---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

That would certainly be an approach, but in the light of the local authority provisions in new clause 4 it is probably better in policy terms to target a regional area within which there are identifiable local authorities, to which we have now devolved some of the responsibilities for microgeneration, than simply to differentiate between rural and urban areas. That, hopefully, will provide a continuum from the setting of the target on a regional basis, through the—now—responsible local authorities, to the most local level—the parish or community level. My hon. Friend and I tried to prevent that arrangement, but sadly the Bill now provides for it. If that approach were adopted, data would have to be compiled, targets would have to be set, and the resultant data would have to be monitored and interpreted. It would also make more sense for interpretation to take place regionally, because of the variations that I have mentioned. Let me return to the issue of piloting. A regional approach would make it possible to select one or more regions—perhaps very different regions—to establish the way in which targets should be set. It would then be possible over a period—not more than five or 10 years—to establish how much sense the targets made, and, by means of decisions made by Government, by local authorities and at other levels, to establish how they could best be used to promote the Bill’s objectives. Targets are only of any value and validity if they make sense, and lead to policy decisions that allow the promotion of policy objectives. I do not think that operating at national level makes much sense in this context, because of the variations to which I have referred. We need a more focused approach based on one or two regions. There might be enormous variations between the regions. One might be a dense urban area—the west midlands spring to mind, if not London, which always seems to be cited as an example—while the other might be much more rural. In the south-west of England, for instance, the climate is different, the wind patterns are different and the days of sunlight are different. Such an approach would enable us to establish much more meaningfully the possible effects of solar panels and windmills as a viable source of alternative energy in, for example, a dense urban area. I remain to be convinced on that point. What happens will of course depend on decisions that we make on later parts of the Bill, which involve the interesting and complex issue of the planning regime that we intend to introduce, as against what are perceived to be environmental or energy-related imperatives. There is a potential for conflict that we may not be close to resolving.