Climate Change Bill [HL]

I do not intend to repeat what I said in the lengthy debate at Second Reading, to which the noble Lord referred, and in the discussions earlier in Committee. I found myself agreeing strongly with two of the noble Lord’s amendments—those labelled ““A””, which perhaps means that they have been tabled more recently than the others. I was glad that he said that Amendment No. 167 is a probing amendment. As he says, the issue is complicated and the development of these schemes will change substantially over time. Therefore, the Committee on Climate Change needs to look at the situation as schemes develop and to produce firm recommendations. I support the requirement for adequate reporting. Amendment No. 168A would leave it for the committee to approve. That is exactly the kind of issue on which we should look to the committee to come up with a figure. I do not think that I am qualified to know what the percentage should be. I am encouraged to say that because my son, who gave evidence to us and who knows infinitely more about these things than I do, reached exactly the same conclusion. I think that he thought, as I do, that we need to come down from the 40 to 50 per cent level, which has been widely accepted up to now in the international market, and seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change. The figure will change from time to time as the issue develops. I firmly support the two ““A”” amendments but would leave the other two as probing.