Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2006.

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill - Standing Committee C

Clause 5 - Local targets for microgeneration

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 26—Microgeneration: local authorities—

‘In the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 (c. 30), after section 4 insert—

“4AMicrogeneration: local authorities

(1)The Secretary of State shall, after consulting the Local Government Association, and not later than six months after the passing of this Act, publish a report on ways in which local authorities can promote microgeneration and energy efficiency.

(2)The report published pursuant to subsection (1) shall consider how different types of local authorities can promote microgeneration and energy efficiency.

(3)Every local authority in England and Wales shall, within 12 months of the publication of the report pursuant to this section consider that report and in particular how the measures included in it can assist the authority in the discharge of its functions or the development of policies relating to—

(a)reducing emissions of greenhouse gases; and

(b)alleviating fuel poverty; and

(c)promoting domestic energy efficiency.

(4)For the purposes of this section a local authority satisfies the requirements of subsection 3 by ensuring that the report is placed on the agenda of a meeting of the authority or of any committee thereof.

(5)Every local authority may repeat that consideration at such intervals as it may determine.

(6)Every local authority may draw up, and thereafter revise as it sees fit, a report on measures to promote microgeneration and energy efficiency.

(7)Every local authority may take such measures that it sees fit and are within its powers to promote microgeneration and energy efficiency.

(8)The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities as to how they may discharge their functions pursuant to this section.

(9)In this section “local authority” means a district council, a borough council, a London borough council, a unitary authority or a county council.”.’.

New clause 28—Local authorities: duty to consider microgeneration —

‘(1)Every energy conservation authority in England and Wales shall, after having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the passing of this Act consider how microgeneration can assist the authority in the discharge of its functions relating to—

(a)reducing emissions of greenhouse gases,

(b)alleviating fuel poverty, and

(c)promoting domestic energy efficiency.

(2)A local authority shall satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) by ensuring that the discharge of its functions relating to microgeneration is an item appearing on the agenda of any meeting of that authority or of any committee of that authority.

(3)Every such energy conservation authority may repeat that consideration at such intervals as it may determine.’.

Government new clause 34—Parish councils and community councils: powers in relation to local energy saving measures.—

‘(1)A parish council or community council may encourage or promote any of the following—

(a)microgeneration within their area;

(b)the use within their area of electricity generated, or heat produced, by microgeneration;

(c)efficiency in the use, by persons in their area, of electricity, heat, gas, fuel and other descriptions or sources of energy;

(d)reductions in the amounts of such energy, or sources of energy, used by persons in their area;

(e)production in their area of—

(i)biomass, or

(ii)any fuel derived from biomass;

(f)use in their area of, or of electricity generated, or heat produced, from biomass or any such fuel.

(2)The power conferred by subsection (1) includes, in particular, power—

(a)on application, to provide information about goods or services available within their area offered or provided otherwise than by a person mentioned in section 142(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (provision of information, etc, relating to matters affecting local government), or

(b)to provide advice or assistance,

for the purpose of encouraging or facilitating any of the matters mentioned in that subsection.

(3)Nothing in this section authorises a parish council or community council to provide any financial assistance by—

(a)making a grant or loan,(b)giving a guarantee or indemnity, or

(c)investing by acquiring share or loan capital.

(4)The power conferred by this section is exercisable by a council only to the extent that they do not (apart from this section or section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (power of local authorities to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise authorised)) otherwise have the power.

(5)For the purposes of subsections (4) to (7B) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)—

(a)any expenditure incurred by a parish council or community council under this section is to be treated as having been incurred under that section, and

(b)any purpose for which expenditure may be incurred under this section is to be treated as a purpose for which such a council are authorised by that section to incur expenditure.

(6)Subsection (5) applies to expenditure incurred by a parish council or community council under section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) on information as to the services provided by them under this section, or otherwise relating to their functions under this section, as it applies to expenditure incurred under this section.

(7)The appropriate person may by order amend the list of matters mentioned in subsection (1) by—

(a)adding any other matter whose addition would in the opinion of the person making the order be likely to contribute to reduction of greenhouse gases in England and Wales;

(b)omitting any matter for the time being included in the list.

(8)In subsection (7), “the appropriate person” means—

(a)in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and

(b)in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales.

(9)The power conferred by subsection (7) includes—

(a)power to make different provision for different cases, and

(b)power to make such supplemental or consequential provision (including provision modifying this section) and such transitional or saving provision as the person making the order thinks fit.

(10)The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (7) is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(11)No order under that subsection may be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the order has been—

(a)laid before Parliament, and

(b)approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Amendment (a) thereto, *leave out subsection 3(a).

Government amendment No. 13.

I have exercised the Chairman’s discretion to allow amendment (a) despite it being a starred amendment.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I also remind Members of the declaration of interest that I made at the start of the first sitting.

Clause 5, and the related new clauses, deal with the issue of how local government can best contribute to encouraging the take-up of microgeneration. The clause as originally proposed put requirements on local authorities to set targets at local level, but I understand that that was an issue on which some difficulty has been expressed in certain quarters. I have therefore tabled new clause 26, which seeks to address the issue in a different way that may find more favour with those who saw difficulties with the original clause.

Members are aware that the importance of tackling climate change is now broadly accepted across the political parties and by the public. Although many local councils are doing good things, and some local councils are doing a lot of very good things in terms of local action to tackle climate change, the Energy Saving Trust reported in a survey earlier this month that 92 per cent. of local authorities were not prioritising climate change, which I find concerning.

It is disappointing, because local authorities are important in the field of energy efficiency but can also do a great deal in the field of microgeneration. Some Members will know that the DTI’s own report, undertaken with the Energy Saving Trust at the end of last year, suggested that, with the right policy framework, microgeneration could supply 40 per cent. of the total electricity needs of the country by 2050, and reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 15 per cent. It is important, therefore, that the initiatives that are being put in place at national and UK level are matched by action on the part of local government.

I know that there is concern that it is wrong to be too prescriptive about how local government implements policy at local level to reflect national priorities, so the new clause would put on the local government agenda the issue of promoting microgeneration and energy efficiency. There is every reason to believe that that could be an extremely successful way to encourage local government to make promoting energy efficiency and mircogeneration a higher priority.

There is the experience of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which required local authorities to consider domestic energy efficiency. Local authorities all did that, and some three quarters took constructive action. The example of that particular legislation and its effect on local government suggests that, if we do the same with microgeneration, it could have an impact on what local government is doing. We would encourage the 92 per cent. that are not doing as much as they could to follow the example of the 8 per cent.—from various political parties—that are taking a lead.

I know that the Minister, his Department and the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the issue. He has himself suggested various ways in which local authorities, and in particular local schools, could encourage take-up of microgeneration by practical examples in their own localities. I hope that, if the Minister is unable to accept the clause as drafted, he will be able to give a more positive indication of how matters can be taken forward as set out in my new clause.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I wholeheartedly support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 26. If anything, I fear that it does not go far enough in having firm, clear measures that will tackle the problem of promoting microgeneration. There are a range of other matters, and we shall come to them during this sitting in discussing other amendments that I have tabled. There is a clear need to address the fact that, at local authority level, where most action needs to be taken, climate change is not at the top of the agenda. That is not just an assertion, or a feeling that I have or that others experience on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

The Energy Saving Trust took a poll of more than 300 local authorities recently throughout the UK, and it discovered that two thirds of local authorities perceived a lack of leadership from central Government as a significant obstacle to taking a strategic approach to climate change. More than 90 per cent. of those local government respondents said that other issues take higher priority in their council. There must be the inclusion of a duty at least to consider microgeneration as well as other initiatives at local authority level. New clause 26 goes some way to amending that deficiency. Mr. Benton, should I move on to new clause 28 or would you like me to speak to it separately?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Yes, you shall speak to it. New clause 28 is grouped.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I support new clause 26, and I hope that the Minister will take the hon. Gentleman’s comments and suggestions on board.

New clause 28 supersedes new clause 22, which I tabled earlier. New clause 28 would require all local authorities to consider how microgeneration and energy efficiency can assist them in the discharge of their functions relating to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and alleviating fuel poverty. I ask colleagues to note carefully in the new clause the two words “can assist”. They are all important, as will become clear.

I shall put new clause 28 into context. The Government’s energy review pointed out that the Government are likely to undershoot their own CO2 target by 50 per cent. no less. That is serious. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, whom I shadow, wrote in The Independent on 23 February that

“it is essential that we all, industry, public sector and individuals, play our part in dealing with climate change.”

I agree. The new clause is about just that, dealing with one vital part of the public sector—local authorities.

In a survey earlier this month, the Energy Saving Trust reported that 92 per cent. of local authorities are not prioritising climate change. There is a real problem, but we can deal with that today. The new clause would do so in a light touch way, but one that I hope would produce action. It would require local authorities to consider how microgeneration and energy efficiency can assist them in achieving their climate change objectives. As a legal minimum, it would mean that the issue were at least placed on the council’s agenda. That is all. It would go before the elected members, as the trust’s report recommended. The action that follows would then be at the discretion of the local authority. There are some who might say that this is too light a touch, and I can see their point. I have a great deal of sympathy with that comment, but first we must try the lighter touch approach with local authorities, rather than the heavy hand. There is strong evidence that such an approach can work.

What are the results? Let us look at the evidence. Based on the evidence of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, which similarly used a light touch to encourage local authorities to consider domestic energy efficiency, the new clause would probably have the following effect. The handful of Mertons, Wokings and Croydons comply with it anyway, so the new clause would not make much difference to them. However, we are aiming at the rest. On the HECA model, 100 or so would respond with good results; maybe 10 or 20 would be outstanding. A further 200 would respond with reasonable or quite good results and 100 would respond with poor results. We might reasonably expect that up to 300 authorities would respond with proactive policies on microgeneration and energy efficiency to deal with climate change. I would like it to be 400, but 300 would be a good start. Omit the new clause and that will not happen: it is as simple as that.

There is a bit of a roadblock, which is our old friend, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. As with other clauses we will discuss, I have to report opposition from within the Government. Not, I hasten to add, from the Minister, who is a very reasonable fellow. From what I hear from many people, his attitude to the Bill is exemplary and as far as some non-governmental organisations are concerned, he has done a great deal. However, the ODPM says that the provisions would be a new burden on local authorities that would cost money, which the Government would have to provide.

I assure the Committee that my party is very conscious of spending pledges and so-called new burdens, and I am sorry that my colleague, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is not here to endorse that, but let us look at the new clause. It would require councils to have as an agenda item for consideration how microgeneration and energy efficiency may help. Thus, the burden is that someone types out, “Agenda item, number whatever. Climate change, microgeneration and energy efficiency”. The councillors can then discuss the matter. I dare say that a civil servant somewhere in the great Whitehall machinery has worked out the notional cost of someone doing that, but I do not honestly think that it is a genuine cost in the real world. The burden is five minutes of someone’s time. It will not even take five minutes, if they are a speedy typist—well, faster than me. It is de minimis in the extreme and I advise the DTI to accept that.

Are there any other burdens? Again, I point out the wording of the new clause. It talks of councils considering energy efficiency and microgeneration to assist them in meeting their objectives on climate change and fuel poverty. The action they take is up to each council: it is discretionary. As a champion of localism, I am a great believer in local discretion. It is not a duty; councils can take action if they consider it will assist their plans. In plain everyday English, that is the opposite of a burden. It is, to use the wording of the new clause again, an assistance in achieving their objectives. Only the ODPM could see it otherwise.

I end, therefore, by asking the Minister to take up the matter with the ODPM. We will not press the issue today, but it could be a very different story on Report on the Floor of the House. The new clause is important: action by 300 local authorities should not be missed. It is a light touch mechanism and it really is the least we can do.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am pleased to support new clauses 26 and 28. I hope that the Minister will listen to the tone and tenor of the debate and be able, if not to endorse the new clauses—everyone seems to be privy to the Minister’s views before I am on this occasion—at least to give a clear indication that he will respond sympathetically.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the Bill’s promoter said. As someone who has been down the path before, I know that he is walking on eggshells trying to encourage the Government to be as radical as possible while not alienating the few friends he has on this. As a result, he cannot vent his frustration as he might want to do about the slow pace at which concessions are wrung out of the Government. It is time for another one, and he deserves that, so the Minister should give him some aid and comfort.

I want to speak about new clause 28, to which the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) spoke. The cause is a good one and, as he said, he is applying a light touch in his proposals. Indeed, as he may have said, the touch may be too light, but it is about as radical as we can hope to get past the Government at the moment—and it may be too radical even for that.

I spent the earlier part of today responding in detail to the consultation document of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on a code of sustainable homes. I hope that it will not be out of order to draw the Committee’s attention to what a timid document it is. That, too, is an example of a light touch and the avoidance of rules and regulations in favour of gaining consent and voluntary action. Consent and voluntary action are difficult to achieve from commercial builders who must make a profit and justify their operations to their shareholders. The reality is that neither the code of sustainable homes nor the light touch regulation that we are discussing are likely to be effective unless regulations are brought into effect, building is brought under control and there is some system for examining the way in which the legislation is implemented. In other words, it should be monitored and checked.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for mentioning the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which he said was introduced under a Conservative Government. It was in fact introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleague who is now Baroness Maddock in the other place. I recall that the Committee stage of that Bill was also fraught with difficulty in persuading the Government of the day to move forward. Baroness Maddock would certainly concede that the legislation could have been stronger and it would have been stronger but for the resistance of the Government of the day.

Now that time has moved on and climate change is being taken seriously, apparently by the Prime Minister and certainly by the Minister here today, I hope that the Government will show some real signs of determination to make progress. To do so, we need legislation, not just codes of practice, that places binding obligations on developers and builders about what they should do when they construct, alter or extend property. We need a system to ensure that when those regulations are in place they are monitored to ensure that they are implemented properly.

New clauses 26 and 28 are tentative moves in that direction and I hope strongly that the Minister will take the hint from the drift of the discussion today and concede that they should be added to the Bill.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

There is one small tail-end Charlie to this group of amendments. You kindly used your discretion, Mr. Benton, to add amendment (a) to the selection of amendments for discussion. It would amend new clause 34, which fulfils the Minister’s agreement to reintroduce my parish councils clause, and yet again I find myself thanking him for taking that on board. However, I have but one point to make.

ODPM officials, when drafting the clause, omitted to include grant or loan making as a power for parish councils, as in my original clause. In fact, their new clause, which I understood from the Minister was supposed to mirror my original clause but with more technical proficiency, specifically prevents parish councils from having that. I believe that officials have agreed to reconsider the provision. My amendment would provide for it, allowing parish councils the discretion to make small grants or loans, perhaps to help a local farmer or a community enterprise start a biomass scheme. We are talking only about small, discretionary projects. Of course, the power would be subject to proper financial procedures, and with that procedural safeguard I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

Mr. Benton, it is good to see you in the Chair again for what could be our last sitting. We shall have to wait and see.

I shall deal first with new clauses 26 and 28. They are similar and aim to push local authorities to consider how microgeneration can help them in the discharge of their functions in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, alleviating fuel poverty and promoting energy efficiency. The key difference seems to be that new clause 26 would require the Secretary of State to publish a specific report on the ways in which local authorities could promote microgeneration and energy efficiency.

Yet again, I am given the opportunity to emphasise the important contribution that local councils can and do make to our climate change objectives and the social aspects of fuel poverty. Of course, we need to do more. We talk a great deal about Merton, Woking, Croydon—the Conservative spokesman talks more about Croydon than I do, modestly—and other exemplars that hon. Members may care to mention. I know that 100 councils have signed up to the Nottingham declaration on climate change, which commits participants to tackling climate change actively. That still leaves three quarters of local councils that may not be engaging in that agenda.

The Government—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and all Departments—want local authorities to tackle climate change. We want to understand what it is that has enabled our exemplars to take the actions that they have, and why it is that more local authorities have not followed. We must understand what local authorities are already doing and what best practice is available, and discuss with the Local Government Association the best way to take matters forward. We intend to do that.

We shall say more about that in the new climate change programme. It would be premature to decide whether and how to legislate on the matter, particularly when other avenues, such as planning guidance—I shall say more about that later—are available and can be used to promote particular action. Given the approach that I am suggesting, involving discussion with the Local Government Association and consideration of powers under planning, new clauses 26 and 28 are very prescriptive and have a certain element—I am not sure whether the pun is intended—of micro-management about them.

It is not desirable for the Government to specify how local authorities take matters forward through the use of agendas for meetings and the rest. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, despite being an advocate of the new localism, seems to be an advocate of the new centralism, specifying how councils should conduct their business. Our approach is to give local authorities flexibility in the delivery of their responsibilities. We also need to be careful about imposing on local authorities extra burdens that we do not have the ability to finance. Even though I am sympathetic to the aims of the new clauses—and I am, as I want more Mertons, Wokings and Croydons—I am not convinced that they represent the best way to engage local authorities. Therefore, given the approach that I outlined, I oppose the inclusion of the new clauses in the Bill.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I hear what the Minister is saying about the prescriptive nature of putting an item on the agenda, but how does his laissez-faire approach, which would not disgrace a Victorian entrepreneur, chime with the statement by the Prime Minister today to the “Stop climate chaos” group, in which he stated that the cost of inaction was clear, and that every week there were new and authoritative scientific studies warning that without urgent action the present situation may be just a taste of what the future holds? Urgent action; the cost of inaction is clear—does that chime with what the Minister has just said?

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

The hon. Gentleman represents a party that is somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately to the climate change agenda, and we welcome him to the club. However, this Government do not need to apologise for their record on climate change. Indeed, we have led the world on this important issue in a variety of ways, not least through our broad support for the Bill. We are very much in favour of further action.

The hon. Gentleman and the party of Joseph Chamberlain and the rest should recognise that we must be careful about being over-prescriptive with local government. If central Government had been over-prescriptive, we may not have had the interesting developments in Woking or the Merton experiment, let alone the initiative in my borough of Croydon. I gently advise Conservative Members, as they search for a new political raison d’être, not to be too top-down or nanny state-ish. Some advice from new Labour is to avoid the nanny state mentality and not be over-prescriptive in telling elected local authorities exactly how they should do things and what they should have on their agendas. That is my point.

I want local authorities to embrace microgeneration and climate change strategies, and to come forward with all kinds of ideas that the men and women in Whitehall, who do not always know best, may not themselves have thought of. That is just a little advice. We need to have this important dialogue. [Interruption.] I do not view my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith as one of the grey men of Whitehall—there are too many of us already.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I shall do my best to reassure the Minister. Given the line that he is taking, which does not come as a complete surprise to me, I wonder whether he could give some thought today or at a later stage as to what might be the best way to incentivise local authorities to follow best practice, so that the good examples that we have heard about will be taken up much more widely.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

One idea might be for those of us in this Committee and in the Chamber who advocate a municipal role for microgeneration to challenge our local authorities. I do not need to do that in Croydon. I do not know whether all the members of the Committee represent authorities that I have described as exemplars, but, if they do not, they should leave the Committee Room now and challenge their municipality on these issues. That is one way to do it.

