Energy Efficiency and Microgeneration Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister on two counts. First, I realise that she and her officials have gone beyond trying to meet some of concerns set out in the Bill. We are fellow travellers, as is everybody who has spoken, in trying to save carbon. I understand that the devil is in the detail of some of the clauses and that they will need to be looked at. I was quite shocked on talking to the HIP people to learn that if we had gone forward with Clauses 1 and 2, either 18 million or 180 million—I do not recall the figure—pieces of paper would have had to have been printed to meet the requirements, so I quite understand that the Minister might not think that that is such a good idea. However, I believe that Clauses 1 and 2—we have figures on this—would have saved millions of tonnes of carbon in the next decade, which should not be underestimated. I thank the Minister on a second count. It is traditional for all questions in a Private Member’s Bill to be directed at the originator of the Bill, so I thank her for answering some of the detailed questions on which I would have been completely lost. I could not even have said that I would get my officials to write to noble Lords, because my researcher, who has done such valiant work on this Bill, is leaving at the end of the week. The debate has given me a great deal to think about, especially the notion of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on who gets payback on a kitchen. There is never any payback on a kitchen, although there would certainly have been payback if I had not agreed to mine. I shall look at certain aspects of our debate. Perhaps we can discuss in Committee a much slimmed-down and more logical Bill. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.