Climate Change Bill [HL]

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly anticipated that I might rise to take a somewhat different view from hers. The two issues tonight are whether the Bill, as it stands, would enable a personal carbon allowances scheme to be introduced and whether it should be introduced. The amendment seeks to ensure that it would—to put beyond doubt that it would. When we had the briefing meeting with the Bill Committee team some days ago we were there were told that the Bill would permit personal carbon allowances to be introduced. It is in that context that I would like to address the Committee. It is late and I apologise for that, but of all the issues that affect individuals this one is actually something that would be a real political hot potato. If, in due course, the Government did introduce it using the powers of the Bill, people would say, ““What was your Lordships’ House doing not debating it very thoroughly?”” Considering it is 10.20 pm—pretty late—it is not a very good way of doing that. Therefore, I beg indulgence to say a few words. Carbon allowance schemes or issuing emissions rights is a very polite way of saying rationing. Power stations will be issued with rations for how much they can emit. Do not let there be any mistake, we are talking about personal carbon rationing: issuing people with rations. In the Second World War you would have been issued with a ration book. Whatever the scheme is, it will be a ration card. It will be issuing rations to people. The difference between that and the Second World War is that people will be able to trade those rations. As I recall, because I was only a very young child at the time, in the war you were not allowed to do that. Moreover, you would be able to buy more rations—and it is an important question whether you would be able to—as, indeed, power stations will be able to buy extra carbon allowances if they can get them on the open market. It is a question of issuing people with rations for the right to buy goods or services that result in carbon emissions. I will do my best not to argue for or against the scheme but simply draw attention to what would be involved and whether it should be the subject of separate primary legislation or should be permitted to get through under secondary legislation if a future Government were ever minded so to do. Those who advocate it, for example, say that it would apply in the first instance to the purchase by individuals, families or whoever it happens to be of electricity, gas and petrol and travel by air, bus or train. That is how it would start. People would be issued rations and whenever they went into a petrol station or paid for gas and electricity, they would not only have to pay money, they would have to hand over part of their ration. There are important questions for any scheme over how to allocate these rations. Who would get what? Would everybody get the same? Would equal amounts go to everyone? That, as I understand it from most proponents, would be the case. Would babies get it when they were born, like a child trust fund? How much would the ration be and how would it change over their youth? Would people be able to trade their rations? Would people have to buy their rations at auction, because that is the case in some of the trading schemes being produced? Would people be issued with ration cards or books? All that would be recorded central data, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. We would have to tell people that a regulatory authority would know every time you bought a gallon of petrol, or travelled by bus or air. That would have to be monitored because, apart from anything else, you would have to check for fraud. You could be certain, as with any other case, that that would apply; plenty of ration fraud happened during the Second World War. In any case, the public at large might feel that this is duplicating carbon trading, because the gas and electricity power suppliers have been given rations for carbon emissions allowances, and they have already had to buy extra carbon emissions. That is pushing up the price of electricity. That is the rationale behind the Government’s nuclear power policy of the past few days. The price of electricity will be forced up, which will make nuclear power more economic, so people might reasonably say, ““What are we having to be issued with rations for? We are already paying a higher price for gas and electricity. What on earth is this all about?””. The price of petrol is going through the roof at £5 a gallon, and it will go still higher. People will say that it is double counting if they are told that in addition they will have to give up some rations. We are all agreed, thank goodness, that aviation is coming into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. That will push up the price of air fares, and people will also have to hand over rations. As I said at the outset, the question is not whether personal carbon trading allowances are a good thing or a bad thing, but whether they raise issues that would require careful consideration of primary legislation to provide an appropriate framework, rather than being introduced, if ever a Government were so minded, using the powers in the Bill, which is designed to do that. The issues raise so many different considerations that people would expect noble Lords to ask most serious questions about the Government allowing something like this to go through at this time of night and saying, ““In due course, these powers could be used””. I have one or two questions for the Minister. When Mr Miliband, who was Secretary of State, came before the committee, he went rather further than the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. I apologise, but I have forgotten my reading glasses, so I cannot read the text. My recollection is that when I pressed him, the Secretary of State said that he found it inconceivable that the powers in the Bill could be used to smuggle in something of the significance of personal carbon trading allowances. That is strong language. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s view? Do they regard it as inconceivable that you could smuggle in personal carbon trading allowances under the powers in the Bill? Is that because they want to keep the powers in the Bill but they would not do this at the moment, or because they do not think that it would ever be appropriate to use the powers even when the Bill becomes an Act? Will they consider going further than that and giving an assurance that they would not do so? Will they respond, in due course if appropriate, to a proposal that the Bill be amended so that personal carbon trading allowances could not be introduced in the Bill but would require separate legislation?