Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I declare an interest, in that the sustainable energy partnership assisted me in the preparation and some of the details of the Bill.

I am delighted that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend Mark Lazarowicz received a Second Reading. My Bill considers the planning and building regulation environment for how we heat our homes and for how we can, I hope, generate power in our homes. There has already been discussion of that issue in the Chamber today. However, there has been no mention of the fact that about 28 per cent. of all the energy consumed in heating and power is in the domestic sector; it is the largest single sector.

The energy goal set out in the 2003 white paper was embraced by all parties. It is no less than a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide by 2050 from the 1999 levels, which is a large goal to achieve through energy policy.

My hon. Friend will be aware that both Members who represent Milton Keynes wholeheartedly support his Bill. Does he know of the work being undertaken by English Partnerships in Milton Keynes? In one residential development, the brief includes a menu of sustainable development features from which the developers are asked to choose, including heat and power from renewable sources and combined heat and power systems. I very much welcome the Bill as a means of building on such work and making those processes easier.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Intervention. I am indeed aware of that development. Housing bodies and local authorities are considering how they can develop building standards in terms of the heat and power used in buildings. I thoroughly applaud such initiatives.

In the context of my comments on energy use in domestic properties, it makes sense to look closely at how we heat and power our homes. The trick is to work out how we can do that while keeping our homes warm and economically powered at an increasingly high standard of comfort and amenity. Too many people still live in poorly insulated homes that are costly to heat and to power. They are often in real Fuel Poverty, which means the inability to pay both the costs of living in general and the costs of fuel in a particular household.

Has the hon. Gentleman just defined Fuel Poverty as inability to meet the cost of living in general? That is what he has just said, so is that what fuel poverty means in the Bill?

The right hon. Gentleman intervened halfway through my sentence and perhaps it was unwise of me to give way. I was saying that Fuel Poverty means the choice that some people who are not well-off and are living in difficult circumstances may have to make between paying the fuel Bills for their homes—if their homes are not well insulated, the bills may be high—and paying for other necessities of life. That is a reasonable consequence to infer from a statement about fuel poverty. Although the number of households in that position has come down considerably as a result of measures that have been undertaken over recent years, more than 1 million households in England are still in that position.

In considering how to make progress on heating and powering our homes, we need to look in two directions: we need to make our present homes more energy efficient, and we need to ensure that the next generation of homes, which we shall be building over the next 20 years, will be of the highest energy-efficiency standard and will provide low-cost energy and high-energy-efficiency living.

I support the hon. Gentleman's Bill. If one turns the pages of glossy magazines such as Country Life or The Field, one sees lots of wonderful, green houses which are very fuel-efficient, and they all cost about one or two million pounds. Would the Bill apply to ordinary, average-priced housing, which affects most of the people in this country? I hope it will. It is my ambition to live in the greenest house in Salisbury, and I am visiting my Royal Institute of British Architects mentor in Salisbury, Gerald Steer, in a couple of weeks to talk about the possibility of providing proper green houses—fuel-efficient houses—for the average house buyer, not just the rich.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am delighted to hear that he is able to support my Bill. The point that he makes, about the need to ensure that these provisions relate to ordinary houses that cost an ordinary amount of money and perform an ordinary function for everybody in their daily life, is at the heart of what we should be doing. It is true that there have been some developments that are immensely costly but very energy efficient, and to get those two factors in proportion is an important part of the way in which we need to progress.

The Government have done a great deal to move in that direction, in existing homes and new build. We have the Warm Front grant system for making homes more energy efficient. We have the new part L of the building regulations, setting new levels of required energy efficiency for new houses. We have a previous round of regulations that have introduced condensing boilers and low-emissivity glazing as standard in new homes. Our homes are becoming more energy efficient in their building design and as a result of the retrofitting of cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and other devices.

But what if we could move a step further? What if our houses, as well as being more passively energy efficient, could assist, through the devices that were installed in them as standard when they were built, or that could be fitted when existing devices wore out, in producing some or even all of the energy that that home would consume?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in my Constituency the Richmond Society, which is one of the oldest local residents' groups working on heritage and conservation, has been so inspired by this Bill and the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill that it has set up a committee to see whether it can work with the building regulations, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, to introduce such benefits, working in harmony with the heritage and conservation that has been a hallmark of the area. That is a huge step forward.

