---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

Funnily enough, that reassures me, because it shows that our Front Benchers are not totally in bed with the Government on this issue. That discrepancy reassures me that there is at least the slightest smidgen of difference between our Front Benchers and the Government, which makes me—as a traditionalist—feel rather comfortable. However, I shall not hold my breath waiting for much more evidence of that. I shall now conclude my preliminary observations on new clause 4, turn to my amendment (a) and initiate what I hope will be a vigorous and extensive debate on the concept of fuel poverty, which has bothered me for some time. It encompasses a wide variety of different concepts, which have not yet been addressed or dealt with. There is the concept of poverty itself, which well known but not yet fully explored in terms of whether we mean absolute or relative poverty. There is also the role that fuel, as opposed to other essentials, plays in the household budget. There are historic comparisons to be made, with fuel prices past and present, and lifestyle choices. One of the issues that we must explore is whether the frequently made claims that people are fuel poor have anything to do with their lifestyles and their personal priorities. One of the reasons why I have sought to initiate a debate on fuel poverty, by seeking to remove the reference to it from the new clause and throughout the Bill, is that I am not sure that it has any place in a Bill on so-called climate change, emissions, microgeneration and all that. Fuel poverty is a completely different subject and should be covered by a different policy direction. In any case, I remain to be convinced that fuel poverty is a legitimate concept. When one looks at definitions of poverty, one comes across ““want of necessities””, ““indispensable things””, ““wanting means of subsistence”” and ““minimum resources to sustain life””. Those definitions are all unexceptional, and nobody would disagree with them. But when I began to think about what fits into those descriptions, I made a little list: accommodation, food, clothing, heating, perhaps transport—and then I got to alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and the like. I then began to wonder in what order one should list them in terms of the minimum resources to sustain life, subsistence or want of necessities. That immediately brings us to the time-honoured debate, which I do not think we have ever resolved—perhaps because we do not really want to confront it—about whether poverty is relative or absolute. In a very wealthy society, which we pride ourselves on being, if one defines poverty in relative terms, one gets some rather peculiar outcomes. People who enjoy things that could hardly be called necessities are suddenly regarded as being in some way poor. On the other hand, if one looks at poverty as an absolute, which would be my preference, it starts to take on a different context. If we are really talking about necessities—the minimum resources to sustain life—I originally put accommodation first, but then I thought that food should be first, because if people do not eat they do not survive, and we know that there are people who choose—many, but not all choose—to live on the streets. They can survive almost indefinitely without conventional accommodation, but they need food and clothing. The point that I am working towards is that fuel does not feature very highly in what people need to survive and maintain themselves. So why do we not talk about food poverty or clothing poverty? Why do we not talk about poverty in other essential aspects of life? Why are we obsessed with the concept of fuel poverty, as opposed to poverty in other aspects of life?