The Fuel Poverty Bill

Written by Colin Breed on Tue 24th Mar 2009

Friday's are generally considered to be 'constituency' days, where MPs can meet with constituents at surgeries, carry out casework and meet with local businesses without encumbering them with a trip up to Westminster.

Last Friday, however, I cleared my diary in order to attend one of the few 'sitting' Friday's, where Parliament debates Private Members Bills. In each Parliamentary session MPs put in for a ballot to write their own Bill on anything that will help their constituency, but with 646 MPs going for 20 places each year, winning is a lottery, one I have failed to win in the past twelve years.

However, my fellow Liberal Democrat MP, David Heath was successful, and chose to devote his time to a Fuel Poverty Bill which centred on energy efficiency. It stipulated that homes of the 'fuel poor' should be brought up to a measurable energy efficiency level so they are 'fuel poverty proofed' resulting in an average reduction of 50% on household energy bills. In other words, it would have reduced the amount of energy needed to heat every home in the country by reducing wastage. This would have effectively killed two birds with one stone, with households benefiting from a massive reduction in fuel bills, and the environment benefiting from a massive reduction in demand for electricity, and so contribute to the Climate Change agenda.

Indeed, such a plan would have been of great help to the Government's commitment to end fuel poverty among vulnerable households by 2010. It was therefore hugely disappointing that both the Government and the Conservative opposition failed to support the Bill. In the end, the Bill did not receive the backing of 100 MPs (it got 89, half of which were Lib Dems), which is vital if a Bill is to progress to the next stage.

In the debate it was mentioned that the Bill was good for the vulnerable, good for health within the UK, good for our environment and good for the economy. Nevertheless, the Government's approach was to talk the Bill out, which it duly succeeded in doing, and the debate was adjourned until the 12th June, at which point we will try again to make them see sense, although it is now virtually dead.

It always strikes me as odd that the Government can throw wads of cash at the banking industry (and then print some more when they run out), yet when a Bill is submitted that will help them achieve one of their manifesto pledges, they baulk and run. Perhaps I am getting old, but while the Government can sometimes be forgiven for rejecting other Parties' proposals, I was a little more surprised not to get the backing of the Conservatives, who like to make much of their new, compassionate and environmentally aware appearance.

At a time when MPs are under the spotlight for generous expenses, I would have hoped we could have shown the public that we can benefit them, by offering real support during hard times. Instead, kind words were offered, but no support. It is little wonder the average voter feels so disenfranchised.