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

First, I must declare that I am a shareholder in a renewable energy company, but as a trustee only. I wish to put on record the fact that none of the beneficiaries of the trust are related to me, whether directly or by marriage. It is a United Kingdom trust and fully taxable as such.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring in a Bill that is long overdue. My Bill would ensure that an idea recommended as far back as 1984 by the then Secretary of State for Energy, Peter Walker, now Lord Walker of Worcester, is actually brought into being. Since that time, the idea of providing energy ratings for homes at the point of sale has enjoyed 14 years of cross-party support. The most recent expression of that support came from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), herself. Speaking at the national home energy rating fifth national conference in a speech that was widely reported and well received by the energy efficiency industry, the Minister posed the question:

"Is there a viable voluntary approach which would ensure that all mortgage lenders provided tailored, reliable, energy-efficiency advice, along with a rating and estimates of energy cost savings and the likely cost of improvement measures; or, having worked on this for several years to no significant effect, is legislation now the only option?"

There was also cross-party support for a similar Bill introduced shortly before the last general election in early 1997 by one of my colleagues in another place, Lord Ezra. His attempt to introduce the Bill was given a warm welcome by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who described the Bill as "a gift horse". The year before that, in 1996, the current Conservative spokesman for environmental protection, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—a supporter of my Bill—introduced a very similar 10-minute Bill. That was preceded by not just one but three Select Committee reports calling for a scheme to be introduced along similar lines; those reports were published respectively in 1989, 1991 and 1993.

However, after 14 years of cross-party support, Committee reports, Bills, discussions and hoping, we still do not have, to quote the Minister last year:

"the tailored reliable energy-efficiency advice, along with a rating".

The answer to the Minister's question is clear: we need legislation.

I was conscious of the high level of support for the measure when I decided to introduce this Bill after my good fortune in being drawn sixth in the private Members' ballot. I am especially grateful to the 265 Members of Parliament, drawn from almost all parties represented in the House, who signed my early-day motion supporting the Bill. However, what really persuaded me to adopt the Bill were the benefits, both environmental and economic, that such a measure would bring to home owners.

Energy efficiency is one of those matters that few, if any, oppose. Measures that enable us to enjoy the same levels of comfort, warmth, light and convenience, but which use less of the world's resources, are obviously beneficial. Although burning fossil fuels has led to huge improvements in the level of comfort we all enjoy at home, it has its drawbacks. Climate change is one of the biggest environmental threats facing the world today, and this year the Kyoto conference and the strongest ever El Nĩno effect have raised awareness of the problems we may face still higher.

The burning of fossil fuels has been the main contributor to the level of so-called greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the major culprit. The most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to use less energy; energy-efficiency measures allow us to do that.

Energy efficiency in the home can also have serious health effects. The poor quality of the United Kingdom's housing stock leaves approximately 8 million homes in the UK shivering through the winter. That leads to cold-related illnesses and premature deaths, especially among our elderly and poor. Our winter death rate rises by almost one third compared with the summer rate; by contrast, in countries such as Sweden and Norway, the increase is closer to 10 per cent.

I am not claiming that my Bill will end those problems, but I suggest that it is one of many steps that could be taken that would educate people about the ways to reduce the energy that they use and would lead to an improvement in the energy efficiency of homes in the UK. My Bill is just one small step, and I am pleased to see in the Chamber today the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who will today be introducing another measure in the right direction: the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill.

Additionally and importantly, I believe that the Government are now endeavouring to negotiate a modification of the sixth VAT directive to reduce the rate of VAT on energy-saving materials. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State would, first, confirm that and, secondly, let the House know the Government's target level for VAT on energy-saving materials.

Although the House would wish to see a reduction in VAT on energy-saving materials, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that anyone who wants to delay buying them because of the chance of saving a few per cent. on VAT will probably lose money and anyone considering making small investments in order to achieve major savings should go ahead as soon as they reasonably can?

I am delighted by that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is right: a stitch in time saves nine, and there is more to be gained from taking energy-efficiency measures than from waiting for the VAT reduction.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should perhaps look again at building regulations, triple glazing and various other cavity insulation features? Those issues are not contained in the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which I welcome, but would also add to energy saving.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to the matter. The energy-efficiency benefits of cavity wall insulation should often be drawn to the attention of house buyers through this survey. It is an important point for buyers; it is a particular problem now, as quite a few loft insulations have taken place. One of the great problems at the moment is the deficiency in the cavity wall insulation of British housing.

On the subject of cavity wall insulation, earlier this morning I read the Library's brief and I was impressed by sections of it showing that the proportion of houses with loft insulation, draught-proofing and double glazing is increasing substantially. Why are only 25 per cent. of homes that could have cavity wall insulation actually fitted with it? Are there fears that it could be a health hazard, or what?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I noticed the same point in the document issued by the House of Commons Library on the Bill. The reason why sufficient work has not been done on cavity wall insulation is probably because the subject has not been drawn to people's attention. The object of my Bill is to do just that.

The aim of the Bill is to improve the energy efficiency of Britain's housing stock. It will achieve that aim by providing clear and digestible information to people who are buying a house. If the Bill is passed, house buyers will receive a rating, showing the energy efficiency of their home, and a list of suggestions for cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements. An indication will be provided of the period in which such improvements will pay for themselves by reducing fuel consumption and, therefore, fuel bills.

The idea can be compared to many other existing schemes. While the quoted miles-per-gallon figure is not the only factor that the public consider when buying a new car, it is certainly one to which they pay attention and it is regularly reported in car reviews in newspapers and magazines. It is a legal requirement for cars to be tested for the number of miles per gallon that they can do, and that information is displayed at the point of purchase. That requirement was first introduced in 1983; if such information is required for cars, why not for houses?

Another analogous example is that few people would buy a house without discovering into which council tax band it fell. But, despite the fact that fuel bills can often be greater than council tax bills, we currently receive no information on the likely level of fuel bills.

The signs are that people want to receive such information. A Which? survey in 1991 found that 60 per cent. of people wanted information on heating costs when they bought their homes. More recently, a South Bank university study that considered the wishes of new home buyers suggested an even higher figure. It found that 87 per cent. of people wanted to know the energy rating of their home. That answers the criticism that some have made that people may not want the information.

I am glad that the Under-Secretary agrees with me that clear rating combined with energy efficiency advice is important. In her speech at the national home energy rating conference, she made the point with clarity. She asked:

"How do we know—at a glance—whether a particular home or appliance is energy efficient?"

She added:

"Home energy rating informs people how efficient homes are and is the basis of reliable advice tailored to individual homes. Improved energy efficiency across the domestic sector is the end result … I support home energy rating. I support the development of higher standards of delivery of home energy rating and energy efficiency advice services."

The Under-Secretary is absolutely right. The information is useful: it is the basis for comparisons between properties and will act as a catalyst towards the installation of energy-efficiency measures. Combined with tailored advice, ratings are an extremely useful tool to persuade people of the benefits of energy efficiency. People do not have to take the advice, but it will highlight the benefits of taking those measures.

I believe that people do want to act on such advice. In 1996, the effect of the work of local energy advice centres was studied by an independent company for the Energy Saving Trust. That research showed that, on average, a visitor to a local energy advice centre went on to save 390 kg of annual carbon dioxide emissions. That figure did not count savings made through changes in behaviour resulting from advice from the local advice centres, so is likely to be an underestimate.

If we assume, therefore, that the 60 per cent. of people who told Which? that they would like such information are as receptive to the advice as those who visit local energy advice centres and go on to take similar steps to improve their homes, we can estimate the environmental benefits that will accrue if the Bill becomes law.

Every year, about 425,000 mortgages are given to people to buy houses that are not newly built. If 60 per cent. of those—225,000 households—were to save an average of 390 kg of carbon dioxide emissions every year, the annual savings would be 0.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions—a not insignificant figure.

Of course, all this has financial benefits. Recent work by the Energy Saving Trust shows that the average household could save £250 a year on its fuel bills. It is true that not all of that saving would come from changes to the property itself; some would come from purchasing more efficient appliances and light bulbs, but I understand from the trust that the building measures that can be taken could save an average £175 per household per year. Those are the very measures on which people will receive advice if my Bill becomes law.

There is an obvious point to be explored here. If, in the case of new build, the building regulations are changed to incorporate the proposals that the hon. Gentleman wishes to include in the Bill, the savings on new build would be enormous—we are told that many millions of new houses will be built in the next 10 years—and we would circumvent the problem, if only we started the remedy at the creation.

The hon. Gentleman is right. He knows that the building regulations are improved, and the standards increased and heightened, year after year. They are certainly under constant review by the Minister. The higher the standards, the better it is for energy efficiency. However, the Bill especially addresses itself to the huge number—425,000—of older homes that change hands every year.

I wish to press the hon. Gentleman a little. Although I understand his answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), at the moment the emphasis of the Bill is on private homes. Surely public housing needs to have the same guidance and direction, obviating the need for much extra work to be done later. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in that regard, in Northern Ireland at least, but much remains to be done, and I wonder whether the guidance that he is seeking in the private sector should not be applicable also to the public sector.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is legislation that covers council housing, and I am delighted to see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Eltham, whose Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill, which is due to be debated later today, deals with housing associations and the reports on energy efficiency of houses owned by housing associations.

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), would it not be sensible to amend the Bill, perhaps in Committee, to require a housing association or local authority, offering a home to a new tenant, to provide the information that a lender might provide to a borrower?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that point, which we shall consider seriously.

I have described some of the benefits that persuaded me that the Bill should be introduced. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk said when he introduced a similar Bill, the Energy Conservation (Provision of Information) Bill:

"I cannot imagine what objection there could be to the proposal."—[Official Report, 26 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 357.]

The only possible objections would be that it places too onerous a work load on mortgage lenders or imposes an excessive cost on house buyers, but the simple fact is that it does not. By requiring energy surveys to be carried out only when a property is already being surveyed by the mortgage lender to assess the value and condition of the building, it adds minimally to the work of the surveyor.

It has been calculated that it will take about 10 minutes more to survey a house than at present. It is estimated that that will increase the price of each survey by about £15. My Bill requires mortgage lenders to charge no more than the costs reasonably incurred in providing that information, and the £15 cost is insubstantial.

For the modest additional cost of the energy survey and rating, there can be significant gains. I am glad to be able to report to the House that the industry has accepted that. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has written to the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which has been working hard with me to get this law passed, to say:

"We welcome the proposed legislation as a measure to raise the awareness of homeowners to the importance of efficient energy use."

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has worked hard to help me formulate these proposals, which will be achieved as effectively as possible, and it has confirmed that it does not oppose the Bill. The CML has confirmed to me that it is happy to support the principle of improving home owners' awareness of the importance of energy efficiency, so it supports the aims of the Bill. The National Association of Estate Agents has confirmed to me its support for the Bill.

The support of those organisations is crucial, as they must implement the Bill, and I am grateful to all of them for working constructively with me and the Bill's supporters to come up with a workable Bill, which achieves what we all agree are sensible aims in improving energy efficiency.

Clause 1 places a duty on mortgage lenders to provide the borrower with information on the energy efficiency of the property that they are buying, together with suggestions on how that can be improved. Such surveys need be carried out only as part of surveys or valuations already required by the mortgage lender, and not on properties less than three years old, which should be subject to higher energy-efficiency standards as the building regulations change from time to time.

Any information provided under clause 1 must be subject to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Clause 2 sets out guidelines on what should be contained in that guidance. It specifies that the information must include an approved energy rating for the property, a list of suggested energy-efficiency improvements and an indication of the costs, and payback times, of those improvements. That is exactly in line with what the Minister called for at the national home energy rating conference last year—tailored, reliable energy-efficiency advice, along with rating and estimates of energy cost savings and the likely cost of improvement measures.

Clause 3 defines the terms used in the Bill, and it is worth noting that the definitions mean that the Bill will apply only to residential properties.

The most important aspect of clause 4 is the fact that it allows the Government to specify different days for different parts of the Bill to come into force. I understand that surveyors will need to introduce new practices, and perhaps equipment or software, to carry out requirements of the Act, and I certainly do not intend to force on them duties that would be difficult for them to carry out. Although I wish the Bill to be implemented as soon as possible, I recognise the necessity for flexibility on the matter.

I believe that the Bill is useful and workable. As I said at the start of my speech, the voluntary principle has failed. Fourteen years of inaction have shown that there is no viable voluntary approach to deliver the rating and advice that the Minister has called for. Legislation is the only option. I commend those mortgage lenders that, during the past 14 years, have tried various schemes, but, in such a competitive market, until all mortgage lenders are required to carry out such surveys, the few laggards who refuse to provide such a valuable service because they wish to undercut their competitors by a few pounds, will put the more forward-thinking lenders back to their level.

The Bill will force all to catch up, and it will lead to the comprehensive provision of ratings, energy efficiency advice and information to all new home owners. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have long called for this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has said, everyone knows the miles per gallon figure for their car, but few actually know the running costs of their homes. I imagine that if thermal photographs were taken of our homes, many of us would be horrified at the amount of heat escaping into the atmosphere, if only because of the amount of money that it wastes.

The Bill would enable people to make an informed calculation, when buying an older property, about how energy efficient it is and, therefore, how costly it will be to run. I understand that it will also enable required improvements to be made as part of a mortgage package, so that the borrower—a home buyer—can pay off such costs on better terms than might otherwise be the case.

Much more important for all of us in the long run, however, is the contribution that the Bill will make to the Government's commitment to counteract the threat of climate change by reducing emissions. This country took the lead at Kyoto last December, and we look forward to further successful negotiations at Bonn and Buenos Aires later this year. Energy efficiency has to play a part in the overall strategy to reduce UK emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010.

I am proud to be a member of the new Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which is charged with overseeing the greenness of Government Departments and policies.

I am going to be a bore all day until somebody actually agrees with me. Unless we start with new build and new building regulations—which the present and previous Government, I regret to say, have not taken on board—and unless we start increasing regulations to decrease energy loss in new build, we will never get anywhere. We will be for ever patching a torn quilt.

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend's points are well made and will be taken into consideration.

It might be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) if I pointed out that the previous Government changed the building regulations in 1995 to increase the level of energy efficiency in new build, and this Government will review those regulations this year. He is getting a bit aerated about a problem that is being dealt with.

I am grateful for that most helpful intervention.

I return to the subject of the new Environmental Audit Committee, which the Deputy Prime Minister said had been appointed to bite his legs if necessary. At last week's meeting—at which both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State gave evidence—we were pleased to welcome the announcement that the Government are to reverse the previous Government's intention to cut the budget of the Energy Saving Trust by £5.5 million in 1998–99. My local paper, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph had a headline which referred to my joy at the news, because this is something for which we in Peterborough have campaigned for some time.

Organisations in my constituency have taken something of a pioneering role in environmental matters. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon referred to the importance of energy advice centres. Our energy advice centre in Peterborough—one of 31 such centres in the country—depends partly on the trust for funding, and last year gave free and impartial advice on energy efficiency to its 10,000th customer. That is some achievement. In just over four years, the centre has helped cut Peterborough's fuel bill by £0.5 million—no small figure—and has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by some 55,000 tonnes.

The Peterborough environment city trust has organised a conference for 27 February on energy-efficient homes for the new millennium. I hope to tell the House about that in due course. The trust has nearly completed an energy audit which it describes as

"the world's first systematic house by house, business by business audit of an entire city".

That is no mean feat, and the trust hopes that it will provide a model for other cities to follow. In 1996–97, a total of 65,023 households consumed 10,320,000 MW hours of energy with a total fuel bill of more than £39 million, releasing 320,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The Bill would encourage householders to seek the advice available through energy advice centres. It would raise the awareness across the nation of the importance of the Government's environmental aims. I hope that an energy audit of the future would find greatly reduced energy consumption, emissions and costs. I imagine that the fine drafting of the Bill which will be necessary might result in some simplification in the interests of implementing it as quickly and effectively as possible.

I was pleased to hear that the Council of Mortgage Lenders supports the underlying principles of the Bill. The council and its customers can make a contribution to the battle to save energy and begin to reverse the damage that has been done to the world's climate system, with all the consequences that we have begun to understand only in recent years.

I welcome the Bill, which no one in the House could object to in principle. My only concerns are with the regulations that may be produced by the Secretary of State one day. It has been my experience that the devil is always in the detail.

I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and to the Minister because I have to go out around lunchtime and I may not hear the winding-up speeches. I intend to be around if I possibly can.

When I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we passed sensible laws on food safety. The only problem was that they had to be interpreted by local environmental health officers, not all of whom interpreted those laws in the spirit in which they were intended. In one case in my constituency, a village hall with a cracked window pane had its kitchen closed down on a strict interpretation by one local environmental health officer of the regulations and the Act of Parliament.

I make that point merely to emphasise that although clause 2 seems eminently sensible—and, no doubt, it is—my concern from my experience in government is that Departments, sensibly, will attempt to cover all eventualities in the regulations. They will wish to ensure that the mortgage society takes as much care as possible to ensure that the householder has all the information he or she needs. I do not expect to see de minimis regulations. Inevitably, bureaucracies—with the best will in the world—will tend to produce regulations and guidance for mortgage lenders which will be more detailed than perhaps the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon anticipates.

It is some time since I had responsibility in the Department of the Environment, but I seem to remember that there were two organisations involved in giving energy ratings to homes. Perhaps there is only one now, or perhaps they have been consolidated; I do not know. The organisations had different methodologies and, inevitably, different costs were involved.

I subjected my own home to an energy rating by one of those organisations. It did it thoroughly, no doubt to show that it was entirely competent. I was presented with a detailed list of possible improvements, some of which were obvious and simple. There was a large list of items that the energy rating expert considered would improve the energy efficiency of my home. These included cheap, major items such as extra loft insulation and cutting down on draughts under doors.

Further down the list, I saw more expensive items for which the payback was non-existent. That is why it is important that clause 2 refers to

"an indicative range of costs and an indicative payback time for installing each of the energy efficiency improvements."

It will be a daunting task for most householders to determine the most energy-efficient measures to take. The Minister or her officials may have done a survey—Which? also points these things out—and asked people what is the best thing that they can do to insulate their home. Most would say double glazing. However, that would be quite low down the list. Stopping the heat going up through the roof would be the first item, and stopping it going out through the walls and windows may come third or fourth on the list. If, because of the guidance that the Government issue and the information that the mortgage provider gives to the householder, double glazing appears as the 10th item on the list, the householder may nevertheless rush to have that done, rather than any of the other options.

I shall not labour the point. I merely suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister that the matter is not as simple as it first appears. Straightforward guidance must be given on the thousands of different types of homes in Britain. The 400,000 older homes that change hands each year are all individual. Even identical homes in a street will have been treated differently over the years. Some will have more draughts than others; some will have greater thermal efficiency. They will all be different. The guidance to the householder must be carefully thought out, but the danger is that it will then become over-elaborate and over-bureaucratic. That is when the costs rise.

I do not have any suggestion for the hon. Gentleman of what could be put into the Bill to control the costs. I can only say from my experience of legislation that when, at least a year ahead of the regulations being produced, we had a guess and a forecast that the additional cost would be £15, you could bet your bottom dollar that it would be nearer £45. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has better information on what the actual costs will be.

There are also questions for the Minister to answer. I know that it is not stated in the Bill, and that there is no money resolution, but does she foresee any case where the Government might raise fees or a charge for the guidance or advice that will be given? Does she see a need for those carrying out the energy rating to be licensed or regulated? They may be controlled at present, or the Government may recommend one or two organisations to carry out the energy rating. In that case, there will be a cost to the Department, and there may be a demand to recover the costs of approving the energy rating staff or the costs of providing the guidance. Does the Minister foresee a need to recover those costs, not from the householder, of course, but perhaps from the building societies or those carrying out the energy rating?

I support the broad principle of the Bill. If it can be carried into law so that straightforward, sensible guidance can be issued to mortgage lenders who can then, in the course of survey, produce a simple leaflet or checklist of the key steps that householders could take at an appropriate cost to make their homes energy efficient, and if that can be done for about £15 extra, the hon. Gentleman will have provided a great service to 400,000 new home owners each year. At that rate of turnover, it would presumably be only 10 to 12 years before the bulk of our housing stock would have had an energy rating through the valuation, and householders could take action. I merely caution the hon. Gentleman again that the matter may not be as simple or as cheap as he envisages.

I hope that I shall be present for the Minister's reply to the debate, and I apologise once again if I am not. I assure her that I shall read her remarks carefully in Hansard. After the Committee stage, when more information has come to light on the sort of guidance and regulations that the Government will produce, we shall be in a better position to determine the costs.

The Department of the Environment is now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) may boast about how good the Department of Transport was, but I had great respect for the Department of the Environment. I always thought that it was an underrated Department, snobbishly looked down on by other, grander Departments of State, which were not as fast at responding to queries as it was. It is now part of a highly efficient Department, and the staff involved in energy efficiency are dedicated and want to make the greatest impact to help Britain meet its targets.

One of the dangers inherent in the Bill is that the Department may try to do too much and put too big a burden on householders, who may baulk at it. If householders get such a frightening list of things to do, they will not buy the house or they will look at the small print and see that they do not have to follow the recommendations. The list may be binned, or they may warm their homes by putting it on the fire. If the list is kept simple, householders will carry it out. If it is too frightening and too bureaucratic, they will not. That is my final message to the Government and to the hon. Gentleman, as I wish his Bill success.

I support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on bringing it before the House. By helping to persuade home owners to reduce their energy consumption and by providing information and generating awareness, the Bill will help the Government to achieve some of their key objectives for the environment and for energy conservation.

