---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. What worries me about the approach that has hitherto been taken to the Bill is that it neither serves the Bill nor the cause it espouses well for the Minister and the promoter of the Bill not to give the House the benefit of proper explanations of what they are trying to do. They may think that by remaining silent they will somehow accelerate the Bill’s progress and rush it through the procedure, because delay is unacceptable—a bizarre interpretation of the legislative process, to say the least—but in fact they are simply forcing us to try to elicit information through the tabling of amendments and the initiation of debate. They are missing the point that if they had given the House a proper explanation in the first place, it might have made our proceedings much quicker. Perhaps that lesson will be learned by Members, but so far I fear that the penny has not dropped. I was interested to read a little item in a newspaper recently, headed ““The £3,000 mini power station””, which relates exactly to what we are talking about. I shall read from it, Madam Deputy Speaker; it will not take long:"““The traditional household boiler could soon be a thing of the past. Ceres Power, the Aim-listed group, has successfully designed and tested a 1kW fuel cell stack that generates sufficient power for the average home.""Fuel cell technology is typically powered by hydrogen but the fuel cell stack developed by Ceres can also produce electricity and heat from natural gas. The boiler, which fits comfortably into the palm of a hand, uses ‘combined heat and power’ technology. Unlike a conventional boiler that only produces heat, in Ceres’s version a chemical reaction generates both heat and electricity. Any excess electricity can be sold to the national grid.””" That is exactly what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) wants to do through the Bill. The article notes that the technology could"““cost the same as a conventional premium boiler””." The company claims—they would, would they not?—that its technology"““could save between 30 and 40 per cent. of total electricity costs in the home””" and"““significantly cut down the emission of greenhouse gases””." When I read that, I wondered whether the chemical reaction in any way violates the principle that is being set out in the amendments, in the move—as I see it—entirely towards what we would broadly call renewables. I concede that it is heat and power technology, but will it, in all the different forms it could take, fit comfortably in the amendments?