withdraw. The suspicion is that that was the performance of an hon. Gentleman trying to talk out a Bill. I genuinely hope that that was not the case.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I intended to talk the Bill out, I could speak for more than 10 or 15 minutes.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am happy with that confirmation, but there are other groups of amendments. If all the hon. Gentleman's speeches are as irrelevant to the Bill as his first, we may well be in trouble with time later. However, I am pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance about his intentions, as I was wondering whether he was obeying an order from his Whips. No doubt we shall find out the truth of that later. In Committee, there was a long debate about the central issue of who should benefit from the Bill. I expect the Government to support the new clause and associated amendments, but I hope that the Minister will explain what attitude the Government will take towards the important definitions arising from them. How many people will benefit from the definitions that will appear in the regulations—a few thousand, hundreds of thousands or millions? The definitions so far set down are loose enough to encompass both large and small programmes. I appreciate that the Minister will not want to go into detail about the regulations that will emerge from the Bill, but a general indication would be useful. Similarly, if the amendments are accepted the term "lower income" will have to be defined. Will the Minister say what percentage of households will be covered? Will the threshold be defined as a percentage of average income, or will an absolute income level be set out? If I read aright what the Minister said in Committee, the definition will cover a wider group than people receiving certain types of benefit. If the Government choose a definition based on an absolute income figure, pensioner groups and others will want to know whether they intend to index-link the figure, to leave it as it is, or to increase it regularly.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Does the hon. Gentleman hope that the Minister will bear in mind the comments of the Minister for the Environment, who said that 8 million UK households suffer fuel poverty, and that as many as 3 million to 4 million elderly people are at risk of hypothermia?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that, over the course of the past year, the Government have changed the definition of fuel poverty in a way that severely reduced the numbers of people said to be suffering from it. The Bill was watered down in Committee at the Government's behest, so the House is right to be moderately sceptical about the Government's true intentions.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am pleased that my hon. Friend is pressing the Minister to explain how the measure will define lower income households. The new clause would provide for that. One of the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I tabled amendments was to try to tease out from the Government the meaning of the phrase "lower income households" and to offer alternatives. The Minister was not forthcoming on that matter, but the new clause would enable us to arrive at a definition, and we shall be able to judge whether the Government are trying to dodge their obligations.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. Given the tenor of the discussions on the Bill, hon. Members have some reason to be a touch sceptical about the Government's true intentions. I hope that the Minister can reassure us by offering general guidelines as to his approach to those important definitions. I support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

As hon. Members noted earlier, progress on the Bill has been somewhat convoluted. However, if I judge correctly the sentiments expressed by Members on both sides of the House, we seem to have reached a consensus. I hope that no one regards that as provocation. The new clauses and amendments deal with definitions of fuel poverty and related regulations. New clause 12 gives a broad definition of fuel poverty and would provide the necessary power to make regulations for a closer definition of the term for the purposes of the Bill. In that respect, it differs from new clause 9, which would require regulations to implement the strategy. That is not necessary because such powers already exist; for example, the home energy efficiency scheme under social security legislation. Several people suggested that fuel poverty should be defined in the Bill. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) obviously listened to them. The Government have pointed out constantly that we cannot tie the inter-ministerial group on fuel poverty to a once-and-for-all definition. That is why we accepted the wording proposed by the hon. Gentleman in Committee and now included in the Bill—it provided the necessary flexibility for a strategy to define and target the fuel poor. We have considered the new clause carefully and have taken into account the views expressed by hon. Members in Committee and in correspondence. The provision offers a new general definition of fuel poverty that parallels the text that emerged in Committee and allows for a more detailed definition in regulations, following consultation. That is an adequate compromise. For the reasons we gave in Committee, we cannot and should not provide an absolute and final definition of fuel poverty in the Bill. To do so would require consultation that would fatally delay the Bill. The new clause takes a more circuitous route than we anticipated a few months ago, but it addresses our concerns by allowing further definition in regulations. In a spirit of co-operation, I shall accept the new clause. Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 are consequential on the new clause and reflect the position that would apply if it were accepted.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Can the Minister suggest how many people he thinks might be caught under the definition of fuel poverty?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I was about to touch on that point. There are many definitions and I am aware that in the fuel poverty industry—if that is the correct phrase—the matter is hotly contested and there is no agreement. Several million people will probably be affected. As I noted in Committee, the definition will extend beyond those who are on benefit. I do not want to comment further on that matter at present. Amendment No. 51 would remove subsection (7) of clause 1. That subsection would have made it possible for any strategy that complied with the Act, and was published by the Secretary of State within the six months before the Act was passed, to be counted as a strategy prepared under the Act. That was a sensible solution for England, where the proceedings of the inter-ministerial group on fuel poverty might have enabled it to publish a strategy before the measure came into force. However, following consultations, the final strategy will not be produced until after the measure becomes law, thus rendering the subsection unnecessary. As there is little point in retaining a provision that serves no useful purpose, the hon. Member for Southend, West has tidied up the Bill. The remaining nine amendments in the group were tabled by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I hope that they agree that the provisions tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, West deal with the issues that they raised. I thus ask them not to press the amendments. I see that the right hon. Gentlemen are nodding graciously. I propose that new clause 12 and amendments Nos. 46, 48 and 51 be accepted.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. If humble pie should be eaten, I am delighted to eat it in abundance. As I listened to the debate, I was not sure whether I was the criminal or the victim. I do not know whether I was naive because I allowed myself to be completely rolled over in Committee. I paid close attention to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on public expenditure and other matters. As he is aware, I genuinely wanted him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to join us in the Committee. Former Ministers, such as my right hon. Friends, have great experience in dealing with such matters. I am sure that the Committee would have benefited from their input. I am sorry if my obvious incompetence has protracted our proceedings. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) for his valuable contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made a telling point on food poverty; without food, obviously one dies. Perhaps, on another occasion, the House might turn its attention to that matter, although I shall certainly not volunteer to pilot a private Member's Bill on it. Indeed, I wonder whether I should ever again promote a private Member's Bill on any issue. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to the events of a few weeks ago. I had not intended to mention that point. I shall allow no person or organisation to be blamed for what happened; I take full responsibility. The House is a dynamic place—although it does not always seem to be—and it is difficult to judge its mood. I fully understand that hon. Members give up their time and cancel constituency arrangements to attend the House on Fridays, and we do not get any thanks from our constituents unless we make speeches on the Floor of the House and vote for measures. On that Friday, it was my judgment that the Bill was unlikely to make any further progress and, with hindsight, that judgment was right. Indeed, we would not be debating it this morning if I had been wrong. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for his support. Irrespective of whether the Minister thinks that I have made a Pauline conversion, I am only too delighted that he thinks that new clause 12 moves in the right direction.

STRATEGY RELATING TO FUEL POVERTY

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 13, after "specify" insert "a comprehensive package of".

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 14, leave out "appropriate equipment or" and insert— 'a comprehensive package of home'. No. 16, in page 1, line 19, at end insert— ',and ( ) provide a procedure for differentiating the characteristics and requirements of different regions.'. No. 21, in page 1, line 19, at end insert— '(2A) For the purposes of section 1(2)(b) above "comprehensive package of home insulation" shall include the installation of— (a) cavity wall insulation; (b) loft insulation; (c) under-floor insulation; (d) draught-proofing.'. No. 44, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert— '"appropriate equipment or insulation" means works which qualify for grant under regulation 5 of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme Regulations 2000, namely— (a) insulation in any accessible roof space in the dwelling, including the insulation of any cold water tank and any water supply, overflow and expansion pipes in such a space; (b) insulation between the internal and external leaves of cavity walls of the dwelling; (c) draught proofing to or in the dwelling together with additional means of ventilation for any rooms which would otherwise be inadequately ventilated after such provision; (d) insulation to any water heating system or to provide any part of such a system with insulation incorporated in it; (e) gas room convector heaters with thermostat control; (f) electric storage heaters; (g) electric dual immersion heaters with foam insulated tank; (h) timer controls for electric space and water heaters; (i) improvements to the energy efficiency of, or replacement of any part of, or repair to any space or water heating system installed in the dwelling; (j) installation of a mains gas central heating system with no more than six radiators; (k) conversion of open solid fuel room fires to closed solid fuel room fires; (l) provision of a central heating system connected to the local community heating grid with no more than six radiators.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Amendment No. 47 changes the description of the measures required to be specified in the strategy. It would ensure that "a comprehensive package" of measures would lead to the efficient use of energy. However, amendment No. 21 would require a strategy to specify measures such as a comprehensive package of home insulation rather than the measures in clause 1(2)(b), which refers to the installation of appropriate equipment or installation. Amendment No. 21 would specify what the comprehensive package of home installation should include. As with the first group of new clauses and amendments that I moved, I propose the changes in amendment No. 47 to ensure the widest possible support for the Bill. Again, it deals with concerns raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). My aim has been to ensure that people can keep their homes warm at reasonable cost. I have therefore ensured that the measures taken must result in people being able to keep them warm at reasonable cost. Whatever we call the measures used, that is what the Bill would require. Others have felt that the Bill would be improved by amending the description of the measures so that it refers to "a comprehensive package". My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has already told the House that he intends to take full advantage of such a measure—he referred to loft insulation. Therefore, I have proposed the change in amendment No. 47 to ensure the widest possible support for the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot support amendments No. 10 and 21, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will not press them. As I understand it, they would exclude the installation of efficient heating equipment or heating controls. That may force a strategy to require the installation of insulation in situations in which other equipment would be cheaper and more effective in eliminating fuel poverty. Amendment No. 44 specifies a list of measures that could not be updated without returning to amend primary legislation. If a new, cheap and effective insulation product were developed, the amendment could prevent its use. Another problem is that amendment No. 21 states that the package provided "shall include" certain measures whether they are required or not. That could be particularly problematical with the fitting of cavity wall insulation, because many properties do not have cavity walls. The amendment is, therefore, unworkable. I hope that my right hon. Friends will not press amendment No. 16. They have made the point that people in colder areas lose out under the usual definition of fuel poverty, but I do not think that that is so. Even if two identical homes in the cold north and the warmer south were occupied by families with identical incomes, the heating would need to be turned up higher in the north to reach the same temperature in the house. Therefore, the bills would be higher in the north and make up a higher proportion of the family's income. As the House has already agreed, the family in the cold north are therefore more likely to be in fuel poverty. The example illustrates that no regional variation to the definition is required. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I had not intended to speak, but I am slightly concerned by the remarks of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). His interpretation of amendments Nos. 21 and 10 does not correspond with mine. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that the inclusion of the words "cavity wall insulation" in amendment No. 21 would counter his requirements for the Bill? It is my understanding that the provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the amendment for "cavity wall insulation", "loft insulation", "under-floor insulation" and "draught-proofing" are simply examples of what might be part of a comprehensive package of home insulation measures for the purposes of the proposed section 1(2)(b). Of course, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, some homes do not have cavity wall insulation, but the amendment is not prescriptive. It merely provides examples of what a comprehensive package might include. Amendment No. 47 would add the words "a comprehensive package" to the Bill and the hon. Gentleman said that he had tabled it to garner the widest possible support. Amendment No. 21 would also achieve that aim. For the sake of clarity, may I also ask the hon. Gentleman about his objection to amendment No. 10? He appears to be relying on the argument that only insulation and not other measures, such as timing devices, might be used. However, I support the amendment because other equipment has a role to play in ensuring that homes have the most efficient insulation and are kept warm. I am slightly concerned by the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the amendments.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Although I do not exactly support amendment No. 47, because it would not greatly amend the definition in the Bill, I shall acquiesce to it. I oppose amendment No. 10. Hon. Members may be aware of a UK company that produces a special electronic black box that can be attached to boilers. The company tells me that the box can reduce significantly boilers' cycling, which is extremely energy inefficient. It would be a great pity it the option to fit that sort of equipment to existing boilers was not available as part of a fuel poverty reduction strategy.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was uncharacteristically unkind in suggesting that it does not materially assist the Bill, as I think that it does. I shall give two examples to support the amendment, which will allow enlightened Ministers, such as those on the Front Bench today, and others in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry, to find further ways to support renewable energy options. I am thinking especially about the case for installing solar panels on roofs. Greenpeace, an environmental organisation that does not always get support and recognition from the Opposition, did sterling work in May 1997 with low-income homes in Silvertown in London, installing solar panels on their roofs. Each home was projected to save a third of its electricity bill, or £60 a year, which, at a stroke, helped to tackle the problem of fuel poverty. We need to widen the definition and encourage Ministers and officials to examine the widest possible range of measures to tackle fuel poverty. In an Adjournment debate on 25 May 1999, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) highlighted the enormous potential of solar panels, especially in urban areas, where, as we all know, the largest proportion of low-income households are located. Clearly, they are not located there exclusively, and I recognise the problem of rural fuel poverty. However, the vast majority of low-income households are in urban areas, and clearly, other forms of renewable energy are not appropriate for those areas.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I wonder whether, like me, the hon. Gentleman regrets the departure from the DTI of a key civil servant who dealt with renewable energy?

