Green Energy (Definition and Promotion) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 June 2009.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Before we begin consideration of the Bill, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may remove their jackets—that usually means gentleman Members, but lady Members may do so, as well. Would all Members ensure that their mobile phones and pagers are turned off or switched to silent mode? I also remind Members that, as a general rule, adequate notice should be given of amendments; I shall not call any starred amendments.

Clause 1

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4—Interpretation—

“In this Act—

“dwellinghouse” includes a building which consists wholly of flats;

“energy efficiency measure” means a measure to improve efficiency in the use by consumers of electricity, gas or any other source of energy;

“equipment” means anything which is plant for the purposes of section 82(6) of the Energy Act 2004;

“fuel poverty” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000;

“the GPDO” has the meaning given by section [Microgeneration: dwellinghouses](1);

“renewable or low-carbon source” has the meaning given by section [Microgeneration strategy](7).”

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

May I begin by saying what an enormous pleasure it is to be serving on a Committee under your chairmanship, Miss Begg? It is quite a pleasure to be serving on a Committee at all; I have not checked the record, but I have a nasty feeling that the last time I served on a Public Bill Committee was in the 1990s. For one reason or another it has passed me by, but I fear the Committee of Selection will not be so lenient in future.

Thank you, Miss Begg, for chairing these proceedings on what is a beautiful, sunny afternoon. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have come here hopefully to move forward the Green Energy Bill in a positive way when they could be participating in all sorts of things, including an interesting debate on the Iraq inquiry. If all goes to plan this afternoon, to outside observers and the uninitiated we may be looking at rather a strange situation. It is not my intention that clause 1 be passed; in fact it is not my intention that many of the clauses be passed into legislation. To the uninitiated, this may look as if I am trashing my own Bill. Unlike the Government, who axiomatically take the view that all legislation that appears for Second Reading is by definition perfect—except when they later table vast numbers of amendments—I have taken the view that this is not perfect legislation, but it is a perfect way of advancing a very important agenda.

To that effect, I make no secret of the fact that I have worked with Ministers and their officials to try to move this forward. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who, before the revolving doors in the ministerial corridors revolved once more, was the Minister responsible for these matters. I am also grateful to the current Minister for the support and encouragement she has shown in the course of developing these thoughts. I am particularly grateful—I do not know whether it is appropriate to say so, but I am going to anyway—to Rachel Crisp, the civil servant in charge of work on Bills at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who has worked extremely hard, particularly on developing the new clauses but also in a liaison capacity. I thank her very much. I know she has been burning the midnight oil on more than one occasion—not that a civil servant at DECC has any business burning oil at all; I hope she was using energy-efficient light bulbs.

I do not intend to proceed with clause 1. I am very content with new clause 4, tabled by the Government, which concerns the interpretation of the terms of the Bill, and I am happy to support its provisions. They contain a very clear definition of an energy-efficient measure and also make it clear that the term “dwelling house”, though inelegant, includes flats. I therefore commend new clause 4 to the Committee.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg?

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey on having reached this stage with his private Member’s Bill. Many fall by the wayside, but his has made it into Committee. We have been pleased to work with him and he has been extremely co-operative, which we appreciate. I also thank him for his kind words about our civil servants who, as he rightly said, have worked extremely hard to get us to this position.

I am rising to oppose clause 1 and to explain why we wish to substitute new clause 4 for it. The changes proposed by the Government are necessary to align some of the definitions in the current clause 1 more closely with existing legal definitions, and to reflect other proposed amendments to the Bill. Given the changes required to clause 1, I hope that hon. Members will agree that removing the clause in its entirety is a better way of dealing with the situation than amending it bit by bit.

New clause 4 inserts additional definitions as a result of other amendments that are made to the Bill. Let me highlight a particular change for the Committee—that made to the existing definition of “energy efficiency measure”. The purpose of this change is to bring the definition into line with that in section 41A(2) of the Electricity Act 1989, which states:

“In this section ‘energy efficiency target’ means a target for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency, that is to say”—

and this is the relevant phrase—

“efficiency in the use by consumers of electricity, gas conveyed through pipes or any other source of energy which is specified in the order.”

I do not intend to discuss energy efficiency targets, but I hope that hon. Members agree that that definition is much broader than the one in clause 1 as drafted. Making that change is important, given the role that energy efficiency has to play in any long-term energy strategy. It is therefore essential that, in seeking to define and promote green energy—the intended purpose of the Bill, of which energy efficiency forms an integral part—the definition of “energy efficiency” should be as broad as possible.

Aside from that, amendments to clause 1 only reflect changes made to the wider Bill. I do not propose discussing in detail those changes now, since that discussion is best had in the context of debating the policy issues and questions arising from each clause. Suffice it to say that I will ensure that the definitions in the clause reflect any further amendments made to the Bill as a result of the Committee’s consideration of it.

In summary, the Government oppose clause 1 standing part of the Bill and we seek to substitute new clause 4 for it.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Miss Begg, especially as you have recognised the progress of global warming in this building and allowed us to remove our jackets.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey on having got the Bill this far and for pragmatically not opposing the complete deletion of all the clauses in it. I am not sure what that does to increase openness and transparency to the public in our processes, but it is certainly a pragmatic and sensible move.

I will comment in due course on some of the losses that I think we may suffer as a result of changes to the Bill, but in the case of clause 1 we are not losing a great deal. The clause says that “small-scale low-carbon local sources” means

“renewable sources of a capacity not exceeding 10 megawatts, the energy from which is consumed within a 30 mile radius of the source of generation”.

That definition of green energy is being lost in the process that we are now being asked to accept. The shift from 10 MW down to 5 will perhaps make the Bill consistent with other legislation and is, in any case, possibly a sensible measure, as 10 MW is a pretty big figure when it comes to wind turbines.

We have suggested a different definition. Amendment 2 contains the phrase:

“the generation of electricity or heat from renewable or low-carbon sources by the use of any equipment, the capacity of which to generate electricity or heat does not exceed the capacity specified in subsection (2A)”.

That definition is quite loose. There is a risk in redefining green energy as anything that might be low-carbon. For example, on a larger scale it opens the door to nuclear being defined as “green”, which we Liberal Democrats would obviously dispute. It is useful to have these tighter definitions, including the definition of green energy as “small-scale” and “low-carbon”.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

The hon. Gentleman has made the point before himself, but I must remind him that, as yet, no form of nuclear energy is “small-scale”.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The record will show that I was careful to say that, on a larger scale, such a definition could lead to greenwashing, but who knows? There may be other forms of smaller-scale generation that, on closer examination, turn out not to be quite as green as they first seem, and which may create pollutants. However, we are happy to proceed on a pragmatic basis and to accept the Government’s amendment.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg? May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey, who is my constituency neighbour, on getting the Bill this far? There is nobody more appropriate for proposing such legislation; his track record in the area is in a league of its own in terms of work in Parliament, particularly on our side of the House. I congratulate him on what he has done so far, particularly on securing broad Government support for the Bill. I have never heard a Government say that they like a Bill so much that they want to delete clauses 1, 3, 5 and 6, but keep a little bit of clause 7, which is only two lines long. Nevertheless, it is a great step forward to have achieved that and I welcome it. It is also right, as the Minister said, to tighten up the definition, so we support the changes.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

On my approach to the Bill, I have long been an advocate of a cross-party approach to climate change measures. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that I am taking that to a new extreme of kamikaze politics?

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

My hon. Friend has never been a kamikaze; he has been a leader of men. I agree with the Minister that her phrasing is a better definition, and we are happy to support her on that basis.

Clause 2

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, leave out from ‘means’ to end of line 21 and insert ‘—

‘(a) the generation of electricity or heat from renewable or low-carbon sources by the use of any equipment, the capacity of which to generate electricity or heat does not exceed the capacity specified in subsection (2A); and

(b) energy efficiency measures.

(2A) That capacity is—

(a) in relation to the generation of electricity, 5 megawatts;

(b) in relation to the generation of heat, 5 megawatts thermal.’.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—

‘(3) In carrying out any function under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to—’.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

The Government believe that clause 2 should stand part of the Bill—members of the Committee will recognise that as the first exception to our proceedings—subject to a number of amendments. Clause 2 is important because it defines the term “green energy” for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment 2 seeks to align better the concept of green energy with the existing scales and definitions that are already familiar in legislation. The amendment makes two key changes. First, in the definition of “green energy”, it changes

“small-scale low-carbon local”

to simply “low-carbon”. Secondly, it adds capacity limits in relation to the generation of electricity and heat. References to renewables and energy efficiency remain in the clause.

