moved Amendment No. 158:

I shall speak to Amendment No. 183B. We debated the role of the climate change committee at some length earlier today. We on these Benches do not believe that the expertise lies there for dealing with matters of adaptation. The climate change committee has an extremely important role, and it should concentrate on it. We have spent some considerable time describing what it should do and how it should work.

Although it does not need to be of the same stature and importance per se as the climate change committee, an independent scrutiny committee for adaptation is needed. In terms of climate change and climate change policy, there is a natural divide between adaptation and policy concerning stopping carbon and other greenhouse gases that cause climate change. A climate change committee can do one thing, but an independent scrutiny committee can do the other. We believe very strongly that there needs to be a mirror committee of statute concerned with adaptation. It would let the climate change committee get on with its area and this committee could look at adaptation.

In this amendment, we have listed the areas that this committee should look at. We also would want to add it—I have not included them at this stage—ecology and biodiversity in relation to adaptation, which are key areas in addition to those I have listed in the amendment. Adaptation is a key, but small, part of this Bill, yet we know that if the world was perfect we would not need adaptation. Through flooding, rising sea levels and the other indicators of climate change that we see nationally and globally, we already know that we need to have a very active adaptation programme and strategy. It is right that it is part of this Bill—the Government have put it in—but we need it to be stronger and to take up a much greater role in this legislation. As part of that, we want in a way to copy the Government’s ideas for an independent committee, but to have this for adaptation as well. This is key to the combating—perhaps not the mitigation—and the tackling of the problems that we have already stored up for ourselves over the past 50 years of industrialisation.

I support Amendment No. 183B, which is tabled also in my name. The previous two contributors have almost made apology for adaptation, but it is not only as important as the task of reducing greenhouse gases and climate change; it will become increasingly important. We already know that the carbon out there will increase the amount of floods, heatwaves and droughts. Indeed, we are seeing floods again this week. This will become an increasingly important set of impacts with great public salience and relevance. They will be the immediately visible elements of climate change for the public.

Adaptation will be important, not only to avoid some of the major economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change, but also to avoid the political impacts of an increasingly impacted upon and concerned public. It is important that the Bill is strengthened in terms of the adaptation agenda. One way to do that would be to provide for independent scrutiny of the Government’s risk analysis and the adaptation programme in a similar way to the independent scrutiny to be exerted by the climate change committee over the targets issue.

Specific skills will be needed for that; namely, skills in risk analysis, technical skills in water supply, flood risk management, public health, contingency planning, economics, asset management and infrastructure, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, ecology and biodiversity. Not only would these skills be necessary to do an appraisal of the risk assessment and the programmes, they also would enable the Government to gain from an appraisal of the adaptation agenda a background, a context, for successive carbon budgets. That would be a useful analysis to feed into the work of the Committee on Climate Change. Clearly if the impacts of climate change were getting worse, we would need to be a lot more stringent about how fast we were approaching the budgets and targets.

The amendments that you have before you are threefold and to some extent they encapsulate the range of options open if there was to be a process of independent scrutiny. Amendment No. 158 talks about giving that role to the Committee on Climate Change. We have already talked about the fact that that would extend the role of the committee and diffuse it from its key focus, which needs to be targets in greenhouse gas reduction. It would mean another set of skills and the committee would probably have to be bigger, which would not be a good idea.

Amendment No. 175 gives a role to the Environmental Audit Committee but really what is required is independent scrutiny on the basis of scientific expertise. The Environmental Audit Committee would be parliamentary scrutiny but would not be in the position of having specialist expertise. We would need to bring that in. Again, that does not quite do the trick.

The proposal in Amendment No. 183B for an adaptation committee would bring in that specific expertise and would allow for an independent assessment of the Government’s risk assessment on the adaptation plan and progress against it on an expert basis, not on a political basis. If that was seen as more bureaucracy, more committees and more cost, it could be done on a periodic basis rather than having a Standing Committee. That would reduce all of those concerns but it would be a bit cheeseparing, to be honest, in the face of the real economic and social impacts that climate change is going to produce in terms of our requirement to adapt. The figures for flood risk management and flood damage alone are astronomically large. Quibbling about the cost of a small expert committee is too much. An adaptation committee, given a very tight focus on technical assessment of the adaptation agenda, would provide a real focus that could feed into the considerations of the Committee on Climate Change. It would give a reassurance to the public and above all would probably give defence to the Government of the day when climate change impacts start to really produce major public concern about the floods, droughts, heat waves and desertification that we are inevitably going to see as climate change bites.

Not for the first time the structure of the Bill has got us into a bit of a tangle: an amendment has been moved in connection with Clause 28 to give a new role to the Committee on Climate Change when we are really looking at the provisions of Clause 49, which we are going to debate a good deal later. I agree that we are going to need a committee to report on this matter. As has already been indicated, there is a difficulty about my noble friend’s amendment in the sense that he or the committee are looking at future policies—the effectiveness of policies to reduce future carbon emissions and progress in that direction. When we come to adaptation, we are not dealing so much with those future policies. We are dealing with the consequences of what has already happened over the past couple of hundred years. We are now facing the need to respond to what exists at present. There will come a moment when the two things interlock as we move into the future but for the foreseeable future, we have to adapt to the consequences of past actions. There is a legitimate question of whether, by giving it this task, it should really be for the climate change committee to look at future policies in addition to its existing heavy burdens.

On the other hand, I am not sure that Amendment No. 183B goes far enough. If we are to have an independent scrutiny committee, it certainly will have to do what is suggested in that amendment, but it does not actually suggest that it should report on how things are going and the achievements so far. The new clause provides that the committee should consider the adequacy of assessments and of any programmes, but does not seek the progress report that my noble friend seeks in his amendment and what I think we should require.

Curiously, Clause 49 provides the Secretary of State with a reporting function, but with no indication of how frequently that should happen and whether there would be regular updates. The clause states:

“It is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament from time to time a programme”.

It then provides for the proposals and policies employed to meet the objectives that have been set. Later the clause provides that:

“The second and each subsequent programme under this section must contain an assessment of the progress made towards implementing the objectives, proposals and policies set out in earlier programmes”.

But it does not say how frequently new programmes and policies should be developed. We could go for many years before the Secretary of State brings forward a set of new policies and proposals or any report at all on how well these matters are being dealt with.

My conclusion from all this is that we have to have a regular system of reporting. It is highly desirable, and when we come to the later clause, I shall support amendments that address the need for thorough policies; we will debate them later. I do not think that either of the amendments before us fully meets the need for regular progress reports. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say and I hope he will agree that there is a need for such reports. It may be that on Report we shall have to come back with something like Amendment No. 183B to the relevant part of the Bill and make sure that regular reports are produced and are not dependent on how frequently the Secretary of State comes forward with fresh proposals. Indeed, if the noble Lord who moved the amendment were to come forward later with a suitably adjusted proposal, I certainly would support it.

I support the principle behind this amendment. It is particularly useful to see the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his place, because I have two points that I wish to make. The first is that the only deficiency in the Joint Committee’s report was the passage on adaptation. That had absolutely everything to do with time pressure. We were up against almost insane time constraints to get the report out, and we did not do that part justice. Indeed, all that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is accurate.

Secondly, the only Member of the Committee who, so far as I am aware, has any real experience of the issue of adaptation is the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. When he was Secretary of State for Health, he moved with great speed and effectiveness on the issue of AIDS. The situation was similar in that it arose as a consequence of actions that had in some cases taken place years before; there was an awareness of the dangers, and the need to move swiftly. Adaptation will be expensive and complicated, and will involve people and expertise quite unlike those of the climate change committee itself. It is going to be a very important part of the Bill and I can only hope that we learn from the experiences of the past. We must take on board many of the actions taken so promptly and brilliantly by the Government of the day; frankly, that put Britain in a better place in the fight against AIDS than any other country in the world. If we can achieve the same with climate change, we could be very proud of ourselves.

Amendment No. 183B brings us to Part 4 of the Bill. We are discussing adaptation slightly out of context; we are still on the Committee on Climate Change. I accept that these three clauses may need amendment, but what needs to be discussed at this stage is whether the work of advising the Secretary of State on how he can fulfil his responsibilities in Part 4 can adequately be fulfilled by the Committee on Climate Change or one of its sub-committees, or whether it would be better to have a separate advisory body with different expertise. We have already heard from all around the Committee that the case for having a separate conduit is strong. The timescale is different, the expertise is different and the immediacy is different—although one could argue about that, perhaps.

I am quite clear that it would be helpful to have expertise that was specifically encouraged to advise the Secretary of State—in the widest sense, meaning the whole Government. Just about every department and, indeed, the rest of the economy, will have to address the sort of issues that the committee envisaged in Amendment No. 183B will be advising on. Although I accept that any amendment that imposes yet further committees has an onus to justify its position, in this case I would go along with the proposal.

I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I want to raise, from Amendment No. 183B, the important issue of embedded carbon. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned that this needs to be strengthened; it probably does. We should not forget that this is about not only future carbon emissions but trying to protect the infrastructure, as set out in this amendment. It is important to realise that an immense amount of carbon is already embedded in the infrastructure, in roads, power stations and water treatment plants. What if they are destroyed by flood? The housing stock is built to retain heat, rather than to be cool, which will be a major issue in the future. We have already talked about the enormous amount of carbon that has been put into the atmosphere over the past 200 years. We have to start thinking about preserving infrastructure, because replacing infrastructure is incredibly carbon-expensive. It is an issue that we will move back on to, but I very much hope that the Minister will realise that the committee should look at embedded carbon costs. If we lose the infrastructure and need to replace it, we will add yet more carbon.

At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord further—not that he should be embarrassed—I support what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said about the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. At that time he persuaded the then Cabinet to put that leaflet—some 20 million of them—through every door in the country. I do not think that a Labour Cabinet would have done it at the time. His powers of persuasion over the need for change were vital. This translates across; this is also a powerful argument that works in more than one policy area.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly demanded a timetable for the reports. I draw his attention to Clause 48, because the timetable is there. It says that the first report must be laid within three years of Royal Assent, with subsequent reports at least every five years after that. I know that most of the noble Lord’s remarks were on Clause 49, but it is linked to Clause 48; both are about adaptation. The timetable is in Clause 48 because the Clause 49 report responds to the risks identified in Clause 48. In other words, something is set out in the Bill in respect of a timetable.

The comments we have heard recognise that the Government’s work on adaptation needs independent scrutiny, and we agree. We do not think that any of the amendments meet this need. However, I am more than happy to take away this issue and this package and consider them before the next stage. This comprises a separate issue in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made the point that the range of expertise required here is slightly different from that required in the rest of the Bill. This matter requires further work. We shall certainly consider independent scrutiny of the Government’s work on adaptation.

I do not think that Clause 48 entirely meets the point that was made in this debate. That clause states:

“It is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament from time to time a report containing an assessment of the risks for the United Kingdom of the current and predicted impact of climate change”.

However, what we are looking for here is a report on progress made in dealing with the matter. Therefore, we are trying to take the matter slightly further forward than Clause 48 provides for.

I accept that. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise. I realise that the Committee seeks to take the Bill further forward. The status quo is not acceptable to most Members. We are happy to look at this package comprising Amendments Nos. 158, 175 and 183B. We shall see whether we can find a satisfactory way of dealing with this. However, we baulk at an issue in Amendment No. 175. It is not appropriate for the Government to require Parliament to do things when Select Committees are their own masters. They are the House committees. Further, they may not always comprise their present form so there is a danger in including such a measure in primary legislation. We ought to be wary of that.

As regards Amendment No. 183B, setting up new independent committees on an ad hoc basis could be resource-intensive and we are not clear what such committees would do in between time. However, I am not knocking the amendment on these technical grounds. I am conscious that I forecast at Second Reading that the Government would bring forward an amendment with regard to what they intended to do about adaptation, and that we have not done so. However, we hope to do so very shortly. It is an area on which we want to move in Committee if possible so that people can see how the land lies. We shall come back to this matter on Report when we have considered it further.

I knew that we had taken our time for a purpose, which was to give the Minister a chance to prepare his response on this matter. I am pleased with the debate. We have moved the subject on. The case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for independent scrutiny seems to have been accepted by the Minister as being a possible way forward. We look forward to Report and to hearing more about the Government’s proposals on adaptation in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 158A:

I speak to Amendments Nos. 159 and 160, which are tabled in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already set out very clear reasons for his amendments. I have just one question, as this is a probing amendment. Clause 28(4) says,

“The Secretary of State may by order extend that period”.

Is there any limit to which that response can be extended, because many of us who have waited for Government responses to Select Committee reports and other such documents find that the Government’s timetable can be slightly elastic in certain cases? I say that because it will obviously have major impacts on policy if the response is to be shifted over a long period, especially if you are dealing with a five-year period. Does that eat into the next year’s budgetary period, or does it affect only the period in which the Government are responding? Does it have any effect on the budgetary provisions set out by the committee? The committee’s work will obviously be greatly affected not only by its report but by the Government’s response.

To be fair, this is an interesting amendment. When we looked at the analysis of the amendments, we thought that other issues were bubbling away about setting budgets going forward, rolling periods and the 30 June report coinciding with other 30 June reports. Looking at the timetable, the intention is clearly to give the committee flexibility about extending the time that it needs to report and thereon to give the Secretary of State more time, should the committee decide to extend the timing of its report.

In truth, there is not a deadline on the extension that the Secretary of State could put on the response. However, we view the Secretary of State’s extension as being as a result of the committee’s extension, so we would not wish there to be any suggestion—as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is suggesting—that there would be an expectation that the Secretary of State could just ponder the committee’s report indefinitely.

Given the points made by noble Lords this evening, we will think about it. It might be that I am not necessarily hearing the concerns properly. I will read the points made by noble Lords and think about the debate. I was looking at it from a completely different angle, so I do not want to detain the committee further with points that are possibly irrelevant. If I can add further or come up with any further ideas, I hope to offer noble Lords more reassurance about reporting deadlines.

I am grateful for that response from the Minister, which is very satisfactory. I hope that we can look at this again on Report and at least have a mechanism whereby the individual parties to this process of the ping-pong of reporting and responding have enough room to do the job properly and to do the issue credit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Response to Committee's reports on progress]:

[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Duty to provide advice or other assistance on request]:

moved Amendment No. 161:

The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has made a very serious point and this may be the first amendment in this whole process that the Government are wonted to accept because it is very straightforward. In the Second World War, when energy was absolutely critical, we introduced daylight saving. We did that because it was necessary and it worked. At the end of the Second World War, for reasons I am not aware of, it was discontinued. That seemed a pity. There have been various attempts, however, to reintroduce daylight saving ever since and so far they have failed.

In December I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, a supplementary oral question about the introduction of daylight saving as an energy measure and in his response he said he tended to agree with this proposal and that he thought it was a good idea. Here is an opportunity for him to move forward and agree something straightaway by accepting the amendment. It would be the first amendment in the whole of these five days which the Government had been prepared to accept forthwith. I hope, therefore, that this will work now and that we can move ahead. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has made it extremely clear that there are plenty of precedents for how you can establish this in a separate measure. It would be a simple measure, it would achieve the objectives of the Bill and it would counteract all the technical things about emissions which have been discussed. I hope that the Government will agree.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on this important amendment. She and others in the past have quoted extremely convincing and comprehensive research which illustrates how much energy could be saved by giving us just one extra hour of daylight in the summer months.

Giving us that daylight would do a huge amount to reduce the effects of climate change while increasing the safety of some of the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly the very young and very old. We know that we could also enhance the quality of their lives by doing this. It would make it safer for children to go out to play. We know that a lot of children in this country now suffer from a lack of vitamin D, which they get from sunlight, and an extra hour would make a great deal of difference to children’s health. We also know that many people are scared of going out at night, because alcohol-related and drug-related crime is much more likely to take place in the evening and at night than in the early hours of the day. If we can, in one simple measure, reduce the use of energy in the country while making our population happier and safer, that must be a measure worth pursuing with all our energy.

What is it about an issue like this that makes normally eminently sensible people lose all reason? I always thought that the purpose of growing old was to learn from one’s mistakes. Members of the Committee will remember that this has been tried before, in 1968, and the experiment was abandoned before it was concluded because it was so widely unpopular.

There are two ways of adjusting to the winter period. You have to decide whether you want to have dark mornings or light evenings and people have to adjust their working hours. Coming down to London nowadays, I am amazed at the lifestyle that most people seem to adopt. They have no idea that it is dark in the mornings because they seem to get up so late and the shops open at quite ridiculously late hours. Nothing much happens before ten o’clock and you cannot get hold of anybody. I come from a part of the world where people have to get up early because the goods they produce are demanded in the marketplace early in the day. Such an amendment is not about making evenings lighter but mornings darker. If you get up early in the morning, it is dark long enough before the day starts.

I make a serious point about people who live in the countryside: the coldest time of the day is in the early morning. The period of travelling to work coincides with the frostiest of roads. Most rural roads are not gritted; certainly people who come to work at my place must travel on ungritted roads. This is a serious problem if you are starting your work in order to meet markets and get goods in the marketplace at the right time of day. So this measure does not have my personal support, or that of the Opposition.

I want to question the noble Lord a little on this. I would agree with him about days gone by—around the 1950s—when milk churns were put out at 6 am and cows were milked at that time. I come from a deeply rural area myself where milk tankers now usually collect the milk around midday or 1 pm. This argument of getting goods to market does not really hold as much water—or milk—as it might have done 30 or 40 years ago. If we were to be denied this amendment on the basis of dairy farmers in the Midlands or Scotland, that would not be moving with the times.

I am not sure I follow the noble Baroness as I do not know where she lives. On my left we are about to hear a contribution from my noble friend Lord Caithness—he promised he would make it. I would be delighted to offer the noble Baroness one guess where he lives. It is not just “Scotland” or “the Midlands”. I will get my diary out and find out when lighting up time is in Wick, where my noble friend lives.

The arguments I have heard are that it is just lovely; it is quite all right and we can dance around. You are not old enough, but I remember the real blood and thunder. I ask the young noble Baroness and those who have spoken to pay fairly close attention to what my noble friend Lord Taylor on the Front Bench said. The hours of daylight are given, but it is hard, as the noble Baroness said, for those living north as I do. I live in Angus, which she will see from the map is quite far north. Yet my noble friend Lord Caithness lives even further north, about as far north as you can get. If we adopt so-called daylight saving, it is lovely here, it is just fine, but I invite the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, and others, to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness to Wick in winter. The days are getting a bit longer now.

Above all, we should heed the wise words of my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is I think from Lincolnshire. Even so, he has made a sound point. I hope that the noble Baronesses who supported the amendment with such eloquence might think of those of us who perhaps live in the far north of the country. There is an advantage in the summer, when the days are longer and you do not need to use the lights—though of course in Sweden and Norway we can certainly find evidence that the lights are kept on for various reasons. The noble Baronesses and those who have proposed or supported this amendment might just think that this great United Kingdom of ours stretches a long way; indeed Scotland stretches even further than where I live. I would love to have some support and to hear the views from this Viking of the north, my noble friend.

In Ulster, we do not mind getting up in the early hours, in the darkness, if it helps the greater good of our fellow countrymen in the rest of the kingdom.

Is this a reserved or devolved issue?

I rise only briefly to remark on the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for resisting the amendment—that it would be unpopular and that is has been tried before and was rejected. If that is the attitude of the Conservative Front Bench in Opposition, heaven help us if they are in government. Many measures dealing with climate change are going to be unpopular. That seems the least convincing explanation. For all the robustness he has asked of the climate change committee, he has fallen at the first hurdle.

It is not so long ago that I had some responsibility in this House for road safety and then for agriculture. In the first job, I was told that daylight saving would undoubtedly save lives, and I think that is true. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, needs to look at the road safety statistics. In the second, the farmers were by and large against it. On the other hand, I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that practices in the countryside, agricultural collections and milking times have changed.

I probably agree with the noble Lords who argue that in Scotland this is not yet so. Reflecting what my noble friend Lord Puttnam just said, it is possible if there are different impacts in different parts of the country for different Administrations within the land to take different decisions, as indeed operates in different parts of the country. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, would repeat this were he here. When I was Minister with responsibility for road safety, I actually got agreement that we should change from the Welsh and Northern Ireland regimes—admittedly the Northern Ireland regime at that point was not hugely democratic. The Scottish Ministers were adamantly opposed to it.

I think that the energy arguments now overtake the arguments on road safety and agriculture and for the greater good we should at least address the issue. No doubt my noble friend will tell us whether we need an amendment to do that. I believe that the issue needs addressing.

Perhaps I may speak again as my contribution has been widely attacked. There are specific instances in which people still have market delivery deadlines, although some do not. Perhaps I may speak of a personal interest, which I must declare. We export to continental flower markets, and to catch the ferries we have to start our days early enough for the lorries to get down to the ports to ship the goods across to the Continent. There are circumstances in which people are still linked to rather old-fashioned markets and I happen to be involved in one.

The difficulty is trying to separate the way in which human beings respond to projections of statistics. I accept that this may apply to a whole series of initiatives that are proposed under climate change proposals. We cannot truly predict how people will respond. If mornings are darker, will people get up later? What will be the savings if the working day extends well into the evenings? How will the energy savings be translated? We cannot be absolutely certain that what we are projecting on current behavioural patterns will carry on. I make no apology for expressing a resistance to this proposal because I think that I speak for the vast majority of my fellow citizens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, is very eloquent; she was very eloquent in committee and she has been charming and eloquent tonight, as is her wont. However, after what my noble friend Lord Lyell said, I thought that I should say a few words. There is no doubt that this will be gruesomely hard for everyone; climate change will have that effect. If a small number of us are to be penalised, please do not insult us by saying that everyone will benefit. I was a little surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, said that there would be a saving for every person in the UK. That is totally untrue. There will be a considerable extra cost to the economy of the north of Scotland because of the geographical situation of the British Isles, the way in which the sun moves and the curvature of the earth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said that every young person and every old person will benefit, but that is not true. That is totally false. There is no doubt that it will benefit some in the south, and if the great majority want to impose this on the north, that is democracy and that can happen, but please do not insult us by saying that we shall all benefit from it because clearly we will not. Farmers, schoolchildren, the old and those going to work will all have a much harder time because of the earth’s curvature and the geographical situation of the UK.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talks about the inconvenience for the north of Scotland. Of course he is quite right, but the point is that the percentage of the population who live in the very north of Scotland is very small compared with the percentage of the total population. Others have spoken about the greater good for the larger number of people and we have to look at the percentage of the population that will benefit from such a measure.

I said that we shall all have to take the pain and there will be an awful lot of pain in a wide variety of areas. All I am saying to the proponents is for goodness’ sake do not insult us by saying that we shall be better off.

I was hoping that this would continue a little while and that there would be no time for me. I have a speaking note to end all speaking notes but I dare not use it, and I shall not seek to make fun of my professional back-up.

There is a bit of a problem here. Personally—and unless I speak personally I am speaking for the Government—I have a good deal of sympathy with the concept. We can go back to the history and, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, we can look at the various issues, at the various interest groups—whether road safety interests, farmers or anyone else who has to do things—and at the evidence of what happened in 1968, which I remember. We can think about all that and then dismiss it. We are now in a different world. The issue is whether this will help us in respect of climate change and emissions. If it was thought advantageous in that respect then there would be an overwhelming argument in favour, but all I can bring is bad news. By the way, I should say that I am not completely convinced that there is a settled government view on this because in the past couple of years, in Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I have heard one department say from this Dispatch Box that it was in favour of it but another department say the opposite. So this can be called an interim statement.

I am sure that the experts will know this, but the Building Research Establishment undertook work for Defra in 2005, only two or three years ago. The study indicated that putting the clocks forward an additional hour in winter and summer would lead to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, corresponding to about 1 per cent of total UK emissions, as a result of increased energy consumption in UK buildings for lighting, space heating and cooling. It also showed that a switch to British Summer Time all year round would increase emissions by just under 0.5 per cent. The study was based on modelling patterns of energy use in the UK buildings stock. Even if there were conclusive evidence that a change would reduce emissions—and the evidence is that it would not—the Bill is intended as a framework to drive emissions reductions. So, we do not think that it would be appropriate to legislate on this in the Bill. It would be nicer if we could have a considered scientific paper on this and come back to it on Report, but there is not time.

I shall not rely on what happened in 1968. We are supposed to be the Government of the present and the future and 1968 is the past. That experiment was abandoned for all sorts of reasons. The situations that apply today did not apply in 1968, so it is quite legitimate to raise this issue. The Building Research Establishment’s research was probably quite narrow and not comprehensive. On the other hand, it is probably not a good idea to lumber the climate change committee with this. However, I hope that the issue keeps being resurrected and that, a bit like nuclear power, in time, it will win.

I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. It certainly livened everybody up. Noble Lords looked terribly bored before, but I have got some daylight saving into this Chamber tonight.

I am taking this particularly seriously. I take the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to task on this. This is not a light-hearted matter for many people. A few facts may clarify the situation, and if the Minister wants more evidence, I am sure that we can supply it. The difference between the time of daybreak in John o’Groats and in Land’s End is 50 minutes. There is no argument about that; that is the difference. There are regional differences, and I accept them. I realise that Scottish crofters in 1950 or 1960 perhaps had a rough deal, but I do not know that that is the case now.

I have spoken to people about this and Members in the other place from Scotland have spoken strongly about it. My intention tonight was not to broaden this amendment into a debate on road safety—I know the facts—or about children going to and from school. Fewer children would die on the roads, because it is more dangerous coming home in the dark than it is going to school in the dark. Those are RoSPA’s figures, not mine. These are important issues. When I said that everybody would benefit, I meant they would benefit from the reduction in energy used in the whole country. This is a green issue. It is an important issue, not one that we should dismiss so casually and with such disrespect.

I very much hope that we return to this debate and I hope that others will join in. I suspect that, in the fullness of time, we may well look back to a time when some of the proposals coming out of the climate change committee were more in tune with my proposals than with the opposition’s. I thank everybody for their contribution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [General ancillary powers]:

moved Amendment No. 161A:

I hope that my contribution will not be too boring in comparison to the lively and enjoyable debate that we have just had. It was very hard to sit on my hands during that discussion. I hope that I can offer the noble Earl enough reassurance to allow him to withdraw his amendment.

In order to fulfil its functions under the Bill, the Committee on Climate Change may need to undertake other activities such as commissioning research or entering into contracts. Clause 31, to which these amendments relate, gives the committee the power to do anything that appears to it necessary or appropriate for the purpose of, or in connection with, carrying out its functions. These are standard provisions for a non-departmental public body that allow it to operate effectively and independently of government. Subsection (2) merely sets out examples to illustrate the scope of the power, and the additions these amendments propose are unnecessary.

Amendment No. 161A would make explicit that the committee may acquire, hold and dispose of land or any interest in land, but this provision is covered by the current drafting of Clause 31(2)(b), to which the noble Earl referred. This provision illustrates the fact that the committee may acquire, hold and dispose of property. As the noble Earl suggested, “property” covers land and interests in land—referred to in law as real property—as well as other personal property. The amendment is therefore superfluous. I hope that those comments have helped to reassure the noble Earl.

Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 are also an unnecessary addition to the list of specific examples of the use of ancillary powers. We do not need additional examples, because obtaining advice will be covered by Clause 31(1), which sets out the committee’s general ancillary power, which is obviously very broad. Where that advice is in the form of research, for example, it is specifically covered by Clause 31(2)(a). I therefore see no value in making such amendments to the Bill, but I appreciate the opportunity to make this comment on the record. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 164:

In the interests of getting to the nuts and bolts of this, I will give what financial information I have, which may not be sufficient, but will give a flavour. The committee secretariat will be the core in-house analytical resource available to the climate change committee.

In March 2007, alongside the draft Bill, the estimate was that the cost of the committee secretariat would come to just over £800,000 a year. Since then, taking account of the pre-legislative scrutiny, and as a result of discussion with the shadow secretariat as it scoped its work, it is reckoned that the resources made available to the committee should be increased by about 50 per cent. We anticipate that the secretariat will consist of about 20 people, representing a larger and more senior secretariat—a similar size and make-up to the team that carried out the Stern review.

The other figure that I have—it can only be an estimate at this stage—is that we envisage that the committee will require in the region of £2.6 million per annum once it is put on a statutory basis. Those are the only figures that I have to share with the Committee.

By the way, we do not believe that the committee's budget should be dictated by the committee. There is no non-departmental body in Whitehall that fixes its own budget. That may seem a good idea, but I can assure the Committee that that is not how the system works. So we cannot accept that amendment, but we are committed to ensuring that the committee is adequately resourced and will discuss and agree the committee's annual budget with both the national authorities and the committee itself. We do not envisage any difficulties with the devolved Administrations. They have agreed the Bill and the funding mechanisms.

We are committed to ensuring that the committee provides good quality independent advice. To do that, it needs sufficient funding to be truly independent. As I said, the figure that I have at the moment is purely an estimate of just over £2.5 million, once it is on a statutory basis. I will seek to get some more information before Report, but it may not be much more detail than that, because these are very early days.

If I may follow that helpful statement, I am encouraged that the original budget estimates have been increased. The Joint Committee made two specific comments. It expressed a good deal of concern about the scale of the research budget included in the original estimates, as we felt that was likely to be inadequate. We also suggested—particularly in the light of comments from spokesmen and Ministers from Defra about the funding burden falling wholly on them—that the funding mechanism for the committee should be established outwith the Defra budget. Has the Minister any comment on those two specific points?

No, I regret that I have not, except that I imagine that this is new money—Defra certainly has no money. As I said, while it is in shadow form, the figure for this year, 2007-08, will be about £1.6 million, and once it is on a statutory basis it will be around £2.6 million, maybe a little more. Those are the only figures I have and one set was published in the regulatory impact assessment.

The Minister said something important just then. He will recall that I had a little go at him before on the membership and the finances of Defra; I am grateful for the letter that he wrote to me, long before Christmas, which found its way to me only a couple of days ago. It had gone round the houses a bit but is with me now. Will he confirm that he just said that all this is new money, and that none of it is coming from the existing Defra budget?

I do not have the figures in great detail in front of me, but it has to be funded because this is new, and from new legislation that has been agreed by Government. I am not saying that none of this will come from the present Defra budget; in that case, it would already be there. It will not have to come from what our running costs were before the climate change committee was, so to speak, a beam in someone’s eye. Money is being spent now on the shadow secretariat—it has come from somewhere but has been allocated for that purpose.

It might be helpful if the Minister could write to me on how much money is allocated from within its existing finances in this year’s Defra budget, and in the following two years. We could then say that we know that Defra has allocated so much, that it is under huge pressure and has to get rid of a lot of staff. We can then work out that, over and above that, either Defra has to take another chunk of money from another part of its pocket or it will be new money. It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me on that.

As I said, I will try to come back on this but I am not promising to write to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have already told the Committee that I will try to have some better figures on Report, which is not that far away. Given what he said, we will probably be on Report before the noble Earl gets a letter from me anyway.

I am not wholly convinced that this is all on Defra anyway; it is from central Government. We are the lead department, but as I have repeatedly said, the climate change issue goes across Government. I will have to check where the blocks were. I need to come back with something, perhaps a briefing note on funding up to the present, like those we provided to Members of the Committee. That would be better, and more useful.

I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation—I think. I was comforted when he said that the priority is the need to ensure that the committee is financed so that it can do its job properly. That is, of course, important, but it seems that whether it is Defra money or not—whether money is going into Defra or out of it—the logic is that it is new money. It has to be, as this is new legislation with new expenses that are probably not in the budget.

I have no doubt that this will unfold. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Powers to give directions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?

This whole section empowers the national authorities to give binding instructions to the Committee on Climate Change on how it is to exercise its functions. We oppose the inclusion of the clause because we do not feel that it should be within the order-making powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe the committee’s function or to amend its intended investigations. It would erode the independence of the committee if the execution of its duties could be changed by order. The functions of the committee are already set out in primary legislation, and the provision to have this changed by order is unnecessary and risks losing the independence which we feel is essential to the successful operation of the committee.

We respect the fact that there might be situations in which national authorities might seek to have the committee investigate particular problems or issues. Still, it is not appropriate, if we intend to maintain the independence of the committee, to allow its functions to be determined by prescription. The roles and functions of the committee have already been the subject of much contention. Thus, it is not appropriate for these functions to be set and changed by order and without further debate. I beg to move.

I welcome the Question in that it gives the Minister the opportunity to explain the circumstances in which this part of the Bill might be used. Although there is a subsection in it that says that the Secretary of State cannot direct what advice comes out of the committee, the way in which it is written gives rise to many questions about the effective independence of the committee, which could damage its reputation. I await the Minister’s answer.

The Question gives me the chance to ask a rather stupid question: when is a national authority not a national authority? Clause 67 says:

“In this Act ‘national authority’ means any of the following”.

The list starts with the Secretary of State. In this Bill, there is a form of distinction. I accept that there probably is a distinction, because the Secretary of State may well be in a somewhat separate situation from the national authorities. However, the definitions at the end of the Bill say that the Secretary of State is a national authority, and I wonder whether there might be an issue that should be clarified before we finally dispose of the Bill—if we ever reach Report, which I suppose we will one day; at the moment, Report seems to get further away rather than closer.

Clause 67 is perfectly straightforward. We are dealing with the United Kingdom body here; with the four institutions that will take the joint decisions: the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in effect the UK Government. The UK Government is the Secretary of State, hence the four national authorities. That is all it is. There is nothing special here. Nor is there anything new about it, but I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.

As I said, there is nothing new here. There is a natural suspicion, but honestly it is not justified. The power to give a direction to a non-departmental public body is perfectly standard and applies to all the NDPBs, but it is important to ensure good governance and financial probity. The power will not undermine the committee’s independence in any way. Therefore, the clause states explicitly that the committee cannot be given directions on the content of advice, but it is important that the national authorities have the power to issue directions in the case of any non-departmental public body. This is to provide a degree of control over a publicly funded body by government as a reserve power.

In what circumstances would the Government issue directions to the committee? In example 1, the Government may choose to issue directions for the committee’s financial records to be checked by an independent party or person if there are concerns over accounting irregularities. In example 2, in requesting advice under Clause 30, the national authorities may also wish to direct the committee to provide information by a specific deadline to ensure that it is received within the timescale needed by the authority. We are doing no more than what is done with all non-departmental public bodies. There is nothing new here, but it is good governance and financial probity.

I thank the noble Lord for that explanation.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Trading schemes]:

moved Amendment No. 164A:

We will come on to this in a later amendments. Although from these Benches we welcome devolution in these areas, I have a number of questions for the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. One of the characteristics of trading schemes is that the smaller they are, the more difficult the marketability of the asset. Although I applaud the idea that Wales, Scotland, England or even Northern Ireland can have their own individual trading schemes to do with emissions, I cannot conceive of it as being practically possible. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister what might be envisaged by this clause.

I would like to argue in favour of this amendment. It seems to me that we are asking for trouble. You only have to look at the appalling difficulties between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland with differentials in cross-border duties leading to strong cross-border smuggling operations to see what can happen if you get two different regimes in close proximity. I am trying to imagine what might happen in Hereford if they supply goods to Wales or Wales supplies goods to Hereford because of the cross-border situation. The same situation could arise in Berwick-upon-Tweed or Carlisle between England and Scotland. We shall find ourselves fraught with difficulty if we have too many schemes. Therefore, the proposal that the Secretary of State should have the responsibility for controlling this situation is probably very close to essential, if not absolutely essential.

With respect, I do not think the drafters of the amendment have fully appreciated its practical significance so I will seek to explain that. It is far more efficient in most cases for the UK to act as a whole—there is no doubt about that or any criticism—but we do not think it would be helpful to preclude these single authorities acting alone. On a much more serious note, this amendment does not take account of the fact that in many of the areas where action will need to be taken, it is a devolved issue. This amendment will stop things happening in those areas. The Secretary of State cannot act in terms of Scotland and Northern Ireland in devolved matters. We have a pig in a poke here. What I think was intended from the noble Earl’s speech would be a much more complicated amendment.

My note needed that preamble because this is quite a serious issue and I would not want it to go by default. The amendment would remove the ability to introduce UK-wide trading schemes in areas of the UK which were devolved. That ought to turn everybody off. Once the penny drops that taking out “national authorities” and putting in “Secretary of State” means that in any area of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales where it is a devolved issue, you cannot have a UK-wide system because the Secretary of State has no authority to bring in those measures. They have to be brought in by the devolved authority. At a stroke, UK-wide trading schemes would be stopped in areas where what you are doing for trading is a devolved matter.

The amendment would also remove the power of the devolved Administrations to establish trading schemes using the powers in the Bill either individually or in concert with one or more of the other national authorities. Taking that approach would not be consistent with the flexible approach we have adopted elsewhere in the Bill. We think that flexibility is important, given the long-term framework of the legislation to establish us to 2050 and beyond.

As I have said, significant parts of climate change policy are devolved in different parts of the UK, and the devolution settlements are themselves different. This amendment would make it impossible for the very thing noble Lords have talked about to happen: it would be impossible for UK-wide trading schemes to be introduced. I rest my case there because we all want the schemes to be as large as possible and thus get economies of scale. It would limit the effectiveness of the powers and the ability to reduce emissions through them, and it would lead to considerable duplication and administrative complexity for business. In other words, the amendment would have precisely the opposite effect of what is intended simply because whoever drafted it forgot that in parts of the UK, policy issues are devolved and the Secretary of State has no authority.

I shall give one example: that of the new carbon reduction commitment. The new trading scheme targeting the emissions from large non energy-intensive public and private organisations is in a policy area which is devolved across the UK. We have proposed for consultation to introduce this policy on a UK-wide basis using the powers in this Bill. However, the amendment would make that impossible. There would be no UK-wide emissions trade schemes where areas are devolved. Because most schemes would be based on the UK, it would be much more efficient that way.

What the Minister is saying is that we are damned if we do and damned if we do not, and I am not sure how we are to get around that dilemma. I wonder if he could explain the way around it. I accept, because I must, that if our amendment goes through there would be parts of the UK where these matters are devolved and a marketing scheme could not be applied. That is a problem and gives a different form of differential. But if we have the individual devolved authorities being able to establish their own marketing schemes all on different bases, we still have the problem. I am sure that the intention of my noble friend is to try to ensure that do not we have a problem with differentials. I do not think, with respect, that the Minister has explained how we can overcome that.

I freely admit that I have not explained because we are trying to address two different issues here. On the one hand, the intention is to stop little trading schemes being set up in different parts of the UK. That would cause difficulties. Our intention is for the Bill to be as flexible as possible and in the main for most trading schemes to be UK-wide. But to be UK-wide in devolved areas where the policy is devolved, we have to include the national authorities; that is, the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Administrations. Acting in concert with the Secretary of State—with England, if I can put it that way—we can get a UK-wide trading scheme up and running. So if the intention is to stop one-off trading schemes in the national authority areas alone, frankly this amendment would not do that; you would need another amendment for that.