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I think that I am aware of the case, and I think that that civil servant has been replaced by someone who is equally enthusiastic about renewables, so I do not think that there has been an adverse effect. I shall develop the point about the opportunities that the amendment offers for solar panels. We must recognise that traditional forms of renewable energy, such as hydro power or wind power, are clearly inappropriate for urban areas. However, some 80 per cent. of us who live in towns and cities have roofs on which solar panels could be situated.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that wind power may be inappropriate for urban areas. Does he accept that it is also inappropriate in many of our finest mountain areas, such as the Lake district?

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I think that I would—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member to have strayed this morning. We are talking not about renewable energy, but about the amendment on fuel poverty. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendment before the House.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly do not intend to go down the route suggested by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), because I know that if I did, I would be severely outwith the reach of the amendment. Solar panels offer the Government an opportunity to address the problem of fuel poverty. I should perhaps restate a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who said that the average south-facing roof can sustain photovoltaic tiles that can generate upwards of 2,000 units of electricity per annum.—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 262.] Bearing in mind the fact that average household consumption runs only to about 2,500 units a year, and that 80 per cent. of our fuel costs could therefore be met by the provision of solar panels, surely the inter-ministerial group could usefully consider that. The amendment offers a cloak to enlightened officials and Ministers who support the concept of net metering, which has met with opposition. Imagine the delight of a low-income household when, in periods of great sunshine, its solar panels export to the grid electricity surplus to its individual requirements. Not only does that household get a low-cost option with solar panels, but has some of the bills that it may have to pay in winter covered by the money that it gets back by exporting electricity to the grid. The concept of net metering is very much welcomed and supported in America, where 22 states, including Wisconsin, Idaho, California and Washington, have adopted various net metering regimes. The amendment, which suggests that a comprehensive package of measures is needed, holds out the prospect that the inter-ministerial group, which would presumably draw up the strategy outlined in the Bill, could consider net metering. I hope that in the cause of renewable energy, as well as the wider and more important cause of tackling fuel poverty, hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the amendment.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). I shall not go down the windmill route again now, but if a suitable opportunity arises, I shall again drop into the debate my concern about the proliferation of such elements of renewable energy in the wrong places. The amendment is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was too harsh on himself and too self-deprecating when he wound up the previous debate. If an ordinary private Member on a Committee with a huge Government majority is faced with the prospect of a Minister and a majority of Committee members either removing parts of the Bill or, with the wonderful back-up of our excellent civil service, suggesting that something is not necessary, and that something else should be redrafted, he cannot be expected to stand up to that. My hon. Friend understood perfectly well that he had to take the best possible deal on the Bill that he felt he could get. As a result of our parliamentary procedures, we have found an opportunity to put back into the Bill those things that, in Committee, my hon. Friend was forced to accept had to be deleted. We can now corner the Government a little, and hold them to account. The inclusion of the term "a comprehensive package", as proposed in the amendment, is important. Some say that it makes little difference, and ask what is the difference between a package and a comprehensive package. The term "comprehensive package" relates to the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). One of my key concerns, which is as relevant to this debate as it was to the previous one, is the need to ensure that all the people out there, whether councils, lobby groups, pensioner groups or others, are not deceived into thinking that the measure that we would have passed today, had the amendments not been tabled, was the same as the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South or even the one preceding it, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The same terminology was used in their proposed legislation, and I think that it appeared in this Bill when it was given a Second Reading. Some of the letters that I have received—I received one from a pensioner group in Nottingham—say that this Bill must be passed because people are looking forward to a "comprehensive package" of measures for home insulation. If the term "comprehensive package" is deleted from the Bill, we will have misled those people. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) was slightly concerned about the amendment. He favoured some of those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and myself. I rather liked them at the time; they sought to define the term "comprehensive package". Amendment No. 44 is specific in setting out what I consider to be a very comprehensive package—I lifted it from the Government's home energy efficiency regulations—but I now accept that if it were accepted, whenever someone invented a new gadget that was good for home energy efficiency, or a new item of insulation, the Bill would need to be amended. I am happy not to move my amendment, provided that the Minister assures me in his reply that the term "comprehensive package" will be reinserted in the Bill, so that all the items that we have discussed, such as cavity walls, loft insulation and appropriate equipment, will be included. I shall accept the Minister's assurance that the term covers everything listed in amendment No. 44, which would naturally wrap up everything in amendment No. 21.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I should hate to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had misinterpreted the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). However, amendment No. 21 says that For the purposes of section 1(2)(b) above "comprehensive package of home insulation" shall include the installation of— cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and so on. The word "include" cannot be taken to be exhaustive. That is why I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the Minister can be advised by the excellent lawyers in the civil service. I think that the rule is called the suigeneris rule—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) might be able to advise him on that as well. If one gives a list of items for exemplification in an Act of Parliament, the only other items that may be considered to be included, if they are not mentioned, are those of the same category or type. Amendment No. 21 gives specific examples of cavity walls, loft insulation, underfloor insulation and draught proofing, which are all types of insulation. If a new electronic boiler meter that would drastically cut emissions or save fuel were invented, it would not be included because it is not a form of insulation, and thus it is not part of that generic list. Therefore, although the items in the list are merely examples, the fact that they are forms of insulation means that, by implication or by parliamentary interpretation, other items would automatically be excluded if they were not types of insulation. If the amendment is accepted, however, that argument is academic. If the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that he will accept the amendment, as I understand he will, and that the term "comprehensive package"—in its normal interpretation and according to the Government's understanding of the strategy to be followed—will include the items in amendments Nos. 21 and 44, and other things beside, we will have made considerable progress. I have detected no hon. Member on either side of the House who opposes the amendment. Everyone agrees that it is a good idea. As everyone concluded that the previous amendment was a good idea, and everyone appears to conclude that this one is a good idea, too, it is a pity that I have just received a note from Friends of the Earth saying that the last amendment was totally and utterly unnecessary, and so is this one. One must ask whose side that organisation is on.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. For some bizarre reason, so-called Friends of the Earth has been writing to everybody. Someone kindly wrote a note to me enclosing the rubbish that they had received from Friends of the Earth. One extraordinary statement that that organisation has made is that this part of the Bill is completely unnecessary. It had to say that, because although it supported—indeed, probably wrote—the original Bill, it was indifferent to its content being removed by the Government in Committee, and was urging right hon. and hon. Members and people outside to pay no attention to that process but to sign up to almost anything entitled "warm homes". One thing that we have managed to do in these proceedings is expose Friends of the Earth for what it is: a dishonest organisation that peddles disinformation to innocent and vulnerable people, worries them unnecessarily, encourages them to write form letters to Members of Parliament, and generally wastes everybody's time. I am glad that that has emerged from these proceedings, and that we have exposed Friends of the Earth as a disgraceful, dishonourable and dishonest organisation. If we have done nothing else, at least we have achieved that. There is ample evidence of that in writing. Leaflets circulated in my constituency made completely wrong assertions, not least about death. That is a disgraceful and disgusting thing to do. Imagine putting through the doors of elderly people leaflets making false claims about their vulnerability to death. That is the sort of disgusting disinformation with which we have had to deal. We can now put all that to one side, because the House has agreed that the term "comprehensive package" contained in the amendment is essential to the Bill. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made that point eloquently. Thus we all recognise the importance of that term, even if those disgraceful organisations do not. It endorses the parliamentary process when these matters are properly dealt with by Members of Parliament and Ministers, rather than by well funded, misdirected outside organisations that try to intimidate Members of Parliament by telling them, as Friends of the Earth did on a previous occasion, to turn up and shut up. That showed its contempt for the parliamentary process as well as for everything else. Friends of the Earth also gets people to write letters to Members of Parliament. I have received a number of letters on this subject because Friends of the Earth has spent a lot of subscribers' money on getting people to write letters to my right hon. Friends and me.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

