Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Eric Forth (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 17 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill 2005-06.


As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

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—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1707 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Combined heat and power Climate change Environment protection Energy Electricity generation Ofgem Planning Scotland Wind power Carbon emissions Fuel cells
Legislation
Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk