| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. The amendments seek to limit the order-making powers of the Secretary of State with regard to the budgets. This is part of our general theme of empowering the Committee on Climate Change to assume a central role regarding questions that concern scientific judgments. The amendments further entrench the triangular arrangement between the Secretary of State, Parliament and the committee. Essentially, the budgets will not be amended except by recommendations of the committee and subject to parliamentary approval.
We believe that it is especially important to empower the committee with regard to the budgets. The way in which the budgets are to be met is the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. However, the budgets are not policy mechanisms; they are a breakdown of scientific priorities into manageable chunks. In other words, the amount that a Government need to reduce their emissions in a given budget period is not a political decision. There will be some political concerns, perhaps, but the budgets are essentially designed to reflect what needs to be done in the light of the necessity of reducing our carbon emissions.
The amendments are an attempt to prevent the Secretary of State from adjusting his own targets. That is important for a number of reasons. The first is a cynical one: although we do not expect the power to amend the budget period to be used in this manner, we want to guarantee that the budget period cannot be altered to fit because of political expedience. If a Secretary of State were faced with a burden that he considered too great, or indeed if he felt that it was not a priority, we hope that there would be resistance to his attempts to amend the budget. However, we cannot leave this mechanism simply to trust. For this reason, it is important that the recommendations to amend the budgets come from the Committee on Climate Change.
The second reason will be familiar to all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill thus far. It has been stressed but still needs further emphasis.
25 Feb 2008 : Column 538
Some concern was expressed in Committee that our amendments would, in effect, remove the role of the Secretary of State. We recognised that there were some risks under our proposals of this being the case. Therefore, on Report, we are bringing back only those amendments that reflect the instances in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is making decisions that would be more suited to scientific deliberation. We feel that the budgets are such an area. If the budgets are not set on such a basis—that is, if they are not founded on the reduction necessary in a five-year period to reach the overall target—on what basis will they be set?
It seems clear to us on this side of the House that the budgets should not be changed unless there is some scientific basis for doing so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that other considerations might necessitate a change in the budgets, such as a shift in international law. We hope that this will be taken into account by the committee, as indeed we hope that international law might have some regard for scientific advancement. We see no reason why the committee should not make such a recommendation. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I intervene briefly to congratulate the opposition Front Bench on introducing a series of amendments with which I completely agree, for reasons that I have laboured at length at all stages. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments. I can only repeat the speech just made by the noble Lord. I agree with every single word that he spoke.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take a leaf out of my noble friend’s book. Given that we have had this discussion more than once, I do not propose to repeat everything that I said in the previous debate. We had a similar discussion on the previous amendments, which would have transferred a number of functions from the Government to the Committee on Climate Change. We have also discussed the government amendments to increase transparency and the publication provisions relating to the committee. I agree that this group of amendments concerns the budget while the previous group concerned the targets. Frankly, however, they are not any less important and our view remains the same. That is why I am not going over the same ground.
Our view is that these functions should remain with the Government and not be transferred to the committee. We do not want the committee to be carrying an executive role. This is not in my briefing,
25 Feb 2008 : Column 539
Lord Teverson: My Lords, I apologise that I was slow in getting up and failed to do so before the Minister rose. I wanted to say the same thing. Although I agree that this is a closer case, we believe that, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State has to make the executive and political decision as to whether to accept a recommendation, however strong that recommendation should and must be from the Committee on Climate Change. It may concern a finer point, but the decision still needs to be taken by an elected body. Comparisons were made earlier with the Monetary Policy Committee and decisions on interest rates. The point on that, which I do not think quite came out, is that the decisions about interest rates, however much they affect the rest of the economy, are tactical ones and relatively short term. All decisions to do with this Bill are strategic decisions that affect the whole of the economy. That is why they need to be political decisions, not ones taken by the committee.
9.45 pm
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I should like to make one other point. The amendment, supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, implies that the Government can never reflect carefully and reasonably disagree with a recommendation of the committee after publishing their views and putting them to both Houses; but that either House could, without any explanation at all, reject the committee's recommendation. In other words, the supremacy of Parliament would rightly be permitted—there would be no reasoned amendments or need for reasons to be given. However, as we all know, people vote for or against Motions for myriad reasons. You would be hard put to write down on a single piece of paper why people voted in a particular way. As I said earlier, it is not at all clear who would discuss this matter with the climate change committee if either House rejected a recommendation. We would have to try to explain the almost inexplicable: what could be done to overcome this?
I urge my noble friend—we are becoming good friends across the Chamber on this occasion—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to reflect on this. This is not a triangular relationship at all, nor is it a relationship of government in relation to the legislature in relation to advice, however expert. I make the point again: either House, even under this amendment, could reject the committee’s recommendation. It would be quite extraordinary if they were able to do so without
25 Feb 2008 : Column 540
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, replies, perhaps he will not mind if I ask the Minister to clarify something for me. I believe that we are drifting into an area of ambiguity that could trap us later. As I understand it—and I am very happy with it—the Minister said that matters which affect the behaviour of people in this country must remain issues of primary legislation and should not be devolved to decisions made by the climate change committee or to secondary legislation. Is that what he said?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the point I made was that the decisions have to be for the Government and accountable to Parliament. We do not want the decision to be made by the climate change committee—we want its advice. The decision will then be made by the Government subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That is the answer to my noble friend. I cannot say that every policy implementing the myriad decisions that will flow will be in primary legislation; statutory instruments may be needed to implement decisions on climate change. This Bill is the main legislation and everything will flow from it, but the decisions have to be taken in a democratic way so that the Government are accountable to Parliament. But perhaps I have misunderstood my noble friend.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue this because it is very important. As I understand it, my noble friend is saying that the key political decisions that relate to this legislation and that will affect people’s lives in years to come should be made during the passage of this Bill as primary legislation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, what I said, as I said in a previous debate, is that if we pushed these decisions, the climate change committee would have an almost executive function. The Government’s only role then would be to put those decisions to Parliament, not to take advice or, if you like, to offer the Government’s view. That would not be good enough. We are saying that these decisions have to be taken by Ministers and then brought to Parliament for its approval. That is why I say that politicisation of these decisions—I promised not to use the P word again, so I won’t—and the practical implications for business and how we live, work and play ought to be dealt with in the democratic forum. That was my point about the politicisation: I did not mean it in a party political sense, but that the democratic process and decision-making forum is here and in the place down the corridor, not in the climate change committee. It will adjudicate on those issues in order to give its advice, but the decisions will have to be made in Parliament.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to this debate, I want to add—with a rather heavy heart—that I cannot quite follow him on
25 Feb 2008 : Column 541
I would accept, along with everyone else, that science should definitely be in the driving seat—it must be the overall consideration. However, he said himself that there might be changes in international law or obligations, or changes posed in ways where the Secretary of State might be much better informed than the committee. The Bill as drafted, which requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out his reasons for not conforming to the advice of the committee, must, on reflection, be considered reasonable.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, each time that we return to this topic—and I make no real apology for rehearsing arguments not only from Committee but from today’s discussions—we come to the heart of governance that is left within this Bill. There are important issues involved, and when I listen to the arguments I can appreciate the exact positions that other noble Lords are taking up, including the Minister. I understand why Governments are reluctant to give executive authority to a committee, however well qualified or authorised.
One thing seeping through, however, is the notion that the process can, in the end, only become fully satisfactory by making sure that Parliament has every opportunity to discuss these things properly. I believe that is what lay behind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Parliament should indeed be informed about differences of opinion that may occur between the climate change committee and the Secretary of State; that is why we have welcomed the moves that the Minister has made on these grounds. I only hope that, as this Bill passes to its Third Reading, we will bear all of this in mind when we come across similar issues. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Consultation on carbon budgets]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
“(a) take into account the advice of the Committee on Climate Change under section 27 (advice in connection with carbon budgets), and”On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Matters to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 42:
“( ) the actual and expected effects of climate change on the environment and populations;”25 Feb 2008 : Column 542
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42 I will also speak to the other amendments in this group, which I see as being important. Although our primary focus of the day has been on budgets and targets, there is still a risk that the very thing we are trying to save is being ignored; namely, the environment. This list of considerations that need to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets seems to omit that concern.
