Climate Change Bill [HL]

I apologise, my Lords; that was me trying to contact the airport to say I would be late for my plane. As I was saying, no amount of ministerial tautology can convince me that ““supplemental”” means anything other than less than the principal sum, which this amendment generously concedes might be up to 50 per cent. The full implications of this Bill will over time ask a great deal of every citizen in this country. For that reason alone, it must start its legislative life by being unblinkingly honest. Despite the many problems this amendment causes—over the past few months, officials have tortuously tutored me in all of them—it will be a great mistake to allow this piece of legislation to pass, leaning as it does on what to the man or woman in the street would appear to be a rather convenient piece of legal juggling, no matter how justified. The Library of the House checked the Law Reports on the use of the word ““supplemental””. I am satisfied that my understanding of the word is the one the courts use. To that same person in the street ““supplemental”” will continue to mean ““supplemental””. Until the forthcoming Copenhagen summit decides to remove that injunction, or at least find another way of describing it, no honeyed words from my noble friend on the Front Bench are likely to change my view that this is a disproportionately important matter. It is disproportionately important because this is all about trust. If Governments have learned nothing else in these past few months, it should have been that trust is not just one factor in their relationship to the electorate; it is the whole ball of wax. The Government sit on a knife edge. If trusted, they might achieve a great deal. If they allow that trust to slip, however, the abyss beckons.