---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

I can hardly bear to contemplate that thought. If the Prime Minister is simply hanging on to office in order to exceed the magnificent achievements of Baroness Thatcher, it would be very sad indeed. We will pass on from that thought. Clause 3(7) would, sensibly if ominously allow the Secretary of State to"““review the target””—" or, in the case of my amendment, the targets—"““and, if he considers it appropriate to do so, revise the target.””" Of course it does, but it brings into question the whole benefit, if any, of the target-based approach. I gave the Bill the benefit of the doubt, because I could have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3 completely and I was tempted to do so. Instead, I decided to be, as ever, positive and helpful in my approach and to seek to make the clause more workable, despite my doubts about it. That led to my attempts to recast it on a regional basis. However, when one realises that the Secretary of State may revise the targets and that, indeed, he does not need to designate any at all, one begins to wonder what the Government and the promoter of the Bill have in mind. What would happen if the targets were not met? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned an important target on child poverty that has just been sadly and dramatically missed. What would be the policy response if insufficient numbers of people put little windmills on their roofs to boost the energy input to their home and, by implication, help to save the planet? Would the Government undertake to subsidise the installation of little windmills, or would they provide tax relief on them? I do not know what would happen and we have had no hint on it. Nothing that I have heard so far has explained to me what will induce people to put solar panels or little windmills on their roofs, where—I hope—they would not disturb their neighbours or destroy the visual impact of their community. If we were to have a regional approach, which was well defined and set up, properly focused and monitored, and the target were not met, we would have the opportunity on a regional basis to ask where we should go from here. Why is it that the expectation of lots of windmills in East Anglia or lots of solar panels on the Isle of Wight or in the south-west of England has not been met? Why have the ambitious and optimistic targets that we have set not been met? What do we now have to do? Do we have to give people incentives? Do we have to introduce penalties? Do we have to try to shame people? There is any number of possible approaches, but at the moment all we seem to have is wishful thinking. We have endless stories about how climate change is the greatest threat to mankind, but that is so nonsensical as to be hardly worth contemplating. I would have thought that terrorism, war, disease, lack of clean water or avian flu are much more immediate threats to mankind than a rather dubious change in the climate in 50 or 100 years’ time. That is just my view and I hope that we will have a chance to explore it in much more detail on Third Reading and if we ever reach the Climate Change Bill.