I am very pleased to hear that news. If the discussions in this Chamber on my Bill and the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill can make such changes in the way people at all levels approach the question of energy efficiency and positive-energy-efficiency building, that will have been a great step forward indeed.

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of energy efficiency. Given that his Government are proposing that hundreds of thousands of new homes will be built in our country in the next 20 to 30 years, is it not imperative that we make the best use that we can as a nation of the 720,000 existing empty properties? It is all very well to talk about energy efficiency, but the best way to deal with that would be to ensure that the homes we have are filled with people living in them before we build new ones.

The hon. Gentleman is right; it is very important that the homes that are available for occupation in this country be occupied. But it is also important that the homes that are occupied are very energy efficient, and the two go together. Certainly we are doing people no favours if we bring property back into use but that property is poorly insulated, is not energy efficient and provides a poor living experience for the people who move in. One Clause in my Bill, which I shall discuss later if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, relates specifically to that question as far as new building is concerned.

We can already produce energy in houses. We can do that in ways that are not on the drawing board or the testing bench and are with us now. We do not have to wait for a technological breakthrough to see what we can do. Indeed, my hon. Friend Alan Simpson will shortly move into a house that is so energy efficient that, using various means of heating, power and insulation, he can meet all his own energy requirements in his home and can sell substantial amounts of surplus energy—I think, 50 per cent. more energy than the house uses—back to the national grid. Obviously, my hon. Friend will be buying drinks frequently in the bar for all his friends from now on with the proceeds that he will receive from that surplus energy.

My aim is much more modest. Along with some 80,000 home owners in the UK, I have a solar thermal collector on my roof that produces about a third of my hot water heating supply each year. Solar photovoltaic roofs on a few thousand homes supply a substantial proportion of electricity that is consumed. Ground heat pumps can supply space heating to displace imported energy. With us shortly will be domestic combined heat and power boilers able to heat the home and produce electricity for use in the house or for export to the grid. New miniature domestic wind turbines are becoming available that can harness free electricity, and can power fridges, washing machines, televisions and lighting around the home.

Those developments in domestic power have been likened to the early days of the personal computer revolution. People once assumed that they would sit in front of a dumb terminal connected at some distance by cable to a vast mainframe. However, within a short time of their inception, we had intelligent machines in our homes, networking with each other and giving us control of information technology at the press of a button. Those ways to heat and power homes will become commonplace in 10 years' time, with the enormous benefit of possibly reducing CO ₂ emissions by a huge amount, thus benefiting people's fuel Bills and domestic energy security.

I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the important initiative of promoting micro-generation. In trying to make micro-generation as commonplace as he describes, would it not be an exciting initiative to try to find out whether more social housing—provided by housing associations, arm's length management organisations and others, such as Cheltenham Borough Homes in my Constituency—could incorporate micro-generation, because that would have a double benefit? Not only would it help the environment, but reduce in the long term fuel Bills for some of the least well off in our society.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and anticipates exactly what I shall come to in a moment: the idea that such devices could be installed in future homes so that, at the flick of a switch, their occupiers could save on their fuel Bills and compensate for increasing fuel bills by generating their own energy in their own homes.

Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate at all of the likely on-cost of all those goodies, how much might be added to the price of new homes with all that built in, and the effect that that could have particularly on first-time buyers?

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have made such an estimate. Indeed, I have discussed with members of the National Housing Federation what their reaction might be in respect of creating a level playing field for building homes in which those new devices are placed. For example, the cost of installing a combined heat and power boiler is not significantly greater than installing a condensing boiler, especially if it is installed when the house is built. Putting on solar PV tiles that are embedded in the roof is far cheaper than retrofitting them there. So the extra cost of building a house is marginal when introducing those devices, but the payback and benefit from doing so when a house is built can be enormous over a considerable period.

I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill succeeds, even at this late hour. I wonder whether he has read the research showing that top-end, executive homes are the least energy efficient. That is partly explained by the fact that those people can afford to waste energy. So I hope that his Bill will have a chance of being considered in Committee.

My hon. Friend is right. His comments reflect the Intervention made by Robert Key, who suggested that it is important that the Bill apply to all homes across the board in the future, so that people in all walks of life, not just enthusiastic investors or those in certain niches, can gain from energy efficiency.

