Climate Change Bill [HL]

I thank every noble Lord who has contributed to the debate; I found it most useful. The Minister said something towards the end that could be slightly dangerous, although he did not mean it that way. It was the idea that the Prime Minister had suggested 80 per cent, so there could be no greater indication to the climate change committee of what the figure need be. In a way, that is then almost the last number that we want the climate change committee to come up with, because its independence in the future would be seen as nothing. We might hope that it comes up with 81.75 per cent as the right number. More seriously, I made it clear when I moved the amendment that I was not saying that there was a perfect answer to deal with the issue in the Bill. The absolutely logical way was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam: that we take everything out, let the experts pontificate—although we understand that this is an inexact science, let alone the subject of the UK’s obligation within a broader, global analysis—the committee comes back and makes a technical recommendation, and the Government make a political decision on that technical evidence. As the Minister said, however, that takes the stuffing out of the Bill; it would look a weak Bill and would have to be changed in several areas. There has to be a number in the Bill. From these Benches, we are saying that rather than going with what is clearly a wrong number, we should note the scientific consensus—if ever there were one—that the nearest round number is probably 80 per cent. That is why we suggested it. We do not say that it is perfect; we wish to find a way forward. Liberal Democrats would say that we should have a carbon-neutral economy by 2050, but we are trying to get consensus in the Committee on something that will work. We look forward to debates on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.