Green deal

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a scheme whereby every household shall have an entitlement for household energy efficiency measures.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require suppliers to add repayment charges to household electricity bills over a period to be set by the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the Metering Point Administration Service to allow access to the data for the disbursement and repayment of the entitlement.

(4) A support scheme may make provision about arrangements to be made by scheme suppliers to ensure that, so far as is practicable, scheme customers receive the benefits to be provided under the scheme, which may in particular include provision about—

(a) arrangements for enabling scheme suppliers to identify scheme customers;

(b) arrangements for drawing to the attention of scheme customers—

(i) the fact that benefits are available under the scheme, and

(ii) ways of applying for those benefits;

(c) arrangements for providing the benefits.’.—(Charles Hendry.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 7—Energy efficiency schemes—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that—

(a) all households in fuel poverty; and

(b) such other households as he may specify, are offered a whole house package of approved energy efficiency measures.

(2) A “whole house package of approved energy efficiency measures”—

(a) may before being finalised take into account the effects on a particular household of any measures taken or proposed to be taken pursuant to any other scheme to combat fuel poverty; and

(b) must consider a householder’s energy needs and carbon dioxide impacts as a whole and establish a comprehensive package of measures to address them; and

(c) must identify all relevant cost effective measures; and

(d) must include all measures available at the time of assessment that are suitable for the property and—

(i) which pay back through fuel bill savings over their lifetime; and

(ii) which are necessary to remove that household from fuel poverty or bring the property up to Energy Performance Certificate Band C.

(3) The Secretary of State must specify a method of financing those works provided that subject to subsection (4) no householder shall be required to pay for the cost of those works.

(4) If the Secretary of State specifies that any works carried out pursuant to this section shall be funded in whole or in part by a loan scheme, then he must ensure that any repayments for which a householder shall be liable must be equal to, or less per month than, the total savings on the energy bills of that householder.

(5) If a householder accepts an offer made pursuant to this section the Secretary of State must ensure that the resultant works must be carried out within 12 months of that acceptance.

(6) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to promote the scheme to households in fuel poverty with a view to maximising the acceptance by householders of the offers made under the scheme.’.

New clause 8—Reports and reviews—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must report annually to parliament on actions taken pursuant to section [Energy efficiency schemes] and any such report must include information on—

(a) the reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, and

(b) the reduction in the number of households in fuel poverty, as a result of those actions.

(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time, and in the circumstances specified in subsection (3) below must, carry out a review of the scheme established by this Act and the results of any such review must be laid before Parliament.

(3) The circumstances referred to in subsection (2) are, if in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the scheme is either—

(a) failing to deliver sufficient reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide; or

(b) likely to fail to end fuel poverty.

(4) Where the Secretary of State has carried out a review pursuant to subsection (3) he shall ensure that that review is debated and voted on in Parliament.’.

New clause 17—Schemes for reducing fuel poverty: further provisions (No.2)—

‘(1) In this Part a support scheme—

(a) must include the offer of a reasonable amount of energy efficiency measures to all persons in the fuel poverty risk groups who are offered financial benefits;

(b) may include the offer of energy efficiency measures to such other persons as the scheme specifies;

(c) may include the offer of such other benefits as the Secretary of State may from time to time specify.

(2) In this section—

“energy efficiency measures” includes any of those measures that are at the time of the passing of this Act rated at 5% for any purposes; and

“a reasonable amount of energy efficiency measures” means an amount of measures that the Secretary of State specifies having regard to the condition of the property concerned.’.

We have a number of new clauses left, and I am keen that we should make as much progress as possible. Under earlier clauses on fuel poverty, we discussed some of the energy efficiency issues in great depth. The new clause would introduce a programme to roll out energy efficiency across the country, which would help people in homes across the nation. The Government have set a target that all homes should have cavity wall and loft insulation by 2030.

The Prime Minister announced a year or so ago that the Government intended to get 6 million households insulated between September 2008 and 2011. The plans that we have seen lack ambition, and the new clause sets out a much more robust, determined and comprehensive approach. Every home in the country would have proper  insulation, worth up to £6,500, and the onus of repayment would, fundamentally, stay with the property rather than the individual.

When we announced the approach a year or so ago, the energy efficiency NGOs, the fuel poverty NGOs and the energy industry reacted genuinely positively. The subsequent enthusiasm from high street retailers, including Marks and Spencer and Tesco, has surprised us. They say that they want to be actively involved and that they can contribute greatly. They think that they can bring in new innovative funding mechanisms that minimise the cost and make the scheme more attractive to householders. Critically, there are shared systems, which means that the work is carried out and the benefits of reduced energy bills begin to accrue to the householder before they have to start to pay for the work. They would gradually pay for it over 20 to 25 years.

The policy is endorsed by the National Housing Federation, WWF and the Green Building Council. We have support from the energy companies, which are keen to be involved, and from high street retailers. It is important to note that the figure of £6,500 is not going to be an absolute maximum. That is a figure we have worked on in conjunction with others, where they have said that that would appear to provide the right level of insulation for the average home. It would not get a bad-quality home up to a perfect level but it would move poor-quality homes up to a good level or beyond, and we think that is important.

I will give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I am keen to pick up on something that he said in earlier proceedings. He said:

“The £6,500-per-dwelling contribution figure is the lowest, which, as I am sure the hon. Member for Wealden will either confirm or deny, is the one that the Conservatives still use. The more realistic proposed and accepted figure is in the order of £10,000”——[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2010; c. 209.]

That came as a bit of a surprise to me, because my recollection of when we announced this policy was that a similar policy announcement quickly appeared from the Liberal Democrats. We went back through our records and came across a February 2009 press release, in the name of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, entitled “Warm Homes: an opportunity offered”. It sets out the scheme and says:

“On best estimates obtained from the Energy Saving Trust the average cost will be £5,000 for the installation and an additional £1,500 for the administrative costs of the survey and the organisation of the programme.”

His press release, therefore, said that the figure should be £6,500. Now we hear that the Liberal Democrats have moved on and that that is not sufficient. We were intrigued to see the way that story was written up in the Guardian at the time.

“In the announcement today...Hughes will propose the government underwrite renovation work worth £6,500”.

It said this was a recommendation

“originally made by the...Energy Saving Trust, which was also adopted as party policy recently by the Conservatives.”

The Guardian goes on:

“In fact the policy is a pure copy of the Conservative proposal—down to the exact figure of £6,500. The Energy Saving Trust (EST)...asked about this policy recommendation which supposedly originated with them, responded with bewilderment.”

I hope that this issue is something on which we can find great common ground.

Simon Hughesrose—

With that understanding, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I have the relevant document and probably even the press release with me. I remember exactly what we said last February; it was indeed based on the best advice of £6,500. However, we have done a lot of work, as a result of which we believe that the average figure would be higher. In the interests of transparency, we believe that we need to be clear that the costs will be higher.

I asked the hon. Gentleman a simple, straightforward question: does he have a figure on advice as to what the average cost of a full energy efficiency refurbishment programme would be for a property, either in England or the UK? He has an aspiration that people should be lent money to achieve energy efficiency, but what rating of energy efficiency does he have in mind?

The advice that we have been given is that £6,500 would move most homes from a poor to a good level. We have not set a specific standard assessment procedure rating because we want to be flexible to respond to the needs of individual houses. Once one starts setting a SAP level that every house must meet, the figure will not necessarily be one that can be averaged out in that way across the housing stock.

We have been encouraged that Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, has said:

“The Green Deal is a bold vision to cut household energy bills and reduce CO2 emissions...As Britain’s largest energy supplier we are committed to making these proposals work in practice.”

He goes on to say:

“The Green Deal could require as much as £150 billion of capital by 2020. Energy suppliers such as British Gas would be willing to provide some of the finance necessary but we believe that if the Green Deal follows our design, the financial markets will come forward to provide the capital. In order to ensure the energy bill savings outweigh Green Deal repayments, it is vital that the interest rate associated with financing is low. This means minimising the repayment risk and our paper outlines a range of proposals to enable this.”

There is a great deal of support out there. The basis on which the proposal has been calculated has not been questioned. There are financial organisations keen to work with us to develop the detail. All we need now is the authority for this programme to be rolled out. One of its most important aspects is that it relates to an individual property.