My hon. Friend makes important points that perhaps ought to be picked up in the energy review. Is not one of the things that we should examine an equal VAT rate as between new and old homes? He also referred to micro-generation, which will require a newly designed transmission scheme that the Government would do well to consider when the energy review is announced.

What the energy review says in total is a little outside the purview of the Bill. Nevertheless my hon. Friend makes an important point about the idea that energy arrangements could lead to a network grid rather than a hard-wired grid going from parts of the country to other parts via the large power stations that we have at the moment. It is important that the energy review consider such issues.

My Bill provides the means to allow for a potential revolution to take place in how we heat and power homes. It wants to provide the planning environment in which people would be able to take decision to retrofit micro-generation devices to their homes without having to await the lottery and uncertainty of planning regulations.

I, too, wish to place on record my support for both the Bills that we have considered today. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it absolutely ludicrous that controversial applications for telecommunications masts of less than 15 m are often permitted whereas applications for something that is far less noticeable and far less controversial require expensive planning applications?

The hon. Lady is quite right. The issue is not just telephone masts, but deemed planning permission for satellite dishes and television aerials. The devices that we are discussing are no larger than them.

Does my hon. Friend look forward to the day when a child drawing a house will automatically include solar panels and a wind charger in the picture?

I fear that houses will continue to be drawn with two chimneys, flowers in the garden, a gate and a little path. However, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that if they were drawn differently, that would really show that we had made a change.

Annette Brooke is right. Depending on where one lives in the country, one's plans for a renewable energy device on the house may be thwarted or agreed after long days of substantial cost.

On new build, the Bill's aim is to encourage building regulations that, without specifying the device, require new homes to be fitted upon completion with boilers, solar tiles, or small wind turbines and other possible devices that guarantee that the home is both energy efficient in its design and energy productive in its daily use. It would also provide for assessment of how household machines such as fridges, freezers and so on can use dynamic demand technology, so they too play their part in using only the most efficient power supply and in the best circumstances.

Hon. Members have mentioned Fuel Poverty; let us think about it for a moment and of the prospect of homes—perhaps social housing or rented property—that could pay us to live in as well as cost us. As fuel prices rise, they would possess an automatic brake on prices through the domestic energy that the home produces.

Clause 1 looks to build on energy efficiency targets introduced in the Housing Act 2004 by adding reports on the effect of energy efficiency measures on CO ₂ emissions and on the alleviation of fuel poverty. Clause 2 seeks to extend permitted development orders to include the deemed permitted development of small renewable devices—carefully defined and limited—so that householders, local authorities and manufacturers of micro-generation would be clear about what can be done, and if it is of domestic size and use, would ensure that the device can progress to production within the home quickly and straightforwardly.

Clause 3 seeks to require that new homes be graded for energy efficiency and assessed as to the total amount of energy that they are likely to use in a year, and then would enable a percentage of estimated use to be required to be produced by the working of the house itself. Clause 4 would add to the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 the requirement to asses how dynamic demand technologies could contribute to carbon saving, and how obstacles to the use of such technologies in the home could be overcome.

I wish the Bill every success, as I did the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Clause 4 of the Bill is especially important, because if dynamic demand technologies work, they will encourage the use of other renewable technologies throughout the grid system? In addition, they could save the grid up to £80 million a year by reducing response generation costs.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Dynamic demand technologies use the intelligence that we possess on measuring energy to ensure that energy is used in the most effective way. He is right that such technology could become widespread in other areas.

I have reviewed briefly the principal four clauses of my Bill—that is it. The Bill is short, and I do not believe that it would be possible to spend approaching an hour dissecting it Clause by clause, but we shall see. It opens the door to profound and overwhelmingly beneficial changes to the way in which we heat and power our homes.

I mentioned earlier what is already under way within Government to move forward on energy efficiency in buildings. I am aware, of course, that there is never an ideal time to introduce such legislation if work is already in progress. I do not want to stop such estimable work progressing by introducing the provisions in the Bill in such a way that that happens while new directions are incorporated. I am also aware that the wording of private Members' Bills is rarely, if ever, exactly right straightaway, which is of course why if such Bills achieve their Second Reading, it is necessary to examine their clauses closely and perhaps amend them in Committee. If my Bill receives its Second Reading, I am sure that we will want to do just that.

We might, for example, want to examine the way in which the Government's review of the complex and sometimes internally contradictory regime of permitted development orders can be assisted, rather than hindered, by the way in which deemed planning permission for micro-generation devices is best advanced. We also might want to consider how any legislative requirement to empower the Secretary of State to make new building regulations would sit best with the new code on sustainable building. When that code is developed, I understand that it will strongly guide developers on the minimum standards to which they will be expected to build. It will herald the emergence of future revisions to building regulations to incorporate such guidelines. I would want any provision in my Bill to work with that code, not against it.

We might also want to consider in Committee whether immensely encouraging potential and actual developments in building efficiency could be undermined by the completion of buildings that do not conform to the regulations as they stand. It is too late to make changes after completion, because the dwelling is built and occupied. It is regrettable that recent surveys have shown that an appreciable minority of new buildings fail to incorporate present building regulations standards. An important element of my proposals relies on the completion of buildings that work efficiently to the standards set down.

I say these things because above all I consider the Bill to be a real piece of workable legislation that would—yes—act partly as the midwife of a revolution in the heating and powering of our homes, but do so in a practical, clear and equitable manner. I ask the House to give my Bill a Second Reading so that it can be advanced to play the role that I believe it can, and so that perhaps in 10 years, we can look back, as people in their thousands, or perhaps even millions, pick up from the mat not the bill for the energy that they have consumed, but the cheque for the power that their homes have produced, and say, "We did that. We helped to make it happen in November 2005 for the benefit of our climate, for the fuel well-being of our people and for our comfortable, but energy efficient, daily living."

I shall come immediately to the Bill. Clause 2 relates to permitted development orders. Annette Brooke made a timely Intervention about permitted development rights for telephone masts. I sound a note of caution because we probably all know from our constituencies about the trouble that they have caused. Dr. Whitehead has sensibly anticipated a potential problem, because clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State to

"make provision about conditions relating to the environmental impact of a small renewable energy development" such as appearance and noise.

As I said in the previous debate, I am not an engineer, and I am not clear about one of the criteria for classifying something as a small renewable energy development being its power output—

"the generation of energy of 10 kilowatts or less."

I wonder whether some appliances that fulfilled that criterion would comply with the provisions about appearance and noise. The last thing that hon. Members want to do, through the best intentions, is to cause many unsightly units to spring up throughout the country through permitted development rights. We all know from our post bags the trouble that that can cause, especially when the planning system is powerless to do anything about it.

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that if we loosen the planning regime sufficiently to allow all the allegedly good things to happen, there is a great danger of intrusion by noise from windmills and other devices? Perhaps health and safety hazards could be caused by generating plants that are not properly maintained or managed by people who do not know how to do that. Does he agree that some protection is required in the planning regime?

I agree, but I do not want to dwell on that now because such detail is for consideration in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman may have misheard Mr. Forth, who mentioned the noise caused by such technologies. The noise created by a micro-generation wind turbine, which is only a few feet high, is negligible. Surely he agrees that noise will not be a bar to their introduction.

That is a timely Intervention, but the promoter acknowledges that there are potential problems with the noise and appearance of the units. Clause 2(5) gives the Secretary of State the power to make conditions about the appearance and noise of such devices, thus heading off those anxieties. However, I am worried that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, but not the duty, to provide for those conditions. We could get into a dangerous position whereby the Government did not make such provisions and we could end up with the same problems as we experience with phone masts. We do not want to repeat that problem.

There is a potential problem with clause 3, which deals with building regulations. The problem does not affect new buildings, but subsection (3) provides for energy ratings for dwellings. I am worried about the use to which the information could be put, especially the potential use for taxation. It is probably reasonably cost effective to construct—through modern technology and all the latest building techniques—new build housing that is as energy efficient as possible. That is welcome. However, in constituencies such as mine we do not desire massive new housing development. Many of the properties in the area, including the property in which I live, are hundreds of years old, so without spending huge amounts of money they are not amenable to becoming especially energy efficient. I would not want my constituents to have their properties rated as energy inefficient—

The energy efficiency rating in Clause 3 applies to new build only and not to retro fitting on existing buildings.

I am grateful for that clarification, but I am not sure whether that is the effect of the Clause. It does not specifically provide for an energy rating only on a new dwelling.

It does.

I am slightly less concerned if that is the case. There is a difference between new build and existing dwellings.

I am slightly worried about the language in the Bill, which refers to a

"typical dwelling of the same type" having a meaning to be prescribed in future. I should prefer such meanings to be defined in the Bill.

On Clause 4, in relation to dynamic demand technologies, it is sensible to use technologies that use the power available more efficiently. It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell us whether she was attracted by this part of the Bill, because one of the concerns expressed by the CBI and other business organisations is that if this winter is particularly harsh there might be restrictions on power availability. It might therefore suit the Government to have a wide availability of technologies that enable energy suppliers to cope more easily with not being able to produce to previous peak demand levels. We do not want to overdo it, however, because that would reduce the duty on power suppliers to supply the power that we demand. To some extent, that is sensible, but I do not want to start forcing people to make do with less power than they require.

Surely, however, the whole input of the Bill is to reduce carbon emissions, and if we can do that from our own homes that makes sense. It also makes sense in economic terms. These are good value-for-money measures and I am perturbed that the hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of the big generating companies and not for his constituents and mine.

I think that it was pointed out earlier that the building regulations will only apply to new buildings, so most of my constituents will not be affected as there will not be substantial new build in my Constituency—nor is it wanted. I am addressing my constituents' concerns. In areas where there will not be substantial new build, I do not want a future Government to be able to tax people based on the energy rating of their homes, which some interest groups have already discussed.

For many constituents, in areas where there will not be new build it is not possible, at an economic cost, to make homes—

Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's point that we should rule out windows in houses on the basis that some future Government might decide to introduce a window tax?

I think that the hon. Lady will regret making that point, as we have known since a week or two ago that the Government propose to build a database of views from windows, and my constituents in the Forest of Dean might be affected by that.

Order. I remind hon. Members that we ought to concentrate on the Bill before the House.

I want to try to help the hon. Gentleman out of the hole that he was getting into. During my experience with an existing property over the past year, I have learned a lesson from Woking council, which has taken existing buildings and incorporated them into a local energy system, raising the standards of the built environment and giving renewable energy systems to those properties in different energy market contracts. Is that not the significance of supporting this Bill and the preceding Bill?

As I have said, I am not an engineer or scientist by training, so the hon. Gentleman's points about his experience are most helpful. He makes a valuable point about the effectiveness of local action. If it is possible under existing regimes to do as Woking council has done successfully, it strikes me that we should be cautious about making things more complicated. Given that many people have said that these sorts of issues are important, and people are chomping at the bit to be able to do their own thing, we should focus on reducing the complexity and bureaucracy and removing barriers. I think we should be a little cautious about making things more complicated.

My right hon. Friend Mr. Forth mentioned cost. The Government have rightly focused on the cost of providing homes for those who find buying low-cost homes difficult. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test touched on the question of how much we load on to the building of new homes. The Minister has expressed an interest in producing low-cost homes, as has her boss the Deputy prime minister, but building regulations often add costs. We should not make things more expensive and difficult to achieve while saying that we want to do the opposite. I end on that note of caution.

I congratulate my hon. Friend Dr. Whitehead on presenting a Bill that raises important issues relating to climate change, energy efficiency and housing.

Members will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy express the Government's commitment to supporting micro-generation and improving renewable energy and energy efficiency, so I shall not repeat arguments that were covered in the debate on the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. I will, however, deal with important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about the role of the housing sector. We know that housing is responsible for a significant level of carbon emissions, which is why it is so important to address energy efficiency and promote the take-up of renewable energy in both new and existing homes.

We have already made substantial improvements in the energy efficiency of new buildings. Earlier in the autumn we announced new standards in building regulations, which will mean that the total energy efficiency of new buildings will have improved by 40 per cent. in just five years. That is extremely important. It means that we can plan to build more homes than the last Conservative Government planned to build, but with fewer overall emissions. It also means that householders' heating and fuel Bills will be reduced. We need to go further, however. The Bill shows the way towards the lifting of unnecessary planning restrictions, which will allow the retro-fitting of micro-generation technologies for existing houses where appropriate. It also envisages a time when it will be commonplace for new houses to be fitted with such technologies, which would meet an appreciable percentage of a home's energy needs.

The Government welcome the Bill's aims, but as my hon. Friend knows, we have some worries about the detail and about the mechanisms for its implementation. We believe that they can be resolved in Committee, however, and it is on that basis that we support the Bill today.

