---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

I certainly would not want to rehearse any arguments again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that, having listened to our debate, the Minister will explain the difference between the provisions of what he described as technical amendments and the much higher limits in clause 16. I hope that he will engage in constructive debate on the importance of not alarming the citizens of this country with the prospect of much larger generating units being sited in back gardens or elsewhere. This has been a useful debate. I am glad that last week the Minister accepted that there was a defect in the Bill, which led to the introduction of Government amendment No. 80.When the Minister responds, I hope he will address my concern that the definition of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of dynamic demand technologies in clause 15, which is the subject of amendment No. 80, is consequential on Government amendment No. 50, which we debated last week. That introduced a definition of greenhouse gas in clause 23 covering any of the six gases specified in the Kyoto protocol. Surely technology that increases one greenhouse gas but reduces another is not necessarily good technology. Do we not want the impact of technology on each greenhouse gas to be measured? My fear—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that amendment No. 80 would allow the Government to look at the overall impact on all six gases, rather than measuring the impact on each of the greenhouse gases separately. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not propose to engage again in the debate about whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas.