Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 165: 165: Clause 36, page 18, line 1, after ““activities”” insert ““including those undertaken by individuals whether singly or as a community”” The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to test whether, within the term ““trading schemes,”” as defined in Part 3 of the Bill, it is indeed the Government’s intention to continue to allow personal carbon-trading to be an area that the Secretary of State could choose to implement. In moving this, I recognise that it is asking a lot for this still to be included, because it could be politically very unpopular. As I shall say in this brief introduction to the issue, it comes fraught with difficulty. In the Joint Committee we took a very limited amount of evidence on personal carbon-trading schemes. David Miliband appeared before the committee and was interested in these schemes. Defra commissioned a report from the sustainable energy centre in November 2006 which concluded that personal carbon trading would be an effective, measurable way of reducing UK carbon emissions, which might be fairer than a carbon tax. I am sure that the Minister will tell us the results of Defra’s feasibility analysis and discussions. It is looking at, "““whether a carbon trading scheme could be a proportionate, effective, socially equitable and financially viable approach””," compared with other policy options. However, I ask the Minister whether it could be effective, as well as other policy options, because I consider that that is what we are looking at. What really attracts me to the idea of personal carbon trading is that it gives power back to individuals as regards the whole issue of climate change and reducing carbon in terms of the individual’s place in this whole scheme of things. I am aware that think tanks, for example the RSA and IPPR, are also looking at these issues. IPPR states that personal carbon trading schemes are enormously appealing given the equality principles on which they are based but recognises that they are likely to be politically unpopular, at least to begin with. That is the crux of the issue. When the Minister appeared before the Joint Committee he believed that this was such a big step politically that it would need primary legislation. Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, which is also looking at this matter, identifies a, "““perceived lack of social and political acceptability””." The common ground of all the studies to date or ongoing—most of them are ongoing—is that such a measure has a lot of merit but that there is great political nervousness about moving forward with it. My purpose in tabling this amendment is to ask the Minister how brave the Government are willing to be. Would they be willing to pilot such a scheme in areas that are already committed to it, such as transition towns? What sort of resources is Defra willing to commit to this? Some assessments put the costs of a pilot scheme at somewhere between £500,000 and £950,000. Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute suggests that voluntary trials looking particularly at the behavioural and attitudinal impacts of the scheme on participants would take between two and a half to three years from initiation to final report. As I say, there is a lot of work going on. IPPR is commissioning a poll to see what public awareness there is on this issue. Obviously, sensitivity issues are involved when we ask people to divulge the carbon allowances that they may get through in their personal lives. As a party we argued against identity cards and divulging lots of personal data. Such a scheme might involve state intrusion into people’s day-to-day lifestyles. That would be a difficult matter. That issue would have to be weighed against whether the scheme would be a good way to reduce personal carbon allowances. However, I believe that it has merits and deserves to be looked at seriously. I should like to hear from the Minister how Defra has got on with regard to this issue but I should most like an assurance that the Government will keep the measure in the Bill. I suspect that we may hear an argument for taking it out. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, nods his head. That would be a great pity as the merits of the case have already been made by a number of eminent think tanks. I hope that the Government will keep it in the Bill. I beg to move.