Another way is to look at the planning issues that I have mentioned, and which I shall touch on later in another context. This debate is not about discouraging local authorities—far from it—but about the best way of doing things. Even in this new era of the Conservative party, I question whether a top-down approach is necessarily the right one.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I shall give way to an advocate of the new localism.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle makes a more subtle point than the Minister gives him credit for. He drew a distinction between the Minister’s practice—in fact, he was rather generous to him—and that of the ODPM. Localism and decentralisation are commendable, but is the culture in the ODPM not incredibly centralising, and do not many of the targets and strictures to which local government is subject emanate from that Department, if not his own?

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I do not quite recognise that. When I discuss these matters with the Minister for Housing and Planning, as I have in the past few days, we are at one in trying to develop the right approach. I think that the ODPM in particular, conscious of concerns about council tax burdens, is at pains not to suggest any approaches that could be seen as new burdens with financial implications. That is one of the balances that we need to get right.

Hon. Members will recall that, during the second sitting of the Committee, we debated the role that might be played by parish councils in helping to promote local energy saving measures, and I drew attention to the wide variation in size and activities of parish and town councils, acknowledging that the larger ones might well wish to play a part in energy saving in their locality. That is an important theme, given that many of the energy projects that we need to develop are often quite small scale and are very much at the community and parish level.

I explained to the Committee that although the Government perceived that there could be usefulness in a discretionary power of the sort that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle proposed, there was uncertainty about the scope of the existing general power under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. I promised to consider those matters further and table a Government amendment. New clause 34 essentially clarifies both what may reasonably be expected from parish councils should they decide to use the discretionary power, and their power under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Recognising the resources that are available to parish councils, the provision demonstrates ways in which they might encourage or promote local energy saving measures such as microgeneration, energy efficiency and general reductions in energy consumption. It allows them to promote production of biomass or fuel derived from it or from waste in their local area—something that is obviously applicable to rural areas in particular. It also allows for the list of measures in which parish councils may want to become involved to be amended as other energy saving initiatives become available.

One of the most useful roles that a parish council can play is to provide advice and information for its residents. Often, parish councils are the first port of call regarding local services and facilities. The Government see parishes as key to neighbourhood agendas and believe that more can be done at the parish level. Providing advice and assistance on local energy saving measures fits in well with those aims. Parish councils will also be able to work together on such measures, as well as with principal authorities and other bodies, to achieve successes locally in energy saving.

The power enables local councils to assist in energy saving measures in their locality, but the Government are mindful that there should not be a new burden on parish councils or—through the parish precept on council tax—on their electors. Any expenditure under the power will therefore be treated as having been incurred under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

The fact that the measure is a power rather than a duty does not necessarily prevent it from being a new burden. If we give powers to local authorities, it is generally because we expect them to be used, and the Government have to provide the necessary funding to avoid the use of the powers becoming a pressure on council tax. In the present case, although parish councils would not be obliged to encourage or promote energy saving measures, there might be an expectation that they use the discretionary power. Indeed, I look forward to the first story about controversy concerning a micro-wind turbine in Ambridge, which I am sure will come sooner or later.

Parish councils are not being encouraged to incur additional costs as a result of the clause, which clarifies their existing powers. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for raising the issue, and I hope that he is fairly satisfied by the approach that I have outlined.

It may be useful if I close my remarks by addressing the amendment that you, Mr. Benton, have today allowed us to consider—proposed amendment (a) to new clause 34. The question whether parish councils can make grants is quite complex. Under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, parish councils can in certain circumstances incur such spending. We need to consider that expenditure and the links that it has to the amendment, as well as the terms of grants, their recipients and how such expenditure is monitored.

There are plenty of other ways in which parish councils can help in relation to energy saving, rather than by making a grant. However, we are not necessarily closing the door on the issue of grant payments by parish councils and would be prepared to consider it further. If the hon. Gentleman can give evidence for the need for such a power, perhaps we could return to the matter on Report.

In summary, we oppose new clauses 26 and 28, given the alternative approach I have suggested. I shall move new clause 34 later, but I oppose amendment (a) for the reasons I have just evidenced. I also propose to move amendment No. 13, which is a consequential amendment that will be required if clause 5 does not remain in the Bill.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am afraid that that is a rather disappointing start to the Committee’s proceedings this afternoon. I am grateful to the Minister for the glimmer of hope on my small, tail-end Charlie amendment, but on the substantive issue of trying to incentivise and generate a degree of momentum locally for microgeneration, I find it difficult to understand how he can be so conservative regarding such a light-touch measure.

I cannot believe that the Minister could have marshalled those arguments; I can only believe that there are forces at play in the Whitehall machinery that I do not begin to fathom precluding him from taking the obvious stand, which the Prime Minister’s rhetoric indicated the Government should take. I cannot find any correlation between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric in the 1,300 words he expended at the “Stop climate chaos” rally and the mealy response given to a very timid measure this afternoon.

On the question whether we are over-egging the case, I point the Minister to the CSR Magazine spring edition, which features an article on the chief executive of Gazeley, Europe’s leading warehouse developer, which I visited yesterday to see a large site that it has recently constructed for Woolworths. Those are two very large companies. Hon. Members may remember my mentioning Gazeley previously; it is owned by Wal-Mart, which is certainly not a dewy-eyed not-for-profit organisation. In that magazine, the chief executive was asked the following questions:

“do you feel that Government, as a partner to UK business, is actually providing organisations such as yourselves with the necessary regulatory and fiscal frameworks, the appropriate advice, support, direction and advocacy? Or is the corporate sector being left to fill the leadership void?”

He responded:

“Government hasn’t filled that void and business is being left to fill it. What I really do feel is that Government has to change the name of the game. My own view is that there has to be a cohesive strategy, ideally cross-political, to deal with these huge issues”.

There are financial incentives and disincentives to reward certain behaviour and discourage other behaviour, so that we can move the agenda along.

The Minister and his colleagues are simply out of touch with best practice in business—of developers or house builders—if they think that there is huge resistance to even modest attempts at reform. We shall never ever get beyond merely tinkering with new technologies such as microgeneration if there is no clear leadership from the Government. If they are not even prepared to put it on the agenda, how will we ever get beyond the wonderful islands of excellence, such as in the Minister’s own constituency of Croydon, to other authorities that really are dragging their feet? We do not want exemplars around the country but a uniform roll-out right across the United Kingdom. I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response.

New Clause 27 - Compliance with building regulations

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

The new clause deals with compliance with building regulations. I believe that Members across the House are aware that building regulations, in particular part L, play a key role in the promotion of energy conservation and measures to reduce carbon emissions. This issue was specifically acknowledged in the 2003 White Paper. Recent revisions to part L have included the introduction of tighter glazing standards and a requirement from April last year for all new and replacement boilers to be A or B rated. From April this year, further changes to part L will be introduced, including mandatory testing for air pressure leakage.

All those things can make a major contribution to energy conservation, but for many years there has been widespread concern about whether the welcome part L provisions were being complied with. I believe that that concern is shared throughout the industry, among building control practitioners and in the ODPM at the highest level. Indeed, a recent study of new homes conducted by the Building Research Establishment and National Energy Services suggested that almost half of all new houses did not comply with part L, even though they had been formally signed off by building control officers as compliant.

Obviously, that issue is of extreme concern in ensuring that building regulations are to be relied on to deliver carbon savings. The ODPM expects nearly 1 megatonne of carbon savings every year as a result of the latest changes to part L, but it is clear that that figure will be reduced if measures are not taken to ensure compliance. DEFRA has estimated that better enforcement of building regulations could yield up to 0.1 megatonnes of extra carbon saving every year. In a more popular form, that is the equivalent of installing 20 million energy-saving lights or insulating 375,000 cavity walls every year. That is what we will lose if we do not have proper compliance.

For that reason, the new clause contains two principal provisions. First, the purpose of proposed subsection (1) is to solve the problem of the short time limit for launching enforcement proceedings for offences under part L of the building regulations. Under the proposal, the time limit would run from the time when the offence was discovered rather than from when it was committed. That could be extremely important.

Proposed subsection (2) is intended to act as a launch pad for a more comprehensive Government assessment of non-compliance and the reasons for it. It would impose a statutory requirement on the Government to undertake a full analysis of a problem and to provide a comprehensive range of measures to address it. Measures along the lines of those set out in the new clause have widespread support throughout the industry. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long on the new clause, which would be an eminently sensible addition to the Bill. It is essential not only that we legislate effectively to meet the challenges of climate change, but that all the measures that we put in place are subsequently properly and effectively enforced. I heard what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said. I believe that the new clause would be a sensible addition to the Bill and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

When I was preparing my Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill, officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked me to include a provision to allow for better enforcement of building regulations. As the administrators of the regulations, they fully understand that there are serious shortfalls in the way in which the current system is administered. I included such a provision in that Bill, the House approved it and it is now part of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004. However, in the 17 months since, nothing has been done by the ODPM to bring that provision effectively into force.

