I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 8, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.

No. 9, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert

'Wales and the regions of England'.

No. 16, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert

'Wales or one of the regions of England'.

No. 17, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.

No. 18, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert

'Wales and the regions of England'.

No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.

No. 20, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert

'Wales and regions of England'.

No. 30, in page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).

Government amendment No. 36

No. 31, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (8).

Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.

No. 12, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'appropriate' and insert

'efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial'.

—to acknowledge the potential role of the regions. [Laughter.]

On 10 March, the Minister said

"Regions will be able to set their own targets for microgeneration within any national target that we may set, and it would be more appropriate for them to do so, rather than central Government setting them. On those grounds, I oppose amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 20."

That raises a number of important questions. I should like to hear from the Minister at some stage whether he intends to table amendments—probably not at this stage, but when the Bill goes to another place—to give effect to what I have just read out. We shall come to that shortly in another context.

The Minister may think that his words are sufficient, but not all of us are that trusting. We would feel more secure if such important matters were spelt out in the Bill. That, then, is the first question: should this not be subject to an amendment, probably tabled in the House of Lords?

There are a number of other questions to be discussed. By what mechanism would the regional targets match the national targets? If we are to have a bottom-up approach rather than just a national target, I am intrigued by the question that then arises. Has the Minister thought out the way in which regions will be able to set their own targets within any national target?

That gives rise to several further questions. The obvious one is whether the process is to be voluntary. Can some regions set targets while others cannot? If all regions set targets, what will happen if the sum of the regional targets does not match the national target? There are a number of potential difficulties. How far has the Minister—or, more accurately, his officials—thought this through, and how do they think it will work? We cannot have Ministers throwing statements into a debate without our having any idea what they mean and how they would be given effect. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to accept my amendments, and I hope that we shall hear some further explanation from him.

That brings me to amendment No. 12. On 10 March, the Minister said

"The word 'appropriate' is deliberately broad, whereas amendment No. 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), might be too prescriptive, as we may wish to consider other things when making such a decision."

That is followed by the key words—at least in this regard the Minister is entirely consistent:

"However, I assure him that when considering whether to use the powers in clause 6, we will, as always, ensure that we do so in a way that is effective and cost-effective, as well as environmentally beneficial."—[Official Report, 10 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1114–5.]

That is fine as far as it goes. It is a very reassuring statement of the Minister's good intentions. As we know, however, Ministers come and Ministers go. I am not sure that any succeeding Minister would necessarily be bound by what this Minister has to say. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my amendment, which I thought would add clarity and improve the Bill. I wanted to insert the words

"efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial"

because—we shall be able to discuss this in more detail when we deal with later amendments—wind power is sporadic and unreliable, as is solar power, while water power is unfortunately relatively rare and inaccessible in this country. I think that we should make very clear what contribution such techniques can make, and that was my intention.

My right hon. Friend is making a controversial point. Is not one of the difficulties caused by the fact that this is a private Member's Bill, the procedure for which is primarily designed to deal with uncontroversial matters? I have a sneaking suspicion that I shall hear a fair amount from my right hon. Friend this morning, and perhaps from some of his colleagues. Would not the solution be for the Government to introduce measures as controversial as this Bill?

I could not agree more, and I have made that point many times over the years. I regard it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to pay particular attention to private Members' Bills precisely because they do not have the benefit of the same governmental scrutiny as Government Bills. My hon. Friend is right: if a Bill is substantial and has controversial elements, the private Member's Bill procedure is not ideal. If the Government wish to suggest that the Bill is essential or vital to the national good, they should be legislating and not leaving it to a Member. I shall not digress further, however, as I do not wish to test your patience this early, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, I hope that I do not do so at all.

If my hon. Friend thinks that this bit of the Bill is controversial, I hope that he will be here when we delve deeply into its planning and development aspects and try to tease out the relationship between the techniques known as microgeneration and the planning regime. It will be important to examine those matters later, including the size of—

Order. I took the right hon. Gentleman at his word when he said that he would not test my patience early on. I hope therefore that he will now address the amendment.

I was just trailing what is to come, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wished to forewarn the House about the exciting debates that we will have later. I am warming the House up a bit for those debates—if that is an appropriate term in this subject.

We were talking about the word "efficacious". Although claims are made for the benefit of microgeneration, it should not be assumed that simply to install something that provides power will be the right thing to do in all circumstances. That is why I think that we need a balanced approach, represented by the words

"efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial".

I am using the term "environmentally" in a much broader sense, because we must not forget that those pioneers who developed our planning laws and the regime that supports them saw environmental matters rather differently. Times change, but in my view "environmental" does not mean only matters to do with the climate. It must continue to mean matters of planning and development. In that context, I mean visual appearance, sound nuisance and intrusion into domestic and community life. Those subjects will arise again later, but in the wording of amendment No. 12 I was trying to set the scene for a much more balanced approach than has so far been suggested.

One of the difficulties that we have had throughout proceedings on the Bill is that—for the best of reasons—we have not really heard yet from its promoter, from the Minister or from its enthusiastic supporters how they see the crucial balance between the benefits that they claim for microgeneration and the planning difficulties that could arise. It will be important to be clear about that balance before we proceed much further.

On the issue of cost-effectiveness, we must be clear about the likely cost implications of such installations and on whom the costs will fall. Will it be the domestic or business premise owner, the generators or distributors of power or the taxpayer through the Government? That is not sufficiently clear from the Bill, although I would welcome clarification.

I do not want the Bill—or, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend, any other Bill—to float through the parliamentary process without our having an opportunity to hear about all its different aspects and to take a balanced view of it. That is the value of the parliamentary process. The Committee stage allows the Committee to consider certain aspects of the Bill, but on occasions on which there is an outbreak of consensus, especially between the main political parties, it is even more important that Bills are subjected to careful scrutiny. We need to ensure that the enthusiasts have not run away with themselves. There is a long history of legislation that has received so-called all-party support and has turned out to be thoroughly bad. The best example is probably the Child Support Agency, which we still have not got right, after all these years—

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the amendment on which he is winding up the debate. It is amendment No. 7.

Indeed, and I am eager to get on to the very important debates that are coming up. I just wanted to warm myself and the House up and get people's minds thinking along the right lines. I wanted also to see if I could persuade the Minister to clarify his position on the regional-national balance, but he does not look as though he wishes to try to do so. That matter will remain unresolved and their lordships may have to look at it again, along with other aspects of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 5, line 14, leave out from ' "plant" ' to end of line 16 and insert

'includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance;'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 40 and 41, No. 33, Nos. 42 to 44, No. 34, Nos. 45 and 46, No. 80 and Nos. 51 and 52.

Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that this will be one of the shorter speeches of the day. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 ensure that an order made under clauses 12 or 13 cannot cover matters that fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. All the other amendments in this group are drafting amendments.

As the Minister said, these are drafting amendments. The Bill has our full support and we wish to make good progress this morning in getting it on to the statute book, so I do not intend to delay the House.

The Liberal Democrats also regard the amendments as drafting measures. The Bill has our full support, and I shall leave it at that.

This is a very important group of amendments that deserves thorough scrutiny, although sadly there does not seem much stomach in the House for scrutiny so far. Someone has to do it, so it falls to me. The amendments will get some jolly thorough scrutiny, starting now.

Let us look first at the Government amendments. In passing, it is interesting to note that the Government now seek to amend the Bill substantially. If there is any lengthening of the process, it seems substantially to be due to the Government amendments. I have tabled some modest amendments, but this pretty substantial set of Government amendments deserves our attention. Those who have made some mild complaints about the fact that someone has dared to seek to amend such a wonderful Bill as this should concentrate on this group as much as on any other and perhaps take it up with the Minister.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that one of the amendments in this group— No. 80—has been produced by the Government since we adjourned last Friday?

I am glad my hon. Friend picked that point up, because I was going to mention it later on. It is significant that if we had rushed through the Bill last week, we would not have had the benefit of the Government amendment that has since been tabled. The Bill might therefore have been defective in some way. The world should be grateful for the fact that the House lingered over the Bill last week to enable the Government to come forward with their later thoughts in the form of amendment No. 80, to which I will come shortly.

The Minister seemed to want to nod through amendments Nos. 33 and 34 as though they were of little or no consequence, but I believe that we should ask at least some questions about them. I shall read out amendment No. 33 so that we know where we are:

"An order under this section shall not include provision made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament".

Here we are touching, importantly and properly, on the relationship between what happens here at Westminster and the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. I always thought that environmental matters were without boundaries. I have been told over and again by Euro enthusiasts that one of the great strengths of the European Union is that it deals with cross-boundary—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) want to intervene?

No.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman is enjoying the debate. I hope that he will stay for the whole five hours.

One of the alleged benefits of our membership of the European Union, or, indeed, of the Union itself is that it deals with cross-border environmental matters. Yet, here we are, as I read this amendment, seemingly acknowledging that the approaches taken to these important environmental matters could be different, even within this tiny country of the United Kingdom or within the British Isles, and that the Scottish Parliament might well take a different view. That surely cuts right across all the arguments that I have ever heard about how it is vital that environmental matters are dealt with at not just a national but a trans-national level.

It would appear that we might have a problem here. If we take the amendment literally—and we can do only that because the Minister did not bother to explain it—we envisage that the Scottish Parliament could digress from this Parliament in its approach to climate change and microgeneration. That is doubly unfortunate, since I would have thought that one of the environmental benefits of having Scotland as part of the United Kingdom is that it is almost certainly much richer in the renewable resources to which we all aspire. Therefore, the idea that the Scots might head off in a different direction, courtesy of devolution and the Scottish Parliament, seems unfortunate. For that reason alone, I would have thought that it might be better not to have this amendment in order that we could maintain integrity.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish Parliament has already taken a different view? Its environmental targets are far superior to those set in this place.

That may well be the case; I do not dispute that. However, it illustrates the potential difficulty. What would happen if the Scottish Parliament set lower targets, for example, and we felt that that was a most unfortunate thing to do?

I refer to the declaration of interest that I made last week.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the provision applies to a particular clause only. He can be reassured that where matters fall within the scope of a UK or GB-wide competence, they are not affected by the Bill, but where a matter is currently within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, it stays there. We are not changing the fundamental relationship in any way. I hope that he will be reassured by my understanding of the effect of the amendment.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall accept his explanation and move on as a small reward for his participating in the debate. I hope that we will hear a lot more from him as time goes on.

That brings us on to the string of amendments that the Minister sought to dismiss as somehow trivial or technical—Nos. 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46—in which we are beginning to tackle, really for the first time, the definition of microgeneration and the relationship between the Energy Act 2004 and the Bill. This was touched on at col. 1088 of the Official Report for 10 March 2006, when there was an interesting exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the Minister. We—that is the House, because I do not think we were being properly guided on that occasion—got a little confused about whether we were talking about microgeneration being solely concerned with renewables or whether it went beyond that. That subject will come up in a moment when we look at the relationship between the Energy Act and the Bill, but at that stage we were talking about targets and the Minister was helping to clarify matters. He said:

"The target of 10 per cent. is for renewables . . . . It is not a target for microgeneration"—[Official Report, 10 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1088.]

That set the scene for what I want to explore in some of these amendments, which is how far microgeneration, as we now want to define it, is involved with renewables only or whether it can involve any other source of energy.

The Energy Act, to which the clause refers, comprehensively sets out an approach to microgeneration. That is one of the reasons why I have hesitated so far to give my wholehearted support to the Bill. Section 82 of the Act, to which the amendments refer, places a duty on the Secretary of State

"to prepare a strategy for the promotion of microgeneration in Great Britain".

It goes on to state that he

"must publish the strategy within 18 months after the commencement".

We should have had sight of that strategy by now. Perhaps when the Minister responds on this group, which he airily dismissed as being merely technical, he will tell us where we stand on that.

The strategy will be published by the end of this month.

Is not this debate useful? Are we not starting to elicit some really useful information? Thank goodness for the parliamentary process, because the Minister has just reaffirmed that this matter, which is outstanding from the Energy Act, will come to fruition at the end of this month. I am grateful to him. It is important because before we embark on Third Reading we might want to have that document from the Government in order to set a proper context for that debate. That is another good reason why it would have been wrong to rush through a parliamentary stage ahead of the Government producing the document referred to in the Energy Act. I am grateful to the Minister, but we should all think a little about how far we want to rush things before getting that report, which must be relevant to the final consideration of the Bill in this House and in another place.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that what the Minister said is no great deal, because under the terms of the provision to which he referred the latest date by which the report has to be laid before the House is 5 April this year? It will have taken seventeen and three-quarter months to produce the report against the 18-month maximum time scale.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot understand the reason for the delay, especially as we have known about the Bill and the dates when it would be considered for a long time. I am not really a suspicious sort of chap, so I hope that I do not evince too much suspicion by hoping that the report was not delayed artificially because the promoter of the Bill and the Minister assumed that we would have completed our consideration. Things should have been the other way round. Fortunately, because the House has chosen to debate the Bill properly and in proper detail, our Third Reading may take place after we have the benefit of the report, which would be a huge advantage.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it was slightly disingenuous of the Minister to say that these were merely drafting amendments? Amendment No. 52 is substantive.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. What worries me about the approach that has hitherto been taken to the Bill is that it neither serves the Bill nor the cause it espouses well for the Minister and the promoter of the Bill not to give the House the benefit of proper explanations of what they are trying to do. They may think that by remaining silent they will somehow accelerate the Bill's progress and rush it through the procedure, because delay is unacceptable—a bizarre interpretation of the legislative process, to say the least—but in fact they are simply forcing us to try to elicit information through the tabling of amendments and the initiation of debate. They are missing the point that if they had given the House a proper explanation in the first place, it might have made our proceedings much quicker. Perhaps that lesson will be learned by Members, but so far I fear that the penny has not dropped.

I was interested to read a little item in a newspaper recently, headed "The £3,000 mini power station", which relates exactly to what we are talking about. I shall read from it, Madam Deputy Speaker; it will not take long:

"The traditional household boiler could soon be a thing of the past. Ceres Power, the Aim-listed group, has successfully designed and tested a 1kW fuel cell stack that generates sufficient power for the average home.

Fuel cell technology is typically powered by hydrogen but the fuel cell stack developed by Ceres can also produce electricity and heat from natural gas. The boiler, which fits comfortably into the palm of a hand, uses 'combined heat and power' technology. Unlike a conventional boiler that only produces heat, in Ceres's version a chemical reaction generates both heat and electricity. Any excess electricity can be sold to the national grid."

That is exactly what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) wants to do through the Bill. The article notes that the technology could

"cost the same as a conventional premium boiler".

The company claims—they would, would they not?—that its technology

"could save between 30 and 40 per cent. of total electricity costs in the home"

and

"significantly cut down the emission of greenhouse gases".

When I read that, I wondered whether the chemical reaction in any way violates the principle that is being set out in the amendments, in the move—as I see it—entirely towards what we would broadly call renewables. I concede that it is heat and power technology, but will it, in all the different forms it could take, fit comfortably in the amendments?

rose—

Ah, my right hon. Friend is about to help me.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend and I certainly do not intend to do so for more than 15 seconds, but paragraph (c) in subsection (2) of amendment No. 52 refers specifically to what he has described: fuel cells.

Indeed. I was merely trying to clarify whether it was felt that the technology that I briefly described would fit into that provision. Although my right hon. Friend, who is of course a great expert, has helped the House, he is not the promoter of the Bill or the Minister—yet—but I certainly accept his explanation.

The good news and the saving of all is that subsection (4) of amendment No. 52 states:

"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2)"—

the one that lists the now preferred sources of energy—

"by addition to the sources of energy and technologies for the time being listed any other source of energy or technology for the generation of electricity or production of heat if he considers that the use of that source of energy or technology would cut emissions of greenhouse gases".

Presumably, the argument is that the Secretary of State is to be allowed to broaden the original list in the 2004 Act, or to make it more flexible, by order.

It always causes some nervousness when we see the Secretary of State doing something by order, because I do not know what reassurance we can get that we would have an opportunity to scrutinise such a decision by a future Secretary of State in an area as vital as this. A Secretary of State might suddenly pop up and say, "I have been persuaded by experts that this new source of energy fits within the aspirations that were set out in the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, and therefore I am going to add something to the list, under powers given to me by what is at present amendment No. 52(4), which had found its way into the Bill, which had become an Act. I am not entirely happy that we should be giving such powers to a Secretary of State without some sort of saving provision or parliamentary process, and yet that is the aspiration of the Minister.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that one of the problems, particularly with fuel cells, is that one of the by-products of fuel cell technology is water vapour—yet water vapour is the most extensive greenhouse gas, but for some reason it has been excluded from the provisions of the Bill?

I hesitate to get involved in technical details of the sort that my hon. Friend is suggesting, although that subject might come up on Third Reading because, as we all know, the big picture of climate change in terms of water vapour clouds, carbon dioxide—natural and man-made—and so on, will have to be considered, but not quite yet. However, if my hon. Friend should seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he might, in the context of fuel cells, wish to explore that matter further.

My suspicions, originally aroused by subsection (4), were allayed when I read on, because it goes on:

"The power to make an order under subsection (4)—

(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, and

(b) includes power to make such supplemental or consequential provision (including provision modifying this section) and such transitional or saving provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit."

It continues—this is the reassurance that I was seeking:

"No order under that subsection may be made unless a draft of the order—

(a) has been laid before Parliament".

In that respect we have proper provision. Here I pay tribute to the Minister, as he has given us proper provision for the House to consider the changes that the amendment envisages.

I would hope that, in the context of this group of amendments, at some point these matters will be clarified in terms of the change that has taken place between an Act as recent as the Energy Act 2004 and the Bill that we are now considering.

Perhaps I may clarify that point now. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 do replicate the definition in the 2004 Act—the only difference is that in order to add to the list of technologies, the Secretary of State has to lay an order before Parliament, whereas under the 2004 Act the Secretary of State could just designate other sources as microgeneration. Therefore, our amendment enhances the role of Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by that explanation.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister. Again, we see the remarkable value of this process of debate and amendment.

Would it not have been more helpful to the House if the Minister had said that at the beginning?

Indeed it would; my hon. Friend is right. We are learning a lot of lessons today, which I hope will be promulgated outside the House. Those people who are in a rush to legislate do themselves a disservice, and not only because it is a bad way to legislate. There is the arrogance of people who say, "This is my Bill and we are all signed up to it and therefore it must not be questioned under any circumstances" on the one hand, and those who want to rush the process on the other—

Order. Perhaps the debate on how or how not to legislate is for another day. Today we are discussing the amendment.

Yes of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is useful to make the point as often as possible because some people do not yet seem to have grasped it. However, I will leave that just for the moment.

We now come to this neat little amendment, No. 80, which has been slipped into our proceedings. As has been said, is it not lucky that we are still considering the Bill today? Would it not have been terrible if we had wrapped up the proceedings prematurely on the previous sitting day and the Government had not had the chance to table that amendment, which popped up only on Wednesday 15 March?

I freely concede that amendment No. 80 is not a significant or major amendment, but presumably, if this opportunity to amend the Bill had not arisen, the Bill, if the House agreed to it, would have gone to another place defective, and might have had to be amended by the House of Lords. As we all know, as time marches on in the private Member's Bill process, Bills have to go to the House of Lords, so it does become somewhat hazardous. Therefore, it is just as well, is it not, that we are able today to deal with this amendment—which I am sure is worthy, although the Minister has not bothered to explain it either—and therefore make some proper progress.

All in all, subject to what the Minister may choose to say if he seeks to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, as far as I am concerned at this stage, this group of amendments may well be satisfactory, but I await further words from the Minister and further debate on these important amendments.

Following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in responding to the Minister, may I develop the point that I made on an intervention, which seemed to raise some eyebrows on the Front Bench and certainly did so on the Liberal Democrat Benches?

We welcome to the House this morning the new Liberal Democrat spokesman on this subject, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). He made some body movements and gestures when I suggested that one of the by-products of fuel cell technology is water vapour. I do not know whether he disputes that, but I have a note here that is relevant. I will not trouble the House with all the detail of it, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will probably not need to be taught about this because he knows it already, but it says:

"What is a fuel cell? Fuel cells are devices that produce electrical power. They operate by using the chemical properties of hydrogen and oxygen to create useable electrical current, heat and water vapour. In some ways they can be considered to be a continuously fuelled battery, although unlike a battery they do not store energy; they convert it from one form to another."

The significant expression there is "water vapour", because if pure hydrogen is used as a fuel for these fuel cells, the only outputs are electricity, heat and water vapour.

Again, I will not detain House for more than 30 seconds. Nobody was debating that fuel cells produce water; that is essential to the operation of a fuel cell. The problem with my hon. Friend's remarks is that water vapour is not a greenhouse gas.

I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should say that. If that is his view, I hope that he has written a letter to 12 March 2006. It is a short letter, headed "Carbon dioxide is not the culprit". It criticises The Sunday Telegraph in response to the letter in the letters column of The Sunday Telegraph for making a common error in saying that carbon dioxide

"is the main cause of global warming"

as reported in the News Review of 5 March. The correspondent says:

"It is an extremely small share of greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic (ie man-made) content is minuscule. If we take just the anthropogenic gases the percentages are: CO2 (carbon dioxide) 0.117 per cent, NHO2 (nitrous oxide) 0.047 per cent, CH4 (methane) 0.066 per cent, and CFCs and other gases 0.047 per cent"—

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman could relate those remarks in quoting that letter to the amendment under discussion.

I am relating the letter to the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset challenged me on whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so I am citing a letter from The Sunday Telegraph.

I have read the introductory paragraph to the letter, but the most important part of it says:

"The most prevalent by far of all the greenhouse gasses is water vapour, representing more than 95 per cent., and it is 99.9 per cent. non-anthropogenic."

Of course, water vapour that is produced as a result of fuel cell technology is anthropogenic.

Again, I will not detain the House for long. The fact that there is a nut who writes to the papers does not mean that water vapour is a greenhouse gas—it is not.

I hope that the insurance policy that we all have against defamation will protect my right hon. Friend when he goes outside the House and says to Mr. Anthony Brookes, from Charlwood in Surrey, "You're a nut."

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are more nuts on this subject than on almost any other?

Order. May I bring the House back to the amendment under discussion?

This is an area of debate and, I submit, dispute. I certainly would not be so bold as to describe anyone who writes to The Sunday Telegraph as a nut. The correspondent says, and this is very relevant—

Order. I think that we have heard quite sufficient from the letter in The Sunday Telegraph.

The correspondent makes the point that there are large vested interests in climate change that are endeavouring to force us to spend billions of pounds on CO ₂ reduction when the poorest nations of the world remain ill-served. Obviously we do not have expert opinion here, but the correspondent is saying that if water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas—

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should spend large amounts on stopping cloud formation?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has many powers, but I do not suggest that he should stop cloud formation. Cloud formations would come under the category of non-anthropogenic. I am talking about anthropogenic water vapour, which is, in my submission, a greenhouse gas on the basis of what Mr. Brookes says.

All right, let us try again. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we invest large amounts to stop people from boiling kettles to make tea?

Obviously, if a household wants to be economical in its use of electricity, one of the best things to do is to boil a kettle in the morning and put the surplus product from the kettle into a thermos flask, which avoids the need for the kettle to be re-boiled later in the day. I fear that not enough people are carrying out that process, so an avoidable waste of electricity is occurring. The hon. Gentleman makes a significant point.

We are all enjoying this satire on some of the wacky ideas around the area, but the hon. Gentleman's research assistant has misled him. He will have to wait two more weeks for April fool's day.

I do not know whether the Minister's comment is directed to the letters editor of The Sunday Telegraph, who printed the letter.

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said? I think that we have heard sufficient from the letters columns of The Sunday Telegraph. Perhaps he will address his remarks more relevantly to the amendment.

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is made on fuel cells.

We know that the list in Government amendment No. 52 sets out sources of energy and technologies that are not purely what we might describe as renewable or green. As a consequence, sources of energy will be allowed to be used as a substitute for nuclear power, which does not generate any CO 2 and thus greenhouse gas, although they are less efficient. I do not understand why the promoter of the Bill and the Government seem to have it in for nuclear, because if we used more nuclear energy we would be able to reduce CO 2 emissions.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proposed new subsection (2)(i) in amendment No. 52 cites

"combined heat and power systems."

A lot of those systems use gas efficiently, but they are not renewable sources of energy. He is right to make it clear to the House that the Bill addresses not just renewable sources of energy, but the efficient use of fuel sources that will eventually run out.

My hon. Friend brings substantial expertise to the debate.

That is precisely why the Bill's title is the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, not the climate change and renewable energy Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to deal with not only renewables, but the most efficient use of several forms of energy.

But what is sustainable? Who is defining sustainable? The hon. Gentleman has declared an interest and had the Bill drafted for him by the Sustainable Energy Partnership. Why is nuclear energy not sustainable? I would not wish to refer again to lots of newspaper articles, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I read a fascinating article recently.

May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that although I had assistance in the preparation of the Bill from the Sustainable Energy Partnership and drew on some of its ideas, it was not responsible for the detailed drafting?

The hon. Gentleman will accept that one of the things that binds all the bodies in the Sustainable Energy Partnership is their hatred of nuclear generation and nuclear power, which is why they have defined sustainable energy as any energy coming from a non-nuclear source. That is one of the mischiefs that we are trying to expose.

There was an interesting debate in the columns of one of our national newspapers in the past week on whether the best Greens and environmentally concerned people supported nuclear as a solution to the problem, or preferred renewables. I will not go into that debate in detail, but we must be aware that the promoter of the Bill and the Sustainable Energy Partnership are coming at the matter from a position of self-interest and prejudice against nuclear generation and the retention and renewal of this country's nuclear capacity.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) said, combined heat and power systems are not renewable. The systems can involve the use of refuse-derived fuel. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will know that there is quite a lot of controversy about such fuel because there must be a process of incineration and combustion before it can be created. That process can result in noxious emissions and is a controversial way of dealing with this country's waste. Gasification and pyrolysis are obviously other ways of turning waste into fuel.

I understand from my recent visit to Woking that provided that waste is combusted at a sufficiently high temperature, all those noxious chemicals can be burnt, and the residue is perfectly innocuous, with no serious gas emissions.

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says based on his visit to Woking. All I can say to him is that if he had attended the big public inquiry in Dorset last summer, which went on for many weeks—we have not yet received the inspector's report so I suppose it is, in a sense, sub judice—he would have found that there was tremendous scepticism and public concern about the prospect of having RDF plants in parts of the urban area surrounding Bournemouth and Christchurch.

That stems partly from concern about incineration and the resulting noxious substances and partly from the fact that getting the waste to the place where it is burnt and made into refuse-derived fuel involves transport over long distances, storage and the building of substantial plants. That is a cause of great concern in my constituency and, I understand from reading articles, in many other parts of the country, although perhaps not in Woking. We should bear that concern in mind. Why does Government amendment No. 52 specify particular sources of energy but leave others out of the debate?

The main point that I want to make concerns capacity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to that. I have already commented on the use of "sustainable energy" in the Bill's title as basically meaning anything that the promoters of sustainable energy want—anything other than nuclear. Similarly, many people outside the House will have been misled by the references in the Bill to microgeneration. When people talk about microgeneration they probably have in mind the sort of generating equipment that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is to put on his premises in, I think, Notting Hill, where he still lives. That windmill will generate about 400W of power.

The Minister is doing better than that because I read in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, I think, that he is minded to install on his premises a windmill that will generate 1kW of power. It looks as though the Minister has not seen that article, but if it did not come to him in ministerial press cuttings, he needs to get a new supplier of ministerial press cuttings. The article said that the Minister is to have a generator on his premises which will generate a maximum of 1kW of electricity. Obviously, that shows that the Minister's household uses a lot more electricity than that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I will not cast aspersions because of that.

Order. I hope not because it is not relevant to the amendment that we are discussing.

I absolutely agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will have noticed that subsection (3) of Government amendment No. 52 says that maximum capacity in relation to the generation of electricity is 50kW; in other words, the equivalent of a windmill 50 times the size of the one that the Minister is going to have on his house or of 50 windmills of that size in the Minister's garden. The Minister laughs, but in doing so he is probably trying to ridicule the notion that that amount of generating power in a domestic garden could be regarded as microgeneration, and that, of course, is exactly my point.

Why are we allowing the definition of microgeneration to include units that generate up to 50kW of electricity—more than 50 times what is needed for the Minister's house and more than 100 times, indeed 125 times, what is needed for the house of my right hon. Friend? When we start talking about microgeneration of up to 50kW, we are talking about very big developments—enormous windmills or whole series of windmills. Why should microgeneration be deemed to include electricity generation 50 times or more what an individual household needs? I cannot understand that. I support the principle of microgeneration and the idea of reducing the need for the national grid to operate and allowing more energy production to be, I think the expression is, decentralised. I cannot for the life of me see that if a household chooses to put up to 50kW of electricity-generating capacity in the garden or on the house that should be described as microgeneration.

I am disappointed that the Minister, when he came to look at the contents of the Energy Act 2004 and redrafted its provisions in the amendments that we now see before us, stuck to the figure of 50kW. I hope that he will explain how 50kW can genuinely be called, in popular parlance, microgeneration. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will think about this subject because if we are to get public support for decentralised power production, surely we need to gain the confidence of the general public. If somebody living, for example, in a seafront bungalow in Bexhill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) could put up 50 windmills in their garden on the basis that it would be microgeneration and then sell almost all that surplus electricity into the national grid, and their neighbours could do the same thing, my hon. Friend would find that Bexhill, far from being a very attractive retirement area with south-facing views over the channel, would basically become an industrial landscape.

If we get on to the next group of amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) will be reassured that the Bill will not allow people suddenly to put 50 windmills in their back gardens in Bexhill, and that is certainly not the intention behind it.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that remark so far as it goes, but I had hoped that he would explain why he feels that microgeneration needs to be defined as anything up to 50kW rather than, perhaps, 1kW, which would surely be much more consistent with the popular understanding of microgeneration. Perhaps when the Bill reaches the other place we will have to ask their lordships whether there is a possibility of introducing into the Bill something called mini-microgeneration, which could be up to 1kW rather than up to 50kW. Whatever the promoter of the Bill says—we will come on to the debate about the planning aspects in due course—the Bill will say that 50kW of electricity generation is regarded as microgeneration. That defies common sense.

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that if we get this wrong, we will face difficulties similar to those surrounding another technology—telecommunications masts? If we get the exemption wrong, the level wrong or the capacity wrong, we will find that the equipment can be set up without sufficient local input or controls.

Order. I warn the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) not to be tempted down the road of telecommunications masts.

I shall not be, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, when we discuss planning and development orders, analogies with telecommunications masts may well be in order. However, that will be a decision for you to make at the time.

There has been some levity and repartee, and I have seen letters from people who might be described as rather hysterical about the Bill, but there is a serious issue here. If we want public support for the principle of localised, decentralised energy generation, which is Conservative policy as I understand it, we should try to allay concerns by having a definition of microgeneration that is more in accord with what the ordinary person would regard as micro, rather than macro.

My comments on electricity generation also apply to the production of heat. Think of the size of the equipment, plant and apparatus that would have to be installed to capture enough solar energy to produce 45kW thermal. Can we really describe that as microgeneration?

Perhaps it will help the hon. Gentleman if I make it clear that the provision is designed to cover not only households, but community schemes. That is why the 50kW threshold was considered appropriate.

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but I am confused. Under clause 16, the maxima for the generation of electricity applicable to community energy schemes are not 50 kW and 45 kW thermal, but 20MW and 100 MW thermal.

My hon. Friend has stumbled across an important part of the Bill. If, for simplicity, we say that one house uses 1kW, amendment No. 39, in effect, provides that a group of 50 houses could be covered by a scheme; but clause 16 allows up to 20MW, or 20,000kW per scheme, which would supply 20,000 houses. Surely the point of the debate is to seek justification of the 50kW limit, when it would seem sensible to reduce the limit to 1kW or perhaps 5kW and thus seriously define the micro in microgeneration.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that our combined forces will prompt a response from our hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle.

I think that everyone here is labouring under a misapprehension. I understand that the average household consumes about 10kW of electricity. The case that my hon. Friend is making is fundamentally flawed, the scale on which his argument is based is incorrect and the premise that he is advancing is nonsense.

My hon. Friend is long on assertions; I hope that he can justify the assertion that he has just made. According to my information, average household consumption of electricity is in the order of 3.6kW. Obviously individual figures vary, and it may be that my hon. Friend's house uses much more than 3.6kW, but my understanding is that domestic energy use averages 4,700kWh per annum. I do not pretend to be an expert; those figures are produced by the British Wind Energy Association, and a document in front of me confirms them.

My hon. Friend continues to labour under a misapprehension. We are referring to heat and electricity.

I do not understand my hon. Friend's point. I am talking about 3.6kW of energy being used each year, yet under the Bill generation up to 45kW is described as microgeneration.

One is output, the other is capacity.

I am sorry, but because of the rustling of papers I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman said.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about household electricity use, which is output. In the context of the installation of microgeneration devices, he is referring to capacity.

Maximum capacity, rather than the amount that is actually produced?

The two should not be confused.

One could have a large power station with enormous capacity measured in gigawatts whose output is very small because it is being run at far less than capacity, but that does not answer my question: why allow capacity of 50kW when capacity of only 1kW or 3 kW is needed to produce the power for an individual household?

Our debate today is beginning to illustrate the fact that when we have a Bill that is the subject of a large degree of consensus, it does not receive in Standing Committee the proper scrutiny and examination that can be achieved on the Floor of the House or during the Committee stage of an ordinary public Bill, when those who are concerned about the Bill or sceptical serve on the Committee alongside those who are enthusiastic about it, with the result that a real debate is had. Perhaps we shall be able to resolve the problems by the time we get to Third Reading.

The British Wind Energy Association believes that its calculation is correct, and I find it hard to understand why it should be wrong. I am looking through "Calculations for wind energy statistics" to try to address the point that has been put to me. My intellectual understanding of the matter is being challenged and I do not want that challenge to go unanswered. My hon. Friend has asserted that the average UK household use of energy is much higher than I said. I do not know whether the figure of average domestic energy use of 4,700kWh per annum is incorrect, or what he thinks should be put in its place. As I understand it, if efficiency is close to 100 per cent. one needs less capacity than one would with less efficient generators such as wind turbines, which are only 0.3 per cent. efficient because of the inconsistent nature of wind. Most types of generators have a capacity of 0.5 per cent. If the average home uses 4,700 kWh a year, the generators can provide power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said, for 5,000 households. For example, a 1MWe wind turbine can supply energy to 559.1 homes.

The Minister defended himself by saying that the definitions of microgeneration in the Government amendments of 50kW and 45kW are set high to meet the provisions of clause 16. I hope that he accepts that the community energy schemes dealt with in that clause are subject to a much higher maximum, so Government amendment No. 39 should apply to domestic household microgeneration, not the promotion of community energy schemes.

In his discussion of microgeneration my hon. Friend has referred to wind power. I declare my interest as president of Country Guardian, which opposes the littering of the countryside with wind turbines and, indeed, their siting in any other inappropriate place. What size of wind turbines are we talking about? Can they be placed anywhere, including rural areas?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into the debate on the next group of amendments.

You have stolen my thunder, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I was going to say exactly the same thing. However, my hon. Friend has raised a pertinent issue for the next debate.

The Minister has caused a great deal of confusion, because he said that the maximum is designed to promote community energy schemes, and will apply to groups of houses or flats or small communities comprising large numbers of households. However, in the provision, microgeneration applies to individual households or households within the curtilage of a dwelling house.

That was my reading of the Bill. Clause 9(6) explicitly says that a dwelling house

"does not include a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building",

and it goes on to define a flat. It is not until clause 16, as my hon. Friend said, that community energy projects appear in the Bill. It is therefore important to maintain the distinction between the so-called microgeneration required for domestic dwellings and so-called community energy projects. I am sure that that distinction will emerge much more clearly as the debate proceeds.

My right hon. Friend is right. I shall not press the point any further, because I hope that when we debate the amendment that I have tabled to clause 16 he will be able to explain that there is an even higher maximum for microgeneration under that clause than there is under Government amendment No. 52.

Would the Government not be in a better position to promote community energy schemes if they lowered the limit for individual residential householders? Householders would appear to be in a good position to receive permission for a wind turbine 50 times the size of the turbine covered by the amendments. If the limit were lowered there would be more incentive for neighbourhoods and communities to get together and establish their own neighbourhood generation.

My hon. Friend is right. On 13 March, Ceres Power issued the following press release:

"Ceres Power, the AIM-quoted fuel cell group, announces that it has taken a major step in commercialising its technology with the achievement of a critical milestone. The Company has successfully designed, built and tested a 1 kW fuel cell stack (the 'Ceres Stack') generating sufficient power for the average home."

Ceres Power thinks that a 1kW fuel cell stack will generate enough power for the average home, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asserted that we need 10kW. An AIM-listed company says that a small, lightweight fuel cell which, I believe, almost fits into the palm of one's hand, can deliver 1kW. Surely, it is not so out of touch as to underestimate by a factor of 10 the power needs of the average home? If my hon. Friend is right, one would have to buy 10 of those compact fuel cells to supply one household's fuel needs. I hope that we can get to the bottom of the matter because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering suggested, if we want to educate and encourage people to use microgeneration—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has given a strong lead on that—we must ensure that the natives do not get restless.

We do not want people to think that they can engage in an industrial process in their back garden that would enable them to sell 95 per cent. of their output. Jam makers are subject to regulations that prevent them from selling surplus jam at Women's Institute markets. Why, then, should individuals be allowed to generate 49kW of energy and sell it to the national grid while they keep 1kW for themselves?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing arguments that we have already heard.

I certainly would not want to rehearse any arguments again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that, having listened to our debate, the Minister will explain the difference between the provisions of what he described as technical amendments and the much higher limits in clause 16. I hope that he will engage in constructive debate on the importance of not alarming the citizens of this country with the prospect of much larger generating units being sited in back gardens or elsewhere.

This has been a useful debate. I am glad that last week the Minister accepted that there was a defect in the Bill, which led to the introduction of Government amendment No. 80.When the Minister responds, I hope that he will address my concern that the definition of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of dynamic demand technologies in clause 15, which is the subject of amendment No. 80, is consequential on Government amendment No. 50, which we debated last week. That introduced a definition of greenhouse gas in clause 23 covering any of the six gases specified in the Kyoto protocol. Surely technology that increases one greenhouse gas but reduces another is not necessarily good technology. Do we not want the impact of technology on each greenhouse gas to be measured? My fear—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that amendment No. 80 would allow the Government to look at the overall impact on all six gases, rather than measuring the impact on each of the greenhouse gases separately. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not propose to engage again in the debate about whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to one of the points that emerged in the latter stages of the discussion. I will not go into the sticky business of Women's Institute jam because we are focusing on global warming and the planet's chance to have jam tomorrow, so let us stick with that.

Questions were raised about the differences in the definitions of microgeneration and community schemes. Perhaps I can help the House. Microgeneration is for households and community schemes—for example, solar panels on church halls, or the wind turbine that I saw on the building at the Daventry country park when I was asked to visit it—whereas the community energy schemes referred to in clause 16 are intended to cover both small scale community installations that could be classed as microgeneration, and larger schemes such as district heating.

Can the Minister say a little more about what a large scheme might be in this context? We are talking about microgeneration, which would be understood by the layman in a particular way. Now that the Minister has spoken of a large scheme in the context of community projects, could he give the House some idea of the scale? What sort of size of building or installation does he have in mind when he talks about a large scheme?

The technology would determine which section applied to the scheme. It could be a new school. I was scheduled today to open the new Ashburton school in Croydon in my borough—the Ashburton learning village, which has extensive photovoltaics. I rather regret in some respects that I cannot undertake my duties in my own borough today because of the delays that have been caused. The scheme could be a new library, a big new community centre, a new church or church hall or a sports hall. I hope the House understands that those are the kind of developments that we are trying to cover.

It is important that we have this dialogue. Is the Minister saying that he believes that a photovoltaic installation, even on the roof of a school, would contribute to community energy in the sense in which I understand the Bill to refer to it?

I was talking about the range of possibilities. Some schemes could involve mini combined heat and power installations, for example. There is a range of heat technologies. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to explore some of them in his constituency, just as I hoped to find out more today if I had been able to put principle into practice by helping to open the Ashburton learning village. I hope I have provided clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 — Functions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority in Relation to Microgeneration

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 6, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert

'the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006.".'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 6, line 15, leave out clause 9.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 13, in page 6, line 25 [Clause 9], at end insert—

'(2A) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of—

(a) safeguarding conservation areas;

(b) protecting visual amenity;

(c) reducing noise; and

(d) avoiding risks to health and safety.'.

No. 70, in page 6, line 25 [Clause 9], at end insert—

'(2A) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such body or bodies as appear to him to be representative of local authorities;

(b) the Royal Institute of British Architects;

(c) the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;

(d) the Campaign to Protect Rural England; and

(e) any other bodies or persons he considers appropriate.'.

No. 71, in page 7, line 3 [Clause 9], at end insert— '"local authorities" has the same meaning as in section [Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions].'.

In addition to speaking to my amendment No. 32, I shall say a few words about the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which qualify clause 9 by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to, among other things, four desirable outcomes when carrying a review of permitted development orders.

Before considering the detail of what is proposed, I shall set the matter in context. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contains important safeguards and restrictions on the ability of a landowner to carry out development on his land. Those restrictions are imposed on the grounds of amenity, and are a significant restriction on the principle that an Englishman's home is his castle and that he can do in it and on his land whatever he wishes.

Planning provides community protection for local people who are concerned about intrusive, insensitive and antisocial behaviour. It is reflected in Government guidance emanating in the form of policy planning guidance and appears in the latest manifestation of that—regional spatial strategies. The regional spatial strategy for the south-west of England, which is of interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the Front Bench, has been discussed. It is very controversial. It must be submitted to the Department by the end of March, and as I understand it—

Order. Interesting and controversial the regional spatial strategy might be, but it is not relevant to the amendment under discussion.

I shall return to section 52(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I am listening to my hon. Friend's words with interest. Last time we discussed the Bill, we had the benefit of the presence of a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with development issues. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Minister is not present today?

I do, but perhaps the Minister did not expect us to reach this group of amendments so quickly. She may be on her way to the Chamber. I know from my own experience when I was a Minister with responsibility for planning matters that this is a technical area, and a Minister for Housing and Planning can speak with much more authority than the Minister for Energy, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about most things.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is in her constituency, where many of us would like to be on a Friday. The fact that I am in the Chamber to represent the entire Government shows that we do not just talk joined-up, we do it.

I am glad that the Government make provision for Ministers to attend the House on a Friday, because the Government and the House decided that we should meet on various Fridays during the year. It would be rather bizarre if—

Order. We are meeting on a Friday and we are discussing a particular set of amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Section 52(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refers to a development order, which

"itself grants planning permission for development specified in the order or for development of any class specified."

In other words, the development order provides for planning permission to be granted without any notice having to be given, without any consultation with those who are or may be affected by it, without any need for a planning application, and without the involvement of any locally elected councillors—just like the planning-free environment which, to an extent, prevailed before the advent of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.

