---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Of course, but the worry is that Government amendment No. 49 seeks to leave out subsections (3) and (4), although we will not know the reasons why until the Minister gets to his feet. I think that what is proposed is a worrying development that exemplifies a degree of over-enthusiasm by people who are keen on the Bill. Courtesy of a Government new clause that we debated last Friday, we have already amended the Bill to bring local authorities generally into the process. Although some of us were not desperately happy with that, we envisaged that county and perhaps district councils could have a role to play; mysteriously, the Greater London assembly did not appear anywhere, and we are still wondering about that lacuna. Reaching out to parish councils as the clause seeks to do is a step too far. I am not sure what added value parish councils, excellent though they are, could bring to the complexities of the subject that we have dealt with today and last Friday. I want to elicit more information about how a parish council can come anywhere near to doing the sort of things that are spelled out in clause 17, which refers to the encouragement and promotion of microgeneration of items such as efficiency in fuel use and reduction in energy use, as well as"““production in their area . . . of biomass, or . . . any fuel derived from biomass””." I must admit that that is not quite what I thought parish councils were supposed to be all about. I would be very surprised if they were prepared to give priority to the activities set out in clause 17 over and above what we would normally expect them to do. Matters become even more mysterious when we look at the amendments standing in the Minister’s name. I struggled to understand his desire to insert the words"““whether offered or provided by public authorities or by any other persons””." That is an intriguing phrase. I do not know what he envisages in referring to ““any other persons””, but perhaps he will tell us in due course. Furthermore, Government amendment No. 48 states:"““Assistance provided under subsection (1) may, if the council giving the assistance think appropriate . . . be made subject to conditions, or . . . otherwise be provided on such terms as the council think appropriate.””" Again, I am not sure what is envisaged, as the amendment could mean a lot or not very much at all. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain just what his amendments would mean on the ground, day to day, to a typical parish council, with the limited resources that parish councils necessarily have. The most intriguing of the Minister’s amendments is the one that I mentioned in reply to the intervention made by the hon. Gentleman—Government amendment No. 49, which seeks to remove the one reassurance that features in the whole clause. What are we to think of that? Subsection (3) states:"““Nothing in this section authorises a parish council or community council to provide any financial assistance by—""(a) making a grant or loan,""(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or""(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.””" Initially, I thought, ““Thank goodness for all that; it seems to make sense,”” as did the further provision in subsection (4), but now the Minister seeks to remove all that provision. The implications are intriguing. I assume that he is now content with the thought that a parish council could set out to make grants or loans, give guarantees or indemnities or invest by acquiring share or loan capital. That moves us into really bizarre territory.