---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for introducing this Bill and for the clear outline he gave of its detail, intentions and purposes—particularly because it spares me the need to carry out that responsible act in any way, shape or form. I sympathise with the Minister who, in a sense, has to reply to the debate, although it is for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to make the final response. The Minister has to answer for the Government and it is the second debate on energy today in which he has had to do so. I sympathise with him because we have ranged across a broad spectrum of issues, many of which are not particularly relevant to the content of the Bill. The Bill is welcome. It has achieved a wide measure of all-party support. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, finds that somewhat irritating, but he has a right to be proud that the irritation that he has caused over the years—if he will forgive me—is at last bearing fruit. I was slightly disappointed that he felt slightly let down by what has happened in the past. There is a sense of irony about the Bill in that it has received, as far as I can see—and I have looked carefully—far more attention in the Commons in terms of time and detailed examination than the vast majority of government legislation does. That is peculiar and I hope that the Bill is thereby in a much stronger position than it otherwise might have been. Anything that raises the profile of environmentally friendly action to combat climate change is welcome. This Bill is particularly welcome because it brings about the prospect—I put it no higher than that—of very local and even individual action. That applies particularly to microgeneration; but that will, I guess, be subject in the end to the same rules as the fields of insulation and energy conservation. The person who wants to install and enjoy it will look at a financial equation. If people can see a return for their investment, they will do it. If there will be no return for their investment, they may well not go ahead, however unfashionable that might be. That is important because generation at the domestic level will not be cheap. I agree with everything that has been said about the need to try to encourage people by keeping regulatory controls as simple as possible for individuals. If the installation of wind generators up to a certain capacity can be made free of the need to apply for planning permission, that can only be good. Although that is not stated in the Bill, the possibility is raised and I hope that the Minister will say that it will be looked at extremely carefully. I am concerned, however, because there will be a need for well qualified installers of such equipment. One will no longer be putting light items of equipment on our roofs—they will be more weighty and will have a dynamic effect. Structural issues have to be addressed before one can bolt such equipment on a roof. There will need to be professional advice in that regard, just as there will need to be very competent and thorough electrical installations within the house. If the surplus supplied by these generators is to go into the grid, careful recording and the highest standards of technical installation will be required. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that aspect. I do not wish to put obstacles in the way of this matter, but if it is going to be done, it must be carried out properly—it cannot be a DIY operation. A part of Clause 4 is out of tune with the rest of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for putting it that way. Clause 4 deals with setting national targets for microgeneration. Subsection (2) states that the regulation,"““does not apply unless on 1st November 2008 the Secretary of State considers that it would be appropriate to designate one or more targets””." The purpose of the Bill is to encourage people to start installing this equipment, yet it says at the beginning that the Secretary of State can put a complete stopper on it by not designating targets. I wonder why that subsection is included, or indeed if it is necessary at all. I doubt it, but that is an issue for later discussion. One of the puzzles of microgeneration of electricity—indeed, of all electricity—is that once it is generated, it has to go somewhere. In that respect, Clauses 7, 8 and 9, which make arrangements for the connection of houses to the local grid to supply electricity, are vital. It is not just a question of making the connection. I go back to what I said about the financial equation for people who put this equipment in their houses. The question of price will be significant. Of course that cannot possibly be in the Bill, but if the Minister would like to reveal the Government’s thinking on that aspect, it would be welcome. Depending on that response, it might also be extremely encouraging. We have touched on the review of the permitted development order, so I need say no more, except that that will be very welcome. We then come to the energy efficiency commitment being changed to carbon emission reduction targets. In effect, the energy efficiency obligation will become a carbon reduction target obligation. That, again, is very worth while because it makes plain what we are trying to do. I wonder whether a carbon reduction target will work. Not least of the problem with the energy efficiency targets has been on the question of home insulation—this is particularly important when dealing with the energy poor. When a higher degree of insulation is put in, the immediate reaction of the person living in the house is to have it warmer than he did previously. There is no saving of energy. I suspect that when we try to improve home insulation, the reality is that we do not save carbon emissions. Most people will decide that having insulated their house, they can have it three or four degrees warmer than they were accustomed to do. That is natural; we all do it and we should not decry it. There is a natural desire to improve the way we live, and people will do that if they can. We need to face that difficulty. I always worry about the failure to make a proper distinction between energy efficiency and energy economy because the two are different things. The quickest way to illustrate that is to note the Airbus A380 which flew into Heathrow last week for the first time. It is a wonderful plane, and it will have the lowest fuel consumption per passenger mile of any current aircraft. It will be exceedingly fuel efficient. Its purpose is the expansion of aviation. I would place a considerable bet that the advent of that particular aircraft will lead to more people flying to more places and greater aviation commissions. I do not decry that. We must accept that it is so, but we need to recognise that there is a clear distinction between energy efficiency and energy economy and that they are not synonymous. That is all I need to say on the Bill at this stage. But I cannot resist making one final point. There is the section on renewable energy, renewable heat and the definitions required for renewable sources of energy. I wonder whether waste heat—and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will sympathise with this—is not itself a renewable resource. If we are wasting it, and if we know we are going to continue wasting it, and we start to use it, should it not be a renewable resource in the list of definitions? The Bill is welcome. I hope it will have a fairly speedy passage through the House. There are matters which will need discussion in detail. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in due course.