The reason for the change in terminology to “low-carbon” is that the explicit introduction of capacity limits obviates the need to require green energy to be small-scale, which answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Following the change, subsection (2) is left with the phrase

“renewable or...low-carbon...sources”.

That reflects the definition outlined in new clause 1, which will take the place of clause 3, on the microgeneration strategy. That approach not only gives consistency to the Bill but creates certainty, because new clause 1 links the term

“renewable or low-carbon source”

to the sources of energy or technologies specified in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004, which is the parent legislation for much of the Bill’s policy.

Setting capacity limits gives greater certainty still. It also removes the need to set those capacity limits in the original clause 1. In setting limits, the amendment achieves better alignment with existing legislation. For example, the 5 MW limit is the maximum capacity for small-scale low-carbon electricity generation set out in the feed-in tariff powers in section 41 of the Energy Act 2008. The 5 MW upper capacity cap was debated at length by Parliament in considering that section of the 2008 Act. While it is recognised that the limit is greater than that of, for example, the definition of microgeneration in section 82 of the 2004 Act, we concluded that the 5 MW upper capacity cap was appropriate in the context of small-scale generation. The setting of the specified maximum capacity, which is required by the 2008 Act, will be done through secondary legislation and is subject to the approval of Parliament.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

In the course of the Energy Act 2004, there was a proposal that the maximum capacity for small-scale combined heat and power as a low-carbon technology should also be set at 5 MW. The Government rejected that and it was kept as 50 kW. Will the Minister clarify how that ties in? Combined heat and power systems are specifically included within the Government’s definition of microgeneration. There will now be some doubt in people’s minds about where the 50 kW limit and the 5 MW capacity come in.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was not the Minister at the time of the 2004 Act and I do not have an immediate answer. However, I am sure that by the time I have finished this page of my brief, I will have one and he will get it.

The proposal removes the need to define the term “small scale” in the context of this Bill. Moreover, the higher limit also allows for consideration of plant of a size that could be used for community-scale generation and buildings, such as schools and hospitals, which I am sure the hon. Member for East Surrey intended to include when he drafted the Bill.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I hope that the Minister will have an response to my minor point. The question of the amended definition, which is important, relates also to the new clause 4 definition, which has a meaning that in turn relates to microgeneration strategy. That appears to be outside legislation. I am not clear whether that line of definition eventually ends up outside legislation rather than inside it, and therefore could be capable of being challenged on the grounds that it is within a document and not within legislation, where it would be clearly defined.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I do not think that I have any chance of answering my hon. Friend’s complex query. Only those who have been involved in detailed drafting and are familiar with the other Acts will be able to provide an answer. I hope they will be able to pass me a note.

The note I have been passed in relation to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wealden does not answer his question. I am told that the Energy Act 2008 sets 50 kW limits for micro-CHP, but he told us that in posing his question. So the question remains. I hope that we will get an answer, but if we fail to do so, I will write to him, as I will to my hon. Friend if we cannot clarify his point either.

The higher limit would allow the consideration of projects that could be in schools and hospitals. I think that we would all want that to happen. However, no precedent exists in law in relation to a small-scale limit on the generation of heat. For the purposes of symmetry, and because I believe it is sensible, we have therefore included an equal limit of 5 MW thermal in relation to the generation of heat.

Amendment 3 is a technical amendment which is necessary because the Secretary of State is the only person who can perform functions under the Bill. There is, therefore, a need to make it explicit that he or she is the only person who can be put on the face of the Bill.

Subject to the amendments outlined above, which are important for reasons of consistency and certainty and to align the Bill better with existing legislation, the Government are content that clause 2, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

It is becoming increasingly clear, to me at least, that one of the many advantages of allowing the Government to make the running with their new clauses is that the Minister has to answer all the really difficult questions.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

Or not.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

Indeed. I hope that the Minister will, in due course, have answers to the questions that have been posed on the amendments, which I support. Amendment 2 offers a definition of green energy that is clearer than the one in the Bill on Second Reading. The definition of course includes heat, which the Bill originally overlooked. I am delighted about that. It is important progress and a vindication of the co-operative approach that we have adopted.

I also welcome the capacity limit, which is about the right level. There is no perfect way of determining what the right level is, but that should enable local communities and community-based organisations to take up initiatives in green energy. We want communities to become involved in solving the problems of climate change in all sorts of ways. Amendment 2 supports that agenda.

As the Minister rightly said, amendment 3 is purely a technicality. Only the Secretary of State can perform functions under the Bill and the amendment makes that abundantly clear.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

I want to return to the point that I raised earlier because it is important to have a clear understanding of what is intended. We completely support the purpose of amendment 2, which is to provide greater simplicity and clarity—so that there is one general threshold at 5 MW. Is it the case that, within the definition of the Bill, CHP of up to 5 MW would be allowed, yet it would only benefit from the feed-in tariff up to 50 kW? Is that the difference? Or is the Minister proposing that there should also be a change to the feed-in tariff regime to provide clarity and uniformity?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being provided with a clear answer to his question.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Will the Minister give way?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not about to tell me what I should know.

On the feed-in tariff, I am certainly not aware of any proposals to make a change. When he posed the question, the hon. Member for Wealden said that the limit on micro-CHP was set at 50 kW. I will endeavour to provide him with an answer in due course.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I would not dare to presume to tell the Government what to say in response—not yet, anyway. Is one of the potential problems with combined heat and power that it is not technically and strictly a renewable energy source? It is certainly an energy-saving one and it would be interesting to discuss in more detail—perhaps I can buy the Minister a little time—whether it will come within the definition of a low-carbon energy source.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I am being told that I was correct in saying that we are not using the Bill to change the details of feed-in tariffs, so there is nothing more to be said on the matter. I have already repeated that the limit of 50 kW on CHP will remain for those tariffs. I am going to stick my neck out, but as the questions were posed, it seemed to me that CHP did not fall within the definition of green energy. I am trying to get that checked; I have just come to the Bill and do not have the background to it. I need to be sure whether we are covering that matter.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I think the point that is causing some discussion on the Liberal Democrat Benches is that the definition of “energy efficiency measure” in new clause 4 is

“a measure to improve efficiency in the use by consumers of electricity, gas or any other source of energy”.

It is at least arguable that CHP is a measure that improves efficiency in the consumer use of gas.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance. My concern is that I need clarity; I need to be absolutely certain. I am being told that CHP is included. However, nothing in the Bill changes anything that I have said about feed-in tariffs, or about the levels that we have made obvious in terms of the generality for the 5 MW in cases of both heat and electricity.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

CHP would absolutely be included because new clause 1 says that “renewable or low-carbon source”

“means a source of energy or technology specified in ... the Energy Act 2004”.

In the 2004 Act, under microgeneration, section 82(7)(i) has:

“combined heat and power systems”,

so it most definitely is included. I am not seeking to make the Minister’s life more complicated, and I hope that she accepts that with good intent. I am happy for her to write to us. If, on further reflection, there is any confusion, she might want to table a further amendment on Report. We do not want to disrupt the course of the Bill, but there is a lack of clarity that it would be helpful to clear up.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I am more than happy to see that that happens—both to write to the hon. Gentleman and to see whether there is a need for greater clarity. As I have demonstrated, he has raised a number of questions on which I was not briefed. They were clearly not anticipated and I have insufficient background knowledge to give him a proper answer. Let us admit it; he has confused me, but we will deal with those matters and have certainty in a written response. If there is a need to do something, that will be done on Report.

Clause 3

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 1—Microgeneration strategy—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy for the promotion of microgeneration in England.

(2) Before preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the producers and suppliers of equipment for microgeneration; and

(b) any other persons whom the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to consult.

(3) Consultation under subsection (2) must begin within 6 months beginning with the coming into force of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish the strategy within 6 months beginning with the end of the consultation.

(5) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consider the contribution that is capable of being made by microgeneration to the matters specified in section 82(3) of the Energy Act 2004 (microgeneration strategy for Great Britain); and

(b) have regard to any other strategy published by the Secretary of State on or after 1st July 2009 in so far as it relates to the generation of electricity or heat from renewable or low-carbon sources.

(6) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to secure the implementation of the strategy.

(7) In this section—

“microgeneration” has the meaning given by section 82 of the Energy Act 2004, but as if in subsection (8) of that section for “45 kilowatts thermal” there were substituted “300 kilowatts thermal”;

“renewable or low-carbon source” means a source of energy or technology specified in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004.’.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

Clause 3 is yet another victim of the accord, and I very much welcome the Government’s new clause. It covers everything that seems necessary at this stage to update and improve the current microgeneration strategy, and includes in subsection (2) a duty to consult the microgeneration industry before preparing the strategy—a wise move—and to consult

“any other persons whom the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to consult”.

When the Minister replies—I hope that this will be an easier question—will she say whom might she include in “any other persons”? For example, will it include non-governmental organisations concerned with environmental matters or with fuel poverty? We all know—it was mentioned on Second Reading—of the potential identified by National Energy Action for air source heat pumps to make a huge difference to fuel bills and to benefit the fuel-poor. Will she assure us that organisations concerned with fuel poverty will be properly consulted?

Subsection (5) of the new clause also improves the original draft by requiring the Secretary of State to take other relevant strategies into account. That should help with joined-up thinking, which we always like to see more of, and with keeping the strategy up to date.

Subsection (7) amends and improves the definition of microgeneration in the Energy Act 2004. Section 82 of the Act produced the current strategy, which has generally worked well, but the new definition of 300 kW thermal is a great improvement on the previous definition of 45 kW thermal, which has turned out to be far too small to make any meaningful difference. We want to help not just single properties but groups of properties, and subsection (7) will help. Again, I commend the Government on their amendments, which I intend to support.

Colin Challen (Labour, Morley and Rothwell)

Will the Minister explain what

“reasonable steps to secure the implementation of the strategy”

means as set out in subsection (6)? Every Government have lots of strategies, but they are not always implemented as fully as the people who legislate for them would like. Will she elucidate “reasonable steps”?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I have a couple of questions and a few comments to make. My first point concerns the timetable for consultation. The 12-month timetable set out in the original measures has been replaced by one lasting, effectively, six months to the beginning of the consultation and six months beyond the end of the consultation, to final publication. We worry at times that this Government are better at producing wind through consultations than wind through turbines. It would be nice to know, in an aspirational sense, when the Minister expects the revised strategy to be published.

Secondly, there are a few losses from the original wording that relate, as the hon. Member for East Surrey pointed out, to the issues to be addressed. Specifically, the original wording mentioned that the review would include a focus on existing buildings, the cost-effectiveness of different technologies, and the active promotion of feed-in tariffs and how they could be achieved. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether those things could be planned as part of the review as well.

In terms of who is to be consulted, the original drafting contained specifics relating to farmers, for instance, and countryside campaigning organisations, albeit in a roundabout way. Again, it would be nice to think that such groups would be specifically consulted. I am not clear why officials saw the need to remove them from the drafting. Parish councils, too, are in the same category. They were explicitly mentioned before but are now only implied under other categories of people that the Secretary of State might see fit to consult. Will the Minister specify whether she intends to consult parish councils?

Finally, I am afraid that the Committee will have to suffer the loss of an opportunity to vote on our amendment (a), as we will not be pushing it to a vote, in the interests of the smooth progress of the Bill. However, it raises the issue of whether consultations that have been completed will be acknowledged as having been part of the process, or whether the Bill will necessitate further consultations on top of those. If so, we might enter an endless cycle of consultations. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point as well.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I must clarify that amendment (a) is associated with new clause 2, and we are discussing new clause 1. We will come to new clause 2 later.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

On a point of order, Miss Begg. I should have clarified that I was referring to amendment (a) to new clause 3.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Right. We will come to new clause 3 as part of the debate on clause 4 stand part. There is also an amendment (a) to new clause 2. It does get a bit confusing.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I would like to pursue the point I raised in respect of this clause in my intervention a moment ago. It may well be that I am utterly stupid and have misunderstood the effect of the various new clauses cumulatively on each other in the Bill, and I do agree that it is rather difficult to follow the new status of various clauses relative to how they appear, so that new clause 1 will become clause 3 of the Bill, should it be accepted, and new clause 4—which has already been effectively accepted—will become clause 1 of the new, revised Bill. If that is the case, then the definition in new clause 4 of “renewable or low-carbon source” applies to the whole of the new Act. However, the definition to which it refers, which is in new clause1—which will become section 3 of the Act—only refers to that clause. The “renewable or low-carbon source” in this section means,

“a source of energy or technology specified in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004.”

as the hon. Member for Wealden has pointed out.

What therefore appears to be the line of reference seems to be something which does not define where the legislation is as far as the whole Act is concerned, but refers to something which does refer to the legislation as far as one section of the Act is concerned. This appears to be a problem.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I think that that is okay because the new clause 4 definition talks about “renewable or low carbon source” having the meaning given to it by section 3(7) of the Act. It does not just say section 3; it says section 3(7). If one looks at section 3(7), one does not look at the words in the section but merely for the words being referred to, which are in inverted commas: “renewable or low-carbon source.” It then says:

“means a source of energy or technology specified in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004.”

I do not think there is a problem here at all, because of the reference to what will be section 3(7).

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

But it is contingent on the words “In this section”. There are two sub-clauses, and one of them is a definition of what low-carbon energy means.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The hon. Gentleman might find that is not actually correct. I think the definition as he finds it in new clause 4 simply explains the definition of “renewable or low-carbon source” using the wording of new clause 1. Only in new clause 1 is the definition contingent on the words “In this section”. Will he accept that?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

May I suggest that there are three options here. Either I am completely wrong, or alternatively—[Interruption.] That may be so.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

It will not help future generations to understand what is going on, not that any of us in the room seem to understand either. It really will not help if the hon. Gentleman silently reads notes passed to him by officials and then does not refer to what they say.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman is right. What I would like to place on the record is my concern that a definition in the Bill—and hopefully soon, an Act—which ensures that low-carbon sources of energy are included, works for the whole of the Act’s purposes. Low-carbon sources of energy means combined heat and power and other low-carbon sources within the definition of the size. It is being suggested that the definition works by interpretation. I might say that at the very least, it appears to be drafting for these purposes which needs an interpretation, rather than giving a clear line right through the original definition which should be in clause 1. In any event, that is a clause which relates to the whole of the Act. Without wishing to delay the progress of this legislation, I would appreciate a note which exemplifies why that is sound in law. I would also like to know why as far as the Bill is concerned, the fact that the definition appears to be in the wrong order may not be, in any way, subversive of the purpose of including low carbon sources properly within the overall definition. I hope that is clear.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that I was glad he ended up confusing himself. He certainly confused all of us and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for Cheltenham for their assistance in trying to sort him out.

I fear at the end of the day, we are all still deeply concerned about this matter. I would like to say to him that he will get a note, and we will clearly check carefully and see if we need to do anything in order to create greater clarity. I can offer him that guarantee.

Returning to the business in hand, the Government opposes clause 3 for similar reasons that we have given in the case of other clauses. We have laid new clause 1, which would replace clause 3 in its entirety. I hope by way of setting out the provisions of clause 3 which are problematic, I can explain to Committee members why the Government cannot support the clause as it stands.

As originally drafted it sets out a requirement to revise the microgeneration strategy under “section 82 (microgeneration)” of the Energy Act 2004, in relation to England. The purpose of the revised strategy would be to promote microgeneration, defined as the use of plant for the production or generation of heat and electricity, where that plant has a generation or production capacity of less than 50kW in respect of electricity and 45kW in respect of heat.

The Government is keen to promote microgeneration but believes that the 45kW thermal limit for heat technology does not go far enough. The hon. Member for East Surrey has acknowledged that. We want to ensure that the new strategy adds real value to work that is already underway, for example, to allow consideration for larger-scale heating systems. We believe giving scope in the strategy to consider wider developments will be beneficial in ensuring that microgeneration plays its part in meeting the challenging 2020 renewable target and contributing to the 80 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions to which we are committed.

The clause also includes specific reference to matters that the Secretary of State must include within the revised strategy, such as financial and fiscal measures which in his opinion will ensure the cost-effective promotion of microgeneration. The Government cannot support unspecified commitments to fiscal and financial measures as this would lead to confusion and undermine important work already under way to support small-scale on-site energy technologies, which I will come to later.

