Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 174: 174: Clause 30, page 16, line 9, at end insert— ““( ) advise the authority on the potential for reducing the effects of climate change through the adoption of a daylight saving scheme.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the last time we proposed this amendment, it triggered some responses that were supportive and others that were clearly not. Throughout the months of deliberation, a great deal of emphasis has been laid on the need for consensus, and the passage of the Bill so far has largely reflected that position. Our amendment is in exactly that mould. We do not urge or demand; we simply request that the climate change committee advise the authority on the potential for reducing the effects of climate change through the adoption of a daylight saving scheme. Whether or not to explore daylight saving is a matter entirely for the climate change committee. Since the publication of the Bill last May, there has been increasing concern that the severity of the threat has grown and that targets originally contained in the Bill appear not only daunting but even inadequate to fulfil the objective of radically reducing UK carbon emissions. As David King said only last weekend, the challenge is so great that we are going to need every tool in the bag. We must assume that measures will need to be adopted that will not always be comfortable and that changes to individual lifestyles will inevitably sometimes be very painful. The Stern report categorically told us that the sooner we tackle climate change, the cheaper and more effective our action will be. Daylight saving could be just one tool in the bag. By matching daylight hours more closely to waking hours, the use of electricity would be reduced. Use of the most basic model of daylight saving would yield a 2 per cent reduction of electricity consumption. With even more stringent daylight saving schemes, even greater economies could be made. The resultant decrease in carbon emissions could prove invaluable. Add to that equation the possible threat to our energy supply and reducing the use of electricity becomes even more desirable. We are confident that the climate change committee—the committee of experts that we have discussed—will look at the suggestion contained in the amendment as it sees fit. Having seen the list of members appointed to that committee, we have total confidence in their judgment. They would be in a position to judge the value of daylight saving against the outcome of similar schemes in the USA, Australia and 70 other countries. We are convinced that, given the global concern at the gravity of the climate change threat, all industrialised nations will be forced to do the same. We could learn from one another. There are, of course, traditional objections to a UK daylight saving scheme, all of which are valid to varying degrees. The experiment in the 1960s was abandoned for a variety of reasons; it is oft cited as the prime objection to any scheme. However, that was 40 years ago. Factors that seemed overwhelming then may appear less significant now when judged against the relatively new threat of climate change. Actions taken now can reduce that threat and protect our planet. Finally, I draw your Lordships’ attention to last Friday’s debate in the other place, when Mr Tim Yeo advanced the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill as a Private Member’s Bill, using evidence, statistics and arguments almost identical to those that we used at the previous stage of this Bill some weeks ago. It is encouraging and reassuring to see such consensus and agreement on this issue. While fully appreciating the reasonable opposition to the amendment—too controversial, too early, or even unnecessary—we would be grateful if the Minister could at least hold the door ajar for what we believe to be a constructive and sensible proposal. I beg to move.