Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 165A: 165A: Schedule 2, page 39, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (4) The noble Lord said: I will speak also to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 165A is a probing amendment designed to elicit the operation of allowances and in particular to examine the scope of the prohibition against the allocation of allowances for money. Perhaps I may give an example. Let us imagine a situation where a large business owned and controlled by one person—perhaps a beef baron or a cereal Croesus. In the unfortunate circumstances of unexpected death or bankruptcy, would the estate be able to sell any allowances left unused against business already completed at the time of death; or would the allowances have to be returned to the scheme pool? Presumably, in the event of a sale, merger, takeover or break-up, the unused allowances would be transferred to the new owners. However, I should like the Minister to clarify exactly how the situation would roll out in such circumstances. I turn now to our other amendment in this group. The Committee will all too readily remember, in 2001, the images of pyres composed of burning carcasses and thick smoke from the combustible materials used to sustain the flames. It was obvious that there were considerable emissions of various sorts, some of which appear on the list of greenhouse gases. Two years ago, the Home Counties were awoken by the explosion at Buncefield. Television reports again showed black clouds shot through with flame. More recently, some four months ago, there was a fatal fire at a Warwickshire warehouse, again with smoke and associated emissions. None of those happenings was expected; they may have been feared in a general way but they were not planned for in any business sense. We hope that animal disease will never again require disposal by burning. However, if there is an event that overwhelms the alternative methods, it is conceivable that the Government of the day may have to order it. The report on the Buncefield explosion indicates that there are infrastructure problems throughout the oil distribution industry. A glance at any local authority asset management plan will identify infrastructure problems with gas mains, school boilers, oil tanks and so on. Any of those could cause a major fire with its attendant emissions. Then there is the level of arson prevalent in this country, with major fires at schools, warehouses, offices, railway switchgear housings and so on. Where does the responsibility lie for the emissions generated by these events? Will the owner of a business adversely affected by government decree or the activities of a third party—an arsonist—be liable for carbon emissions that could well consume more than his annual allowance? Should there not be a reserve that can be used to mop up the excess and avoid the problems of non-accidental damage, for example? Can one insure one’s business against government action? I beg to move.