---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Indeed. I was merely trying to clarify whether it was felt that the technology that I briefly described would fit into that provision. Although my right hon. Friend, who is of course a great expert, has helped the House, he is not the promoter of the Bill or the Minister—yet—but I certainly accept his explanation. The good news and the saving of all is that subsection (4) of amendment No. 52 states:"““The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2)””—" the one that lists the now preferred sources of energy—"““by addition to the sources of energy and technologies for the time being listed any other source of energy or technology for the generation of electricity or production of heat if he considers that the use of that source of energy or technology would cut emissions of greenhouse gases””." Presumably, the argument is that the Secretary of State is to be allowed to broaden the original list in the 2004 Act, or to make it more flexible, by order. It always causes some nervousness when we see the Secretary of State doing something by order, because I do not know what reassurance we can get that we would have an opportunity to scrutinise such a decision by a future Secretary of State in an area as vital as this. A Secretary of State might suddenly pop up and say, ““I have been persuaded by experts that this new source of energy fits within the aspirations that were set out in the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, and therefore I am going to add something to the list, under powers given to me by what is at present amendment No. 52(4), which had found its way into the Bill, which had become an Act. I am not entirely happy that we should be giving such powers to a Secretary of State without some sort of saving provision or parliamentary process, and yet that is the aspiration of the Minister.