I will attempt to set out the intentions of new clause 1, which seeks to replace the current clause 3 of the Bill. Let me begin by acknowledging the work that has already been done to move forward microgeneration in the UK. The Government published a microgeneration strategy in March 2006 following the Energy Act 2004. We made significant progress in implementing that strategy and reported in June 2008 on the actions set out in that document. I am sure Committee members will agree that it is important to go further and build on what has been achieved to date in the development of microgeneration technologies. Let me make it clear that stakeholders, and hon. Members themselves, have played their part in those achievements.

The new clause sets out clearly the Government’s intention to prepare, consult on and publish a new strategy to promote microgeneration. The new clause also requires the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to secure its implementation. We must ensure that the new strategy adds real value and takes account of work that is already in progress. With that in mind, the new clause makes it clear that the new microgeneration strategy should have regard to strategies relating to the generation of electricity or heat from renewable or low-carbon sources to be published by the Secretary of State after 1 July this year. This is designed to ensure that the strategy takes account of the renewable energy strategy and the heat and energy savings strategy. We want to ensure that we do not duplicate work that is already under way. Nor do we want to treat microgeneration in isolation from policy development in other areas. It must be integral to our long-term plans to increase the use of low-carbon energy.

The new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult producers and suppliers of the equipment for microgeneration in preparing the strategy. We believe this is important and we want to involve industry and other stakeholders in that process. We are already talking to industry and, indeed, this has confirmed the need to do more than revise the previous microgeneration strategy. We need to bring forward a new strategy able to take account of the live and relevant developments taking place in this area.

I would just like for the benefit of the Committee to raise some of the issues that are already current. We know that more needs to be done on information provision to inform consumers and build confidence in microgeneration technologies. Those consumers who want to install microgeneration technologies require easy access to relevant information to inform their purchasing decision.

Similarly, we need to look at supply chain issues, and work is already in progress to develop industry skills in relation to microgeneration. I understand that SummitSkills is doing excellent work in developing the required standards and qualification units for both new entrants and existing workers. We want to reduce some of the current confusion in the marketplace and make it easier for designers and installers of microgeneration technologies to know what training is required and how to go about it. We believe the strategy may be able to help facilitate work in this area.

It has been suggested that the strategy should consider a systems approach as opposed to a technology approach, which is clearly an important issue. This looks at how microgeneration technologies interface and integrate with each other and within systems rather than focusing on individual technologies.

Certification also has an important role to play in providing assurance on the performance and quality of microgeneration installations. We have made some progress on certification despite numerous challenges. The microgeneration certification scheme is now making good progress, although there is still more work to do. It has been opened up to new certification bodies, which should help to create a competitive market for certification services. We might also be able to do further work on the strategy on grid connections and smart grid developments.

Finally, we could review the standard assessment procedure—the SAP—to ensure the tool aligns with our policy objectives to deploy renewable and low-carbon technologies in new buildings and for retrofit. Those are the issues—quite a significant number—that we could consider, but as I have said, the consultation will cover them in greater detail.

The new clause sets out a clear timetable for the preparation of the new strategy. It will require—and this is a response to one of the questions posed—the consultation to commence within six months of the Act coming into force and for the Secretary of State to publish the strategy within six months of the end of the consultation. I believe that that offers clarity and means that we need to publish the revised strategy before the summer of 2010. We will need to publish the revised strategy before next summer.

In terms of microgeneration as it relates to this clause, the new clause refers to section 82 of the Energy Act 2004. I know that the hon. Member for East Surrey is keen to see the strategy maintain that link with section 82. However, new clause 1 gives scope to consider the contribution of the production of heat above 45 kilowatts thermal. We believe that it is important to align the strategy with, for example, recent changes to the eligibility criteria for funding for heating technologies for the low-carbon buildings programme. The Government have recently extended that programme with an additional £45 million, as hon. Members will know, and a specific change to allow support for heat technologies up to 300 kw thermal. We know from experience—and, again, this has been referred to already in the debate—that the 45 kw thermal limit is restrictive for schools and community projects that could otherwise make use of microgeneration heat technologies at those larger scales.

Raising the limit to 300 kw thermal will also allow us to consider, as part of the microgeneration strategy, the important role of small scale community heating networks and what further work is required to ensure greater deployment of these networks in local communities. More broadly, raising the limit gives scope to consider a wider range of issues that may be usefully included in the new strategy than might otherwise have been the case under clause 3, as originally drafted. The new clause does not include a specific reference to the financial and fiscal measures that I have indicated, which appeared in the previous clause. It is important that we are specific about what we intend to do in terms of financial measures. Anything vague only creates confusion and unnecessary uncertainty. The Energy Act 2008 provides for the introduction of the feed-in tariff and the renewable heat incentive. We therefore already have the powers to bring forward effective incentives to encourage the take-up of microgeneration technologies. We plan to consult on feed-in tariffs this summer and on the renewable heat incentive later in the year.

I was asked about our various consultations and the form that they might take. It was put to me that we were losing some of the named persons who might have been consulted. I was also asked specifically about whether there would be consultation with green non-governmental organisations. We would, in approaching the consultation, do what we did with the previous microgeneration strategy, which included setting up a steering group with industry participation and wider stakeholders. All actions in the previous strategy were completed with that approach. It is a common approach taken across Government and it would be very appropriate, for the whole range of consultations, but the particular one we referred to on the microgeneration strategy.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham implied that we consult too much. That is not the view of those consulted. That is not the view of those consulted. They wish to be consulted. They press us to be consulted. It takes time to make proper consultations. We must then properly examine our returns from consultation, and we shall continue to do so. I assure him and the hon. Member for East Surrey that we shall be consulting in the broadest range possible on matters that will meet the questions that they asked.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am grateful to the Minister. I understand the problem of consultation overload, and I recognise that, for understandable reasons, some people think that consultation is often an excuse for inaction. I particularly asked not only about green NGOs, but organisations concerned with fuel poverty. It is not my experience that either of those groups resent being consulted, and I hope that she will confirm that they will be consulted in this case.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

As I was referring to green NGOs, I recalled that the hon. Gentleman had asked about fuel poverty. He mentioned the NEA and air source heat pumps. Since I have been responsible for the fuel poverty strategy, I have looked at its delivery, particularly how we might do better for those who are in fuel poverty in the hardest to treat properties. I have made it clear that new technology offers a solution to those problems. The warm-front scheme has been piloting both solar and air source heat pumps, and we have now made changes in the scheme to allow the delivery of those new forms of technology. We are completely with him. That approach offers a potential solution. We shall need to get on with it. We have made the provision, and we are already piloting it so there is no question, but that the particular consultation will be available to those who are concerned about fuel poverty. I hope very much that they will respond.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am certainly not against consultation, but having been consulted three times about flooding during the past two years since my county flooded, I know that sometimes one good consultation might be better than three not so good ones. My specific question was not so much about green NGOs, but that the phraseology in the original draft was about persons interested in preserving visual amenity in the appearance of the countryside and also parish councils and the farming community. Will the hon. Lady specifically reassure the Committee on each of those counts and confirm that those groups and bodies will be consulted?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I was, in fact, responding to the hon. Member for East Surrey directly about the green NGOs and I was about to come to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham about those whom he believes are missing from the strategy. All of those who he named obviously have an interest in such matters, and I assure him that we shall endeavour to make all parties aware of the consultation and encourage their responding to it.

I was about to conclude, but I must say first that, in preparing the strategy the Government will have to have regard to the promotion of energy efficiency, meaning efficiency in the use by consumers of electricity and gas conveyed through pipes or any other energy source. Energy efficiency plays an important and central role in our long-term energy goals. In the context of microgeneration policy, work has taken place to demonstrate the benefits of combining energy efficiency and microgeneration technologies in reducing the carbon footprint of buildings. In summary, and for the reasons that I have set out, the Government oppose that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill and wish to replace it with new clause 1 in due course.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

This short debate has been interesting. As for the issues raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, my understanding for what it is worth is that the hon. Member for Cambridge is right. Clearly, there is a degree of uncertainty and it would be enormously helpful if the Minister wrote to all members of the Committee with clarification at the earliest opportunity. As I have already made clear to the Committee, I am very content with the Government’s new clause and I hope that it finds its way into the Bill.

Clause 4

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 3—Microgeneration: non-domestic land—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must consider amending the GPDO for the purpose of facilitating the installation of equipment for microgeneration on non-domestic land in England.

(2) In subsection (1) “non-domestic land” means buildings, or other land, other than a dwellinghouse or land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.