I understand that, when this was previously debated, the Minister gave assurances that the list of things mentioned in this clause is not exhaustive. We appreciate that; however, why is there any reticence about explicitly including the environment? The other amendments in this group shift the language slightly in Clause 10, such that what is considered regarding taxation, fiscal circumstances, energy policy and the other factors is done with regard to climate change and not just a budget decision. This would ensure that what is important—climate change—is driving the decision-making process and not any other concern. The Minister responded to this amendment in Committee by saying that the committee was already under an obligation to take scientific knowledge about climate change into account when considering the decision, so these amendments would be unnecessary and perhaps even muddy the decision-making process.
This seems to me to be the wrong way round. The Government need to consider the impacts of the budget decisions with respect to the real-world things that they affect. However, it seems that in this wording there is a chance that these concerns might somehow take precedence. Can the Minister assure us that he did not intend to make that case? Surely the consideration of all the associated fiscal and social issues of a decision to set a budgetary period should be tempered by the necessities of climate change; that is, the decision should not be rooted in these concomitant issues but in the necessities of meeting the ultimate targets. The budget should be set according to what is absolutely necessary to mitigate climate change and the other concerns should follow. Can the Minister assure us that this is the case under the current wording? Can he explain the process by which considerations would affect the budget setting? Would there be scope to temper the budgets and decrease the necessity to reduce emissions to fit in with economic concerns? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As the noble Lord said, all these amendments were discussed in Committee and I emphasised that the factors in Clause 10 are broad and comprehensive.
The Government agree that climate change will have wide-reaching effects on both the environment and on populations, as proposed in Amendment No. 42. However, we still consider that it would already be adequately covered by the words in the Bill,
I am happy to put it on record that it is the Government’s firm view, and intention, that the duty to have regard to,
25 Feb 2008 : Column 543
in advising and setting budgets requires the Committee on Climate Change and the Government to consider both the causes of climate change and its likely impacts.
I hope that offers all the reassurance your Lordships’ House is looking for on this issue. We do not believe that Amendment No. 42 will add anything to what is already in Clause 10(2)(a).
Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 would require the Secretary of State and the committee to have regard to the impact of climate change on various factors rather than the effects of budgets on various factors. I know that the intention is, as the noble Duke put it in Committee,
- “that the changing climate should be the primary factor in our decision-making”.—[Official Report, 8/1/08; col. 757.]
But these amendments seem to show a slight misunderstanding of the budget-setting process and how the Bill will work.
The whole idea of Clause 10 is to set out the factors that are relevant in setting carbon budgets. Of course, the Secretary of State and the climate change committee will have to think about the causes and effects of climate change. I have discussed that in the context of Amendment No. 42. I remind your Lordships that Clause 8(2) requires budgets to be set with a view to meeting the 2050 target, so the core aim of the Bill is already embedded in the process.
It is also vital that the Secretary of State and the committee think about the effect of the budgets on economic, fiscal and social circumstances and on our energy supplies and businesses. Before taking a decision, you need to think what the impacts of that decision are going to be. It seems extraordinary to me that anyone could disagree with that proposition.
I was asked to give an example of how this might work. I give an example on biodiversity, which is covered in my question and answer briefing. As regards how the Government are considering biodiversity in policy-making, I refer to the Severn barrage, as this was raised during the Committee debate on Clause 10.
25 Feb 2008 : Column 544
This is an example of a government policy decision where it is appropriate that we fully consider the impact on biodiversity to ensure that we can accommodate both of our aims: to tackle climate change and to protect our wildlife. That is why we have launched a feasibility study looking at the potential costs and benefits of the barrage that will look at all relevant issues. The Severn barrage is an example of a government policy designed to help meet the carbon budgets where it is right that we look at biodiversity. I fear that trying to assess the impact of the budget, with little knowledge of what policies are going to be implemented to meet it, could be meaningless and could distract the committee from its core tasks. I have picked out one example, but if I were pushed I could find others. That is an example where I am linking the two together so that you do not lose sight of your main goal, but I am trying to convince your Lordships that the broad scope of the phrase in the Bill that I have relied on,
covers and encompasses these areas.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way he has answered the debate on the amendment. It seems strange that we are on Report and we are still in seminar mode, but it is in the nature of the legislation. It is unique. This is untrodden territory and we will continue to learn and to seek to understand the Government’s intentions, to be satisfied that they have taken on board our anxieties. I hope that the Minister is grateful to us presenting the amendments and for giving him the opportunity of explaining the Government’s position. I beg leave withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 not moved.]
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 10.02 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |