---

Planning and Energy Bill

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Any planning document, whether it is the old-fashioned unitary development plan or the new local development framework, needs to be a dynamic document. They cannot be set in stone, which is an inevitable consequence of the Bill, regardless of new clause 1. There is no doubt that we all experience in our constituencies pressure from our electorate for measures to deal with the problems of climate change. Those measures can be carried out in a variety of ways, such as recycling, which local authorities can deal with directly. However, we know that among the significant generators of carbon emissions are buildings. They are probably the most significant generator after the motor car—I do not have the precise figures. We can bear down on issues relating to motor fuel or aviation fuel—one of the hot topics at the moment when considering the Kyoto goals—but we must not forget the importance of buildings. Most forward-looking local authorities will want to consider the Bill, assuming it becomes law, and will find it surprising if, when looking at the issue of microgeneration, they do not have similar powers to deal with insulation. That is probably an easier thing to achieve and probably has a better, more cost-effective payback than some of the microgeneration schemes. We know that some of the green energy supplies, to foreshadow an argument that we may have on the second group of new clauses, can be more expensive.