A permitted development order can therefore be a very far-reaching curtailment of environmental protection.Clause 9 seems designed to facilitate further and far-reaching curtailment of environmental protection. That is why I am very concerned about the clause and have tabled an amendment seeking to remove it from the Bill. I recognise that the issue creates a dilemma for my hon. Friends. To what extent should we jeopardise one part of the environment, such as visual amenity, in order to benefit another part, perhaps by seeking to reduce global warming? Those are just the sort of issues that we should debate. They are not black and white, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst agrees that inherent conflicts and contradictions on environmental issues are best resolved locally, by locally elected representatives. Of course, that is what can be done under planning law, but could not be done under the general development order relaxation proposed in the clause.

Does my hon. Friend share my unease about the danger of making a presumption in favour of the ability to install what are now rather loosely known as microgenerating plants? The danger is that that will enable more and more such installations to be established, perhaps even against the wishes of individuals or local planning authorities? It is that change of presumption that is key to the provisions, which is why we have now probably got to the crux of the Bill and of the effect that it could have on our communities and in our constituencies.

That is absolutely right; it is the dilemma that I am hoping the majority of Members of the House will agree should be resolved in favour of localism.

I should like to illustrate that point by referring to the recently published document "Built to Last", which was produced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That document, which I shall not quote extensively, sets out "Our aims" as follows:

"To improve the quality of life for everyone through . . . a dynamic economy . . . a strong society

and

"a sustainable environment where we enhance the beauty of our surroundings and protect the future of our planet."

We will not enhance the beauty of our surroundings if we allow monstrosities otherwise known as microgenerating plants to proliferate in our residential neighbourhoods without the need for individual planning consent.

This is a very serious issue. If a planning application for 2,000 houses were made in my constituency, for example, the Government might take the view that the best way of providing energy for the houses, on the basis of the figures before us today, would be a 25 MW community energy scheme. Presumably, such a scheme would require planning permission in the normal way. If permitted development orders are introduced, the alternative is that 400 wind turbines could be constructed on an estate of 2,000 houses. Such a development might be beneficial in terms of climate change, but in terms of visual amenity there would be many different views as to whether it was acceptable.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that he will contribute further to the debate in due course, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that, as my hon. Friend develops his argument—indeed, our hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) may wish to elaborate as well—somebody somewhere will give me an idea of the size of installation that we are talking about. It is in the context of the clause and amendments before us, in respect of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, most helpfully guided us earlier, that we will properly consider the size of wind turbines, community energy plants and the like. If we do nothing else, we should make people outside this place aware of the direction in which we are going in the name of so-called microgeneration and what they may end up having in their communities in that context.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to the size of some of the plants, although without the ability to use visual aids in the Chamber, I shall have to rely on the powers of description rather than on anything else.

As it stands, clause 9 is about circumventing the local planning system, despite the fact that planning is deemed by most of our constituents to be the most important responsibility of local government. That is why people argue for keeping local councils, because it is the local councillors who are in touch with people's concerns about planning issues in particular. The importance of planning as a local government function was borne out by all the research done by the Local Government Commission for England when we last looked at reorganising local authorities and considered whether we should abolish district councils in favour of unitary authorities or county councils.

I have grave concerns about wind turbines for a number of reasons. In a number of countries where they have proliferated, rare bird species have diminished, because of birds being killed by flying into the turbines. Is my hon. Friend telling the House that there is no opportunity for bodies or individuals who care about rare bird species that may migrate into their areas or pass through them to make representations? Can there be no representations from anyone who is concerned about the placement of wind turbines?

I am saying that. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that concern. The clause makes it clear that there is no provision for parliamentary discussion, public debate or consultation on the issue.

I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). If he looks at my amendment No. 70, he will find that I am attempting to provide exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is asking for. Perhaps we should have a vote when the time comes. I think that the House should express its view at some point, as there is far too much cosy consensus breaking out. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to my amendment, as I do not take sole possession of it.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will indeed refer to his amendment, but I thought it would be helpful to try to progress logically and start by debating the lead amendment, which would leave out clause 9 altogether.

One way of summing up clause 9 would be to say that under its provisions the Secretary of State is expressly prohibited from listening to anyone or modifying the outcome of his review in any way. That is rather reminiscent of the Labour slogan articulated by the late Lord Shawcross after old Labour got into office after the war—"We are the masters now." The Secretary of State is the master and it is not going to be possible for anybody to intervene in any process to say, "Hold on a minute—are you sure this is actually the right thing to do in terms of the environment?"

Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the environmental lobby sometimes claim that they are the masters now and resent even debating some of the policies that they advocate?

That is the case with some of them, but not all. If my right hon. Friend had read the open debate in the columns of one of the national newspapers within the past 10 days, he would have seen very different positions being taken on the subject by people all of whom would describe themselves as having the best possible environmental credentials. They can agree to disagree, or strongly disagree, with each other on these issues. That is why it is all the more important that there should be provision for somebody other than just the Secretary of State, whoever he happens to be at the time, to get involved in debating whether permitted development orders should be allowed to be used so that these very large generating plants can be constructed without the need for any planning permission or any chance for local involvement in whether they are a good idea.

What size or nature of development could be constructed under a permitted development order under the clause without planning consent? That is the question that several of us are concerned about, and I will try my best to answer it. I know that in due course the promoter of the Bill wants to enter into the debate to give us some assurances. We do not allow permitted development orders to deal with such things as bus stops, bus shelters, street cabinets or even telecomms masts, although we all know from our constituency casework just how controversial those can be. Not long ago, I attended a meeting of the Greater London authority, where no less a person than the Mayor of London answered a question about the location of a bus stop in Richmond. He took the view that he, as the regional authority leader, should be the sole determinant of where that bus stop should be positioned. Under the clause, we would not have that safeguard even for a large microgenerating plant, because it would all be dealt with under permitted development orders. What would our constituents have said in the past, before the health and visual amenity aspects became big issues, if any Government or Secretary of State said, "We think that all these telecomms masts should be put up without the need for any planning permission to be obtained, because it is a jolly good thing that people should be able to communicate by mobile phone"? There would have been an enormous outcry.

I suspect that at the moment people have not woken up to the exact implications of the Bill as regards microgeneration equipment, because they think of it as being on a very small scale. When they do wake up to it, it may be too late, because by then clause 9 will already be on the statute book and the Secretary of State, without anybody being able to constrain him, will have already passed the necessary orders under the permitted development process and these developments will be outwith the control of local people and their locally elected representatives.

I am very supportive of wind power. A new wind farm in Kettering, Burton Wold, is providing electricity for local people. However, it is affecting many local people's television reception. If the Bill succeeds and lots of these wind turbines are put up, people may become concerned about the effects on their environment. It is right that this House should debate these issues now before it is passed into law.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We normally find in terms of legislation that prevention is better than cure. It is no good coming back later to try to amend it, because it will be too late. Some of us have been receiving representations from constituents who are concerned about the contents of some recent legislation, and we are having to say to them that it is too late to do anything about it because it has already gone through. We should anticipate the concerns that will arise. I like to think that all Members, particularly those of us who attend on Fridays, are closely in touch with their constituents' concerns.

People are worried about how big these structures would be. According to the article in The Daily Telegraph of 13 March, the wind turbine that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to fit to his house has translucent rotor blades that are 1.1m in diameter, and it will generate just 400W of electricity. The same newspaper report referred to the Minister's house in Croydon being fitted out with a 1 kW turbine—

Order. We are discussing the amendment, which is about permitted development orders. We have already heard about the developments involving the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister.

If clause 9 remains in the Bill, under a permitted development order it will be possible for all these pieces of generating equipment, whether they belong to a Member of this House or somebody outside, to be constructed without the need for any planning permission. That is why I was about to mention the dimensions of the turbine which, according to the press report, will be placed on the Minister's premises.

indicated dissent.

The Minister is shaking his head before he has even heard what I am going to say. The article said that it will have blades that are 1.75m in diameter. In the old-fashioned language of the metric martyrs, that is about 5 ft 9 in. That is a fairly significant size. However, that is a very small capacity turbine compared with the maximum 50kW capacity that is permitted under the Bill. Under clause 9, microgeneration as defined in the Government amendment to the Energy Act 2004 could have a capacity to generate 50kW. If the Minister were to table an amendment to redefine it as relating to a maximum capacity of 1kW, that might allay many concerns. However, clause 9, coupled with the provisions about the maximum capacity being 50kW, will put our constituents in grave jeopardy and cause them enormous anxiety.

My hon. Friend has framed this important argument excellently. However, is not he guilty of presuming too much about the review's outcome? Having listened to him carefully, I have heard a solid case for improving the clause through the process that underpins the review, but I have not yet heard a case for removing the clause, which is the purpose of the amendment. Will he make that case?

I am making the case. If the clause was not part of the Bill, putting microgenerating plant in one's garden or attaching it to one's house would be a matter for planning and subject to the usual planning laws. In that case, one would make an application, fill in a form, pay a fee to the local authority and discuss it with the local planning authority, which in due course would develop a policy in its local plan process. That might cover the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made about whether we should have many individual pieces of generating plant or whether one larger piece of community generating plant would be preferable. The planning process could deal with all those issues. If individuals wanted to install many pieces of plant, councillors could end up discussing the applications. They could ask questions, such as that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the implications for bird strike, the butterfly population and so on. However, if the clause remains in the Bill, none of those opportunities would arise. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) is in an urban area, where proper protection under planning laws is even more crucial, because people live close to each other.

I hope that my hon. Friend has not left the subject of size. For the benefit of us non-metric people, will he please tell us not only the overall diameter of the allegedly small wind turbine that will be positioned on or near a dwelling house, but how high it might have to be? I presume that height and size are important when considering visual and possible sound intrusion. It would be helpful if we could get some of those facts on the record so that people are under no illusions about what the Bill asks us to do.

My right hon. Friend asks about height. I am not sure whether I have much information about maximum height. However, I have a picture, which I cannot show hon. Members, but it depicts a 12.5MW biomass plant at a place called Westfield. It resembles the cement works at Westbury. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with the big cement works in the countryside at Westbury. It has an enormous chimney, which rises 100 m into the sky, and large warehouse-type buildings, which could, at a guess, be 50 ft to 100 ft high. There is another picture of a smaller, 5 MW plant—the Goosey lodge plant. That resembles a mini version of the Fawley refinery. I hope that that gives some visual impression of what such plant would be like.

The applications need to be considered before full planning, but not only for reasons of size, which is important. We worried about birds, but kids playing in backyards could be affected if the blades are large. There could be a problem, depending on where the equipment was sited. Let us ensure that there are proper rules and regulations. Local authorities can then consider where equipment will be sited. I must—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or a speech? Perhaps he could bring his remarks to a close.

I shall, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most common problems that we encounter in our surgeries is neighbour disputes? When neighbours cannot—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We know that neighbour disputes can end in violence and, indeed, death. I spent some time in a previous Parliament discussing the frustrations that people can experience living on each side of a hedge.

Order. We do not need to hear about the hon. Gentleman's frustrations in a previous life.

rose—

I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

We have heard that the diameter of a 400W wind turbine is 1.1m and that that of a 1kW wind turbine is 1.75m. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed that we are being gesticulated at from the other side of the Chamber. The promoter and seconder of the Bill and the Minister are present. Surely someone can tell us what the diameter of the blades of a 50kW wind turbine would be.

I hope that we shall get closer to an answer to that pertinent point. Whatever the size, we know that it will be pretty large—or there may be many wind turbines. That could amount to the same thing. I can envisage that, in order to generate 50kW, one might have to install photovoltaic tiles and erect a fence that was 15ft high and 30ft long next door to one's neighbours.

The hon. Gentleman has invited me on a couple of occasions to give my views of what the Bill might allow. Allowing a fence of the size that he outlined or, indeed, a 12.5MW biomass power station to be included under the permitted development orders would not be the desired outcome of the clause. I intend to deal with the matter in my contribution. If he is satisfied with that, perhaps he would be prepared to let other hon. Members respond to his points at an early stage in the debate.

That is a helpful point and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, to which I shall have the opportunity to respond. I believe that the best way of tackling the problem is by leaving out clause 9.

Clause 9 currently discriminates against installations within the curtilage of a dwelling house, but not buildings that contain one or more flats. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. If one's neighbour lived in a flat, one would have no worries, but if one's neighbour lived in a bungalow or a detached, semi-detached or terraced house, there are potential problems. My home in London, where I stay during the week, is a terraced house and the impact on my quality of life if my neighbours began installing such equipment in their gardens could be significant.

If one were in favour of permitted development orders, would not it appear extraordinary if blocks of flats were excluded, because their roofs would be perfect, if one were so minded, for siting a wind turbine to provide efficient energy for the dwellers.

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I hope the Minister will tackle. Why are blocks of flats—or houses that are converted into two flats—excluded when ordinary houses with land attached are included? Of course, one can get big converted houses, which stand in substantial plots of land. Under the provisions, they could not take advantage of the permitted development rights, but those living cheek by jowl in small bungalows could.

Amendment No. 13 limits the clause in the sense that

"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability"

of four factors. The amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, would be better than nothing. However, I warn him that the expression "have regard to" is a weak phrase, as we discovered in the challenge to the Government requirements on school admissions. That is why the expression in the Education and Inspections Bill, which had its Second Reading this week, has been tightened.

Order. We have debated the Education and Inspections Bill. We are now debating the hon. Gentleman's amendment to clause 9.

Absolutely, and I was addressing my remarks to the expression "have regard to" in amendment No. 13. That expression has been the subject of judicial decision making. As a consequence of that, I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about whether it goes far enough. One cannot ignore it and proceed as before, as the High Court recently ruled.

I plead guilty in that sense, but if we must have the clause—perhaps we will accept my hon. Friend's amendment—one decision that we might have to make, and we will have to make it on the hoof, is whether my modest and perhaps rather ineffectual amendment is at least a gesture in the right direction because it could improve the clause.

I certainly agree, but I have another reservation about amendment No. 13. By specifying some factors, it could be taken that others are excluded—for example, the need to safeguard the green belt, to preserve the setting of listed buildings and to protect wildlife, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). By not including those provisions, it might be thought that they are excluded. Perhaps that is a slightly technical, whinging point that it ill behoves me to make, especially in respect of an amendment so ably drafted by my right hon. Friend.

What I like about amendment No. 13 are the specific references to visual amenity, noise and health and safety. We discussed visual amenity quite a lot in this short debate, but noise is a big unknown factor. Nothing in the Bill would limit the use of equipment at night. We know how sensitive our constituents are to night-time noise. I have personal experience of that. We once had a family house quite close to a farm that operated equipment late at night to dry bulbs produced in west Cornwall for the early English spring market. The noise was highly intrusive, but the equipment could run at night under permitted development powers because its use was related to agriculture. There was nothing that a concerned neighbour could do, except to plead with the farmer's common sense and to ask him to limit the use of the machines to daytime or to put in proper noise insulating material.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

Let me continue by saying that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been conducting a review of householder development consents. The review was set up to address the problem that the planning legislation governing minor consents is unnecessarily complex, possibly too constricting and may be interpreted in different ways by local planning authorities across the country. The ODPM proposes to look at ways of simplifying the relevant sections of the secondary legislation, known as the general permitted development order, to make it easier for households to install microgeneration technology without the need for a planning application.

Does the Minister not understand that there is concern because of the definition of the capacity of microgeneration? If the Minister had come to the House today and said that this provision relates to microgeneration up to 1kW or 5kW, we might not be having a debate of this length. However, because we are placing a capacity of up to 50kW in the Bill, under PDOs that could, despite the Minister's good intentions, lead to the establishment of wind turbines that local residents might find unacceptable.

Perhaps foolishly, I was applying a common-sense test to this. No one can anticipate that, following the Deputy Prime Minister's review, such things would be allowed. If my judgment on common sense lets me down, I apologise to the House. We have to bring some sense of scale to this. It may be helpful if my colleague the Minister writes to the hon. Member for Christchurch on this point so that there can be no misconceptions.

Does the Minister recognise that there are more and less controversial microgeneration plans? Small solar panels on roofs would be acceptable to the vast majority of people in this country, yet certain wind turbines, even of a small scale, might be controversial, particularly to neighbours. Does the Minister recognise that there are two aspects of microgeneration?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As colleagues are finding, progress and modernisation can be controversial, and there can be resistance. That is true for microgeneration, if the hon. Gentleman understands my meaning. These things are controversial, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will do a review to facilitate sensible-scale microgeneration. That is all we are saying. It is a red herring to think that we are talking about 50kW plants.

An earlier intervention from the Opposition Back Benches suggested that the review might be carried out without any form of consultation. Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that there will be consultation in any review, as one would expect to be normal practice?

My hon. Friend encourages me to finish my speech. I have made the point that my colleague will write to the hon. Gentleman so that we can clarify these matters.

Amendment No. 13 specifies things to which the Secretary of State should have regard when carrying out his review of permitted development orders. It goes without saying that the Secretary of State would conduct a thorough review, so a prescriptive list, such as this, is unnecessary. The listing of various bodies as consultees in amendment No. 70 is also unnecessary. When there is a consultation exercise on a planning matter, the ODPM invites comments from a great many organisations, including those that represent local authorities, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other organisations with an interest in planning. That will already happen, so the amendment is unnecessary.

I want to clarify a point that was raised about permitted development orders. Should the ODPM decide, following the review, that a new permitted development order is required in relation to microgeneration, the order will be tabled in the House. It will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, but the House will nevertheless have the opportunity to comment. That is in addition to the full consultation that will take place as part of the review.

In summary, amendment No. 71 is consequential on the incorporation of amendment No. 70. I oppose the inclusion of amendments Nos. 32, 13, 70 and 71.

