I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

'(3A) In sub-paragraph (a)(xiv) of that paragraph, at the end insert ''(including equipment for monitoring and measuring supplies of water)''.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Promoter's amendment No. 2.

I hope that this matter will not take up too much time.

The amendments relate to amendments being made to schedule 1 of the Building Act 1984. Paragraph 7 of that schedule contains a long list of 22 items that are illustrations of things about which regulations can be made. They are not exhaustive or mandatory. Indeed, some of them, such as telecommunications services, are not the subject of regulations, even at the moment.

The amendment therefore provides additional illustrations of the type of topics about which it would be appropriate to introduce regulations. In that sense, it is not enabling; it is somewhat less even than that. It is not controversial in its impact, but it sends a signal about issues, particularly in relation to sustainability, that should have the attention of the

Minister and the Department when they examine the need for regulation. Other items listed in my Bill relate to security.

The reasons for the changes are largely technical and relate to the need to ensure that the language is fully in order and reflects the scope of the powers and the topics covered by schedule 1 of the 1984 Act. I shall be more than happy to elaborate if the Committee wants me to do so.

I accept that these are technical amendments that apply not to regulations but to a list, as the hon. Gentleman stated. On recycling facilities, the Bill refers to ''recycling and composting''. The wording of his amendment suggests that composting is a type of recycling, which is not quite the case. Is there a particular reason for the difference in wording, and does it have any implications?

In all honesty, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am entirely in the hands of the parliamentary draftsman in such matters. There is no practical difference whatever, but for reasons well beyond me, it is necessary to change the original words in the Bill.

I do not share the views of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the Government's performance in such matters or the longevity of my current role. I hope to refute those views for many months and years to come.

Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 would, as a result of the amendment, include these additional words:

''equipment for monitoring and measuring supplies of fuel, power or heat''.

There needs to be a similar provision in respect of water to ensure that regulations can deal with such matters. The second amendment would revise the wording of the paragraphs in subsection (4) and clarify them for the avoidance of doubt. It would not increase or diminish in any way the powers under section 1. Parliamentary counsel has told us that that is how the measure should be drafted, so that is the way in which we will support it.

Paragraph (xxiib) would be removed on the grounds that the installation of security systems clearly falls within the item to be added to the list of measures relating to the security of buildings. The amendments are technical. Inspection matters are continuing requirements that are dealt with under section 2 of the Building Act 1984 and regulations for such requirements cannot be made under section 1, to which paragraph 7 of schedule 1 applies. I hope that those technical changes will improve the Bill and that the Committee will endorse them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in

clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraphs (xxiib) to (xxiie) and insert—

'(xxiib) measures affecting the use of fuel or power,

(xxiic) equipment for monitoring and measuring supplies of fuel, power or heat,

(xxiid) recycling facilities (including facilities for composting),''.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out from 'change' to end of line 19 and insert 'in prescribed circumstances.''.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Promoter's amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

The amendment would change the wording of the Bill when it refers to

''sale, let or relet of the premises''.

Apparently, there was a technical defect in my wording and it was not possible to produce regulations for only one of those categories; they would have covered all of them. More open wording allows differentiation of circumstances in which property has been occupied and in which change of occupancy has taken place. The amendment makes it possible to discriminate, distinguish or differentiate between such circumstances. It also makes it possible to include other circumstances that may not be fully and properly defined under the original wording of the Bill.

My basic point is that we need to look at the difficulties when only about 1 per cent. of the building stock is built each year and the other 99 per cent. remains at the same standard and level of sustainability as when it was built some time in the previous 600 years. However, the average age of our building stock is 50 or 60 years. These buildings need significant upgrading if we are going to make any serious impact on their carbon emissions in the coming decades, and the time for that to happen is clearly at the point when there is a change of ownership or a significant change of occupancy. That is the moment when it is possible to liberate capital to make investment and when the building may be empty, so it would be an appropriate time to carry out significant works. The amendment, in both its original and amended forms, is intended to facilitate regulations that deal with that. There are many issues relating to this amendment, some of which were raised on Second Reading, and I hope that we can discuss them in a moment.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are of a completely different nature. They ensure that the exemptions for Crown buildings of various sorts and for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority can be removed so that all those buildings become subject to the Building Act 1984 and the regulations. It was widely agreed on Second Reading and in discussions that I have had elsewhere that that was long overdue and very necessary, and the amendments make technical improvements on the wording to achieve that.

I suggest to the Committee that amendment No. 3 is probably the one on which people will want to comment, and I shall be happy to respond.

The hon. Gentleman has summed up the issues very well. Clause 2 (5) would allow building regulations to be applied upon change of occupancy precipitated

''by sale, let or relet of the building or parts of it''.

That subsection is consistent with a requirement in the EU performance of buildings directive. When that

provision is implemented in January 2006, at the latest, it will also place duties on occupiers of existing buildings upon change of occupancy. Adding the words ''in prescribed circumstances'' adds flexibility in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, so that when we make regulations later we may choose, for example, to place new requirements on sale.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the other two amendments are technical amendments. Clause 2(6) amends section 44 of the Building Act 1984 to ensure that building regulations applying on a change of occupancy would apply equally to Crown buildings as to any other building. Amendment No. 4 simply clarifies the wording of the existing clause 2(6).

Amendment 5 is a technical amendment to reflect changes to sections 44 and 45 of the Building Act 1984. It makes it clear that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority should be treated in the same way as a Crown authority as far as building regulations are concerned. As new subsection (11) is added by the Bill to section 44, a consequent change needs to be made to section 45.

Really, I am only reiterating what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said. We support these amendments, and I hope that we can agree to them today.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 2, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

'(6A) After paragraph 8 insert—

''8A.–(1) In making building regulations the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the historical or architectural interest of and preserving or enhancing the character of protected buildings.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, 'protected buildings' means—

(a) a listed building within the meaning given by section 1(5) (listing of buildings of special architectural or historic interest) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c.9);

(b) a building situated within an area designated as a conservation area under section 69 (designation of conservation areas) of that Act;

(c) a building situated within an area designated as a National Park under section 5(3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c.97);

(d) a building situated within any area designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty under section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37).''.'.

I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily on this amendment, but it is important that we flag up this issue. I will be very interested in the replies from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and the Minister. I have a personal interest in the matter, as I live in a listed building. That aside, I also hold the work of English Heritage in high regard, and I know that it supports this proposal. We heard just now about the rate of new house building, but we should consider the sense of place that we get from our historic buildings, and have regard to the way in which the new powers and duties imposed by the Bill will affect listed buildings.

When we examine the contents of the building regulations in clause 2, we should be aware of the fact that the regulations that deal with energy efficiency under part L recognise the need to conserve the special characteristics of historic buildings, and aim to improve energy efficiency without prejudicing the character of historic buildings or increasing the risk of long-term deterioration to their fabric or fittings. In practice, that means that building control officers are encouraged to consult the local authority conservation officer, and to find ways of meeting the energy efficiency objectives of part L without causing unnecessary damage to the historic interest of the building.

The amendment examines ways in which that aim can be continued in a wider context, by ensuring that any future building regulations similarly recognise the need to protect historic buildings from inappropriate alterations. It is important that we consider the possibility of including a new provision requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of preserving the character and architectural or historical interest of buildings.

The amendment is worded in such a way that it would not exempt such buildings from the need to comply with building regulations, but it would oblige the Government, in drafting those regulations, to take account of the impact that they would have on the historic environment, and to seek ways of mitigating any potential damage. The intention behind the amendment is not to follow part L in referring to locally listed buildings or buildings situated in world heritage sites.

I look forward to replies from the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I understand that there is cross-party support for the amendment.

