---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

—to acknowledge the potential role of the regions. [Laughter.] On 10 March, the Minister said"““Regions will be able to set their own targets for microgeneration within any national target that we may set, and it would be more appropriate for them to do so, rather than central Government setting them. On those grounds, I oppose amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 20.””" That raises a number of important questions. I should like to hear from the Minister at some stage whether he intends to table amendments—probably not at this stage, but when the Bill goes to another place—to give effect to what I have just read out. We shall come to that shortly in another context. The Minister may think that his words are sufficient, but not all of us are that trusting. We would feel more secure if such important matters were spelt out in the Bill. That, then, is the first question: should this not be subject to an amendment, probably tabled in the House of Lords? There are a number of other questions to be discussed. By what mechanism would the regional targets match the national targets? If we are to have a bottom-up approach rather than just a national target, I am intrigued by the question that then arises. Has the Minister thought out the way in which regions will be able to set their own targets within any national target? That gives rise to several further questions. The obvious one is whether the process is to be voluntary. Can some regions set targets while others cannot? If all regions set targets, what will happen if the sum of the regional targets does not match the national target? There are a number of potential difficulties. How far has the Minister—or, more accurately, his officials—thought this through, and how do they think it will work? We cannot have Ministers throwing statements into a debate without our having any idea what they mean and how they would be given effect. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to accept my amendments, and I hope that we shall hear some further explanation from him. That brings me to amendment No. 12. On 10 March, the Minister said"““The word ‘appropriate’ is deliberately broad, whereas amendment No. 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), might be too prescriptive, as we may wish to consider other things when making such a decision.””" That is followed by the key words—at least in this regard the Minister is entirely consistent:"““However, I assure him that when considering whether to use the powers in clause 6, we will, as always, ensure that we do so in a way that is effective and cost-effective, as well as environmentally beneficial.””—[Official Report, 10 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1114–5.]" That is fine as far as it goes. It is a very reassuring statement of the Minister’s good intentions. As we know, however, Ministers come and Ministers go. I am not sure that any succeeding Minister would necessarily be bound by what this Minister has to say. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my amendment, which I thought would add clarity and improve the Bill. I wanted to insert the words"““efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial””" because—we shall be able to discuss this in more detail when we deal with later amendments—wind power is sporadic and unreliable, as is solar power, while water power is unfortunately relatively rare and inaccessible in this country. I think that we should make very clear what contribution such techniques can make, and that was my intention.