Accepting this amendment would stop the very thing that we are all agreed might be desirable—UK-wide systems. But if you want to stop separate systems from England being set up in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that requires a completely different amendment. The Bill is sufficiently flexible to allow the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in their various ways, to put in place mechanisms for doing something for them alone. It would be almost impossible to impose this on Northern Ireland because it has to deal with the Republic of Ireland; there is no question about that.

In the interests of less complexity and not putting burdens on business, it would be in the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be part of a UK setup. The Bill allows for flexibility should there be an occasion where a policy area could be dealt with another way. I oppose the amendment because it simply stops UK-wide trading schemes in areas where the policy issue is devolved. That is my starting point and, on that alone, it is the end of the discussion. If it is desired to do what was said in the opening speech, that is for another amendment, not this one.

I do not want to delay the Committee at a time when the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms is beginning to look distinctly restless, as I daresay others are. The Minister’s answer became increasingly helpful and constructive as he went on. He started by saying that he did not think that we had understood the practical significance of the clause. Of course I understand the point about precluding UK-wide trading schemes. The difficulty is that up until now we have had very little explanation from the Government. The Minister has probably given more explanation than has been given before as to what these trading schemes are likely to be.

Again, I look at the work of the Joint Committee. We probed and could not get much out of the Government at that stage. There was mention of a possible carbon reduction commitment scheme, an energy efficiency scheme, and that was about all. The Minister must not be surprised if we probe the intentions of what is potentially a very wide scheme when we have had practically no explanation of what might emerge as proposals. We seek to discover a little more of what is in the mind of the Government. As he went on, the Minister, who sounded—uncharacteristically—a tiny bit irritated at the start of proceedings, became more helpful and constructive. If it is possible for rather more thinking to be put on the table about the potential use of the main clause, the Minister might have rather less difficulty with any suggested amendments that might come forward at the next stage.

I honestly was not at all irritated. I suppose the penny was dropping when I listened to the speech. Then, when I read my notes, I thought that the speech was asking for something that could not be delivered by this amendment. That was the point. Thank heavens for parliamentary scrutiny; that is all that I can say. That is what this is all about and that is where we will benefit from this debate.

That was quite a useful amendment and discussion. We are trying to get a single UK trading scheme, rather than separate schemes in the four separate countries of the UK. The Minister used the term “in concert”; that is exactly what is needed here. We are seeking uniformity across the national authorities, so that one gets a single UK trading scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 165:

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly anticipated that I might rise to take a somewhat different view from hers. The two issues tonight are whether the Bill, as it stands, would enable a personal carbon allowances scheme to be introduced and whether it should be introduced. The amendment seeks to ensure that it would—to put beyond doubt that it would. When we had the briefing meeting with the Bill Committee team some days ago we were there were told that the Bill would permit personal carbon allowances to be introduced. It is in that context that I would like to address the Committee.

It is late and I apologise for that, but of all the issues that affect individuals this one is actually something that would be a real political hot potato. If, in due course, the Government did introduce it using the powers of the Bill, people would say, “What was your Lordships’ House doing not debating it very thoroughly?”. Considering it is 10.20 pm—pretty late—it is not a very good way of doing that. Therefore, I beg indulgence to say a few words.

Carbon allowance schemes or issuing emissions rights is a very polite way of saying rationing. Power stations will be issued with rations for how much they can emit. Do not let there be any mistake, we are talking about personal carbon rationing: issuing people with rations. In the Second World War you would have been issued with a ration book. Whatever the scheme is, it will be a ration card. It will be issuing rations to people. The difference between that and the Second World War is that people will be able to trade those rations. As I recall, because I was only a very young child at the time, in the war you were not allowed to do that. Moreover, you would be able to buy more rations—and it is an important question whether you would be able to—as, indeed, power stations will be able to buy extra carbon allowances if they can get them on the open market.

It is a question of issuing people with rations for the right to buy goods or services that result in carbon emissions. I will do my best not to argue for or against the scheme but simply draw attention to what would be involved and whether it should be the subject of separate primary legislation or should be permitted to get through under secondary legislation if a future Government were ever minded so to do.

Those who advocate it, for example, say that it would apply in the first instance to the purchase by individuals, families or whoever it happens to be of electricity, gas and petrol and travel by air, bus or train. That is how it would start. People would be issued rations and whenever they went into a petrol station or paid for gas and electricity, they would not only have to pay money, they would have to hand over part of their ration.

There are important questions for any scheme over how to allocate these rations. Who would get what? Would everybody get the same? Would equal amounts go to everyone? That, as I understand it from most proponents, would be the case. Would babies get it when they were born, like a child trust fund? How much would the ration be and how would it change over their youth? Would people be able to trade their rations? Would people have to buy their rations at auction, because that is the case in some of the trading schemes being produced? Would people be issued with ration cards or books?

All that would be recorded central data, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. We would have to tell people that a regulatory authority would know every time you bought a gallon of petrol, or travelled by bus or air. That would have to be monitored because, apart from anything else, you would have to check for fraud. You could be certain, as with any other case, that that would apply; plenty of ration fraud happened during the Second World War.

In any case, the public at large might feel that this is duplicating carbon trading, because the gas and electricity power suppliers have been given rations for carbon emissions allowances, and they have already had to buy extra carbon emissions. That is pushing up the price of electricity. That is the rationale behind the Government’s nuclear power policy of the past few days. The price of electricity will be forced up, which will make nuclear power more economic, so people might reasonably say, “What are we having to be issued with rations for? We are already paying a higher price for gas and electricity. What on earth is this all about?”. The price of petrol is going through the roof at £5 a gallon, and it will go still higher. People will say that it is double counting if they are told that in addition they will have to give up some rations.

We are all agreed, thank goodness, that aviation is coming into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. That will push up the price of air fares, and people will also have to hand over rations. As I said at the outset, the question is not whether personal carbon trading allowances are a good thing or a bad thing, but whether they raise issues that would require careful consideration of primary legislation to provide an appropriate framework, rather than being introduced, if ever a Government were so minded, using the powers in the Bill, which is designed to do that.

The issues raise so many different considerations that people would expect noble Lords to ask most serious questions about the Government allowing something like this to go through at this time of night and saying, “In due course, these powers could be used”. I have one or two questions for the Minister. When Mr Miliband, who was Secretary of State, came before the committee, he went rather further than the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. I apologise, but I have forgotten my reading glasses, so I cannot read the text. My recollection is that when I pressed him, the Secretary of State said that he found it inconceivable that the powers in the Bill could be used to smuggle in something of the significance of personal carbon trading allowances. That is strong language.

Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s view? Do they regard it as inconceivable that you could smuggle in personal carbon trading allowances under the powers in the Bill? Is that because they want to keep the powers in the Bill but they would not do this at the moment, or because they do not think that it would ever be appropriate to use the powers even when the Bill becomes an Act? Will they consider going further than that and giving an assurance that they would not do so? Will they respond, in due course if appropriate, to a proposal that the Bill be amended so that personal carbon trading allowances could not be introduced in the Bill but would require separate legislation?

I will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, has rendered the Committee a very considerable service by drawing attention to this matter. I rather wish that the Government would try to smuggle in such a scheme before the next election. I think that it would have the same effects as some legislation that I recall when I was Minister had on the then Conservative Government. It would guarantee the election of an alternative Administration.

The noble Lord’s memory is perfectly correct about what Mr Miliband said. He said that he was an enthusiast for the idea of personal carbon allowances. He then went on:

“Technically I suppose you could smuggle it in under one of these provisions but frankly that is not the real world. It is inconceivable that a Government would do that”.

He then went on to say that it was so inconceivable it was not worth excluding it. That was OTT, he said. I am not sure about that. If it is so inconceivable and if it has the implications spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, we should exclude it. It is not something that could possibly be introduced by order. Therefore, it would be much better to clarify the matter and make sure that no one was so foolish as to make the attempt in the future.

I was asked whether the Government was going to be brave. It would be a brave Whip in the House of Lords who sought to go further than the Secretary of State on this matter. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this short debate—bravely enough, I hope.

I want to make things clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who asked whether the Government ruled personal carbon trading out of the Bill. In response, I can say that we are ruling it out of this Bill now, but we are not ruling it out as an area of active research and active consideration. For my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds, I would like to take some time to reiterate the comments made by my right honourable friend David Miliband to the Joint Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, started to do. In particular, my right honourable friend said:

“I think it is frankly inconceivable that fundamental changes like that would be smuggled in under these provisions. To have a clause excluding them seems politically odd to me … there would be quite big technical issues about drafting an exclusionary order of that nature”.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, picked up on those points, but I want to put them on the record in order to take the discussions forward, as we go on to Report stage.

I shall take a few minutes to respond to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Amendment No. 165 calls for explicit reference to be made to trading schemes that operate on a personal or community level. The noble Baroness is well aware that the Bill provides that a trading scheme may be established if it encourages,

“activities that consist of, or that cause or contribute, directly or indirectly, to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or the removal of greenhouse gas from the atmosphere”.

Technically, as the noble Baroness knows well, that means that there is no restriction on where in the economy or at which level of society the schemes may be introduced. Bearing in mind my comments, she will know the context in which we are debating this.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee, the Secretary of State indicated that we did not envisage using the enabling powers to support the introduction of personal carbon trading schemes. I reiterate my noble friend’s point: any such scheme would require change of quite a different order of magnitude to that required for a scheme limited to a particular sector or group of sectors. By its very nature, it would have the potential to impact directly on individuals.

There is a link here to the separate question about the Government’s views on personal carbon trading, which are of great concern to the noble Baroness. We are certainly committed to exploring action to tackle emissions at individual and community level. However, there is still a lot of work ahead to explore whether or not—as the noble Baroness asked—personal trading is a realistic and workable policy option.

The Government are looking into the potential value of personal carbon trading, as just one of a number of potential long-term options being explored for making individuals better informed about, and involved in, tackling climate change. We expect to be able to make a decision on whether further analysis is necessary this year.

The noble Baroness asked what the Government are doing to promote further investigation of this concept. The Government are considering personal carbon trading on a number of levels. For example, a cross-departmental working group has been established to consider personal carbon trading in detail. This of course includes officials from Defra, as well as from BERR, the Department for Transport, the Department of Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury and the Sustainable Development Commission. The Government are keen to make progress, and a pre-feasibility study is being carried out to answer some of the key questions on personal carbon trading. The study, as the noble Baroness knows, is due to report this year.

Work in government on personal carbon trading is being supplemented by a significant amount of work, as the noble Baroness has suggested, in the academic community; Defra is contributing to its funding. A number of these relevant bodies are members of a wider—I cannot say “PCT” as that means “primary care trust”—personal carbon trading advisory board which has been established to consider the issue. We are interested in the idea of personal carbon trading. However, given its wider-reaching impact on society, it is right that any decision is based on a thoroughgoing exploration and well established evidence base.

The noble Baroness asked about piloting or a voluntary scheme. The scoping study produced by the Centre of Sustainable Energy recommended addressing the high-level questions surrounding personal carbon trading before considering a pilot or a trial scheme. Pilot systems would, as the noble Baroness is aware, inevitably be simpler, potentially fault ridden and less defined than any final system. They could lead to failure and subsequent public distrust if a pilot was not carefully thought through at the highest levels and in detail.

Additionally, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pilot one of the most important factors behind the scheme: its compulsory and national nature. We do not, however, rule out exploring likely individual responses, perhaps by developing and testing simulation games or running some trials. However, while these could provide some valuable information, they could not and should not be seen as formal pilots for a national mandatory scheme.

The noble Baroness asked about ID cards. For the record, the report of the Centre for Sustainable Energy does not recommend this. While noting that some academics, such as those at the Tyndall Centre, have stated that such a link would provide maximum levels of protection against fraud, the report goes on to state that personal carbon trading could be integrated within the banking system—which is of course an alternative way of looking at it—and that no link with ID cards would be necessary. Finally, the noble Baroness asked about Defra’s financial commitment. Over the financial year 2007-08, Defra will have spent over £140,000 on external work to explore the details of personal carbon trading, backed by over £100,000 of internal staff resource. I hope that I have been able to pick up on questions raised by Members of the Committee in this short debate, and that, with that, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving a full reply, even at this time of night. It is an important issue, which I hope we will come back to—probably not during the passage of this Bill, but when the Defra feasibility study reports. I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have perhaps raised some of the downsides of the scheme, because it is important to go into this with open eyes. I hope that we can pursue it in the future.

For the convenience of the Committee and being conscious of the time, I revert back to our previous debate on Amendment No. 164A. There was a point I did not answer and I will use this extra time for clarification. If the devolved Administrations want to use and invent a trading scheme for their purposes, they can do so now without the powers in this Bill. The fact is, we would rather they used the powers in this Bill. Then, if they did that, the other parts of the UK could join with them. Without the powers in this Bill, that would not be allowed to happen. That is the point I did not make when we were having the previous debate.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.40 pm.