Housing Bill

House of Commons, 17 November 2004.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 191B. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

After Clause 143

Lords amendment: No. 128C.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

I have already made it clear that this Government will not introduce the duty to have a home information pack unless we are sure that the industry and the public are ready. We are already committed to undertaking a national voluntary dry run of home information packs ahead of compulsory introduction.

Yesterday, in another place, my noble Friend Lord Rooker offered a commitment that our Department will pursue positively with stakeholders the possibility of a compulsory element to the dry run in a local or sub-regional area further to test our proposals ahead of the introduction of national compulsory packs. That would be achieved by commencing the statutory scheme in the chosen area earlier than in the rest of England and Wales. Clause 231(8) provides the necessary powers. We will involve all the key consumer and industry stakeholders in the arrangements and in the monitoring and evaluation of the voluntary and compulsory elements of the dry run.

We are confident that we have the flexibility within this Bill quickly to respond through regulations to any problems that arise before or during the dry run period or with the compulsory element. Depending on the nature of a potential problem, we could tailor the contents of the pack, exclude certain types of property from the duties or allow certain elements of the pack to be included later than the day of marketing, and so on.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I wonder whether the dry run will be in a low-value area.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We have not decided where the dry run will occur. That is a matter for close consultation with the industry.

We recognise that even with those commitments to undertake rigorous research and testing ahead of introduction, there are concerns among Conservative Members and in some sections of the industry that problems might arise that, despite the extent of the flexibility provided in the Bill, might be best addressed by suspending the operation of all or part of part 5 while they are resolved.

In response to those concerns, my noble Friend moved amendment No. 128C. That amendment adds a new clause, giving the Secretary of State the power to suspend the home information pack duties. I do not expect that we will face problems that we cannot solve quickly through regulations, so I do not expect that we will need to exercise that power. Should I be wrong, however, this power will enable us to suspend duties while we put things right.

I hope that I have allayed the concerns of Opposition Members and put to rest once and for all the suggestion that we are hell-bent on persisting with compulsory home information packs regardless of their impact.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

According to St. Luke, there is

"more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent."

In this case, there is undoubtedly a degree of repentance on the part of the Minister, and we should be generous about that. He has listened to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. In that respect, despite my intrinsic reservations about all Liberal Democrats, I have to say that they have been at one with us. He has listened to the concerns expressed in the House of Lords by peers of all parties, including Cross Benchers. He has listened to the concerns expressed by the Law Society. Incidentally, although he withdrew the remark, it was not terribly emollient of Lord Rooker to describe it as the "Lie Society" in the other place. That was not the right tone for the Government to use in making such a U-turn.

The Minister has listened to the concerns expressed by estate agents and by others who have pointed out that with the best will in the world—I think that the Minister does have good will over this—significant problems could arise during the trial period of these packs.

Let me lay my cards on the table. I make no secret of the fact that I believe that home information packs are unnecessary and will be unhelpful. They will slow down the market, might stimulate further surveys, are unlikely to satisfy mortgage lenders, and will be insufficient in many regards.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not right that the state should compulsorily interfere with two freely contracting individuals, and that that is the heart of the argument that Conservative Members have advanced?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

For once, there is a nuance of difference between my hon. Friend and I, who agree about so much, so often. As hon. Members know, I am not an advocate of the unbridled free market, and I believe that there is a civilising role for Government and local government. In this instance, however, my hon. Friend is spot on, because the case that the Government made—that this would assist the marketplace—was not made persuasively. It did not persuade Opposition Members and clearly it has not persuaded the Lords.

For that reason, the trial, as we can now reasonably call it, becomes highly significant. If my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is right about this, as he probably is, and if our reservations are founded in common sense—as, in my judgment, they are—so that significant problems arise during the course of the trial, it is absolutely right that this House should have the power to suspend the implementation of the packs. That would mean that instead of a dry run leading to an inevitability, we would have a legitimate and genuine pilot scheme. Under a pilot scheme, one tests something, sees what has gone wrong, and alters it. The suspension suggested in the amendment will be essential following the failure that sellers packs will undoubtedly become; otherwise, we will experience the chaos predicted by many experts, colleagues in this place, and Members of the Lords.