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hurst, for the second time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on tabling the amendment. I support it, although I have one or two probing comments to make about it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on securing No. 1 in the ballot. I have only once been successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and that was back in 1970. I drew place No. 10, and thought that that was a harbinger of a glorious political career to come—that perhaps I would finish up in another No. 10. However, something went wrong on the way.

Although I support the amendment, I want to point out that it is rather sweeping. I do not want to incur a scintilla of wrath from English Heritage or from Cadw, its Welsh equivalent, but in (2)(a) it refers to listed buildings, and I understand that there are about 500,000 listed buildings—although I am not sure whether that figure refers to England or to England and Wales.

The scope of the amendment is not confined to the 500,000 listed buildings but applies to all buildings situated in a conservation area, of which there are quite a number. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that no fewer than three quarters of the buildings in

the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea are in conservation areas. The scope of the proposed provision is therefore rather sweeping, and moreover, it would also apply to buildings situated in the national parks and in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I would be very impressed if the Minister knew how many buildings it would cover. We have to be careful, although I will probably be satisfied, as the provision under the amendment would not exclude or force anything on the people who live in such buildings. It would just ask Secretary of State to have regard to preservation.

I am extremely sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but my hon. Friend is right. For example, more than 80 per cent. of my constituency, which is a large, rural one in East Sussex, is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. Under the amendment, the clause would cover a very large number of houses and buildings.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I fully support the objectives of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and his Bill, which is why I am here. However, we need to reach a sensible balance between protecting buildings that have historic and architectural interest or that are in sensitive environmental areas and the need to improve our total building stock in England and Wales.

I, too, am sympathetic to the amendment. It is vital that we strike the balance that my hon. Friend described, but I err towards that balance being struck in favour of beauty.

Each of our countrymen has a right to be in touch with beauty. As well as the hierarchy of risk that I described, perhaps there should be an aesthetic hierarchy for the built environment. Too many of our aesthetically and historically significant buildings are still at risk. A look at the at-risk register is an alarming experience, because almost every constituency contains at least one building that is at risk and worthy of protection. That is true not just of buildings but of the wider environment.

The amendment refers to national parks and areas of particular environmental significance, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove should recognise that planning permissions have often ignored the human element, tearing communities apart in the service of spurious, usually modernist, principles. That has frequently been done irrespective of a proper consideration for the historic built environment. At a practical level, it has meant that a gulf has emerged between old and young, as people have been separated, which has prevented the collective wisdom of ages being transmitted across the generations. At a material level, it has led to the destruction of many fine townscapes, villagescapes and cityscapes, and their replacement by soulless buildings and developments.

I support the amendment because I believe that the balance needs to be recast in favour of a proper respect for our historic built environment and for the places where those buildings are situated. God preserve us from plastic windows and all the things that do so

much damage in conservation areas and historic villages, towns and cities. As I said earlier, functionality is a critical element in our consideration of buildings, and I respect the thought that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove gave to that in the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, there must be a balance, and as I have argued, it should be recast in favour of beauty.

Let me draw the Committee's attention to the important work done by no less a personage than the Prince of Wales, who is right about almost everything. He is right about the countryside, the environment, architecture, urban regeneration, the prayer book and almost everything else. He—

Order. The amendment does not refer to the prayer book.

I introduced the prayer book to lighten the Committee's consideration of what is a narrow and technical matter, but I am guided by you as ever, Mr. Hurst, so I will focus more specifically on the amendment.

The Prince of Wales has made a compelling case for the importance of retaining human scale in design. He also fully understands the significance of the historic built environment and the effect that it has on our quality of life—on our sense of place and purpose, on who we are both individually and collectively. Communities and individuals are diminished if that environment is stripped away.

I support the amendment, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on bringing the matter to our attention. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said sensible things, which is not typical for a Liberal Democrat. I hope that the Minister will embrace the amendment with enthusiasm—as well as with alacrity, which has been described as an important aspect of this morning's affairs.

Prince Charles is certainly right about genetically modified crops, but I beg to differ about his views on architecture.

I am interested in the amendment. I support the reasoning and the principle behind it. When I was looking at the amendments last night I also had to hand the newly published Campaign for Real Ale inventory of historic pubs, which shows that my interest in this subject is rather prosaic. I was making plans to visit some wonderful pubs on my holidays. A lot of them are unlisted buildings, although they are wonderful examples of architecture.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we do not see awful plastic windows simply for energy efficiency reasons; it is designed to give sufficient flexibility to preserve historic environments. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that it is very widely drawn. It refers to areas of outstanding natural beauty. In my opinion, the whole of Wales is an area of outstanding beauty, full stop. Indeed, a lot of the country—and much of my constituency—is drawn in that way. A lot of my home town of Aberystwyth is a conservation area. I am

unsure whether the amendment could be used by future Governments—but not this Government, I am sure—as a way of preserving in aspic and of not improving our housing stock. We must be careful about that.

I can think of conservation areas and listed buildings in Aberystwyth where fa¢ades have been preserved but the interior has been ripped apart and totally changed. Is that the best approach to architecture? It might be better to have something modern and aesthetically pleasing—energy efficient buildings can be very aesthetically pleasing in their use of glass, wood and other natural materials. Sometimes it is nice to think that we could improve things and have new buildings that are energy efficient and sustainable, rather than just keeping the old buildings. We must strike the right balance.

I also want to be sure that such an amendment could not be used in the future to stop certain things—with regard not necessarily to listed buildings but to national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Let us say I owned a building in such an area and wanted to make it more energy efficient but I also wanted to keep some of its character. One way of doing that would be to have solar panels, or to put up one of the new windmills that can be placed on the roof to provide electricity directly into the house.

I would not like such an amendment to be used to stop people doing innovative things even with historic buildings when those things do not change the fabric and nature of those buildings. The amendment could be a Trojan horse for people who seek to preserve forever the appearance and views of some parts of this country without having a thought about sustainable living. I know that that is not the hon. Lady's intention but I want to ensure that a future Government cannot use it in that way.

It is not about preserving buildings in aspic: it is about having regard to their character. The amendment makes it clear:

''In making regulations the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the historical or architectural interest''

of buildings. Most historic buildings, such as churches, have evolved. There is a medieval church opposite my listed home in Lincolnshire that has changed many times in its history. Historic buildings evolve, but it is important that they should do so in a way that is sympathetic to their character. That is the mistake that we have made with modern buildings: it is the curse of Le Corbusier and all those other dreadful European people. It is not about preserving things in aspic; it is about having a regard to the historic environment, and changing in that context.

I am sort of in agreement with that point, and I accept that the amendment is not trying to achieve that. My purpose in asking that question of the Minister is to ensure that no future Government could use a clause such as this in that way. We should be clear about that before supporting the amendment.

I rise partly in response to the official Opposition spokesman's reference to beauty: all hon. Members claim that our constituency is the most beautiful in the land, even when it is clear that that is not strictly true. However, it tends to be the case that hon. Members who represent beautiful constituencies also represent people who are somewhat better off, because they can afford to live in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or a similar place such as those mentioned in the amendment. My concern is that people who can afford to live in such an area are more likely to consume more energy, and possibly be less energy-efficient than many others. People who live in an urban area are less likely to be caught by the terms of this amendment than well-off people using lots of energy. I hope that when the Secretary of State has regard to the desirability of regulations under the amendment, if it is approved, he will bear that in mind. Nobody wants to see a Tudor house covered in solar panels, but there is a great obligation on people who are better off and who use more energy to make an effort to conserve it.

