Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill |
|
The Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks): Mr. Benton, it is good to see you in the Chair again for what could be our last sitting. We shall have to wait and see. I shall deal first with new clauses 26 and 28. They are similar and aim to push local authorities to consider how microgeneration can help them in the discharge of their functions in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, alleviating fuel poverty and promoting energy efficiency. The key difference seems to be that new clause 26 would require the Secretary of State to publish a specific report on the ways in which local authorities could promote microgeneration and energy efficiency. Yet again, I am given the opportunity to emphasise the important contribution that local councils can and do make to our climate change objectives and the social aspects of fuel poverty. Of course, we need to do more. We talk a great deal about Merton, Woking, Croydon—the Conservative spokesman talks more about Croydon than I do, modestly—and other exemplars that hon. Members may care to mention. I know that 100 councils have signed up to the Nottingham declaration on climate change, which commits participants to tackling climate change actively. That still leaves three quarters of local councils that may not be engaging in that agenda. The Government—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and all Departments—want local authorities to tackle climate change. We want to understand what it is that has enabled our exemplars to take the actions that they have, and why it is that more local authorities have not followed. We must understand what local authorities are already doing and what best practice is available, and discuss with the Local Government Association the best way to take matters forward. We intend to do that. We shall say more about that in the new climate change programme. It would be premature to decide whether and how to legislate on the matter, particularly when other avenues, such as planning guidance—I shall say more about that later—are available and can be used to promote particular action. Given the approach that I am suggesting, involving discussion with the Local Government Association and consideration of powers under planning, new clauses 26 and 28 are very prescriptive and have a certain element—I am not sure whether the pun is intended—of micro-management about them. It is not desirable for the Government to specify how local authorities take matters forward through the use of agendas for meetings and the rest. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, despite being an advocate of the new localism, seems to be an advocate of the new centralism, specifying how councils should conduct their business. Our approach is to give local authorities flexibility in the delivery of their responsibilities. We also need to be careful about
Gregory Barker: I hear what the Minister is saying about the prescriptive nature of putting an item on the agenda, but how does his laissez-faire approach, which would not disgrace a Victorian entrepreneur, chime with the statement by the Prime Minister today to the “Stop climate chaos” group, in which he stated that the cost of inaction was clear, and that every week there were new and authoritative scientific studies warning that without urgent action the present situation may be just a taste of what the future holds? Urgent action; the cost of inaction is clear—does that chime with what the Minister has just said? Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman represents a party that is somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately to the climate change agenda, and we welcome him to the club. However, this Government do not need to apologise for their record on climate change. Indeed, we have led the world on this important issue in a variety of ways, not least through our broad support for the Bill. We are very much in favour of further action. The hon. Gentleman and the party of Joseph Chamberlain and the rest should recognise that we must be careful about being over-prescriptive with local government. If central Government had been over-prescriptive, we may not have had the interesting developments in Woking or the Merton experiment, let alone the initiative in my borough of Croydon. I gently advise Conservative Members, as they search for a new political raison d’être, not to be too top-down or nanny state-ish. Some advice from new Labour is to avoid the nanny state mentality and not be over-prescriptive in telling elected local authorities exactly how they should do things and what they should have on their agendas. That is my point. I want local authorities to embrace microgeneration and climate change strategies, and to come forward with all kinds of ideas that the men and women in Whitehall, who do not always know best, may not themselves have thought of. That is just a little advice. We need to have this important dialogue. [Interruption.] I do not view my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith as one of the grey men of Whitehall—there are too many of us already. Mark Lazarowicz: I shall do my best to reassure the Minister. Given the line that he is taking, which does not come as a complete surprise to me, I wonder whether he could give some thought today or at a later stage as to what might be the best way to incentivise