One concern that we have about other approaches, which require the energy efficiency of the homes of those living in fuel poverty to be improved, is that the work would be carried out where people were living at that time, but there would be no guarantee that they would continue to live there. If a family in fuel poverty were living in privately rented accommodation, work would be carried out, as legally required, but that family could move on, and a different family could move in. The other approach means that, at every single moment, somebody would have to monitor the family in every  single home to see whether they were in fuel poverty and entitled to support. Therefore, to achieve the change that we are looking for, it is better for a scheme to run on a household basis.

I do not doubt Ministers’ commitment to energy efficiency. I am not sure which Minister will respond to the new clause—the Minister of State has a personal commitment to dealing with the issue. The unsatisfactory aspect is that we seem to lack ambition about what we can do in this country. We start from the position of being one of the worst in Europe for the energy efficiency of our housing stock. There is an element of an accident of geography in that. Had Britain been further north, we would have had to have such energy efficiency and insulation measures, otherwise our homes would be too cold in winter. Had Britain been further south, those measures would not be necessary. We have an enormous amount to do to catch up with those countries that have been investing over many years. The Germans, Danes and others look askance at the appalling energy efficiency of our homes. We need to show determination to drive change.

The new clause gives the Government the power to start rolling out the necessary measures. It is an idea whose time has come. We hope that the Minister will support us.

I should like to address my remarks to new clause 17. I say in passing that two other new clauses in the group refer to the essential link between fuel poverty and household energy efficiency. As far as I can see, new clause 7—forgive me for saying it in this way—is entirely stolen from the Fuel Poverty (No. 2) Bill, which I introduced last spring. That may be accidental but a small footnote would be nice.

New clause 3, as the hon. Member for Wealden suggested, requires something like £150 billion, which I think is the lowest estimate, to underwrite the programme. Among other problems, it would not necessarily deal with those households in fuel poverty. It may have the opposite effect. I want to be brief this afternoon as I recognise that we have a lot of business to get through before we finish.

My new clause makes the direct connection between fuel poverty and energy efficiency energy in homes in terms of an offer made to households in fuel poverty by those bodies required under the scheme to provide assistance to them, and requiring part of that assistance to be energy efficiency measures. That is important as it is clear that there is a close correlation between those in fuel poverty and those in houses with a low SAP rating.

Almost 40 per cent. of those in fuel poverty live in houses with a SAP rating under 30. Over 80 per cent. of the fuel-poor live in properties with a SAP rating below 50. Conversely, once a property reaches a SAP rating of 65 or above, which is where energy performance certificate band C mentioned in new clause 7 comes in, it is extremely unlikely that any householder living in it would have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on fuel. The correlation is clear.

While it is true that not everybody who is fuel-poor lives in a house with a low SAP rating, or that everybody who lives in a house with a low SAP rating is fuel-poor,  if one goes to a property that has a low SAP rating, one is quite likely to find someone who is also fuel-poor living in it. Therefore, when assistance is given under the scheme for those people who are in fuel poverty, the requirement to include an element of fuel efficiency in the offer means inevitably that that property’s SAP rating will be increased. The likelihood of that family’s being in fuel poverty will be lessened over time.

If the SAP rating of properties across the UK is 65 or above, one can effectively say that it is unlikely in general that people will be in fuel poverty. Clearly, that has to be the target over the medium to long term. Although the Government have made extraordinary strides to increase the energy efficiency of properties in the UK, and the average SAP rating of properties in the UK has risen over the last few years as a result, that outcome is still a little way off. We know that fuel poverty is linked to the energy efficiency of the house, so including a requirement that the energy efficiency of that house should rise over time so that it is eventually within the range of SAP 65 would ensure that fuel poverty was all but extinguished for UK households.