I acknowledge that the Minister has recognised those arguments. He has had the courage to make a significant concession, for which we must be grateful. But I have to say, although I do not want to be churlish, that he could have done that a long time ago. We had this debate in Committee, on Second Reading and during several other debates in this place and in the other place. It is an 11th-hour conversion, but at least it is a conversion.

I make a prediction and a commitment. The prediction is that, in their trial, sellers packs will be a disaster. The commitment is that, when a Conservative Government are elected to office—as I confidently expect next year—we will use the provision to suspend sellers packs at the outset. We are not convinced about them for the reasons that have often been articulated. I shall not tire the House by repeating them.

I am pleased that the Minister has made a concession, but a concession which would not have been granted without the consistent and energetic pressure that my colleagues in the Lords exerted. Baroness Hanham and Lord Hanningfield have been notable in that campaign, supported by Liberal Democrat Members. Without that pressure and the humble contribution of those in this place, who pale into insignificance beside the eloquence of our colleagues in the other place, we would not have wrung the concession from the Minister. He is a sinner that repenteth and I welcome his repentance. Sellers packs will not work. They will be suspended and the proposed new provision provides the chance to do that. We therefore welcome it.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) represents the amendments differently from my understanding of them. The principle of a compulsory scheme appears to have been accepted by both Houses. The system of buying and selling in this country through chains of transactions means that it is important for one comprehensive system to apply. That will happen and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on standing firm and ensuring that that forms part of the eventual legislation.

I thank the other place for adding a useful and pragmatic power, which may or may not be used in future. I assure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that it is not possible to suspend the scheme before it has started. I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work on the Bill and the subject.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I welcome the Government amendment, which recognises that the Liberal Democrats were talking common sense about home information packs. We have our disagreements. We do not believe that the packs will be a success and the Government clearly believe that they will prove successful. We are glad that they have included a get- out-of-jail clause. We are pleased to have helped them to do that because we believe that the proposed new provision is necessary to ensure that the packs can be suspended if they do not work after a trial period or even at some later stage.

The major difference between Conservative Members and us is that we have always acknowledged the need to introduce energy efficiency into the home sale at some point. We do not believe that it should be at the point of marketing but at the point of sale. That would bring it into line with the European directive. If the problems envisaged with home information packs occur and the proposed new power is needed, we hope that the ability to meet the terms of the European directive can rapidly be established at the point of sale, not of marketing. The Government have not given themselves the power to do that but they would have to do it to fulfil the terms of the directive if they used the proposed new provision.

I welcome the Government's change of heart. We are pleased to have played our part in persuading them of the need for it. We are not convinced that the packs will work and we continue to have huge reservations about them. However, the Government have at least given themselves the ability to stop them when, as we believe is likely, they prove to be a millstone around home buyers' necks.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I was sorry that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was a little taken aback by Lord Rooker's forcefulness. Perhaps my noble Friend feels that there is quite sufficient emollient on these ministerial Benches in normal circumstances.

I know that the energy performance certificate has been a matter of some concern to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). The EC directive requires the certificate to be made available when a property is sold. It also says that the certificate should be made available to prospective buyers to enable consumers to compare and assess the energy performance of the property being sold. The objectives of the directive would clearly not be met if the certificate were just handed over to the buyer on completion. It must be made available earlier in the process to provide the consumer with a genuine choice.

The hon. Member for Ludlow has raised the issue of what happens to the energy performance certificate in the event of a suspension or non-pursuit of the home information package. The power to suspend in amendment No. 128C is a power to suspend all or some of the duties in clauses 137 to 141. It is limited to those clauses and would not affect other powers or provisions in part 5, including the ones in clause 144. However, the power in clause 144(9)(a) to make regulations altering the time at which a pack document is provided will still exist. If a suspension order were to be made affecting the duties under clause 138, therefore, this would not prevent special arrangements from being made for the timing of the production of energy performance certificates, if that were deemed necessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister. My understanding of what he has just said is that in fact the Government would have the power to ensure that the energy performance certificate could be in place at the end of the process rather than at the start, if they so chose and if they realised that what they were proposing was not working.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am delighted to say that the usual form of inspiration has winged its way to me and confirms my instinctive understanding that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

rose—

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 154 — Interpretation of part 5

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Hon. Members may recall that in our debate on Monday, my guru, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), pointed out that there was a typographical error in the amendments on the register of home condition reports moved in this place last week. Lords amendment No. 140E replaces the reference in subsection (7) of the new clause to subsection (3), which relates to the paying of a fee to register a report, with the correct reference to subsection (4).

Lords amendment agreed to.

After Clause 187

Lords amendment: No. 191B.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 191C.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I invite the House to note that the Lords do not insist on their amendment No. 191 and that they have accepted Government amendments Nos. 191B and 191C, which were offered in lieu.

The House will recall that on Commons consideration of Lords amendments it disagreed with amendment No. 191, which placed a duty on the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure an increase in residential energy efficiency by at least 20 per cent. by 2010, based on 2000 levels. The Government have given further consideration to amendment No. 191. We continue to take the view that its effect will be broadly in line with that of existing policies on residential energy efficiency, and that there has been no weakening of the Government's determination to make serious progress on energy efficiency. However, we recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. We still believe that duties based on specific numerical figures are inflexible and better avoided in primary legislation, but we have decided to accede to the principle of the amendment as providing some comfort that the Government stand by the energy efficiency aim that they have declared. I am pleased that the 20 per cent. energy efficiency target will be included in the Bill. I am grateful to noble Members of the other place, who agreed in their wisdom to the amendment that the Government tabled on this subject.

We listened carefully to the arguments made in this House and elsewhere and we accepted the strength of those arguments. What we emphatically did not take into account was the disgraceful full-page advertisement naming names that appeared in The Guardian newspaper after the vote here. It was paid for by Greenpeace and an organisation called ACT, of which I personally had never heard before and of which I wish to hear no more. The advertisement pandered to the vulgar tabloid theory convenient to at least some elements hostile to the Government that Members of Parliament will always in some knee-jerk fashion cave in to pressures from the Prime Minister. Frankly—I speak as a former deputy Chief Whip—anybody with the most primitive knowledge of recent events in this Parliament will recognise that that is a lie.

The advertisement went on to state that the consequences of the vote would be the deaths of 30,000 people. That statement is outrageous. It is in plain ignorance of the facts of the case. Not even the most passionate advocate of the energy and fuel poverty amendments that we were debating would make such a dishonest claim, and nobody did so. The advertisement also betrayed a total ignorance of the way in which Parliament works.

I shall remind the House and, more to the point, those outside, how Parliament does work. I acknowledge the position of those Members of Parliament who felt that they could not support the position of the Government during the debate, some of whom have a long history of advocacy of the energy efficiency target, but I have to say to the House in all candour—I hope that this message gets through to those outside elements—that the voices to which I listened were the private representations of the colleagues who rightly supported the Government in the Divisions. If a Government are to work, they must depend on the support of Government Members, who continued in this case to make the argument with me. It was precisely because I recognised their loyalty and concern that I worked in Government to accept their argument. They are the Members who succeeded and to whom credit should be paid. There will be no names and no pack drill this time, but they know who they are, and I hope that they will claim the credit.

After the votes in question, one of my Labour colleagues wrote to The Guardian to say that, if anything, the Greenpeace advertisement would be more likely to heighten the Government's resistance to the energy efficiency amendment. I cannot say that I was not tempted. There is something of an object lesson here about the perhaps too easy signing of early-day motions; something along the lines of chickens coming home to roost springs to mind. Personally, as a Back Bencher, I resolved after the 1997 general election never again to sign an early-day motion, and I cannot say that I have suffered much as a consequence.

Nevertheless, we have done the right thing in supporting the 20 per cent. energy efficiency target in residential accommodation. All the evidence suggests that the Government have been working towards the target effectively and that they will achieve if not exceed it. I repeat that agreeing to it was nothing to do with the pathetic stunt by Greenpeace et al. I know that such outfits have to justify their donations by various stunts, but this stunt could well have backfired, and I wonder whether those involved really care about that.

I hope that the House will recognise that amendment No. 191B is a significant concession to colleagues who feel strongly about the matter. We are satisfied that the amendment will not place an additional burden on the Government. We have tabled it to rectify some technical deficiencies in Lords amendment No. 191. The definition of residential accommodation in amendment No. 191B mirrors that in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 to bring the provision into line with the designated aims, and proposed subsection (2) clarifies that that duty does not affect the duty to designate an aim under that Act. Finally, amendment No. 191C, which amends clause 231, the commencement clause, provides that the new clause introduced by amendment No. 191B will come into force two months from the date of Royal Assent.

I therefore invite the House to agree to amendments Nos. 191B and 191C.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is the second U-turn. Even the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), with all his powers of spin, will not be able to dress it up as anything other than a substantial concession. We have Lord Bassam's own words. This, he says,

"is a significant concession and . . . evidence that the Government listen."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1397.]

Yes, listen to their own critics on the Labour Benches; yes, listen to the powerful case made by peers in all parties; yes, listen—I think the hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge—to the Opposition, who have been both consistent and united in their concern to ensure that the Government honour the commitment on which they reneged earlier this year. Let us be frank: they switched the target from 20 per cent. to 16 per cent. It does not do the Minister much credit to get too high-handed about that and about those outside who drew attention to it. At least the Government have returned to where they began and set a target in line with what was suggested by their own advisers, most experts outside and most of those who campaign both for energy efficiency and against fuel poverty.

I make no specific comment about the newspaper article to which the Minister referred, but I do say this. A range of organisations representing some of the most vulnerable of our countrymen have highlighted the fact that the Government were not playing straight when they resisted the Lords amendments initially—organisations representing the poorest of our countrymen, the elderly, vulnerable children and people with a long-standing commitment to the battle against fuel poverty. I understand why the Minister's parliamentary private secretary is embarrassed—

Terry Rooney (Labour, Bradford North)

I am not in the least embarrassed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed, because he initially voted against the Lords. I understand that he has had to see the error of his ways. He is another convert—another sinner that repenteth.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been a sinner in this regard. I rather doubt it, as he has a pretty proud history of standing up for those who fight fuel poverty.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that most of the groups that he mentioned understood the workings of this place and worked within the system to secure the change that we see today?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, they did. I personally received many representations from them, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) did as well. I know that the Minister did. Of course they understood: they understood that they must put pressure on all of us who were involved in the debate on these matters, and hoped that they could bring about a resolution that was appropriate and deliverable.

Of course those bodies understood how the process worked, but it is a bit rich to pick out an advertisement without paying tribute to some of the organisations that were measured and consistent in their campaign and that did not go over the top in their representations. To counterbalance some of the criticism, let me pay tribute to all those, outside this place and in it, who fought for the cause of eliminating fuel poverty, including all-party groups and, indeed, to those who embarrassed the Government when it became clear that they had started to renege on a public commitment made more than 15 times.

When more than two dozen of a Government's own Members rebel on an amendment in support of the Lords, of course it is embarrassing. [Interruption.] Of course it is embarrassing to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who is now chuntering. I understand his embarrassment, and I feel a bit sorry for him, but he has been got off the hook by his Minister. Because the Minister has conceded, there will be a return to the original position of recognising the efficacy of a 20 per cent. decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, on the basis of the 1990 levels. That is what the Minister's commitment means and, in practice, many of the arguments articulated in the other place and in the House will find a form in the Bill in a clear restatement of policy to do something real and deliverable about emissions, fuel poverty and other issues related to energy efficiency.

