| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hayes: I had not been aware until this morning that the Minister had become such an aficionado of my Tory aestheticism. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made a good point about tourism, but we must never assume that purely utilitarian justifications have to be made for aesthetic value. It is for the love of beauty, and perhaps for the beauty of art, that we should endorse the desire of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) to put this clause into the Bill.
Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I think that we both have a similar vision of the kind of beauty that we wish to see retained in our historic buildings and conservation areas.
Concern has been expressed that the new clause might affect compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That was not raised in Committee, but I want to put on record that that is certainly not the Government's view of the intention of the new clause, and I can assure the House that we would not propose regulations that had that affect. As the Minister responsible for building regulations, one of the interesting requirements of the job is the need to reach a balance between various dilemmas. Later clauses in the Bill cover secure buildings, and on Second Reading we discussed how that security needed to be reconciled with ensuring that people could get out of a
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1118
building easily if it were to catch fire. We have to reconcile different kinds of regulations for different purposes.
We certainly do not want the regulations that we would be empowered to make under the Bill to have a negative effect in regard to the Disability Discrimination Act. Building regulations are goal-based and, within the goals, there will be sufficient flexibility both to ensure that the requirements of the Act are satisfied and to preserve the historic character of buildings.
I am happy to say that the Government welcome the new clause, and support its standing part of the Bill.
Mr. Stunell: I should like to the thank hon. Members who have supported the new clause for the kind words that they have uttered on its behalf. I do not want to waste the time of the House this morning.
I very much enjoyed what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) had to say in Committee. I did point out to him that the Prince of Wales actually did not like some of the buildings now being listed, but there we go. That is how it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made an important point about the value of our historic heritage in many different dimensions. She then put her finger on another problem, which was also raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which I would describe as that of regeneration. Practically everyone knows examples of buildings that are falling into disuse or decay because of a lack of investment possibilities. The new clause will minimise the number of occasions on which that problem might arise. It will not generate any funds, but it represents an improvement on the current situation, which I hope will give some reassurance to those two hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made an interesting point about the way in which the regulations might inhibit investment in listed buildings. I believe that planning regulations will be the more likely barrier than building regulations. I honestly cannot see that this is likely to be an issue in relation to building regulations.
A point that has not been raised in the debate so far, but which is nevertheless relevant, relates to what is called embedded energy. Demolishing and rebuilding might seem an easy option for a dilapidated and decaying historic building, but it represents a very poor deal in terms of carbon emissions. It is possible to spend quite a lot on refurbishment to produce a building with very respectable qualities of sustainability, and still to have spent less than it would have cost to demolish and rebuild. That would also produce a more sustainable outcome than building something brand new, whatever its standard. So a proper understanding of sustainability, which is now beginning to grow, suggests that refurbishment and regeneration often represent a better way of improving sustainability than demolition and rebuilding to a completely new standard.
The Minister was reassuring when he confirmed that this measure does not provide a loophole; it does not exempt any building from any building regulation. It only requires those regulations to heed the circumstances of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. At present, building regulations apply to approximately 1 per cent. of the building stock
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1119
that is built or significantly altered each year. They do not touch the other 99 per cent. My Bill makes it possible, in certain circumstances, for the other 99 per cent. to come within the remit of building regulations, in terms of sustainability. The new clause gives special consideration to 5 per cent. of that 99 per cent., so the Bill will still capture, with full force, more than 90 per cent. of this country's building stock. It will give some limited special consideration to buildings of historic and architectural interest, amounting to about 5 per cent. of our building stock, and I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 6
Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 30, at end insert—
'(4A) The registers shall contain such information and documents that relate to the requirements placed on local authorities under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, outlining any achievements beyond the statutory minimum in pursuit of warm homes and energy conservation.'.
This amendment will add to the Bill. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from you assiduous reading of these matters, that he expressed a similar kind of sentiment in Committee. I think that it is fair to say that he was enthusiastic for the energy conservation issues associated with the Bill to be in line with existing legislative requirements, and that he was seeking to press the Government a little on that issue. We on the Conservative Benches are passionate in our opposition to fuel poverty and in our defence of warm homes. The hon. Gentleman's Bill provides once again the opportunity to tweak the Government's performance a little.
Members on both sides of the House who are associated with warm homes campaigns are doubtful whether the Government will reach their targets. I mentioned that in Committee at greater length and I do not intend to take the House's time by repeating myself. Suffice it to say that the ambitious targets that have been set are unlikely to be achieved unless we make real and significant changes to the way in which we deal with new buildings and with existing ones. Best practice allows buildings to become highly energy efficient, but, sadly, best practice is by no means the norm, even in the case of the most modern buildings. Through improved insulation, improved ventilation, and the whole energy conservation culture, which can be embedded in design, we can, through the Bill, press the Government towards a position in which those targets might be realisable.
I know that there was a certain resistance from the Government when the hon. Gentleman adopted that kind of tone in the earlier stages of the Bill, and I understand that: it is much easier in opposition to make these bold claims than in government, and much easier when one is not answerable for missed targets. There is no point in us not facing up to that truth. It is the role
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1120
of the good Opposition, however, and even of a minor party—I say this to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove—to force the Government's hand, to put appropriate pressure on them, and to articulate the concerns of the House and of people outside this place who specialise in these matters, and who share the passion for the fight against fuel poverty, which is almost intrinsic in Tory thinking and relates to Liberal thinking, too, at least to some degree.
It is therefore important that we once again challenge the Minister, through the amendment, on why he will not go that one step further on the road towards achieving warm, secure homes, fit for the purpose, for all our people. I commend the amendment to the House.
Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East) (Lab): As the amendment refers to the Act that I put through as a private Member's Bill last year, I concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. As one of the roles of Government Back Benchers is to push our Front-Bench team to go that bit further than the permanent government of the civil service would like, I ask the Minister to take on board the sentiments of this amendment, as there are a number of concerns in relation to the way that the Government are tackling fuel poverty, which I know that he shares. I accept, however, that the Government are doing good work, such as that announced this week in the energy efficiency review, all of which is to their credit, and about which we should be talking much more.
As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out, there are a number of concerns that the targets set by the Government will not be met. To those of us who believe that one of the Government's achievements is taking people out of fuel poverty, and taking children out of poverty, this kind of measure is important. The amendment is not necessarily the right way forward, but certainly, the sentiments behind it are. I seek assurances from the Minister that the issues raised in my Act last year, such as linking the work of local authorities with that of the Government, and backing up the work of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and that of the warm homes programme, and getting the balance and synergies between those right, are recognised as important. When the Government supported my Act last year, they recognised that, and when the Minister replies, I hope that he will also recognise that that work needs to be taken forward urgently, as was recognised earlier in the week in the energy statement.
10.15 am
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |