---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

In that case, I unreservedly apologise to the Minister. I misconstrued my hon. Friend. I unreservedly withdraw any accusation I have made about the Minister. We can be optimistic that the 12 months mentioned in clause 15 will be met by the Minister, or, if he has been promoted by then, his successor. There will be an appraisal of the contribution that this exciting new technology may be able to make to the whole area of microgeneration and its relationship—real or imagined—to climate change. I thought that my amendments might stiffen the measure a bit. Subsection (3) states:"““In forming the view mentioned . . . the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to any matters which would prohibit or inhibit the use . . . of dynamic demand technology in any circumstance in which its use could be expected to make a contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain.””" Through amendment No. 72, I want to add"““and to the costs of installation of the equipment required, together with the likely resultant pay-back period””." Throughout our considerations, we have rather glossed over, first, the possible costs of installing the various technologies to which we have referred and, secondly, who would be expected to bear them. This may be our opportunity to clarify the assumption—at least in my mind—that it will be the user, the consumer, who will install the equipment that is referred to in the clause and throughout the Bill. If it is not to be the consumer—I think that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is about to help me on this question—who will bear the costs and what are the implications of that? Will the hon. Gentleman help us or will he leave me to speculate for a little while longer?