---

Energy Bill

I thank the Minister for his reply and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. This is a key issue. Perhaps I could respond to a few of the comments. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I say that this amendment tries to do exactly the opposite to what eco-towns are trying to do; it is trying not to apply perfection to a limited number of instances dotted around the country, but to mainstream and roll out these standards within existing and living communities. I see it as the antidote to the eco-town syndrome. That is one of the main reasons for putting it this way. As regards costs, I do not in any way minimise the issue. In Committee, it is probably in order to have an ““ambitious”” amendment. Through the debate that we have had, one can reconsider how the amendment might be written for a further stage. I point out that, following on from other work, on page 286 of the government White Paper is what is known as the marginal abatement cost curve. It gives all the different technologies and how they are able to help as regards energy, particularly in carbon reduction. A number of them are negative costs: they have positive benefits rather than being costs themselves. Three of those—the largest in terms of savings—happen to be standard insulation, domestic heating measures and solid wall insulation. All those are known as negative costs. It cannot be beyond the wit of the financial community to find ways in which we can financially engineer those to make sense as regards today's capital costs, whether that be through green mortgages, council tax, property tax, benefits or what I want to see in the longer term, which are revenues from carbon auctions. I agree that the costing is an issue, but there are ways around that and the benefits and the paybacks are good. That graph was probably created when oil prices or energy prices were half what they are today. I understand the Minister’s issues around existing and future legislation, but there is no better way of putting your actions where your mouth is than to put them in the Bill. I understand the issue about condensation. In my area of the far south-west we have issues such as radon gas. We have to ensure that properties are well ventilated for all sorts of reasons. Again, the technology allows ventilation as well as thermal efficiency. Through building regulations and technology, I think that can be done. I thank the Minister for his long and quality reply. This is a major area that has to be tackled far more seriously and in a far more focused way by the Government to meet their own targets. I will consider whether a less ambitious amendment might be more suitable for Report but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 80 [Energy reports]: [Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]