Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4—Interpretation—

“In this Act—

“dwellinghouse” includes a building which consists wholly of flats;

“energy efficiency measure” means a measure to improve efficiency in the use by consumers of electricity, gas or any other source of energy;

“equipment” means anything which is plant for the purposes of section 82(6) of the Energy Act 2004;

“fuel poverty” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000;

“the GPDO” has the meaning given by section [Microgeneration: dwellinghouses](1);

“renewable or low-carbon source” has the meaning given by section [Microgeneration strategy](7).”

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

May I begin by saying what an enormous pleasure it is to be serving on a Committee under your chairmanship, Miss Begg? It is quite a pleasure to be serving on a Committee at all; I have not checked the record, but I have a nasty feeling that the last time I served on a Public Bill Committee was in the 1990s. For one reason or another it has passed me by, but I fear the Committee of Selection will not be so lenient in future.

Thank you, Miss Begg, for chairing these proceedings on what is a beautiful, sunny afternoon. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have come here hopefully to move forward the Green Energy Bill in a positive way when they could be participating in all sorts of things, including an interesting debate on the  Iraq inquiry. If all goes to plan this afternoon, to outside observers and the uninitiated we may be looking at rather a strange situation. It is not my intention that clause 1 be passed; in fact it is not my intention that many of the clauses be passed into legislation. To the uninitiated, this may look as if I am trashing my own Bill. Unlike the Government, who axiomatically take the view that all legislation that appears for Second Reading is by definition perfect—except when they later table vast numbers of amendments—I have taken the view that this is not perfect legislation, but it is a perfect way of advancing a very important agenda.

To that effect, I make no secret of the fact that I have worked with Ministers and their officials to try to move this forward. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who, before the revolving doors in the ministerial corridors revolved once more, was the Minister responsible for these matters. I am also grateful to the current Minister for the support and encouragement she has shown in the course of developing these thoughts. I am particularly grateful—I do not know whether it is appropriate to say so, but I am going to anyway—to Rachel Crisp, the civil servant in charge of work on Bills at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who has worked extremely hard, particularly on developing the new clauses but also in a liaison capacity. I thank her very much. I know she has been burning the midnight oil on more than one occasion—not that a civil servant at DECC has any business burning oil at all; I hope she was using energy-efficient light bulbs.

I do not intend to proceed with clause 1. I am very content with new clause 4, tabled by the Government, which concerns the interpretation of the terms of the Bill, and I am happy to support its provisions. They contain a very clear definition of an energy-efficient measure and also make it clear that the term “dwelling house”, though inelegant, includes flats. I therefore commend new clause 4 to the Committee.

Joan Ruddock (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg?

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey on having reached this stage with his private Member’s Bill. Many fall by the wayside, but his has made it into Committee. We have been pleased to work with him and he has been extremely co-operative, which we appreciate. I also thank him for his kind words about our civil servants who, as he rightly said, have worked extremely hard to get us to this position.

I am rising to oppose clause 1 and to explain why we wish to substitute new clause 4 for it. The changes proposed by the Government are necessary to align some of the definitions in the current clause 1 more closely with existing legal definitions, and to reflect other proposed amendments to the Bill. Given the changes required to clause 1, I hope that hon. Members will agree that removing the clause in its entirety is a better way of dealing with the situation than amending it bit by bit.

New clause 4 inserts additional definitions as a result of other amendments that are made to the Bill. Let me highlight a particular change for the Committee—that  made to the existing definition of “energy efficiency measure”. The purpose of this change is to bring the definition into line with that in section 41A(2) of the Electricity Act 1989, which states:

“In this section ‘energy efficiency target’ means a target for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency, that is to say”—

and this is the relevant phrase—

“efficiency in the use by consumers of electricity, gas conveyed through pipes or any other source of energy which is specified in the order.”

I do not intend to discuss energy efficiency targets, but I hope that hon. Members agree that that definition is much broader than the one in clause 1 as drafted. Making that change is important, given the role that energy efficiency has to play in any long-term energy strategy. It is therefore essential that, in seeking to define and promote green energy—the intended purpose of the Bill, of which energy efficiency forms an integral part—the definition of “energy efficiency” should be as broad as possible.

Aside from that, amendments to clause 1 only reflect changes made to the wider Bill. I do not propose discussing in detail those changes now, since that discussion is best had in the context of debating the policy issues and questions arising from each clause. Suffice it to say that I will ensure that the definitions in the clause reflect any further amendments made to the Bill as a result of the Committee’s consideration of it.

In summary, the Government oppose clause 1 standing part of the Bill and we seek to substitute new clause 4 for it.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Miss Begg, especially as you have recognised the progress of global warming in this building and allowed us to remove our jackets.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey on having got the Bill this far and for pragmatically not opposing the complete deletion of all the clauses in it. I am not sure what that does to increase openness and transparency to the public in our processes, but it is certainly a pragmatic and sensible move.

I will comment in due course on some of the losses that I think we may suffer as a result of changes to the Bill, but in the case of clause 1 we are not losing a great deal. The clause says that “small-scale low-carbon local sources” means

“renewable sources of a capacity not exceeding 10 megawatts, the energy from which is consumed within a 30 mile radius of the source of generation”.

That definition of green energy is being lost in the process that we are now being asked to accept. The shift from 10 MW down to 5 will perhaps make the Bill consistent with other legislation and is, in any case, possibly a sensible measure, as 10 MW is a pretty big figure when it comes to wind turbines.

We have suggested a different definition. Amendment 2 contains the phrase:

“the generation of electricity or heat from renewable or low-carbon sources by the use of any equipment, the capacity of which to generate electricity or heat does not exceed the capacity specified in subsection (2A)”.

That definition is quite loose. There is a risk in redefining green energy as anything that might be low-carbon. For example, on a larger scale it opens the door to nuclear  being defined as “green”, which we Liberal Democrats would obviously dispute. It is useful to have these tighter definitions, including the definition of green energy as “small-scale” and “low-carbon”.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has made the point before himself, but I must remind him that, as yet, no form of nuclear energy is “small-scale”.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

The record will show that I was careful to say that, on a larger scale, such a definition could lead to greenwashing, but who knows? There may be other forms of smaller-scale generation that, on closer examination, turn out not to be quite as green as they first seem, and which may create pollutants. However, we are happy to proceed on a pragmatic basis and to accept the Government’s amendment.

Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Energy and Climate Change; Wealden, Conservative)

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg? May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey, who is my constituency neighbour, on getting the Bill this far? There is nobody more appropriate for proposing such legislation; his track record in the area is in a league of its own in terms of work in Parliament, particularly on our side of the House. I congratulate him on what he has done so far, particularly on securing broad Government support for the Bill. I have never heard a Government say that they like a Bill so much that they want to delete clauses 1, 3, 5 and 6, but keep a little bit of clause 7, which is only two lines long. Nevertheless, it is a great step forward to have achieved that and I welcome it. It is also right, as the Minister said, to tighten up the definition, so we support the changes.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

On my approach to the Bill, I have long been an advocate of a cross-party approach to climate change measures. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that I am taking that to a new extreme of kamikaze politics?

Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Energy and Climate Change; Wealden, Conservative)

My hon. Friend has never been a kamikaze; he has been a leader of men. I agree with the Minister that her phrasing is a better definition, and we are happy to support her on that basis.