(3) Consideration under subsection (1) must begin within 6 months beginning with the coming into force of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable, lay a report before Parliament setting out the outcome of the consideration under subsection (1).

(5) In considering what, if any, amendments should be made to the GPDO, the Secretary of State—

(a) must have regard to the results of any relevant consultation which has been carried out by the Secretary of State in relation to the GPDO; and

(b) may carry out further consultation if the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate.

(6) In this section “microgeneration” has the same meaning as in section [Microgeneration: dwellinghouses].’.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

This is becoming rather hair-raising. Clause 4 and new clause 3 concern microgeneration on non-domestic land. The original Bill referred specifically to considerations about permitted development orders and permitted development rights in relation to agricultural land. This new clause refers to non-domestic land, which includes every piece of land that is not within the curtilage of what is inelegantly called a “dwelling house”. That includes agricultural land and therefore addresses the issue originally raised by organisations such as the Nation Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. The clause also allows sufficient flexibility for objections to be taken into account through consultation while stopping short of conferring an absolute duty to consult. I welcome the Minister’s comments on that approach.

Amendment (a) was tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I think he said during an earlier debate that he did not intend to press this, and my view is that it is unnecessary as the provisions are included in new clause 3(5)(a). It is good news to hear that the Government are already consulting on these matters—or, if not already, are very shortly to do so. I think the Liberal Democrat amendment is unnecessary for those reasons and I hope that they withdraw it.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

As has been anticipated by the hon. Gentleman, we are seeking to remove clause 4 in order to substitute new clause 3 in its place. I shall come to the merits of new clause 3 later, but I shall quickly explain why the Government cannot support clause 4 as it stands. Finally, I am afraid, I will have to explain why the Government oppose amendment (a).

The previous Energy Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), outlined at Second Reading that the Government support the intention behind clause 4 and already plan to fulfil the commitments placed upon them by that clause. Clause 4 require the Government to review the effect in England of development orders made under section 59(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Subsection (2) outlines:

“The purpose of the review is to provide information to assist the Secretary of State to form an opinion as to what provision such development orders should make to facilitate development in England consisting of the installation of equipment, apparatus or appliances for microgeneration.”

Subsection (2) prescribes the scope of the review with reference to particular types of land, namely

“agricultural land or within the curtilage of an agricultural building”

or

“within the curtilage of non-domestic premises,”.

As Members may know, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, the Government intend to consult on proposals for permitted development rights for a range of microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land later this summer. We would like the review to be able to take account of all non-domestic land and do not want the review to be constrained by consideration of the types of land specified in clause 4. Our consultation may include proposals to restrict the scope of permitted development rights to install certain types of microgeneration equipment on particular categories of land, but that is something that should be the subject of consultation and should not be constrained at this stage. We are also concerned that clause 4(3) places a requirement to consult persons appearing to represent a number of specified persons. We want our consultation to be as open as possible and inclusive of all groups and individuals who may have an interest in the proposals. We are concerned that by specifying individual groups, particularly when some of the categories may be open to interpretation, may send the wrong signals to stakeholders, who may feel excluded if they are not specifically listed in the Bill. Finally, subsection (6) defines agricultural land and agricultural holdings with reference to the Local Government Finance Act 1998. As we propose to remove references to specific land types—for example, agricultural land—subsection (6) is superfluous if new clause 3 is accepted in place of clause 4.

The Government have consequently laid new clause 3 to replace clause 4 of the existing Bill and I will outline its key aspects. New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to consider amending the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the GPDO, for the purposes of granting permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land. As I said, the Government already plan to consult later this summer on proposals for permitted development rights for a range of microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land. Non-domestic land is defined as buildings or other land that is not a dwelling house or within the curtilage of a dwelling house. That is a very broad definition which will allow us to consult on proposals for permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on a wide range of land uses. While our consultation proposals may restrict the scope of particular types of microgeneration equipment to particular types of land, it should be the subject of consultation and not be constrained. The clause requires that the Government must begin consideration of potential amendments to the GPDO within six months of the Act coming into force. We are already in the process of preparing consultation proposals and we hope to show demonstrable progress within the six-month time frame specified in the clause. New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the outcome of the Government’s consideration. That requirement is similar to those contained in clause 4 of the current Bill.

Subsection (5) of new clause 3 requires the Secretary of State, when considering what amendments to the legislation might be necessary, to have regard to the results of any relevant consultation in relation to the GPDO. The provision is included because consultation on potential amendments to the GPDO is likely to be underway, or may even be completed, by the time the Bill may come into force. Subsection (5) ensures that the Government will be able to take account of any relevant consultation exercise they have undertaken if the Bill gets Royal Assent. Subsection (5) grants a power to allow the Secretary of State to carry out further consultation if appropriate. That has been included as a safeguard, as we cannot prejudge the outcome of the consultation and, I am sorry to say this, further consultation may be necessary.

Finally, I turn to amendment (a). The Government fully support the intention behind the amendment but we do not think it is necessary because of provisions already contained in proposed new clause 3. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheltenham for already indicating that he is not going to press it to a vote.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am grateful to the Minister and I will certainly stand by my promise to the Committee. There is one specific reference in amendment (a) which does not appear in new clause 3, which is to a consultation having been

“undertaken before the day on which this Act is passed”.

I will be even more content if the Minister could be absolutely clear that a consultation completed at the time this Bill passes will be taken into consideration—because that is not explicit in new clause 3.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I can indeed. I am absolutely certain of that. I was about to say to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the amendment is intended to ensure that any consultation undertaken before the day on which the Act is passed is as effective as if it had been carried out after the Act is passed. We very much support that. The consultation document we plan to issue later this summer will set out our proposals for permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land and clearly we do not want to have to repeat a consultation exercise in the light of the Act being passed, if we can achieve the same outcome by consulting on proposals this summer. I hope that that has made the matter absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman. That is why subsection (5) of new clause 3 deals with consultation and requires the Government to take account of consultation:

“which has been carried out...in relation to the GPDO”.

Arguably, subsection (5) covers everything that the hon. Gentleman’s proposed amendment would have achieved.

Subsection (5) places no time limit on consultation and it can be read as requiring the Government to take account of the results of any relevant consultation that might have taken place prior to or after the Bill is passed. It provides a power to carry out further consultation, if necessary, although I understand that members of the Committee hope that it will not be necessary; indeed, I also hope that it will not be necessary.

Therefore, I believe that subsection (5), which has been proposed by the Government, meets the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and I ask the Committee to reject that amendment.

Clause 5

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Microgeneration: dwellinghouses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”), in relation to England, to provide for the grant of planning permission for specified classes of equipment for microgeneration on, or within the curtilage of, a dwellinghouse.

(2) The classes of equipment for microgeneration specified by virtue of subsection (1) must be or include wind turbines and air source heat pumps.

(3) “Specified” in subsections (1) and (2) means specified in the GPDO.

(4) The amendment mentioned in subsection (1) must be made within 6 months beginning with the coming into force of this Act.

(5) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may grant planning permission subject to limitations, exceptions or conditions.

(6) The Secretary of State must review the effect of the amendment of the GPDO as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of 2 years beginning with the date on which the amendment comes into force.

(7) In this section “microgeneration” has the meaning given by section 82 of the Energy Act 2004.’.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

Again, it seems to me that new clause 2 does exactly the same job that I set out to do, only it does it rather more elegantly. The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 enabled permitted development rights to apply to some microgeneration installations, such as solar installations. It did not extend to air source heat pumps or to microwind technology. As was discussed on Second Reading—I know that the Liberal Democrats have an interest here—that has proved to be a real impediment to the development of those technologies. In fact, the Government have long promised to do something about that and clear away the bureaucratic blockages that are standing in the way of the development of air source heat pumps and microwind.

I said on Second Reading and I will say it again now that I am not in favour of a complete free-for-all; there must be proper consultation and proper safeguards. So I seek the Minister’s assurance on two points. First, I hesitate to ask for it, in the light of what has recently been discussed, but there should be consultation. Secondly, as far as potential noise nuisance is concerned, the consultation will focus on the noise level of 45 dB at the nearest property. That was agreed with the Minister’s predecessor and I think that that agreement is still secure, but it would be very good indeed to hear confirmation that it is secure from the present Minister.