The Government's commitment to the environment has been clear, and is reflected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned, in the setting up of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I, too, am delighted to serve. The Government have also helped to achieve international agreement for legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his team have rightly received considerable praise for their role in securing consensus among the 160 nations represented at Kyoto, many of which entered those negotiations with very different agendas.

Notwithstanding Kyoto, the Government's aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. of their 1990 levels by the year 2010 will be achieved only through a realistic programme of policy measure that encourage alternative energy sources, such as renewables, and encourage less energy to be used through much greater energy efficiency.

Consultations on the sustainable development strategy launched this week and a new UK climate change programme later this year, coupled with work already under way—for example, on the integrated transport strategy—will make important contributions to delivering greater energy efficiency.

Greater domestic energy efficiency has remained an elusive ambition. As the number of households has expanded, energy consumption has continued to rise substantially—by 30 per cent. from 1970 to 1996. A range of measures to encourage improved energy efficiency among home owners is, therefore, vital.

Many consumers remain unaware of or do not understand the potential benefits that the installation of energy-saving measures can have for reducing their energy consumption and saving often considerable sums. Greater domestic energy efficiency is important not only in environmental terms. It yields savings on fuel bills, reduces maintenance costs and improves comfort, especially for the less well-off.

Initiatives to promote energy efficiency awareness and to educate home owners on its benefits are important. More energy efficiency information will, I believe, be well received by potential home owners. The survey by Which?, to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon referred, found that 60 per cent. of those questioned would have liked information on heating costs when buying their home.

The Government are already undertaking a wide range of measures to facilitate enhanced energy efficiency. The energy efficiency best practice programme is well established and is an important source of advice and support for businesses that want to reduce their energy consumption. In the domestic sector, less well-off consumers are helped to improve the energy efficiency of their homes through the Government's home energy efficiency scheme, which provides, on average, 400,000 grants a year worth a total of £75 million.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon acknowledged, at the end of 1995, only 25 per cent. of homes with cavity walls had insulation. As cavity wall insulation can achieve a reduction of up to 60 per cent. in heat loss through walls, the Government's decision last year to extend the scope of the home energy efficiency scheme to cover a greater range of measures, including cavity wall insulation, is particularly welcome. Also welcome are the plans by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce VAT on energy-saving measures for the less well-off. That will mean that an extra 40,000 grants may be made under the home energy efficiency scheme alone.

The Energy Saving Trust has many initiatives funded by the Government: for example, a network of excellent energy efficiency advice centres—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has already referred—and the energy efficiency campaign, in which I and, I am sure, many hon. Members participated last year. Energy Saving Trust initiatives grant funded by the Government to promote specific energy-saving measures by way of cash-back promotions also raise awareness and challenge consumer inertia.

Energy-efficiency measures in the domestic environment are also encouraged by other Departments. For example, the new deal will offer the welcome option of a place on an environmental task force, carrying out energy-efficiency improvements in the homes of the elderly. The capital receipts initiative, too, offers local authorities the opportunity to facilitate further energy-efficiency initiatives for their tenants.

In the context of Kyoto and the Government's commitment to the 20 per cent. target, the decision by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to reverse the previous Government's intention to cut funding for the Energy Saving Trust by £5.5 million in the next financial year is further proof of the Government's commitment to environmental and especially energy efficiency aims.

Local authorities can play a particularly important role by encouraging, promoting and delivering more energy-efficient homes. My local authority has a well-established energy efficiency programme, which is particularly effective for council housing in Harrow. Capital resources have been directed at the most energy-inefficient homes, a free energy efficiency helpline has been established and written energy advice is available to tenants. Similarly, a range of initiatives promoting energy efficiency to private home owners is also firmly in place.

Under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, local authorities have a duty to prepare an energy conservation report, setting out measures that could improve energy efficiency significantly, in both social housing and private homes in their areas. The Bill could make an important contribution in districts such as Harrow, where there is a high proportion of privately owned homes, alongside the council's efforts to encourage private home owners to implement energy-efficiency measures.

Positive support for the principles underlying the Bill from the Council of Mortgage Lenders is particularly welcome. It builds on the positive examples of mortgage lenders' encouraging energy efficiency on the part of their customers, to which hon. Members have referred. That could represent a positive step in the campaign to conserve energy through greater energy efficiency. I share the concern expressed by other hon. Members about the need to keep the legislation simple. Consumers need information about what action is possible to improve their future home energy usage, how much it will cost, and how much such measures will save in the future.

I hope that those responsible for the Bill will be careful to ensure that its key clauses remain clearly focused on the provision of information. The Bill could make an important contribution, post-Kyoto, to the Government's delivery of key environmental and, particularly, energy efficiency objectives. I warmly welcome it.

I apologise to the Minister if I am unable to stay to hear her winding-up speech. I have an important constituency engagement later this afternoon at an old people's home that the Government are threatening with privatisation. I am particularly disappointed as I had hoped to participate in the debate on the Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill.

My hon. Friend is too young.

My hon. Friend is right, but it is a matter of great concern in my constituency and I am sorry that I cannot be here to speak on that Bill.

I should declare a personal interest in the Bill as I am committed to the cause of energy conservation. When I took a job in London and bought my first home, I insulated the loft as soon as I could afford it. Unfortunately, I chose to do so during the coldest winter for many years, and one day I received a telephone call at work to say that water was pouring from my front door. The insulation in the loft had been much too effective, the water tank had frozen and my house lay in ruins. It cost many thousands of pounds to put the damage right, but fortunately it was fully insured. I suspect that the energy incurred in repairing my house was considerably greater than the energy I had saved through installing the insulation.

I must sound a sceptical note in the debate, although I certainly do not oppose the Bill. Lord Walker of Worcester is one of my most distinguished constituents and—as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who introduced the Bill, reminded us—he was one of the first people to take an interest in the subject. I could not, therefore, bring myself to oppose the Bill, but it is important not to make too many claims for it. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I believe that the Bill requires a Committee stage in order to thrash out the details.

I was a little disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon refer to the failure of voluntary action. It is true that progress has been a little disappointing. He echoed the words of the Association for the Conservation of Energy which, in its note to me, said:

"The result is virtual complete inaction: this is a classic case of the failure of the voluntary approach over a period of 13 years. Legislation now could change what almost everyone agrees is a highly desirable aim that would cost the public purse nothing."

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for her comments. More has been achieved in home energy conservation than some people realise. Much credit is owed to the previous Government in that respect, but credit is also due to this Government for the way in which they have advanced the process. That should be a matter of consensus in the House.

The home energy efficiency scheme, introduced in 1991 and recently improved by the Government, does a great deal in my constituency to make the lives of the elderly, in particular, more comfortable and affordable. About 10 per cent. of Britain's housing stock has already benefited from the scheme, which has introduced practical and sensible measures that make people's lives better and save money. The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which was passed in the previous Parliament and originated from a private Member's Bill—I remember speaking in that debate—provides useful additional information in this area.

I was glad to hear the Minister's comments about changes to building regulations and energy ratings, but I was disappointed to hear one of her colleagues disparage the achievements—which are quite considerable. The Building Act 1984 empowers the Secretary of State to make building regulations that have the conservation of fuel and power as one of their three broad aims. National building regulations for insulation were first introduced in 1965—some time ago. The 1994 regulations introduced the most recent improvements, and the Minister has said that there are more to come. The House will welcome that, so long as we can strike a balance between various issues, including the difficulty of condensation and other technical matters.

It is important that the regulations be improved steadily. They already provide for quite comprehensive improvements, including limiting heat loss through the fabric of the building; controlling the operation of the space heating and hot water systems; limiting heat loss from hot water vessels and hot water service pipework; limiting heat loss from hot water pipes and hot air ducts used for space heating; and installing in buildings artificial lighting systems that are designed and constructed to use no more fuel and power than is reasonable in the circumstances, and making reasonable provision for controlling such systems. That is quite a good list and I pay tribute to all those involved in developing the process.

Credit is also due to those who developed the energy rating system. The Government's standard assessment procedure ranks new houses on a scale from one to 100, with 60 as the pass level. The English house condition survey points to a real problem in this area. The survey of all occupied properties in England found that 3 million homes had an SAP rating of less than 20. There is a real problem and, to that extent, I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Is not it true that many of those 3 million homes are occupied by the very poor or by those who have least choice about their housing? Although I do not wish to overload this Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that the House should consider young people housed in bedsits who must pay £12 per week for heating which, in energy-efficiency terms, is equivalent to the cost of heating a five-bedroom dwelling? Many elderly people are protected tenants in privately rented accommodation that has had virtually nothing spent on it. They are often on income support and they have to pay two or three times as much to be cold as many others pay to be warm. I am not saying that the Bill should address their problems, but my hon. Friend is right to point out the number of homes and people who will not be helped by the Bill and who need help in some other way.

My hon. Friend has anticipated one of my arguments. Private Members' Bills cannot, of course, incur expenditure for the Government because that is outside their scope. I have a strong suspicion that the true problem that the Bill is designed to address would be best solved by offering increased expenditure and increased grants to precisely the type of people my hon. Friend has described. I am encouraged that the Government are taking that matter seriously because I believe that it is the real route to solving the problem. It would be unfair to say that the Bill is mere window dressing, but it is a modest contribution to the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

It may help hon. Members to know that the Government have established an interdepartmental committee on fuel poverty and that we are studying precisely how we can target help at the problem the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has described. We are also reviewing the home energy efficiency scheme. Initial results appear to suggest, as the hon. Member said, that a serious problem in the private rented sector remains unaddressed. We are putting our mind to considering what we can do to achieve results in that sector, where they are most needed.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. I am also pleased to note the mood of consensus that seems to exist in the House—such sentiment is important when considering energy efficiency. I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks. We all agree about the important health implications, particularly with an aging population, of ensuring that energy efficiency is delivered. It is the elderly who are most susceptible although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) reminded us, the young poor often live in inadequate conditions.

I do not oppose the principles of the Bill, but I have some reservations about its likely contribution to energy efficiency. I also have some concern about its practical effects. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon was right to say that the Council of Mortgage Lenders supports the Bill in principle. It has noted, however, that it is important to ensure that it is "practical and workable". In the past, the council has been sceptical about such measures because of their cost implications and because it felt that there was insufficient public interest in energy efficiency. I believe that we can now accept that public interest in energy efficiency has grown, so perhaps concern about public lack of interest no longer exists. I accept, however, that the implementation costs should be considered in Committee.

We should pay tribute to what some mortgage lenders have done voluntarily to help those who have taken on new properties to understand their energy implications. I congratulate the many lenders who promote the work of the Energy Saving Trust. One can give people advice, but will they act on it? We can take a horse to water, but can we make it drink?

A recent housing finance survey revealed that 48 per cent. of respondents would not pay for the cost of an energy-efficiency survey and that 11 per cent. did not want to pay more than £25. That is a modest cost and I accept that it can be afforded by most people. The estimated cost of the improvements that flow from such a survey is about £300—that is the figure suggested by most involved in energy efficiency. That is quite a lot of money for someone who has moved into a new property. Often, they are precisely the people who need to ensure that their house is energy efficient. That is why I believe that grants and practical assistance are more important than forcing people to have an energy-efficiency survey. The survey would not have any value unless the Government took further steps to ensure that action was taken as a result of it.

When I first bought the house in Battersea that had the problems I described earlier, the last thing I could have done was make any improvement that cost £300. I had to live in pretty ropy conditions for several years and my priority was probably a new carpet rather than energy efficiency.

I was grateful to hear what the Minister said about tenants and people in social housing. I am not aware of much research on the likely impact of the Bill on owner-occupiers, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an interesting survey just last month on the effectiveness of energy advice to tenants. It contains some lessons for the Bill. In its summary that report states:

"Although much information exists in relation to the costs and benefits of capital works to property to improve energy efficiency, little has been done to date on the cost-effectiveness of energy advice as an energy-saving 'tool'. This project, undertaken by BRECSU (the Building Research Institute Energy Conservation Unit), aimed to determine the costs and benefits of providing energy advice alone to social housing tenants. The research surveyed 100 households before and after energy advice was delivered, and found"—

it is an important conclusion—

"The provision of energy advice alone did not lead directly to savings for the majority of tenants in the group studied. Most were already using their heating systems correctly and, due to financial constraints, used energy very efficiently."

The survey revealed the important fact that when someone goes in and helps to explore with a tenant what he can do to improve his home, the situation changes a bit. It reported:

"One-to-one advice did, however, uncover 'missed' opportunities for capital works to properties. Despite previous publicity for the schemes the advisors found that 28 per cent. of the group were eligible for a Home Energy Efficiency Scheme Grant (for which they subsequently successfully applied)."

That mechanism has a lot more to offer than the Bill. The Bill is not bad, but I worry whether it will achieve the benefits claimed for it.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report also concluded

"For low-income households in inefficient homes, energy advice aimed at changing behaviour is no substitute for improvements to the building fabric, for example, cavity wall insulation."

Frankly, the House should be more concerned with such improvements than with the Bill.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has also produced some interesting figures relating to the housing finance survey, which asked whether respondents would be prepared to make improvements to their homes as a result of an energy-efficiency report. It notes that

"Thirty-two per cent. of respondents said that they would consider such action 'very seriously' and 38 per cent. said they would consider it 'fairly seriously'".

Those are not terribly high figures, although I accept that it represents a worthwhile gain. The council also repeats the point that £300 is quite a lot of money for someone who has just moved into a new home and taken out the maximum possible mortgage.

The House must also be concerned about the compliance costs of the Bill on business. I am satisfied that they are small and acceptable, but we must consider them carefully, because they have implications for lenders. The Bill, however, makes provision for lenders to pass those costs on to the borrower. The cost of providing the information relating to energy efficiency is estimated at between £15 and £20. There are other costs that should be taken into account, such as administration, liaising with and arranging training for the panellists.

The average cost to a valuer of conducting a survey could be equivalent to charging for 10 minutes of his time, and he could conduct up to six valuations a day. The Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers has estimated that the loss of income for a firm of valuers could be £23,300 a year. It is not a cost-free option and we must satisfy ourselves that the proposal will work.

How many partners would there be in the firm?

My hon. Friend will have to take that up with the society; I am not an expert.

As the Council of Mortgage Lenders points out:

"Whilst lenders are not themselves expert in providing detailed information on how a property's energy efficiency can be improved, they support the principle of giving borrowers general guidance on how improvements may be achieved, together with an indication of costs and payback times for installing improvements."

I do not believe that it has highlighted major worries, but we must be satisfied that the Government have considered them when they outline their approach to the Bill.

I share the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border about some of the possible practical implications of the Bill. Other issues also need to be explored in Committee. For example, is the provision for the exclusion of new homes—subject to a three-year limit—right? I accept that it is a complete waste of effort to impose the cost of conducting an energy-efficiency survey on homes that have been built according to the new building regulations and therefore fully comply with them. They cannot be significantly improved. Should that time limit be fixed in statute, or should there be some accommodation for houses of four or five years old, which have been built according to those building regulations? Is there a real gain from imposing the cost of the survey on a house aged three years and one day? Would that survey lead to anything being done to improve the energy efficiency of such a house?

Bearing in mind what I have said about the likely action that is taken as a result of such energy-efficiency surveys, should we make the offer of such a survey compulsory? Should we make it compulsory for a mortgage lender to offer it, while not obliging the potential purchaser to take it up? That way, those who take it up would be the most likely to act on its findings. Perhaps targeting those who would take such action is the sensible route for us. Perhaps we should limit that element of compulsion to houses above a certain value, or at least find a mechanism to compensate or subsidise those who buy cheaper houses. We should remember that the extra cost of between £20 and £25 for a survey is quite a lot for someone who has bought a small house at low cost. I am deeply concerned about the large number of people who buy houses with just a valuation survey instead of a full structural survey. It is folly to do that. If the Bill is passed and someone buys a house after having just a valuation survey, the survey might highlight just one physical defect in the property—its energy efficiency—when there could be a lot more wrong with it that would cost a great deal to put right. I worry that by highlighting that one narrow but important aspect, people might be distracted from the more fundamental structural problems that houses can have.

I accept that there are hidden benefits that flow from the Bill, which I do not think the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon made much of.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when valuers produce a valuation they inevitably write in it, using clear words, a disclaimer.

If anything, that probably makes it worse. I do not quite understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

If they are producing a valuation, they will put in a disclaimer to the effect that they are not producing a structural survey. I cannot see the point that the hon. Gentleman just made.

I am saying that if an individual buys a house with a valuation survey that identifies £300-worth of energy-efficiency work that should be done, he may spend that amount only to discover later something much more fundamentally wrong that he cannot afford to correct. I would much rather that people were obliged to have full structural surveys when they make such a commitment.

The Bill impacts on various areas of the house-buying process. It may be helpful if I tell the House that the Government have launched a review of the house-buying process, in which, I suspect, some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making about structural surveys, the method of buying houses, and the associated costs, will be looked at closely. The Government are anxious that the Bill should not make the house-buying process more inefficient or slow it up, because it is already too slow.

I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, which was helpful and reinforced the concern that I was expressing.

Those who are selling their houses will not want a problem to be identified in the survey. Whenever I sold my houses, I used to go around to see what was wrong and put it right to ensure that I had a quick, clean sale. Sellers might say, "Hang about. Perhaps I ought to make the energy-efficiency improvements now to ensure that the valuation survey will come out completely clean and without any problems at all." That may be the single most beneficial impact of the Bill. That is one of the major reasons why I support it.

I have spoken on a basis of broad consensus so far, but I shall now say something slightly controversial. I believe that the Bill needs a Committee stage to thrash out some of the details that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border have mentioned. The Minister seems to agree with that, but will it get it? There does not seem to be much time for private Members' Bills, thanks to the time that the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which would ban fox hunting, is taking. I am concerned that some Labour Members seem to think that global warming is less important than banning fox hunting. That is a matter of some concern to the House.

I am pleased that there is consensus on the Bill. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) seems to have the support of professional organisations and of both sides of the House, mainly because of the one ingredient that needs to be there to ensure that the Bill survives—common sense. It is common sense that we do what the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Bill. We cannot create energy without some environmental impact. Although it is much better to use sustainable forms of energy creation, such as wind power, solar power and so on, even these have some impact on the environment. We can work at trying to improve the methods of creating energy, but in some respects what the Bill is trying to do is much more important: to reduce the amount of energy that we use. It would be difficult for any hon. Member, or anyone outside to fault energy efficiency.

I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to be talked into, or pressurised into, extending the scope of his Bill. It is modest and practical, but that does mean that it is negative. It has a certain purpose. It is easy for hon. Members to say that it does not do this or that about building regulations, and so on. Thankfully, my hon. Friend the Minister intervened to point out that that is not what the Bill is about.

The hon. Gentleman should allow the Bill to remain simple. I agree with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that the Bill could have complications. I get mixed up when we talk about the standard assessment procedure and energy ratings, that it is one to 100, but there are other energy ratings. We have to be careful—because the Bill's main purpose is to pass on information to the general public—that we do not fall into the same trap that people have fallen into in the past by speaking in jargon.

The Bill can survive. My experience of the House is that private Members' Bills are passed because they deal with a specific problem. The more a Bill is extended, the less likely it is to get on the statute book. I want the Bill to succeed. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is to keep the Bill as simple as he possibly can.

Domestic energy accounts for some 30 per cent. of the energy that is consumed. The Bill will affect only a small proportion of domestic energy. It will not, for example, deal with people in council housing or in private, rented accommodation. On energy efficiency, we need to concentrate not on one particular measure but on lots of different measures. That is why I am pleased that almost every time my hon. Friend the Minister has intervened today it has been to announce some new initiative—the interdepartmental fuel poverty committee, or a review of building regulations. This is not an issue which can be dealt with on its own if we are to meet the targets that we set ourselves and on which the Deputy Prime Minister decided at Kyoto.

Just in terms of trying to save energy, the Bill is commendable, but, from my own point of view, that is not its most important aspect. My hon. Friend hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned reduced maintenance and fuel costs. I represent a constituency which has one of the highest levels of poverty in the entire country, and one of the highest levels of unemployment—certainly the highest in the east midlands. If my memory serves me well, my constituency has more unemployed than any Welsh or Scottish constituency, so the idea of a development agency to try to get some of the benefits that Scotland and Wales have had particularly appeals to me.

I like the Bill because it can help tackle poverty. It may not be able to help those who are at the bottom level of poverty, but it will help those on limited incomes who are trying to purchase a house for the first time. It will make people's lives more comfortable and, at the same time, help to take them out of poverty.

I recognise that the Government are already taking action in that respect. Less well-off domestic consumers are assisted by the Government's home energy efficiency scheme, which provides some 400,000 grants a year. I accept what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said—that the previous Government did a lot of good work in terms of energy efficiency and conservation.

indicated dissent.

Hon. Friends shake their heads, but I think that it is best to acknowledge the fact that improvements have been made over the years. The previous Government did not move fast enough, and I hope that the new Government will do more. I am particularly pleased about their announcement of a reduction in VAT on energy-saving measures for the less well-off, which is to be provided under Government-funded schemes. It will mean an extra 40,000 grants a year under the home energy-efficiency scheme.

I come from an area that is as poor as, if not poorer than, that of my hon. Friend. Given the deprivation in the housing stock, an extra 40,000 grants a year is a drop in the ocean of need. I intend in due course to press the Minister to increase the amount available to help local authorities to provide the grants that are needed.