The Bill requires the Secretary of State to report on progress towards the energy efficiency targets in the Housing Act, and on the effects on Fuel Poverty. We already have mechanisms for reporting on energy efficiency progress, which we think could be incorporated in the process so that Parliament is kept up to date and we have an impetus to ensure that our progress continues. We also think it right for the planning system to play a larger role in improvements in energy efficiency. We have already set out a commitment to planning for renewable energy in planning policy statement 22 and its companion guide, which recommend greater use of renewables including micro-generation, domestic and other small-scale energy installations.

Planning can play a further role in relation to individual homes. It is already possible to install some small renewable energy equipment without needing to apply for planning permission, including photovoltaic cells and solar panels. However, we understand the fear that local authorities can interpret the rules inconsistently, and the view that we could do more.We all recognise that appropriate safeguards need to be in place for neighbours on things such as size and noise, as the Bill recommends, but equally we think that it is possible to make it easier for householders to install a range of small renewable energy developments within permitted development, with those safeguards in place.

I am a little worried that somewhat concealed in the words that the Minister has just used, although I am sure that it was not deliberate, was the implication that national standards would be applied. Does she not want at least to pay lip service to the new doctrine of localism and to allow much more flexibility for local planning authorities to be more aware of local conditions in applying the things that she has just talked about?

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a range of areas in which local discretion is important. It is an important principle within the planning system. There is a range of areas where local decisions need to be made to take into account local circumstances. There is also a national planning framework. A range of things are already included within permitted development to ensure that the planning system at local level does not get clogged up by unnecessary applications for very small-scale developments. That is the way in which the permitted development system has worked for a long time.

Where we have concerns with the Bill is that it involves additional piecemeal Amendment of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development Order) 1995. One of the reasons we have patchy interpretation of the order at the moment, including around renewable energy, is that parts of it have become unnecessarily complicated, including piecemeal amendments over a long period.

We have already begun a major review of permitted development to simplify the system and to allow appropriate minor development to be taken out of the planning system. We envisage consulting on possible amendments to the general permitted development order next year. That would allow proper consultation to take place about the right balance and safeguards that need to be in place. We believe that that is the right opportunity to look at taking forward the ability of householders to install a range of small renewable energy developments without specific planning permission.

Therefore, we would like to discuss in Committee the right relationship between primary and secondary legislation on this issue. Permitted development is generally dealt with in secondary legislation, so that we can have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and technology. The Government support the need to promote better energy efficiency and the use of things such as micro-generation and renewable energy in new developments and new homes.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me a chance to put on the record my support for the Bill. Does she accept that the use of micro-renewables promoted by the Bill could help the Government to comply with their statutory duty under the Housing Act 2004 to increase domestic energy efficiency by 20 per cent. by 2010?

My hon. Friend is right that we want to improve domestic energy efficiency both across existing stock and new stock. That is why we think that the Bill raises some important principles. It also raises the issue of building regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is aware that we have certain concerns about the way in which that matter is dealt with in the Bill. We agree that building regulations are an important tool for improving energy efficiency and cutting carbon emissions. However, generally they do not specify particular technologies or ways of achieving standards. Instead, they specify outcomes and allow builders and developers flexibility about how to achieve those outcomes.

That is an important principle, because it encourages innovation and it does not prevent competition if new technologies or approaches come forward. It means that regulations do not hamper the take-up of new technologies that may not yet have been anticipated. Therefore, we would be uncomfortable about being committed by this Bill to specifying particular approaches, as opposed to specifying outcomes, within the building regulations.

We also believe that there are additional ways we can promote micro-generation, such as through the code for sustainable buildings, on which we will consult shortly. We have just announced higher standards in building regulations on energy efficiency, too. Clearly, regulations need to be based on what is achievable in practice. We also propose to consider micro-generation as part of the review of existing building regulations that has just commenced. We believe that any concerns can be resolved in Committee, and we hope that we can have further discussions on the detail, including that aspect.

We welcome the emphasis in the Bill on promoting dynamic demand technology and we are happy to support its Second Reading. It raises important issues and will contribute to improving energy efficiency in buildings and promoting new technologies to protect the environment. We look forward to discussing it in Committee.

Almost half Britain's 161.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions come from buildings. Despite all the rhetoric about the importance of joined-up government, the Office of the Deputy prime minister has no statutory obligation to take action to improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon dioxide emissions or mitigate the impact of climate change. I shall keep my comments short because I very much want the Bill to receive a Second Reading.

Last December the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:

"We will not, on the basis of current policies alone, achieve our ambitious goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions".

The Secretary of State has admitted the obvious fact that the Labour Government will not reach their target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below the 1990 level, and that makes it clear that we need firm action and new policies. That is why the Opposition welcome many aspects of the Bill promoted by Dr. Whitehead.

The Bill is short and concise, and I am sure that it will make a difference to the environment. It contains practical measures that will reduce emissions, help to sustain the environment and save money. Indeed, the Micropower Council says that one of its provisions will eliminate the need for planning permission for micro-power plants generating 10 kW or less. Those wishing to install such systems would save about £265. The reduction in red tape and costs that the Bill offers will make micro-generation all the more attractive for Britain's millions of home owners and thousands of small businesses.

Dynamic Demand estimates that the changes promoted by the Bill could lead to savings of about 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year, or more than 1 per cent. of the total carbon dioxide emissions that we produce.

I hope that if the Bill makes further progress, we shall consider including geothermal power as a source of energy within the remit of the Bill. In addition, the Bill could set a higher capacity for micro-generation than that in Clause 2(4). Households consume on average between 3,500 and 5,000 kWh per year, and if we empower the public to generate more of the energy for their homes through micro-generation renewables, that would be economically incentivising them—this is the most terrible English; I shall rephrase that. It would give them an economic incentive to sell the excess produced to the national grid.

The Bill will make a positive difference to the environment. It promotes micro-generation and energy efficiency and will serve to hold the Government's policies to account and make them more transparent. It contains measures that the Labour Government should have introduced a long time ago.

I congratulate Dr. Whitehead on his success in the ballot and his choice of Bill. I give it a warm welcome, not only because I am one of its sponsors, but because I believe that it is an important piece of a big and complex jigsaw aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

As the promoter of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004, which started as a private Member's Bill that I steered through in the Session before last, I am delighted to see this Bill taking another step along the same route. My enthusiasm for the Bill sometimes amounts almost to a sense of desperation, because we need such Bills so much. It is a worthwhile Bill, but it will make only a small contribution to tackling the enormous problem of climate change, and in particular, the urgent need to reduce CO ₂ emissions here in the United Kingdom.

The fastest growth in carbon dioxide emissions comes from commercial premises, from transport and from the biggest wasters of energy—the domestic sector. It is a constant puzzle that most of us are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions from our houses each year than from our cars, yet this place spends tremendous effort and political energy on restricting the use of the car, and practically none on restricting carbon dioxide emissions from our homes. If we did that, we would reduce our bills and improve our home comfort levels, as well as reduce carbon dioxide and slow the rate of climate change.

On the whole, we have had a non-partisan debate today, which is most welcome. Speaking as someone who steered a private Member's Bill through to Royal Assent in 2004, I have to say that it is good to have a broad consensus, but strong, firm Government action is also required. It is disappointing that, 14 months after my Bill gained Royal Assent, it has still not been implemented. That is my word of caution to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test: getting a Bill passed is difficult enough, but getting it implemented can be even more difficult. As far as I know, there is not yet a consultation document on the Bill that I steered though. I cannot even get confirmation that the working party to draw up the document has yet met. I look forward to hearing the Minister reassure me about that on another occasion.

The fact remains that the Bill provides a modest but valuable step on the road to tackling climate change. It seems to have the good will of the Government, albeit perhaps a little grudgingly given in some respects. Perhaps there is more trouble ahead in Committee. However, I say to both the Government and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that we must ensure that the Bill not only gets through Second Reading and Committee, but is subsequently put into effect.

I certainly hope that we can get the Bill through today and that it gains the success that it richly deserves, but there are predators—perhaps some are still in their place right now—and pitfalls ahead. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test needs to beware not only of those who are overt about their approach to the Bill, but of those such as the Minister, perhaps, who appear to come smiling and bearing gifts. Sometimes things can go wrong.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the House is debating these issues and his Bill today. The Bill that has just gained its Second Reading and this Bill make a valuable and substantial contribution to moving forward on climate change and providing Britain with some solutions to that problem, particularly in respect of its built environment.

As has already been said, our built environment is one of the most extensive producers of carbon dioxide, but simple savings can be made not just at low cost, but at zero economic cost. I hope that the House will pass the Bill, not just here on Second Reading but in Committee and subsequently, and I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will have the opportunity to wind up the debate and put his Bill before the House for approval.