But turning to the amendment…

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

One of those who wrote included a piece of paper referring to the amendment, and said how unnecessary it was. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—any such prompts are always welcome. I shall not detain the House at length today. Suffice to say that despite all the misdirected activity outside the House, Members of Parliament are focused; we deal with these matters responsibly and properly. Today's short debate has illustrated that Members who take an interest in these matters and scrutinise them carefully fully understand the difference between the original Bill, the Bill as gutted by the Government in Committee, and the Bill that we are now restoring. We can do that thanks to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I persuaded the Minister of State that the Bill should be restored to its original state in order to deliver what it purported to deliver in the first place. The only surprise was that so many people were apparently prepared to accept an inadequate Bill with little substance. That is for them to explain. My right hon. Friend and I took a different view. I am happy to say that the Minister of State shared that view, which is why today we can make this amendment and others, which give the Bill a degree of substance. With a bit of luck, and with the Government's support and good will, that will help to achieve what was originally intended. I am happy to support the amendment, and I do not propose to press any further amendments standing in my name. I look forward to the Minister's reassuring us that the Government support the amendment in letter, in spirit and in substance and that we can expect the Government to take up the Bill in its restored form so that something of substance is done. if we can achieve that today, the House can be pleased with itself.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

The amendments propose that appropriate measures to tackle fuel poverty be defined in the Bill, that the strategy specify what a comprehensive package of measures might be, and that the requirements of different regions be differentiated. Amendment No. 47, in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), proposes that the Bill should require the strategy to specify a comprehensive package of measures. There is no harm in including that in the primary legislation. We always intended that our strategy should specify the means, including the measures that would be used, to bring about the efficient use of energy, and the amendment will ensure that the commitment is enshrined in law. Amendments Nos. 10, 21 and 44 deal with definitions of measures to be installed in vulnerable households. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) conceded, those amendments have been superseded by amendment No. 47. In addition, defining measures is unwise: we do not want to tie the hands of those preparing the strategy to any particular kind of measure; we want the strategy to include the most appropriate and most cost-effective energy efficiency and other measures to deal with the problems that are identified. The methods used to tackle fuel poverty have to be wide-ranging. They can take the form of measures that are physically installed, or they can take the form of advice, grants or income benefits, none of which is included in the list in one of the amendments. In addition, we need to take account of the fact that technology moves on, and that in future there might be other measures that we wanted to employ but could not, because they were not on the defined list. If the list were partial, as the list in amendment No. 44 is, there could be serious repercussions affecting the usefulness of the Bill. We need to keep the Bill flexible, so that it covers all the appropriate measures, both those that are available today and new measures that may become available in future, if and when technological advances allow the inclusion of new or alterative measures. Amendments Nos. 21 and 44 do not allow for that because they are too restrictive. As we said in Committee, the Government want to avoid a comprehensive package of measures being deemed necessary for every household, regardless of whether or not that household needs one or more of the measures specified. That could be the outcome of accepting amendment No. 10. As for amendment No. 16, although the idea of setting out the regional picture of fuel poverty in developing the overall strategy is welcome, it is not necessary for such a provision to be spelled out in legislation. Therefore, the Government can accept amendment No. 47, but we ask the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) not to press amendments Nos. 10, 16, 21 and 44.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 17, leave out "a target date" and insert "target dates".

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in page 1, line 17, after "date", insert— ', which shall not be later than 15 years after the relevant commencement,'. No. 49, in page 1, line 19, at end insert— '( ) The target date specified under subsection (2)(d) must be not more than fifteen years after the date on which the strategy is published.'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

If one had to identify such a thing, one would say that this amendment is probably the most important today. The House need not take my word for that. In its leaflet, Friends of the Earth said of the 15-year target: This is the only change that would really toughen up the Bill, but unfortunately the Government has made it clear it would oppose the Bill if this target is included. Friends of the Earth, having said that the target was a key element, had capitulated and were happy for it to be sacrificed, merely because the Government had said that they would oppose it. Happily, thanks to the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I wrote to the Minister for the Environment—and, even more happily, thanks to the reply that we received from the right hon. Gentleman—we are about to put the provision back into the Bill. I think that we can take a small measure of satisfaction—no, a large measure of satisfaction—from the fact that a key element is to be restored to the Bill. Friends of the Earth is not the sole supporter of the provision—and why should we accept anything that that organisation says? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said: We need to know…how long the programme will take. The hon. Members who signed those early-day motions, many of whom are here today, signed up to a 15-year programme.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 2000; c. 6.] He obviously felt strongly about the matter, but apparently not strongly enough to vote against its removal in Committee. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is not present today, but who takes a strong interest in these matters, said: If my hon. Friend the Minister does all that he can to ensure that we implement the Bill over 15 years instead of 10 years, he will have done a good job.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 2000; c. 15.] The Minister did not do so: he went on to remove the 15-year target from the Bill and, regrettably, the hon. Lady did not oppose that. However, the world turns, people's attitudes change, and, thanks to our letter to the Minister for the Environment and his reply, here we are, gathered together, on the verge of restoring the 15-year target to the Bill. Right from the start, it has been acknowledged that if the Bill was to mean anything at all, it had to contain such a framework. I know that the hon. Members who have always been enthusiastic about it took such a view. It is sad that although the Bill that returned to the House today contained no such reference, many hon. Members were prepared to accept it in that form. However, that is all behind us and we now have the opportunity to restore to the Bill a provision that everyone said was essential. Well, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I do not merely say things—we act, and I am happy that our action has now enabled the House to restore the measure to the Bill. I do not think that I have to say any more or do any persuading. I hope that the House will accept the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), which would have the desired effect. If the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), indicates, as he has done so far, that the Government are prepared to support the amendment, I am sure that the House will follow suit and we shall then be able to make swift progress.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I should like to express my support for amendment No. 49, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess); he deserves my vote of thanks, because he has got me off the hook. The House will know that I have long been associated with previous forms of the Bill, which set out a 15-year programme, and that I have participated in campaigns in support of that. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I took a person in a polar bear suit with us to lobby the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—we have tried to get Departments as well as individual Members of Parliament on board. Unfortunately, the weather was like today's and the person in the suit lost several pounds as a result.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

When he met the 50 pensioners he told us about earlier, did the hon. Gentleman urge them to support the Bill as it stood this morning, or as it will be after we make the amendments?

