Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lords amendment No. 48A makes drafting changes to improve the clarity of the new clause. We have clarified the definition of building to ensure that it captures those buildings where energy performance is a relevant consideration, as well as defining the civil estate. No one has risen to intervene on that point, but it is strange to try to imagine a building where energy performance is not a relevant consideration. I have checked, and I find that that such a building would include tool sheds, snowplough sheds and a lot of places where the Department for Transport, in particular,
houses all manner of vehicles. Those buildings are clearly unheated and are not cooled. They are the exceptions to the rule.
In order to allow the provision to be kept relevant and up-to-date, we have also provided an order-making power so that descriptions of buildings covered by the report can be changed over time. Any order would be subject to debate in both Houses.
Charles Hendry: I can already see Members lining up when the next private Members Bills are announced to introduce one to extend these powers to cover the Governments snowplough sheds. I thank the Minister for her courteous and generous remarks. Credit should go to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who saw the Bill through Committee and beyond, and to my noble Friend Lord Taylor, whose spirit and approach in the other place were very similar to those of my hon. Friend.
It gives me particular pleasure to support the amendment, which, as the Minister has said, will legislate to ensure, among other goals, that new buildings brought into the civil estate are in the upper quartile of energy performance. At a time of record high energy prices, and given the impact that those prices have on poor families and small businesses, the importance of the Government leading the drive towards energy efficiency cannot be understated.
As the Minister said, the amendment started life as a private Members Bill promoted by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove). We gave our full support to that Bill. We have long argued that energy efficiency improvements are one of the keys to a reduction in short-term domestic emissions, as well as having a positive carbon abatement cost that will create new jobs and generate new wealth for our economy.
I want to take the opportunity to ask the Government to reflect on their record of energy efficiency to date across the civil estate. I think that they will agree that the statistics are not very encouraging. The Sustainable Development Commissions report found that nearly two thirds of Government Departments are not on track to meet their carbon emissions reduction targets. In fact, if the Ministry of Defencewhich has achieved its own reductions, by selling off QinetiQ in particularis discounted, all the public estate performance improvements are negated. Carbon emissions from the civil service estate offices have increased by 22 per cent. since 2006 and energy efficiency has worsened by 3.3 per cent. since 2006. In response to the report, the SDC chairman Jonathon Porritt, said:
I find all this so depressing that I now hate having to comment on it. In fact, this year, I opted out of all media work around our report.
Mindful of those sobering facts and of the mountain that the Government have left for us all to climb to meet our ambitions, I am happy to see the amendment included in the Bill.
Joan Ruddock:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. We have to accept the criticisms that have been made of us in the past by the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission. I would hate ever to be the cause of depression for that fine gentleman, but we have put in place a number of new measures and have tied permanent secretaries to responsibility for
that particular subject. The Office of Government Commerce is considering the introduction of national property controls, which will require Government organisations to develop business case justifications that address sustainability as well as efficient and effective building performance in respect of all new building acquisitions or leases. Such controls have already been shown to work successfully in London and the south-east.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the carbon reduction commitment, which will also have an impact by covering Government buildings. Although there was undoubtedly justification for past criticisms, we want to improve things and to get them on track. We are committed to doing that. Everything about the Bill says that the Government are seriously committed to making the most significant CO2 emissions reductions now and into the future to help achieve that final target of an 80 per cent. reduction by 2050.
I believe that this is a groundbreaking Bill of historic significance. I very much want to acknowledge the support of other parties in this House, and of my many hon. and right hon. Friends who have helped us along the way. Indeed, they have pushed us to amend the Bill at many points, and it has undoubtedly become even better as a result.
That this House does not insist on its Amendment No. 48 and agrees with Lords Amendment No. 48A in lieu thereof, the Commons being willing to waive its privileges in respect of the Lords Amendment.[ Joan Ruddock.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to motions 5, 6, 7 and 8, which I propose to put together.
Motion made, and Question out forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
That the draft International Organization for Migration (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
That the draft Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved .[Mr. Watts.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) ( European Committees ),
That this House takes note of Commission documents 13829/07 and Addenda 1 to 3 (Communicating Europe in Partnership) and 8163/08 (Debate Europe); recognises the importance of communicating effectively with European citizens; and welcomes the measures taken to further improve the co-ordination of the European Unions work on communicating with the public .[Mr. Watts.]
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): The Government have a policy of not building on green belt, and some Essex councils have held meaningful consultations and then voted to protect their green belt. The petitioners feel that councillors in Castle Point are railroading through plans, in order to get a £200,000 pay-off from the Government. Apparently, councillors have their price, which is about the cost of a house. I sincerely urge the councillors to listen to the petitioners, to consult the public before they cast their vote, to forget the bribe, and to join the campaign to save our green belt, which I started two years ago, and which is backed by everyone except the developers and their friends. I thank and congratulate the many excellent people who signed the petition, which states:
The Petition of David Head, residents of Daws Heath, Hadleigh, Thundersley and others,
Declares that we object to the proposed housing estate planned for the green land bounded by Stadium Way, Rayleigh Road and Daws Heath Road; deplore that proper public consultation has not been undertaken; believe that our green belt is sacrosanct; it provides wildlife habitat, leisure opportunities, a green lung function and acts as a buffer between densely populated urban areas. The sheer size of the proposed development of up to 750 houses would be catastrophic and out of character with the area. Infrastructure, including roads, sewers, school places, dentists, youth facilities and much else are insufficient even without the additional houses. And we note that our neighbouring councillors, unlike Castle Point Councillors, have consulted their residents widely and have voted against green belt development; further note that the Government has stated green belt should not be built upon; therefore urge Castle Point Councillors to consult the public before they vote to destroy our environment and quality of life.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government firstly to change its policy on housing targets and secondly to urge Castle Point Borough Councillors to consult residents before voting on their plans and to reject building on the green belt in order to protect the quality of life of all residents.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
Next Section | Index | Home Page |