Therefore, new clause 2 moves things on for air source heat pumps and microwind. However, just to prove that nothing is ever perfect in life, there remains unfinished business. I am certain that amendment (a), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, derives from representations made on behalf of proponents of the micro-hydro industry and in particular from Mr. Anthony Battersby, chairman of the Mendip Power Group. I warmly commend Mr. Battersby for his work on behalf of the micro-hydro sector, which I strongly support. However, I very much regret to say that I believe that there are technical reasons why the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for taking this matter forward. It should be completely straightforward to take it forward, but it is not. I understand that there are EU environmental regulations to consider, along with Environment Agency licensing considerations and abstraction licences, as well as consents and processes to take into account. There are other Government agencies, such as Natural England, that have a remit in this area and their views need to be taken into account too.

It is not just that Mr. Battersby, sadly, made his points to me rather late in the day. Even if he had made them to me slightly earlier, it would still have been enormously difficult to have included provision for micro-hydro in the Bill. Furthermore, it is not as if the obstacles that micro-hydro faces are only related to the planning process. Of course, it is the planning process that new clause 2 is principally concerned with.

Although I would encourage the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his amendment, I hope we will hear some encouraging news from the Minister about the Government’s future plans to unblock these obstacles to the development of micro hydro power. I know that Mr. Battersby is aware that Conservatives have pledged to reform the licensing system as soon as is practicable. I hope we will hear again from the Minister that there is all-party agreement about the need to move forward on this potentially very exciting form of micro power.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am grateful for the fairly supportive comments from the hon. Member for East Surrey. He speculates as to who approached me in relation to hydropower. He is wrong—it was my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is a great champion of hydropower in this House and who is very proud of telling me that his constituency may have no escalators, but it has lots of rivers.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am prepared to take what the hon. Gentleman says at face value, but I know where Mr. Battersby lives.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

That sounds rather threatening.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

It was not intended to be threatening. If you visit him, I am sure he will tell you all about micro-hydropower.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

It is an important point. As the hon. Member for East Surrey says, it is true that there are genuine difficulties with incorporating micro-hydro in the same way that other energy sources have been included, mainly because of extraction licences and their environmental and European implications. These are, however, frustrating and irritating impediments and it is very important that we set a timetable for trying to remove them. It is important to have extraction licences where large amounts of water are being taken into the general water supply and being returned a few hundred yards further down the river. This is nonsense. Some encouraging news, as the hon. Member for East Surrey called it, from the Minister would be rewarding. We framed the amendment trying to take account of that. That is why it has rather more open phraseology and also a two-year timetable. If the Minister could take up that level of ambition, it would be very encouraging. Under the circumstances, and in anticipation of the encouraging news, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

The Government have tabled new clause 2 to replace clause 5. Before explaining the merits of that, I will briefly set out why we cannot support clause 5 as it stands. I will then deal with amendment (a), where I hope my news might be encouraging.

Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation to grant permitted development rights to small wind turbines and air source heat pumps on, or within the curtilage of, a dwelling house within three months of the day on which the legislation is passed. First, let me assure the Committee that we intend to consult shortly on the introduction of permitted development rights for these technologies on domestic premises, with a view to introducing the necessary legislation.

Committee members may be aware that we consulted on the principle of extending permitted development rights to wind turbines and air source heat pumps in domestic properties back in 2007, but there were some outstanding issues to resolve, particularly in relation to noise. We have now moved further forward on that issue and I can confirm, as I was asked to do by the hon. Member for East Surrey, that we have agreed to test out a higher noise limit—45 dBA—through the consultation process.

We plan to issue the consultation document later this summer; it will set out our detailed proposals for permitted development rights for wind turbines and air source heat pumps on domestic premises. The Government generally consult for 12 weeks on policy proposals, following which we will need to analyse responses and decide on the appropriate way forward. Once we have decided on final proposals, we will need to draft the secondary legislation that will implement the permitted development rights. The draft legislation will prescribe the technical specification of the technology and method of installation. This places a requirement on us—I am sorry to say this—to refer the amendments to the order to the European Commission, so as to allow other member states to consider the proposals and ensure that we are not creating barriers to entry into the market for European companies. This process takes a minimum of three months. If other member states raise objections, the time scale is extended.

There are therefore a number of hurdles for us to overcome before introducing the legislation, and we cannot go through all those processes within three months, which is why the new clause proposes to extend the period to six months. Finally, the changes to the general permitted development order will automatically be subject to negative procedure by virtue of section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; clause 5(3) is therefore superfluous.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

I should be grateful if the Minister clarified a couple of things. In my constituency, as in that of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, there are a significant number of listed properties. Will she ensure that the consultation exercise will look at the development issues in relation to such properties? It is not simply a planning issue, but a question of whether there may be a need for listed building consent, as well.

Will the Minister also look at the pressure that the air source heat pumps put on the electricity infrastructure? I am a great supporter of such pumps, but there is no record of where they are being installed. The local electricity network will need to be upgraded to accommodate the extra electricity demand, and it would be helpful to have a system in place whereby somebody actually knows the number of pumps being installed, so that necessary upgrades can be carried out.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those two important points. I share his concern about listed properties. I recently spoke at a meeting organised by the Church of England, which owns many listed properties. We talked about whether new technologies could be installed, and the difficulties faced. He is absolutely right that we need to look at the issue. He is also right about the pressure on the supply from air source heat pumps. The piloting that has occurred has been brought to our attention, and the matter clearly needs to be addressed. The consultation will have to look at both those matters.

New clause 2 will replace clause 5 and requires the Secretary of State to amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in relation to England to introduce permitted development rights for wind turbines and air source heat pumps on, or within, the curtilage of a dwelling house. The term “dwelling house” is defined in the interpretation clause of the Bill, and reflects the broad concept of what constitutes use as a dwelling house for the purposes of planning legislation. Adopting that broad definition will allow us to address concerns about the treatment of any particular buildings that would naturally fall within the definition, but which may need to be treated differently in respect of any of the rights proposed. We may then make appropriate amendments to the GPDO to take account of those concerns.

Amending the GPDO for the technologies is a natural follow-up to the legislation we introduced in April last year, when we extended permitted development rights to various types of domestic microgeneration equipment, such as solar panels, ground and water source heat pumps, biomass flue systems and combined heat and power system flues. The Government have always planned to extend permitted development rights to domestic wind turbines and air source heat pumps.

The consultation that we will issue later this summer will set out our proposals for permitted development rights for wind turbines and air source heat pumps. The consultation will propose that the installation of those technologies should, among other criteria, be subject to a noise limit of 45 dBA at the window of a habitable room in any neighbouring property, as the hon. Member for East Surrey has suggested.

The new clause specifies that amendments to the GPDO must be made within six months of the Act coming into force. That should allow sufficient time to assess the consultation responses, finalise the legislation and then go through the necessary clearance procedures with the European Commission, prior to introducing the legislation, which is planned for April 2010.

The new clause places a requirement on the Government to review the effectiveness of the amendments to the GPDO as soon as practicable following two years of the amendments having been made. That provides an opportunity for the Government to assess how well the permitted development rights are working, and in particular to assess the appropriateness of any noise limits that might be contained in the legislation. In conclusion, the new clause is an important driver for the work we are doing to introduce permitted development rights for wind turbines and air source heat pumps on domestic properties. I therefore ask Committee members to support the new clause.

Finally, I need to explain why the Government cannot support amendment (a). The amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals to introduce permitted development rights for micro-hydropower in a domestic setting within two years of the Act coming into force, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. The Government have considered the introduction of permitted development rights for micro-hydropower already and we have rejected it. I shall explain why.

The Department for Communities and Local Government, in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Planning Inspectorate, commissioned Entec UK Ltd to review the operation of development orders surrounding permitted development rights for householders to install microgeneration equipment within the curtilage of a dwelling house, and to make recommendations for improving those development orders.

As part of that work, the consultants examined the potential for hydro schemes to benefit from permitted development rights. The consultants undertook extensive discussions with the industry and local authorities, and examined case studies to inform their work. They found that domestic hydro schemes were very rare and that very few would fall within the curtilage of a dwelling house, which is the accepted extent of permitted development rights for householders. Participants in the workshops, including the British Hydropower Association, shared that view. The consultants concluded that domestic hydro schemes are so rare and potentially complex—including engineering and construction works, as well as watercourse abstraction—that changes to permitted development rights are not required or appropriate.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am rather disappointed by the Minister’s emerging response and—given the number of dwelling houses that are converted water mills, where the drop in water height is and has been sufficient to generate energy—surprised. Surely that is a common occurrence. At the risk of going against my previous advice and suggesting that further consultation is required, I urge the Minister to look more carefully at this matter in future.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I appreciate that what I have said so far is deeply disappointing to the hon. Gentleman, but I will come on to something that may improve his mood. I do not think that we need to consult because this was clearly a thoroughgoing and properly constructed consultation and the results were very negative. However, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Surrey will be aware that there are factors that make getting permission for such microgeneration facilities very difficult. We need to address those factors, which I intend to do in a moment.