Inadvertently, Andrew Stunell has provided a graphic illustration of how worthless many of these Bills turn out to be. His Bill became an Act, but he has admitted that nothing has happened since. That tells its own story and hon. Members would be well advised to reflect carefully about legislating for all the good things in life and should not be too surprised when little happens as a result.

When I had a quick look at the list of the Bill's supporters, I noticed that it included 11 hon. Members, not including the promoter himself, yet only three seem to be present in their places today. That does not suggest to me an overwhelming degree of enthusiasm for the Bill. Sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will know, that is not an unusual phenomenon. Members are all too ready to sign up to Bills, but cannot drag themselves here on a Friday to support them and see them put on the statute book.

Could the right hon. Gentleman save time and read the telephone directory out? Would that be helpful?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman here on his one Friday of the year, bearing his little Bill—[Interruption.] I am going to finish my point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I would be delighted to give way.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test should know that all this is part of proceedings on a Friday. I say in all courtesy him that those of us who are here every Friday because we consider doing so to be our duty to our constituents do not take very kindly to being admonished by the once-a-year Friday attendees for our conduct of parliamentary proceedings. I now give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I speak, I think, for new Liberal Democrat Members, at least, when I say that one reason why it is sometimes difficult to motivate Members to come here on a Friday and to stay to the end of a debate such as this is that we are growing rather cynical about some of the House's procedures and the way in which they are exploited by certain—

Order. I cannot allow this debate to stray that far from the Bill before us.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I seem to have touched a rather sensitive nerve, unsurprisingly.

The Bill contains a number of interesting and controversial ideas, including our old friend the alleviation of "Fuel Poverty", to which I shall return. It is worth another airing—it always is—and must never be left as a given. First, however—

I recall on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman's mentioning that most of his contact with constituents was on a Saturday morning in Waitrose with Mrs. Forth. Does he get comments in Waitrose about Fuel Poverty, or does he feel that people in fuel poverty are unlikely to be able to patronise quite the same level of establishment?

The honest answer is that I do not recall anyone having raised the subject of Fuel Poverty—doubtless because they do not understand what it is. If they did, they would probably be as mystified by it as I am, as I shall explain to the hon. Lady and the House in a moment.

First, I want to have a look at Clause 1 (1), which rather tediously requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each calendar year

"a report on the progress made towards achieving the energy efficiency targets set under section 217 of the Housing Act 2004".

Because all debates such as this stand alone, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we cannot possibly have regard to any previous such debate, that gives us the opportunity to rehearse the question of the meaningfulness of regular reports to Parliament. Sadly, I have yet to be convinced that obliging a Secretary of State to make regular reports to Parliament will move forward in a meaningful way any area or issue of policy. Yet again, however, here we have such a bureaucratic requirement.

I have no doubt that imposing such requirements makes people feel good about themselves and the issue that they are espousing, but I have never been too sure what Members think that laying such a report before Parliament achieves. I must admit that it is tempting at this stage to make a purely political point and to say that, of course, there is great benefit to be gained by forcing a Government to produce such a report, which would inevitably embarrass them. Very rarely do such reports suggest that Governments have made great progress, or that the objectives envisaged in the legislation in question will be fulfilled.

So I am tempted, politically, to say, let us have any number of reports forcing the Secretary of State to come to the House and admit that, almost inevitably, the various targets, aims and objectives have not been met. But something inside me says that I should not succumb to that temptation, because to do so would be over-bureaucratic and over-regulatory. In theory, at least, my party is pledged to not being bureaucratic or regulatory, although I increasingly have my doubts about that. So right at the Bill's beginning—clause 1(1)—I am at odds with it and rather unhappy about its provisions.

Clause 1(2) then tells us what the report is supposed to inform us about:

"The report must specify the impact of . . . progress on . . . reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide; and . . . the alleviation of fuel poverty."

That immediately raises the question of what happens if the report says that no progress has been made in the reduction of CO ₂ emissions. Are we to assume that something will happen as a result, or that this will simply embarrass the Government? If nothing will happen, what is the point of producing the report? There are not too many examples in recent political history of the mere production of a report showing that the Government of the day have failed to meet a certain set of objectives in turn leading to rectifying action by that Government. So the assumption made in many of the Bills that come before us on a Friday—Bills that, regrettably, few colleagues are here to consider—that such reports themselves produce good results is very much open to challenge, to say the least.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 March