---

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is taking up a great deal of our time speculating on what the Minister might think or believe. Perhaps if he drew his remarks to a close, he might find out the answer.

Mr. Forth: No doubt the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being very clever and helping the process, but he has not been here long enough to know that it does not quite work that way. Thanks to the excellent selection and grouping of amendments, my little amendment is the lead amendment in this group, so I get to speak first. If the hon. Gentleman would contain himself, we might just find that the Bill will make a little more progress than he may have anticipated, but being patronising and impertinent will not help his cause.

My amendment would remove clause 17 in its entirety, because it is wrong to direct the no doubt laudable aims of the Bill at the level of parish councils, which have much more relevant things to do with their very limited resources. We need to hear a lot more from the Minister about what his amendments mean and, in particular, why he wants to remove the reassuring element in subsection (3). I look forward to that.

Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry, but I am losing my voice; I trust that it is contagious.

Amendment No. 75 lists a number of bodies that the Secretary of State would have to consult when exercising his duty to promote community energy schemes. As part of the normal course of exercising any duty, the Secretary of State would consult relevant bodies. In the case of the promotion of community energy, such bodies would include local authorities, the energy industry and the Health and Safety Executive. I do not see the need to have a specific list in the Bill. Amendment No. 76 would be consequential on the incorporation of amendment No. 75 in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 relate to the capacity limits that form part of the definition of a community energy project. I accept that limits of 20MW for electricity and 100MW for thermal energy may appear relatively large, but this is just one aspect of the definition. The key parts of the definition are those that ensure the schemes are for community purposes. The
 
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1770
 
capacity limits were deliberately set high to ensure that the definition encompasses future community schemes that may be larger than existing schemes. I am content with the definition as it stands.

Amendment No. 15 and Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49 refer to clause 17. I tabled that clause in Committee in response to a similar clause drafted by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). All levels of local government have a role to play in tackling climate change and alleviating fuel poverty. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) shakes his head, but I beg to differ. Clause 17 enables parish and community councils to play their part in encouraging or promoting energy-saving measures in a variety of ways. The measures listed are perhaps only a starting point, since the clause allows for further energy saving initiatives to be added in the future as new techniques become available.

There are of course differences between parish councils in terms of their relative population sizes, their resources, and the services that they offer. Notwithstanding that, offering advice and assistance on local energy-saving measures sits well alongside the initiatives that the Government are promoting on neighbourhoods and the existing advisory and information-giving roles of parish councils. I remain of the opinion that the clause should be part of the Bill. Indeed, I think that there is an especial connection between parishes and microgeneration.

Government amendments Nos. 47 and 48 make it clear that a parish or community council may on application provide information about goods or services offered or provided by other persons within their area for the purposes of clause 17. The intention of the amendment is to supplement the existing power under section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972, which deals generally with the provision of information by local authorities. During the discussion on the clause in Committee, I suggested that I would return on Report to the question of whether parish or community councils could make small grants or loans to assist with measures for saving energy in their areas. I hope that hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, who spoke so eloquently on the issue, will be pleased to see that amendment No. 49 removes the restrictions in subsections (3) and (4) on the giving of grants or loans for local energy-saving measures.

Amendment No. 49 would allow parish or community councils to give financial assistance, when appropriate, to those whom they think would benefit from it. It would be for them to determine any conditions that they may wish to attach to it .

I therefore ask hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 but, for the reasons that I have given, to oppose amendments Nos. 75, 76, 58, 59 and 15.

2 pm

Gregory Barker: The final group contains an interesting range of amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made sensible points, as usual. I share his concerns about the need for community consultation and participation in local decision making. He is right that the Secretary of State should pay due regard to those issues in drawing up his report. However, I take great
 
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1771
 
comfort from and, indeed, endorse the Minister's comments and do not believe that my right hon. Friend's amendments need to be incorporated into the Bill.

I thank the Minister for tabling Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49. As he rightly said, an issue was raised not only by me but by other members of the Committee. If my right hon. Friend had read the reports of our Committee proceedings, he would have known about the extensive and useful discussion of the subject that we held Upstairs.

Much has been said about microgeneration but the measure is about a great deal more than domestic appliances. It is about decentralisation of energy. Although it constitutes only a modest step, I hope that it is the first step in a significant direction for the country's energy policy, which will encourage much greater decentralised energy. If we are to move towards a decentralised model, that will require more community schemes. In many, although not all cases, especially in rural areas, the most effective, efficient and cost-effective way of embracing the new model will not be individual householders adopting their own kit but an efficient, small community form of domestic heat and power generation. I do not mean windmills or even solar or photovoltaic technology but gas-fired, combined heat and power or biomass fuel technology. Those work best, economically and efficiently, if they are adopted by several householders coming together on a relatively small scale. They are especially applicable to rural areas. Surely it is best for those schemes to be brought together in a democratic forum, where everyone in a village could have a voice, feel that their concerns were incorporated and the result was a genuine community plan. It is important to have a facility—it is only a facility—so that, in some circumstances, there is an opportunity to give some sort of financial encouragement when there is community consent.

I am mindful of the time and I do not want to hold matters up. I thank the Government for their amendments and support them.

Chris Huhne: I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). We are happy with the consultation arrangements. As I said earlier, there is already a general duty for consultation. There is a general Cabinet Office better regulation Executive code of practice on consultation. Doubtless the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is aware of that. It is relevant to the case that we are considering.

Mr. Forth: It is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the code of practice. Does he have any more faith in that code of practice than in the ministerial code, which has been the subject of so much recent discussion?

Chris Huhne: The ministerial code is a little beyond the purview of the debate, suffice it to say that there is a considerable framework in both the statutory requirements for consultation and the code of practice. Whether Ministers practise what they are undertaking is a matter for the House to consider in a particular case.
 
17 Mar 2006 : Column 1772
 

The right hon. Gentleman had a good reply on amendments Nos. 58 and 59 in terms of the community projects and not microgeneration. I am happy to associate the Liberal Democrats with support for Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49, precisely because of the enabling provisions for parish and community councils to promote energy schemes, should they wish to do so.

Mr. Chope: I was disappointed with the Minister's response to amendments Nos. 58 and 59. He said that the figures in the clause are much larger than we need in the current climate, but that they will encompass future schemes. The figures are grotesquely large, especially when coupled with clause 16, the purpose of which is to promote energy schemes. Amendment No. 59 would reduce the figure by 80 per cent., so leaving 20 per cent. of what the Government want, which is 4MW in the case of plant for the generation of electricity. That would be a very large plant.

Renewables East says:

"One 1.8 MW wind turbine at a reasonable site would produce over 4.7 million units of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual needs of over 1,000 households, or to run a computer for over 1,620 years."

Amendment No. 58 would allow 4MW, which would be a large enough piece of plant to have for a community purpose, promoted by the Government under the provisions of the clause.

---