Climate Change Bill [HL]

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.