The consultants recommended that above-ground pipelines might be permitted development, provided they were up to 0.5 m in height. However, the Government concluded that such a small change would not really achieve much in practice, given that the rest of the scheme had to get planning permission anyway. The proposal not to include permitted development rights for hydro schemes was the subject of a consultation—the second consultation—from April to June 2007. Of those who commented on the hydro proposal, 84 per cent. agreed that it should not have permitted development rights.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

Is that not possibly because 84 per cent. of the people who responded were promoting different technologies?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman could be right. I have not read the responses to that particular consultation, which happened several years ago. However, when looking at responses to consultations and coming to a judgment, the Government are careful to consider whether it is a fair response, or whether it might be otherwise motivated. I am relying on what I have been told, and one might consider the consultation from the point of view of the previous consultation, after which all that the consultants could come up with was, “We’ll let them have a few pipes above ground.” We are looking now at a second consultation, which was based on the conclusions of the first, and I have to believe that it is a fair representation and that the first one was not the way forward.

In summary, the Government’s view on the matter has been informed by the consultations, but also by discussions with the industry, local authorities, and environmental and professional bodies. Our view has been the subject of public consultation and we have found that there is little appetite for permitted development rights in a domestic context for hydro technologies.

I take this opportunity to assure Committee members that we are aware of concerns relating to the environmental permitting systems for micro-hydro power. When I was a DEFRA Minister I had to deal with environmental permitting and I know what a nightmare it is. The Environment Agency is already working on implementing a good practice guide for small-scale hydro, which will be published by the end of next month. Those who are interested will undoubtedly wish to get hold of that good practice guide, to see if it complies with their needs.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am grateful to the Minister and apologise for interrupting her again. I vividly recall visiting the hydro project in New Mills, Derbyshire recently. There was a plan to install an Archimedes screw into the river there, which was going to power the local primary school. The plan ran into all sorts of problems with the Environment Agency, which insisted that an abstraction licence was required, even though the water was simply going to be deviated a few yards, turn through a screw, and be put back in.

I accept that it might be rather a white-knuckle ride for local fish—if they had knuckles—to go through the Archimedes screw, but I cannot believe that any serious environmental damage was going to be done. That is the sort of problem that people encounter, and I hope that the Government will take these issues seriously and get some reform in place.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken this seriously and that we believe, as he does, that the system could be very much improved. I am pleased to tell Committee members, on behalf of DEFRA, that we can commit to a complete review of the environmental consent process for micro-hydro power. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that the aim of the review will be to develop recommendations for a streamlined system that is quick and easy for developers, but which maintains a high level of environmental protection.

The review will be undertaken by the Environment Agency—working in co-operation with DEFRA—within a year of the Bill coming into force. It will take account of any ongoing, or future, work. While the Government cannot support amendment (a), I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government’s commitment to this important sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

That is a welcome proposal and we are keen to support micro-hydro power. However, can the Minister clarify for the Committee what, exactly, will be delivered within a year? Is it the policy that will be put in place, a document for consultation, or a review? Exactly what will have happened within 12 months?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I cannot do more than repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman, which is that the review will be undertaken by the Environment Agency, working in co-operation with DEFRA, within a year of the Bill coming into force. The review will take account of any ongoing and future work. This is a review which is directed at getting a new system, so that developers have a streamlined system that is quick and easy for them. It will provide the recommendations for that to happen. That is as much as I am able to tell him at this stage; it is a DEFRA lead, and, having worked in the area of environmental permitting, I know that there is no doubt this is a very complex matter. My words are on the record as to what we seek to achieve, and that is to get improvements into this area so that these technologies can be put in place much more easily and quickly—clearly having to use planning permission, but dealing with some of the barriers and frustrations that hon. Members have raised here today.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am most grateful to the Minister for her response to what has been a worthwhile debate. I wholly agree with her analysis that this new clause is potentially a very major driver, putting real weight behind air source heat pump technology and micro wind, and that offers very exciting opportunities for job creation, carbon reduction, and cost reduction as well. So I warmly support the new clause, and I thank the Minister also for her response to the Liberal Democrats’ amendment, which I think has some nuggets of hope contained within it.

Clause 6

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

No nuggets of hope here, I am afraid. The purpose of clause 6, as originally drafted, was to end the anomalous position whereby people or businesses who improve their properties through the installation of micro power technologies may suffer on revaluation an increase in their tax. It strikes me as logically the case that this acts as a disincentive to people and businesses who want to do the right thing. It therefore struck me that this Bill was the right vehicle in which to raise this matter, to test the Government’s thinking on it. I confess I had no great hope of a positive outcome. An unseen hand drafted me a speaking note on this issue, and the fact is that I have conceded that clause 6 will probably not form part of the Bill.

The unseen hand drafted the following:

“This deletion is clearly the idea of counter-revolutionary forces in the civil service. However, who am I to oppose the forces of reaction?”

The Minister, I am afraid, finds herself in the position of the forces of reaction this afternoon.

I do accept that where households are concerned—because revaluations are, thankfully, pretty rare—a relatively small number of people might be affected by this. But there may be consequences for small businesses, particularly where revaluations are rather more common. So I do remain concerned about the principle at stake here: we should not be penalising people who are doing the right thing. For the sake of the rest of the Bill, however, I am reluctantly prepared to ditch clause 6, but not until I have heard the Minister produce a halfway decent, plausible excuse for the Government’s approach to this important matter.

Colin Challen (Labour, Morley and Rothwell)

It is a slight matter of regret that that little speech had to be made, but I will go along with the proposer of the Bill in his conclusion on that. I do hope that we will get a very positive reply from the Minister, because we are considering—at the same time as we are looking at this Bill—other possibilities for changing council tax to recognise energy efficiency measures, and some local authorities and British Gas and others have participated in pilots where people have been rewarded for energy efficiency in their homes with reductions in council tax. This proposal is exactly of that order. If people are going to go out spend money on good things, they should be rewarded for it. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government are going to approach this in the absence of this clause.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I have always wanted to stand against the forces of reaction and I am happy to join the hon. Member for East Surrey on the barricades in favour of many revolutionary measures, but this one in particular, any day. It seems like an eminently sensible measure to introduce. I have heard the Government’s excuses and none seems very convincing. One such excuse is that energy efficiency and mircrogeneration is unlikely to sufficiently increase the value of a property to push it beyond a particular council band boundary. I cannot see how the Government could possibly know that, because if it had only been marginally below it to start with, the prospect of buying a property with much lower energy bills than its neighbour seems to be eminently likely to push it over a small marginal increase that would take it into a higher band.

Another excuse has been that the council tax system already disregards improvements until a property is sold. This is a long-term piece of legislation and one that not only applies when a property is first sold, but in subsequent sales as well. As the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell quite rightly said, we ought to reward and incentivise such improvements and not, potentially, punish them.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

There is no challenge there then, is there? I just say to the hon. Member for East Surrey that, as well as the unseen hand, this will not be the first time that he has accused me of being the forces of reaction, but I remain named as such because of what I have to say.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I do not know who the hon. Lady is referring to. I was very careful to read out a redacted version of what the unseen hand had written.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

Let me just say that my colleague, the former Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), made it clear on Second Reading that the Government could not support the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. I guess that the hon. Member for Cheltenham may be, in listing the so-called excuses, quoting from my right hon. and learned Friend. I will, I am afraid, have to make the same arguments today that were made by right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading, because of course these matters have not changed. Therefore, we have to oppose, as the hon. Member for East Surrey anticipates, that clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 requires that an increase

“in the value of a property arising from the installation of an energy efficiency measure or a microgeneration system after the day on which this Act is passed shall be disregarded for the purpose of assessing council tax or non-domestic rates payable on that property.”

Council tax, as we all know, is a property tax based primarily on the value of a person’s home. There are no plans to link the level of council tax that a person has to pay to how energy-efficient their home and property is. At present, making changes or improvements to a property that increases its value cannot result in a higher council tax band until the property is sold, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. An increase in the band will take place only if the alterations add sufficient value to the property to move it into a higher band. He disputes that that is likely; the advice that we have from the Department for Communities and Local Government is that that is the case.

