Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 161: 161: Clause 30, page 15, line 39, at end insert— ““( ) advise the authority on the potential for reducing the effects of climate change through the adoption of a daylight saving scheme.”” The noble Baroness said: The debates and the development of the Bill have been absorbing. I was on the Joint Committee, along with many other Members who are here this evening. There has been a genuine dialogue and a good level of consensus on the Bill right from the outset, and I hope to follow that lead in moving the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is absolutely clear, and I will restrict all my arguments to the potential of energy saving through daylight saving schemes. I do not need to remind noble Lords that the purpose of daylight saving is to adapt time so that the daylight hours can be used more efficiently, corresponding closely with waking hours. There are numerous models, but it is not my intention to describe them at length. It is enough to say that the expert Committee on Climate Change would be far better placed to select a model for the United Kingdom. In previous debates we have suggested several additional duties to those laid out in the Bill for the climate change committee and I think that daylight saving could be another. All the scientific evidence suggests that reaching targets set out in the Bill will be a severe challenge. Those very targets may well become even more stringent as scientific evidence mounts as to the seriousness of climate change threat. In fact I would go as far as to say that the pressure is increasing daily, not only in emissions but also with a huge rise in energy prices. Daylight saving helps in both those areas. According to evidence received from Dr Garnsey at Cambridge University, who bases her work on statistics from the National Grid, there would have been an electricity saving of 2.78 megawatts if winter clock time had been Greenwich meantime plus one in 2006—a significant saving. Emissions savings would have been 1.2 million tonnes of CO2. That is using the most modest daylight saving schemes. More extreme models would be even more effective. There is also the fact that daylight saving switches usage away from peak time, which is more costly, to cheaper times, so the consumer benefits both ways, not only in lower emissions but in lower electricity bills. If proposals laid out in the Bill are to be translated into fact, measures to reduce climate change have got to be timed properly. The Stern report made no bones about it. The sooner we tackle climate change, it says, the cheaper and more effective it will be. So here is a start. We have role models all around the globe. The USA and Australia significantly have already adopted daylight saving schemes which have found favour with their citizens and at least another 70 countries have already instituted such schemes. There are more in the pipeline. I guarantee that all industrialised countries will look closely at more stringent schemes in the future. At virtually no cost, with proven success around the world, we could have our own daylight saving scheme in place in a very short time. We would have the guarantee of expert opinion from the climate change committee and we would see considerable energy savings for everyone in the UK. To reject this proposal would be flying in the face of scientific evidence and the well-being of our citizens. I hope I have made the case as energy-efficiently as I am able. I look forward to contributions from all sides of the Committee and, of course, from the Minister. I beg to move.