Climate Change Bill [HL]

This has become an interesting discussion and I shall be keen to hear the Minister’s reply. In particular, perhaps he could clarify for us whether the gases listed under Clause 64 are exactly the same as those in the Kyoto agreement. I understand that under the Kyoto agreement these gases have all been allocated a carbon equivalence and are therefore totted up as part of the savings in carbon emissions. At first sight the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seems to be a splendid effort to tidy up the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord has thought about this issue a great deal more than I have done, but there is a critical difference in that under Clause 19 the definition of a greenhouse gas is subject to affirmative resolution, whereas under Clause 64 it is subject only to the negative procedure. I do not know how much argument will arise about which gas should be included or added, but I should like to think a great deal more about whether the affirmative resolution is the route to follow. Clause 19 is also part of measures required under Clause 10 which have to be taken into account by the climate change committee, and that is quite an important element. I am sure that further criteria will emerge regarding chemicals that affect elements of the atmosphere. I see hydrofluorocarbons in the list in Section 64,. I know that somewhere down the line I have run into chlorofluorocarbons, but I do not know whether they are already included or whether we will be extending this list to cover other elements. There are obviously nasty things out there that can have a large effect on climate change and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.