---

Climate Change Bill [Lords]

My hon. Friend is obviously referring to existing buildings. I do not expect that we would in any way seek to deal retrospectively with such cases. That does not mean that we not very committed and anxious to do what we can to improve energy efficiency throughout the Government estate. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that Governments have acquired over a long history a great many buildings that are probably the least efficient that we could find. There is a huge historical backlog when it comes to solving the problem—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are looking at the roof—and we all understand how difficult it is to be energy-efficient in such buildings. We all need to be clear that the question of how to make such improvements is a major issue for any Government. We seek to make those improvements, and, of course, one of the easiest times to do that is when we attempt to procure a new building. At that point we would have real choices, although of course we would be keen to do what we could elsewhere. Lords amendment No. 48A makes drafting changes to improve the clarity of the new clause. We have clarified the definition of ““building”” to ensure that it captures those buildings where energy performance is a relevant consideration, as well as defining the civil estate. No one has risen to intervene on that point, but it is strange to try to imagine a building where energy performance is not a relevant consideration. I have checked, and I find that that such a building would include tool sheds, snowplough sheds and a lot of places where the Department for Transport, in particular, houses all manner of vehicles. Those buildings are clearly unheated and are not cooled. They are the exceptions to the rule. In order to allow the provision to be kept relevant and up-to-date, we have also provided an order-making power so that descriptions of buildings covered by the report can be changed over time. Any order would be subject to debate in both Houses.