Once again, I recognise that the Government have moved, even though it was not of their own volition. However, their move is welcome because it improves the Bill. The measure is by no means perfect—it contains some good things and some very bad things—but the work of both Houses of Parliament, assisted by those outside who have made representations to us, has improved it by forcing the Minister to take note. That does him some credit, but much more to those who forced him to do so.

I am pleased to support the amendment, alongside Members on the Treasury Bench.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Minister in the Lords for introducing the amendment, which will be welcome in the industry and which is a sign of the Government's good work on these matters. They are the first Government to try to tackle fuel poverty. They have a long history of doing so and the amendment is another in a long line of initiatives. That context is important, given the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), which suggest that the Government have done nothing, whereas they have a long record of tackling fuel poverty.

I am pleased that the Government introduced the amendment. It seems that every time I rebel, the Government table amendments in the Lords, so I hope that they will adopt a quicker method in future. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the relationship between the 20 per cent. target and the energy efficiency target in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. That is useful.

I want to say something about the Greenpeace advert. Last Monday, many people asked me whether they should rebel and I replied, "No, don't. Go and speak to the Minister." Many of my colleagues who had signed the early-day motion chose to make their point to the Minister in the Aye Lobby and they deserve credit for doing so. It is important that the House recognise that a large number of people who could have rebelled did not do so, but none the less made their point to the Minister. I welcome the fact that the Minister listened to them. That was important, and it makes the Greenpeace advert all the more annoying.

I think that Stephen Tindale should resign as director of Greenpeace, because of the damage that he has done. He has attacked his friends—people who have campaigned on environmental issues in the House for a long time—and gave them no help. He did not attack those who have opposed such measures. I could have understood that if he had been a novice campaigner, although I would not have been very happy about it, but he has a long history of campaigning and understands it. As an insider, when he was a special adviser, he was part of the problem so he has a lot to answer for. If he does not resign, Greenpeace should sack him. He has done real damage to—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, but perhaps he could confine his remarks to the amendment.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker.

Many Members have campaigned on this issue for a long time and they may not support future campaigns for fear of being stabbed in the back. The Minister has already told us that he chose not to sign early-day motions when he was a Back Bencher and several of my colleagues may make the same choice, which will be to the detriment of the House. It is important that we use early-day motions to put pressure on Ministers, so I am glad that 340 Members signed the early-day motion and that the Minister listened.

It is also important that we take forward the energy efficiency target. I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken that on board, and hope that his officials will talk with the industry about improving the situation.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Labour party doth protest too much. I had no idea that Labour Members would talk about the Greenpeace advertisement quite so much. They have just given Greenpeace huge publicity, so that may have been counterproductive, unless a real double game is being played.

We are pleased to have helped force the Government into recommitting to a target to which they have previously been committed and into putting it in the Bill. It is a small step forward. It is frustrating that the Government talk the language of energy efficiency but at times they need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do anything about it. They have a better record than the Conservatives ever did, but they have not always seemed enthusiastic about it. The Government talk the talk, but they do not always walk the walk. I am glad that, for once, the Liberal Democrats—in conjunction with others—have been able to encourage the Government into walking the walk.

This amendment, like others on the tenancy deposit scheme and empty property management orders, has helped to improve the Bill considerably. We still have problems with home information packs, but much of the Bill is very welcome. Substantial improvements have been made, such as this amendment, and the Minister will be able to look back and be pleased with the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are certainly pleased to have played our part in ensuring that some of the best parts of the Bill, including this amendment, were added to it.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