I partly agree with my hon. Friend. It is easy to say that an initiative is just a drop in the ocean. It would be easy to say that the Bill does not deal with everybody so it is just a drop in the ocean, but all those measures together combine to make a great deal of difference. If my hon. Friend's were one of the 40,000 households that benefited because of the change in VAT on energy-efficiency schemes, he would not think that the measure was just a drop in the ocean.

I am not a purist in terms of the environment and I do not advocate year zero. I recognise that other considerations, besides the environment, must be taken into account, including the economy and especially poverty in society. It could be argued that a reduction in VAT will increase the amount of energy used. While that may be marginally right, if the amount of energy used stops an elderly person dying from hypothermia, it is not wasted energy. I want energy to be used in that way.

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. I hope that he has seen the consultation document launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a few days ago, which makes precisely that point. To achieve sustainable development, a mix of economic, environmental and social issues must be at the core of public policy.

I thank my hon. Friend for her useful intervention. I have not seen the document yet, but I assure her that I shall read it with interest and study every detail because those issues concern my constituents.

I am pleased that the Government have gone beyond what the previous Government did. It shows that Labour provides value added. The reversal of the cut of £5.5 million to the Energy Saving Trust is particularly welcome. However, the majority of environmental and energy issues cannot be tackled by legislation. Some legislation is needed, but rhetoric at national level needs to be replaced by action locally. I am much more concerned by what happens locally because that is where policies are delivered. Conservative Members spend a great deal of time criticising and ridiculing local government because it is a fairly safe target, given that so few councils are Conservative controlled. Many councils, however, have gone far beyond their statutory responsibilities and have put much time and effort into ensuring that proper energy-efficiency schemes are in place and the worst-off are helped.

A scheme in my constituency is Nottingham Energy Awareness, which is recognised by all councillors and Members of Parliament who represent Nottingham. We have all been to see projects that it has organised. I shall briefly skim through its aims and objectives, which are to enable fuel-poor households to save energy in their homes by using it more efficiently; to promote energy awareness through the provision of training for community leaders and those such as local authority staff who come into contact with the fuel-poor in their work; to encourage take-up of grant assistance for energy- efficiency improvements, particularly the Government's home energy-efficiency scheme; and to promote the integration of energy efficiency improvements, with maintenance and improvement programmes for the housing stock owned by Nottingham city council and other social housing projects.

The targets that the organisation has set are energy efficiency improvements; improved management of energy use within the home; reduced fuel bills, easing financial pressure on the household; reducing cold-related health problems; increased comfort in the home; and environmental improvements through cutting emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. The project's principal activities are the provision of advice on all aspects of energy efficiency through home visits or telephone calls; presentations to community organisations, attendance at exhibitions and working with local media; basic energy awareness training courses for community leaders and local authority staff; promotion of grants and assistance to help them; and energy surveys and audits in the home.

Those activities have been ongoing since 1995, so I admit that some were funded and helped by the previous Government, but it was mainly the local authority's input, and the voluntary sector that worked with the schemes, that kept them going.

I note what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon said in his opening speech when he congratulated Lord Ezra on introducing a similar Bill in the 1996–97 Session. When I talked to Lord Ezra just yesterday he promised that he would watch our proceedings on the screen today to see the Bill's progress. He is certainly rooting for the Bill in the hope that it gets through.

Lord Ezra also discussed with me a project that he is helping to set up in Nottingham called the Nottingham Energy Partnership. It is a private-public partnership, which will bring together various organisations in Nottingham—the public, private and voluntary sectors, and residents—to improve energy efficiency. It was agreed by the council last November, but is expected to be launched publicly in the spring. Its aim is to analyse energy flows and usage profiles. A preliminary "energy balance" has already been undertaken and details will be given at the launch. Hon. Members may remember that Nottingham did some thermal photography of the whole city to try to establish where the worst places were for energy loss. The project aims to identify ways in which economies could be made in energy use. It also aims to pay particular regard to job creation opportunities, so it involves the economy, as well as the social side, because it also contributes to the anti-poverty initiative. Finally, it aims to bring enhanced environmental benefits as well.

That seems to be an example of the type of local partnership that is needed to try to change the way in which the general public, business and industry think about energy. I had a word with the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and asked him whether he would be willing to come, possibly with Lord Ezra, to the launch of the project, which I am certain will have significant effects for the people of Nottingham. My right hon. Friend told me that if his diary permitted he would like to do that, because the project fits in with the sort of initiative that he wants to see advanced.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon on introducing the initiative. To some, it may seem a modest initiative of little consequence, but the 400,000 households that it will affect will not see it in that way. The Bill is a practical measure which can help people to make their lives better while improving the environment. I welcome it, and will support it at every opportunity.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I tell the House we support the Bill—a "warm welcome" would be the appropriate phrase to use. I intended to say something about the savings that it could bring about, but what I had to say was very similar to what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said about savings from improving the energy efficiency of our housing stock; we certainly have one of the worst levels of efficiency in Europe.

Instead, I shall comment on a couple of points that have arisen from the debate about what the priorities should be for energy-efficiency measures. At the moment, the commercial market tries to persuade home owners that double or triple glazing and fancy plastic doors represent the way forward, but professionals know that roof and wall insulation, plus draught exclusion and improvements to the efficiency of heating schemes, are far more important. One of the benefits of the Bill will be to bring before the 400,000 purchasers of property genuinely efficient and effective ways of spending money to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) introduced his Bill, he said that people who buy a car expect to be told how many miles per gallon it will do, and that when we read a review of a car's performance we expect to see that information, yet when we buy a house, whose running costs are also important, it does not occur to anybody that information about them would be useful or valuable.

We should give credit to the development of building regulations and the energy efficiency rules as they apply to new-build houses. The introduction of standard assessment procedures—SAP—is to be welcomed, and its recent extension to housing in Scotland is highly desirable and commendable.

I draw particular attention to clause 2(2)(a)(iii), which requires houses going through the process envisaged by the Bill to have an energy rating. That will not only be useful to the immediate purchaser; it will be of long-term benefit to the housing market.

At the moment, estate agents say, "It's got two bathrooms en-suite, a double garage and a nicely made garden," and so on. In future, the agent should add the fact that the house has an SAP rating of 63, 71, or whatever. An SAP rating should be a marketable quality in any home; it could certainly be rather more useful than being told whether the master bedroom has built-in cupboards. I speak as somebody whose household has recently been purchasing and selling houses like hot cakes, and the complete absence of information about energy performance is noticeable.

I understand that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) cannot stay for this part of the debate, but I would still like to comment on what they said. They both asked whether unreasonable costs and difficulties would be imposed by the Bill.

There is one possible zone in which costs might be said to arise—costs to the Government, and to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in particular. That Department, in its previous incarnation, has been responsible for masterminding the development of building regulations for many years, and it is well versed in the requirements. The drawing up of the guidelines that will be a fundamental part of the assessment process is not a complicated or costly procedure. It is a matter of looking at the current rules and regulations and seeing how they can best be adapted for retro-fitting to property that has already been built.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the existing building regulations are subject to great criticism, not only by building professionals but by those who are interested in the structure, durability and safety of buildings, and that the application of the existing building regulations is extremely uneven and depends on how good and how well qualified the people who do the inspection are? It is a bit worrying if we are relying on the existing building regulations.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Lots of things in this world are a bit worrying. The question is how we can make the present situation better in an incremental way, and I believe that the Bill will do that.

In a former existence, I spent 13 years working with the building regulations and was responsible for supplying the Department of the Environment with advice about them.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the building inspectors are the key? The quality varies so much from one area to another, and until we get some uniformity in the way in which people inspect we will never get uniformity in the way in which the regulations are adhered to.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, but this is not a debate about how effective building regulations are and whether the inspection procedure is good or bad. As I said, I have spent 13 years watching building inspectors do their job, and I know that there is some variety. None the less, we are talking about some fairly basic and simple measures, such as cavity wall and roof insulation. Fortunately, those can be checked very simply.

The Bill does not impose a duty of inspection; it imposes a duty to have a survey done and make the results available to the purchaser. We could have a useful debate about the development of the building regulations another time.

I am sorry to intervene so soon after two previous interventions, but, as a past chairman of housing who has taken great care to improve the energy efficiency of public stock, I know that if people fit very tight window frames and doors and take other measures such as fitting draught stripper, the air change in a room can fall to a dangerous level. I fully approve of the Bill and the measures that it recommends, but if we are to persuade people to take those measures, they should be warned that if they are doing it themselves they must consider air change and fit vents. If the job is done professionally, of course that will happen, but I am concerned that the do-it-yourself merchants may fail to recognise the requirement.

Some sound points are being made. Much will depend on the quality of the advice given by surveyors. When they produce their reports recommending certain measures and specifying the pay-back period, they will also have to bear in mind possible serious side effects.

Insulation is not the only factor. We must also consider the way in which heat is generated, and the way in which it circulates. Many problems of air change are connected more with heating systems than with the viability of living in a particular room.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested a "rolling exemption" for homes that had been subject to the current more stringent building regulations. I think he meant that, as more homes are built to the new higher standard, it will be less necessary for new surveys to be carried out.

Although the building regulations have been improving steadily, they are still nowhere near setting the thermal efficiency standards achieved by homes in other parts of northern Europe—Scandinavia in particular, but also Germany and Switzerland. I hope that no one believes that the current regulations have achieved, as it were, a plateau of energy efficiency.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said that we would undertake a review of the building regulations this year—a follow-on from the review by the previous Government in 1995. The issues that the hon. Gentleman is raising will be at the forefront of our minds.

I did hear what the Minister said earlier, although not from inside the Chamber. She has made my point for me. Introducing a rolling exemption in Committee would mean that homes built this year to the current high standard would never have to be surveyed again, although the building regulations might have improved further in five or 10 years. In that regard, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire.

I have dealt with the issue of possible extra costs to the Government; let me now deal with the question of extra costs to members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon said that it had been estimated that a further cost of £15 and an extra 10 minutes of examination might be necessary, whereupon someone observed sotto voce that that would increase the inspection time by a factor of three. People may feel that surveys are not always very thorough.

It has been asked whether the inspection should be an option for purchasers. When given the option of a full survey, most purchasers decline to pay the extra money, and it is clear that if the inspection were optional we would be back to square one: few people would tick the relevant box on the mortgage application form. Again, I speak from personal experience, having recently filled in two such forms and not ticked the "full survey" box.

Why not?

It is a matter of personal choice, is it not? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the choice, I am opposed to an opting-in arrangement.

Obviously, the extra survey costs will be passed on to purchasers in one way or another. They will have to fork out, just as they would if their surveyor's report said that they should replace a window or redecorate the front of the house. When they are deciding whether to buy the house, they will have to decide whether to bear that extra cost. Alongside the cost, however, will be the saving—the pay-back period. When I was working in this area, I found that the pay-back period for such measures as improved roof and wall insulation was often very short, much shorter than the pay-back period for double glazing. Many purchasers would automatically think of installing double glazing when revamping a newly purchased house; it might benefit them considerably to know that they could use their money to better effect by adopting the suggestions in the survey form and installing, say, wall insulation. The costs are not substantial, and are easily recoverable.

The Bill will bring about considerable benefits. Advice will be given to 400,000 home purchasers each year, which will allow them to save money in the long term. The measure will contribute to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which is not only Government policy but essential for the prevention of further drastic climate change. It will also improve the transparency of the housing market in one important respect, by making purchasers and sellers aware that there is both a cost and a benefit in improving home efficiency. Home efficiency will stand in the marketplace alongside double garages and en-suite bathrooms.

I support the Bill, and the Liberal Democrats will back it strongly.

My hon. Friend the Minister referred to my state of health. I noted her touching concern, but it is not my health that I am worried about; it is the health of the town that I represent. In St. Helens we make all the products that we have been discussing: we make the glass for double glazing, we make the wall insulation, we have Ibstock brick. I therefore have a considerable vested interest in energy conservation and insulation.

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, however, that I am not a believer in the "apple pie and clotted cream" school of politics which seems to have entered the House in about 1987. I have seen Ministers come and go, and no doubt I will see a few more come and go before my time is up. I have consistently and persistently attacked the building regulations, because, by and large, they are a load of rubbish.

As for the Bill, although I support it, it needs an awful lot of amendment. I say that cold-bloodedly. We are back with the apple pie and clotted cream brigade. The 1995 amendments to the regulations were not improvements; they were tinkering by the "We will play to the gallery; gosh, we are going to do something about it" brigade. If in the months ahead the Government produce any regulations along those lines, they can expect me to be equally critical.

The warmest home I ever owned was a Georgian flat in Edinburgh that was built 200 years ago, before there were any building regulations.

I am not surprised. The warmest house I ever owned was built at about the same time. Metal ties between the inner and outer walls were not used in those days, and, as my hon. Friend knows, metal ties are the best way of losing heat in a building because the heat flows along them, regardless of the amount of cavity insulation. The Swedes, who are practical people, use plastic ties. Heat does not flow along them. That is the sort of minor point that our building regulators overlook. They talk about single, double and triple glazing. The measures that we are discussing are more efficient, but we do not cater for them in our public or our private build, because it might increase the expense. And look at all the cowboy builders there are! My learned friend—I am sorry; I thought I was somewhere else for a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) will doubtless mention that if he is called to speak. If we are to increase efficiency, we have to examine this matter root and branch, not tinker with it and say:

"Each mortgage lender,"—

whoever that might mean; I shall return to that—

"as part of any survey or valuation required by it and in accordance with guidance given by the Secretary of State, shall

(a) provide the borrower with information".

What is the basis of the information? Are we going to examine how the property is actually built? Are we going to say to the surveyor who has been sent by the building society, "Gosh, you have to provide this and say how many joules are lost per hour", or whatever measurement is used? How will the magistrate understand what the basis of the information is?

I do not know. I do not understand that sort of thing anyway. I know whether a house is warm and efficient. It is all very well talking in such language, but if the Secretary of State says, "The calculation shall be according to this formula or that formula," there will be arguments over the formula.

What qualifications will we ask of the surveyor? Modern valuation surveyors come in all shapes and sizes. Some are qualified, some are not. Some estate agents have not a qualified person in the premises. That is a problem. The whole profession is not regulated or controlled. There are no professional standards.

If we were to say that every estate agent has to be a qualified quantity surveyor or a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, fine, but what about the boy who is sent to look at No. 32 Redbrick avenue, who says, "The next door neighbour's house sold for £32,000, the one on the other side sold for £42,000, so let us take an average of £37,000"? That is what happens; I notice the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) nodding in agreement.

That is the guy to whom we are going to say, "Tell us what the heat loss valuation is and what improvements are needed." If he does not know what sort of ties are in the wall, how will he know what sort of insulation we need? How will he know what the density and quantity of the insulation is? It is the world of make-believe. Can we come to the world of reality? That is what the Bill should be doing: bringing us to the world of reality.

The Minister will say, "Of course I will take advice from my civil servants and we will be told by the institutes," but they all have a vested interest in this. What we should saying is, "Let us examine the matter root and branch. Let us go back to when we build houses, whether they be flats or houses in the private sector or public sector. These are the standards and qualities that we will build to." We should not tinker with the building regulations, but examine them root and branch again. We should say what sort of material should be used, what the quality of material should be, and the quality to which properties should be built.

I look again at the building industry, and I regret to have to say this. There are some very good builders, but there are some awful cowboys around as well and they are building houses that will fall over unless they are propped up in a few years' time. As a practising lawyer—I declare an interest because, in my time, I have prosecuted a few people in relation to this sort of thing; no doubt I will prosecute a few more before I am done—I have witnessed the sheer criminality of the way in which people are exploited.

A home is the essential part of any person's life. It is the most important thing that any of us will ever acquire or seek to acquire, whether it be rented or purchased. We have a right to expect that that home should be of a merchantable quality.

Therefore, we have to examine the building industry and say, "Right. Let us look at the quality of the products." I do not think anyone would criticise the major manufacturers, which include Pilkington and Ibstock, both of which are in my constituency. They are world leaders, so our materials are first class. Our architects are first class, but let us consider our builders. They range from the superb to the ridiculous, so we have to have quality control there.

For quality control, we need local authorities, their building departments and inspection departments. I go back to my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), when I raised the quality of inspection.

There is an old phrase that I have heard many a time, "Pay peanuts and you get monkeys." Why not pay building inspectors properly? Over the years, we have had no end of problems. Why not let local authorities have the funding? Of course I speak about money, which is a terrible thing to speak about in this day and age, but I say unashamedly: if we invest at the beginning, we acquire something that has value and lasts; if we do not have the right inspection processes, we will not have the lasting quality that we require and, as a nation, deserve.

We will now be building for the next 1,000 years, the next millennium, so why not improve and support local government by providing the resources and funding that is necessary for proper inspector?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All too often, the required qualification for a building inspector is a fairly close relationship to the chairman of housing.

I say nothing. My hon. Friend has, I think, had some experience of Scottish politics.

As I say, if we start at inspectorate level, we achieve quality control.

There used to a television show many years ago that said, "Never mind the quality, feel the width." I know some bricklayers who say, "Never mind the quality, look at the length I have laid in one day and that is where I get my money from." That is not quality control, which is essential in all this.

When we have quality control in the building industry, we will get houses that will last and are warm, air tight and all the other things that we require. This is not a simple issue. I support the Bill, but it is tinkering with the real issues: quality control, the quality of the properties that we build, the materials we use and the way in which properties are built.

That is why I say to the Minister that I look forward and long for proper building regulations, properly implemented and properly enforced. In that way, we will not need such Bills because our houses will be insulated and our energy losses will be minimal. There are ways to achieve that.

The other day, I was asked to examine a property, not professionally, but by a friend who wanted to show me because I had told him about the Bill. He had hacked away part of the wall. He looked at the ties and there was water all over them. What value those ties if we insulated that wall?

Worse than that, with water all over the ties, the house will be damp because it cannot insulate against the water.

That is right. That is the sort of thing that we should be talking about.

The Bill says that we are to have a survey or valuation; fine. It says that information will be given on how to improve energy efficiency; fine. Who is going to tell us? I, Joe Soap, member of the public, go to my building society and say, "It want to buy 13 Acacia avenue." It sends the surveyor around. The week before, he had been a second-hand car salesman. Probably the week before that, he had been something else. He tells me that I need the following done. I look at him, I do not know anything about building and I say, "Gosh, who do I call?" He nods, winks and says, "Go to Uncle Joe down the road. He knows how to drill a hole in your wall, how to put in a pipe and how to pump in the various stuff to insulate the wall cavity—so he tells me."

Who is going to check it? What guarantees on safety, security or anything else will I have? The answer is none. We are back to apple pie and clotted cream.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that building societies already make loans conditional on a variety of improvements that the purchaser has to undertake? Does he accept that the building society has a regulatory function when it releases the money and, on consideration, would he agree so enthusiastically with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) that the majority of building inspectors have no professional skills and owe their appointment to patronage—political or otherwise? I was involved in the inspection side of the building industry for many years—not as a buildings inspector—and I feel that the hon. Gentleman does serious injustice to the regulatory system, although that is not to say that it could not be improved.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Had he been listening carefully, he would have noticed that I did not reply to my hon. Friend's intervention as I was not advancing down that line of argument. Of course, many people who work in the inspectorate are honest, hard-working and underpaid. However, there are not enough of them and the regulations are not tight enough. As we have learnt in all walks of life, if we pay people very poorly, we do not always get the best results.

I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that building societies regularly lay down conditions for granting a mortgage. In my time as a solicitor, I have seen many documents saying that a loan will not be advanced until certain works are carried out and that a certificate signed by the builder has to be produced to that effect. Of course, that does not guarantee the quality of the work.

I do not want to be too cynical, as one should not be too cynical about life, although I have lived it for a long time, but I have heard of work not being up to the required standard, as it was simply a quick way of getting the money. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) will agree with me about that. In the wonderful world of perfection, everything gets done; in reality, little of anything gets done.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any significant building societies or banks that instruct unqualified surveyors?

Regrettably, the answer is yes, because a building society instructs a firm of surveyors and that firm decides who to send along. That is the problem. Although a firm of surveyors may have qualified staff—I speak with some knowledge, having once lectured surveyors on contract law—they may well send an articled clerk. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) nods sagely and wisely in agreement. The problem arises when they send the office junior.

I confirm to my hon. Friend that I had a survey undertaken by someone who was not qualified. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Bill relates to surveys undertaken when a house is purchased. What are his views on the role of building control officers in that process?

They come in earlier when the house is built, when work is carried out or extensions added. In that case, there is certification of the quality of the work. Subsequently, a surveyor viewing the property will have from the vendor the relevant certificate stating that the property had been built or extended to the required standard. In Britain, the problem has always been that unless certificates are issued to specific standards, they are not readily available. Although one can get permission to build an extension for example, if there is no adequate survey and control of the development of that extension, there is no certification saying that it is of the required standard. Certification has always been a problem.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening—I mean that in the kindest possible way—and that when she comes to review building regulation she will take on board the fact that it is essential to address the issue of building certification so that there can be historical certification and so that a building coming on to the market 10 years from now, having been built in 2001, will be certified as having been built to the requisite high standards that I seek in the building industry and that no British Government this century have sought to achieve.

There has always been the laid-back approach of saying, "This is how we've always done it." It is not good enough compared with the system in Scandinavia and other parts of the world where it is appreciated that if one builds to high standards initially, one creates a dwelling or unit that will last a long time and will be energy efficient.

If properties are not energy efficient, there is not just heat loss, but all sorts of other problems. For example, properties have a very short life. The Minister will no doubt agree with me about that. In Merseyside, I am fed up with seeing houses boarded up when they were built only 20 or 30 years ago. They were not built to the old Parker-Morris standards, which were good, but to far lower standards and, as a result, their life expectancy is far shorter and there is great deterioration, although I do not know what that has to do with the Bill. I was probably stepping outside its remit and I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am on a hobby horse that I get a chance to ride only every three or four years.