New clause 27 is important and valuable, and I support it. However, it would be useful to hear from the Minister what the Government’s official view is now on the effective enforcement of building regulations. Some 18 months ago, they were apparently enthusiastically in favour to the point of urging me to include such a provision in my Bill, but we seem to have moved to a position in which they are no longer in favour of implementation or at least appear to have drawn stumps on that game. It will be interesting to hear what the Government’s attitude is to new clause 27 and, more generally, about their attitude to the principles behind it. It is one thing to have slogans and speeches and another to pass legislation, but it is a third thing to see that legislation enforced and the slogans come to pass in real policy terms.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I am glad to be able to support the intentions of the new clause, which seeks to extend the time limit within which local authorities may bring prosecutions for breaches of part L of the building regulations. It would also require Ministers to report to Parliament on the steps being taken to secure greater compliance with part L. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning takes this issue very seriously, and such a report should provide a useful opportunity to demonstrate the extent of the Government’s action to achieve that.

Extending the time limit within which councils may bring prosecutions for breaches of part L should make it more difficult for those who fail to comply with the regulations to escape the rigours of the law. A key change is for the time limit to be triggered by discovery of the breach. It is all too easy for latent and other defects to come to the attention of the authority only a while after the six-month time limit has started to run. That can sometimes make it difficult to pursue a case. In making such changes, it is important to ensure that they are reasonable and in line with the accepted approach to prosecutions for summary offences.

Officials in the Department of the Minister for Housing and Planning have been considering the matter and taking detailed cross-governmental advice. They are considering a formula that is similar in nature but has different provisions, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will be prepared to accept as one that would command support throughout Parliament. Under that formula, the limit for taking proceedings would remain at six months, not 12, but with one fundamental change, as requested by representatives of local authority building control bodies, whereby the period would be triggered when the local authority had sufficient evidence of the offence.

The overall period in which proceedings for an offence could be brought would be capped at two years, not three, and the proposal would seek to set out in more detail the process that would apply. In essence, discovery of the offence would mean when there was in the opinion of the prosecuting authorities sufficient evidence to justify prosecution, not when the offence is committed, as is currently the case.

Once prosecuting authorities were at the point of having sufficient evidence, a six-month period to launch proceedings would give them reasonable time to launch the investigation. It is in keeping with the need to expedite justice. The six-month period is also consistent with a general default period for bringing prosecutions that apply to the vast majority of summary offences, as section 127(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 makes clear.

Additionally, in relation to summary offences, where provisions have differed from the general default period, there are examples of a six-month period from the date when the authorities have sufficient evidence. I am advised that we should refer to sections 12(4A)(b) and (4B)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 71(a) of the Animal Health Act 1981. An overall time limit of two years is consistent with the Government’s drive to get summary cases heard more quickly and to ensure that such prosecutions are given the priority that they deserve.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith can endorse that approach, which has been discussed with and, more importantly, agreed to by representatives of local authority building control bodies, we hope to bring forward, subject to finalising cross-Government support, a suitably drafted replacement clause for consideration on Report.

Finally, I should acknowledge to the Committee that changing enforcement provision in relation to one part of the regulations is a somewhat novel proposal. The Bill, however, gives us an important opportunity to send a clear signal about how seriously we take compliance with part L. It is the intention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to seek colleagues’ agreement to extend the provisions across the regulations at the earliest opportunity. It is on that basis that we are making the change.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The Minister’s comments have been generally helpful, and I am prepared to withdraw the motion in the light of what he said. I recognise that it is important to get a form of words that will meet the purpose. However, the six-month period from the discovery of the offence is still short, and I ask him at least to think about sticking to the 12-month period when he discusses the matter at a later stage.

I should much prefer to see a change going forward with the Government’s support, because such provision needs to be not only in the Bill, but actively taken up by the Department. Progress has been made, and I am grateful to the Minister for what has been produced in response to the issue raised by the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 29 - Simplification of Renewable Energy Certificates for microgeneration

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 35—Renewables obligation: issue of green certificates.

Government new clause 36—Renewables obligation: issue of green certificates: further provisions.

Government amendment No. 37

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

New clause 29 deals primarily with the simplification of renewable energy certificates for microgeneration. I am aware that in due course the Government will make suggestions to simplify the so-called sale and buy-back agreements—or indeed to remove the need for them in appropriate circumstances—and to allow for what is called amalgamation, effectively pooling a number of individual microgenerating units so that they can be treated as one rather than requiring each to be considered separately.

It has been pointed out to me by those in the industry who are concerned with the issue that such proposals will still not remove some fairly onerous administrative provisions for those who wish to claim renewable energy certificates for microgeneration. For example, there is a requirement for an additional meter that must be read each year, and the meter might not be the responsibility of the supplier who provides the customer with the electricity that they purchase. That drives the need for two meter readings, both of which must be processed, thereby increasing the transaction cost.

I am also told that for some reason there is a requirement that the renewables obligation certificate meter must be read within an 11-day period that most frequently happens to fall during the school holidays, which does not assist people who want easy access to the renewables obligation certificate meter. It has been suggested that the approach should be to allow instead a proper product and installation standard-based approach, whereby the technology type is tested and fitted to an approved standard. Based on that assessment of the type, it would be possible to assess what renewables obligation certificate should be granted in the case of the consumer in question. That would greatly reduce the transaction costs to which I have referred.

The new clause would not require the Government to introduce the type approvals system; it would merely remove a legislative block preventing the introduction of such approvals without new primary legislation. Those who want to see that change accept that the proposal needs more work, and my new clause is therefore essentially a probing amendment to ask the Government to consider how best to move towards allowing type approval for renewables obligation certificates. If type approval were allowed, it would certainly assist the take-up of microgeneration by domestic and small-scale consumers.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I shall speak to new clauses 29, 35 and 36. We know that the Government intend to table their own amendments on removing the need for sale and buy-back agreements and allowing for so-called amalgamation, effectively pooling together a number of individual generating units so that they can all be treated as one.

Such proposals, however, would still not remove some fairly onerous administrative provisions for those wishing to claim ROCs. For example, there is a requirement for an additional meter, which must be read each year. Moreover, that meter might not be the responsibility of the supplier who provides the customer with the electricity that they purchase. That drives the need for two meter readings, both of which must be processed, which arguably doubles the transaction costs. There is also currently a requirement for the ROC meter to be read within an 11-day window bang in the middle of the Easter school holidays. In addition, the rounding feature for ROCs means that any output between 500 kW of annual energy and 1,499 kW is the same: it is rounded to one ROC.

We believe that the solution is to allow a proper product and installation standard-based approach, whereby each technology type is tested and fitted to an approved standard and appropriate random checks are applied. On that basis, a matrix of product installation types can establish whether a particular installation deserves one or two ROCs each year. The supplier can then redeem that number of ROCs for the duration of the microgenerator’s operation. That completely avoids all the transaction costs that were referred to earlier—and if the process in Whitehall is expensive, it must be incredibly expensive to carry out the process that I have outlined.

The final point is that we are not at this stage asking the Government to introduce such a system of type approvals; we are merely asking them to remove a legislative block that would prevent its ever being introduced without primary legislation. I entirely accept that there is much more work to do on this matter, the detail of which, with the proposed primary legislative change, could be dealt with through the renewables obligation order. That may never happen if the Government choose otherwise.

We need to have the relevant discussion over the next year or so, before a decision is made, but we do not want to have to start the primary legislation process all over again simply to remove a block and then have to go through the secondary legislation route as well. Surely it is a much better and more efficient use of parliamentary time to get the first blockage removed now, while the opportunity exists, without prejudice to the question whether the matter will be seen through in secondary legislation.

With respect to new clauses 35 and 36, the Government came forward in 2005, as part of a review of the renewables obligation, with three proposals on small generators: first, allowing agents to act on behalf of small generators through the process of accreditation in claiming ROCs and allowing them to be issued to agents; secondly, allowing agents to amalgamate the output of small generators; thirdly, removing the requirement for a sale and buy-back agreement for generators who generate electricity for their own use.

There was strong support for those proposals during the review consultation. The changes should be non-controversial and, I hope, enjoy cross-party support. The Bill introduces enabling powers so that the renewables obligation order can be amended to allow for the proposals. There should be consultation on the detail of the proposals prior to the amendment of the renewables obligation order. Subject to primary legislation receiving parliamentary approval, it is intended that those changes will be made to the order from 1 April 2007.

In the context of the renewables obligation, small generators are defined as those with a declared net capacity of 50 kW or less. It is essential to allow agents to act on behalf of small generators and to amalgamate output. Currently, agents are not allowed to act on behalf of small generators, which means that small generators must complete the required administrative arrangements such as gaining accreditation and claiming ROCs themselves. Also, ROCs could be issued to agents who could then sell them on on behalf of a generator instead of issued directly to the generator, who would have to sell them on. For small generators, those administrative processes can be burdensome, particularly when generating electricity and claiming ROCs are not part of their core business. If we are really going to give microgeneration a jump start, we must deal with not only the financial incentives but the administrative burden.

It is likely that generators who are currently able to claim only very small numbers of ROCs in a year may be put off by the administrative burdens involved in achieving a small benefit gain. In particular, the proposed change will help generators whose output is very low, who would not normally be in a position to claim few if any ROCs. We hope that such an amendment will allow a market for agents to emerge—agents who are familiar with the process of accrediting renewable stations and claiming ROCs, and who can achieve economies of scale by acting for large numbers of small generators.

In this way we hope that in future small generators can gain the benefits of the renewables obligation without the current administrative burden. That would be greatly in the spirit of co-operation. However, there would be no requirement for small generators to use an agent if they did not wish to do so. Those who wanted to act for themselves would be perfectly entitled to continue to do so.

