Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (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
We have had an interesting discussion. The objections to new clause 1 seem to be about whether energy efficiency standards, as provided for in the existing clause 1, would encompass insulation, and about whether the new clause would somehow weaken the Bill by referring specifically to domestic and commercial development. On the first point, energy efficiency standards go way beyond just insulation, and it is sometimes better to spell these things out in legislation, rather than allow them to be inferred or implied. The Bill is somewhat general in its expression of these matters. I have seen, through my work on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, how important it is to spell out what is meant in legislation. There is nothing in my new clause that would take anything away from clause 1(1)(c). It would supplement it; it would not take away from it. It has been suggested that my new clause would weaken the Bill by ensuring that it referred in terms to domestic and commercial development. I certainly take the point made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) that commercial and domestic development would not include the construction of a new football stadium or other public buildings. I take the point that I might have been a little too narrow in that regard, but the new clause would not weaken the Bill because it would add to it rather than take anything away. Clause 1 would stay as it is, leaving open the question of what kind of development we are talking about—personally, I would prefer to see that spelled out in the Bill—but new clause 1 would provide an additional requirement that focused specifically on commercial and domestic developments. If the Bill were to go to another place, and if my new clause found favour, that particular problem could be put right. However, I have listened to what people have said, and we have had a useful debate on this issue. If the Bill goes to another place, some of my comments might be taken into account there and a more tightly worded amendment could be tabled at that stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 475 c987-8
- 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 01:30:53 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470745
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470745
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470745