I, too, am keen that we should have a chance to debate the groups of new clauses so that we can complete our business in time. I will not go over the ground again that we covered when we put forward our proposals the other day. I simply ask the hon. Member for Wealden to be more precise about how the funding mechanism would work. Obviously, we are talking of a ballpark figure of more than £100 billion. The scheme has to start somewhere. The idea is that the payback is attached to the electricity bill of the property. Clearly, there needs to be some funding upfront. I am keen to hear him elaborate on who lends the money. Will it all come from the utilities companies? Will it come from the partners he has talked about? What is the division? Is there any underwriting? What are the guarantees? We need a bit more meat on the bone to be persuaded that this is a credible system.

No set funding scheme is necessary. The companies are keen to develop their own funding aspects and are trying to see how they can make this scheme work best for them, too. Our initial intention was that the onus would be on the energy companies—they would have to borrow. There might then have needed to be an element of Government guarantee for that borrowing so it did not conflict with the building of new plant and infrastructure. Subsequently people have come forward and told us that they are talking to organisations in the City and that they can fund this on a long-term loan basis. They are happy to do it on that basis, so we do not think it is necessary to have a single prescriptive scheme; the largest companies in the country believe that it is workable and that they can fund it.

With respect, I do not think that that quite works. New clause 3(1) says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a scheme whereby every household shall have an entitlement for household energy efficiency measures.”

That means a right. If there is a right it means that everybody could in theory on day one say, “I want my energy efficiency measures.” That therefore has to be backed up by a system of financing because it cannot be  done without the necessary funding. A suck-it-and-see answer is not sufficient here. If the new clause said “shall have a potential opportunity”, that would be something else, but an entitlement is a different kettle of fish.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to raise the question of whether the savings that would result from energy efficiency measures of £6,500 per house could be entirely funded, considering the interest that will arise, at a reasonable rate, from that £6,500 over time, by the difference between the savings the householder might make and the money the administering body may take? Would the householder’s bill be genuinely reduced? If that is not the case, the proposal will simply not work.

I note and respect the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry. He has posed a similar question to me. The Minister replied that because the issue is so important, we need a pilot scheme and we need to make sure that the sums work. The hon. Member for Wealden needs to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Such a scheme is not credible unless it guarantees that the addition of the energy bill as reduced by the energy efficiency measures plus the payback is less than people will be paying. That is a key issue.

There are two areas of common ground, and other areas of difference, between the hon. Member for Wealden and me. First, we think the system should attach to the property, not the person. If the property changes hands, it is much more manageable in Britain to track properties than people. That is therefore the right system. Secondly, we think that there should be a scheme. Beyond that, we are in the area of debate and competition. We know that the Government have their great British refurb programme ready in the wings for the final proof-read by Ministers. We hope the Minister will say that we will see it before Report. We discussed it the other day and the Ministers tried to be helpful; it would be nice if they could be really helpful today and say, “Yes, we’ve signed it off. It will be coming down the track and the Secretary of State will be on his hind legs in the Chamber announcing it next week or the week after, which means that we are guaranteed to get it.” I am being light-hearted, but I am serious about the need for it. It would be nonsense for us to debate how we deal with the issues without the Government plan.

We support new clause 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and his colleagues. It would make sure that the scheme is not just a payback, but a wide range of energy efficient measures to be offered in schemes for reducing fuel poverty. We had part of that discussion the other day. It is clearly a step in the right direction and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic towards it.

The hon. Gentleman merits much more than a footnote in relation to new clauses 7 and 8. I intended to say, without any prompting, that both new clauses have considerable parliamentary progeny, because they have appeared elsewhere. They appeared in the hon. Gentleman’s presentation Bill, for example, and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was using the same song sheet when he introduced his  private Member’s Bill last year, which, all too sadly, the Government blocked. I give credit to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for the work that he has done and for suggesting the idea. It is absolutely not meant to be unattributed. To be fair, he and I and others benefit from work done by people outside the House who seek to come up with schemes that might find favour with Ministers. The scheme in new clauses 7 and 8 is one of them.

I hope that the Government will be favourably disposed towards new clauses 7 and 8, because they have a common, cross-party heritage. Not only are we trying to make sure that there is a whole-house package—to use the summary phrase—but that there are then regular reports. We need to see progress on the issue, because systems may need to be tweaked and adjusted, there may need to be greater incentives, and more money may need to be put in the kitty. We are committed to a scheme, the ballpark nature of which I set out the other day. The hon. Member for Wealden has presented the Conservative scheme and will answer in a second the question of exactly how we deal with the entitlement question when no money is guaranteed in the kitty. I still do not understand how there can be entitlement in that situation. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reply positively to the concept, and bring us up to date since last week, by telling us that the great British refurb, or whatever the final version is called, will appear any day now.

It is a pleasure to welcome you back, Mr. Bayley, to your position overseeing our deliberations.

Across the parties, we share the ambition for our country to do much better at making our built environment energy efficient. Although today’s debate will be about domestic properties, it applies equally to commercial and non-domestic properties. It makes sense in terms of hitting our targets for tackling climate change, and in terms of our energy security and fairness for citizens and affordable prices, which is particularly on our minds as we debate fuel-poverty measures in the group of new clauses.

New clause 3 would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a scheme giving every household an entitlement to energy efficiency measures, with repayment charges added to their bills. This is not my answer to the debate, but at one level everyone is already entitled to access a subsidised offer for energy efficiency measures under the supplier obligation. Since the beginning of the energy efficiency commitment in April 2002, the supplier obligation has delivered 3.4 million cavity wall insulations and 3.6 million professional loft insulations. We have already committed to insulating all lofts and cavity walls where practicable by 2015—not 2030 as the hon. Member for Wealden said. We also intend to support a whole-house package for 7 million homes by 2020. Financing those measures is critical to their success, and to encourage take-up of the energy efficiency measures available and to test various financing models, we launched the home energy pay as you save pilots on 7 December. Through those pilots, we aim to assess consumer interest in pay as you save finance and identify the best delivery mechanisms, including the repayment route. Another important consideration is the extent to which finance  packages will be appropriate to support low-income and vulnerable customers, particularly the fuel-poor. It behoves us to give particular attention to ensuring that people who cannot afford the payments are not overlooked in the delivery of the service.

New clause 7 would require the Government to introduce a scheme offering whole-house packages of energy efficiency and heating measures to fuel-poor households. A combination of supplier obligations mandated by the Government—the carbon emissions reduction target, for example—and public expenditure programmes such as Warm Front have formed the backbone of our fuel-poverty strategy, and work is under way on a household energy management strategy, which will build on the current range of programmes to take us through to 2020. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey a date, nor can I say precisely in which week the matter will be dealt with, but progress has been made since I last reported to the Committee. We have all heard the announcement for the next two weeks’ business in the Chamber, and the Bill does not feature. I am thus on good course to ensure that Members will see the strategy before Report, but I am not able to give that commitment.

That was helpful. We are encouraged, but we await the date.

The Under-Secretary made a point about the pilot scheme. Does the work done by the Building Research Establishment and others not already produce a lot of the evidence needed to answer the sort of question that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about the benefit of certain types of insulation and the money saved by an average family? I know that the BRE has had a family of four—two adults and two children—living in several of its houses to test average use for different materials.

I would be diverted slightly by answering that intervention, but I will. BRE is doing excellent work to devise the kinds of technologies—or accrediting, or identifying them for us—that will help us to tackle the so-called hard to treat properties, such as those with solid walls, and the components that we would need in a whole-house package to get the kind of SAP ratings that hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, have pressed on Ministers today and in the past. That work is very valuable and will feed into the final conclusions for a programme to make energy efficiency universal in our built environment—in properties.

CERT will remain a key component of our strategy. Forty per cent. of CERT activity now must be delivered to low-income or vulnerable households. Many such householders have benefited from insulation for little or no cost as a result. It is estimated that between 2008 and 2011, approximately £1.9 billion of the total £3.2 billion invested in CERT will be directed to households in the priority group. That is why we are currently consulting on an extension of CERT and, within it, a new super-priority group, with an obligation during the CERT extension period to 2012 to identify those in particular need due to fuel poverty who ought to have help through the CERT programme.

The Government’s Warm Front scheme has assisted nearly 2.1 million homes in England since 2000, with energy efficiency and central heating improvements bringing average reductions in fuel bills for those helped of £300 or more each year. Additional funding announced in the recent pre-Budget report will take the total allocation to £1.1 billion over the current spending period up to 2011.

