---

Mr. Forth: I was of course disappointed, although not surprised, by the Minister's reaction, which illustrates the problem that we have with our procedure to which the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), referred a short while ago. It is rather assumed that amendments made in Committee in a friendly way when people all agree with each other are okay, but that if people have the gall to table amendments on Report, it is somehow outrageous or unacceptable. That is a rather sad comment on the parliamentary process.

The Minister said two interesting things, one of which was encouraging and another that was rather intriguing. He might regret giving the usual consultation undertaking. He said that the Government will consult before they set the targets, but there would be a problem
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1119
 
if the responses received from those who were lucky enough to be consulted were somewhat at odds with the Government's intentions. It is not unknown for political parties to undertake consultation. If the answer to the consultation is not what was expected, the party can try to go off in a different direction, although that would be very rash. I remain to be convinced that the consultation exercise will be in any way meaningful, and it remains to be seen with whom there will be consultation.

I was intrigued that the Minister said—I tried to write it down, but I am sure that he will correct me if I have got it wrong—that we should not worry about the regional point because the regions will be able to set their targets within any national targets. That does not make sense. How could we ensure that the regional targets that were set would sum to a national target? If there was a difference, how would we explain and deal with it? The proposal would be a rather odd way of going about things. After the Government have undertaken their consultation process with people as yet unidentified, presumably they will come forward with simply a national target for microgeneration.

I suppose that we would be considering the government regions—what else could they be—to which the Government seem still to cling. I am happy to say that we still oppose the regional bodies—that is one of the things that we have not yet changed. Each region would set its own target, but what would happen if the sum of the regional targets fell far short of the Government's national target, or, even more surprisingly, exceeded it? How would the regional targets fit into the subsequent monitoring of the national target? If there was a shortfall, or—surprise, surprise—the national target was exceeded, what would be the policy outcome for the regions in which the targets had been set?

We all look forward with great anticipation to finding out how the mechanism will work. I assume that the Minister was reading from a brief when he made his intriguing comment. If not, when he goes to his officials and says triumphantly, "Now look, I want you to set about erecting the procedures and mechanisms whereby this will happen," they will all have a merry time doing it. I await the outcome with some interest.

Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the Government introducing the regional breakdown of a national target in their regional planning guidance?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I am sure that the Minister is as well. Our old friend guidance is something that any Minister can reach for with a sigh of relief and in a relatively unconstrained way. Guidance does not require any parliamentary process. Unlike primary or delegated legislation, it can be issued at the whim and fiat of the Minister. It is then increasingly held to have the force of law.

My hon. Friend is correct that it is entirely possible that guidance could be issued to the regions on how they might go about setting the targets that the Minister said they will be allowed or, indeed, encouraged to do. However, that still does not get around the problem of the regions' targets not summing up to the national target that the Government set. Guidance would not solve that unless there is an iterative process between the
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1120
 
Government at a national level and the regions as to how, on the one hand, they allow the regions to set their own targets and, on the other, they square it with the national targets. We do not know whether that is the case, however, because we have not heard from the Minister. Sadly, these debates are not structured in that way. We will not hear from him unless he wants to intervene, and there is no sign that he does because he has not thought about any of this.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend, with his extensive ministerial experience, finds that convincing, but it is the only explanation that I can offer to get around the problem that the Minister has set for himself and his officials. I am not sure whether it would work.

Mr. Chope: I am becoming persuaded of my right hon. Friend's opinion on the matter. If the regions do a bottom-up exercise, the totality of what they consider to be their targets could become the national target. I think that is the point that he had in mind when referring to regional targets.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was indeed my approach, but the Minister has reversed all that. I am trying to study the Minister's body language, but he is remaining sphinx-like. He is probably regretting what he said and wondering desperately how it is all to be done. The truth is that we are completely in the dark. I laid all my cards on the table in my usual open, helpful and co-operative way, seeking to add to the lustre of the Bill, but, rather disappointingly, that has been rejected by, well, virtually everybody. However, in rejecting my helpful and co-operative suggestions, the Minister came up with his policy, which he did either on the hoof or because it was offered to him by his officials as something that would sound reasonably emollient and fit in with the spirit of the Bill. My suspicion now, however, is that he has given himself a real difficulty.

When we conclude this part of the Bill in just two minutes' time, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) will tell us when he is going to bring it back to the House. That will give us all time to reconsider the problem and, if it is in order, to table further amendments. The Minister might table an amendment which tells us how he proposes to honour his undertaking.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and I are suspicious of the regional agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been more logical for the Minister to say that the national targets will be broken down at local government level, especially if the Bill refers to lots of individual local authorities?

Mr. Forth: There may be an anomaly there as well, but we do not know whether that is the case. We are now caught in a trap between the certainty of the national target, which is in the Bill—the Minister said that he wants to keep it, so that is pretty much that—his hint about the possible involvement of the regions, about which we know no more, and the impact of new clause 4, which gives an unequivocal position in the mechanism for local authorities at all sorts of different levels. I hope that the Bill's promoter is as worried about that as he
 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1121
 
should be, although he does not look worried; he looks happy, because we have made splendid progress on his Bill.

Mr. Chope: How does my right hon. Friend think that the possible inclusion of the Greater London authority fits in?

Mr. Forth: Frankly, that is for the Minister to say. He should come back to the House, perhaps when we next consider the Bill, with an amendment that sets out how he will honour his new commitment—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 17 March.

 
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1122
 

Remaining Private Members' Bills

FIREWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.

HARBOURS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.

ENERGY BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read a Second time on Friday 12 May.

BREAST CANCER BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

---