The removal of sale and buy-back agreements for small generators is also important. The renewables obligation defines the obligation in terms of the supply of electricity to customers in Great Britain. As a result, there is a requirement that generators that consume their own electricity must first sell it to a supplier, before buying it back for their own consumption. The removal of that requirement for small generators would simplify their administrative arrangements. In addition, they need to obtain a sale and buy-back agreement, which acts as a barrier to some small generators in claiming renewables obligation certificates or establishing stations. The proposals would give us the power to remove that barrier as well as enable small generators to sell surplus electricity that they do not consume—to a private wire network, for example.

Such issues are technical and administrative, and I am largely persuaded that if we are really to encourage microgeneration, there is a great case for a wholesale review of the process. However, what is proposed would be a very good start, and given the context of this Bill and what we are able to do at this point in time, I hope that the Minister will take the new clauses on board.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

The Government are keen to amend the renewables obligation to ensure that microgenerators can more easily access the benefits that they deserve. I shall speak later to the amendments that I have tabled to achieve just that. I have some concerns about new clause 29, however, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, and the reputational risk that it could have for the smooth functioning of the renewables obligation.

The new clause would allow the obligation order to be amended so that microgenerating equipment could be “deemed”—that is the crucial word—to have generated a certain amount of electricity each year. The effect would be to remove the need for microgenerators to demonstrate that electricity has indeed been produced. Evidence of renewable generation is a fundamental requirement to take advantage of the significant benefits of the renewables obligation. The generating equipment may well have been type-approved and in certain circumstances generate at a certain level, but that is not a guarantee that it will be properly installed or that when it breaks it will be fixed. Nor do those factors take into account the siting of the equipment, so there would be less incentive on the owner to install their equipment in the best location.

The support provided by the renewables obligation to the renewable sector is of course significant, but I do not wish to put at risk the credibility of the system by providing further support without clear evidence that renewable generation has taken place. Such a situation would reflect badly not only on the microgeneration sector, but on the integrity of the obligation itself, and I want to avoid that.

I understand the arguments that the proposals would reduce the administration involved in a small generator’s having to take meter readings, and that increasing the certainty of income from renewable obligation certificates—ROCs, as they are known—would improve incentives for microgeneration. However, it is important to note that since the obligation’s introduction in 2002, the Government have taken measures to provide better access to its benefits, including an amendment to the legislation that allows small generators the choice between making monthly or annual claims for the ROCs. In the light of the comments that have been made, I place it on record that there is no compulsion to read the meters in the middle of the Easter holidays, although a point was made about that. There is more flexibility than some have suggested.

Those opting for annual claims simply have to provide Ofgem with a reading at the start and finish of an obligation period. They are also sent a reminder to do so by Ofgem about a month beforehand. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable burden. New clause 29 would also allow for the renewables obligation order to be amended so that generating stations could be deemed to have generated a certain amount of electricity each year. The power proposed is broad and general, rather than specific to microgenerating stations, but the intent of the proposal is clear. My concern remains the same: removing the need for generating stations to demonstrate that renewable electricity has indeed been produced would take us further than we would wish to go.

The amendments to which I shall speak shortly will introduce further real benefits by allowing agents significantly to reduce administrative burdens for smaller generators and by removing the requirement for a sale and buy-back agreement with an electricity supplier. Those changes can reduce the requirement of a small generator to the simple provision of a meter reading once a year to claim the benefit of ROCs through an agent.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I am sorry if I have delayed the Committee, Mr. Benton. There was some suggestion that there would be a second vote, but it did not transpire.

As I was about to say, I am happy to explore further the ideas that inspired the new clauses and, in particular, to assess the recommendations made by the distributed generation co-ordinating group. However, it would be sensible to undertake that further work before putting specific provisions in primary legislation, so I must oppose new clause 29.

I turn now to new clauses 35 and 36 and amendment No. 37. Hon. Members who are familiar with the renewables obligation will be aware that it is a fairly complex measure, as the provisions before us demonstrate. I believe that the policy behind them, though, is a simple one. New clause 35 would provide an enabling power to allow the Renewables Obligation Order 2002 to be amended in a way that would bring significant benefits to generators.

The changes would allow agents to act on behalf of small generators through the process of accreditation and claiming of ROCs. They would allow ROCs to be issued to agents and would allow agents to amalgamate the output of small generators. They would remove the requirement for a sell and buy-back agreement for small generators who consume some or all of their generation. During 2005, a review of the renewables obligation took place that involved two consultations on various issues, including those that I have outlined, and there was strong support for the proposals, not just among generators, but among electricity suppliers.

Allowing agents to act on behalf of small generators, not just in the accreditation process, but in the claiming and issuing of ROCs, would remove a level of administration that we know can be a burden. The additional change of allowing agents to amalgamate output would allow small generators to benefit from the renewables obligation by joining forces with others in the same boat, when previously they may not have generated enough to make claiming ROCs worth while. Currently, many individual small claims for ROCs are required, but in the future it would be possible for agents simply to submit one large claim—a significant reduction in administration for all concerned. There is also an opportunity for a market to emerge in agents who would have the expertise to gain the most benefit from the obligation, particularly through economies of scale.

It is important to note that we do not intend the use of agents to be compulsory. They would simply allow small generators to have greater flexibility when accessing the benefits of the obligation. Any changes to the renewables obligation order would be subject to statutory consultation, and that is where the detail of the proposals would be addressed.

The removal of the sell and buy-back agreement is a little less self-explanatory. Under current legislation there is a requirement that if generators want to consume electricity that they have generated themselves, and claim ROCs, they must first sell the electricity to a supplier, before buying it back for their own consumption. It is clear that that is not only an administrative burden—indeed an administrative absurdity—for small generators, but could be a barrier to their making ROC claims or establishing generating stations.

The proposed provisions are for enabling powers to allow the renewables obligation order to be amended to remove the sell and buy-back requirements for smaller generators. They would also allow the order to be amended to make it easier for small generators to claim ROCs for electricity that they do not consume themselves, including where the electricity is sold within a private wire network. As with the proposals for agents, the removal of the sell and buy-back requirement will be subject to a statutory consultation which will set out the detail of the proposal.

I hope that the Committee agrees that the proposed provisions will make it significantly easier for microgenerators to gain the access to the benefit of the obligation that they deserve. New clause 36 contains a number of additional provisions relating to the operation of the renewables obligation, which will assist the effective working of the amendments introduced by new clause 35. Amendment No. 37 changes the long title of the Bill to take account of the fact that it will now include measures relating to the renewables obligation.

I therefore oppose new clause 29, and I urge acceptance of new clauses 35 and 36, and of amendment No. 37.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The Minister’s comments have convinced me, so I shall not press my proposals and I welcome the Government amendments—they represent a significant opportunity to extend microgeneration. It may be a technical area, but it is one that could make a real difference for many potential consumers by allowing them to take up microgeneration. That is warmly to be welcomed and I believe that it will soon make a significant impact on the industry.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 30 - Duties of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority towards microgeneration consumers

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

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

This new clause seeks to clarify the duty of one of the regulators, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, towards microgeneration consumers. Ofgem’s duties include a duty to protect the interests of consumers, which sounds fine as it stands, but the duty has a bearing only on electricity conveyed by distribution systems. Self-produced electricity is by definition not conveyed by distribution systems, yet a plethora of rules and regulations that fall within Ofgem’s sphere of influence affect the electricity produced by consumers. It is therefore important that there is no doubt that Ofgem’s duties should apply not only to general consumers but to those who produce electricity themselves. It has been suggested that the approach that Ofgem is required to take by legislation is designed for large generators and as a result the rules that apply lead on occasions to disproportionately high transaction costs for small consumers.

Again, this is a probing new clause. I hope that the Minister will say something about how it might be possible to ensure that Ofgem’s duties are extended to the consumer who produces electricity, as well as to general consumers.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I will be brief. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has eloquently explained, Ofgem’s general duties require it to protect the interests of consumers. That seems fine in principle but the definition of consumer does not protect those who generate their own power, which is something we ought to encourage even when it is through a microgeneration unit connected to the grid. They are not protected because the definition relates only to electricity conveyed by large distribution systems. Self-produced electricity is by definition not conveyed by distribution systems, yet a plethora of rules and regulations in Ofgem’s sphere of influence affect the electricity produced by consumers. Protection for such consumers is therefore justifiable—especially in the case of ROCs, where Ofgem’s procedures contain some real difficulties as they are designed for large-scale generators. That consequently creates proportionately high transaction costs for small consumers.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause is good, as far as it goes. The Conservative party is increasingly of the view that there must be a wholesale change in the way in which energy is regulated, and we certainly want to consider whether a more flexible and responsive system that encourages microgeneration and decentralised energy is possible. We will ask whether Ofgem should be completely transformed into a sustainable energy regulator or something far more suited to the 21st century, rather than simply administering a system that is profoundly of the 20th century—a coal and wire system that has its antecedents before the second world war. As the party of the future, we are grappling with that issue as we speak.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

The hon. Gentleman might be the future, but it will take some while coming. As I said on Second Reading and on earlier amendments, the Government will not support piecemeal amendments to the principal objective and general duties of Ofgem and the Secretary of State. Regulatory certainty and stability are essential if we are to attract investment into our energy sector.

Although it is for Parliament to set such duties, we would not be acting responsibly if we did not consult properly on such a major change to see how broad and far-reaching any amendments might be. We would want to understand how industry and the regulator might deliver any new duties, given that costs inevitably find their way back to the consumer, whom Ofgem must protect.

