---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) inadvertently gave the game away in his opening speech when he used phrases such as ““direction of travel”” and ““prioritising climate change”” in the context of local authorities’ role, as envisaged in his new clause 1 and the Minister’s new clause 4. It has already become apparent in our brief and so far friendly exchange—an opener to what will be a fascinating debate through today, and probably subsequent Fridays—that the risk is that this well-meaning Bill is neither more nor less than a gesture. I have a real problem with the concept that we in this House need endlessly to legislate to show what good people we are, what good intentions we have and how much we agree with this or that outside interest group; indeed, I find that rather offensive. Our job should be passing necessary and practical legislation that adds value to the statute book and the body politic, not endlessly loading the statute book with good thoughts and clever ideas. I am afraid that this Bill comes into the latter category. We are already struggling to see—typically, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) elicited this from the Minister—just what value the Bill adds. It has already been claimed that we need not worry—there will be no new burdens on local authorities as a result of these new clauses. However, the very first sentence of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, says:"““Every local authority shall, after having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within twelve months . . . consider how the measures . . . in this section can assist the authority””." That immediately imposes a new burden on local authorities, and if it does not it is not worth doing. So we begin to see, even in that first sentence, the potential for conflict. It is claimed that this is a relatively innocuous thing that everyone is doing anyway; indeed, the Minister gave examples of excellent local authorities that are already doing most of what is in the new clauses. So if we are not careful, we will either simply repeat what is already being done, or add new burdens to local authorities. It is incumbent on us to face such issues head on. If we are indeed asking our benighted local authorities to do yet more—albeit in the best of causes and with the best of motivations—we should know about it and acknowledge it. We need an absolutely open and honest answer to that question before we can sign up to new clause 1. New clause 1 goes on to specify the various valuable developments that it would doubtless bring about. In discussing later my amendment (a) to new clause 4, I hope to initiate a debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which this House has never had in a proper sense. As I have said many times in this House, I have serious doubts about that concept. In many ways, it is misleading nonsense and I want to explain why. Fuel poverty is a concept that everybody signs up to, saying—as the Minister said earlier—that is outrageous, disgraceful and awful and that we must deal with it. When I have finished discussing local authorities, I want to explore in a little more detail the claims made about fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in general or any other specific poverty, and how we can best deal with it—an issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). For the moment, however, I want to concentrate on new clause 4, with which there are some problems. At the outset, it lays a new burden on the Secretary of State. It should not be imagined, as it often is when we are faced with such Bills, that we can ask more and more of Government Departments at zero cost. The Chancellor is boasting—is he not?—that we will see increased productivity and slimmer and more effective Government Departments, which will result in a saving to the taxpayer. At the same time, however, Bills such as this repeatedly come before the House that make further demands on Departments. These demands cannot be met at no cost, and if they can they are probably not worth meeting, or will not be met very well. At the outset of new clause 4, there is again this apparent conflict between the rival claims being made for the Bill. It either does something new, exciting and beneficial—if so, it will probably involve substantial additional cost—or it is simply a gesture to make us all feel better, in which case, it may well not. New clause 4 contains another of these mandatory requirements. Subsection (2) states:"““Every local authority must, in exercising any of their functions, have regard to the most recently published energy measures report””." So it is surely unavoidable that at least one official in each local authority will have to spend time having regard to such a report. Someone who could have been looking after old people, young people or people with disabilities will instead have to beaver away studying an energy measures report, doubtless having to reach a conclusion on what positive contribution their local authority can make to all the good things in the Bill.