---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Necessarily, this is all rather speculative. We have not had a chance, although we may get one on the next group of amendments or the one after that, or perhaps on Third Reading, to explore the intriguing idea of surplus energy generated for domestic requirements being sold back to the grid. If that could be made to work properly, if we could get the pricing relationships right and so on, there could be a temptation for people to put in much more capacity than they needed for their own family and domestic purposes to make some money. I am all in favour of making money. I am still a capitalist. I know that that is out of fashion in this modern age, but I still believe passionately in profit, capitalism and even tax cutting. I am not criticising any possibility the Bill might give to the capitalist instinct in all of us, but the worry is that that incentive might induce people to install more potentially intrusive equipment and capacity than they might otherwise do. We have not considered that aspect and none of us is certain what the effect might be. That should give us some pause for thought. I move on to my amendment No. 70. Here again, there is the conflict that has arisen a couple of times and always will when we are considering such Bills. The Minister tends to say, ““Don’t worry. Of course we’ll consult all the right people. Of course we’ll pay due regard to their views.”” To avoid all doubt and misgiving, it would be better to have in the Bill an obligation on the Secretary of State, in the context of the mechanisms in the clause and the aim of this part of the Bill, to consult any"““body or bodies as appear to him to be representative of local authorities””." Local authorities play a key part in the Bill since in our sitting last Friday we agreed to insert the Minister’s new clause bringing them very much into play. Having brought local authorities in, it would be a good idea if they were consulted on the important provisions in clause 9. The list that I propose is not intended to be limiting or exclusive. I put into the list the bodies that I thought were relevant to the sort of considerations that I hoped would be in play in the review and the process of looking at the relationship between microgeneration and planning. Obviously, the Royal Institute of British Architects sprang to mind as a group of people to whom it would be very useful to speak, to find out how they saw the relationship between the built environment, as I think we are now supposed to call it, and all this exciting new technology. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was gently pulling my leg, for which I forgive him completely, when he spoke about windmills on roofs in Bromley. I can tell him that the roofs of Bromley are sturdy indeed. Whether my constituents want turbines on their roofs is a matter for them. Of course, there is also a serious point about the relationship between whatever form of microgeneration we happen to be talking about—it may be photovoltaics, solar panels, which do not have to be on roofs, as they can be mounted away from a building, wind turbines or some of the more exotic technologies—and building design and construction, on which they all have a bearing. That is why I thought it would be proper and indeed essential for architects to be brought into the matter.