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that other hon. Members are seeking to ride hobby horses within the provisions of the Bill.

This is probably the longest speech that I have made in 15 years, and I have nearly finished. I thank the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon for allowing me to string together all my complaints about the building industry and, of course, my praise for the makers of building materials, many of whom are in my constituency.

Returning briefly to the Bill, I will support it, but I ask the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon to look again at the meaning of the words "mortgage lender" because it also encompasses private trusts and others. Will he also think again about the three-year limitation period if a building is less than three years old? I do not anticipate that the Minister will produce the regulations requiring decent building industry standards within the next three years. Therefore, I should like every house to be subject to an energy audit whenever it changes hands. Will he consider adding to his Bill some definition of the standard and qualifications required of the surveyor who performs the survey that leads to the advice?

Clause 1 (3) states:

"For the purposes of this section measures which are applicable to the dwelling concerned and where the cost of installation will be repaid through energy savings or other benefits within a reasonable period of time shall constitute practicable means".

Perhaps the Bill should not only refer to the nature of the proposed improvements, but include a set of specifications for the improvements required and a practical way in which the costs could be computed.

Other than that, I have relatively few criticisms of the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage through the House and I wish it well into law. To come back to where I started, I am worried not about my health but about that of my constituents and about the health of the building industry and the makers of materials. Above all else, I am worried about the health of future generations and the safety and security of their homes. We will never achieve that without proper building regulations.

I am not quite sure whether I am about to indulge in riding a hobby-horse or eating apple pie and clotted cream—both of which activities I suspect the constituents of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), my constituents and those in neighbouring Cornwall would probably approve of greatly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon on introducing his Bill. As a founder member of the Plymouth energy advice centre and of the west country energy action trust, it would be nice to think that the good and effective work that those organisations have done in the past four to five years to inform, encourage and support the citizens of Plymouth and Devon and Cornwall may have been instrumental in adding to the hon. Gentleman's already significant awareness of these issues. Perhaps it has even played a small part in his decision to introduce his Bill.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House may be interested to calculate how many of their constituents might benefit from the Bill's proposals. I understand—from calculations made for me by the Plymouth energy advice centre, which must be similar to calculations made in other constituencies—that about 900 new mortgages are taken out annually in the Plymouth, Sutton constituency. Approximately 270 of the homes bought will be newly or recently built and meet the higher energy-efficiency levels required by more recent building regulations, so perhaps 650—involving about 750 people—could benefit from the Bill's provisions each year. In the life of this Parliament, about 9,000 people could live in households that benefit from the type of information required by the Bill.

If we apply the 60 per cent. rule that has been suggested by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and Which?, approximately 6,000 people in my constituency live in households in which action might be taken as a result of advice and benefit from the savings.

The experience of the Plymouth energy advice centre is that people are most likely to follow through advice when they are moving into a new home—partly because it is possible to negotiate on and spread the cost of implementing measures, possibly by using the mortgage. Such a possibility is one of the great values of the Bill. It is true also that all my constituents—all 70,666 of them—would benefit from the emissions reductions that would follow from energy conservation.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon on his work—with the able support of that worthwhile organisation, the Association for the Conservation of Energy—since the publication of his Bill. Together, they seem to have persuaded the Council of Mortgage Lenders to make a more positive appraisal of the Bill's pros and cons—as demonstrated in its most recent briefing this week.

The council must, of course, have regard to the cost of the service to its institutions, customers and members, but just as all my constituents stand to gain from the contribution that the Bill can make to reducing emissions, so, too, will the council and its members and their families, shareholders and customers. Moreover, if we add in the value in extra jobs—which the Association for the Conservation of Energy has calculated as about 500 jobs a year and 5,000 over a 10-year period—we have a win-win-win situation in reduced fuel bills, reduced harmful emissions and reduced unemployment. This is a veritable have-your-cake-and-eat-it measure.

Many of today's younger generation have a far better regard for, and intellectual appreciation of, the value of and threats to our environment. As someone who first became aware of the need to consider our environment in the 1960s on reading Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", I applaud that. It bodes well for our future and for the interest in, and support for, the Bill. I think that we can confidently expect new generations of householders to take advantage of the information that the Bill will bring to their attention.

It is encouraging that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have attempted to draw attention to many of the other measures that the Government are promoting—and to other measures—that can help us to reduce home energy use. The Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), has been mentioned. Other Bills on today's Order Paper—including my Bill, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill—also deal with the importance of energy in our lives.

By introducing targets for 500,000 homes to be provided with a comprehensive package of home insulation and other energy efficiency improvements, my Bill would address many of the other issues for which hon. Members have expressed their support. It would effectively ensure that something was done about the 8 million homes that are lacking and unable to afford warmth, and it focuses particularly on people in poverty. The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon would also undoubtedly be the vehicle for giving people access to good quality information on which they can take sensible action.

We are all lulled into a false sense of security by the use of the phrase global warming to describe a process that is bringing many uncertain, but also probably damaging, changes to the climate—such as disappearing coastlines, more volatile weather patterns, cracking and melting ice-caps, flooding and changes in the atmosphere—that have all sorts of unpredictable consequences for agriculture and are as likely to be damaging as helpful. Hon. Members have mentioned the helpful outcome of the Kyoto conference. Global warming is much too nice a phrase to describe such potential dangers. It is a classic example of misleading warm words.

The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon has not allowed his faculties to be lulled into such a false sense of security. I support his Bill and commend it for the support of other hon. Members.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on targeting an important and serious matter for the House to debate. He will know from the speeches of other hon. Members that he is addressing but a part of a major matter for Government action. As a new hon. Member, I have already learnt that the function of private Members' Bills is to raise specific issues., but it would be unusual if this occasion were not used to widen the debate. I wish the Bill well and believe that it will make an important, if not major, contribution to tackling the problem.

I have spent much of my professional career involved in energy matters. As a scientist and engineer, I was glad to see that the Bill was appropriately called an energy-efficiency measure rather than an energy-conservation measure. As any physicist will quickly observe, energy conservation is a matter of science and one of the basic tenets of much of physics. Energy is conserved; how we use it, and from where and to where it flows, is the task and the problem that we are debating.

In my very earliest research work, I had the task of trying to keep things cold—indeed, close to absolute zero, at minus 232 deg C. Much of my mental work and research was spent finding the right materials to ensure that heat did not flow from high to low temperatures. Moreover, in those days, one had to consider a lesser range of materials than is available now. Later in life, I was involved with the opposite end of the temperature scale in designing furnaces for experimental work. The research work in our universities, which I applaud, has resulted in improvements to materials that are now more commonly available for building work.

Much of my professional work was done in a building shared with the environmental science group at the university of East Anglia, which is internationally known for its environmental work and which gave birth to a climatic research unit that has played an important role in the development of our understanding of the issues of energy efficiency and emission control. I am aware of the serious aspects of the issue before us today and of how important it is that we use the right materials in our buildings and construct them properly. People should be made more aware of the need to conserve energy in their everyday lives so that we can conserve our planet.

Those points have already been well and truly made by other hon. Members today and I shall not echo their words of wisdom, except to say that building regulations and the way in which we construct new buildings are important aspects of Government business. My constituency contains the construction industry training board, which is responsible for training in the building industry. It is important that we adopt a root-and-branch approach and tackle the skills and training of those who construct or modify our dwellings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that we have not, by and large, had proper apprenticeships in the building industry for such a long time that the odds on someone being able to fit wall ties without getting them dirty, or on getting someone who knows what sort of insulation material to use and what not to use, are pretty low and that it is high time we got back to training people properly?

I accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's intervention. The CITB, which had its levy—with the first increase in several years—approved in the House this week, seems to be aware of the problem. It also has Government support and appears to have adopted the right approach, with its involvement in the new deal and its policy of seeking partnerships with schools and colleges, which will encourage young people to enter that important industry. There is some prospect of improved training, which must be encouraged. Regulation is important, but if people know how to do their work correctly, less supervision and less remedial work are required.

I have suffered greatly. In getting an extension to my home, I had to check the measurements daily and one wall in the extension had to be rebuilt three times before it complied with what the architect had asked for. There is much to be done in the building industry and the Government would do well to ensure that, in training and in regulation, we not only exhort good practice but ensure that it happens. It is one thing to specify that there should be insulation around hot pipes, but it is another when, as the home owner, one finds the builders busy trying to get the flooring down before installing the insulation because they want to get finished an hour earlier.

It is human nature that I want to address today, as my contribution to this serious issue. As a politician, much of my experience has been in local government—as an amateur compared with my role today. One lesson learnt from my 20 years in local government is that, while it is important to get the science and technology and the earnest politics right, we must take human nature into account and take people with us. If, in their campaigning and lawmaking, the Government do not take into account the foibles of human nature, they will fail to address this problem. Many of my friends are members of Friends of the Earth and other environmental organisations. I know that there is a danger of projecting a hair-shirt image. To be frank, environmentalists tend to believe that there must be something wrong—or that some environmental damage is being caused—wherever human pleasure is found. We have to ensure that we do not make the same mistake: we must avoid accusations of furthering the nanny state and we must take people with us in this area of Government policy, as in others.

Because of my work as a Member of Parliament, I shall be away from home until tomorrow night. I have to tell the House—unashamedly—that tomorrow night my house will probably be lit by a combination of wax and string, which must be one of the most inefficient methods of lighting a house. However, I would rather return to the candle-lit dinner for which I am hoping than to my wife having to put some sort of fluorescent lighting on the table.

In living our lives, we have to balance aesthetic pleasure and physical pleasure and we must accept that life is not all about finding the most efficient way of doing something. Heaven forbid that Naomi Campbell should be dressed according to the principles of energy efficiency— indeed, I hope that tomorrow night my wife will not be dressed in an energy-efficient style. Much of our activity is highly inefficient: our clothing and our way of life reflect our use of resources in ways that please us, even if they are wasteful in terms of energy. So be it, say I.

In my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government have the right person to lead drives toward energy efficiency. By way of illustration, I should like to refer to the progress that we have made in recent years in respect of the car and the reasons for it.

Order. I would have some difficulty understanding how that relates to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must speak within the terms of the Bill before the House.

I think that I am, in that in making progress in terms of car efficiency and emissions, we have had to use a mixture of exhortation, regulation and encouragement. We had to tell manufacturers that they had to meet more stringent standards; we must tell house builders the same thing. Through the MOT test, we imposed regulation on the consumer and ensured that standards were being met; there is a case to be made for introducing energy-efficiency regulation for houses in terms of fuel consumption. We recognise that simply telling the consumer how efficient his car is or what its emissions are is not sufficient. I also believe that a Deputy Prime Minister who still insists on having his four litre Jaguar is a better messenger for a Government intent on seeing the car used less than one who may take more of a hair-shirt approach to politics.

What lessons are to be learnt? We should take into account what most people do when they read about the energy efficiency of their house as it is expressed in surveyors' language. Since I entered the House, I have had to buy a new house and read surveyors' reports. I do not know how long it is since other hon. Members have read surveyors' reports and noticed the language used, but the ones that I have read have been uniformly boring and pessimistic. I am not sure whether that is because the surveyors want to avoid the possibility of missing a fault in the house, but their reports state, for example, that the lead flashing around the chimney must be wearing out because the house is more than 40 years old and it might be advisable to have it checked. The report might also say that, owing to the chimney's age, repointing may be required some time in the next 10 years.

That is the sort of language traditionally used by surveyors and house builders, probably to protect them from legal consequences. If similar language is used when making statements to householders about the energy efficiency of their homes, the Bill could lose its value. It will be extremely important for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to recognise that the report needs to be written in a format that is understandable and to the point—and which householders can read and comprehend. We need to make clear to the householder what action is required.

It is appropriate that the work should be done at the time by the mortgage provider. I would hope that it might be good practice for the mortgage provider to encourage the appropriate work to be done where the return will be speedy by being willing to add to the mortgage for that purpose.

We already know the considerable dangers that exist in many residences as a result of inefficient boilers that burn badly, some of which have been highlighted in the courts. Such boilers not only waste energy, but put lives at risk. It would be appropriate, in terms of the efficiency and safety of households, to consider carrying out much more regular inspections than merely when a house is sold. Strong consideration should be given to requiring that boilers pass an MOT and, where homes are heated by gas—the majority of them, I suspect—that they are serviced so that we know that they are safe and efficient.

I started by saying that I recognise that the subject calls for Government action that goes wide of the Bill; I close by commending the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon on his Bill which I hope, after suitable discussion in Committee, will find its way on to the statute book.

I intervene in the debate briefly on behalf of her Majesty's loyal Opposition to welcome the Bill that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).

In the past, mortgage lenders have expressed concern about the cost of the surveys, but the hon. Gentleman's Bill allows them to recover reasonable costs from the borrower. It is important to note that the Bill only requires an approved energy rating, not necessarily following the Government's standard assessment procedure; a full SAP could cost somewhere between £50 and £150. However, as Lord Ezra said during the passage of his Bill along similar lines last year, the amount could be as low as £10 to £15 if the building societies incorporated the energy rating into their normal valuation surveys. Where the Bill specifies the provision of a list of potential improvements and the indicative range of costs and pay-back times, most of that information is already available.

We are enthusiastic about the Bill. It does not amount to any great imposition on mortgage lenders and could be a positive step towards informing home buyers of the energy-efficiency status of their potential dwelling. The concerns about additional costs raised by mortgage lenders are largely unfounded, as the Bill does not specify a full SAP, and technological improvements have greatly reduced the amount of time and money that have to be spent to carry out effective energy surveys. Perhaps the House will allow me to emphasise the strong Conservative record on energy efficiency. I cite for example the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and the home energy efficiency scheme set up in 1991.

There I speak for the Conservative Opposition. I should like to add a word on my own behalf, as one who, in time gone by, practised as a solicitor in general practice. I hasten to add that, since then, I have gone straight for many years, and have not practised for 10 years—for which the general public are, no doubt, mercifully relieved.

For myself, I note an important innovation in the Bill which should be noted and considered in Committee: the introduction of an obligation on the part of the surveyor to the buyer. Traditionally, and contractually, the main obligation of the surveyor has been to the lender, so the Bill introduces a new dimension to the surveyor's work. I do not intend to delay the House by speaking further about that new obligation on the surveyor, but it is important to place that point on the record, so that it can be properly scrutinised when the Bill—as I hope that it does—passes into Committee.

I express my support for the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for his Bill. In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I originally intended to introduce the Bill, but, coming only 18th in the private Members' ballot, I unfortunately missed out on that opportunity, to the benefit of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, who came sixth, and whom I congratulate on his success.

The Government have left no one in doubt that they are determined to achieve their manifesto commitment and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. of the 1990 level, by 2010. They have taken a strong stance. The position that they held out for in Kyoto is to their credit and they have successfully negotiated for targets that can be easily understood, but it is vital that the wider public realise that it is not merely the responsibility of the Government to achieve those targets and that, if we are to leave this planet of ours in a sustainable state for any future generations, we must all play our part.

An important element in achieving that objective is to educate the public on the issues that need to be confronted, to give them the information that they need and to allow them to make choices. The Bill, and others dealing with similar measures, seeks to ensure that that information is obtained and made available. I take on board the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South, but I am sure that when such information is made available, the public will demand the introduction of the measures that he wants.

Much of the debate since Kyoto has centred on the car. The Government's commitment to an integrated transport strategy will make a huge difference when it is implemented, but energy efficiency in the home will also have a significant influence; several Bills before the House aim to address related issues. In one of the excellent research documents produced by the House, I read that the Socialist Environmental Resources Association has stated that it believes that 16 per cent. of the Government's 20 per cent. target for 2010 can be achieved by home energy efficiency.

According to the housing conditions survey published in 1991, 66.8 per cent.—15.9 million—of homes were then in the private sector. That was an increase from 11.7 million—55 per cent.—in 1981. Of those, 2.4 million homes were built before 1900, 3.8 million were built between 1900 and 1945, nearly 3 million were built between 1965 and 1980, and only 1.3 million were built from 1980 to the date of the survey, in 1991. The average Victorian terraced house rates just three out of a maximum score of 10 on the national home energy rating survey. The age of a property is a reliable indicator of the need for energy efficiency.

The figures demonstrate the need for potential purchasers of a property to be made fully aware of the potential costs, not just to themselves through heating bills, but in terms of the impact on the environment. In the long term, we should not underestimate the impact that the Bill will have on the housing market in terms of new build and improvements to housing. The knock-on effect will increase quality.

I recently visited a project in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), which was carried out by Hyde housing association on the Adamsrill Road estate. This was an expensive development, because it used a great deal of recycled materials—the main cost was for the use of recycled stock bricks. A whole range of measures were taken which point the way for the future, including the type of boiler, double glazing and glass used, as well as the lighting and ventilation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) talked about the need to install proper ventilation in homes when they are improved or built, because there can be huge problems with condensation. Environmental measures can often have knock-on effects in other ways. The estate had a state-of-the-art method of dealing with ventilating the kitchen area. It sensed the dampness in the air and automatically opened the vents, which passed air out through the roof. Such measures can be taken at an early stage in planning, and I am sure that the Bill will encourage those planning new housing to take them on board, as they will have to consider selling the housing at a later date.

The Adamsrill Road project scored 10 out of a maximum of 10 in terms of the national home energy rating survey. The average score for Hyde housing association properties is eight and, as I said, the average score for a Victorian terraced house is three. That shows what can be achieved if people take on board environmental improvements.

The Bill is one of a number of initiatives before the House on energy efficiency related to housing which aim to provide more information and, therefore, more understanding of the issues. In addition to the Energy Efficiency Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) is promoting the Energy Efficiency (Information) Bill of which, I am pleased to say, I am a sponsor.

Under building regulations passed by the previous Government, all new-built houses are required to have an energy rating. Unfortunately, despite their commitment to market forces, the previous Government did not think it necessary for purchasers of those properties to be given access to that information. In these times of concern for environmental issues—particularly the effect of greenhouses gases—the public must be given the facts to allow them to make proper judgments. The Bill will force house builders to give more consideration to the issue of energy efficiency at the planning stage.

Later today, my Bill will receive its Second Reading. The Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill will amend the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, with the effect that the requirements currently placed on local authorities will extend to social landlords or housing associations. The Act requires local authorities to prepare a report on energy conservation measures in their area, and they are often required to report on housing association properties of which they have very little knowledge. My Bill will require housing associations, which have the best knowledge of their properties, to do this for themselves. Efficiency will be introduced into the gathering of information and, hopefully, the benefit will pass quickly to tenants.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health launched the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" and highlighted the connection between poor quality housing and poor health. The report to which I referred earlier—the housing conditions survey—states that 52 per cent. of housing association tenants are low income households. Nationally, 30,000 to 50,000 deaths occur each year due to cold weather. Cold-related illness costs the national health service £1 billion a year.

Fuel poverty is an everyday problem for too many people, especially the elderly. The Government were right to cut VAT on fuel for that reason. However, evidence given to the Trade and Industry Committee suggests that a 10 per cent. cut in energy prices, particularly for domestic fuel, results in a 2 per cent. increase in demand. Some would conclude that a cut in fuel prices is damaging to the environment, but the argument for reducing VAT on fuel was that for people on low incomes, the marginal tax rate was so excessive that they faced the choice of increasing their fuel debt or switching off their heating. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a cut in VAT resulted in an increase in demand for domestic fuel. A balance must be struck between fuel charges and taxation on fuel, and incomes.

Through this Bill, the Energy Efficiency (Information) Bill and the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill that I shall present later today, hon. Members can make a significant contribution to achieving the Government's targets for improving our environment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her work to promote these issues and on her far-sightedness in supporting my Bill. I hope that hon. Members will give the measures the support that they deserve.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on introducing the Bill which, although it may not have been apparent from my interventions, I whole-heartedly support—indeed, I do not think that it goes far enough. Problems have arisen in the past because of the lack of such legislation.

There are some problems with the Bill. I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to tell me why he included subsection (2) of clause 1. I can understand that, if he can guarantee that in every house built the building standards will conform to the existing energy-efficiency legislation and will not fail within the specified period of 12 years under the latent defects legislation, especially if the builder goes bust in the intervening period, which happens all too often.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene. We do not want duplication in this matter. The clause may go in Committee, as the Council of Mortgage Lenders does not seem very concerned about that provision. Nevertheless, it is in the Bill as drafted, it is possible that it will remain there, and it is there to avoid duplication and additional cost, where possible.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation and for the assurance that the provision is liable to disappear at Committee stage—

Possibly.

Possibly liable to disappear at Committee stage. It may have caused some greedy builders to rub their hands. Without it, the Bill would be improved.

The Bill seems to concentrate on information. I am not certain that the energy conservation measure that has already been enacted and which should apply to every new building is covered by the latent defects legislation of, I believe, 1982. I served on the Committee that considered the measure, and I noticed the matter at that time, but I did not raise it because I was too busy with another Committee. It might be fruitful for the hon. Gentleman to consider that issue. It may be possible to incorporate the measure under the long title of the Bill, which is:

"To make further provision for energy efficiency".

Making provision for good energy efficiency measures that fail as a result of a latent defect clearly fits that description, so I think that the hon. Gentleman could get away with it. If not, our noble Friends in another place often ignore long titles when amending legislation, which sometimes causes panic in this place.

Since May, the new Government have established a good record in introducing energy conservation measures in the face of time and legislative pressures. The Government set themselves a very demanding challenge at Kyoto, and this and other measures will help us to meet it.

Another problem with the Bill concerns its application in Scotland. I know from experience that house purchasing in Scotland is a whole different ball game. When I moved from Scotland, I flogged my house within three weeks and invested the proceeds in the money market until I found exactly the house that I wanted in England. I was not at the end of anyone's queue so I could not be gazumped. It was extremely convenient.

When one bids for a house in Scotland, the mortgage lender must guarantee that he will lend against that property. The snag is that someone else who is borrowing from the same mortgage lender often applies for exactly the same thing. How many surveys would be done in that circumstance, as the mortgage lender probably operates with one survey company? The poor customer would not know, and would have to pay through the nose every time. Some Government proposals that seek to address that problem might also help the hon. Gentleman by improving his energy conservation measures.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to bent building surveyors—there are not many, but they are not unknown. There used to be many such surveyors in my part of the world, but they are less of a problem now. It is difficult when someone thinks that he has paid good money for a good job and the building control department says, "That's done; that's fixed", only to find out five years later that everything is not all right. The house may need a new roof or the owner may discover that the damp-proof course has not been inserted or that the builder used dirty ties, thus causing damp.

The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon was wise not to include public sector housing in the legislation because that would necessitate a money resolution. If he had done so, the Bill would have had to address the problem that many local authorities inherited 20-odd years ago when the Scottish Office Development Department and the Department of the Environment produced figures regarding the installation characteristics of poured concrete, which subsequently turned out to be totally inaccurate when the concrete dried out. The insulation disappeared, damp developed and people complained to the local authorities. They claimed that the problem was caused by condensation, and they were quite right—but the condensation was caused by a lack of wall thermal efficiency. Measures such as strapping walls and putting up plaster board are expensive and intrusive.

It would be nice if the Government could allocate more money to local authorities in the future to allow them to address that problem retrospectively. An imaginative pilot scheme conducted in Gateshead has produced extremely good results in flats. The buildings used to be horrible, but now they are attractive, warm homes with safe playing areas in a good environment and are close to schools, nurseries and shops. Such rehabilitation measures could be taken as well, and I look forward to the Government introducing some.

I shall not detain the House any longer. I have a rotten cold and I do not have a lot of voice left. I wish the hon. Gentleman and his Bill, minus clause 1(2), a safe passage.

In common with other Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on his good fortune in the ballot and on his choice of subject for a Bill.

The Bill would improve energy efficiency, to which the Government are also committed—that is always a good start. The Bill would also make a valuable contribution to achieving better energy efficiency. I intend to speak about the importance of measures to improve energy efficiency, such as those proposed by the hon. Gentleman; the action that the Government are taking; and the role that we believe that the Bill might play.

Our manifesto made it clear that we are committed to a policy designed to promote the more efficient use of energy. We are keen to carry that policy forward. Energy efficiency is in tune with sustainable development, on which we launched a consultation exercise—as I mentioned in interventions—earlier this week. We believe that it can offer major benefits to households and businesses, and, at the same time, help us to protect the environment by reducing the threat of climate change.

The benefits to householders and businesses are immense. Improved energy efficiency reduces fuel bills and maintenance costs, improves comfort and creates jobs. Energy efficiency therefore makes sense for all of us. It saves money that could be better used to improve our homes and develop businesses. There is plenty of scope for doing that as we look around our domestic, commercial and industrial sectors.

Recent estimates suggest that total emissions could potentially be reduced by about 25 per cent. through the use of cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. As many hon. Members have noted, there is plenty of room to improve energy efficiency in the home, an issue tackled in the Bill. As many hon. Members have also noted, the energy efficiency of the average home is low. The fuel bill for an average three-bedroom semi could be reduced from about £750 per annum to about £400 by the installation of a standard package of energy-efficient measures, including wall and loft insulation, draughtproofing, hot water tank insulation, double glazing and a new heating system with controls.

In addition, energy-efficient houses tend to be more comfortable—that may seem an obvious point, but it is true. Maintenance costs are also reduced through reduced incidence of mould and condensation. Householders would therefore benefit from the improved quality of their houses and they might feel more comfortable. As some hon. Members have pointed out, they might also benefit from improved health.

Increased energy efficiency would also bring advantages to the economy, because it would create jobs in the energy efficiency installation and manufacturing industries. It would also create marketing opportunities for new or more efficient technologies.

Cost-effectiveness, comfort and economic advantages are not the sole reasons for our desire to promote energy efficiency. Just as important, energy efficiency brings benefits to the environment by contributing to the United Kingdom's efforts to meet international emissions targets and our domestic aims.

The Government have a strong commitment to safeguarding the environment and, in particular, to combating global warming. We have said that we will place the environment at the heart of policy making. Indeed, our policies aim to combine environmental sustainability with economic and social progress. We believe that the three go together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said, we also believe that it is important that we have the support of the people if we are to create a consensus in favour of making such progress and changing individual behaviour, which is crucial to success.

Hon. Members will have noted the strong line taken by the Prime Minister when he led the United Kingdom delegation to the Earth summit II in the run-up to the Kyoto conference. Hon. Members will also note that the Deputy Prime Minister took a strong line at that conference when he delivered a signed, legally binding agreement to reduce harmful emissions.

We plan to build on that success internationally, in Europe and at home. The previous Administration offered 10 per cent. as part of the European Union target. We will consider whether we should offer more. We will maintain our domestic aim of reducing emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

The domestic sector offers considerable scope for savings. Domestic consumers are responsible for more than a quarter of national carbon dioxide emissions. The installation of a standard package of energy-efficiency measures could reduce annual carbon emissions from the average home by more than half. That is the prize towards which the Bill seeks to edge us closer.

Meeting the United Kingdom's aims for the reduction of emissions will require major changes in the way in which we generate and use energy. We are looking for a balanced package of measures that will help us to meet our objectives and maximise the benefits that are available. A consultation paper on our climate change programme is planned for later this year.

Energy efficiency will be a key element in delivering our programme to reduce emissions, because of the benefits that it brings. We are developing a package of energy-efficiency measures to meet our objective.

We are initiating a broad debate to engage all sections of our society in realising the opportunities provided by the outcome of Kyoto and maintaining a strong United Kingdom lead on the issues that emerged. We are starting a wider public debate about life style changes, of which today's debate today is only one example. Other debates that I have attended in the not-too-distant past touched on similar issues. I look forward to attending many more.

Other reviews are relevant to the work that we are doing. The review of utility regulation, for example, covers the energy utilities—gas and electricity. The review's objectives include ensuring that the system of regulation promotes the Government's objectives for the environment and sustainable development. We are looking at how regulations should best deal with energy efficiency. The Government will shortly produce a Green Paper on the outcome of the review.

We already have some successful measures to encourage energy efficiency. For example, we provide information and advice. Where necessary, we provide financial incentives, and we seek to improve the availability, take-up and use of energy-efficient domestic equipment. Just recently I was in John Lewis, as part of my official duties, launching one of the new energy labels for domestic washing machines, which provide quite complex information in an easily ascertainable way for customers at the point at which they are considering making a purchase.

We have three main channels for providing information and advice: the energy efficiency best practice programme, the Energy Saving Trust's energy efficiency programme, and the trust's energy efficiency advice centres. All those were mentioned by hon. Members.

The energy efficiency best practice programme provides a wide range of information to stimulate energy efficiency improvements in buildings, industry and transport. It aims to generate savings worth £800 million a year by 2000. It is on target and is currently saving around £500 million each year. We are considering ways of developing the programme's potential to help us meet our aims for the reduction of emissions.

My Department funds the Energy Saving Trust's major promotional programme, "Energy Efficiency", which was developed with considerable help from the trust's partners in the energy efficiency industry and is a success. Recent research shows that an advertising campaign in October exceeded its targets. I have high hopes for a new campaign that started this week.

The trust's network of more than 40 energy efficiency advice centres provides free impartial advice to customers in the domestic and small business sectors. By the end of this year, some 250,000 people will have received advice from the centres. It costs the centres about £12 to advise a customer. Customers taking up advice provided by the centres save an average of £57 a year.

We also fund financial incentives to help the less well-off to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and to help the Energy Saving Trust's incentive schemes to encourage investment in energy efficiency by those who can afford it.

The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for insulation measures for householders who receive income-related benefits or disability allowance and are over 60 years of age. A revised, improved scheme came into force in July offering householders more choice from a wider range of measures. The changes will allow the scheme to offer the measures best suited to individuals' homes. The 1997–98 budget is £75 million. We are considering and reviewing that scheme, which was inherited from the previous Government, to see whether it is helping the right people in the most effective way. As I said in an intervention, early indications from the review suggest that, as the scheme is currently weighted, it misses some of those most in need—people in private rented housing.

The Energy Saving Trust runs a wide range of schemes offering financial incentives for the installation of energy-efficient measures. The products promoted include central heating controls; condensing boilers, which are a key to improving energy efficiency in the home; cavity wall insulation; high-frequency lighting; and small-scale combined heating power in industry. So far, the schemes have helped 180,000 people to install energy-efficient goods in their homes.

We are pleased to have been able to announce this year that we have reversed the cut which the previous Government scheduled to the Energy Saving Trust, and we continue to show our commitment to that by providing an extra £5.5 million for the trust this year.

Improving the availability, take-up and use of energy-efficient domestic equipment is also important, and the Government have a market transformation strategy, which we launched in October. It seeks to get the market to provide domestic equipment that does less harm to the environment, particularly by using less energy. It aims to achieve savings of 2 million tonnes of carbon by 2010.

Energy labels are already mandatory for fridges, and are now mandatory for washing machines, washer-driers and tumble driers. Regulations for dishwashers and light bulbs should be introduced this year, and further proposals are being developed.

We shall need to do more to meet our aims for reducing emissions, and we are reviewing our current programme in the light of our commitment to lead the fight against climate change. We shall look for improvements in all areas, including the use of energy-saving technology by home owners and businesses. We take the matter very seriously and are taking steps to introduce new measures.

The environmental task force, which many of my hon. Friends have mentioned, will promote energy efficiency and provide quality jobs and training.

Will additional money be available for the materials needed for insulation projects under the environmental task force scheme? That is a serious bottleneck in the proposals before the House.

The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to announce increases in ministerial budgets for which I am not responsible, because he will get me into enormous trouble. He needs to be aware that the task force and the new deal are being piloted in several areas. We seek to learn the lessons and practicalities from those pilot exercises, which we hope to apply to the scheme when it is rolled out nationwide in April so that we can ensure that it is most effective.

As I was saying, the capital receipts initiative is expected to make nearly £800 million available to local authorities over the next two years to support capital spending, targeted on housing and related regeneration schemes. It is expected specifically to encourage energy efficiency projects.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that the spring Budget will reduce VAT from 17.5 to 5 per cent. on the installation of energy-saving materials under the Government-funded grant scheme for the less well-off. The Government will explore opportunities for agreement at European Union level on a wider reduced rate of VAT on energy-saving materials and installations.

Last week, we announced that we had allocated an extra £5.5 million to the Energy Saving Trust to avoid the previous Government's planned cut and to maintain the Government's support for the trust. The increased allocation will enable the trust to maintain and develop its successful programmes, and will secure the trust's capability to plan for the climate change task ahead.

Improving energy efficiency is not a matter for central Government alone. Inevitably, local authorities and individuals have a part to play. Everyone can help, and many people are anxious to do so.

Local authorities have a key role in promoting energy efficiency to all households in their areas. The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 requires local authorities to prepare energy conservation reports identifying measures to improve energy efficiency in all the homes in their areas. We think that the Act has the potential to deliver a 30 per cent. improvement in England in about 12 years, if all the measures identified by local authorities are implemented. However, that is a big "if", and that is what we must concentrate on in our education of the public.

Individuals, too, can take action, within the limits of what they can afford. Energy efficiency need not be costly. There are no-cost and low-cost measures that most people can take. It costs nothing to draw the curtains at night and to heat only as much water as one needs. Fitting a jacket on a hot water tank is not expensive and not hard. Many people could do it.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) told us a tale of unintended consequences about when he insulated his loft, only to discover that the water tank then froze and subsequently flooded his property. The hon. Gentleman is not here now; he apologised for the fact that he could not stay to hear the rest of the debate. He should probably have lagged the tank while he was putting in the insulation.

Improvements, like all such things, have to be approached carefully and in a balanced way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman learnt his lesson, and the law of unintended consequences that his story illustrates is something we should all bear in mind when we think about how to advise people about energy efficiency in their homes—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Let me finish my sentence. Then I shall be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

It is important that we bear in mind the proper scale of action and the consequences of the advice that we give to the public.

My hon. Friend was talking about the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and his penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to insulation—an attitude characteristic of the previous Government. Will she assure me that when she reviews the building regulations she will not be penny wise and pound foolish, but will do it properly?

I intended to talk about the contribution to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I certainly intend to pass his wise remarks to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions who are directly responsible for the current review of the building regulations. I know already that they share some of his concerns about the cowboy side of the building industry and are anxious to do what they can to ensure that we tackle the causes of poor housing at source, as well as doing what we can to alleviate the problems that we have inherited.

People need to know what they can do to improve energy efficiency. They also need an idea of how much it will cost and how quickly they can recoup that cost through savings on their fuel bills. We must ensure that as many people as possible have that information when they need it, and that they can find it with minimal effort. That is where the Bill comes in.

Many hon. Members have raised concerns about the fuel-poor. Of course, when energy efficiency is improved in such people's homes, with the extra leeway that they gain they will tend to make their homes more comfortable rather than saving energy. Unashamedly, we think that that is a good thing. We are interested not only in saving energy but in improving comfort and, we hope, health and quality of life, especially for those who live in poor housing. The Bill, however, is aimed at home buyers, who can usually afford to keep their homes warm and will therefore reduce energy use following energy efficiency improvements.

The debate has been wide ranging. Discussion of a modest and well-targeted Bill has been used as a vessel into which to pour all kinds of other things, from the building regulations to the efficiency and, in some cases, the honesty, of those who do the surveys, mortgage lenders and a range of other issues.

None the less, we must see the Bill as a small, well-focused part of a range of measures across the board. We must keep things in focus if we are to make those measures effective. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon looks as though he wants to intervene. I should be happy to give way to him.

indicated dissent.

He does not want to intervene; he must just have been moving in his seat.

If we concentrate on what the Bill is trying to achieve, we can produce legislation that will improve energy efficiency, for all the reasons that have been given today. It will help us to implement our policies by requiring the provision of information on energy efficiency for mortgage applicants. We support the Bill—but, as always in cases such as this, on condition that amendments are made.

Despite the drafting problems, the principle of the Bill is good. It is a short and sensible measure, which will make a practical contribution. Home buyers will be advised on how to save money by reducing their fuel bills, which will help them to make their mortgage payments. They will be able to make their homes more comfortable. The Bill will help us to protect the environment by implementing our climate change policies. Businesses installing energy-efficiency equipment, including small businesses, will benefit.

Indeed, the benefits of the Bill are such that more than 260 hon. Members from, I believe, every party in the House have supported an early-day motion on the same subject. Members of the SDLP, Ulster Unionists and United Kingdom Unionists are agreed on this, at least—which demonstrates the power of the approach of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.

The organisation that represents those most concerned with the Bill, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, supports the principle, although, like the Government, it has reservations about some of the details. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has written to me expressing strong support, but it, too, has reservations.

I cannot put an exact figure on the benefits of the Bill, which will depend on the number of people who take advantage of the offer of advice, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) said, the Energy Saving Trust's energy efficiency advice centres estimate that householders taking advice from the centres make savings of £57 a year following average expenditure of £339. The Bill would offer the same opportunity to about 1 million households each year.

Information required by the Bill would reach house buyers at an appropriate time. When people move house, they will have to make decisions about expenditure, and that is a good time at which to draw their attention to the value of energy efficiency.

With the drafting sorted out, the costs imposed by the Bill will not be onerous, and the competitive mortgage market will keep costs down. In any event, we think that the costs will be outweighed by the benefits. We shall need to ensure that the Bill does not cause any delay to house purchases. It is vital that it is not excessively prescriptive: it must not put at risk our efforts to find ways of improving the efficiency of the home-buying process.

As I have said, there are drafting problems. Apart from the need to clarify details and to look closely at the definitions, we see four main problems. First, we want the Bill to contain a clause making it enforceable. Secondly, the form of energy advice to be offered will be dealt with in statutory guidance from the Secretary of State, and we see no need for the primary legislation to specify in detail what that guidance should include. We want to increase flexibility, and to allow advances in technology to be incorporated without further recourse to primary legislation.

Thirdly, we want the Bill to apply only to single dwellings used for owner-occupation. Fourthly, as drafted the Bill would be difficult to implement in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) pointed out.

We are concerned that the Bill contains no sanction against mortgage lenders that do not provide a borrower with information about the energy efficiency of a dwelling. We need to discuss with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon how that will be dealt with in Committee, as there is little point in passing unenforceable legislation.

As I have said, the Bill itself does not need to specify in detail what should be included in guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. We should consult on draft guidance, to ensure that the views of all those with an interest are taken into account. We want a system that serves the mortgage applicant well, while minimising work for mortgage lenders and those making inspections—and the cost to the customer. The important thing is that the information covers the key issues: what could I usefully do to improve this property's energy efficiency and what is it likely to cost and save me?

I come to some of the points that were made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. We, too, want a simple, unbureaucratic system that provides simple advice on the most cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. People want to know what to do, how much it will cost and what they will save.

Broadly, the Government's intention is that the survey or inspection should identify what energy-saving features are present in the property—for example, tank or roof insulation. The details of the inspection will need to be considered carefully to ensure that the cost is reasonable and that preparing it does not delay the sale.

To ensure that the extra cost to the buyer is kept to a minimum, the Government intend that energy features should be noted by the lender's valuer when he visits the property to make his valuation. There would not be a separate energy inspection. Preliminary contact with the industry suggests that a report along those lines might cost an extra £15 to £40, but, of course, the charge cannot be established until we have settled the exact extent of the survey.

We should like to consult on whether an energy rating should be included in the information that is provided to customers. If so, it could be provided by one of the Government-authorised energy rating companies, five of which are currently in operation. That will help to ensure consistent energy rating. I hope that that will answer the more detailed questions of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

The Minister has been speaking for nearly 40 minutes on a Bill which has had widespread support in the House. Will she say when she expects to be bring her remarks to a conclusion?

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks as I stood up at 24 minutes past 12, I have taken many interventions, and we have had an interesting debate. However, I am drawing my remarks to an end. I know that another Bill will have its Second Reading debate after this one, but I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as he has not been in the House from the start and has paid no attention to the debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow spokesman, is grossly rude. Secondly, he cannot do his arithmetic because 24 off 51, as it was then, is 27, if my arithmetic is right; no doubt he cannot count. Perhaps he would dwell on his intervention and apologise. It has been a good-natured debate.

The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is responsible for his own remarks.

I will make progress, despite that discordant note in what has been an interesting and important debate. However, it is important that, when a Bill is going into Committee and the Government consider that some detailed points on drafting need to be dealt with, I give the Government's view. That inevitably takes some time, so I hope that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) will restrain himself and demonstrate a little patience.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to say that we support home energy rating. The building regulation requirements on energy efficiency are set in terms of minimum standards to be achieved. The rating system might also be a useful part of the information to be provided to home buyers. In drawing up the Secretary of State's guidance on the coverage of energy efficiency information, we would want to discuss that matter and consult on it. However, we would not want to prejudge that option by writing it into the primary legislation.

On a matter of greater detail, I should like the type of dwellings to be covered by the Bill to be specified more clearly. It would be sensible to restrict the Bill to single dwellings, be they flats or houses, being sold with vacant possession for owner-occupation. I would not like registered social landlords to be included within the scope of the Bill. Other levers can be used to improve energy efficiency in the housing association sector, for both new and existing properties.

The Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), which I hope will receive a Second Reading later this afternoon, specifically addresses energy efficiency in properties owned by registered social landlords.

It would not be practical to apply the provisions of the Bill before us to a landlord's interest in properties that are let. Under existing landlord and tenant legislation, a surveyor instructed by a mortgage lender would almost certainly not have a right of access to tenanted property. Nor would it be sensible for the Bill to apply when the freehold of a leasehold house or block of flats is acquired by the leaseholders or a third party.

A further difficulty relates to the way in which the Bill would operate in Scotland. The Bill's provisions would bear more heavily on Scottish house hunters than those in England, as there is a more sensible system of house purchase north of the border. In Scotland, many prospective house purchasers will bid for several houses before their bid is accepted. Unsuccessful bidders are likely to object to the additional costs of several surveys. We would need to explore the possibility of amending the Bill to make it more appropriate to the Scottish system of house purchase.

The Government are keen to encourage energy efficiency and to draw the attention of home buyers to its value. The Bill would provide an effective tool to help us carry forward our policies and implement our climate change programme. We support the Bill, subject to exploring in Committee the points that I have raised. We have genuine concerns about drafting that require full examination and should be considered in Committee. Subject to that, I commend the Bill, and congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon on placing it before the House.

I shall not detain the House long. We have had an informative debate with some excellent and constructive speeches—for which I am grateful—from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One or two hon. Members may have misunderstood one of my remarks about the impact of my Bill. I said that 425,000 mortgages are given every year to buy houses that are not newly built. I believe that the Bill would have a significant impact on the huge stock of older buildings in the country.

I also thank the Association for the Conservation of Energy and the Green Liberal Democrats for their assistance. I am also particularly grateful to the Minister for her comments today and the time she has given in the past month. She has made a number of constructive proposals and the assistance of her officials has also been invaluable.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not summarise the compelling points and issues that hon. Members have raised today. It is apparent that there is a real head of steam in this Parliament for measures to protect our environment, for sustainable development and for energy efficiency. They are powerful means by which we can start to curb the pollution that blights our world and ensure that we bequeath to our successors an environment in which they can thrive.

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

This is Parliament's ninth opportunity in 15 years to put on the statute book legislation that begins to address age discrimination. The most recent attempt was the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) introduced almost exactly two years, ago on 9 February 1996—the Employment (Upper Age Limits in Advertisements) Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's tireless campaign on the issue—he is one of the co-sponsors of my Bill—and to all colleagues and former colleagues who have shown determination and commitment to fighting agism.

I am also extremely grateful to the large number of hon. Members who have pledged their support for the Bill, irrespective of whether they are present in the House today. That reflects the importance of the issue and the fact that it simply will not go away. It is worth noting that this is not a party-political matter. My Bill is sponsored not only by Labour colleagues but by three Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat Member, one Plaid Cymru Member and one Scottish National party Member. I have the support also of almost 150 hon. Members, from all parties, who signed early-day motion 126 on age discrimination in employment advertising, which was tabled in support of my Bill on 17 June 1997 and has continued to attract signatories.

My Bill is, however, the first attempt to introduce legislation under a Labour Government. Given our commitment to tackling age discrimination, I hope that it will also be successful. I am proud of the declaration in the 1997 Labour party manifesto that states:

"We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination, wherever it exists."

I welcome the Government's commitment to fairness in employment and to promoting the practical benefits of an age-diverse work force. I particularly welcome the announcement, at the beginning of Age Concern's age discrimination week, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights of a code of practice to promote fair treatment of older workers both in work and trying to get work, which should encompass job advertisements.

Does the hon. Lady agree—despite the Government's recent announcement, which was so conveniently timed to coincide with the promotion of her Bill—that she is disappointed that the Government have reneged on the clear promise made in the House on 5 February by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)?

I am sure that, in his reply to the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister will state the Government's position.

As I said, I welcome both the Government's commitment to tackling age discrimination and my right hon. Friend's announcement. I am convinced that the Labour Government are committed to tackling age discrimination and I look forward to working with colleagues from both sides of the House in tackling an issue that is of great interest not only to hon. Members but to the public.

My right hon. Friend's announcement promised consultation with the Trades Union Congress—which I mention first—the Confederation of British Industry, the Employers Forum on Age and other interest groups. I appeal to him to give a commitment that, after that consultation—and the visits and consultation that he has had with a variety of organisations concerned with age discrimination, which will continue into the spring—he will issue perhaps a Green Paper with proposals on how we can make progress towards ending age discrimination in employment.

Support for my Bill is not confined to the House. I am very grateful for the great work done and long months of help given by Age Concern, particularly by its parliamentary officers Mark McLaren and Nick Stace, who are in the Strangers Gallery. Moreover, organisations as diverse as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Law Society, the Institute of Management, the Employers Forum on Age, the Third Age Challenge trust and the Association of Retired Persons over 50 have added their voices. In the London borough of Redbridge, the Redbridge Pensioners Action Association is a very active organisation.

I should tell the House that 61 per cent. of people in my constituency—including me—are over 40. Although many people who feel discriminated against are in their 40s, 50s or even 30s, my Bill would apply to all ages. It seems that more advertisements place a lower limit than an upper one.

What matters are qualifications and suitability for a job, not an applicant's age. I have received hundreds of letters from the public telling me their personal—and often harrowing—experiences of age discrimination. Can it be right that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, in Cumbria, can refuse to consider a 32-year-old man for its constabulary by stipulating an upper age limit of 30? In London, a woman of 54 who has a PhD, a diploma in translation and another in computing, is fluent in three languages and has administrative and editorial skills, has been unable to find a full-time post. A man was excluded from a bookkeeper's position because applicants had to be under 30. A former primary school friend recently wrote to tell me that when she approached a local employment agency and mentioned her age she was not even asked to sit down, but told that it would be difficult to help her.

The achievements of older people have been in the news recently, with the reselection of John Glenn for a return to astronaut duties and the birth of a baby to a 60-year-old woman. A cartoon in the 23 January 1998 issue of Private Eye, to which I am a subscriber, shows an elderly couple sitting in armchairs by the fire with their slippers on, with the woman saying to the man, "You can't go up into space—I'm pregnant!"

At the other end of the scale, some people are arbitrarily told that they are too young. An advertisement in Miss London a few months ago stipulated, "Mature secretary, 30+," but what if someone is 28 or 29? People realise that age discrimination could affect them at some point in their life, which is why in the most recent Gallup poll, carried out for Age Concern last month, three quarters of people backed the need for legislation—and I am one of them. Unjustified discrimination against people on grounds of age is in its way just as dehumanising and offensive as any other form of discrimination.

The whole House and people outside will greatly welcome the way in which the hon. Lady is presenting her Bill and the ideas behind it. Does she agree that, if evidence shows that the average mature person stays in a job far longer than the average young person it means, first, that they are capable of doing the job and, secondly, that employers are losing out by arbitrarily excluding them or refusing to consider offering them the post? I say that with particular emphasis, as Worthing, West has the highest proportion of retired people in the country.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I left my first professional job within two years, whereas older people are far more likely to give longer service—for example, 10 years' service if they are 50 when appointed.

If passed, the Bill will be first piece of legislation to confront the issue of age discrimination. It will provide a positive sign that discrimination is unacceptable and ensure that all employers, large and small, have to address the problem. It will also act as a catalyst to change employers' attitudes. If the Bill is passed, age discrimination will be taken as seriously as other forms of discrimination, including sex, disability and race discrimination. The personal and economic waste that age discrimination perpetuates will begin to be addressed. The value of a mixed-age work force and opportunities for people of all ages will be championed.

My Bill is a modest measure to tackle only one aspect, employment age discrimination. I should like to go further and would have done so if I had thought that a more comprehensive Bill might become law under the private Member's Bill procedure. I want wide-ranging legislation that encompasses all aspects of age discrimination, not only in employment. The Bill must therefore be seen as a first step towards that wider legislation. It will send out the right message from the House that in the first Parliament of the new Labour Government we have not missed an opportunity to tackle this issue head on.

One of the most recent surveys, by Barkers in 1997, showed that one in 10 advertisements in The Sunday Times contain references to age. For example, can it be right for a company to ask for sales managers aged 25 to 40 or for buying controllers

"unlikely to be under 30"

and—as reported by Nigel Dempster in the Daily Mail of 5 January 1998—for the Balmoral estate to advertise for a foreman gardener who should be between 20 and 35 years old?

An even higher proportion of job advertisements use general language to discriminate. In this Wednesday's edition of The Independent an advertisement appeared for young audio secretaries aged 18 to 29 and for vacancies for well-educated college leavers to work with

"young, fun teams of surveyors."

I shall not insult surveyors by commenting on that, although I am married to an engineer—

Hear, hear!

I know the background of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and I know that he supports engineers.

I was pleased to learn recently that the worst offender, the European Commission, has now agreed to begin to revise its agist recruitment policies. Given that the Amsterdam treaty includes a provision that allows the European Union to tackle age discrimination for the first time, it seems wholly appropriate that we should take the initiative and legislate at the first opportunity to promote the positive value of workers of all ages.

The Bill would make it unlawful to publish an advertisement with an actual or implied age or age range unless it can be justified on grounds irrespective of age. Unlike the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, my Bill does not make discrimination a criminal offence; it makes it a civil offence that will be dealt with by an industrial tribunal.

The Bill would apply to any advertisement appearing in Great Britain. If it proceeds to its further stages, I would want to widen its scope to include Northern Ireland.

The Bill provides for exemptions, including the armed forces, but only for jobs that require combat effectiveness, mirroring the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and where a genuine occupational qualification requires someone of a particular age—for example, what is referred to in the Sex Discrimination Act as "a dramatic performance".

Candidates for dramatic performances in the House have to be over 21, but there is no upper age limit. I was elected in May, just a few weeks before my 50th birthday and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who represents my wonderfully supportive and much-loved parents, George and Edith Conroy, was re-elected at the age of 80. That is one way to get one's parents in Hansard—I am sure that they are watching.

Other legislation that prescribes an age limit will take precedence over the Bill. The Bill does not currently include a separately established enforcement agency, partly because it would be largely self-enforcing, but also because I believe that only the Government can introduce the necessary legislation to establish an enforcement agency such as the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, clause 9 allows the Secretary of State to introduce a code of practice containing practical guidance.

I do not believe that the Bill will cost either employers or the Government significant sums to implement. The Equal Opportunities Commission had a budget of less than £6 million in 1996–97 and the Commission for Racial Equality had a budget of £15.5 million. The Government admit that they cannot estimate the cost of enforcing the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

The United States, the land of free enterprise, introduced the Age Discrimination in Employment Act a generation ago, in 1967. According to the Employment Service, in "An international overview", published in 1990, it has been proven to work

"causing employers to reconsider job evaluation and descriptions in order to use objective criteria—rather than arbitrary age criteria."

Other countries have followed suit. In 1992, New Zealand introduced similar legislation. Many states in Australia are following the example of South Australia, which introduced legislation in 1990. It has proved to be successful and is therefore attracting considerable support throughout the rest of Australia. There is also legislation in Spain, France, Sweden and Canada, and a wider range of countries have age-related discrimination laws or constitutional protection.

The barriers to legislation in this country are similar to those experienced by hon. Members who have introduced other discrimination legislation. It took many attempts to get on to the statute book legislation that outlaws discrimination based on gender, race or disability, but few people would now dispute its necessity.

In my view, the fact that there may be legal difficulties or other possible complexities is no excuse for not trying to right a wrong. There are armies of legal experts, civil servants and special advisers to help if the will exists.

Banning age limits has been tried, tested and proven to work. In 1996, the journal People Management adopted a policy of refusing to accept job advertisements with age limits. The reaction has been very positive. The journal said:

"If anything, the new policy has boosted business. People Management's revenue and market share have both increased substantially during the past 12 months."

However, we cannot expect all employers and advertisers to act voluntarily. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North predicted as much when he said:

"I doubt whether, next year"—

he meant 1997—

"or the year after,"—

1998—

"any hon. Member will be able to say, 'People Management took the first step in 1996, and look what has happened since.""—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 560.]

The previous Government's campaign for older workers, although well-meaning, was, unfortunately for the case for persuasion, a rather ineffective way of dealing with the problems. Voluntary action and attitude changing have their part to play, but we need a legislative lever, too. Depressingly, the evaluation of the previous Government's campaign, published last year, showed that

"there was little awareness of the campaign".

A paper called "Age Discrimination in Employment" published in 1997 by Eurolink Age, a European network concerned with older people and issues of aging, said:

"there is no evidence as yet that this campaign has had a significant influence on employers' practice."

Those surveyed appeared to acknowledge that an aging population would affect their business without realising that it also directly impacted on their work force.

I have tried hard, with the help of Age Concern, to do what I can to draft legislation that will have the support of the Government, officials at the Department for Education and Employment and others. The Bill is the third or fourth re-draft, following meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights and departmental officials. If some hon. Members want further changes to the Bill, that is the role of the Committee if the Bill progresses to that stage. I ask hon. Members to work with me and the people who obviously want and need legislation of the type that I propose.

I present the Bill to the House in a spirit of compromise and with a desire to make the Bill work. I want the Bill on the statute book so that we can start to honour our commitments to people who are discriminated against on grounds of age, and so that we can work to destroy the discrimination that devastates the lives of so many people.

Finally, I draw attention to the work of Age Concern in this area and to the way in which it has constantly and consistently campaigned for legislation to tackle age discrimination and to introduce policies that promote the well-being of older people. I pay tribute to its work in promoting the positive contribution that older people make to society and helping us to realise that we must act to tackle age discrimination.

Hon. Members will know that, this week, Age Concern has held an awareness campaign on all aspects of age discrimination—not only in employment, but in health, social security and consumer affairs.

Does the hon. Lady recall that, earlier in the week, she and I attended a meeting with Age Concern and the all-party group for older people, in which Lady Greengross was a speaker, as was the hon. Lady? Does she recall the tangible disappointment of Lady Greengross and other people from Age Concern at the Government's change of tack on this issue? Can she confirm that?

Well, Lady Greengross has made her views clear. This week she has been interviewed perhaps as much as I have, so her opinion has been made known.

More than 100 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 628, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), which welcomes Age Concern's age discrimination week and calls on the Government to respond with legislation, in the 1998–99 parliamentary Session, to ban age discrimination in the way that existing legislation outlaws race, sex and disability discrimination, tying in with the 1999 United Nations year for older persons.

I hope that the House will show its commitment to ending age discrimination by giving this limited Bill an unopposed Second Reading. Further to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), about 2,000 people have contacted Age Concern with their stories of age discrimination.

My Bill is a modest but significant milestone measure that will begin to act on the iniquity of age discrimination. It is the first step towards addressing wider issues of age discrimination and it will consequently send out important messages to employers—and society in general—about the positive value of workers of all ages. I commend the Bill to the House.

I start by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate and by giving my unreserved apologies to right hon. and hon. Members. I will be unable to stay beyond the delivery of my speech, as I have an urgent engagement at the Henry Allen school in my constituency at 2.30. I hope that the Chair and the House will forgive my impoliteness.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) not only on presenting the Bill, but on her ingenuity in including her parents in the debate. They will be rightly proud of her, and I am delighted that she found that avenue.

This has an element of deja vu because, on 9 February 1996, I was the Minister when the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) presented a similar Bill. On that morning, we had a first-class debate and agreed to differ in the end. It was a good-humoured debate which reflected the great concern in the House for this issue. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and that the hon. Lady has put the issue at the top of the agenda once again. No matter what our differences are on the route, our aims are the same.

I add my voice to that of the hon. Lady in congratulating Age Concern, which has put agism on the map this week. I am sure that no one in the Chamber has not seen the series of advertisements by Age Concern. I see from the nodding heads and smiles that they have had an impact. They certainly had an impact on my husband, who said that he thought the model looked rather more attractive fully dressed. I hope that we also pay attention to those later on in years who are doing things to prove that older people are not past their sell-by date. The one example that comes to mind is the astronaut John Glenn, who is about to return to his career in space many years after his first famous trip.

It is important that this debate receives wide coverage, as that would help me in my argument that we should use education and persuasion and not legislation. Using legislation, in my view, is using a hammer to crack a nut. While we all agree on the aims, we will differ on the ways in which they can be achieved. My sympathies lie not only with the hon. Members for Ilford, North and for Walsall, North, but with the 150 Labour Members who appended their names to the early-day motion. They fully expected a new Labour Government to honour their pledges.

In 1996, the shadow employment Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—now the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—made an unambiguous pledge. He said:

"The Labour party's position is quite clear. This Conservative Government may not accept my hon. Friend's Bill, but an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal."—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]

Nothing could be clearer than that quote from the hon. Gentleman, but, nine months after coming to power, the Labour Government have broken their promise. That will be disappointing not just to hon. Members, but to members of Age Concern and the other organisations that have worked so hard on both the Bills that have been presented to the House in the past two years.

I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue when the hon. Lady said that the Labour Government had broken their promise. Is it not more accurate to say that the Government have not yet kept their promise? Will she wait, with me, till the next election to see what happens?

That is a generous interpretation of the Government's actions. The comment made on the Floor of the House was unambiguous. The Minister is not rising to say that legislation is imminent. Indeed, he has let it be known that legislation is not favoured by his Department at this time.

It is disappointing that hon. Members and the wider audience outside the House have been duped. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) also supported legislation at the time. What have the Government done so far? Precious little. They have abandoned the older workers advisory group, which regularly advised me when I was a Minister responsible for such matters. Sally Greengross, who was mentioned earlier, was a member of that group. I believe that she has had the privilege of meeting the Minister on this subject only once since his appointment. He has abandoned a group on whose advice he could have drawn.

The Government have announced that a code of practice will be developed, but that is not substantially different from my own campaign, which was built on the excellent work of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).

Despite the criticism of the hon. Member for Ilford, North, our campaign, with the limited funds that we had to spend on it, caused people to think about age discrimination. We had a series of roadshows. Such importance did I attach to the matter that I went out to launch those roadshows throughout the country.

We had widely circulated booklets, "Too old—who says?", which contained advice to older workers, "Getting on", which was advice to employers, and "Age Works", which was targeted at recruitment agencies. While we were researching advertisements and the age limits found in them, we discovered that out of, say, 22 newspaper advertisements that carried an age limit, 17 would have been placed by recruitment agencies. It was obvious that we had to get to the middlemen to stop such discrimination.

We had seminars with the Carnegie third age programme, the Industrial Society and the Policy Studies Institute. We even produced a video. The expenditure was real and the intentions were good. We have not seen such expenditure or activity from the Minister, who is in his place and is listening.

It might be apposite for me to put on record my thanks to all the officials and organisations that assisted me in my time as Minister and helped to make the campaign a success and to move the matter forward.

I am totally opposed to age discrimination. It is particularly shortsighted if employers practise it. The benefits to business of employing older people are undeniable—better service, lower staff turnover, experienced personnel and increased customer satisfaction. Some organisations, such as B and Q, make a virtue of employing older workers.

There is a phenomenon known as corporate memory loss. If a business does not retain its older workers, it may lose the experience and knowledge of the business that they have accumulated over many years. In Japan, the culture is quite the reverse. Hon. Members may know that when one does business in Japan, there will be a senior, much older man sitting in the meeting room. He will often close his eyes and appear not to be listening—indeed, he is called the sleeper. He is the senior man in the organisation, who has many years of experience. Whether a company gets the contract depends on his assessment of its representatives at the meeting. Many organisations waste their older workers, and I am glad that corporate memory loss is at last on the agenda.

At a time when businesses face increasing Government burdens in the form of taxes, regulation and the social chapter, I believe that the Bill will add yet another layer of bureaucracy. There is little international evidence that such legislation makes a real difference. There has been legislation covering this area in France since 1986, under the code de travail. However, in 1994, when we examined advertisements in Le Monde, 30 per cent. of them stated maximum age preferences—people were openly flouting the law.

The Minister, who does not want legislation, cannot be convinced that much action is necessary in this area. In the footnotes to his press release on the code of practice, he says that employment between the ages of 50 and retirement has risen by 1.9 per cent., versus 1.6 per cent. for the working age population in the past year. At least the Minister acknowledges that there has been some improvement in the position of the over-50s, but I am afraid that he adds weight to the argument that the hon. Lady's Bill should go no further.

I remain thoroughly opposed to age discrimination, but I will not support the legislation if it goes to Committee. However, I would like the Bill to go to Committee. A problem that affects many people throughout the country has been highlighted in the past fortnight. I wish to see that problem eradicated. I hope that hon. Members will not talk out the Bill: I hope that the Government Whips will not play any tricks on the House today. I hope that the Bill will go to Committee because the hon. Member for Ilford, North is providing a great service to many people in this country, and I support her.

Self-regulation must be given a chance, but I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that, although the Labour Government made a clear promise in this area, they have chosen to break it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on introducing the Bill and on the manner in which she did so. She deserves many congratulations, and I hope that the measure will make progress.

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) say that she hopes that the Bill will go to Committee. When I presented my measure—which was almost the same as my hon. Friend's Bill—two years ago almost to the day, that was not the attitude displayed by the then Government. They did not wish my very modest measure to go to Committee.

Corporate memory loss.

Indeed. The mood was one of hostility, although it was an enjoyable debate. The hon. Lady said then that she opposed discrimination, but—as she said again today—she was certainly very much against legislation.

The difference between the hon. Gentleman's 1996 measure and this legislation is that this is a changed Bill. As the then Minister, I could not accept his proposals. I still do not accept this Bill, but I would like it to be discussed further.

The House may make up its own mind on that intervention; the hon. Lady's remarks, now and then, are on the record.

Although there has been an increase in the amount of media coverage afforded to the subject in the past two years, there has been no change as far as dealing with discrimination on the ground of age. The hon. Lady—who is now leaving the Chamber; she explained why she had to go—was right to say that there is a greater awareness of age discrimination. The advertisement that has been referred to served a useful purpose by bringing the issue to the attention of those who perhaps would not bother to read a news story or a press release.

As for the present Government's attitude, a promise was given, but it was to bring in comprehensive legislation. I hope that the Government will support the Bill, but if they do not, so be it, although that would be unfortunate and I would share the disappointment felt by a number of my hon. Friends. I know that there has been a great deal of pressure exerted by employers not to bring in such legislation, and perhaps that pressure is all the greater because of other measures that we are introducing about which employers might not be keen, for example, on a national minimum wage, and trade union recognition as well I hope. I understand the pressure that is being exerted on the Government about the Bill.

Let us be clear that many people experience discrimination on the ground of age alone. I deplore all forms of discrimination, and I know that young people are often discriminated against. However, I know from what I have been told and from what has been said by hon. Members and others outside the House about the acute difficulties of those who could be described as middle aged. When they lose their job, they find it difficult to get another, certainly in the non-manual sector, simply because they are in their 40s. Indeed, age discrimination can begin when people are in their 30s. Some employers state in their advertisements that the upper age limit for applicants is 35. Those who reach their 40s, let alone their 50s, find that, time and again, even though they have the qualifications and are capable of doing the new job, the door is closed for no other reason than that they have reached the advanced age of, for example, 45.

I remember the maiden speech of one of my hon. Friends who entered the House in 1992, and who said that he had just turned 45. He was starting on a new career and has done well since then, but, as he pointed out then, he would not have stood a chance of obtaining so many other jobs simply because he had reached his mid-40s. That must be wrong and cannot be defended. If it is not possible by voluntary means, persuasion or education to overcome the problem, legislation is needed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling age discrimination is a critical part of the fight against long-term unemployment because people who lose their jobs, particularly the over-50s, are more likely to become long-term unemployed and to stay on the dole year after year?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point that ties in with my remarks about people's difficulty in getting a job because of their middle age.

Two years ago, I made much about linking age discrimination with that on the grounds of race and gender. We are not responsible for the colour of our skin, or whether we happen to be born male or female; neither are we responsible for when we were born. Discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or age must be unacceptable.

As I said two years ago, much of the argument against legislating against age discrimination, as outlined by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the Conservative party, is the same as that used over 30 years ago against any legislative attempt to deal with race discrimination. Then, Conservative Members, many of whom were by no means racist, although I accept that some were, repeatedly said that we could not change human nature by law. They said that it was a matter of trying to educate and pressurise people to make them understand that it was wrong to discriminate on the ground of race.

Thirty years on, and despite all the difficulties still connected with racial discrimination, would anyone suggest that the progress we have made on race relations, and its subsequent impact on jobs and housing provision, would have been made without legislation?

Thirty years ago, it was argued that it was the customer rather than the employer who might be prejudiced. It would be unthinkable that anyone could now queue up at a bank, building society or wherever and then say, "No, I cannot be served by that person. She is of Asian origin. She is black." It would be unthinkable for an employer to try to discriminate in such a blatant way. Indeed, it would be against the law, apart from anything else.I accept and concede the point that to be discriminated against because of one's colour might be much worse than being discriminated against because of age, but to be penalised for no other reason than when one was born is, in my view, absolutely wrong.

One of the ironies is that many companies that discriminate on the ground of age have in their most senior positions people in their 40s, 50s—even 60s. No one is suggesting for one moment, including those companies, that the people who do the most senior, executive jobs cannot do them because they have reached what could be described as a rather advanced or late middle age.

I hope that the Bill will make progress, but what is required is comprehensive legislation to deal with age discrimination. My remarks today demonstrate that I have increasingly come to that view. If I am asked why I tried two years ago to introduce a more modest, limited measure, I say that it was because I knew that if I had tried to introduce more comprehensive legislation, there would have been no chance of the then Conservative Government supporting it. Indeed, they decided not to support my more modest measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said what he said at the time, but he also made the point that the Labour party is committed to comprehensive legislation, and, moreover, that an incoming Labour Government would consult on such legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) pointed out, we have been in office a relatively short time—under a year—and there is time to consult.

If the problem will go away without legislation, those of us who are pressing for a change to the law will have to accept that there is no need for legislation, but I believe that it will not go away any more than the problem of race or gender discrimination. What has happened in the past two years demonstrates that little progress, if any, has been made in combating age discrimination, although there is a greater awareness of the issue. To my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights I say that if the problem does not go away, I hope that the Government will act, as it was a Labour Government who acted on race discrimination 30 years ago.

If the Government decide on a voluntary code of practice and decide that it simply does not work—that people continue to be penalised because of their age—I hope that they will conclude that comprehensive legislation is required. We must make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has done a public service. Indeed, to a large extent she has carried out what the Labour party conference decided in combating age discrimination. If we reject the Conservative notion that legislation is never desirable in such a field, and the Government conclude that the problem will not go away unless legislation is introduced, I hope that Ministers will have the courage to do precisely that.

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has done so much to promote this issue.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) not only on her success in the ballot and on choosing the Bill, but on the thoughtful, measured and well-informed way in which she opened the debate. I join her in congratulating Age Concern on its work in this area, and the campaign that it has been running for such a long time. I hope that, through the success of her Bill, something that Age Concern has campaigned for will become a reality.

Perhaps I should begin by declaring a sort of interest. Although I have a fair degree of confidence in the good sense and judgment of the voters of Bath at the next general election, one should not be over-confident. I may have to look for a job at that time and, if so, I hope that this Bill will have gone through. In the past 24 hours, I have looked at job advertisements in two local newspapers, The Bath Chronicle and the Western Daily Press, and I am currently debarred from many of the jobs advertised.

For instance, I have some of the skills required if I want to be a sales executive. I have no experience of that, but the advertisement says that no previous sales experience is required, and I have well-developed communication skills and a high degree of self-motivation. Sadly, however, I am debarred from that job because the applicant must be between the ages of 25 and 35. A fascinating advertisement said that if I answered five questions correctly, I could excitingly ring Rachel on 011790 77733. I could answer four of the questions: could I drive; was I enthusiastic; was I seeking a career—I may be seeking one in the future—and was my appearance smart. Others must judge the answer to the last of those four questions. However, if I was to ring Rachel, I had to be between the ages of 18 and 45.

I might have wanted to be a training instructor, advising people how to use soft ice cream and thick milk shake equipment, but I note that I could not do that because only people aged 22 to 35 were sought, despite the fact that training would be provided. I got quite excited when I saw an advertisement with no age bar. It said that the company wanted an excellent communicator, a persuasive individual, able to strike up excellent relationships with customers. However, the advertisement went on:

"For talented people, this is an excellent opportunity to join a young and dynamic environment which offers excellent career scope for up and coming individuals."

It was an excellent way not to mention an age range, but, nevertheless, make it clear what was required.

It sounds like the Labour party.

I shall not comment on new Labour.

One job that I was surprised to see advertised, given that a certain television programme is enjoying popularity, was headed, "Do you have an inquisitive nature?" It said, if so:

"Busy Bristol-based Private Investigation Company is looking for out-going and confident agents … aged 20 to 30."

Clearly, that company has never hear of Hetty Wainthropp.

The Liberal Democrats fully support the Bill. I accept that the measure is limited and, like the hon. Member for Ilford, North, we should like to go much further and persuade the Government to update the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, which was last updated in 1989. We want additional comprehensive legislation, outlawing discrimination of all kinds, including religion, sexual orientation and age, to complement the existing legislation covering gender, faith, race and trade union membership.

No one should be denied access to employment for any reason that is unrelated to his or her ability to carry out a job, and no one should be hindered in the workplace because of matters irrelevant to his or her suitability for a job. The legislation that we should like would include outlawing age discrimination in advertisements for job vacancies, and this Bill is an important first step. That is why I am delighted to be one of its sponsors.

Unfortunately, discrimination in employment is still widespread, but tackling advertisements as proposed will at least begin to help to overcome that. Reference has already been made to last year's Age Concern survey, which found that one in 10 jobs advertised in The Sunday Times and 11 per cent. of the jobs advertised in The Daily Telegraph carried numerical age limits. The important thing to bear in mind is that a much higher proportion of those advertisements used language that effectively discriminated against particular age groups. Such discrimination is widespread, and I believe that it is detrimental not only to the individuals concerned but to the economy as a whole. Many skilled and experienced people are being denied access to jobs.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) talked about "corporate memory loss". She was right. Too many skills are going untapped. Although we all seem to have accepted the idea that the computer industry is intended only for young people, many firms are now having to go out and recruit the computer programmers of the 1960s, because they are the only people with the relevant knowledge and skills to deal with the problems caused by the millennium bug.

That is a good example of the way in which we should invest in such people and encourage them back into the workplace, helping them with retraining where necessary. We should ensure that there is protection against discrimination through the type of legislation before us.

We have tended to concentrate on the problems faced by older people, but it is always worth remembering that age discrimination applies equally to younger people. The Age Concern survey found that 18 million adults had found some form of age discrimination in employment, and the authors point out that more than half of those were under the age of 45.

We know how important the issue is. Some people will suggest that the problem could be resolved by the introduction of a voluntary code of practice. Clearly, that would be better than nothing, but I believe that all the arguments are in favour of specific legislation.

We need to persuade people of the real advantages of not discriminating against older people. We need to get them to realise the benefits that companies such as B and Q have gained by employing people with better interpersonal skills, the ability provide higher quality customer service and a wide range of skills.

Of course, a voluntary code of practice would help, but, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North rightly suggested, voluntary codes of practice in respect of gender and of race did not work. We had to introduce specific legislation to get rid of discrimination on those grounds. The same is true of discrimination on the ground of age, so I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will ensure that the Bill gets a Second Reading, goes into Committee and becomes law in due course.

I shall endeavour to be brief, because I understand that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute to the debate. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has now left the Chamber, but I shall still say that listening to her speech I found it difficult to understand why, after all that she had done, we had not seen a more marked improvement in the situation. She is unduly critical of what is being done.

However, I was interested to hear about the danger of corporate memory loss. That is not something from which we in Parliament suffer. On occasions, it has even been possible for me to contemplate the idea that we may occasionally have a surfeit of corporate memory in this place.

By the turn of the century, four out of 10 people will be over 45—a significant proportion of the population. More than 39 per cent. of those currently over 40 believe that they have experienced age discrimination in some way or another. Labour Research did a survey of job advertisements in 1995; at that time, 46 per cent. of them expressed an age preference. Where a preference was expressed for a particular age, 87 per cent. excluded the over-40s—research that is in line with what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) found. That striking picture can be seen in a number of contexts.

Over the past 20 years, the number of men aged between 55 and 64 who are not working has risen from 14 to 37 per cent. Many employers clearly see 50 as a watershed. Labour Members are great supporters of youth, youth culture and modernity, but I think it is taking that too far to see 50 as a cut-off point.

What would we be like without the older people in our lives? I think that we have to include almost all those present in that category. A few of my hon. Friends could possibly dissociate themselves from my remarks, but, sadly, the vast majority of us cannot. Few of us would be in the House if the over-50s, let alone the over-40s, were excluded.

Bernard Baruch, the American financier, said in 1955:

"Old age is always 15 years older than I am."

I must agree with that sentiment. I felt the same even when I was 25.

Dorothy Fuldheim, an American writer, said:

"Youth is a disease from which we all recover."

Nearly all of us here have recovered. In previous years, we have not always set the example for the country that we should have set, but, in this respect, I think that we do set an example. There is now a wide age range in the House. Members come here because—hopefully—they are respected and merit public support, not because they are young, or indeed because they are not young. Where would we be if we did not have the likes of my right hon. Friends the Members for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to name but a few?

Is that irony?

No, it certainly is not. It is genuinely felt, and I am sure that there are Conservative Members of whom the hon. Gentleman would say the same.

Madam Speaker is another example. She performs her role with great energy, and she has clearly passed 40—I shall put it that way.

What can people in their middle and older years contribute? I believe that merit is the proper criterion for employment, as it is in many other contexts. Age brings experience, wisdom, maturity and sense. Older people may be wittier, just as energetic as younger people, and very good to work with. A group of former colleagues visited me yesterday, all of whom had certainly turned 40 and all of whom are still energetically inspecting schools on behalf of the Office of Standards in Education. I am very well served in my office, where three people have turned 40. Although I have turned 40 myself, I still hope to acquire the additional qualities that age brings, such as experience and maturity. I am working towards that.

The country cannot afford, in any sense—economically, or in terms of the general well-being of individuals—to neglect and discard those who reach riper years. They not only have the benefits of experience, but are likely to have fewer family responsibilities, and to be more flexible and reliable. We need more of them, not fewer.

T. S. Eliot said in an interview in 1950:

"The years between 50 and 70 are the hardest. You are always being asked to do things and yet you are not decrepit enough to turn them down."

Let us apply that to employment—as, indeed, it should be applied to other areas of life.

In the short time available, I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on her presentation of the Bill, which she did extremely well. It is nerve-racking for any of us to do such a thing. I apologise to the Front-Bench spokesmen if I cannot stay to the end of the winding-up speeches. I am sure that they will understand.

Mark Twain said that, when he was 16, he thought his father was really stupid, but that, by the time he was 21, he was amazed by how much the old man had learned. Age and youth are relative things. I am honoured to be a co-chairman of the all-party group for older people and am delighted to see my colleague, the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), in the Chamber. I never quite knew whether I qualified. It used to be the all-party pensioners group; we changed the name recently. The qualification age seems to have gone down further and further; these days, it is between 45 and 50. I am 47, so perhaps I need to declare an interest in this debate; some mornings I feel that I qualify more than others.

I know from first hand the contribution that older people make to our community—and would make, if they were only permitted. In my constituency of Eastbourne, 40 per cent. of my voters are over retirement age. The majority of my constituents are over 45 or 50. That is the sort of age where discrimination seems to bite.

It is extraordinary to see the experience and wisdom that those constituents have accumulated. Many of them put it to good use in the voluntary sector, working for charities and other organisations. That is all splendid, but I am sure that many of them would have liked to continue working either up to or beyond the normal retirement age, simply because they did not particularly feel like retiring and believed that they had something to offer. They were not ready for the scrap heap. That is what the Bill is about.

As we have heard, the Age Concern survey found that 18.5 million adults believed that they had encountered some form of age discrimination. The problem is found in a variety of sectors, not just employment. We are told that 40 per cent. of post-heart attack rehabilitation programmes impose an arbitrary upper age limit on who can join, which is remarkable in itself. The benefit system is also relevant. One's date of birth can make a big difference to one's entitlement. Bills such as this need to be discussed in the financial services sector. People pay more if they are older. They miss out on some entitlements. Even hiring a car or renewing insurance can cost people more if they are older.

This is a timely debate, if for no other reason than that it represents yet another broken election pledge by the Labour Government. The past few months have been littered with broken pledges. We have heard the quote before, but it bears repetition. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said:

"an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal."—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]

Older people in my constituency will be as dismayed as I am that the Government have broken yet another pledge by reneging on their commitment to legislate against discrimination at work. They have announced a voluntary code of conduct for employers, rather than a change in the law.

As we have heard, Age Concern is equally dismayed, particularly as this coincides with age discrimination week. A spokesman said that Age Concern was

"very very disappointed the Government was not fulfilling the commitment made clearly in Parliament before the election."

At a meeting earlier this week with Lady Greengross of Age Concern, it was clear that Age Concern, representing millions of older people, felt that it had been severely let down by this Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not. I do not have time.

I appreciate the efforts of the hon. Member for Ilford, North in introducing the Bill. She must have had a massive postbag and I commend her for her efforts. Many technical matters of definition need to be addressed in the Bill and that is why we have a Committee stage, but, for the moment, the Bill deserves a fair wind and a Second Reading.

I, too, support the aims of the Bill, but, as currently drafted, it does not deal with some of the problems of age discrimination. Discrimination of any sort is, of course, unacceptable and we have had legislation for many years that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and, lately, disability, but attitudes take much longer to change. Even if the House were to enact the Bill today, it would not, unfortunately, ensure that age discrimination did not continue in workplaces, health services and the leisure and other industries.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No.

If we enact comprehensive legislation at some time in future—we should not rule that out—it will still take a long time to change people's perception and to educate them so that they see other people's merits and what they can bring to employment rather than simply their age.

As a young hon. Member, I can speak with some authority about age discrimination against younger people. During my selection as a candidate for the recent general election, comments were occasionally made about my age. I have always believed that it is not a matter of how old or young someone is, but whether they are capable of doing the job. Although in the House I feel young, when I watch my local football team in Watford I am conscious that the players are considerably younger than me.

I watched my father suffer age discrimination when he lost his job in his mid-50s. Despite looking much younger than his years—perhaps the House will allow me to be biased about that—he often faced discrimination when filling in forms that required him to state his age and details of his early education. When he finally gained employment, he suffered the comments of younger managers such as, "You are old enough to be my father" and "I am surprised that someone of your age is still working."

We all recognise that changes are required. Recently, one of my constituents, a capable and young-looking woman of 69, applied for a job in a well-known and highly respected high street store during the Christmas period. She requested an application form, completed it and handed it in with the passport photographs that were required. As she had previous retail experience, she was an ideal candidate. She was invited for an interview. When she got there the personnel department was quite impressed, but, being an honest woman, she felt that she should say that she was 69. She was promptly informed that company policy would not permit the store to employ her as she was over retirement age. Disappointed, she returned home determined to approach other employers who did not discriminate in that way. To make matters worse, over the next few days she was telephoned by the personnel department of the store and asked whether she was interested in work. Clearly, the staff had looked at her form and seen how much experience she had. When she advised them once again that she was 69, they apologised and said that they could not employ her. Since then, the company has apologised and provided a generous token, but it has not changed its policy.

Hon. Members will have encountered countless examples of discrimination in local advertisements, papers and among their constituents. Many people are extremely good at their job and at local community work irrespective of their age. If we are to attempt to remove age discrimination, it is important to debate the matter and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) has provided us with an opportunity to do so. However, it is a long-term objective and we must work harder to ensure that discrimination is removed and that company policy—as well as that of local authorities and the Government—is changed so that we can change people's attitudes.

We have just heard a fine and interesting speech from the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who I see from "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" was born in 1972 and began work as a part-time secretary in 1985—at the age of 13. I am pleased that there was no age discrimination there.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on introducing the Bill. It is a measure with a long history. We heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been pursuing his campaign for a long time with great vigour and persistence.

I want not only to congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North; I should like also to commiserate with her. I suspect that, when choosing to promote this Bill, she may have thought—having come so high in the ballot for private Members' Bills—that she would be in a position to start implementing the Labour manifesto pledge that, in work, older people

"should not be discriminated against because of their age."

However, rather than finding herself happily implementing a measure to pursue a manifesto commitment, she has the sad experience of her Bill being strangled at birth by being talked out in today's debate. She has gone from being a loyalist to being a rebel without her views on the subject of age discrimination changing one jot. I suppose that that is a feature of the vagaries of politics.

It is right to debate this subject this week because it is age discrimination week. Age discrimination is wrong in principle—that point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—and economically wasteful. I had the honour of participating in some of the work done in the Carnegie study of the third age, which very clearly established that employers are missing out because of their entirely irrational prejudice against older workers.

There have been some very encouraging experiments by organisations such as B and Q, which has actively gone out and recruited older workers. Whether such a policy would be possible under the Bill is an interesting point. Regardless, having actively recruited older workers, B and Q reports less absenteeism and sickness and higher rates of consumer satisfaction with the service that they receive in B and Q shops.

The Opposition's position on the Bill is that there are arguments in favour of it, but that there are also substantial arguments against it. There are concerns in the business community about the burden that businesses would face if such regulations were imposed. We believe that it would be right for the Bill to proceed to Committee, having secured a Second Reading, so that those arguments can be thrashed out—particularly in the light of the comment made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who went out of her way to say that she would be "flexible" in Committee and consider any practical amendments to the Bill.

Having stated the Opposition's position on the Bill, I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us the Government's view. This has been a rather erratic week for Government policy on older workers. First, we had a press notice from the Minister's Department that went on about a voluntary code of practice. That is fine—we have no problems with it—but it did not begin to clarify the Minister's view on legislation. Next, there were some quotations in the press that implied that the Minister had concluded against legislation. He apparently went beyond that press statement in his remarks to the press and talked about

"Trying to define some of these things in law could be setting up a minefield of complexity, with whole rafts of people going to industrial tribunals",

which sounded like a Minister preparing for a climbdown.

Subsequently, we were told that perhaps some legislation would be possible—which I believe the Minister said to the nation through the medium of the Jimmy Young show. It would be very helpful to know whether the Minister believes that there should be legislation to deal with the issue. I look forward to hearing from him on that.

Today, another ingenious defensive argument has been mounted—we heard it in the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is no longer in the Chamber—which is that the Government's commitment was to legislate comprehensively, so it would not be possible for the Government to legislate in a small but practical manner to deal with part of the problem. It is the argument that one cannot do a little but can perhaps do a lot.

The claim that it is impossible to implement the measures in this private Member's Bill because there may be subsequent and much more ambitious legislation is stretching credibility an awful long way, especially as the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—who was then the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—said in a press release issued on 8 February 1996 that

"Outlawing age discrimination in job adverts is a worthy beginning."

He believed that it would be a prelude to more ambitious legislation, so I cannot understand why the small measure before the House today has to be impeded because of the possibility of some more ambitious legislation later. I suspect that the Government have lost all interest in age discrimination. I suspect that they do not intend to legislate.

I suggest that we have clear evidence of the Government's real views on older workers in the pattern of expenditure in the welfare-to-work programme. We heard an extraordinary intervention from the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that employing older people would be an important part of the Government's welfare-to-work policies; but we know that, of the £3.5 billion that is to be spent on welfare-to-work measures, £3.15 billion—90 per cent.—will go on young people aged 18 to 24 and only £350 million will go on the long-term unemployed. Despite some rather vague promises from the Chancellor when he launched the pilot projects for welfare to work, a parliamentary answer to a question that I subsequently tabled clearly establishes that the Government have no intention whatsoever of offering older workers the four options available to 18 to 24-year-olds, unless they have been unemployed for two years—four times longer than it is necessary for 18 to 24-year-olds to have been unemployed.

We know that young people are the more mobile section of the work force and are able to get back into work more rapidly than older workers. They already have an 80 per cent. chance of getting off benefit within a year of being unemployed for six months. It seems extraordinary that the Government should display such bias against older people in the one practical intervention in the labour market—the welfare-to-work programme—that they have made since coming to office.

