Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 183ZA: 183ZA: Clause 36, page 18, line 13, at end insert— ““( ) Where a scheme introduced under this part depends on the limitation of the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by those participating in the scheme, the limits of those reductions shall be established so that the scheme achieves equivalent reductions to those required under Section 1(1) by 2050.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I apologise to the House for introducing it on Report. I confess that for the past two or three weeks, both my intestines and my brains have been somewhat addled by something that my doctors call the norovirus. My mental processes have perhaps not been as sharp as they should have been, hence the late arrival of the amendment. This part of the Bill gives the relevant national authorities the power to make provision by regulations for trading schemes relating to greenhouse gas emissions. Of itself that is very worthy, and I have no difficulty with the proposal as it stands. My amendment is designed to put a framework on to that power to ensure that the limits of carbon emissions, on any of the schemes introduced under this part of the Bill, have to parallel the limits of reductions in emissions that are implied by the limits that might be created under Part 1. There is a very simple reason why I am asking this question. The European Emissions Trading Scheme, which is so often held up as a wonderful example of how a trading scheme should work was, frankly, in its phase 1 persona, a total disaster. The political will to make the scheme effective simply was not there. Phase 1 of the scheme achieved virtually nothing, except to set up a suitable administration. I will give it that benefit. As far as reducing emissions was concerned, no, this was not the way to do it. Phase 2 of the scheme may be more effective. It has come into effect. The price of a tonne of carbon emissions has risen to somewhere near what may become a sensible figure. Phase 3 is under negotiation. At this moment I have no confidence in the political willpower of those responsible for this scheme, which—if my memory is correct—we heard earlier this evening is responsible for something like 50 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions. I have no confidence that the administrators of this scheme will set limits that will take our emissions down to the sorts of levels implied by the figure that the Government have now put in Part 1 of this Bill, still less the figure that the Committee on Climate Change may well ask the Government to impose when it has had time to consider adequately the development of information on climate change since the original figure was suggested. Therefore, we need to look at any scheme introduced under this part of the Bill, to ensure that it has regard to the strategic target which the nation has now set, and which may be amended to an even more severe target. It may well be that the Minister will be able to tell us not to worry, and that this is not an issue because it is implicit in everything the Bill says that the state I want to bring about will happen. If the Minister gets up and tells me that, that will be fine. If he cannot tell me that, we need to be quite concerned. If we are going to establish these schemes, and if they are going to work, they have to take emissions down to the levels implied under Part 1 of the Bill. If they do not, frankly, they are not worth establishing. I hope I do not have to come back to this and that the Minister will be able to give me the assurances that I need. I beg to move.