---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

No, I do not agree. One of the problems that we have in the UK is that we are now paying the price for the way in which we have sought to liberalise our energy markets. I have taken the trouble to ask most of the energy suppliers in the country to tell me what their long-term plans are for selling people less energy, and encouraging less energy consumption. Not a single one can do that. They just look at anyone who asks that question as if they were barking mad. Yet they know that we cannot continue to live in a world where we consume ourselves to death through the energy inputs that are responsible for the climate change outputs that devastate the rest of the planet. We will have to move to a different way of thinking about energy use and energy generation. The difficulty is that when one asks the energy suppliers why they cannot make that move, even though intellectually they can understand the necessity of it, they say that they are required to engage in a market driven by short-term price considerations. How to break out of that short-term trap is one of the biggest challenges that we face, not just in this House but in this society. That is why we need a Treasury lead and a coherent fiscal strategy for how we set about delivering on our sustainability policies. At the moment, 10 million people in the south of England face a hosepipe ban. In addition, millions of others are being warned of long-term water shortages that will be part of the cost and consequences of the climate change damage that we have done during the past 30 years. It is inconceivable that the public will allow us to go far down a path that ignores those issues, or excludes them from being at the heart of our Budget thinking about how we manage the economy. Putting that at the heart of our thinking, rather than having responsibility devolved into a series of separate, often unconnected and at times conflicting departmental policies, adds to the weight of argument about why there needs to be a Treasury lead—a Chancellor’s lead—in addressing the issue head-on. New clause 10 and the schedule attached to it is the one specific proposal that would allow for the introduction of a lower rate of stamp duty or a rebate for the introduction of energy efficiency measures. In support of that I want to cite a number of points. Members should just cast their eyes over early-day motion 214, which was submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). It has 262 signatures from Members of all parties in the House, and it makes precisely the point about the need for a stamp duty rebate tied to the introduction of energy efficiency measures in the home. Just over a week ago, the Energy Saving Trust and the Policy Studies Institute held a seminar for virtually all sectors of the energy industry, along with environmental and fuel poverty organisations. Officials from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury were also present. Those at the seminar considered a long list of proposals about the sort of fiscal measures that would effectively promote the introduction of energy efficiency in the home. The single measure that emerged as by far the most popular way of achieving that was the introduction of a stamp duty rebate. It is important that we acknowledge the weight of pressure that people who are in the business of making things work feel that we could achieve if we wanted to make that happen.