| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 20, at end insert
', and after consultation with such public and private sector bodies as he considers appropriate'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales and the regions of England'.
Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales or one of the regions of England'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 36 [Clause 3], leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales and the regions of England'.
Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales and regions of England'.
Amendment No. 30, in page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (8).
Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38
Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 20, clause 6, leave out 'appropriate' and insert
'efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial'.
Mr. Forth:
I want to promote a debate about whether it is more sensible for us to adopt a national approach
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1106
or whether a regional basis would be more practical and workable. Usually the word "regional" is unpopular on the Conservative Benches, but there are occasions when it is relevant and this is one of them. I say that for several reasons, which I shall try to explore.
Proceeding on a regional rather than a national basis would create the possibility of conducting pilot schemes. One aspect of our approach not only to the Bill but to related measures that worries me is the assumption that if we simply go ahead with all the splendid schemes, ideas and projects on a national basis, they will work and be beneficial. However, a cautious and focused approach to microgeneration might be more worth while. The amendments suggest that a regional rather than a national basis would give us the facility to pilot effectively whatever we believe will be beneficial and ascertain what works and what does not. That is the first reason for my approach.
The other, quite different, reason is that, even in this small nation of ours, there are enormous variations in climatic conditions. Surely we should take account of that when considering the feasibility of different sources of energy, not least microgeneration. It does not require a great deal of imagination to understand that there will be an enormous difference in the contribution that solar panels or windmills are likely to make in a coastal area as opposed to an inland one, in the south of our country as opposed to the north, or in a city as opposed to a rural area.
Mr. Chope: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with the concept of microclimates? Even within his own constituency or mine, for example, there will be different microclimates. They might be similar to microgeneration, in that they ought to be considered in their own context.
Mr. Forth: Of course that is the case, but we have to strike a balance to find the most sensible and workable way forward. We could range from a national approach all the way through to a very local or individual approach. We could consider operating these measures along the lines of local authority areas—indeed, I considered that when I was formulating the amendment—or operating them even more locally. I concluded, however, that it would be more realistic to do so at regional level, as that would make more sense in regard to the setting of targets and the assessment of the results.
Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the problems regarding regional issues relates to the regional boundaries? For example, my constituency is right on the edge of the south-west region, yet it looks more to the south-east. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that we should have a totally different approach in Christchurch from the one taken in the New Forest?
Mr. Forth:
I have to concede to my hon. Friend that, whenever we draw boundaries and delineate areas, there will be anomalies. However, I am suggesting that national targets—particularly in the area of climate, microgeneration and the like—would probably be relatively meaningless, and that a regional approach would be much more sensible. I understand that
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1107
anomalies could well arise in regard to the boundaries between regions, as my hon. Friend suggests, but I think that we shall just have to accept that that might, on occasions, be somewhat misleading or take us in the wrong direction. On balance, however, a regional approach would be preferable to a national one.
Mr. Chope: How does my right hon. Friend envisage the calculations being made to form the basis for the regional targets?
Mr. Forth: That raises an important point. We could, and should, equally ask how we would set about formulating a national target? In the light of the different profiles, demographics and geographical locations of the different regions, we are more likely to be able to set sensible targets for microgeneration and its outcomes at regional level than on a national basis. For example, we should be able to make an assessment of the likely efficacy of domestic windmills or solar panels depending on whether they were on the west coast or the east coast, or in the north of the country or the south. That would be more practical than setting a national target. It could also lead to a more focused approach to policy development.
There are huge variations in housing in this country. For example, if we compare the north of Scotland with Greater London and the south-east of England, a number of important variations spring immediately to mind. Surely domestic windmill or solar panel installations would be far more practical in scattered rural areas than in dense urban areas containing rows of terraced houses. Establishing targets, measuring them and then drawing the appropriate policy conclusions would be done much better on a regional than on a national basis.
Mr. Chope: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but might it not have been better to differentiate between rural and urban areas, as that is where the big divide is found?
Mr. Forth: That would certainly be an approach, but in the light of the local authority provisions in new clause 4 it is probably better in policy terms to target a regional area within which there are identifiable local authorities, to which we have now devolved some of the responsibilities for microgeneration, than simply to differentiate between rural and urban areas. That, hopefully, will provide a continuum from the setting of the target on a regional basis, through the—now—responsible local authorities, to the most local level—the parish or community level. My hon. Friend and I tried to prevent that arrangement, but sadly the Bill now provides for it.
If that approach were adopted, data would have to be compiled, targets would have to be set, and the resultant data would have to be monitored and interpreted. It would also make more sense for interpretation to take place regionally, because of the variations that I have mentioned.
Let me return to the issue of piloting. A regional approach would make it possible to select one or more regions—perhaps very different regions—to establish the way in which targets should be set. It would then be
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1108
possible over a period—not more than five or 10 years—to establish how much sense the targets made, and, by means of decisions made by Government, by local authorities and at other levels, to establish how they could best be used to promote the Bill's objectives. Targets are only of any value and validity if they make sense, and lead to policy decisions that allow the promotion of policy objectives.
I do not think that operating at national level makes much sense in this context, because of the variations to which I have referred. We need a more focused approach based on one or two regions. There might be enormous variations between the regions. One might be a dense urban area—the west midlands spring to mind, if not London, which always seems to be cited as an example—while the other might be much more rural. In the south-west of England, for instance, the climate is different, the wind patterns are different and the days of sunlight are different. Such an approach would enable us to establish much more meaningfully the possible effects of solar panels and windmills as a viable source of alternative energy in, for example, a dense urban area. I remain to be convinced on that point.
What happens will of course depend on decisions that we make on later parts of the Bill, which involve the interesting and complex issue of the planning regime that we intend to introduce, as against what are perceived to be environmental or energy-related imperatives. There is a potential for conflict that we may not be close to resolving.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |