Proceeding contribution from Stephen Pound (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 9 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning and Energy Bill.
Planning and Energy Bill
I am sure that the whole House would concur with my hon. Friend's points about the Warm Front scheme. However, as far as I am aware, there is no separate money Bill that delineates the implications of new clause 1. Is my hon. Friend saying that any additional costs resulting from the local government requirements would be met solely by the householder? One of the great advantages of Warm Front is that it involves zero cost to the householder. Although I appreciate that in the long term these measures mean that the householder saves money and the planet may be saved, there would be an interim problem that affected many of my hon. Friend's constituents and mine. How would that issue be resolved?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 475 c966
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Conservation Construction Climate change Energy Insulation Heating Planning permission Planning Public participation Microgeneration Standards Renewable energy Carbon emissions
- Legislation
- Planning and Energy Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:31:54 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470685
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470685
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470685