Malcolm Wicks: One idea might be for those of us in this Committee and in the Chamber who advocate a municipal role for microgeneration to challenge our local authorities. I do not need to do that in Croydon. I do not know whether all the members of the Committee represent authorities that I have described as exemplars, but, if they do not, they should leave the Committee Room now and challenge their municipality on these issues. That is one way to do it. Another way is to look at the planning issues that I have mentioned, and which I shall touch on later in another context. This debate is not about discouraging local authorities—far from it—but about the best way of doing things. Even in this new era of the Conservative party, I question whether a top-down approach is necessarily the right one. Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): Will the Minister give way? Malcolm Wicks: I shall give way to an advocate of the new localism. Greg Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle makes a more subtle point than the Minister gives him credit for. He drew a distinction between the Minister’s practice—in fact, he was rather generous to him—and that of the ODPM. Localism and decentralisation are commendable, but is the culture in the ODPM not incredibly centralising, and do not many of the targets and strictures to which local government is subject emanate from that Department, if not his own? Malcolm Wicks: I do not quite recognise that. When I discuss these matters with the Minister for Housing and Planning, as I have in the past few days, we are at one in trying to develop the right approach. I think that the ODPM in particular, conscious of concerns about council tax burdens, is at pains not to suggest any approaches that could be seen as new burdens with financial implications. That is one of the balances that we need to get right. 4.30 pmHon. Members will recall that, during the second sitting of the Committee, we debated the role that might be played by parish councils in helping to promote local energy saving measures, and I drew attention to the wide variation in size and activities of parish and town councils, acknowledging that the larger ones might well wish to play a part in energy saving in their locality. That is an important theme, given that many of the energy projects that we need to develop are often quite small scale and are very much at the community and parish level. I explained to the Committee that although the Government perceived that there could be usefulness in a discretionary power of the sort that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle proposed, there was uncertainty about the scope of the existing general
Recognising the resources that are available to parish councils, the provision demonstrates ways in which they might encourage or promote local energy saving measures such as microgeneration, energy efficiency and general reductions in energy consumption. It allows them to promote production of biomass or fuel derived from it or from waste in their local area—something that is obviously applicable to rural areas in particular. It also allows for the list of measures in which parish councils may want to become involved to be amended as other energy saving initiatives become available. One of the most useful roles that a parish council can play is to provide advice and information for its residents. Often, parish councils are the first port of call regarding local services and facilities. The Government see parishes as key to neighbourhood agendas and believe that more can be done at the parish level. Providing advice and assistance on local energy saving measures fits in well with those aims. Parish councils will also be able to work together on such measures, as well as with principal authorities and other bodies, to achieve successes locally in energy saving. The power enables local councils to assist in energy saving measures in their locality, but the Government are mindful that there should not be a new burden on parish councils or—through the parish precept on council tax—on their electors. Any expenditure under the power will therefore be treated as having been incurred under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. The fact that the measure is a power rather than a duty does not necessarily prevent it from being a new burden. If we give powers to local authorities, it is generally because we expect them to be used, and the Government have to provide the necessary funding to avoid the use of the powers becoming a pressure on council tax. In the present case, although parish councils would not be obliged to encourage or promote energy saving measures, there might be an expectation that they use the discretionary power. Indeed, I look forward to the first story about controversy concerning a micro-wind turbine in Ambridge, which I am sure will come sooner or later. Parish councils are not being encouraged to incur additional costs as a result of the clause, which clarifies their existing powers. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for raising the issue, and I hope that he is fairly satisfied by the approach that I have outlined. It may be useful if I close my remarks by addressing the amendment that you, Mr. Benton, have today allowed us to consider—proposed amendment (a) to new clause 34. The question whether parish councils can make grants is quite complex. Under section 137 of