The Bill already seeks to amend section 47 of the Electricity Act 1989, which would establish a clear statutory link between Ofgem and microgeneration. At an earlier sitting, I thought that we had reached a consensus that that sent a strong signal from Parliament to the regulator about how important microgeneration is to our energy goals.

Ofgem’s principal objective is clear and gives it clarity and purpose in its decision-making process. Its principal objective is

“To protect the interest of consumers, whenever appropriate through effective competition”,

and we must always remember that the statute describes consumers as both future and existing consumers. That means that Ofgem should not make decisions that discriminate against microgeneration.

Secondary duties require Ofgem to have regard to the environment and the achievement of sustainable development. The Secretary of State also issues social and environmental guidance to Ofgem. That allows it to contribute to broader Government policies without going against the principle of arm’s length regulation. Ofgem has to produce regulatory impact assessments for all its important decisions, and those assessments must include an environmental impact assessment.

Given the benefits that we expect to emerge from an increase in microgeneration, and given Ofgem’s existing duties, I cannot see how microgenerators can be discriminated against. I am not sure whom the new clause would protect by adding the words “in parallel with ... distribution” at a number of points in section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989.

There are two ways in which to operate a microgenerator. The first and most common is to have a microgenerator and a distribution wire. In that way, one’s supplier can provide one with electricity when one’s generator does not deliver the amount that one requires, and the wire can be used to export any unused electricity. In that instance, the consumer is already protected by the current legislation. The second, rarer scenario is that one has a microgenerator and no back-up from the distribution system. In that case, I am not sure what protection the regulator could offer.

I turn now to the suggestion that we amend section 3A(3) by adding

“individuals wishing to generate all or part of their own electricity demands”

to the other vulnerable consumers to whom Ofgem and the Secretary of State must have regard. I hope that the Committee agrees that it is perfectly reasonable to consider the elderly, the sick, the poor and those in rural communities, but that owners of microgenerators do not fit naturally on to that list of vulnerable consumers.

I understand the desire to promote microgeneration, and we are working hard to do so in many areas, but the new clause would not help our cause. I hope that my hon. Friend, having listened to the arguments, will consider withdrawing the new clause.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I understand why the Minister is unhappy with the new clause. His clarification of the fact that Ofgem, in particular, should consider future as well as present consumers was helpful. In the light of his statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 25 - Local planning authorities: energy and energy efficiency

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

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

The new clause would require all planning authorities to consider whether to specify

“(a)a reasonable requirement for the generation of renewable energy within the proposed development”

or

“(b)a reasonable requirement for the generation of low carbon energy within the proposed development”.

In lay termsthat means combined heat and power systems, which are low carbon but not technically renewable because they may use fossil fuels, such as gas, which is largely accepted as a good transition fuel. The matters in paragraph (c) are to be considered when the local planning authority is deciding on planning applications.

The proposed new clause satisfies my localism principles and my belief that we must do more to address climate change, because it requires local or planning authorities to consider such points when dealing with planning applications, but leaves the decision to them.

Committee members may be forgiven a slight sense of déjà vu, because the proposed new clause relates in some ways to the new clause that I put to the vote in the last sitting. If they cast their minds back, they will recall that in response to that new clause, which was more specific and prescriptive but tried to achieve the same goal, the Government voted it down, and the Minister justified resisting it by saying:

“we believe that legislation placing specific requirements on local planning authorities and developers is not necessary ... Progress will be achieved through action at the local level, delivered through existing planning mechanisms and within the context provided by national guidance on planning and renewable energy in planning policy statement 2, which is also known, I am advised, as PPS22”.

He continued:

“Nevertheless, we recognise that concerns have been expressed as to whether all authorities will include policies on on-site renewables, as PPS22 says they should. At the moment, however, only limited evidence is available.”

Critically, he said:

“My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has given a commitment that her Department will undertake an urgent review of local plans to determine whether there is a problem with emerging plans that do not fully incorporate PPS22 guidance. If a problem is identified, her Department will take swift and appropriate action.” —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 9 February 2006; c. 81-84.]

I was disappointed that the Government chose not to back my new clause, but I took the Minister’s words as he sincerely meant them. However, is he aware of what the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister official spokesman said about his statement that day? The spokesman said to Catherine Early of Planning magazine, on the record—he told other media inquiries in exactly the same terms—that there will be

“More a survey than a review and not urgent, not at all.”

He said that it would be more a case of

“Qualitative research then decide what to do. Malcolm Wicks was rather over-egging the case.”

The ODPM official spokesman said that to the media, and not just in one magazine. It has appeared in print and I am surprised that the Minister has not seen it. It is disgraceful that one arm of the Government is saying that. We took what the Minister said at face value, as I am sure he meant it, but he is not being well served by his colleagues at ODPM.

Joan Walley (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North)

I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he tell us whether he has had any direct contact with the Minister for Housing and Planning and whether he has been told, on the record, about the status of the review, which I understood was under way?

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

No, I have not had the opportunity to question the Minister for Housing and Planning. I thought, like the hon. Lady, that the review was on the way, but it was clear that the statement by her official spokesman was not a glib comment. It was made several days after the Committee met, when the Department had had a chance officially to digest the Minister’s comments.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

That was a dramatic build-up, but the punch line was a bit disappointing. When I make my speech, I will reaffirm what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying. I cannot speak about an alleged conversation between a press officer and a specialist journalist; I will say what the Minister thinks. That, I think, will carry some weight.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

If the Minister is saying that he cannot speak for a spokesman, is he also saying that the Minister’s spokesman cannot speak for the Minister?

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I will say later—this is crucial—what the Minister is saying about that approach. I am not responsible for what press officers allegedly say to journalists, but I can tell the Committee what my colleague the Minister says. The hon. Gentleman may want to think about that before going on with this sideshow.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I am afraid that it is not a sideshow. It goes to the heart of what we trying to achieve. The Government are trying to fob us off with warm words—I accept that the Minister means them sincerely—but they are acceptable only if they are followed by action. As we have seen throughout the Committee’s proceedings, there is an elephant in the room; it is the obstruction of the ODPM. The Minister may be on board, and I know that he is sincere, but every proposal seems to be frustrated by the ODPM. I am sorry that that Department is not here to answer. Frankly, it is not a one-off situation. Both sides have moved amendments and new clauses, but the ODPM has frustrated the Committee’s genuine efforts to make the Bill work. It is the ODPM that is the roadblock. I shall come back to that point later.

The background to the new proposal is simple. It is that, according to the report published by the Energy Saving Trust earlier this month, 92 per cent. of local authorities are not prioritising climate change. We are entitled to use the Bill as a device to get those matters on the agenda. That is what the new clause would achieve. I assume that that is what the Prime Minister meant earlier today when he spoke about the need for urgent action.

I have been served tremendously well throughout the Committee stage with outstanding support from the interested NGOs, which have a wealth of expertise and advice. My advisers met ODPM officials face to face to discuss the new clause. They found the Department’s response extremely disappointing. The independent advisers expressed their disappointment, and contrasted the reaction of the ODPM officials with the bold statements made by the Prime Minister and his clear suggestion that climate change is the greatest long-term threat. When asked how they reconciled the Prime Minister’s rhetoric with their implacable opposition, one ODPM official said that he regarded the Prime Minister’s words as political spin. That is what we are getting from the ODPM, and no one is being well served, including the Minister for Energy.

Paragraph (a) would require the local planning authority to consider renewable energy. Officials explained that the planning system was forward-plan led; that local authority responses to planning applications should be as per their development plans; and that paragraph (a) was not acceptable as it was outwith that policy. My advisers argued that many local planning authorities were not doing that, and that the clause simply brought the issue to their minds. It did not require them to go outside their development plans; it would simply require them to use their local discretion, which they already have, on each and every occasion.

ODPM officials suggested that a better approach would be to give new guidance to local planning authorities on considering renewables, and that new development plans could then be drawn up. However, they said that the guidance could take between 12 and 18 months to get sorted, which was too late for the Bill. As can be imagined, my advisers argued that 12 to 18 months for guidance, with another year or two to amend the development plans, would mean that nothing could be done before 2009 at the earliest. In view of the recent EST report, that was unacceptable, but ODPM officials remained completely unmoved.

As regards paragraph (c), on requiring an energy efficiency standard above that required by building regulations, ODPM officials argued that that was a matter for building regulations only, not for planning. My advisers argued that part L of the building regulations was the minimum and that the new clause could be used to allow local planning authorities to use their discretion, depending on local situations, to set higher standards as appropriate. Again, however, the ODPM officials were totally immovable.

My advisers pointed out that the current legal situation was as follows. Planning authorities can impose conditions regarding renewables but not regarding extra energy efficiency, which the Government have said is the cheapest way to save CO2 and achieve energy gain. Authorities can impose conditions on microgeneration, but cannot impose energy efficiency. That is madness. Local planning authorities can use planning to promote more expensive solutions, which are still important, but not to promote what everyone recognises is the most efficient, quickest, easiest and cheapest solution. That is plainly absurd, but ODPM officials still remained opposed to the new clause. In short, they seemed to take an “absolutely nothing to do with me, Guv” attitude. They simply had no ownership of the ambition that the Prime Minister and the Minister articulate on combating climate change.

I know that that is not the attitude of any member of the Committee and that everyone will be disappointed, although not completely surprised, by the roadblock that we seem to be encountering at the ODPM. I know that it is certainly not the attitude of the Minister. He is the fall-guy for the ODPM’s appalling handling of those Bill negotiations. He would like to help, so I urge him to go back to the ODPM and knock a few heads together. However, I am not at all confident that if we simply ask the Minister to have another go at trying to move the ODPM, he will be any more successful than he apparently was last time. There is a real roadblock in the Whitehall machinery and only we, as legislators, can do something about it.