I am certainly reassured by the Minister's answers, especially on the point about consultation. Members who raised that issue may have been unaware of the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation, in which criterion 3 states clearly:

"Efforts should be made to bring the consultation to the attention of all interested parties."

I have no doubt that the Government will attempt to do that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a great interest in absorbing large amounts of time.

The key point is that no new powers for the Government are introduced by the clause. If the Government were minded to allow the building of monstrous wind turbines, biomass fuel plants or anything else under PDOs, they could do so already. The concerns expressed from the Conservative Back Benches seem completely unfounded. The clause introduces a requirement for a review of PDOs, which will then be brought to the House in the normal way—with a statutory instrument, which, as the Minister says, requires a negative resolution. That seems appropriate and is one of the reasons why we shall support the clause and the Bill.

The purpose of the clause, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has already suggested, is to examine whether it is possible to ensure that small-scale microgeneration equipment of various kinds can be installed by householders without their necessarily having to go through the full bureaucracy of the planning process.

At present, authorities take a different view about the planning process for particular items of microgeneration; for example, in some local authority areas one may put solar tiles on one's roof without planning permission, while in others planning permission would be required, due to concerns arising from section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Similarly, if one erects a small wind turbine—we have heard about various people who are trying to do that, one of whom is me—some local authorities will say that all applications for miniature wind turbines on houses are subject to planning permission, but other authorities will not require planning permission, within particular constraints. The clause provides that if a review finds that a permitted development order is possible, after discussion in the House, the PDO will remove the requirement for the full planning process for a number of defined microgeneration devices.

We have heard the idea expressed—I am sure by inadvertence or misunderstanding—that a 50kW wind turbine might be installed on a roof in Bromley, which would be a monstrosity and insupportable—

In every sense of the word.

Indeed, and might lead to other consequences.

The provision suggests that the PDO mechanism does not actually work at present because, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the general permitted development order and section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 limit the scope of development orders in terms of the extent to which they may be mediated by

"the approval of the local planning authority with respect to the design or external appearance of the buildings".

The general permitted development order makes a number of points about the circumstances under which that may happen.

For example, in local authorities generally, if a householder adds less than 15 per cent. to the curtilage of their property, that is not regarded as requiring planning permission. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is well aware of that from discussions that he has had in his constituency. In addition, there is a range of other considerations that cause certain things that are not fundamental to the extension, or the change of the appearance of the property, to remain outside the planning regulations. If one thinks about it for a moment, that is a good thing because otherwise no one could do anything without being snowed under by the requirement to have planning permission, and local authorities could not operate because every time that someone put a porch on their house, or some such, they would have to apply for planning permission.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, increasingly, local authorities will impose a condition on a planning consent which means that the applicant is not allowed in the future to rely on the provisions of the general development order?

Yes indeed, and that underlines my point that there is a boundary on permitted development orders that local authorities can apply, and also, through the general permitted development order, a boundary on the extent to which permitted development orders apply in any event. If one applies that logic, a biomass plant might extend the curtilage of a particular properly by more than 15 per cent., which would be outside the terms of the general permitted development order. Similarly, if a wind turbine went well above the roofline or beyond the building line, that would also be beyond the terms of the general permitted development order, so there are boundaries anyway.

The difference that is suggested is very modest indeed. It would simply clarify the terms under which microgeneration devices—which were not in existence when permitted development orders were first thought about in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990— might be attached by householders to their households, in the same way as, under other circumstances, they might introduce a roof extension or a porch to their house. The suggestion in clause 9 is that if a review agrees that that is a good idea, householders who wanted to put solar panels on the roof who, in other times and places, might have considered that it was necessary to apply for planning permission, would not after that general permitted development order was put in place have to do so in any local authority in the country, subject to all the conditions and the constraints that I have mentioned.

The result for microgeneration would be that there would be clarity throughout the country in terms of what one could or could not do. A person who was installing a modest device would not have to go through the red tape. Cost is also involved. The price of a small wind turbine, such as the Leader of the Opposition is considering for his house, comes to about £1,500. As things stand, the Leader of the Opposition would have to spend perhaps £300 or £400 of that £1,500 on seeking planning permission, with all that that entails, to get that device on to his house.

Our suggestion is both modest and economical. It takes out of the realm of red tape those modest devices within the overall constraint of permitted development orders that could aid microgeneration and thereby help householders to generate the power that they consume in their households without recourse to the national grid.

Perhaps my hon. Friend would also confirm that special requirements under the procedure for permitted development orders, which apply, for example, to conservation areas and listed buildings, would in no way be set aside by the proposal.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The same applies when we consider the safety of such devices. The hon. Member for Christchurch painted a picture of almost Frankenstein proportions of large swathes of white electricity fizzing across the landscape as people put power into the national grid. The truth is that if one had a solar panel on one's roof that produced electricity when it was not being used in the house, a two-way meter could place current completely safely—without danger to small children, pets, or anyone else—into the national grid. The same would be true for other forms of microgeneration.

The hon. Gentleman has made a useful contribution to the debate and our understanding. To summarise, he has made a strong case that if the review is conducted sensibly and sensitively, it could result in a welcome anti-regulatory measure.

We could indeed have an anti-regulatory measure whereby the red tape behind something that could be of great benefit to many people and the country as a whole could be removed without in any way undermining people's rights to enjoy their houses in the normal way, subject to any concerns that they may raise with local authorities about how their amenities might be reduced. It is useful to see such a measure in the light of being anti-regulatory when considering the development of microgeneration.

I am sure that we are all grateful that it has been acknowledged that these debates have real use. Some of our parliamentary colleagues have finally accepted that these occasions have value, and I am glad that they are participating in them—that is at least a small step forward. However, despite the clarification that we have been given, I am not sure that we have all the reassurance that we might need.

The problem is that the environmental fanatics have a mysterious hold over the body politic and assume that whenever they produce a Bill, it cannot possibly be debated, questioned or in any way delayed in what they think should be its seamless passage through the parliamentary process. That is unfortunate, but at least some of us have not been taken in by all that yet and, indeed, believe that it is our duty to ask questions, even about something as allegedly worthy as the Bill. I hope that the process that we have undergone hitherto has demonstrated that. Our debates have elicited useful information.

Finally, the promoter of the Bill and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) have done the House a real service by setting out several arguments about the Bill that were long overdue. Fortunately, the assumption that the Bill was so worthy that it hardly needed explanation, which several hon. Members tried to make, is behind us and we are getting proper debate and explanation, which is a real step forward.

Of course, both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and the Minister intended their comments to be helpful. My hon. Friend said with great bravura and confidence that we need not worry because the wind turbines would be the size of a television aerial. If my hon. Friend was the Minister and able to give such an undertaking, I am sure that we would all be reassured. If I could press him further to guarantee that that would be written into the Bill or the guidelines, the reassurance would be great indeed. However, I am not sure whether the Minister would be prepared to go quite as far as my hon. Friend. A range of possibilities has been put before us. On the one hand, we have my hon. Friend's television aerial, and on the other, we have the wording of the amendment that we agreed this morning which refers to capacity of up to 50kW. Perhaps the reality lies somewhere between the two extremes.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that earlier this week, in a Statutory Instrument Committee that he was chairing, I expressed some surprise at the speedy discussion of the matter before the Committee. Does he not agree that this is precisely such a matter of detail which could, if there was a review, be discussed in a Statutory Instrument Committee, and that he might be able to pursue his points in more detail at that time? That would be a very helpful way forward.

It would not be as helpful as the hon. Gentleman might think. I can tell him that if I had been a member of the Committee, rather than its Chair, the proceedings would not have gone nearly so speedily. The business would have been properly scrutinised instead of being nodded through. This is something of a red herring because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, statutory instruments are not amendable, and it is simply not good enough for the Minister—

Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman addressing his remarks to the amendment to which he is presumably speaking?

I shall get around to it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I should prefer it if the right hon. Gentleman addressed his remarks accordingly.

I was doing the Bill's promoter the honour of answering his question, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you do not want me to do so, that is his loss.

I was saying that we are now presented with a wide spectrum of possibilities. I am now picking up the points made in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, and I am about to pick up a point made by the Minister—I thought that that was what debates for. The Minister said that we have had a review of this important area of planning and development and referred to a kilowatt or two. He was trying to reassure the House, and that is very welcome, but I am not sure that his words here will be sufficient reassurance for people out there who might be worried about the potential intrusion of these microgeneration devices. It may not be enough simply for the Minister to say, "Don't worry folks. Although my amendment refers to 50kW, it won't really be anything like that; it will be a kilowatt or two."

What I attempted to explain, perhaps not as well as I might have done, was that it would not be acceptable to place a huge wind turbine of 50kW on someone's roof because the roof would not support it; it would not be within the permitted development order outline; and it would go above the roof line and outside the building line. A kilowatt or two would be about the limit for the size of a wind turbine to be placed on a person's house. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's comments are a red herring.