There are plenty of other ways in which parish councils can help in relation to energy saving, rather than by making a grant. However, we are not necessarily closing the door on the issue of grant payments by parish councils and would be prepared to consider it further. If the hon. Gentleman can give evidence for the need for such a power, perhaps we could return to the matter on Report. In summary, we oppose new clauses 26 and 28, given the alternative approach I have suggested. I shall move new clause 34 later, but I oppose amendment (a) for the reasons I have just evidenced. I also propose to move amendment No. 13, which is a consequential amendment that will be required if clause 5 does not remain in the Bill. Gregory Barker: I am afraid that that is a rather disappointing start to the Committee’s proceedings this afternoon. I am grateful to the Minister for the glimmer of hope on my small, tail-end Charlie amendment, but on the substantive issue of trying to incentivise and generate a degree of momentum locally for microgeneration, I find it difficult to understand how he can be so conservative regarding such a light-touch measure. I cannot believe that the Minister could have marshalled those arguments; I can only believe that there are forces at play in the Whitehall machinery that I do not begin to fathom precluding him from taking the obvious stand, which the Prime Minister’s rhetoric indicated the Government should take. I cannot find any correlation between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric in the 1,300 words he expended at the “Stop climate chaos” rally and the mealy response given to a very timid measure this afternoon. On the question whether we are over-egging the case, I point the Minister to the CSR Magazine spring edition, which features an article on the chief executive of Gazeley, Europe’s leading warehouse developer, which I visited yesterday to see a large site that it has recently constructed for Woolworths. Those are two very large companies. Hon. Members may remember my mentioning Gazeley previously; it is owned by Wal-Mart, which is certainly not a dewy-eyed not-for-profit organisation. In that magazine, the chief executive was asked the following questions:
He responded:
There are financial incentives and disincentives to reward certain behaviour and discourage other behaviour, so that we can move the agenda along. Column Number: 115 The Minister and his colleagues are simply out of touch with best practice in business—of developers or house builders—if they think that there is huge resistance to even modest attempts at reform. We shall never ever get beyond merely tinkering with new technologies such as microgeneration if there is no clear leadership from the Government. If they are not even prepared to put it on the agenda, how will we ever get beyond the wonderful islands of excellence, such as in the Minister’s own constituency of Croydon, to other authorities that really are dragging their feet? We do not want exemplars around the country but a uniform roll-out right across the United Kingdom. I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response. Question put and negatived. Clause 5 disagreed to. New Clause 27 Compliance with building regulations
Brought up, and read the First time. Mark Lazarowicz: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause deals with compliance with building regulations. I believe that Members across the House are aware that building regulations, in particular part L, play a key role in the promotion of energy conservation and measures to reduce carbon emissions. This issue was specifically acknowledged in the 2003 White Paper. Recent revisions to part L have included the introduction of tighter glazing standards and a requirement from April last year for all new and replacement boilers to be A or B rated. From April this year, further changes to part L will be introduced, including mandatory testing for air pressure leakage. All those things can make a major contribution to energy conservation, but for many years there has been widespread concern about whether the welcome part L provisions were being complied with. I believe that that concern is shared throughout the industry, among building control practitioners and in the ODPM at the highest level. Indeed, a recent study of new homes conducted by the Building Research Establishment and National Energy Services suggested that almost half of all new houses did not comply with part L, even though they had been formally signed off by building control officers as compliant. Obviously, that issue is of extreme concern in ensuring that building regulations are to be relied on to deliver carbon savings. The ODPM expects nearly
4.45 pmFor that reason, the new clause contains two principal provisions. First, the purpose of proposed subsection (1) is to solve the problem of the short time limit for launching enforcement proceedings for offences under part L of the building regulations. Under the proposal, the time limit would run from the time when the offence was discovered rather than from when it was committed. That could be extremely important. Proposed subsection (2) is intended to act as a launch pad for a more comprehensive Government assessment of non-compliance and the reasons for it. It would impose a statutory requirement on the Government to undertake a full analysis of a problem and to provide a comprehensive range of measures to address it. Measures along the lines of those set out in the new clause have widespread support throughout the industry. I commend the new clause to the Committee. Gregory Barker: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long on the new clause, which would be an eminently sensible addition to the Bill. It is essential not only that we legislate effectively to meet the challenges of climate change, but that all the measures that we put in place are subsequently properly and effectively enforced. I heard what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said. I believe that the new clause would be a sensible addition to the Bill and I hope that the Minister will accept it. Andrew Stunell: When I was preparing my Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill, officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked me to include a provision to allow for better enforcement of building regulations. As the administrators of the regulations, they fully understand that there are serious shortfalls in the way in which the current system is administered. I included such a provision in that Bill, the House approved it and it is now part of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004. However, in the 17 months since, nothing has been done by the ODPM to bring that provision effectively into force. New clause 27 is important and valuable, and I support it. However, it would be useful to hear from the Minister what the Government’s official view is now on the effective enforcement of building regulations. Some 18 months ago, they were apparently enthusiastically in favour to the point of urging me to include such a provision in my Bill, but we seem to have moved to a position in which they are no longer in favour of implementation or at least
Malcolm Wicks: I am glad to be able to support the intentions of the new clause, which seeks to extend the time limit within which local authorities may bring prosecutions for breaches of part L of the building regulations. It would also require Ministers to report to Parliament on the steps being taken to secure greater compliance with part L. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning takes this issue very seriously, and such a report should provide a useful opportunity to demonstrate the extent of the Government’s action to achieve that. Extending the time limit within which councils may bring prosecutions for breaches of part L should make it more difficult for those who fail to comply with the regulations to escape the rigours of the law. A key change is for the time limit to be triggered by discovery of the breach. It is all too easy for latent and other defects to come to the attention of the authority only a while after the six-month time limit has started to run. That can sometimes make it difficult to pursue a case. In making such changes, it is important to ensure that they are reasonable and in line with the accepted approach to prosecutions for summary offences. Officials in the Department of the Minister for Housing and Planning have been considering the matter and taking detailed cross-governmental advice. They are considering a formula that is similar in nature but has different provisions, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will be prepared to accept as one that would command support throughout Parliament. Under that formula, the limit for taking proceedings would remain at six months, not 12, but with one fundamental change, as requested by representatives of local authority building control bodies, whereby the period would be triggered when the local authority had sufficient evidence of the offence. The overall period in which proceedings for an offence could be brought would be capped at two years, not three, and the proposal would seek to set out in more detail the process that would apply. In essence, discovery of the offence would mean when there was in the opinion of the prosecuting authorities sufficient evidence to justify prosecution, not when the offence is committed, as is currently the case. Once prosecuting authorities were at the point of having sufficient evidence, a six-month period to launch proceedings would give them reasonable time to launch the investigation. It is in keeping with the need to expedite justice. The six-month period is also consistent with a general default period for bringing prosecutions that apply to the vast majority of summary offences, as section 127(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 makes clear. Column Number: 118 Additionally, in relation to summary offences, where provisions have differed from the general default period, there are examples of a six-month period from the date when the authorities have sufficient evidence. I am advised that we should refer to sections 12(4A)(b) and (4B)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 and section 71(a) of the Animal Health Act 1981. An overall time limit of two years is consistent with the Government’s drive to get summary cases heard more quickly and to ensure that such prosecutions are given the priority that they deserve. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith can endorse that approach, which has been discussed with and, more importantly, agreed to by representatives of local authority building control bodies, we hope to bring forward, subject to finalising cross-Government support, a suitably drafted replacement clause for consideration on Report. Finally, I should acknowledge to the Committee that changing enforcement provision in relation to one part of the regulations is a somewhat novel proposal. The Bill, however, gives us an important opportunity to send a clear signal about how seriously we take compliance with part L. It is the intention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to seek colleagues’ agreement to extend the provisions across the regulations at the earliest opportunity. It is on that basis that we are making the change. Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister’s comments have been generally helpful, and I am prepared to withdraw the motion in the light of what he said. I recognise that it is important to get a form of words that will meet the purpose. However, the six-month period from the discovery of the offence is still short, and I ask him at least to think about sticking to the 12-month period when he discusses the matter at a later stage. I should much prefer to see a change going forward with the Government’s support, because such provision needs to be not only in the Bill, but actively taken up by the Department. Progress has been made, and I am grateful to the Minister for what has been produced in response to the issue raised by the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 29 Simplification of Renewable Energy Certificates for microgeneration
Column Number: 119
Brought up, and read the First time. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 1 March 2006 |