The value of a dwelling depends on a number of factors, including its size, lay-out, character and locality. Generally, any improvements made to a property will not be taken into account for banding purposes unless, as I said, the property is sold. Even then, the alterations will not necessarily mean an increase in the council tax band. That will happen only if the alterations have added sufficient value—reflecting 1991 values—to push the property into the higher band.

Colin Challen (Labour, Morley and Rothwell)

If somebody were to consider purchasing a house that may fall into a higher property band, then that would act as a disincentive—a perverse disincentive, in fact—because they might choose another property which may not fall into that category. This needs careful re-examination.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

The argument is that people choose properties for a huge variety of reasons. Location is normally a prime issue and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, people will be influenced by have a whole list of subsidiary factors. If they have the prospect of buying an energy-efficient home, they might well way weigh in the balance the comparison between the cost of their energy and the cost of their council tax. They might still favour the more energy-efficient home, even though there might be a slight difference in the council tax band. It is a relatively small factor. I do not think we can anticipate its being such a major one as to determine council tax banding, as opposed to energy-efficiency being a significant factor in people’s choice of home. Clearly, we are not going to agree.

I will say to all hon. Members, that, having worked on a variety of issues across Government to try to apply positive measures to homes, there is always the call to use the council tax system as a means of rewarding people. I understand that people who have to deal with financial matters are reluctant to pile more and more factors into how council tax banding should be set. It is extraordinarily complex and there can be rewards that are quite different and separate.

However, that said, if local authorities want to incentivise the use of microgeneration in homes, they can use their own existing powers. Those are the council tax discounts powers, under section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for properties with higher standards of energy performance. The council would set a level of council tax reflecting that, which would then be revenue neutral to the authority. Taxpayers not qualifying for the discount would, effectively, subsidise those that do, providing a further incentive for people to act.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I hope that the Minister will come to the issue of non-domestic rates, where what she has said will not apply.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I will conclude on the matter of local authorities and the scope they have. We are aware that, already, some local authorities, with assistance from British Gas, have provided a one-off rebate on council tax bills to council taxpayers who have taken certain measures to improve energy efficiency in their homes. So there is some scope—there is a means of councils incentivising, and, consequently, encouraging other home owners to do the same as those being rewarded.

On non-domestic rates, microgeneration equipment is already ignored in the assessment of rateable value until the next revaluation. The exemption was introduced on 1 October 2008. It will also apply to any 2010 rating list, so that equipment fitted between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015 will not be assessed for rates until 2015.

I am told it is unlikely that fitting microgeneration equipment at business premises would lead to a reassessment of their rateable value. Nevertheless, the exemption was introduced to remove uncertainty, and provide clarity and reassurance to businesses working to reduce their carbon footprint.

I know that what I have said will not meet with favour in the Committee, but that is the position of the Government, it will not change. We are opposed to clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

Charles Hendry (Conservative, Wealden)

I am very uneasy about what the Minister has said. I should have thought that one of the reasons people install microgeneration, and the sort of technology under discussion, is that it will increase the value of their homes—and not just because they want to do the right thing. What the Minister proposes could be an absolute block on the sale of such houses. Even if it were a small minority of houses, it might become known that they have moved into a higher council tax band. That extra payment in council tax might negate the feed-in tariff benefits that the householder derives. Therefore, many people choosing between two houses—one that has been equipped with these technologies and one that has not—will say, “I will go for the one that has not, because there is no risk that I will then be put into a different council tax band.” We could put a black mark on houses which have done the right thing. That seems a peculiar situation to be in.

The other thing—and this is a practical point—is that the Minister talks about the council tax being based on the 1991 valuation of those properties. It is therefore expected that a valuation from 1991 will be required, based on technology which was not invented until 10 years later. What is the 1991 value of an air source heat pump? There cannot be one because it was not invented. How, in practice, is this going to work?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

In posing the last question, he has answered the case. It will not be possible for them to put a value on it and that would preclude raising the council tax level. The hon. Gentleman spoke about people having a block on doing the right thing and doing what we would want them to; that is, installing microgeneration and making use of feed-in tariffs where possible and appropriate. I believe that the major motivation is that it will save people money on their energy bills in the long term. Given the very high price of energy and the unlikelihood of energy prices ever returning to previous levels, that will be the motivation. People looking at property will see that and when they buy it, they will know what the council tax band is. They are not going into a risk situation because the council tax band is established and the microgeneration is in place. The savings to them will be obvious.

It is a matter of opinion. There are no absolutes. It is a small part of what is going to influence people in their purchasing patterns. For other reasons which I have just hinted at, I have to say that the fact that there are so many demands to link so many policies to reductions in council tax means that the Government will continue to resist, I am afraid.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

What a very disappointing but not wholly unexpected response from the Minister. She is clearly uneasy and her body language said more than the script. I hope she will take this up with the place where I have no doubt this probably started: Her Majesty’s Treasury, where most of our problems begin and end. I hope she will do what she knows is the right thing, which is take this issue to the heart of Government and make sure we do not penalise people for doing the right thing themselves.

Clause 7

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) This Act comes into force at the end of 2 months beginning with the day on which it is passed.’.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 9, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, after ‘England’ insert ‘and Wales’.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

Clause 7 sets out the extent of the Bill and is, therefore, very important.

Amendment 9 is technical, to correct the extent of the Bill. This is because—hon. Members may find this as surprising as I did—there is no legal jurisdiction called England. Members will be aware that clauses in relation to the microgeneration strategy and permitted development all apply to England only. The consequences are that we must make the technical amendment, but there is no doubt that in terms of the effect of the Bill, it gives us a microgeneration strategy and permitted development only in England.

We have dealt with amendment 8, bringing the provisions of the Act into force two months after Royal Assent.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

It certainly came as a surprise to discover that there was no legal entity called England. In consequence of this discovery, I need to correct something I said on Second Reading, when I took the House of Commons Library to task. In its very helpful document about the Bill, it said—I thought erroneously—that the provisions applied to England and Wales. I went out of my way to calm people, as I know how interested in legislation people in Wales can get if they think that it affects them, so I am afraid that I erroneously corrected the House of Commons Library. It does, indeed, apply to England and Wales; except, of course, that it does not.

Schedule

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

The schedule applied to old clause 5, which the Committee has decided to delete from the Bill. It is therefore otiose and for that very reason, if I am meant to be moving it, I shall not. Since I think that this is the Committee’s final debate, Miss Begg, may I thank you very much indeed for your chairmanship and assistance to the Committee in our moments of need? I thank the Minister very much for her courteous and thoughtful responses, and all colleagues who have participated in moving the Bill forwards. No doubt, we will look forward to meeting again on Report in due course.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

We have a few votes to get through first.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I know that we have, but I was not sure whether I could speak after them.

New Clause 1

New Clause 2

New Clause 3

New Clause 4

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

My thanks to you, Miss Begg, for presiding over this Bill Committee. If all Public Bill Committees were as complete in their consideration of amendments and were as quick as this, we should all be very much happier. Perhaps we should recommend it to Mr Speaker Bercow. The Government’s amendments have, clearly, made many technical improvements to the Bill and it is right to thank the Minister for her support of it, in principle, and to thank her and her team for the obvious hard work that has gone into those amendments.

It may be a slightly more wishy-washy shade of green than the original Bill from the hon. Member for East Surrey—I repeat my congratulations to him for bringing his Bill this far—but it is obviously a welcome step in the right direction, and it is encouraging that all parties have agreed to support this new legislation. We wish it well in its next stage.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I cannot possibly agree that this is a less green Bill than it was when it started. We intended to work with the hon. Member for East Surrey to improve the Bill, to get it into a state where it is more accurate, wider and deeper. We ran into some confusion early on, and I will seek to make sure that that is clarified and that we are able to proceed from here to the next stage of debate. Let me again congratulate the hon. Gentleman and thank everybody concerned with the Bill. I recognise that this is a Committee made up of people who take these issues very seriously and work on them a great deal. I have to say that, with some exceptions, we often find consensus and I am pleased that it has happened today.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

And finally, Miss Begg, my thanks to all hon. Members who have taken part in this Committee and especially to you.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

And my thanks go to the Committee. I have enjoyed it. It has been my first private Member’s Bill.