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

In truth, I was probably urging the pensioners to support the Bill that I originally tabled. We had an inkling that the Bill's promoter would move the amendment, and I acknowledge that it gets me off the hook. I want to be honest with the House. In the process of education to which the House contributes, we have learned that we were wrong when we originally wrote into the Bill a 15-year programme. During the past year, the all-party warm homes group has held hearings on how we could deliver a comprehensive programme to eliminate fuel poverty in Britain. We were persuaded, mainly by representations from people in the city of London, that 15 years was far too modest, and that we should be thinking of ways of achieving that goal within 10 years. I found myself in the embarrassing position of advocating a time frame that was likely to be in excess of what was within both public policy reach and public expectations of the Government. I am grateful that the words "within 15 years" are to be inserted into the Bill. I welcome that, as it removes some of my embarrassment. A considerable time before I entered Parliament in 1992, I was involved in the "old and cold" campaign run by the Nottingham Evening Post, my local paper, which called for the elimination of fuel poverty within 10 years. The amendment allows us to catch up with the sense of urgency felt by the public about Government policy to tackle the problem, and with our parties' goals. I say with wry satisfaction that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of discussions in the inter-ministerial group about how far ahead a target date could be set, and will know that in the Labour party, our own recent policy forum suggested that in the forthcoming manifesto we should commit ourselves to a target date of 10 years. There is nothing less career-enhancing for a Minister than to propose a time frame commitment that is five years behind what his party is likely to propose. The scope for achieving the goal within 15 years would allow the Minister to be ahead of the time frame, ahead of the game and in line with the party's expectations.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I feel impelled to comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on amendment No. 49, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I spoke on Second Reading and I had the privilege of serving on the Committee, so some personal explanation is required of why I supported the withdrawal of the time limit and now support my hon. Friend's amendment. The reason is that there is such all-party support for this vital measure that when, as I hope, the Bill is enacted, Parliament itself will keep Ministers of whatever hue up to the quickest possible programme to achieve the Bill's objectives. I was relaxed about leaving out the specification of not more than 15 years because I was confident that hon. Members of all parties would keep the Government of the day on their toes to achieve it. Of course, I am equally happy now to support my hon. Friend's amendment, which specifies that the target date must be not more than fifteen years. I hope that it will be understood that the objective must be achieved in the quickest possible time, which I hope will be much sooner than 15 years.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I welcome the fact that the specification of 15 years is to be put back in the Bill and regret that it was taken out. In response to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I have learned a useful lesson: that what the Government say they will or will not do may be open to interpretation, and that within a matter of weeks the Government can prove to be quite flexible. It is important to stipulate an end date, otherwise there is no guarantee that the programme will be completed. However, as has been said, I hope that 15 years will be taken as the final end date, and that the Government, local authorities and others involved in the programme will do everything possible to ensure that it is completed well before that date. Although there is some debate about how many people are affected by fuel poverty and the risks to their health, there is no doubt that the longer it takes to roll out the programme, the more people will suffer from hypothermia and other cold-related illnesses.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Again, I thank hon. Members for their support. Amendment No. 11 requires the setting of target dates, rather than a target date, for eradicating fuel poverty, and amendment No. 41 requires that to be not more than 15 years after the relevant commencement. On amendment No. 49, it is known that I wanted to include a 15-year target in the Bill when I originally adopted it. I recall as though it were yesterday the meeting with Lord Whitty in the other place, when I and other hon. Members discussed these matters at length with him and his officials. I shall not dwell on that, but at the time it seemed to be a sticking point for the Government. I believe that politics is the art of the possible. I decided, and I know that sponsors and supporters of the Bill agreed with me, that it was still worth while having a Bill that required the Government to set their own target, for two reasons. First, we would have been establishing in law the responsibility to end fuel poverty, which is extremely important. We would have had to argue about how to do it and how quickly, but no longer about whether we should do it. Secondly, my judgment was that the Government would find it very difficult to set a target further ahead than 15 years. About 300 Labour Members had supported the target date. The Minister for the Environment has answered parliamentary questions claiming that the vast majority of fuel poverty could be eradicated not in 15 years but in 10. A few weeks ago in Exeter the Labour national policy forum decided that the aim should be a 10-year programme to end fuel poverty. My judgment appears to have been correct. We are almost eight months on from the time when I first adopted the Bill, and the Government have continued to examine fuel poverty policy during that time. That is to their credit, and I hope that they will not regard it as damning if I say so. Their further investigations have clearly led them to the view that 15 years is a sensible longstop, and I understand that they intend to support the amendment. I pay tribute to the Government for that decision, and I am grateful to them for reconsidering the matter. I am not being churlish, but I have a slight concern about the 15-year strategy, which is shared by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), and which I hope the Minister will address in his response. I would like the programme to be implemented a great deal faster, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said. The amendment states only that the programme should not be longer than 15 years. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members hope that we can deal with the matter much more quickly than that.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I want to speak about amendments No. 41 and 49, which refer respectively to a date of not later than 15 years and to the 15-year strategy. They are two of the most important amendments to the Bill. Rather than restoring a provision that was in the original Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), they would incorporate into it a time scale from the Bill that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) promoted. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West did not need to apologise to the House or be self-deprecating about the fact that he did not include the concept in the original Bill. That was perfectly understandable. In promoting the Bill, my hon. Friend had to negotiate with the Government at the beginning of the Session and ascertain what was acceptable. If the Government said that the inclusion of such a provision was unacceptable, my hon. Friend was right to proceed without it. Six months of parliamentary process have passed in the meantime. Changes in the parliamentary timetable and the progress of Bills meant that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I were able to make the Government an offer that they could not refuse. We were dealt a lucky hand of cards, and it was a bit cheeky of my right hon. Friend and I to write to the Minister to say that we wanted to incorporate provisions to lift the 15-year target. We were worried that we might have been asking for too much, and that the Minister would say no and reject everything. Had that been the case, we would be debating amendment No. 41 at this moment, and I suspect that hon. Members from all parties would deplore it and not want to accept it; it would have been regarded as a wrecking amendment. A month ago, when I tabled amendment No. 41, which states that the target should not be later than 15 years after the relevant commencement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I were accused of attempting to wreck the Bill, not by any hon. Member but by outside organisations. They regarded amendment No. 41 as a ghastly wrecking amendment, and said, "How dare you table that; we all know that the Government can't accept it. You'll ruin the Bill." The Government have sensibly concluded that it is possible to accept such an amendment. That is a tribute to our parliamentary procedures and to hon. Members from all parties. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and to Labour Members who follow such matters and understand parliamentary procedures. Today, hon. Members from all parties are able to improve the Bill because our parliamentary procedures allow that to happen and because ordinary Back-Bench Members were able to negotiate sensibly with the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment, who was also gracious, courteous and willing to listen and incorporate such a provision in the Bill. My only worry is that if a Government accept a 15-year target, they know that they can achieve it in 12 years. The Government are unlikely to accept a target that they know they cannot fulfil. But perhaps that is unkind. We have given the Bill greater integrity. I do not say that it did not have integrity before, but I suspect that the majority of people believed that the target would be achieved in 15 years. All the propaganda from environmental organisations mentions the 15-year programme Bill, which refers to an earlier measure. By incorporating a target, we have also introduced some integrity to this Bill. We will thus not deceive the public. We have set an ultimate target date, which is important. However, the important point about the 15-year target is that this Government and any future Government will do their utmost to beat it. The Government will not want to fail to meet a target, no matter what it is—15 years, 10 years or 25 years. Our incorporation of a target means that the Government will want to try to show how good they are and bring the date forward. Without a target in the Bill, there would be less pressure on any Government—Tory or Labour—to perform. Governments wish to succeed, but events can affect that wish. For example, an international oil crisis could crop up. I can imagine the Minister being advised, "Well, Minister, there's an awful crisis. It may mean we have to let the target slip. There is no target date, of course, so you won't be criticised in Parliament if the plan takes 17 or 20 years. There's no firm date." If the Bill contains a firm date, which we will insert today, all Governments will be under a greater obligation to perform. 11.45 am I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West has tabled an amendment that is similar to mine. I accept that amendment No. 49 is better drafted, and technically and legally correct. It would have essentially the same effect as amendment No. 41, but I am willing not to press amendment No. 41. I shall be happy for amendment No. 49, on the 15-year target, to be included in the Bill. That is the will of the House. I am also grateful to play a small part in saving the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) embarrassment.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I do not want to interrupt the flow of harmony that seems to be spreading across and along Benches. I will simply ask the Minister for some clarification of the Government's intentions. First, I want to ask a simple question about the strategy's publication date. Amendment No. 49 sets a 15-year target from the date of the strategy's publication. In my more suspicious moments, I realise that the only remaining chink of opportunity for delay is in the publishing of the strategy. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when the Government propose to publish the strategy, given the usual parliamentary processes that the Bill still has to undergo. Other hon. Members from all parties have already mentioned my second point, which concerns the practicality not only of a 15-year target but of a possible target of less than 15 years. It has been suggested in the large amount of correspondence that has been exchanged in the past few weeks that one reason for the Government's reconsideration of the 15-year target is that, through the inter-ministerial group that has been working on such subjects for some time, the Government have a greater feel for the practicality of the measures that they need to take. They have presumably considered the public finance consequences of those measures and their ability to achieve them. Will the Minister tell us whether the inter-ministerial group has changed the Government's overall thinking about the practicality of a 15-year target and, if so, whether there is a possibility of not only hitting the target but of improving on it? I do not expect the Minister to commit the Government to another target this morning, but it would be valuable if he could say whether it is practical even to think that we might be able to hit a target that is less than 15 years. I am sure that the House is grateful not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for tabling amendment No. 49, but also to my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for the pressure that they brought to bear on Ministers to make a significant concession. It is probably the most significant concession that the Government have made during the passage of the Bill. I urge and expect the Minister to support amendment No. 49.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are a listening Government. We have thought long and hard about the amendments in the group that we are considering. The inter-ministerial group on fuel poverty, about which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked, has been working on its remit in recent weeks. Although much remains to be done, there is consensus that a target date will have to be set for the time when, as far as reasonably practicable, vulnerable persons no longer have to live in fuel poverty. Although we are not yet in a position to provide a formal date for achieving that objective, which applies to the Secretary of State in respect of England and to the National Assembly in respect of Wales, we are confident that it can and should be achieved within 15 years of the publication of the strategy. The hon. Member for Ashford asked me about the timing of the publication of the strategy. As clause 1(1) of the Bill says, we intend to publish strategies within 12 months of commencement. The dates might be different for England and for Wales but that is the plan. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we could achieve the objective in under 15 years. We may do, but as he knows, we are a prudent Government as well as a listening Government, so we have set what we consider to be a prudent target. Given that I have just conceded the 15 years, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me in the next breath to offer another figure, so, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we shall stick with the 15 years. As hon. Members recall, in Committee I expressed concerns about committing this and subsequent Governments to long-term spending plans by specifying a target date in the Bill. The amendment says that the strategy must in effect set a target date. We maintain that the Bill is not the appropriate place for an end target date, as I explained in Committee, but we are prepared to commit to the strategy of providing an end target date of 15 years after the publication of the strategy. This is not the same as specifying a date in the Bill. I believe that we can live with the amendment and I ask the House to accept it. I am grateful to the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for indicating that they intend to withdraw their amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 21, at end insert— '( ) local authorities or associations of local authorities, ( ) persons appearing to the appropriate authority to represent the interests of persons living in fuel poverty, '.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in page 1, line 23, after "Council, ", insert— '( ) domestic energy providers, '. No. 23, in page 1, line 23, after "Council, ", insert— '( ) domestic energy appliance and insulation providers, '. No. 24, in page 1, line 23, after "Council, ", insert— '( ) local authorities and housing associations, '. No. 25, in page 1, line 23, after "Council, ", insert— '( ) persons in fuel poverty, '. No. 42, in page 1, line 23, leave out "and" and insert— '(aa) local authorities, (ab) persons in fuel poverty, and'. No. 52, in clause 3, page 2, line 31, at beginning insert— '( ) In this Act "local authority" means— (a) in relation to England, the council of a county, district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and (b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Amendment No. 50 requires the Government or the National Assembly for Wales to consult local authorities or persons appearing…to represent the interests of persons living in fuel poverty on drawing up a strategy to end fuel poverty. Amendment No. 52 clarifies exactly what is meant by local authority. As drafted, the Bill requires the appropriate authority to consult on a strategy with such persons as he or she thinks fit. My right hon. Friends have raised concerns that the provision is not specific enough and that the two categories ought to be defined more precisely in the Bill. My own feeling is that it is inconceivable that any Secretary of State would take the view that local authorities and persons in fuel poverty should be excluded from such consultation. Local authorities have a very important role to play both as major landlords and as organisations already involved in many schemes to reduce fuel poverty. However, I am only too pleased to move the amendments to clarify matters further and I hope that they will meet with the approval of right hon. and hon. Members.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but it worries me when anyone says that it is surely inconceivable that the Government would not do something and then gives the Government the benefit of the doubt. I understood that a large element of the legislative process was designed precisely not to give the Government the benefit of any doubt whatever, and that is very much the thrust of this morning's proceedings. When the House takes decisions in making the law, we seek to strike a balance between not putting an undue amount of detail in the Bill—we had that argument on a previous group of amendments—and doing what we consider necessary to guarantee as far as we can that the Government will follow the aim and the spirit of the Bill. This is a very good case in point. Although my hon. Friend may be prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, it is important to put matters beyond doubt and to specify in the Bill that the Government will undertake a process of consultation in order so that we can be satisfied that all those who are properly concerned are properly listened to. Although we may all believe that the Minister, the Minister for the Environment and, indeed, the entire ministerial team can be relied on to undertake consultations, it is in the way of things—regrettable though it may be—that they may not be in post for the 15 years that it may take to complete the programme, although we all hope it will be sooner. Labour Members referred to a period of 10 years. Although this is only a guess, I doubt whether the ministerial team will be intact in 10 years' time. Therefore, it is prudent that the Bill should include a degree of specificity about consultation. The amendment would not alter the thrust of the Bill in any important way; indeed, it adds to and strengthens it. This morning, we have been attempting to put the Bill in a state in which it can deliver what it was intended to deliver and meet the aspirations of people throughout the country—although I fear that, to some extent, their aspirations have been raised a little too high. Perhaps that is a matter for Third Reading. I am happy to endorse the amendments and I hope that the House will accept them.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I, too, support amendments Nos. 50 and 52, which are entirely sensible. Does the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) envisage housing associations coming within the terms of the second element of amendment No. 50? Just as local authorities are key delivery mechanisms for tackling fuel poverty, so too are housing associations. Local authorities and housing associations have both pioneered the development of residential combined heat and power schemes, which have helped to tackle fuel poverty. The excellent Combined Heat and Power Association suggested that a residential CHP scheme in Chesterfield has halved heating costs. St. Pancras Housing runs one of more than 60 residential CHP schemes around the country. It is pioneering a project next to Euston station. The energy bills of about 100 tenants have been cut by 20 per cent. Three years ago, the project was able to get rid of standing charges. and its advanced metering system has helped to get fuel bills down. Residential CHP schemes and, more importantly, the involvement of housing associations in the delivery of the strategy to tackle fuel poverty should be promoted. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to focus on the contribution that local councils can make. It would have been somewhat surprising if the Government had chosen not to accept the amendment, given the support that they have already offered to residential CHP schemes in Southampton, Manchester and Tower Hamlets that have been developed—pioneered, indeed—by the local authorities, which have formed effective partnerships with the private sector, which in turn has helped to deliver the finance. I want to highlight the scheme that Tower Hamlets council has developed on the Barkantine estate, in partnership with London Electricity. It is a good example of how local councils can contribute to the delivery of our strategy to tackle fuel poverty.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

