I oppose the amendment. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to amend the figure. It provides that, when he does so, he must consider the scientific evidence and take the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. It does not provide that the committee should determine the figure. That is no doubt something that we will discuss later and noble Lords will not be surprised if I have a view about it.
We are talking about deciding now that 80 per cent is the figure, when the target of at least 60 per cent was firmly based some years ago. Subsequent evidence should be carefully weighed up. The Bill makes provision for that to be done. In fact, it is an obligation on the Secretary of State to do so and to take the early advice of the independent committee. When all the stakeholders who are subsequently affected ask, ““Why is it 80 per cent and not 60 per cent?””, the Secretary of State will be able to provide a coherent argument based on scientific evidence and the view of the independent committee. Then the stakeholders, whose behaviour has to change radically, will have the confidence and security that the basis is one that they can buy into. If the answer is that Parliament, having the Bill in front of it, said, ““We think 80 per cent is better; we will take a judgment by a vote on scientific evidence””, that does not seem to me to be the way to get stakeholders to buy into and undertake the necessary change.
I am confident that the way in which the Bill is framed is intended to allow the Government of the day to amend upwards, as it refers to ““at least”” 60 per cent. That can be done in the light of evidence, so that the stakeholders—who initially will largely be industry and, through that, consumers, although they may eventually, through personal allowances, be people more directly—will be able to feel that this was not about votes by different people about whether it should be 60 per cent or 80 per cent. That is not the basis on which to take people with us. Rather, people should feel that due process has been followed. I would be surprised if the figure is not revised upwards. This contribution is not intended to challenge or question that, but to ask how we get there and how we take people with us.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 December 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c176 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:38:37 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429271
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429271
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429271