Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 6: 6: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out ““net UK carbon account”” and insert ““quantity of UK greenhouse gas emissions released to the atmosphere”” The noble Lord said: The Minister might be slightly relieved to hear that this is a probing amendment. We move from what I would call the hard intricacies of the practice of government in this country to the more ephemeral subject of leadership, to which the Government have pretensions on a global scale, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has already mentioned. The Government wish to lead the world in the control of carbon emissions in order to limit global warming. That is certainly an ambition that we would all support, but in the first line we have yet another set of words that, in my view, are far weaker than they either should be or need to be. I read the ““net UK carbon account””, not with despair but with horror. First, we should go through the background a little. We certainly do not lead the world at the present time. Other European countries are ahead of us in some regards. France is a unique country, curiously enough. In some ways it is fortunate for the whole world that its nuclear programme in the 1970s and 1980s is outwith the timing for Kyoto, which begins in 1990. France is unique because it is the only developed country in the world that I have seen that actually has a reduction plotted on a graph of its national carbon dioxide emissions. It is possible to go on to the internet and pull down the carbon performance of practically every economy in the world, and they are all plotted in graphs, which rise consistently, with the exception of France. With its nuclear programme in the 1970s the 1980s, France’s carbon dioxide emissions diminished. One other country has a similar reduction—Russia. But Russia achieved it through total economic collapse, which I do not think any of us would accept as a practical or sensible policy. Germany is way ahead of us in the field of microgeneration, because it has very effective lead-in prices. One could go on. This legislation is significant if we are to get the initiative into this country, but we have to walk the walk and not talk the talk, hence this particular wording—the first line in the Bill, about which we keep arguing. Why do we have ““net UK carbon account””? I accept that it is a commonly used phrase and it is easy to slip past it, but the implication is that we can offset some of our emissions by actions that we take in third-party countries. We can continue with carbon emissions by aiding others. Again, that is all very worthy, but it is shilly-shallying. In effect, wealthy countries can purchase the right to continue doing what we do by aiding other countries. In a global sense, I accept that that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but if we want to lead, we actually have to reduce our emissions ourselves. We have to get our emissions all the way down, so I object to that particular wording. I then looked to see what the Bill actually had to say about those words. It is worth doing that. If Committee Members look at Clause 70 on page 29, there is a list of defined expressions in the Bill—definitions. On page 30, line 20 directs us to Clause 22 (1), which states: "““Net UK carbon account""(1) In this Part the ‘net UK carbon account’ for a period means the amount of net UK emissions of targeted greenhouse gases for the period—""(a) reduced by the amount of carbon units credited to the net UK carbon account for the period in accordance with regulations under this section, and""(b) increased by the amount of carbon units that in accordance with such regulations are to be debited from the net UK carbon account for the period.""(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations about—""(a) the circumstances in which carbon units may be credited … [or] debited …""(3) The regulations must contain provision for ensuring that carbon units that are credited to the net UK carbon account for a period cease to be available to offset other greenhouse gas emissions””." and so on and so forth. I am afraid that, first of all, a rather shocking image came to mind: that of the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, playing a rather politically incorrect game of croquet. I think she said at one stage during that game, ““When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean””. The net UK carbon account, bearing in mind all this regulatory process to define it, comes into that category. Then I thought that perhaps I was being a little harsh, so I thought of a more appropriate metaphor. We are appointing a whole lot of people, all of whom are going to be involved in a marathon. The Government, and particularly the Climate Change Committee, are leading us to the start line, or whatever we finally call it when we get to that. Having got us more or less to the start line, the Government then appear to say that they have not quite decided where the finishing line is yet; that will be done by regulations at some point. That weakens the whole first line of the Bill. This first line of the Bill is going to be the one line that most people read, so we need it to be absolutely clear. Therefore, I have suggested that we use the greenhouse gas emissions wording of my amendment to improve clarity and, more importantly, for a psychological improvement in leadership. Of course it will, technically, be a slightly more difficult target to meet, but in the mysterious psychology of the world of leadership—if that is what the Government aspire to—it will mean a great deal more for this country abroad than the present wording, however much that may be common practice in the relation to emissions and global warming. I beg to move.