This group of amendments deals with issues of consultation in relation to the fuel poverty strategy and the definition of fuel poverty. We want to ensure that all the appropriate people are consulted. That was achieved by the Bill as amended in Committee. We would in any case have consulted local authorities or associations of local authorities and those representing the interests of those in fuel poverty. Amendment No. 50 makes it a requirement to do so. The amendment is not really necessary, but the requirement will not hinder or hamper the consultation process in any way. It is very similar to amendment No. 42, but extends the requirement to include local authority associations, which the Government think sensible. Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and 42 list in detail groups that must be consulted. It is always a bit unwise to have such a list, as one frequently finds, when it is too late to make a change, that someone has been missed out. We do not believe that it will be absolutely necessary to consult all those listed in the amendments on every occasion—for example, domestic energy providers, those providing appliances, housing associations, insulation companies or persons in fuel poverty. I do not want to get drawn into a debate on numbers, but—for example—the last group probably consists of more than 4 million households. Consulting all those would pose some technical difficulties, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), even in his new-found enthusiasm for consultation, would not necessarily want, especially as he is an opponent of unnecessary bureaucracy. If particular circumstances require consultation with those groups or organisations, or their representatives, we will consult them, but we will do so under the requirement in clause 1(3)b), as it emerged from Committee, to consult such other persons as the appropriate authority thinks fit. Amendment No. 50 effectively renders amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and 42 unnecessary, and I believe that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have indicated their intention not to press them to a vote.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Can the Minister confirm that one of the effects of amendment No. 50 will be to make it plain that it will be appropriate for the authorities to consult organisations such as Friends of the Earth on fuel poverty strategies?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

That is very possible, but I do not think that it was what the right hon. Gentlemen had in mind when they compiled their list. Amendment No. 50 will require a consequential amendment later in the Bill. If we are to require consultation with local authorities, we must, for completeness, define what a local authority is for the purpose. The hon. Member for Southend, West recognises that, and deals with it in amendment No. 52. That is a fairly straightforward procedure and a standard definition is proposed. The Government are happy to accept amendment No. 50. I should be grateful to the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst if they did not press the amendments that they tabled to a Division.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made the point about housing associations. I am delighted with the Minister's response. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gently chastised me for being too trusting of the Government in my injudicious remarks, I am happy to rest with the case that the Minister has made.

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. This is an historic and wonderful moment for all those who will benefit from the Bill now and in future. We began our deliberations in the winter. We are now enjoying glorious sunshine, but it will soon be winter again, and that is when people will really benefit from the Bill. I dedicate the Bill to the memory of Mr. Joe Kracy—a constituent who died in a cold home. I also dedicate it to the memory of my former colleague, Michael Colvin, and his wife Nichola. They died in dreadful circumstances. He was a sponsor of the Bill and felt very strongly about the plight of senior citizens. My role has been very small. I explained ad nauseam on Second Reading how I came to adopt the Bill. I am only too delighted that I have been able to fulfil the dreams and aspirations of those who have worked on the matter for a very long time. I wish to thank a long list of people, but I shall be quick about it. I would be churlish not to thank the Minister. He has been delighted to respond to the various points that have been made during the past eight months. I particularly want to thank the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who has been very supportive of the Bill, and I am grateful to him for that. Although I referred to the discussions with Lord Whitty, I thank him, too. I thank all the officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. They have worked very hard in drafting Bills and in helping me with this measure. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who has been championed today by my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he is no less a man for that. I thank him and congratulate him on the fact that his original Bill has come to fruition in this measure. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has been very supportive throughout. I wish to thank many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I am sure that I have missed out some hon. Friends, but I do not wish to cause offence. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who has been supportive from the outset. I wish to thank Mr. Martin Williams and the campaign for the warm homes Bill, who have been magnificent throughout the Bill's passage. I wish to thank Jenny Saunders for her wonderful support and briefing. I wish to thank Help the Aged, Age Concern and the National Pensioners Convention; I had the privilege of meeting the 50 senior citizens recently. I wish to thank also the Association for the Conservation of Energy. I wish to thank a number of companies, such as N-Power—a subsidiary of National Power—which recently set up a private sector initiative to address fuel poverty. I thank Transco—and I suppose that if I waited a little longer, there would be another company; but under no circumstances do I wish to delay the Bill. I wish to thank all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who has not been well recently but has been a great supporter of the Bill. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) in the Chamber also, as he has been a great supporter. It would be churlish not mention the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have been supportive as well.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

In his long list of thank-yous—which sounds more and more like an Oscar speech—will the hon. Gentleman, given the comments of his right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), include Friends of the Earth?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has done that for me. As with all Members of Parliament, I came into politics to make a difference. We have made a difference with this Bill today. I do not always think that the House does the right thing, but it has today and I am delighted.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on, I hope, getting the Bill on to the statute book. I have had an interest in energy for a long time, even before I came to this House. I think that the United Kingdom is so energy-rich that it feels it can waste energy at an enormous rate. We are often described as an island built on coal and we are surrounded by oil and gas, but we use energy so wastefully. One area of concern is the interpretation of fuel poverty. Who are the fuel poor? Poverty in this country will never go away because it is a relative measure between rich and poor. To anyone who says that they will eradicate poverty, I say "Good luck—you will probably be chasing your tail." I was pleased that the Minister approved earlier when someone said that this was not simply an issue of those who were on certain state benefits. For decades now, we have tried to deal with the fuel poor by schemes such as the home energy efficiency scheme. However, its application on the ground has been directed mainly to people on state benefits or other means-tested benefits and not at the overall problems of fuel poverty. Home insulation is a very effective way of saving on domestic fuel bills, but past schemes have been targeted at households according to income. I hope that we will have a more efficient interpretation of who the fuel poor are; as a consequence, we can be more effective in intervention. It is time we considered energy conservation more seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is no longer in his place, referred earlier to solar heating. Insulation is probably the most cost-effective way of saving on fuel bills, but solar energy could be used to alleviate fuel poverty in years to come. As for photovoltaic cells on domestic homes, I have not yet progressed that far. The problem of storing the energy gained from the sun and using it when we want it in domestic households has not quite been solved yet. I have had solar panels on my home for nearly a decade. In July and August in particular, we rarely—if ever—use any energy source from fossil fuel for our domestic water needs. In July and August—although this July has been an exception—all our water is normally heated by the sun. There is quite a large capital outlay at the beginning, but afterwards, other than the small cost of an electricity motor, quite large savings can be made on energy costs. In addition, as most of it is renewable energy, there is a big saving in terms of conservation. We may be energy-rich for the present, but gas and oil will not always be around. The Bill is a way forward. It will bring energy conservation into the debate in a way that has been lacking for a long time in this energy-rich country. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in the Bill. I hope that when the Minister—it may be a different one, but I hope that it will still be a Labour Minister—considers the potential of this measure, the timetable will be much shorter than 15 years.

Debra Shipley (Labour, Stourbridge)

The commission for architecture and the built environment was set up by the Government under the chairmanship of Stuart Lipton. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good idea if it was in CABE' s brief to look closely at initiatives to do with energy efficiency in homes wherever public money is being spent in large amounts? Does he agree that there should be a provision in all new measures to include such consideration by CABE?