We have all read the newspaper reports saying that the public are increasingly losing faith in politics because people in Parliament seem to have very little control over what happens down the road in Whitehall—that the real decisions on what influences their lives and what influences the big decisions in the world are being taken in Whitehall, not at Westminster. We have a small opportunity—a real opportunity, nevertheless—to take a stand, and I hope that, without making party political points but on a cross-party, consensual basis, we can all say that this is not an issue of politics; it is about asserting the will of the elected legislature that the Executive must get on and take climate change seriously. This is a small measure, but we could all take that important stand. I say this particularly to Government Members, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation. The problem is not the Government’s fault as represented by the Minister. We are talking about something that is very real, but is represented deep inside the ODPM, and a cultural change is required. We need to send the important message that we, as Members of the House of Commons, will not accept the situation.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

Having listened to the hon. Gentleman’s conclusion about Parliament and the Executive, I am tempted to say to him, “Steady on.” The word “over-egging” has also been mentioned. After all, what is the Committee about? We are considering a Bill that has come not from the Executive but from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, who is trying to incorporate some sensible measures proposed by others. In other words, it comes by the private Member’s Bill route. Surely that is an example of Government listening to the House.

I have tried to be sensible when the hon. Gentleman has moved amendments to improve the Bill. Although the change in balance between the Executive and Parliament is always an interesting essay question, I do not think that the Bill is a very good case study to argue that the Executive are not listening to Parliament; probably the reverse is true.

The Government support the aims behind the new clause, but we believe that such matters should not be addressed through primary legislation. It would be difficult and inflexible to include in primary legislation details about the criteria for individual planning decisions. Issues such as renewable energy and the use of low-carbon energy can be best addressed by planning guidance and policies in development plans rather than in primary legislation.

I spoke at some length—I hope not at too much length—during the Committee’s previous sitting about what we call PPS22 and the support that it gives to positive planning for renewables. Planning guidance such as PPS22 can respond to changing circumstances, such as changing technologies or priorities, in a way that primary legislation cannot.

At a certain stage in his speech, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, who has been reasonableness itself for most of these proceedings, suddenly got very excited about a quote in a specialist magazine and built on this fragile or non-existent basis a huge diatribe against my close colleagues and indeed comrades in the ODPM. He was so excited that I thought he was going to turn into a microgenerator himself, generating much hot air to the amusement of the Committee.

But what are the facts? My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has already started the urgent—I repeat the word “urgent”—review of local plans that I promised the Committee during our last sitting. That review, which I discussed with my hon. Friend only today, will identify whether appropriate policies are being included in plans to implement PPS22. She has repeated her promise to consider whatever action is necessary following that review, and hopes to be able to report on it at a later stage of the Bill’s consideration. No one was over-egging. I was simply stating the position of my hon. Friend the Minister: it is indeed an urgent review.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

It was not me who suggested that the Minister had been over-egging. I quoted the official spokesman of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that it was

“More a survey than a review”,

that it was not urgent at all and that it was qualitative research, after which the Minister would decide what to do. He said:

“Malcolm Wicks was rather over-egging the case.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the official spokesman of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

Our press offices in Government are super institutions. We have very many committed, hard-working people. I do not know whether timing caught someone out on that occasion, and it is not for me to make a judgment on it. The official position of the ODPM is as I have stated. What I said—it is detailed in the Hansard record of our proceedings—was the situation, not any comment that might have been made by a press officer. Surely I have reaffirmed that today. I do not quite see what the argument is about, but we might find out now.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The Minister takes a light-hearted view of the situation, but I think that it is more serious than that. One of two things is going on. Either there really is a difference of opinion between Ministers, although we are assured that that is not the case, or officials are briefing the press and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle completely inaccurately. That is unacceptable.

The Minister refers to his comments being reported in Hansard, but very few of our constituents read Hansard, let alone the Hansard reports of Committees. They take their information from the press, but if they glean false information, that is serious for our reputation in the House and we should seek to correct it. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will consider the issue and perhaps report back to you, Mr. Benton, on what the truth of the matter is.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I think that Opposition Members are over-doing this. I suspect that a simple mistake was made, probably because of the timing of what I said and when the spokesperson was asked about something. The fact is that what I said on behalf of the ODPM Ministry on that day is the situation. We and the ODPM and are at one on the issue, and I have gone to some length to confirm that the review is an urgent one—so much so that the report on the review will probably come in a later stage of the Bill’s consideration. There the matter ends, and I am unfussed about it.

Let us make some progress. My second concern is that the new clause would encourage local authorities to decide what is reasonable on a case-by-case basis rather than set out their approach through the development plan. The strength of the planning system is the certainty and consistency provided by a development plan. Not setting requirements clearly in local plans will mean that developers face great uncertainty and a lack of consistency in the approach to new development. It could also create confusion, given the statutory requirement in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to have regard to the development plan first in taking decisions on planning applications.

On development plans and the question whether they can deliver low-carbon technologies, PPS1 provides a clear statement that development plan policies should seek to minimise the need to consume new resources over the lifetime of the development and encourage the use of renewable resources, such as renewable energy. The statement expects regional planning authorities and local councils to promote low-energy buildings, community and combined heat and power schemes, and similar small-scale and low or zero-carbon schemes in development. PPS1 also allows local authorities to promote low-energy buildings in general. Indeed, I imagine that that is why some local authorities—I am too embarrassed to mention them again, but they are the exemplars, as we called them earlier—are doing just that.

In conclusion, we believe that local authorities should set out their approach in their development plan, whose preparation allows everyone in a community to be involved in decisions that will shape developments in their area. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will withdraw the motion.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

It would not be particularly productive to go along a road that gets us obsessed with who said what to whom and when, rather than considering the substance of the proposal. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the Committee could have no quibble with the Minister’s very clear reassertion of the ODPM’s position, which certainly satisfies me.

On the broader issue of including a great number of planning provisions, I originally wanted the Bill to be wide ranging, when I introduced it. I am grateful for the development of the Bill and the way in which the Government have added elements—they will seek to do so again today—but I accept that only so much can be included. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to walking on eggshells, and this is an eggshell moment for me. Although I would like a Bill that incorporates all my personal preferences for tackling climate change, lines must be drawn somewhere. In light of what the Minister and I have said, I ask the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to consider withdrawing the motion. If the review ended up along the lines that he suggests, I am sure that hon. Members of all parties, and indeed the Minister, would have a lot to say about it.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I place great weight on what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has said. I have great respect for him and for other Labour Members with a long history of working to mitigate the effects of climate change, and of campaigning on such issues. Once again, I pay tribute to him for all his work on the Bill. However, I must say that I still have a problem with the cultural way in which the whole process of government responds to the sense of urgency that we feel in this Committee, but that does not seem to be radiating out into Whitehall. Perhaps that is because all Governments ultimately succumb to incumbency-itis; perhaps it is because ultimately Ministers, rather like hostages, come to love their captors. We are failing to take the political imperative of acting on climate change, and instead we just see the administrative process writ large.

I know that the Minister is sincere and that he believes in what he is saying, but I am not reassured by the actions of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I just think that we should be more ambitious. We have few opportunities to legislate on such issues; I do not know when the next climate change Bill will come through the House of Commons or when the Government will make time for us to take urgent measures. The Prime Minister said today that we needed “urgent action” on the issue, and quite frankly I do not think that that can be taken through the existing planning system, which is not delivering.

No one can argue that the current system is delivering sufficiently. It is failing before our very eyes. We know that it will not deliver the targets; 92 per cent. of people, when last asked, said that the issue was not at the top of their agenda. There are currently no meaningful initiatives that will change that. Things are great for Croydon, Merton and Woking, but they are islands of excellence, as we have said all the way through Committee. We can either change our whole modus operandi and send a message to the country that, as the Prime Minister said today, we have to take urgent action, or we can carry on meaning well, although the chances of actually hitting the targets, which in themselves are probably not ambitious enough, remain very slim.

I take on board what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said, and I pay tribute to his work, but I am afraid that we on the Conservative Benches feel strongly about the matter and want to send a clear message to Government that more action is needed and that the system needs to be grappled with. We are not talking about a great measure or a radical departure; it is an incremental measure, and as such the Government should not really have any problem with it. For that reason, we will push it to a Division.

New Clause 31 - Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: gas transporters and suppliers

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

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

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 32—Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: electricity distributors and suppliers.

Government new clause 33—Consequential amendments.

Government new schedule 1—Amendments consequential on sections (Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: gas transporters and suppliers) and (Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: electricity distributors and suppliers).

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

The aim of the new clauses is to provide more flexibility to energy suppliers in the ways in which they can meet their obligations under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986. Under existing legislation, electricity and gas suppliers are required to achieve targets for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency. The 2004 energy efficiency obligation order provides for the improvements to be achieved for domestic consumers in Great Britain. The obligation is commonly known as the energy efficiency commitment or, in the trade, as the EEC. It is open to suppliers how they meet their targets by, for example, encouraging and assisting household consumers to take up measures such as cavity wall insulation and energy-efficient lighting and appliances.

The EEC has proved to be a successful instrument and is a key contributor to the reduction of carbon emissions under the climate change programme in the household sector. Energy suppliers convincingly met their targets for the first phase of the EEC from April 2002 to March 2005. By carrying forward activity, they started work early on the current phase of the EEC from April 2005 to March 2008, which requires broadly double the level of activity.

We are thinking ahead to the third phase of the obligations on suppliers, which will run from April 2008 to March 2011. Throughout 2006, we will engage in discussions with a wide range of stakeholders to feed into the development of proposals that will be set out in a statutory consultation in spring 2007. The target for the new obligations and the framework for the scheme, which is administered by Ofgem, will be set by order towards the end of 2007. Although the targets placed on suppliers are achievable, we recognise that they present a challenge to them. As a result, we would like the opportunity to provide suppliers with as much flexibility as possible in the range of measures that they can employ to meet their targets.

The new clauses would enable the Secretary of State to require suppliers to achieve a carbon emissions reduction target. That is defined as a target for the promotion of measures for improving energy efficiency and, if provided by order, certain other measures—for increasing the amount of electricity generated or heat produced by microgeneration; any other measures specified in the order for increasing the amount of electricity generated or heat produced using low-emission sources or technologies; and measures for reducing the consumption of energy.

The current energy efficiency target on suppliers is often expressed in terms of carbon emission reductions and, thus, the new approach would provide a more effective way in which to join up measures in respect of carbon abatement objectives. We propose to consult stakeholders before making provision for the carbon emissions reduction target to include the promotion of measures that are additional to the promotion of energy efficiency improvements. However, the new clause would provide additional flexibility to energy suppliers and support a more joined-up approach to carbon abatement in the household sector.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I have already stated this afternoon that Conservative Members consider that there is a case for creating a much more holistic and flexible approach to energy regulation. I certainly recognise that in respect of the energy efficiency commitment from 2008 to 2011 the Minister’s proposal to provide greater flexibility and the type of measures that suppliers can employ to meet their targets, such as microgeneration, renewables, smart metering and behavioural measures, is welcome. I understand that DEFRA Ministers have agreed that we should be able to take the opportunity to enable microgeneration and other carbon reduction measures to be counted, allowing the EEC to become a much more innovative and flexible instrument in the future. We want to encourage flexibility and innovation, so I support this small measure. I would like it to be accepted as a principle and extended to the whole energy regime.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

Has the Minister considered changing the way in which infrastructure charges are levied by gas transportation companies, particularly with regard to new developments? For example, when a new housing estate is being built, an infrastructure charge is levied on the house builder by the gas company for supplying that estate with gas pipelines. The same applies to electricity. As a way of encouraging energy efficiency, could there not be a mechanism by which the infrastructure charge for a house or houses that are accredited as energy efficient is less than the charge for a house or houses that fail to be accredited?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle described the provisions as a small measure which he welcomed. I think we should not be too modest about them, because they are significant. Bringing microgeneration into the energy efficiency commitment will provide a major boost to the microgeneration industry and microgeneration take-up in this country. Including the provision will send such a clear message to the industry that it will have a positive response from those with an interest in the matter.

I understand that the provisions will apply throughout Great Britain and perhaps the Minister will confirm that, either now or later. They may be the most significant part of the Bill when it finishes its passage through Parliament, and I welcome the Government’s initiative in moving the new clauses.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I also welcome the new clauses and hope that they will be included in the Bill and that the Bill progresses. It is a sad commentary on our proceedings that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith may be right in saying that these measures may turn out to be the most significant part of the Bill, because many of the other good bits may have been removed. Nevertheless, we should give credit where it is due. On this occasion I think the Government are right and I welcome the additions to the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

It might be appropriate to respond to a couple of the specific points that have been mentioned.

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) asked about new house construction and whether there could be some reward for those that are built to a high standard. He was not suggesting this, but it is not a matter for the EEC obligation. I am not saying that I will bring forward a great proposal, but if it is acceptable I will reflect on what he said and write to him.

I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that the measures apply to Great Britain. With that, I hope that the Committee will support the new clauses.

New Clause 32 - Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: electricity distributors and suppliers

New Clause 33 - Consequential amendments

New Clause 34 - Parish councils and community councils: powers in relation to local energy saving measures

New Clause 35 - Renewables obligation: issue of green certificates

New Clause 36 - Renewables obligation: issue of green certificates: further provisions

New Clause 37 - Commencement

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

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

Colleagues will be relieved to hear that I can be very brief. I propose that new clause 37 replace new clause 18, which has now been overtaken by events and which I therefore no longer intend to move. New clause 37 outlines the commencement periods for different clauses of the Bill. The majority of clauses will come into force two months after the Bill is passed, in line with convention. The reporting clauses that have been included on microgeneration energy, efficiency and residential accommodation, community energy projects and renewable heat will come into force on 1 January 2007 to fit in with existing governmental report cycles. The remaining clauses and schedules that deal with promotion of reductions in carbon emissions will commence by order of the Secretary of State.

Clause 11 - Interpretation

Clause 12 - Orders and regulations

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

In the original draft of the Bill submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, clauses 7 and 10 gave power to the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. This clause is drafted to clarify those powers. As clauses 7 and 10 are no longer part of the Bill, clause 12 is no longer required. Therefore, as I hope was always clear, I oppose its standing part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Short title and extent

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 6, line 41, at end insert—

‘()Sections (Review of permitted development orders), (Building regulations: microgeneration), 9, (Parish councils and community councils: powers in relation to local energy saving measures) and (Renewable heat) extend to England and Wales only.

()Sections (National targets for microgeneration), (National microgeneration targets: modification of section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003), (Sale of electricity generated by microgeneration: power to modify distribution and supply licences etc), (Exercise of powers under section (Sale of electricity generated by microgeneration: power to modify distribution and supply licences etc)), (Functions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority in relation to microgeneration), (Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: electricity distributors and suppliers), (Promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: gas transporters and suppliers), (Consequential amendments), (Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: report regarding dynamic demand technologies), (Renewables obligation: issue of green certificates), (Renewables obligation: issue of green certificates: further provisions) and (Adjustment of transmission charges for electricity) extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 31.

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I can deal with the amendments quickly and with my usual clarity. Clause 14 deals with the short title and extent of the Bill. Amendment No. 31 removes subsection (2), which is then replaced through amendment No. 36 by a more detailed provision setting out the extent of the Bill. The only substantive part of the Bill that will apply to Great Britain and Northern Ireland is that about annual reports on greenhouse gas emissions. The clauses on permitted development orders, building regulations, parish and community councils and renewable heat extend only to England and Wales. All other clauses extend to England, Wales and Scotland. I will support clause 14, as amended, standing part of the Bill.

New Schedule - ‘Amendments consequential on sections (promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: gas transporters and suppliers) and (promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: electricity distributors and suppliers)

Malcolm Wicks (Labour, Croydon North)

I thank you, Mr. Benton, for the clear stewardship that you have offered to this Committee. Our proceedings have been largely convivial. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and colleagues on putting together a useful Bill. We have had some constructive debates which will, of course, continue later on Report. Thank you for your hard but successful work, Mr. Benton, in drawing the Committee to a conclusion.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

May I also thank you, Mr. Benton? I am particularly grateful for your kind stewardship, as this has been the first time that I have spoken for the Opposition from the Front Bench in Committee. I have sat mute as a Whip on the Back Benches, but it is quite another thing to navigate one’s way through reams of paper and complexity. Therefore, I am grateful to you.

May I also say how grateful I am to the Clerk for his help and advice in tabling my amendments? They were greatly appreciated. We in Parliament are lucky in the expertise and professionalism on which we are able to draw.

I am also extremely grateful to all the NGOs that advised me. I have been incredibly well served, and I could not have begun to do what I have done without them. They have been excellent, and I cannot thank them enough.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. The Bill has not been quite what we hoped for. Nevertheless, there is a clear direction of travel, and it is a very great thing for a Back Bencher to get this far in legislative scrutiny. We shall still have some issues with the Government on Report, when we shall want to see the Bill tightened up further—I hope consensually, if possible. Nevertheless, we have made progress, if not quite as much as we had hoped for—but it is progress.

I congratulate and thank all Members from all parties in the Committee. There are Members present who have track records that are far longer and knowledge of this subject that is far greater than mine. They have brought their wisdom and expertise to bear in the debates, and they have been extremely generous in their observations about my contributions.

Finally, I thank the police, and all those who have helped us in Committee, sitting silently. It is much appreciated, and we look forward to Report.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I am delighted that we have a Bill to consider on Report. It has its weaknesses but it certainly has its strengths, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on bringing us to this stage. The Minister and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle must take a small measure of credit, but much must go to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, and I congratulate him on his work.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for those comments, and I am grateful for the comments made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Mr. Benton, I thank you for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I appreciate it, because as a Back Bencher promoting a private Member’s Bill, one is somewhat isolated, although I have had much support from various people in Committee and outside. There have been times when your chairmanship has rescued me from one or two difficult moments, and I appreciate that.

Without wishing to go through a long list of thanks resembling an Oscars ceremony, I endorse the comments from all those who have spoken about the contributions made by all parties. I am also grateful for the support of the Officers of the House, the DTI and the various NGOs that have been involved in the exercise.

We have completed the Committee stage, but we are only so far along the road. I hope that Members will support the Bill during its remaining stages, as I am sure they will, and that they will do what they can so that all their colleagues give it their full support to ensure that it succeeds in its passage to the other place, where I hope that, with cross-party support, it will become legislation later this year.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I thank the Minister, Opposition spokesmen and all members of the Committee for the courtesy that they have extended to the Chair throughout our proceedings. I am very grateful. I ought to thank the learned Clerk. As you probably all discerned, I would have been flummoxed all the more without his presence. I thank also the Official Report and everybody connected with the Committee.