---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

I was just trailing what is to come, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wished to forewarn the House about the exciting debates that we will have later. I am warming the House up a bit for those debates—if that is an appropriate term in this subject. We were talking about the word ““efficacious””. Although claims are made for the benefit of microgeneration, it should not be assumed that simply to install something that provides power will be the right thing to do in all circumstances. That is why I think that we need a balanced approach, represented by the words"““efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial””." I am using the term ““environmentally”” in a much broader sense, because we must not forget that those pioneers who developed our planning laws and the regime that supports them saw environmental matters rather differently. Times change, but in my view ““environmental”” does not mean only matters to do with the climate. It must continue to mean matters of planning and development. In that context, I mean visual appearance, sound nuisance and intrusion into domestic and community life. Those subjects will arise again later, but in the wording of amendment No. 12 I was trying to set the scene for a much more balanced approach than has so far been suggested. One of the difficulties that we have had throughout proceedings on the Bill is that—for the best of reasons—we have not really heard yet from its promoter, from the Minister or from its enthusiastic supporters how they see the crucial balance between the benefits that they claim for microgeneration and the planning difficulties that could arise. It will be important to be clear about that balance before we proceed much further. On the issue of cost-effectiveness, we must be clear about the likely cost implications of such installations and on whom the costs will fall. Will it be the domestic or business premise owner, the generators or distributors of power or the taxpayer through the Government? That is not sufficiently clear from the Bill, although I would welcome clarification. I do not want the Bill—or, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend, any other Bill—to float through the parliamentary process without our having an opportunity to hear about all its different aspects and to take a balanced view of it. That is the value of the parliamentary process. The Committee stage allows the Committee to consider certain aspects of the Bill, but on occasions on which there is an outbreak of consensus, especially between the main political parties, it is even more important that Bills are subjected to careful scrutiny. We need to ensure that the enthusiasts have not run away with themselves. There is a long history of legislation that has received so-called all-party support and has turned out to be thoroughly bad. The best example is probably the Child Support Agency, which we still have not got right, after all these years—