17 Mar 2006 : Column 1705
House of Commons
Friday 17 March 2006
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Orders of the Day
Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
Amendment proposed [10 March]: No. 7, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
', and after consultation with such public and private sector bodies as he considers appropriate'.—[Mr. Forth.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 8, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales and the regions of England'.
No. 16, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales or one of the regions of England'.
No. 17, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales and the regions of England'.
No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
No. 20, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
'Wales and regions of England'.
No. 30, in page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
No. 31, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (8).
Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1706
No. 12, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'appropriate' and insert
'efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial'.
9.34 am
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): —to acknowledge the potential role of the regions. [Laughter.]
On 10 March, the Minister said
"Regions will be able to set their own targets for microgeneration within any national target that we may set, and it would be more appropriate for them to do so, rather than central Government setting them. On those grounds, I oppose amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 20."
That raises a number of important questions. I should like to hear from the Minister at some stage whether he intends to table amendments—probably not at this stage, but when the Bill goes to another place—to give effect to what I have just read out. We shall come to that shortly in another context.
The Minister may think that his words are sufficient, but not all of us are that trusting. We would feel more secure if such important matters were spelt out in the Bill. That, then, is the first question: should this not be subject to an amendment, probably tabled in the House of Lords?
There are a number of other questions to be discussed. By what mechanism would the regional targets match the national targets? If we are to have a bottom-up approach rather than just a national target, I am intrigued by the question that then arises. Has the Minister thought out the way in which regions will be able to set their own targets within any national target?
That gives rise to several further questions. The obvious one is whether the process is to be voluntary. Can some regions set targets while others cannot? If all regions set targets, what will happen if the sum of the regional targets does not match the national target? There are a number of potential difficulties. How far has the Minister—or, more accurately, his officials—thought this through, and how do they think it will work? We cannot have Ministers throwing statements into a debate without our having any idea what they mean and how they would be given effect. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to accept my amendments, and I hope that we shall hear some further explanation from him.
That brings me to amendment No. 12. On 10 March, the Minister said
"The word 'appropriate' is deliberately broad, whereas amendment No. 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), might be too prescriptive, as we may wish to consider other things when making such a decision."
That is followed by the key words—at least in this regard the Minister is entirely consistent:
"However, I assure him that when considering whether to use the powers in clause 6, we will, as always, ensure that we do so in a way that is effective and cost-effective, as well as environmentally beneficial."—[Official Report, 10 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1114–5.]
That is fine as far as it goes. It is a very reassuring statement of the Minister's good intentions. As we know, however, Ministers come and Ministers go. I am not sure that any succeeding Minister would necessarily be bound by what this Minister has to say. That is why
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1707
I was disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my amendment, which I thought would add clarity and improve the Bill. I wanted to insert the words
because—we shall be able to discuss this in more detail when we deal with later amendments—wind power is sporadic and unreliable, as is solar power, while water power is unfortunately relatively rare and inaccessible in this country. I think that we should make very clear what contribution such techniques can make, and that was my intention.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): My right hon. Friend is making a controversial point. Is not one of the difficulties caused by the fact that this is a private Member's Bill, the procedure for which is primarily designed to deal with uncontroversial matters? I have a sneaking suspicion that I shall hear a fair amount from my right hon. Friend this morning, and perhaps from some of his colleagues. Would not the solution be for the Government to introduce measures as controversial as this Bill?
Mr. Forth: I could not agree more, and I have made that point many times over the years. I regard it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to pay particular attention to private Members' Bills precisely because they do not have the benefit of the same governmental scrutiny as Government Bills. My hon. Friend is right: if a Bill is substantial and has controversial elements, the private Member's Bill procedure is not ideal. If the Government wish to suggest that the Bill is essential or vital to the national good, they should be legislating and not leaving it to a Member. I shall not digress further, however, as I do not wish to test your patience this early, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, I hope that I do not do so at all.
If my hon. Friend thinks that this bit of the Bill is controversial, I hope that he will be here when we delve deeply into its planning and development aspects and try to tease out the relationship between the techniques known as microgeneration and the planning regime. It will be important to examine those matters later, including the size of—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I took the right hon. Gentleman at his word when he said that he would not test my patience early on. I hope therefore that he will now address the amendment.
Mr. Forth: I was just trailing what is to come, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wished to forewarn the House about the exciting debates that we will have later. I am warming the House up a bit for those debates—if that is an appropriate term in this subject.
We were talking about the word "efficacious". Although claims are made for the benefit of microgeneration, it should not be assumed that simply to install something that provides power will be the right thing to do in all circumstances. That is why I think that we need a balanced approach, represented by the words
I am using the term "environmentally" in a much broader sense, because we must not forget that those pioneers who developed our planning laws and the regime that supports them saw environmental matters rather differently. Times change, but in my view "environmental" does not mean only matters to do with the climate. It must continue to mean matters of planning and development. In that context, I mean visual appearance, sound nuisance and intrusion into domestic and community life. Those subjects will arise again later, but in the wording of amendment No. 12 I was trying to set the scene for a much more balanced approach than has so far been suggested.
One of the difficulties that we have had throughout proceedings on the Bill is that—for the best of reasons—we have not really heard yet from its promoter, from the Minister or from its enthusiastic supporters how they see the crucial balance between the benefits that they claim for microgeneration and the planning difficulties that could arise. It will be important to be clear about that balance before we proceed much further.
On the issue of cost-effectiveness, we must be clear about the likely cost implications of such installations and on whom the costs will fall. Will it be the domestic or business premise owner, the generators or distributors of power or the taxpayer through the Government? That is not sufficiently clear from the Bill, although I would welcome clarification.
I do not want the Bill—or, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend, any other Bill—to float through the parliamentary process without our having an opportunity to hear about all its different aspects and to take a balanced view of it. That is the value of the parliamentary process. The Committee stage allows the Committee to consider certain aspects of the Bill, but on occasions on which there is an outbreak of consensus, especially between the main political parties, it is even more important that Bills are subjected to careful scrutiny. We need to ensure that the enthusiasts have not run away with themselves. There is a long history of legislation that has received so-called all-party support and has turned out to be thoroughly bad. The best example is probably the Child Support Agency, which we still have not got right, after all these years—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |