Clause 4
Green Energy (Definition and Promotion) Bill
3:15 pm

Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 3—Microgeneration: non-domestic land—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must consider amending the GPDO for the purpose of facilitating the installation of equipment for microgeneration on non-domestic land in England.

(2) In subsection (1) “non-domestic land” means buildings, or other land, other than a dwellinghouse or land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.

(3) Consideration under subsection (1) must begin within 6 months beginning with the coming into force of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable, lay a report before Parliament setting out the outcome of the consideration under subsection (1).

(5) In considering what, if any, amendments should be made to the GPDO, the Secretary of State—

(a) must have regard to the results of any relevant consultation which has been carried out by the Secretary of State in relation to the GPDO; and

(b) may carry out further consultation if the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate.

(6) In this section “microgeneration” has the same meaning as in section [Microgeneration: dwellinghouses].’.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

This is becoming rather hair-raising. Clause 4 and new clause 3 concern microgeneration on non-domestic land. The original Bill referred specifically to considerations about permitted development orders and permitted development rights in relation to agricultural land. This new clause refers to non-domestic land, which includes every piece of land that is not within the curtilage of what is inelegantly called a “dwelling house”. That includes agricultural land and therefore addresses the issue originally raised by organisations such as the Nation Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. The clause also allows sufficient flexibility for objections to be taken into account through consultation while stopping short of conferring an absolute duty to consult. I welcome the Minister’s comments on that approach.

Amendment (a) was tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I think he said during an earlier debate that he did not intend to press this, and my view is that it is unnecessary as the provisions are included in new clause 3(5)(a). It is good news to hear that the Government are already consulting on these matters—or, if not already, are very shortly to do so. I think the Liberal Democrat amendment is unnecessary for those reasons and I hope that they withdraw it.

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

As has been anticipated by the hon. Gentleman, we are seeking to remove clause 4 in order to substitute new clause 3 in its place. I shall come to the merits of new clause 3 later, but I shall quickly explain why the Government cannot support clause 4 as it stands. Finally, I am afraid, I will have to explain why the Government oppose amendment (a).

The previous Energy Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), outlined at Second Reading that the Government support the intention behind clause 4 and already plan to fulfil the commitments placed upon them by that clause. Clause 4 require the Government to review the effect in England of development orders made under section 59(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Subsection (2) outlines:

“The purpose of the review is to provide information to assist the Secretary of State to form an opinion as to what provision such development orders should make to facilitate development in England consisting of the installation of equipment, apparatus or appliances for microgeneration.”

Subsection (2) prescribes the scope of the review with reference to particular types of land, namely

“agricultural land or within the curtilage of an agricultural building”

or

“within the curtilage of non-domestic premises,”.

As Members may know, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, the Government intend to consult on proposals for permitted development rights for a range of microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land later this summer. We would like the review to be able to take account of all non-domestic land and do not want the review to be constrained by consideration of the types of land specified in clause 4. Our consultation may include proposals to restrict the scope of permitted development rights to install certain types of microgeneration equipment on particular categories of land, but that is something that should be the subject of consultation and should not be constrained at this stage. We are also concerned that clause 4(3) places a requirement to consult persons appearing to represent a number of specified persons. We want our consultation to be as open as possible and inclusive of all groups and individuals who may have an interest in the proposals. We are concerned that by specifying individual groups, particularly when some of the categories may be open to interpretation, may send the wrong signals to stakeholders, who may feel excluded if they are not specifically listed in the Bill. Finally, subsection (6) defines agricultural land and agricultural holdings with reference to the Local Government Finance Act 1998. As we propose to remove references to specific land types—for example, agricultural land—subsection (6) is superfluous if new clause 3 is accepted in place of clause 4.

The Government have consequently laid new clause 3 to replace clause 4 of the existing Bill and I will outline its key aspects. New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to consider amending the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the GPDO, for the purposes of granting permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land. As I said, the Government already plan to consult later this summer on proposals for permitted development rights for a range of  microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land. Non-domestic land is defined as buildings or other land that is not a dwelling house or within the curtilage of a dwelling house. That is a very broad definition which will allow us to consult on proposals for permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on a wide range of land uses. While our consultation proposals may restrict the scope of particular types of microgeneration equipment to particular types of land, it should be the subject of consultation and not be constrained. The clause requires that the Government must begin consideration of potential amendments to the GPDO within six months of the Act coming into force. We are already in the process of preparing consultation proposals and we hope to show demonstrable progress within the six-month time frame specified in the clause. New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out the outcome of the Government’s consideration. That requirement is similar to those contained in clause 4 of the current Bill.

Subsection (5) of new clause 3 requires the Secretary of State, when considering what amendments to the legislation might be necessary, to have regard to the results of any relevant consultation in relation to the GPDO. The provision is included because consultation on potential amendments to the GPDO is likely to be underway, or may even be completed, by the time the Bill may come into force. Subsection (5) ensures that the Government will be able to take account of any relevant consultation exercise they have undertaken if the Bill gets Royal Assent. Subsection (5) grants a power to allow the Secretary of State to carry out further consultation if appropriate. That has been included as a safeguard, as we cannot prejudge the outcome of the consultation and, I am sorry to say this, further consultation may be necessary.

Finally, I turn to amendment (a). The Government fully support the intention behind the amendment but we do not think it is necessary because of provisions already contained in proposed new clause 3. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheltenham for already indicating that he is not going to press it to a vote.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister and I will certainly stand by my promise to the Committee. There is one specific reference in amendment (a) which does not appear in new clause 3, which is to a consultation having been

“undertaken before the day on which this Act is passed”.

I will be even more content if the Minister could be absolutely clear that a consultation completed at the time this Bill passes will be taken into consideration—because that is not explicit in new clause 3.

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

I can indeed. I am absolutely certain of that. I was about to say to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the amendment is intended to ensure that any consultation undertaken before the day on which the Act is passed is as effective as if it had been carried out after the Act is passed. We very much support that. The consultation document we plan to issue later this summer will set out our proposals for permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on non-domestic land and clearly we do not want to have to repeat a consultation exercise in the light of the Act being passed, if we can achieve the same  outcome by consulting on proposals this summer. I hope that that has made the matter absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman. That is why subsection (5) of new clause 3 deals with consultation and requires the Government to take account of consultation:

“which has been carried out...in relation to the GPDO”.

Arguably, subsection (5) covers everything that the hon. Gentleman’s proposed amendment would have achieved.

Subsection (5) places no time limit on consultation and it can be read as requiring the Government to take account of the results of any relevant consultation that might have taken place prior to or after the Bill is passed. It provides a power to carry out further consultation, if necessary, although I understand that members of the Committee hope that it will not be necessary; indeed, I also hope that it will not be necessary.

Therefore, I believe that subsection (5), which has been proposed by the Government, meets the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and I ask the Committee to reject that amendment.