---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Oh good, the hon. Gentleman will let me speculate for a while. In that case, I will. We have the possibility that the consumer will pay for all the equipment. The only other two possibilities that I can imagine—my imagination is limited, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall try my best—are the suppliers or distributors of electricity, or our old favourite the Government, which usually means the taxpayer. It has to be one of those. First, I want to identify what the costs will be. None of these measures will be cost-free; in fact, few environmental and climate control measures are cost-free—something that we can explore in much more depth on Third Reading. There will be a cost; it could be social—there could be all sorts of costs—but there is bound to be a cost for new technology and it is important that we identify it. That is why my amendment would make that a part of the process set out in clause 15, whereby the Secretary of State will on our behalf examine the new technology and report back on it. An important part of that examination would be an identification of the costs, because the technology sounds pretty expensive to me. We have several resident experts—the promoter of the Bill, his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, the Minister and, on a good day, my Front-Bench colleagues—so an embarrassment of expertise surrounds me. I hope that at some point one of them will try to identify the possible costs—[Interruption.] Ah, I have had a nod and a wink from the promoter that his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test will be the expert on this occasion. I very much look forward to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because my modest amendment—I freely confess that it is modest—is intended to do something important: to bring an air of reality to the measure. Bills such as this tend to express good hopes, good wishes, motherhood, aspirations, 50-year perspectives, saving the planet and global everything, but at some stage we have to get down to the realities on the ground, in the home and in the back garden. Who will buy the equipment? Who will install it? Who will pay for its maintenance? Who will ensure that in cases such as we have been discussing matters are recorded accurately? All those things are, or should be, relevant to any consideration of taking forward such technology. It does not come free, in money terms or many other terms, including environmental and social terms. So what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I are trying to do throughout today’s proceedings is to show that we should bring greater honesty and clarity to the process involved in the Bill, and that it is not good enough to brush these things aside and say, ““Don’t worry, folks; it will all be very good indeed and we are doing our bit to save the planet, so let’s get on with it.”” I believe that we should always have an eye to what is practicable, what is achievable and what is in this case acceptable in terms of costs. This really is a modest but important series of amendments, to try to bring that perspective to this exciting-sounding technology, which—who knows?—may, if it works, and if the Secretary of State tells us in 12 months that he thinks it can work, make this idea of microgeneration even more effective. That surely would be something that everyone here would want to happen.