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

That is absolutely true. In northern European countries such as Denmark, where new buildings are situated is taken into account, as is whether windows or doors on a gable end get the north wind. Such considerations are important when it comes to keeping a home warm. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West and the House as well. I sincerely believe that the Bill has great potential for energy conservation and for alleviating fuel poverty. I am not sure about the measurement of fuel poverty. Twenty years ago, it was quite easy to know whether people's gas or electricity supply was cut off. Indeed, there was—and, in theory, still is —protection for households with young children so that they were not cut off.With the advent of credit meters in the past decade, however, we do not know who the fuel poor are, or whether homes with small children are being cut off by self-cut-off. We must do something to protect those families and children. There is plenty that we can do, and the Bill is a good way to start.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I have a few points to make. It is worth remembering why the Bill is needed, and we have heard of the 45,000 extra winter deaths that may arise as a result of fuel poverty. Deaths rise by 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom in winter, which compares badly with a 10 per cent. increase in some Scandinavian countries. It is also worth outlining what we hope the Bill will achieve. After perhaps 10 rather than 15 years, we hope for an end to unnecessary deaths. We expect to save the national health service £1 billion through reduced cold-related illnesses. The Bill will clearly assist the Government in achieving their climate change targets and reducing CO2 emissions. In the long-term, there is potential for 30,000 jobs, and the savings to the Exchequer will be in the order of £300 million. I welcome the changes that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has made to accommodate other hon. Members and to win support from both sides for his important Bill. Congratulations are due to him—he has perhaps been a little too self-deprecating—and to others, including the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who played key roles in the warm homes campaign, and Friends of the Earth and other organisations. The degree of civilisation of any society can be measured by a number of yardsticks. How we treat asylum seekers, how we treat senior citizens and how tolerant we are of different beliefs are among them, and we may add to that list how we deal with fuel poverty. All hon. Members should be proud to be associated with a Bill that will, we hope, within 10 years—perhaps a little longer—provide everyone with a warm home. I urge all hon. Members to support it.

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I support this important Bill. One of the first things that new Members learn is how difficult it is to put a private Member's Bill through the House. We should therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the House on a superb Bill. I was interested in this issue throughout my many years in local government. Many reports were published during the 1980s, and it is sad that it has taken so long to address the problem. It is good to see it addressed today. Given the consensus in the House, I shall suspend my cynicism by welcoming the conversion to the cause of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). In the 1980s, I read a report by Strathclyde regional council—as it then was—on the domino effect of poverty. Fuel poverty seriously damages people's health and education. As a former teacher, I can say that we never know how difficult it is for children who live in damp, cold homes to spend any time studying their books. Things got much worse between 1979 and 1997. Many more people in local authority homes suffered from the problems inherent in the systems building of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. Fuel poverty is suffered by people unable to afford to keep their homes adequately warm. It is often a result of inadequate insulation, and poor people become even poorer because they pay more for heat that leaves through windows, walls, doors and floors. The Bill should help tackle that. As a result of fuel poverty, an average 30,000 more people die each winter than would normally be expected, and 90 per cent. of them are over 60. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr.Brake) noted that the figure was lower in Scandinavian countries, where homes are better heated and insulated. Fuel poverty is a major problem in Scotland, but the housing committee of the Scottish Executive will address the issue over the next few months. I hope that it will adopt the approach exemplified in the Bill. The consequences of fuel poverty are misery, discomfort, ill health and debt. Pensioners, lone-parent families, the long-term ill or disabled and people on low incomes and in poor housing are the most vulnerable, but I welcome and support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The problem is not confined to people on benefit. Many others spend a great proportion of their income on fuel costs, and that is one reason why the Bill is so important. The Government have done much already to tackle fuel poverty. Legislation is one approach, but other options exist. A great deal of money has been given to housing associations, through local authorities, for housing investment. The winter fuel payments have been increased, and the new guidelines have been issued to ensure that the provisions of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 are implemented and monitored. Without such monitoring, it is impossible to know how successful legislation is.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is not the great advantage of the Bill that every penny will go into heating homes, rather than the atmosphere?

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

That is right, and it will also help to achieve the Government's Kyoto targets.

David Stewart (Labour, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

For many years, my hon. Friend was president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. What was her experience of fuel poverty at that time?

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I remember that I visited the House for the first time in connection with a Bill on housing. In the 1980s, COSLA pleaded with the Conservative Government to recognise the importance of fuel poverty and to make available the resources needed to tackle it. I was housing convener in my local authority, and my top priority was to get homes heated. Giving people who cannot afford them warm, energy-efficient homes changes their lives dramatically, by reducing the proportion of income spent on heating. The effect is huge.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Does my hon. Friend agree that energy efficiency is an important factor in allowing older people to stay longer in their homes? Is not the Bill part of an important overall strategy?

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I quickly found out when I was a housing convenor, many older people want to remain in their own homes. They do not all want smaller houses or sheltered accommodation, but are happier staying in the family home. This important measure will help such older people. We need greater flexibility in tackling the problems of housing for the elderly. The inter-ministerial group on fuel poverty is extremely important. If we are serious about dealing with issues across the spectrum, we need groups such as that. The group's terms of reference are to take a strategic overview, to ensure that policies and initiatives with a bearing on fuel poverty are co-ordinated across Government and integrated with the activities of relevant external bodies, such as regulators and the energy industry. Those initiatives, and measures such as the Bill, will ensure that we really tackle fuel poverty in this country.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The hon. Lady used the words "in this country". She is presumably aware that clause 3(3) states: This Act extends to England and Wales only. The measure thus has nothing to do with Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that, and that all her comments are directed wholly to England and Wales.

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The right hon. Gentleman might have noticed that I pointed out that the Scottish Executive was looking into the matter. I also said that I hoped that it would take the measure on board when it was deciding how to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland. I am certainly well aware of the Bill's provisions. I am not as sensitive as the right hon. Gentleman. When I say "this country", I am talking about Great Britain, of which Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are integral parts, although there is devolved government. I do not have a problem with that. I hope that when we have regional government in England, regional bodies will be able to address fuel poverty in their areas. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West on this excellent Bill. Much can be achieved without legislation, but this measure will be important in tackling fuel poverty in the country.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr.Amess) for his kind comments earlier. I hope that he, his colleagues and other hon. Members will support the all-party warm homes group, of which I had the pleasure to be a member. I was the first convenor of the group and have been succeeded by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). The group has gleaned much information and gives great support to Members. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Scottish Parliament is setting up a similar group—as, no doubt, will the Welsh Assembly. I remember the polar bear incident at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the occasion when we delivered hundredweights of ice cubes to the Department of Health. The issue crossed many departmental boundaries. Incidentally, the young man in the polar bear suit lost two or three pounds in weight on that day. It is appropriate that we are discussing this subject on a hot day—some people are probably thinking about air conditioning. However, we should not discuss fuel poverty only during the winter months, when Ministers and politicians are more acutely aware of the problems faced by so many of our people. We should not think about such matters only when Jack Frost blows a chill through the hall; the issue should be addressed every day and never allowed to leave our consciences. I am delighted that the definition of fuel poverty has been reinserted into the Bill today. Fuel poverty is a scourge for far too many of our citizens, affecting, in particular, the elderly and the disabled. When I was first elected to the House in 1974, I began to pursue the issue. Like others, I have consistently striven to heighten awareness of the problem. When I first raised the issue of excess winter deaths in the period from 1974 to 1979, I was publicly accused of scaremongering because it was said that elderly people were frightened to turn on their electric fires. It has taken a long time in the development of the psyche of the political body to absorb the realities of what we have said for many years. It is not a new issue and it did not come in with any particular Government. The problem has existed for a very long time. When I first asked questions about excess winter deaths, the problem was defined as hypothermia and I was told that only people who had died on Snowdon, the mountains of Scotland and in the Lake district were recorded as dying from the cold. However, we know from the death certificates of the elderly and the hatches, matches and dispatches columns of any newspaper that, in January and February, the lists of people dying get longer and longer. It is usually the elderly that are affected. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, we live in an energy rich country, but such deaths are the stark reality. It has been a fair fecht for the hon. Member for Southend, West and the sponsors to get the Bill to this stage. I congratulate everyone who has worked with passion and determination to help to eradicate such a terrible blight on our social conscience. I also thank all the voluntary, statutory and private organisations that have worked behind the scenes for many years and supported our efforts and supported the Bill. I say to the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—they are sitting on my right, and probably my extreme right—that one does not always have to accept the advice that is given by organisations. Such advice is offered, but we have a responsibility, as Members of the House, to analyse information carefully and to carry it forward into the legislative programme. The right hon. Gentlemen have not examined the problem of excess winter deaths throughout the United Kingdom. I have supported the Bill even though I realise that it does not apply to Scotland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Nor to Northern Ireland.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As the hon. Gentleman points out, it does not apply to Northern Ireland, either. We now have our own way of doing things in Scotland, but it is my sincere hope, as someone who has served in the House for a long time, that we shall exchange ideas and co-operate on matters that affect all our citizens. I have never wavered in my principled belief that legislators throughout the United Kingdom have a huge responsibility on our shoulders to address this issue. I sat through the statement on the comprehensive spending review. Nothings spilled out of the Chancellor's mouth and I found it very difficult to understand the figures that he gave. Talking in billions does not mean much to people who are not economic experts. We have to take the numbers that emerge and turn them into reality for our people. Although we have financial obligations to everyone who pays tax, there are moral obligations on those of us who are elected to serve. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West and his sponsors on bringing the Bill to fruition. It is not the end of the story, but it is part of a process and a good beginning.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on getting the Bill to this stage. He has been generous in his thanks to other people, but we should not kid ourselves about the part that he has played. The truth of the matter is that the Bill was almost dead in its tracks on at least two occasion in the process of getting to the House. To a large extent, it is down to the hon. Gentleman's skill, diplomacy and commitment to steering between competing interests, fishing the Bill out from the sidelines of the political process and putting it back in the mainstream that we have the opportunity to turn the Bill into legislation today. The whole House owes him a debt of gratitude for his persistence in refusing to allow the Bill to be sidelined, as it might have been. The hon. Gentleman deserves the right to have the Bill go on to the statute book in his name, and it is proper that he should give credit to those who played a part in bringing it to this stage. However, perhaps he ought to have added one or two names to his list. My own involvement in the parliamentary campaign goes back to the work of Sir John Hannam, a Conservative Member who first drew the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and me into the all-party warm homes group, and who was already campaigning for such a measure when I came to Parliament. An important role was also played by Baroness Maddock, who was successful in a ballot and took the matter forward a further stage. It is a tribute to the persistence and commitment of Members of different parties that we have kept the issue here and, hopefully, will see it through to the statute book. The real ownership of the Bill will belong not to the House, but to the people whose lives are saved and extended and whose quality of life is improved by the measures that will be set out in the programme that will follow the Bill. I will not add more plaudits to those that have been given to Friends of the Earth, as I understand that its phone lines are already jammed with new subscribers. However, I want to thank those who have pestered us, as excess deaths from fuel poverty have been—and continue to be—a scandal that should have been removed from the UK's political landscape long ago. In my own case, more than 20 years ago I was waylaid by a young reporter working for the Nottingham Evening Post called David Lowe, who dragged me around houses where people were leading impoverished lives in the most miserably poor conditions. Almost single-handedly, he took up the old and cold campaign for the Evening Post and bombarded politicians with stories of outrageous housing neglect and housing poverty that demanded answers. The Evening Post has continued that campaign and, almost every week, politicians of all parties within its circulation area have a sense of being pestered by the question "When are you going to come up with the comprehensive programme that will deal with fuel poverty and eliminate it as a scar on the social landscape?"

