 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill |
Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill |
|
Column Number: 101 Standing Committee CThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: Mr. Joe Benton †Barker, Gregory (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)†Clark, Greg (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) †Goodman, Helen (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) †Griffith, Nia (Llanelli) (Lab) †Hollobone, Mr. Philip (Kettering) (Con) †Hurd, Mr. Nick (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con) †Lazarowicz, Mark (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op) †Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab) Ruddock, Joan (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) †Smith, Mr. Andrew (Oxford, East) (Lab) †Stunell, Andrew (Hazel Grove) (LD) Villiers, Mrs. Theresa (Chipping Barnet) (Con) †Walley, Joan (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab) †Weir, Mr. Mike (Angus) (SNP) †Whitehead, Dr. Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab) †Wicks, Malcolm (Minister for Energy) Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk † attended the Committee Column Number: 103 Tuesday 28 February 2006[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]Climate Change and Sustainable Energy BillClause 5 Local targets for microgeneration Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill 4 pmThe Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 26—Microgeneration: local authorities—
New clause 28—Local authorities: duty to consider microgeneration —
Column Number: 104
Government new clause 34—Parish councils and community councils: powers in relation to local energy saving measures.—
Column Number: 105
Amendment (a) thereto, *leave out subsection 3(a). Government amendment No. 13. I have exercised the Chairman’s discretion to allow amendment (a) despite it being a starred amendment. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I also remind Members of the declaration of interest that I made at the start of the first sitting. Clause 5, and the related new clauses, deal with the issue of how local government can best contribute to encouraging the take-up of microgeneration. The clause as originally proposed put requirements on local authorities to set targets at local level, but I understand that that was an issue on which some difficulty has been expressed in certain quarters. I have therefore tabled new clause 26, which seeks to address the issue in a different way that may find more favour with those who saw difficulties with the original clause. Members are aware that the importance of tackling climate change is now broadly accepted across the political parties and by the public. Although many local councils are doing good things, and some local councils are doing a lot of very good things in terms of local action to tackle climate change, the Energy Saving Trust reported in a survey earlier this month that 92 per cent. of local authorities were not prioritising climate change, which I find concerning. It is disappointing, because local authorities are important in the field of energy efficiency but can also do a great deal in the field of microgeneration. Some Members will know that the DTI’s own report, undertaken with the Energy Saving Trust at the end of last year, suggested that, with the right policy framework, microgeneration could supply 40 per cent. of the total electricity needs of the country by 2050, and reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 15 per cent. It is important, therefore, that the initiatives that are being put in place at national and UK level are matched by action on the part of local government. I know that there is concern that it is wrong to be too prescriptive about how local government implements policy at local level to reflect national priorities, so the new clause would put on the local government agenda the issue of promoting microgeneration and energy efficiency. There is every reason to believe that that could be an extremely successful way to encourage local government to make promoting energy efficiency and mircogeneration a higher priority. There is the experience of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which required local authorities to consider domestic energy efficiency. Local authorities all did that, and some three quarters took constructive action. The example of that particular legislation and its effect on local
I know that the Minister, his Department and the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the issue. He has himself suggested various ways in which local authorities, and in particular local schools, could encourage take-up of microgeneration by practical examples in their own localities. I hope that, if the Minister is unable to accept the clause as drafted, he will be able to give a more positive indication of how matters can be taken forward as set out in my new clause. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): I wholeheartedly support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 26. If anything, I fear that it does not go far enough in having firm, clear measures that will tackle the problem of promoting microgeneration. There are a range of other matters, and we shall come to them during this sitting in discussing other amendments that I have tabled. There is a clear need to address the fact that, at local authority level, where most action needs to be taken, climate change is not at the top of the agenda. That is not just an assertion, or a feeling that I have or that others experience on the basis of anecdotal evidence. The Energy Saving Trust took a poll of more than 300 local authorities recently throughout the UK, and it discovered that two thirds of local authorities perceived a lack of leadership from central Government as a significant obstacle to taking a strategic approach to climate change. More than 90 per cent. of those local government respondents said that other issues take higher priority in their council. There must be the inclusion of a duty at least to consider microgeneration as well as other initiatives at local authority level. New clause 26 goes some way to amending that deficiency. Mr. Benton, should I move on to new clause 28 or would you like me to speak to it separately? The Chairman: Yes, you shall speak to it. New clause 28 is grouped. Gregory Barker:I support new clause 26, and I hope that the Minister will take the hon. Gentleman’s comments and suggestions on board. New clause 28 supersedes new clause 22, which I tabled earlier. New clause 28 would require all local authorities to consider how microgeneration and energy efficiency can assist them in the discharge of their functions relating to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and alleviating fuel poverty. I ask colleagues to note carefully in the new clause the two words “can assist”. They are all important, as will become clear. I shall put new clause 28 into context. The Government’s energy review pointed out that the Government are likely to undershoot their own CO
I agree. The new clause is about just that, dealing with one vital part of the public sector—local authorities. In a survey earlier this month, the Energy Saving Trust reported that 92 per cent. of local authorities are not prioritising climate change. There is a real problem, but we can deal with that today. The new clause would do so in a light touch way, but one that I hope would produce action. It would require local authorities to consider how microgeneration and energy efficiency can assist them in achieving their climate change objectives. As a legal minimum, it would mean that the issue were at least placed on the council’s agenda. That is all. It would go before the elected members, as the trust’s report recommended. The action that follows would then be at the discretion of the local authority. There are some who might say that this is too light a touch, and I can see their point. I have a great deal of sympathy with that comment, but first we must try the lighter touch approach with local authorities, rather than the heavy hand. There is strong evidence that such an approach can work. What are the results? Let us look at the evidence. Based on the evidence of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, which similarly used a light touch to encourage local authorities to consider domestic energy efficiency, the new clause would probably have the following effect. The handful of Mertons, Wokings and Croydons comply with it anyway, so the new clause would not make much difference to them. However, we are aiming at the rest. On the HECA model, 100 or so would respond with good results; maybe 10 or 20 would be outstanding. A further 200 would respond with reasonable or quite good results and 100 would respond with poor results. We might reasonably expect that up to 300 authorities would respond with proactive policies on microgeneration and energy efficiency to deal with climate change. I would like it to be 400, but 300 would be a good start. Omit the new clause and that will not happen: it is as simple as that. There is a bit of a roadblock, which is our old friend, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. As with other clauses we will discuss, I have to report opposition from within the Government. Not, I hasten to add, from the Minister, who is a very reasonable fellow. From what I hear from many people, his attitude to the Bill is exemplary and as far as some non-governmental organisations are concerned, he has done a great deal. However, the ODPM says that the provisions would be a new burden on local authorities that would cost money, which the Government would have to provide. I assure the Committee that my party is very conscious of spending pledges and so-called new burdens, and I am sorry that my colleague, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is not here to endorse that, but let us look at the new clause. It would require
Are there any other burdens? Again, I point out the wording of the new clause. It talks of councils considering energy efficiency and microgeneration to assist them in meeting their objectives on climate change and fuel poverty. The action they take is up to each council: it is discretionary. As a champion of localism, I am a great believer in local discretion. It is not a duty; councils can take action if they consider it will assist their plans. In plain everyday English, that is the opposite of a burden. It is, to use the wording of the new clause again, an assistance in achieving their objectives. Only the ODPM could see it otherwise. I end, therefore, by asking the Minister to take up the matter with the ODPM. We will not press the issue today, but it could be a very different story on Report on the Floor of the House. The new clause is important: action by 300 local authorities should not be missed. It is a light touch mechanism and it really is the least we can do. 4.15 pmAndrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I am pleased to support new clauses 26 and 28. I hope that the Minister will listen to the tone and tenor of the debate and be able, if not to endorse the new clauses—everyone seems to be privy to the Minister’s views before I am on this occasion—at least to give a clear indication that he will respond sympathetically. I have a lot of sympathy with what the Bill’s promoter said. As someone who has been down the path before, I know that he is walking on eggshells trying to encourage the Government to be as radical as possible while not alienating the few friends he has on this. As a result, he cannot vent his frustration as he might want to do about the slow pace at which concessions are wrung out of the Government. It is time for another one, and he deserves that, so the Minister should give him some aid and comfort. I want to speak about new clause 28, to which the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) spoke. The cause is a good one and, as he said, he is applying a light touch in his proposals. Indeed, as he may have said, the touch may be too light, but it is about as radical as we can hope to get past the Government at the moment—and it may be too radical even for that. I spent the earlier part of today responding in detail to the consultation document of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on a code of sustainable
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for mentioning the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which he said was introduced under a Conservative Government. It was in fact introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleague who is now Baroness Maddock in the other place. I recall that the Committee stage of that Bill was also fraught with difficulty in persuading the Government of the day to move forward. Baroness Maddock would certainly concede that the legislation could have been stronger and it would have been stronger but for the resistance of the Government of the day. Now that time has moved on and climate change is being taken seriously, apparently by the Prime Minister and certainly by the Minister here today, I hope that the Government will show some real signs of determination to make progress. To do so, we need legislation, not just codes of practice, that places binding obligations on developers and builders about what they should do when they construct, alter or extend property. We need a system to ensure that when those regulations are in place they are monitored to ensure that they are implemented properly. New clauses 26 and 28 are tentative moves in that direction and I hope strongly that the Minister will take the hint from the drift of the discussion today and concede that they should be added to the Bill. Gregory Barker: There is one small tail-end Charlie to this group of amendments. You kindly used your discretion, Mr. Benton, to add amendment (a) to the selection of amendments for discussion. It would amend new clause 34, which fulfils the Minister’s agreement to reintroduce my parish councils clause, and yet again I find myself thanking him for taking that on board. However, I have but one point to make. ODPM officials, when drafting the clause, omitted to include grant or loan making as a power for parish councils, as in my original clause. In fact, their new clause, which I understood from the Minister was supposed to mirror my original clause but with more technical proficiency, specifically prevents parish councils from having that. I believe that officials have agreed to reconsider the provision. My amendment would provide for it, allowing parish councils the discretion to make small grants or loans, perhaps to help a local farmer or a community enterprise start a biomass scheme. We are talking only about small, discretionary projects. Of course, the power would be
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 1 March 2006 |