I shall conclude by quoting, yet again, the words spoken in 1996 by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield, who was then the shadow spokesman on this subject. He said:

"an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal."—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618]

If statements of policy made to the House from the Front Bench are to count for anything, the Government should be supporting the Bill this afternoon.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on her campaign on this important issue. I am grateful to her for the way in which she stated her case to the House. I listened with great interest to what she and what other hon. Members said.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I agree that unjustified age discrimination is unfair and a terrible waste of human potential. My hon. Friend's Bill and age discrimination week have achieved much in focusing greater public attention on these matters and on the need to counter age discrimination in employment. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the need to ensure that everybody has the chance to participate in the labour market. A modern economy needs a work force with the right skills and attitudes, and selection on the basis of age will often rule out the best candidate for the job. Such age discrimination is wrong, it makes no economic sense and it is unfair to the individuals affected. I share my hon. Friend's determination to tackle the sense of injustice felt in respect of age discrimination, especially as it affects older workers.

It is a bit rich for the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to criticise us for failing to legislate in nine months, when the Conservative Government they supported did not legislate in 18 years. Let me make clear the Government's position. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, although we recognise the importance of the issue and are determined to tackle age discrimination, we do not support the Bill as an effective or appropriate way of doing so.

Our reasons for taking that view are first—as I know my hon. Friend recognised because she referred to it in her speech—that the Bill does not itself tackle age discrimination; secondly, it raises expectations of equal treatment that it does not fulfil—under the Bill, employers would still be free to discriminate during selection on the grounds of age, even if the age limit were not stated explicitly in the advertisement; thirdly, the Bill does not make allowance for positive action for particular age groups, not least for older people themselves. The new deal would therefore be caught by the Bill. It would expose to legal challenge advertisement of the new deal, not only for the 18 to 24-year-olds, but for the over-25s.

In summary, the Bill, although intended sincerely to take a first step in getting to grips with a pressing issue, would not achieve its purpose and, I fear, would not provide the practical benefits for older workers that my hon. Friend, I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House desire. Although the Government do not feel able to support the Bill, I would like to underline our belief, as stated in our manifesto, that older workers should not be discriminated against because of their age.

If the Government do not see fit to support the Bill, which is not meant to outlaw overall age discrimination, but to be a first step along the path, will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the House today that we will see legislation in the life of this Parliament to outlaw age discrimination? I am not talking about codes of practice, which have proved ineffective in all other spheres of discrimination and would eventually result in the need for legislation, but a commitment to legislation to tackle discrimination on the grounds of age.

I am not making that commitment today, for the very reason that the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) acknowledged, said that they would consult, and that consultation is under way. I intend it to continue into the spring. I have met a range of groups and made a number of visits, and we are examining the issues closely.

I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I am persuaded that there is a case for drawing up a code of practice on age discrimination in employment. I believe that such a code could do much to address the practical issues that older workers and businesses face. More work clearly needs to be done to confirm the benefits of a code and what it should include, but I expect it to include guidance on recruitment practices and examples of where businesses have benefited from a progressive approach to recruitment and retention.

From comments that I have received so far, I believe that such a code would carry us forward in countering unjustified age discrimination. I think that it would be welcomed by employers, trade unions and employees alike. To be effective, the code would require all sides of industry to support it. In drawing it up, we shall, of course, consult leading organisations as well as the general public.

I take the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. If we implement a code of practice, the monitoring of outcomes will be crucial. I want to ensure that close scrutiny of what happens, with the introduction and operation of a code, is given a high priority.

I believe that a partnership approach is vital if we are successfully to tackle age discrimination in employment. We must challenge attitudes and change behaviour; in some cases, we must change beliefs, as well as taking a more mechanistic approach. We have an opportunity, with a Government who genuinely believe in tackling discrimination, to get people working together—employers, big and small, professional organisations, trade unions and the lobby—to achieve a code that will be of benefit to all.

I hope and feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will want to be actively involved in helping to draw up the code. Her campaign for her Bill will deserve to be remembered as a key catalyst for the action that we take. It has also prompted another announcement that I make today.

The Employment Service has always said that it is wasteful and short-sighted for employers to refuse to consider jobseekers solely on the grounds of age, but, to date, it has reluctantly accepted vacancies from employers who could not be persuaded of the skills and experience that older workers have to offer—in other words, who specify age limits.

However, in the spirit of change that the Government wish to bring about, the chief executive of the Employment Service has proposed that jobcentres should ordinarily no longer accept upper age restrictions on vacancies notified by employers. We shall obviously examine very carefully how this is to be implemented, but I believe that it is right in principle, so, as we consult on the code of practice, we shall examine how those arrangements can best and most fairly be put in place. That will be an example of the Government acting and giving a lead to counter unfair age discrimination.

In the spirit of change, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a Green Paper on age discrimination so that the merits of voluntary codes and legislation can be debated thoroughly and we can consult widely before moving forward?

I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that we shall publish the results of our consultation. I cannot today say exactly what status that publication will have, but obviously it will act as a useful stimulus to the further public debate, and shifts in attitude and behaviour, that we all want on this important issue.

I emphasise that, although we are progressing with consultation on age discrimination, the code of good practice and the change of Employment Service practice, those are not the only expressions of Government involvement, concern and action on these issues. There have been a couple of references in the debate to the new deal. Naturally, much publicity has surrounded the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, but we are not ignoring in the new deal the needs of those over-25s who are long-term unemployed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right in saying that there is an important link between tackling age discrimination and tackling effectively the scourge of long-term unemployment, especially for people in areas that have suffered devastating structural change, which has condemned very many people who have had a long working life to unemployment in circumstances where they see very little prospect of getting back to work.

That position must be challenged, and the new deal will help, as will other measures that the Government are taking, such as the introduction of employment zones. We are at present piloting five prototype employment zones, in Plymouth, Liverpool, south Teesside, Glasgow and north-west Wales. The aim of the employment zones is to focus on the needs of people, so that the programmes are fitted to people instead of people being obliged to fit the programmes. Within the terms of reference and the prospectus that the employment zone areas are drawing up, based on local partnership, action is being taken to help older workers into jobs.

All that is taking place in addition to the wide range of existing Employment Service measures already available to help older workers into work, including work trials, job interview guidance and job clubs. Job clubs may be of particular help to older workers, and job club leaders are given guidance to deal with issues that may especially affect the older jobseeker.

Through the Employment Service, we are piloting in north Tees a programme for jobseekers between the ages of 45 and 65, called "targeting the over forty fives". It offers a workshop-based programme covering job search techniques and a direct marketing and recruitment service, providing details of jobseekers to all companies in Stockton. That pilot will run into the spring and the results will be evaluated.

The Government are keen to support the invaluable community-based projects that are helping older workers into jobs. For example, the new directions 50-plus project in Harlesden provides one-to-one counselling and group sessions for unemployed older people and maintains a register to match clients with local employers' vacancies and in an inner-city area with a high proportion of unemployed over-50s, the project is proving succesful. I know something of this at first hand because I visited it last September. It is also an impressive example of how partnership can work in practice in challenging age discrimination and helping older workers into jobs. Partnerships are a key theme of all our back-to-work activities and this project combines the best of individual initiatives and the labour market needs of the local area. It is a partnership between Harlesden city challenge and the third age challenge with support from the Employment Service and other agencies.

That is but one example; there are many others. For example the FENIX project in Barnsley provides an integrated recruitment, guidance and training services with local partners such as the Bradford training and enterprise council. The over-50s job club—

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

I am naturally pleased to have been able to secure this debate on behalf of my constituents. I am also pleased that the debate will be answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, a man and a Minister whom I admire. He and I have had our exchanges across the Floor of the House from one polarity to another.

I should explain that while my constituency has the same name as the borough of Solihull—which, incidentally, is coterminous with the health authority—I represent only half of the borough by population, and rather less than half by area. The other Solihull constituency, Meriden, which together with mine makes up the entirety of the borough, is represented by my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). Her diary of constituency engagements for today was already full when I learnt last week that I had been successful in securing this Adjournment debate.

My hon. Friend regrets that she cannot be here, but I want the House to know how keenly she feels about health services in the borough. I shall see her tonight at a meeting about Solihull hospital and let her know what the Minister has to say. Meanwhile, I have shared with her the essence of what I shall say this afternoon and likewise advised the Minister in advance so that he can give a properly considered reply in the expectation, naturally, that I will share it with my constituents.

I should make it clear that I have no personal medical expertise. My standing, other than the humbly important one of being their Member of Parliament, representing them in the matter of public services in Solihull, is the same as my constituents'. I am, like them, at all times a potential patient. There are just two interests that it may be prudent for me to declare: I am a BUPA policy holder and I have been chairman—unpaid—of the Solihull Institute for Medical Training and Research.

The House will not be surprised if I say that in anticipation of this debate I sought observations from the principal bodies charged by statute with providing, administering and monitoring health services in Solihull. They have been most helpful to me. I shall quote from them from time to time in the 15 minutes or so at my disposal, but I shall quote selectively. I could not say all that they have said to me, anyway. The responsibility for my remarks today rests entirely with me. I seek to speak to the House and the Minister about the anxieties of my constituents, their perceptions and their needs for reassurance.

I shall start with Solihull health authority, which has recently undertaken a major restructuring of its management, resulting in savings of nearly 30 per cent. of management costs in the past two years. It is now a small, highly focused health authority that might be regarded as a model for future health authority reorganisation.

For learning disabilities Solihull was funded on crude population, but it is now funded on a mental illness formula that involves a reduction of 19 per cent. for 1998–99. Would it be possible for funding formulae to be needs-weighted, relating specifically to each broad service area?

The high number of GP fundholding practices in Solihull leads to concern within the practices that there should be a smooth transition to the primary care groups, without the creation of unnecessary upheaval and loss of morale. How can those practices be reassured?

Solihull healthcare trust would say that its three main concerns are, first, the need to find £900,000 cost reduction in 1999–2000, on top of a current £1.4 million reduction; secondly, the future of Solihull health authority in the light of the White Paper; and thirdly, the health authority's ability to maintain existing funding for mental health services.

The community health council has at least four concerns—the maintaining of accident and emergency services at Solihull hospital; mental health services—again—at the healthcare trust; community dental services; and the absence of clarity about the future role of community health councils in the White Paper.

Now, in no particular order, except that I am keeping the NHS hospital till last, I come to some observations from the BUPA Parkway hospital in Solihull. It asks to what extent the NHS, nationally and locally, has taken up the Secretary of State's recommendation that it work in partnership with the private sector to minimise the impact of the expected crisis in medical admissions this winter. In particular, is it being borne in mind that every self-funding or insured patient admitted to the private sector represents a free bed for a less fortunate patient? The private sector has an excess capacity in beds, as the majority of its work consists of day cases. Those beds can be made available at marginal rates and represent a cost-effective way of reducing the length of stay for surgical patients in NHS hospitals, allowing NHS trusts to carry out high-tech surgery and the private sector to take charge of the low-tech recovery phase. In some areas, the private sector can be cheaper than the NHS—for example, its physiotherapy rates for general practitioner fundholders are approximately £2 an hour less than those in the NHS.

Does the Minister have any figures on the income received from the abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance for the over-60s versus the cost to the Department of Health of providing services to those over-60s who are now the responsibility of the NHS? Has the NHS received any of the extra notional income from the abolition of tax relief? Finally, would the Minister care to comment on the Heartlands-Solihull merger, and what lessons might be learnt for the future mergers proposed or anticipated in the White Paper?

The Solihull Council for Voluntary Service—to which I pay tribute—has said:

"One knock-on effect of Solihull being a borough with a "manageable' population is that it becomes easier for staff in public and voluntary organisations to have close working relationships. There are, for example, excellent working arrangements between Solihull Healthcare NHS Trust and a range of voluntary organisations including Bereavement Counselling Service, Cancer Support Group, Crossroads and the Stroke Association. Although it is not automatically the case, such working relationships are likely to be less strong in larger population areas.

Similarly, the fact that there are co-terminous boundaries for the Health Authority and the Local Authority greatly assists co-operation between health services, education and social services."

Having said those things, there will clearly be many cases where economies of scale are such that Solihull itself cannot provide certain specialist health services. However, as access to those services can be bought in through existing contractual arrangements, it would not seem to follow automatically that Solihull needs to be part of larger organisational arrangements as a whole.

I turn next to the Solihull station of the West Midlands ambulance service, which has a good story to tell. In particular, it recognises that the nature of accident and emergency facilities at Solihull hospital requires a high proportion of patients—typically 60 to 65 per cent. in any month—to be transported to hospitals outside the borough. West Midlands ambulance service has positioned resources that have enabled response standards to be improved significantly during the past two years. Regular communications with Solihull health authority, Solihull metropolitan borough council and the community health council have built a joint understanding of needs and how they are best met.

I must add that I find it a little difficult to reconcile the comments of the ambulance service regarding accident and emergency at Solihull hospital with the statements by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), in his letter to me of 2 February 1998. However, I shall return to that matter by way of written questions or correspondence—or both if necessary.

That brings me to my conclusion, which must focus on Solihull hospital in the context of Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS trust. Before I do so, I must dwell for a moment on the merits of co-terminosity—it is an awful word, but it has provident meaning. A not inconsiderable number of agencies, statutory bodies and voluntary organisations respond to the concept, culture, boundaries and identity of a place called Solihull. They relate to each other within that understanding. Solihull is also a magistrates jurisdiction, for instance. It is a unitary authority for local government purposes. Surely it has a critical mass with a population of more than 200,000. The Government should disturb those relatable communities only if they are absolutely sure that some good will come to the people, in this case my constituents.

I conclude by referring to the NHS hospital. It is a magnificent state-of-the-art building to which has been added recently a renal dialysis unit; ophthalmology services, including cataract surgery; magnetic resonance imaging—MRI—scanning; and other specialist out-patient services, such as treatment for diabetes.

The real issue is, and has always been, not just what further services we might expect at Solihull, important as they may be—orthopaedic services, perhaps—but what the Minister can say to my constituents about the scope and future security of accident and emergency services at Solihull hospital. My constituents want to hear about those services and, in particular, services for children.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on securing time to debate a subject which I know is of importance to him and his constituents, and to which he brings a depth of knowledge, experience, wisdom and a commitment to the totality of health services in his constituency.

In November, the hon. Gentleman asked me whether Ministers had any plans to visit Solihull to see at first hand the health services provided. I explained at the time that I had a commitment to visit the Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS trust, which I fulfilled last Friday. I was enormously impressed by the professionalism of the staff to whom I was introduced. I had the pleasure of presenting an award to the nurses of ward 19 of Solihull hospital for their introduction of a new, non-invasive ventilation system for patients.

It would seem that the people of Solihull have firm grounds for confidence in the care that is available to them at the Solihull branch of the Heartlands and Solihull NHS trust. I say branch because one of the attractive things about that trust is the way in which two branches, two different sites, make one hospital. That was at the heart of the reorganisation of health services in the area, and the arrangement seems to be working extremely well.

In the past, I know that there was, as there inevitably is when two hospitals come together, a degree of uncertainty and concern on the part of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about the merger. That merger took place during the previous Conservative Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member.

When the brand new hospital opened in 1994, the people of Solihull were almost immediately presented with the threat of its closure due to a combination of financial and emerging clinical difficulties and the possible withdrawal of accreditation by the Royal College of Physicians for some senior house officer training posts. The hon. Gentleman knows all about the Save Solihull hospital campaign which followed.

The solution that was finally implemented after the report of a project group commissioned by the West Midlands regional health authority was a merger with Birmingham Heartlands, in accordance with the philosophy of one hospital on two sites. That provided for the protection of patient services, allowed for staff rotation to allow the culture of excellence to be spread, and ensured cover for smaller specialties. The reduction in management costs and the sharing of support services that resulted helped to eliminate Solihull hospital's financial deficit.

It would be helpful if I spoke about the improvement in services since the merger, because although it was accepted that the outcome of the merger was ultimately a reasonable one, local people had some understandable reservations about the perceived loss of identity to their local services.

The hon. Gentleman put great store on the distinct and unique identity of Solihull hospital. Some were concerned that they would be referred to Birmingham for treatments of any significance. I am glad to say—the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge this—that that did not prove to be the case.

Both the quantity and the quality of hospital health care provision have increased since the merger with Birmingham Heartlands in April 1996. Solihull hospital experienced many improvements after the merger. These include 24,000 more patients treated per year; the development of new patient services at Solihull, such as a £700,000 renal dialysis unit—during my visit to Heartlands and Solihull, I met staff who worked in and were responsible for the unit; a £500,000 ophthalmology unit and a £750,000 dedicated day procedures unit; the expansion of specialist services with clinics for paediatrics, diabetes, and vascular and thoracic surgery; the integration of planning for obstetrics and gynaecology services at both hospital sites within purpose-built women's units, providing the latest in medical expertise and technology; and the installation of a new £1.2 million MRI scanner, built and funded with the co-operation of the trust and the public.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the list is longer still, and the improvements in services were very much part of his speech. The point is that Solihull hospital has flourished since the merger. In a written reply to the hon. Gentleman in November, we provided him with an extensive list of the full range of services available at Solihull. It is a quality service. The standard is high, and the reasons for that are clear to see: investment, the dedication of staff, and the confidence of patients.

The performance of the trust has been outstanding. It has increased its number of five-star wards in the NHS league tables from two, three years ago, to 37 in the latest edition. At the same time, waiting times have been kept consistently low, with only 13 people waiting more than 12 months for admission at the end of December.

The hon. Gentleman is concerned about accident and emergency services at Solihull. He knows that the previous Minister of State made it a condition of the merger with Heartlands that a 24-hour A and E service would continue to be provided at Solihull. The hon. Gentleman also knows that, despite the political backing for the continuation of that service, the Royal College of Surgeons took a close look last year at its approval for training accreditation of senior house officers for A and E. I hope that he will agree that the Royal College is, of course, completely independent of Government. It had every right to examine its legitimate concerns for the provision of a safe and effective service, and to ensure that the quality of training for its juniors was adequate.

Despite its concerns, the Royal College reached agreement last autumn with the Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS trust on a way for the full A and E service at Solihull to continue. Training accreditation was confirmed until 31 July 1998, from which time the Royal College agreed in principle a pilot training programme involving A and E at Solihull, which would establish how recognition could be maintained in the merged trust configuration. I understand that negotiations on the training of junior doctors are still in progress with the Royal College. I wish them well.

As for the longer-term future, I am afraid that I cannot in good conscience provide the hon. Gentleman with any guarantees. The NHS is inevitably and rightly a constantly changing environment, and adaptation to that change, though sometimes difficult, is a necessity. In the circumstances, it would be rash for me to speculate about the future for Solihull hospital, or any other unit in the health service. As I have already said, I have confidence in the trust, its chairman and chief executive, with whom I have discussed these issues.

Will the Minister make it clear that, as he cannot see into the future or give guarantees, Solihull hospital is no different in that respect from any other hospital?

I am happy to clarify that. I cannot see into the future. The NHS is a constantly changing environment and it must adapt to changes in circumstances. That applies to all units of the health service. One of the matters that affect the future of A and E at Solihull is the negotiations with the Royal College. They are clearly of utmost importance, which is why I wanted to make it clear in the debate that I want those negotiations to reach a satisfactory conclusions and I wish them well. I cannot, however, determine their outcome. That is a matter for a totally independent body—the Royal College.

I know that the staff are first rate and that the chairman and chief executive have my full confidence and that of the staff and the local community in the service that they seek to provide.

In the remaining minutes, I want to pay tribute to the contribution of the other trust in Solihull, the Solihull Healthcare NHS trust. It, too, has attained a level of excellence that is reflected in the achievement of two five-star awards for short out-patient waiting times. The trust provides learning disability, mental health and community health services to a population of more than 200,000. The trust has a reputation for providing good quality services.

I note the hon. Member's concern about funding for mental health services. That must be a matter for Solihull health authority. Increasing the resources available for one part of the health service inevitably has an impact on another part. Local people will have an opportunity to influence this decision and contribute to the debate and the decision-making processes, as one would expect. There will be renewed debate when the health authority publishes its commissioning intentions each year.

The hon. Gentleman brought up the issue of needs-weighted allocation formulae. We are committed to a fully needs-based approach to resource allocation. Changes to the weighted capitation formula for the 1998–99 health authority allocations were recommended by the national resource allocation group. On the basis of the available evidence, the RAG recommended that we should apply the current psychiatric needs weightings to services for people with learning disabilities. The RAG also recommended that the blocks of expenditure for administration and other hospital services should be weighted for need.

We made those changes as part of our commitment to making the distribution of resources fairer. That is in support of our objectives of reducing both inequities in access to health services and inequalities in health.

The health authority recovery plan has required the working up of a recovery strategy, which has been carefully implemented, but it will obviously have a knock-on effect on the level of health services in the Solihull area that can be afforded. I am satisfied that the health authority is making every effort to ensure that the effects of that financial recovery on service provision are appropriate, and I know that it hopes to appoint a new chief executive soon to assist it in the process.

The health authority has made very significant progress in reducing its management costs and in developing a constructive and energetic GP commissioning council, which will be able to spearhead the developments proposed in our White Paper. I hope that the GP fundholders in Solihull, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, will work closely with the commissioning council to help ensure the smooth transition for which he wished.

The Secretary of State has made the position clear in terms of the private sector. It is for the local health authority, the trust and other local bodies to decide the most effective pattern of services and how those should be delivered. That will normally be achieved by making the best use of NHS facilities, which is what we have encouraged in our 1998–99 planning guidance. However, it is a matter for them how they apply the resources at their disposal—and I have no doubt that they will take seriously what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those important issues. I hear what he says about private medical insurance premiums, but let us be in no doubt about the fact that we have enormously assisted by diverting the resources from the previous tax reliefs to reducing VAT on fuel. That helps the most vulnerable, including the elderly.

In terms of the resources available to it, the NHS has been massively improved by the additional spending that the Government have provided—an additional £1.2 billion, not to mention the extra money for winter pressures, which has been well used in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.