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
To follow on from that point, I should say that I am becoming more attracted to the original wording. I drive a car that is propelled by liquefied petroleum gas, but I had to pay a couple of thousand pounds extra for that. I was able to do that, but people who cannot will not get the benefits involved. Is not the more permissive nature of the original wording a method of addressing that problem?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 475 c1000
- 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 01:30:32 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470789
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470789
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_470789