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

The new clause would require all planning authorities to consider whether to specify

“(a)a reasonable requirement for the generation of renewable energy within the proposed development” or

“(b)a reasonable requirement for the generation of low carbon energy within the proposed development”.

In lay termsthat means combined heat and power systems, which are low carbon but not technically renewable because they may use fossil fuels, such as gas, which is largely accepted as a good transition fuel. The matters in paragraph (c) are to be considered when the local planning authority is deciding on planning applications.

The proposed new clause satisfies my localism principles and my belief that we must do more to address climate change, because it requires local or planning authorities to consider such points when dealing with planning applications, but leaves the decision to them.

Committee members may be forgiven a slight sense of déjà vu, because the proposed new clause relates in some ways to the new clause that I put to the vote in the last sitting. If they cast their minds back, they will recall that in response to that new clause, which was more specific and prescriptive but tried to achieve the same goal, the Government voted it down, and the Minister justified resisting it by saying:

“we believe that legislation placing specific requirements on local planning authorities and developers is not necessary ... Progress will be achieved through action at the local level, delivered through existing planning mechanisms and within the context provided by national guidance on planning and renewable energy in planning policy statement 2, which is also known, I am advised, as PPS22”.

He continued:

“Nevertheless, we recognise that concerns have been expressed as to whether all authorities will include policies on on-site renewables, as PPS22 says they should. At the moment, however, only limited evidence is available.”

Critically, he said:

“My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has given a commitment that her Department will undertake an urgent review of local plans to determine whether there is a problem with emerging plans that do not fully incorporate PPS22 guidance. If a problem is identified, her Department will take swift and appropriate action.” —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 9 February 2006; c. 81-84.]

I was disappointed that the Government chose not to back my new clause, but I took the Minister’s words as he sincerely meant them. However, is he aware of what the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister official spokesman said about his statement that day? The spokesman said to Catherine Early of Planning magazine, on the record—he told other media inquiries in exactly the same terms—that there will be

“More a survey than a review and not urgent, not at all.”

He said that it would be more a case of

“Qualitative research then decide what to do. Malcolm Wicks was rather over-egging the case.”

The ODPM official spokesman said that to the media, and not just in one magazine. It has appeared in print and I am surprised that the Minister has not seen it. It is disgraceful that one arm of the Government is saying that. We took what the Minister said at face value, as I am sure he meant it, but he is not being well served by his colleagues at ODPM.