Can the Minister confirm that actually the Warm Front budget was cut and has now been largely restored to £1.1 billion? It is not an increase to £1.1 billion; it is a restoration of cuts the Government have made.

No, that is a shocking representation of the reality. The three-year settlement for Warm Front was extremely generous, far exceeding any previous funding. However, because of the pressures on the Budget and the needs of an impending and then growing recession to keep workers in jobs we spent more money in years 1 and 2 than the profiled spending would otherwise have taken. That left year 3 looking sick, with just £195 million left from that record spending. I am eternally grateful to the Chancellor for being brave enough, in the middle of a very difficult economic crisis, to be able to find £150 million more for Warm Front when it was very difficult for him to do so. It is a mark of the man that he found the money that was needed.

Our view is that there can be no one-size-fits-all approach for delivering those ambitions, especially given the wide variation in housing, tenure and the socio-economic characteristics of households. That is why we are trialling various new approaches; for example, the community energy saving programme.

In addition to attacking the issue of energy efficiency, tackling fuel poverty requires us to have regard to household incomes and the prices that people pay. I do not want to remind the House again, at great length, of the measures we are taking in those areas, but for incomes winter fuel payments and cold weather payments are clearly of great assistance to people in fuel poverty, as are other measures from the Government, such as working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit and pension credit.

Another feature of household income is the ability to help people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Benefit entitlement checks are a very important component under Warm Front and a very important component of our thinking for the schemes we are devising. Under Warm Front, for example, every applicant to the scheme is offered a benefit entitlement check. In 2008-9, 78,000 checks were completed. In more than 40 per cent. of those cases additional benefits were identified, resulting in an average weekly increase in household income of £31.

The other element concerns prices and, again, I do not wish to repeat matters we have previously debated. However, I remind hon. Members that for three years the voluntary agreement is delivering consumer support in the prices that people pay for their electricity and gas, and other measures that we heard the energy companies  describe. We are taking that forward in the Bill to make social price support mandatory in the future for a larger number of recipients.

As my list shows, we are working across all three drivers of fuel poverty. Where appropriate, we are looking at ways to tie together the different strands.

That brings me to new clause 8, in terms of reports to Parliament. The Government have no objection to making timely reports about progress on each item they are dealing with, but there are already a number of such reports. For example, CERT has several layers of reporting and evaluation; Ofgem reports annually on the suppliers’ contributions to the voluntary agreement and we publish official annual fuel poverty statistics. Going forward, effective monitoring and reporting will be a central pillar of our work to deliver the household sector carbon budgets to 2020 and beyond.

In addition to all that, we have already established the independent monitoring arrangements through the Committee on Climate Change, which now publishes a high-profile report each year on the performance of the Department’s policies. I would like to say to Members interested in the reporting aspect that I am happy to think about new ways to deliver adequate transparency and accountability, but I do not think we should put in place the reporting at this stage, when we have not yet settled the UK’s strategy for the work we are to do. We ought to consider it as part of what we do and perhaps bring in some of the things I have described, rather than duplicate or add to the bureaucratic burden of those who have the responsibility of reporting.

I understand the logic of the timetable the hon. Gentleman proposes. Two things would be really helpful: to have an annual occasion when people could see the report on all the schemes—or one scheme, whichever it happens to be—and to have a document that collected progress in each of the four home countries. When we asked the other day about figures elsewhere, they were clearly not as easy to find in some cases as one would wish. If we are looking at the UK’s international responsibilities, seeing figures arranged by the separate internal countries put together, would allow far better assessment of relative progress in each of the four countries.

I am not resistant to any of that. We have reporting impositions already. For example, on fuel poverty there is the annual fuel poverty report from the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group to which the Government publish an annual response. The Committee on Climate Change, as we have seen, is to make an annual report to Parliament, to which the Government will deliver to Parliament and the Committee a formal response. Those mechanisms already exist. I am willing to arrange, either in those mechanisms or in a new one, the same kind of arrangements for a major programme for this country to make its building stock more energy efficient.

