Energy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have been seriously impressed by the debate. I actually enjoyed the history. I disagree slightly with the Minister: the 1950s are relevant because we are going to have to spend some £60 billion, or whatever it is, refurbishing the whole of the housing stock from that time, but otherwise I take his point. The historical perspective on this subject is a lesson for the future, which is exactly why I have tabled my amendment. A significant amount of the Bill is not about the Green Deal but about other things. The Green Deal, as I said in my opening remarks, is the most important, radical and needed aspect of the Bill and I congratulate the Government on it. There has been questioning, uncertainty and rumour-mongering among the industry about the 2016 date being perhaps optional, and that it might not be enforced. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that if these sorts of deadlines are ever moved away from, it is those who have taken the lead from the Government and invested in the future who will suffer most from that change. I thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I, too, believe that this is all about scale and moving forward. There are challenges. The price of houses is clearly important—I would not say that it is not—but every technology has shown that moving up in scale in production and volume means that prices reduce. I was trained as an economist and that was one of the first lessons we were taught. I welcome the Minister’s reaffirmation that that date is going to stick. I should still like to see the amendment in the Bill, but the most important thing is that the Government have again taken on the commitment made by the previous Government. That is important. The fact that my noble friend the Minister has restated that today is excellent. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 29 withdrawn.