---

Mr. Forth: In a sense, the discussion takes us back to the debate on sources of energy and the list that we considered. Up to now, my hon. Friend has rightly talked about the visual and noise effects of wind turbines. We have also touched on photovoltaics—solar panels—which are probably the least intrusive pieces of equipment. However, as he rightly explains, once we get into biomass, biofuels, fuel cells and other more exotic and esoteric sources of energy, the safety element becomes of great importance. Their location and the safety factors surely must be taken into consideration. That was partly what I had in mind when I drafted my little amendment No. 13.

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is right, and it is why his amendment has more in its favour than it has against it. I do not mean to damn it with faint praise; safety is a significant element.

My right hon. Friend also tabled amendment No. 70, which was not on the selection list last week because it had not reached the daylight and been exposed for public discussion. It reflects the concern that I expressed that the clause as drafted does not make provision for consultation. The amendment spells out the requirement for that.

I said that I would not be too long on this group of amendments, so I sum up by saying that surely the best protection is provided by ordinary planning law, which
 
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1739
 
requires consultation with neighbours, residents' associations, parish councils and town councils. It gives the decision-making power to elected local councillors. Surely that is what we should be urging on the Government. We want to increase the safeguards, rather than reduce the protections.

Mark Lazarowicz : I shall speak briefly. This part of the Bill originated in an amendment tabled in Committee, and was not included in my original version. I am pleased that both Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers have made suggestions that have been incorporated in the Bill, and I am pleased that it has proved to be a suitable vehicle for such improvements.

When I said that I would speak briefly, I did not use the word in the sense in which it was applied to the 44 minutes during which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made what was described as "not a long speech". The hon. Gentleman did, however, raise an important point. Clearly, clause 9 could have different effects depending on how it was applied. I would certainly oppose it if I thought that it would result in "monstrosities" in people's back gardens, with 12.5MW biomass plants being described as microgeneration plants.

I am aware that in the debate on renewable energy, and wind power in particular, there are extreme views on both sides. There are those who oppose any form of wind turbine, no matter how large or small or whether it is in the country or on someone's house; and there are wind power enthusiasts who would favour allowing any wind turbine anywhere, whatever its size and wherever it was located. I do not support either of those extremes. The clause is intended to make it possible, in the right circumstances, for microgeneration installations to be placed on people's houses without the unnecessary bureaucracy that is too often involved at present. That bureaucracy varies from authority to authority, which lessens the possibility of wider use of the technology.

The application will have to differ from community to community. What may be possible in some areas or communities will probably not be possible in conservation areas, or areas with particular historical significance. That is why I think that the review proposed in clause 9 is essential. We cannot possibly specify every single way in which the powers will apply in every single type of community. I therefore think that the permitted development order procedure is appropriate. I trust that the Minister will tell us how he will consult, how he expects the clause to be implemented, and what principles he will apply to its implementation.

I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will be satisfied with whatever the Minister says in his response. He is right to ask questions, and if he is not satisfied with the answers he will be able to vote in due course. I repeat, however, that if we are serious about allowing microgeneration to be used more widely so that people can take advantage of its benefits, we must not allow too many bureaucratic obstacles to interfere with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who tabled the original amendment in Committee, may speak from his own experience.
 
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1740
 
However, given that the clause merely suggests that a review should be conducted and laid before the House, and does not allow development orders to be made independently, I hope that Members will reject the amendment if the hon. Member for Christchurch presses it to a vote.

Gregory Barker : Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) spoke at great length, he expressed sensible and justifiable concerns that might well be shared by anyone who approached clause 9 in a sceptical frame of mind. I have no doubt, however, that his worries are unconnected with the intention behind the clause. I welcome what I believe to be its true purpose, which—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said—is to permit the installation of domestic appliances, probably the size of a television aerial or satellite dish, which are unobtrusive in any normal sense of the word.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has used the word "probably". Is that not part of the problem? Is it not better to establish clarity than to leave any doubt whatever? As my hon. Friend will know, we have sometimes passed legislation whose intention has been twisted out of all recognition in practice.

Gregory Barker: That is a good point, but this is not enabling legislation. The clause simply asks the Minister to produce a review, which would have to be laid before the House. That would be the proper time to engage fully in the debate on which we are embarking now, and to apply the necessary scrutiny and ask the questions that are being asked today. Once the review had been presented to Parliament, a statutory instrument would be required, which would have to be debated and, if necessary, voted on in the usual way. At that point I am sure that the sensible suggestions in the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the parties whom the Secretary of State should consult and the concerns that he should take into account in his review—such as safeguarding conservation areas, protecting visual amenity, reducing noise and avoiding risks to health and safety—will be properly debated. All we doing now is beginning the process, not reaching a conclusion, prescribing behaviour or forestalling in any way the sensible, rational debate that must follow. We believe that if microgeneration is to enter the mass market and become accessible to the domestic householder, a way must be found of making it just as easy to erect small domestic appliances as it is to erect a satellite dish or television aerial. Therefore, I do not believe that those of us who strongly support the Bill would be well served by the rejection of the clause.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments about some of the points that I made. However, can he spell out how the Bill would be made worse if the clause were omitted completely?

Gregory Barker: It would be worse because there would then be no compulsion on the Secretary of State to review the permitted development status, and it is important that that status is reviewed, for the reasons that I have set out. We need to streamline the process by
 
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1741
 
which microgeneration technologies can be taken up and used by the domestic user. It is absurd that things the size of a television aerial are subject to the current planning laws. It is not the intention of anyone that a 50kW wind turbine be erected in the garden of a bungalow in Bexhill. As we are at the very beginning of the process, we cannot expect the Bill to prescribe every single outcome of the Minister's review. I accept that it is broadly drafted, but I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure us that the review will be conducted under sensible terms of reference and with a clear purpose in mind—to enable the fast-tracking of small domestic apparatus, not the nightmare scenarios that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Opposition Front Benchers do not oppose the clause, and we wholeheartedly support the Bill, but we are mindful of the considerations that have been raised.

Malcolm Wicks: I thought that it would be useful if I intervened at this stage. Amendment No. 32 would remove clause 9—an important clause that was added in Committee on 9 February. Clause 9 requires a review of permitted development rights. That will allow the Secretary of State to form a view about the need for any further rights to facilitate the installation of microgeneration equipment on houses.

David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): I wish to correct what the Minister has just said. Clause 9 would not "allow" such a review, because such a review could happen now, under existing powers in the planning legislation. Instead, clause 9 would require such a review, and that is the important advantage of it. But it does not change what could be done now.

---