Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 183: 183: Clause 36, page 18, line 5, leave out ““relevant national authority”” and insert ““Secretary of State”” The noble Duke said: My Lords, if this were Committee stage I would say that this is a probing amendment. If your Lordships will put up with me, I shall speak to various questions around this issue without the actual wording that we put in the Bill. The Minister explained in Committee that accepting the amendment as it was drafted would prevent UK-wide trading schemes as the Secretary of State would not have authority over the schemes in the devolved Administrations. I appreciate that point, and it is certainly not the goal of our amendment. However, we have retabled it because on consideration we still feel that there are some unanswered questions concerning devolution and trading schemes. It is rather up in the air as to what will be in the Scottish climate change Bill. I gather that some of the ideas are currently out for consultation. Perhaps the Minister is being kept up to date on whether the basic proposals are on the same lines as we anticipate will be brought in under the carbon-reduction commitment, the one visible policy which would come in under the Bill we are now discussing. So far, I do not believe that the Scottish Administration expect to set up their own climate change committee. Is a good mechanism available whereby the good work that is done by the climate change committee here can be made readily available so that the Scots can evaluate what might be of use to them? We have delved into the issue of national authority several times but there still seem to be remaining concerns. It would be interesting to know whether a trading scheme for the UK could apply all over the UK. Can the Minister give any indication whether this will come about? I suppose that the trading scheme would be beneficial to all parts of the country so there is no obvious reason, at the moment, why there might be disagreement. Indeed, the devolved Administrations might be particularly affected, especially if in the future there are mechanisms to create carbon credits by certifying reductions. This means that other sorts of emissions reduction regulation, such as feed-in tariffs, might then become linked into trading schemes. Interestingly, one of the functions that is not devolved is energy, so feed-in tariffs might have to apply across the whole country. I know it is a slightly different issue but it might cause disagreement about trading scheme regulation in the future. Feed-in tariffs, to take one example, might cause disagreement as some evidence suggests that they tend to promote certain types of geographically specific ways of reducing emissions which might favour one nation over another. For example, feed-in tariffs in Germany, together with planning law, tend to favour wind power and cause a concentration of development in the northern coastal states. A similar thing could happen in Scotland with hydroelectricity. If there were the opportunity to have emission reductions certified as tradable credits—an issue I will take up later—the trading schemes regulation becomes intimately linked into all manner of more local regulation and devolved issues. The Minister has told the House that the devolved Administrations will be free to set their own schemes but that it might be necessary to have UK-wide regulation for trading schemes. How can we be assured that this will be the case if it is to be determined individually by the national authorities? It seems very open-ended and could lead to possible confusion. The Minister said that he previously opposed this amendment because of a lack of sophistication in its drafting. Does he accept its intention? Would he consider bringing something forward at Third Reading to clear up the confusion regarding the direction of the trading schemes regulation? I beg to move.