I turn to new clause 17, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. I share his ambitions but I do not want to tie the social price support measures in the Bill to the more pressing and major requirement for the country to deliver universal improvements in the energy efficiency of our housing stock. The new social price support will play a specific role in providing direct  financial help with the cost of energy for vulnerable consumers. Although some benefits other than direct financial ones should be allowed under the scheme, social price support must predominantly focus on ensuring that suppliers provide financial assistance towards the cost of household energy bills.

That is not to say that our energy efficiency policies, particularly those targeted at the fuel-poor, should not be joined up with our social price support policy. That is why, for example, subject to meeting any necessary data protection requirements, suppliers should be able to use the information and data they have on households receiving social price support to identify those eligible for measures under CERT. We do not, however, need additional powers to introduce that.

I have said a little about each of the individual proposed new clauses and have talked about the work that we are doing on fuel poverty, which I believe shows that we are doing all that is reasonably practicable to tackle fuel poverty, having put in place an extensive programme of works across all three drivers. I have explained that we plan to link our energy efficiency measures for the fuel-poor to our work on social price support in the ways that I described. I have outlined the reasons why our social price support policy must remain predominantly focused on helping most of the most vulnerable with their energy bills.

Finally, I restate our commitment to the proper monitoring and reporting of our schemes, and I have given examples of work that we already do. I ask hon. Members not to press the new clauses to a vote, but to join us in making the most successful scheme that we can when we have all the evidence for the UK-wide national strategy, to greatly improve the energy efficiency of our entire built environment.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his response to the arguments so far and for the detail that he has gone into. What comes through clearly is the desperate need for a strategy. At the moment, we have a range of schemes, some of which work well and some of which work poorly. They need to be brought together into a system that can be widely understood by the people who will be affected. If we went into the street and said, “What do you know about the community energy saving programme, CERT and Warm Front?”, overwhelmingly, people, particularly those in fuel poverty, would say, “I’ve never heard of them. I don’t know what they’re about and I don’t know how to access them”. A readily understandable system is crucial.

I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey about the imperative need for the Government to publish the strategy before Report. I know that the Under-Secretary is not in charge of timetabling, but the Government are. They were in charge of deciding when we went into Committee. They are in charge of deciding when we will get to Report and they are in charge of publishing the document. I will write to the Speaker to say that in the event of the plan not being published, I hope that he will refuse to allow the Report stage, because that document sounds so important to the consideration of the Bill. It would be a discourtesy to the House if it was not available for consideration at that time. I know that is a strong expression, but we need to understand the Government’s wider strategy in detail before we consider the Bill further.

There have been discussions about the schemes being proposed. The Under-Secretary said that we need to ensure that people who cannot afford to make the payment are not excluded. The key to the scheme’s working is the principle that the payment should be less than the savings made. That should help to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. People would inspect the house and then assess where there would be reasonable savings in the amount of electricity or gas being used and, therefore, where the saving would be greater than the cost spread over a period of time.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, we started by thinking that the obligation would be on the energy companies, but companies from the energy sector, retailers, the financial sector and elsewhere are now all saying that they want to work to make the scheme possible. They want to use their particular expertise to make schemes different from those that might be offered by others. There is a real desire to offer competition. People might be able to go to a range of different providers to get the work to which they were entitled carried out on their homes. We want to end up with a range of providers, so people can see who can carry out the work, who they trust most and what the financial regime is. The scheme will only work—this is its fundamental building block—if the savings continue to be greater than the cost.

Is the suggestion that, following an inspection, only energy efficiency measures that could be profitable, in terms of the person’s energy bills, would be countenanced? Would those items that proved not to be profitable simply not be done?

No, that is not the case. One would look at the totality of the measures to be put in place. The total would have to deliver greater savings than the measures cost, or else it would not be an attractive package to the person living in the property. There might be a big gain from one measure, such as roof insulation, and that would enable other measures to be included, which would still keep the cost within £6,500. The guarantee would be that the saving has to be greater than the cost. It is encouraging how many companies are keen to help to develop the detail of the scheme and make sure that it is something that they are happy to roll out in their name.

If anybody wanted to exercise their entitlement, what would be in place to guarantee that they could get the £6,500 from the day they did that?

