---

Energy Bill

My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the amendment because the proof will be in the outcome. I am glad to see the Minister nodding at that. Noble Lords will remember that on Third Reading I tabled an amendment to reduce the figure to 1 megawatt. I was therefore somewhat surprised to find myself being demonised, if I may put it that way, by one or two speakers in the other place who accused me of trying to sabotage the feed-in tariff scheme. One honourable gentleman quoted what I said, which I am surprised to find is in order in that House. Under our rules, I am not at liberty to quote what he said. But I can say that I made my intention very clear when moving the amendment when I said: "““I am seeking by the amendment to give the Minister the opportunity to explain to the House what lies behind the Government’s thinking for the 3 megawatt cap””.—[Official Report, 5/11/08; col. 239.]" That is still my position and I hope that those at the other end who bother to read the Official Report of this place will recognise that demonising me was perhaps not wholly appropriate. However, I still have a question, which is the same question that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked at Third Reading. How do the Government intend to use their power to fix different caps for different circumstances? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, got a rather dusty answer when he asked that question, but I cannot help feeling that now that the Government are raising the maximum cap to 5 megawatts they must now have some idea of the circumstances in which a lower cap would be appropriate. The House will remember that I quoted observations from the very small company that was pressing for a very low cap because it felt that if it were too high it would lose out. It does very small renewable energy projects, at the domestic level and just above it. There must be some way in which the Government are going to differentiate and use their powers to fix different caps for different circumstances in the feed-in tariff. I do not wish to go on at length because there is an important debate to come and other noble Lords may wish to say a word. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to enlighten the House about how that is going to be done.