Climate Change and SustainableEnergy Bill

Exactly—the Bill does not set the price, but it enables the Government to do so, which is my worry. The microgeneration industry’s argument is that at the moment, the market is insufficiently active and needs a bit more subsidy—in other words, taxpayers’ money to prop it up. If the Minister assures us in his closing remarks that no such subsidy, or cross-subsidy, will go into the microgeneration buy-back, I shall be delighted, but I shall also be extremely surprised. My understanding is that the Bill’s whole purpose is to facilitate cross-subsidy of, and taxpayer subsidy of, the microgeneration industry. So the Bill could add to the cost burden on those who are least able to bear it. I hope that the Government can allay my concerns in this regard. I turn to one or two specific issues arising from the Bill. Clause 10, which was clause 9 before Third Reading—I am glad that the Bill was reprinted following its amendment—deals with an issue that we debated at length on Report: permitted development rights. I am pleased to say that the Minister at the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), wrote to me on 10 May, saying that concern had been expressed on 17 March that this clause might allow the installation of very large structures, such as 50 kW wind turbines, in people’s back gardens. The letter states, helpfully:"““The Bill requires the Secretary of State to form a view as to what provision should be made in secondary legislation to further facilitate the installation of microgeneration equipment by removing unnecessary planning controls. The aim will also be to ensure that planning authorities and householders have a clearer idea of the situations in which microgeneration equipment can be installed without the need for a planning application.""In conducting the review ODPM will consider carefully the impacts of possible changes. We want to ensure that sufficient control is retained over permitted development to protect the reasonable interests of neighbours, the environment andthe wider community. We will, therefore, have regard toamenity considerations for the permitted development of microgeneration technology, including the impact on visual appearance, and the implications of any potential nuisance, such as noise, vibration and ‘flicker’.””" That is an important concession by the Government and I am glad to get it, even though it took the best part of two months to provide. The letter continues:"““Consideration will also be paid to how permitted development limits should be varied for development in sensitive locations including National Parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas, works affecting listed buildings and their setting, and developments in Green Belts. A key part of the review will be a full public consultation on what might be permitted. Once responses…have been considered the Secretary of State will report to Parliament on the recommendations of the review and set out any proposals for change.””" That will allay much of the concern that has been expressed about the possible implications of clause 10. The other specific issue that I wished to raise is the time limit for prosecutions in clause 13. I mentioned earlier my hope that the other place would amend the Bill, and I had clause 13 specifically in mind. The clause would allow prosecutions for contravention of certain building regulations to be started within two years, beginning on the day on which the offence was committed. It would also allow the relevant date for assessing that to mean"““the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings comes to the knowledge of the person commencing the proceedings.””" The sole judge of whether and when sufficient evidence is known will be the local authority, which will also be the very body charged with bringing the proceedings. Clause 13(5) states that"““evidence is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) above””—" which I have just quoted—"““as sufficient to justify the proceedings if in the opinion of the proper officer or an authorised officer it is sufficient to justify the proceedings””." That is a dangerous precedent, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst(Mr. Forth) expressed his concerns to the shadow Attorney-General, he said that he had not previously been aware of it, but he also thought that it was a matter for concern. I hope that that concern will be articulated in the other place and result in amendment of the Bill. One of the advantages of the changes in procedure is that we will have the opportunity to consider Lords amendments to private Members’ Bills in October, which should allow this Bill to be considered in depth in the other place. If the Minister wishes to try to justify the draconian powers in clause 13, let him. The Bill is based on a fallacy, or at least an unproven hypothesis. We cannot lightly dismiss the views of a host of international scientists who are not self-serving like the scientists of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, who consider only their own model, which is based on various hypotheses. It is rather as if we were to say that the Treasury economic model must be right because it was produced by the Treasury, when we know very well that on many occasions the Treasury model has turned out to be wrong. Many other scientists, who are not involved with that self-serving organisation, have looked independently at the data and reached different conclusions about the impact of man-made contributions to climate change and about the consequences of global warming. It is disappointing that the Bill’s main purpose is based on a fallacy. As a result of the debate, I hope that many more people will make the sort of challenge that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said that he had received during the general election campaign. They will wake up to what is happening and realise how certain pressure groups are trying to use climate change to delude the public and justify new regulations and burdens on our people, resulting in deprivation of liberty. Many people are involved in that sinister process, and many who should know better are being caught up by it. I can best conclude my remarks by drawing the House’s attention to the quotation from Schopenhauer at the beginning of Lord Lawson’s article in the Spectator:"““There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.””" I hope that many Members who have already spoken will reflect on the danger of falling into a cosy seductive consensus trap.