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue has fired our constituents, if I can use such a term? I have continued to receive representations about supporting the Bill. After a meeting at 10 o'clock on Wednesday evening, someone even came up and urged me to support the Bill today. In England, Wales and throughout the country, people have taken an interest in the matter and are pleased that the Bill is going through today.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

Absolutely. I would just add that my own experience is in precisely that context. Councillor Brian Parbutt, the deputy leader of Nottingham city council, said to me this morning, "For goodness' sake, get the Bill through today." Almost every local authority in the land is waiting for the House to give a green light for a remit-cum-instruction so that they can go ahead and address the problem comprehensively and so improve considerably the quality in life of people in their own constituencies and local areas.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, just like Nottingham, parts of Coventry have had the experiences that he described. Does he agree that the Bill is vital, given the fluctuations in fuel prices in this country and across the globe?

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

I agree that the Bill is vital in terms of fuel prices, but it will also allow a massive release of imagination. Houses have been built in Newark and Sherwood with an annual fuel bill of no more than £17 a year. That is warm homes by design, not by changing the price of fuel. In south London, houses have been converted so that they now receive net cash payments from the grid because they put more energy back into the process than they take out. The Bill gives us an incredible opportunity to put energy conservation alongside the elimination of fuel poverty and the blighting of people's lives, and it does so in ways that will create jobs, save energy and save lives. It will allow young people to become part of the solution to energy and fuel poverty problems. For that we should all be grateful.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on getting his Bill to the Third Reading stage. It has not been easy for him, and I am one of those who have not made it easy for him. I hope that he agrees that he now has a better Bill, which exceeds his expectations. He has not had an easy time today because he has had to move amendments and accept other amendments. He has done so graciously, given the circumstances. I also congratulate the Minister on being gracious at the Dispatch Box. This might not have been the best day for him, as he has had to perform a few somersaults. I am not gloating about it—at least not until I issue the press release. The Minister and the Minister for the Environment graciously accepted the suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I made to improve the Bill. The Minister has had to put back in the Bill things that he took out in Committee, and he has done that remarkably well. Exactly a month ago, on 21 June, my right hon. Friend and I, having looked at the Bill again, concluded that because of the changes made in Committee the Bill was a sham. We decided to write to the Minister for the Environment and offer him a deal. I shall not quote from the letter that we sent to him, but a statement that we issued on that day said: The Government have a simple choice—either it can discuss with us— my right hon. Friend and I— sensible amendments to the Warm Homes Bill or it can wreck this Bill on Friday 21st July and, with it, the following Bill. The press statement went on: Our amendments seek to restore integrity to the Bill and people in cold homes…will not understand it if the Government stubbornly refuses to find a middle way. We said that the items that we would like to see restored in the Bill were the term "comprehensive package" in relation to the measure to be taken to reduce cold homes…references to fuel poverty…a specific reference in the Bill to consultation with (a) Local Authorities and (b) Those…believed to be in, fuel poverty…a power…to make regulations. A key amendment—we thought that the timing might be a bit tricky but I am grateful that the Minister accepted it—was to put back in the Bill the 15-year target date. That is the offer that we made to the Government and I am pleased that they accepted it. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West was also keen that that should happen. That process shows this House of Commons at its best. Simply because of how private Members' legislation had gone during the year, my right hon. Friend and I knew that we had a strong negotiating position with the Government—well, we hoped that we had. We have therefore managed to put back into the Bill those items that had been deleted, and one that had not been included, by making the Government an offer that they could not refuse: either accept the proposals, which would put teeth back into the Bill, or lose the Bill. Make no mistake, I would have been happily on my feet blocking the Bill if it had not had restored to it the 15-year target date and the other essential provisions that we have sensibly restored today, because I would have considered it to be a sham Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Having said that, is my right hon. Friend puzzled that Friends of the Earth was apparently prepared to accept the Bill without it containing anything of substance? How does he explain that?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I was going to conclude my remarks by dealing with that subject. After my right hon. Friend and I wrote to the Minister for the Environment and issued a statement saying that we wanted to do a deal with the Government to restore the provisions, a remarkable thing happened. In my surgery, way up in Carlisle, 300 miles from London, a representative of Friends of the Earth arrived to see me. During our discussion, she revealed that, if I would do a deal with Friends of the Earth and enable it to hitch a ride on the back of our amendments, it would run a campaign urging people not to let the Government off the hook and switch its attack entirely to the constituency of the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). She said, "We will switch our people into Meacher's constituency and try to make sure that he backs down." Perhaps I should have taken up the offer, but I was so taken aback that I declined. My main reason for doing so was that if the organisation was so ready to stitch up a reasonable man like the Minister for the Environment, I stood little chance of being able to trust it. I share that account with the House because it is one of the reasons why I have been mentioning Friends of the Earth so much today, and other hon. Members might not have been aware of that organisation's role. The Minister present today and his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment are decent people and good parliamentarians. More than anything else, that episode convinced me that, if we were to change the Bill, it had to be done in the House, with the agreement of Ministers, Government Back Benchers and Opposition Back Benchers. This is our Parliament: if we let Bills be changed by outside organisations, no matter how well-meaning they are, we give up our parliamentary rights. Today, in the agreement between parliamentarians from the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Scottish National party, the Ulster Unionist party, and even the Liberal Democrat party, we have seen Parliament doing its job. We, the parliamentarians, with the Ministers' agreement, have decided what goes into the Bill. All the measures that we have put into the Bill today have been welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, yet, in respect of every single one of those measures, I have a letter telling me not to do it. Friends of the Earth told me that if we moved any of our amendments restoring the provisions that Parliament has welcomed today, it would be a wrecking move—it was not necessary and it should not be done. That is the other reason why I have mentioned that organisation so extensively today: it has not helped us at all in our efforts to restore to the Bill those measures that we thought essential. I do not know what Friends of the Earth's agenda is: I suspect it wanted the headline, "We have a warm homes Bill", but did not care about the content. I congratulate Government Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, my Front-Bench colleagues and the Minister, because Parliament has cared about the Bill's contents. When I spoke to the first group of amendments, I took the number of Government Back Benchers who were nodding to be a good sign. Colleagues on both sides do not want a sham Bill: we want it to contain figures and targets so that we can judge what the Government have achieved and whether or not they have succeeded. Our changes are not merely semantic improvements; they put into the Bill provisions that everyone outside thought were already in it—provisions that had appeared in the Bills promoted by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and had once been in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I conclude that today has been a good day for parliamentary democracy and it has shown the House at its best. Once again, I congratulate the Under-Secretary for his manner at the Dispatch Box, which has been extremely gracious considering the way in which we have made him go through a few wee hoops. I am grateful.

John Austin (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and pay tribute to the way in which he has guided the Bill through Parliament. It is not an easy task to get a private Member's Bill through. In the previous Parliament, when there was a Conservative Government, I managed to get a private Member's Bill through, with the support of that Government. The hon. Member for Southend, West acknowledged the support that he has had from the Government in getting this Bill through. I should add that my task was somewhat easier, as the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were members of the Conservative Government, so I did not face the same difficulties as some of my hon. Friends have had in trying to get their Bills through in this Session. I also pay tribute to those who pioneered similar Bills previously, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I should mention the former hon. Member for Ceredigion, Cynog Dafis, for the work that he did in this regard. I am sorry that other Bills dealing with energy conservation, such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), which appear later on the Order Paper and which will not be reached, have not had such an easy passage as this Bill. I hope that those Bills will return to us in the next Session. I shall deal with the comments that have been made about Friends of the Earth, as I regard some of those remarks as scurrilous. If it had not been for organisations such as Friends of the Earth campaigning out there in the community, outside Parliament, we may not have been where we are today. On the subject of misleading information, I believe that to suggest that there has been only one death in Bromley because of cold is misleading. It ignores the fact that cold is a contributory factor to deaths from respiratory illnesses—asthma, influenza, pneumonia, bronchitis—and heart attacks, strokes and many more. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) pointed out, there are 30, 000 more deaths in this country in the winter than in the summer. That is a frightening statistic, which should be compared with other statistics that have been quoted from colder climates than ours, including Scandinavia. I draw attention to the statistics cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on Second Reading, which show how the excess of winter deaths increases with age. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) spelled out the package of measures that the Government have introduced to tackle fuel poverty—the reduction in VAT, the expansion of the home energy efficiency scheme, the fuel allowances, and housing investment. All those are good measures. I particularly welcome the HEES programme. I visited the 5,000th home in my constituency to be insulated last year. It happened to be on the hottest day of the year, but Mr. and Mrs. Baker have been back to the House to visit since the winter, and I know the benefits that they have derived from sound insulation measures. The expansion of that programme will bring about cost savings and warm homes, and will create jobs as well. We had a discussion on Second Reading about whether the wind chill factor was important. The draught chill factor certainly is important. Anyone who has ever lived in a draughty home will know that no matter how high one turns up the heating, one still does not get warm. The debate has concentrated on the elderly, but I believe that this is a children's Bill, too. If my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) were present, she would agree, as she has campaigned on the issue. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in saying that we hope to see my hon. Friend back after the recess, restored to good health. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned disconnections and self-disconnections through fuel poverty, which affect many families with young children. As a grandfather of three children under five—two in the south-east and one in the frozen north—I am aware of the importance of the Bill to children. The hon. Member for Southend, West is right—there does not need to be a regional definition built into the Bill, because fuel poverty is a combination of fuel costs and income. The Bill will go a long way towards reducing waste, helping energy conservation, and contributing to a reduction in the unnecessary generation of greenhouse gases. I hope that the inter-ministerial group will consider seriously the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) with regard to solar energy and renewable energy. Hon. Members have mentioned expenditure; the Bill is a spend and save measure. It may mean expenditure, but it will contribute to great savings in energy consumption and pollution. Most of all, it will contribute enormously to the quality of life and to reductions in unnecessary burdens on the national health service.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

When I had the privilege of speaking on Second Reading on 10 March, I said that we seemed to be indulging in an all-party love-in because there was so much support for the Bill from all parties. Like the new footbridge across the Thames, that love has seemed to wobble a little in the past four months. However, I am glad that we are now back on track. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for piloting the Bill—I hope successfully—through the House and on to the statute book. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who promoted similar Bills in previous Sessions or Parliaments. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South referred to Sir John Hannam, our former colleague, and his great interest in the subject. I have been immensely impressed by and supportive of the Bill since I read several articles by Mr. Andrew Warren, the director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy. I first took an interest in the matter when, many moons ago, I was a practising chartered architect. We can treat statistics however we want, but a cursory examination of mortality figures shows that in our country, there are 30 per cent. more deaths in the winter months than in other months. Those excess deaths must be partly caused by cold. It is interesting to observe that in Scandinavian countries, which have a colder climate, there are far fewer excess deaths. It is therefore apparent to many hon. Members from all parties that the problem must be tackled. We now realise that Parliament can and should tackle the problem. I am proud to support the Bill; I hope that it will reach the statute book. I am proud that we will have been able to do so much to tackle the inequalities of health. Although the Bill will be costly—so costly that it is good that precise figures have not put on it—I believe that the money will be well invested for the people of our country.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on promoting the Bill, and on his work to create warmer homes in this country. He was a high profile supporter of the previous Government's policy on privatising our energy suppliers, and thanks to his support and that of other hon. Friends, there has subsequently been a 29 per cent. drop in electricity and gas prices. Promoting a private Member's Bill is difficult; it requires tact and diplomacy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his achievement. He has high hopes for the Bill, which has been greatly improved by the efforts of my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I wish the Bill well, and I hope that it achieves its high aims.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), but I shall not repeat them. It is important that people know how the Bill came about, and I thoroughly endorse my right hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of the parliamentary process and his injunction that we should not pay too much attention to single-interest, well financed groups outside the House. When the Minister winds up, will he tell us whether he stands by his words during the money resolution debate? He said: The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill…enshrines current commitments and mirrors measures that we already have in hand. For that reason, we do not believe that anything in the Bill would increase public expenditure above and beyond current commitments.—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 945-6.] The Minister said that on 4 April, and of course I believed him. This morning the Bill was amended on Report and now, on Third Reading, we are considering a measure remarkably similar to the one that we discussed on 4 April. I would be interested—and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members and people outside the House would be interested—in whether the Minister stands by what he said on 4 April about the Bill in its then form, or whether he would like to alter anything that he said on that day. That would be extremely useful, as it would put his remarks in context. I hope that the Minister will respond to that question when he replies to the debate. Let me repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said. I too am grateful to the Minister, and the Minister for the Environment, for taking such a positive attitude and for responding to proper parliamentary process—or indeed, pressure—in the context of this private Member's Bill. I should like the Minister to say that he has not been remotely impressed by outside pressure but took due account of parliamentary pressure—but that might be asking a little too much, and I am not over-optimistic. However, I leave him with that thought. Having said that, I am happy to support the Bill on Third Reading and to acknowledge the proper parliamentary process that has brought it here.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on the way in which he has handled the Bill. From the outset he sought widespread support for it in the House, and he achieved that. As has already been said, the way in which he has managed the proceedings throughout has been extremely diplomatic, and I express my appreciation to all right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, participated in the debates in the House and helped to strengthen the Bill so that we now have something of which we can all be proud. But for devolution, I know that the hon. Gentleman would have included Scotland and Northern Ireland, making the measure apply throughout the United Kingdom. No doubt our colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland will learn from the Bill and apply the excellent measures that it provides for. I wish it well.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

This is the fourth Friday on which I have come down from Scotland to lend my support to the Bill. In recognition that it covers a devolved matter, will my hon. Friend the Minister ask his officials to get involved in dialogue with the Scottish officials who, I hope, will be dealing with a similar measure, and give them the information that led him to agree to the amendments that have been made today, so that Scotland will get a scheme at least as good as this one, if not better?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I add my congratulations to the many that have rightly been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), not only for his skill and fortitude in piloting the Bill through its various stages, but for his generosity in spreading the thanks around liberally, showing a great graciousness of purpose. Congratulations are also due to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken a close interest in the progress of the Bill. At times some of them have been regarded as its enemies, but one thing that we have learned during its progress this morning is that the proper use of parliamentary proceedings can and should improve and strengthen legislation as it goes through the parliamentary process. The principles behind the Bill command widespread support throughout the House, but I take some quiet pride in the fact that it has been piloted to the next stage by someone on the Conservative Benches, and that the most significant change that has been achieved between Second and Third Reading—nailing down the Government to a 15-year target—also came from pressure from this side. This is not a partisan point, and those of all parties who have taken the closest interest in the Bill will be pleased that the target has been restored. It will prevent this or any future Government from weaselling out of their obligations under the Bill. That is the best guarantee that we have that the Bill will make a difference. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West made the point that everyone enters the House hoping to make a difference. He has made a difference with the Bill, but it is important to ensure that it makes a difference for millions of people in practice. The Bill is a significant, positive step. Within the envelope of the attack on fuel poverty, we have heard a lot about the social angle—the obvious improvement to the quality of life of people whose income has forced them to limit the amount that they spend on fuel. That includes not only the elderly but quite often the young, as has been said. Alongside the direct social benefit of making people's homes warmer, there is an environmental benefit for future generations. The better we insulate our homes, the less we contribute to climate change. Will the Minister give us some idea about the financing? Various ideas have been suggested, not least by the all-party group, on how to involve private finance in funding the work that will be needed to implement the Bill. This is a victory for Parliament and its procedures. Our scrutiny revealed some imperfections that have been significantly addressed. One subtlety that has not yet been mentioned is the fact that the time pressure on private Members' Bills allowed my right hon. Friends to put legitimate pressure on Ministers and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) so eloquently said, to make them an offer they could not refuse. Without that time pressure, there would have been less incentive for the Government to accede to my right hon. Friends' suggestions. To those who are so keen on modernising the procedures of the House, I gently make the point that changes that would let the Government off the hook of having to get legislation through in a certain amount of time could result in less rigorous scrutiny and less effective legislation. I hope that, in the pleasure that is suffusing the whole House because of the practical effects of the Bill, we can also reflect on the lessons that we should learn from its successful improvement between Second and Third Reading. I hope that the Government will learn another gentle lesson. Clearly, Labour Back Benchers welcome the Bill as much as Opposition Members do, so we can pass legislation that is relevant to the needs of millions of people. Perhaps the Government should concentrate a little less on their more peripheral legislation. This is an important, well supported Bill, and it is better than it was two months ago or on Second Reading. I supported it on Second Reading, and I am happy to do so again. I fully expect that the Government will do the same and that the Bill will make successful progress.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I am pleased to support the motion that the Bill be read the Third time. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on piloting the Bill with such skill, common sense and patience. I thank everyone associated with the Bill. In particular, I acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who was here until a moment ago. He has taken a long-term interest in the issue. Tackling fuel poverty is a priority for this Government. The Bill will help us to carry forward our work in tackling it in England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked about Scotland. My Department already co-operates with officials from Scotland, and we shall gladly continue to do so if our help is required. I am sure that the Scots take the issue at least as seriously as we do in England, not least because their weather is somewhat harsher than ours. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked whether I stood by what I said in the debate on the money resolution—that the Bill by itself is unlikely to impose an additional charge on public funds. I do stand by that. The Bill will help us to focus attention on what everyone agrees is a very serious problem. It will speed up the way in which we address the problem, and oblige us to set a timetable and a strategy that will make that problem easier to deal with. That is the Bill's strength. Much money is already being spent on combating fuel poverty, but the Bill by itself does not commit us to further funding. We are already spending a great deal on such matters.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

In that sense, anyone who claims that many extra homes will be heated because of the Bill is obviously not correct.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

A good deal of work is already under way, and many extra homes will continue to be heated. My hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) referred to some of the work that the Government have already done or have under way. The best known example is the new home energy efficiency scheme, which provides comprehensive packages of heating and insulation improvements to the households most at risk from cold-related ill health—those of the elderly, families on low incomes and the chronically sick. In England, the scheme has cost £260 million in its first two years and is likely to help 460,000 households. Serious money is being spent on a serious problem. In addition, the Government are spending record sums on tackling the backlog of renovation work needed in social housing. That will provide the opportunity to make a significant impact on tackling fuel poverty. We have increased the winter fuel payments for pensioners by 400 per cent. All these matters—and there are others, too—are relevant to the Government's serious effort to tackle fuel poverty. I hope that the Government's stance today confirms again that we are serious about the issue. We have shown that we are willing to compromise on the Bill, which we hope becomes law. It demonstrates the constructive and sensible way in which all parties have approached this issue, and that co-operation, for a worthwhile and valuable cause, is gratifying. The Bill will now pass to another place for further consideration in a clear and concise form. I wish it well, and I look forward to its taking its rightful place on the statute book.