As one who suffered damage to his reputation by the Greenpeace advertisement that has been mentioned, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for making it clear that he listened to the representations of Labour Back Benchers who loyally supported him last Monday, as I did, but spoke to him privately about the matter. I am sure that even the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would agree, without spin, that my right hon. Friend has a fine record, in proceedings on this Bill, of accepting good arguments from Labour Back Benchers on a series of issues, including empty homes, overcrowding, park homes and tenants' deposits. That is commendable.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I just wished to put on the record that, as I have said previously, I think that the passage of the Bill has been a happy experience. It has shown Parliament working well. The pressure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the Minister acknowledged, has come from both sides of the House. We have been helpful to the Government in making this a better Bill, because they will not reach their carbon dioxide emission targets unless they deal with energy efficiency. They will now deal with that and—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That is rather lengthy for an intervention.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

On that happy note, I shall end.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I note the Government's concession, but we should not get carried away and start thinking that it is a concession of much substance. All that the concession does is require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that by 2010 the general level of energy efficiency of residential accommodation is increased by at least 20 per cent. compared with the general level in 2000. No sanction will apply if that target is not met. There are no stepping stones, interim or otherwise, on the way to that target. We know that the Government have cynically abandoned a range of targets when it has become apparent that they will not be met. Why should we be party to allowing the general public to be duped into thinking that this is a concession of real substance?

The fact that the Minister made such a play of the Greenpeace advertisement shows that the Government are frightened of the Greenpeace lobby and that pressure group. The advertisement obviously got to the Minister in a big way.

Most hon. Members are concerned about the substance of trying to ensure that there are improvements in energy efficiency and reductions in fuel poverty, and we find that the Government talk a good talk, but that they do not deliver the substance. That is why I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) seems to go along with the idea that a great concession has been made. I am sure that we rightly argued that we want to try to hold the Government to account to a greater extent, and we may have made some progress on that, but I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we have not got the whole cake.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let us make no mistake: I do not say for a moment that I would not be a better Minister than the right hon. Gentleman or that we would not manage these matters altogether better than him and his colleagues. Of course, the House and the whole country know that, but when improvements are made, even if they are modest, we have a responsibility to welcome them. The Government have moved in our direction. The Lords amendment is not ideal, but it is better than nothing.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My hon. Friend says that the Lords amendment is better than nothing, and the Bill certainly includes words that were not there before. He is one of the most robust critics of the Government's good-talk-but-no-action policies, and I am sure that he is not really taken in by them. If he thinks that it is better than nothing, I suppose that I will go along with his judgment, but we should not send the message from the House that the Government have made a major climbdown or U-turn. To a large extent, this is an exercise in semantics. There is no point in having targets or commands without sanctions, and there is no sanction against the Government if they do not comply or meet the target.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is true, but my hon. Friend must recognise that the measure of how far the Minister has moved in our direction is that, having consistently argued against our case and the Lords case, he has now written an amendment that is virtually identical to the one that the Lords proposed, which he opposed. There are minor differences, but at last the Bill contains a commitment to energy efficiency that is essential if we are to meet the carbon emissions targets, which we all agree are vital. The concession is somewhat toothless, but not entirely without teeth—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman's intervention is quite lengthy.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that he can assure me that he feels confident that we know what the general level of energy efficiency was in 2000, so that we have a benchmark against which we can measure. One of the problems is that the Government promote targets, but we find that the baselines for those targets have not been properly defined. For example, the Government certainly kept on saying that they would produce a definition of congestion on the roads, but they never did and they eventually abandoned the target altogether. I shall give way to my hon. Friend again if he can assure me that there is a definition of the general level of energy efficiency in 2000 that would be a proper benchmark.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for painting me as the moderate in such matters. The Government's advisers have been very clear about the benchmark, and we called in aid those advisers when they said that they could not understand why the Government had adjusted their target. So the Government's advice, based on a proper measurement of the current situation, is in line with our thinking, the Lords thinking and the Government's new thinking, and I am therefore confident that we have made progress.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. If he thinks that that is enough for us, let us rest on our laurels, but I certainly predict that, when we reach 2010, the Government will have got nowhere near the target, unless we have a Conservative Government by then to deliver it for us.

Lords amendment No. 191B agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 191C agreed to.