There is nothing that says that the entitlement would be from day one; the details would set out the relevant period. Clearly, there simply are not the skills available to roll this out nationwide in a couple of months. There would have to be some degree of processing to make sure that it could be done in an orderly and sensible way. There would be some early adopters who were keen to have it done; there would be others who would be less keen and would want to see how it worked for their neighbours before doing it  themselves. So this programme would be rolled out over a period of years, perhaps up to 2020. This is not an entitlement about which on day one, everyone can say, “Here is my entitlement. I want to have this.”

A rolling entitlement.

Absolutely.

For the middle classes only.

The hon. Lady sneers, but instead of doing 7 million houses by 2020, this would do the entire housing stock by then. I hope that she will recognise the difference in ambition between what she advocates for her constituents and what we advocate.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that as this is an offer and an entitlement the question of who takes it up could be very important? If the hon. Gentleman’s sums are correct, it is highly likely that those who would take up the offer would be those who could more or less afford it in the first place. Those people in fuel poverty or close to it, who would have difficulty in contemplating how this all works, would probably not take up the offer. Yes, it would be an improvement for certain houses, but it would probably not increase the SAP ratings of the houses of those in fuel poverty.

On this rare occasion, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. The important aspect is that people would be able to make their evaluation about whether the provision worked for them; critically, they would have to know that the saving was going to be greater than the cost. If they were going to make a saving of £300 or £400 a year on their electricity and gas bills and the measure would cost £300 a year, even for those in fuel poverty it would be easy to decide to make that happen.

Above all, we want to use this provision to help people in fuel poverty. This is not the only measure; we are not saying that we should scrap everything else and just do this. There will be a range of other measures, and we would agree with the Government about the validity and importance of some of them. This measure is one of a number of ways to tackle the problem.

I hope that Labour Members will take note of the fact that huge organisations that do not take these decisions lightly—Marks and Spencer, Tesco and the energy companies—believe that the measure will work for consumers and for them as well. At the end of the day, this will work for people in that it will deliver a greater saving than the cost involved.

What it all comes back to is ambition. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who sneers from her large house in Islington—[Interruption.] Sorry, I thought that people who were married to QCs lived in large houses in Islington. She will be aware that the Government’s ambition is 7 million homes by 2020. Ours is for the entire nation to be sorted out in that time—a much greater ambition.

As I understand the hon. Gentleman’s scheme, the repayment will be made through energy bills, but if it is over 20 or 25 years, how does that fit with the right to switch suppliers? How will that be dealt with under his scheme?

The scheme will be done in such a way that the payment for those who switch suppliers will continue to be made through the bill to whoever has carried out the work on their behalf. That straightforward element would be included in the bill; although people could switch, they could not get out of that obligation. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey was saying the other day, there might be a case in which when somebody sold their home, the remaining part of the bill was paid off, so that that aspect would be sorted out. That detail, however, can be developed in due course.

The issue comes back to ambition. We want a comprehensive programme that addresses the inadequacies of energy efficiency in this country’s housing stock. Our proposal has an overwhelming amount of support in business, among consumer groups and among those who are concerned about fuel poverty. We have been working through the detail with them and no one has said that the proposal has a fundamental flaw and cannot work. There is a principle and a desire to raise the level of ambition.

The Minister says that the Government are doing all that is reasonably practical to tackle fuel poverty. Under this Government’s watch in recent years, since the Prime Minister came to power, the numbers in fuel poverty have been increasing inexorably. There is virtually no prospect of reaching the Government’s targets for removing vulnerable households from fuel poverty by 2010. The targets for 2016 look pretty challenging as well.

In the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman finds himself in the same position as my colleagues the Ministers, will he guarantee to meet the existing fuel poverty targets?

The target for 2010 looks virtually unachievable, because of what has happened over time. The Government have failed to deliver on that target over 10 years, so to deliver on it suddenly in a few months would be very challenging indeed. It may be another area in which we will have to do our best to clear up the mess, but we will not be able to do everything that the Government promised.

I am keen to push the new clause to a vote. It represents an important principle and involves an ambition to do the most we possibly can to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock, to help tackle fuel poverty.

Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.