The amendment has clearly excited considerable interest and discussion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North on achieving that. We are aware that the characteristics of protected buildings could be seriously damaged if the building regulations took no notice of their historic character. When we make and apply regulations, we already pay regard to that. Building work in historic buildings is currently expected to comply with the requirements of building regulations unless it would prejudice the reason for which the buildings were protected. Where such prejudice would occur, local conservation officers and local building control officers discuss the position and decide on what should be done: that has worked well in the past.

However, in general, the Government have no objection to the principle behind the amendment. The points made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the scope of the amendment and the impact that it might have were well made. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings expressed his sympathy and made an eloquent defence of beauty around the country, but he can see that the amendment might have unintended consequences, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen). I am not sure whether we should join the hon. Member for Ceredigion for a pub crawl around the historic pubs of Wales.

We have no objection to the principle behind the amendment—having regard to the desirability of preserving the historic character of protected buildings. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that we should like to consider the wording further, including the placement of the provision within the Building Act 1984 before we can accept it, for many of the reasons already given by members of the Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will make his response shortly, but I hope that as we have agreed to consider it, my hon. Friend will withdraw the

amendment so that we can consider some of the concerns expressed and table a better amendment in future.

As the Minister said, this amendment has excited more interest than almost anything else, which is good.

I am extremely sympathetic to the view that we should not disrupt or damage our existing environment as we renew our building stock and develop and change our communities. The first part of the amendment, which sets out the general intention, is fine, but I have some concerns about what follows, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet drew to our attention. In our wide-ranging discussion, a number of loose ends have been identified that need to be secured before we go too far.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that as well as a hierarchy of risk we should have a hierarchy of beauty. For buildings, that is the nightmare scenario. I do not know exactly what His Royal Highness said when the Royal Festival hall was listed, but we are now listing buildings that are 30 years old and from the carbuncle class. We need to be careful when we start talking about a hierarchy of beauty. The hon. Gentleman rather gave himself away when he said that far too many buildings seem to be built on modernist principles. Now, such buildings are listed, so they will be specifically included in the safeguarded group that he is trying to establish. Without elaborating further, I hope that the Committee will take on board the fact that there are difficulties.

I might frame some of the quotations used by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to put on my wall. The prospect of the Conservative party believing that the hierarchy of beauty should be more important than the market in developing property and communities in the future is interesting and entertaining. I would like to see how that idea is worked out in further initiatives from his party.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, if we can find a way of covering the broad principle of what she suggests, I would be open to that being included in my Bill. However, I hope that she considers that the widely sweeping inclusions in the second half of her amendment mean that it is not appropriate at this stage.

I was not quite prepared for such a far-reaching debate. I can tell the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that in the 17 years that I have been in the House I have never kept out a private Member's Bill. I have no intention of preventing the Bill of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove from reaching the statute book. It is important that we make progress, and I am conscious of time.

Our debate has ranged from Prince Charles to GM to CAMRA and so on. Our discussion has been not least about beauty, and I take the point that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As the mover of the amendment, I have the final say on the subject, and Stoke-on-Trent, North with its wonderful

architectural and industrial heritage is the last word on the subject of beauty.

On the amendment, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I do not see why we could not have further dialogue on the issue as the Bill makes its way through this place and the Lords. I hope that there will be an opportunity for dialogue that will include the hon. Gentleman and the Government, and possibly English Heritage and myself. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion suggested, we are moving towards a new definition of beauty, which is always in the eye of the beholder, in terms of how it relates to new technologies and concepts of sustainability. Certainly, when considering the future of the House and the changes needed in terms of building regulations, we have found that there the whole concept of sustainability is, as yet, unexplored by English Heritage. If my amendment takes that further forward, I will be content. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 4, in

clause 2, page 3, line 26, leave out from 'part),' to end of line 33 and insert

'this section applies, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the making of a change of occupants as it applies in relation to the carrying out of work.''.'.

No. 5, in

clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert—

'(8) In section 45(1) of that Act (application to United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority), for ''(10)'' substitute ''(11)''.'.—[Mr. Stunell.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.