text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Housing Bill - Improvements in Energy Efficiency - rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  The majority of the MPs voted to delete a clause from the [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/071/04071.i-viii.html Housing Bill] that had been inserted earlier by the House of Lords[1] which said:[2]
  
  ** For the purposes of
  * improving the energy efficiency of residential accommodation;
  * increasing the comfort level of occupants of residential accommodation; and
  * alleviating fuel poverty,
  :the Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure an increase in residential energy efficiency of at least 20% by 2010 based upon 2000 levels.
  
  Following this vote, Greenpeace took out newspaper adverts naming the MPs who had signed an EDM with the same promise, but who had voted against this clause.[3]
  
  A complaint by an unnamed MP about this ad was later partly upheld.[4][5]
  
  When the Bill returned to the Lords with the reason for rejection as "Because it involves a charge on public funds", the Lords inserted a an alternative clause, which read:[6]
  
  * The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that by 2010 the general level of energy efficiency of residential accommodation in England has increased by at least 20 per cent compared with the general level of such energy efficiency in 2000.
  
  This new clause (which looks a lot like the old one that was rejected by MPs) was accepted by the House of Commons, with the minister explaining:[7]
  
  :...we recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. We still believe that duties based on specific numerical figures are inflexible and better avoided in primary legislation, but we have decided to accede to the principle of the amendment as providing some comfort that the Government stand by the energy efficiency aim that they have declared... 
  :We listened carefully to the arguments made in this House and elsewhere and we accepted the strength of those arguments. What we emphatically did not take into account was the disgraceful full-page advertisement naming names that appeared in The Guardian newspaper after the vote here...
  
  The minister [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-11-17.1420.2#g1420.7 then ranted] that it was wrong for MPs to vote against their government, and citizens and organizations who attempted to hold them to account for votes "betrayed a total ignorance of the way in which Parliament works" because the only "voices to which [he] listened were the private representations of the colleagues who rightly supported the Government in the Divisions.
  
  * [1] [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-11-03&number=4&house=lords Housing Bill - Improvements in Energy Efficiency], House of Lords Division, 3 November 2004
  * [2] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-11-03a.311.5#g383.0 Baroness Hanham] (con), House of Lords, 3 November 2004
  * [3] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/nov/18/advertising.politics MPs condemn Greenpeace homes advert], The Guardian, 18 November 2004
  * [4] [http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=39760 Non-broadcast Adjudications], Advertising Standards Agency, 25 May 2005
  * [5] [http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/476953/greenpeace-ok-call-mps-untrustworthy-wrong-voting-reasons/ 
  Greenpeace OK to call MPs untrustworthy but wrong on voting reasons], Brand Republic, 25 May 2005
  * [6] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-11-16a.1396.0 Lord Bassam of Brighton], House of Lords, 16 November 2004
  * [7] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-11-17.1420.2#g1420.7 Keith Hill MP], House of Commons, 17 November 2004
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  