Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, at end insert— ““( ) Those powers may only be exercised— (a) if a recommendation to make an order under this section is made by the Committee on Climate Change; (b) if the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and they must be exercised as soon as practicable after a recommendation is so approved. ( ) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after the making of a recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change, lay the order before both Houses of Parliament and table a resolution for its approval.”” The noble Lord said: I am very reassured by the debate that we had on the previous amendment, because this amendment forms part and parcel of the same suite of amendments designed to reinforce the authority of the Committee on Climate Change. We believe in that and we are heartened to find that the Government have a similar objective in mind. The suite of amendments is designed to limit the power to make an order amending the 2050 target or the baseline year and transfer these powers to the Committee on Climate Change, subject to parliamentary approval. No order could be made without the recommendation of the committee and the approval of both Houses as part of the combination, but it must be made if those conditions are met. If the committee is made subject to the same limitations on the exercise of power, those should be the same as the Secretary of State would enjoy under the Bill. The detailed form of the order would still be left to the Secretary of State, so I hope that noble Lords can see that we are bringing the Committee on Climate Change into the process, with its approval necessary for something to come before us here in Parliament. This is about transferring power to the committee. A large tenet of our position on the Bill lies in this quarter. All the things that we have mentioned thus far apply to this set of amendments. Additionally, when changes are made to the baseline year or the targets, that would require parliamentary approval. That is a positive addition, because such a proposal would amount to a substantial change to the Bill. We want the Bill to live up to the importance that it deserves and such a change will reflect something dramatic enough to need the scrutiny of Parliament, especially as the outcome of the decision will affect every piece of legislation and policy. It is in the interests of the public and all parliamentarians to have any such change presented openly to both Houses. It is too big a change, with effects that are far too wide-ranging, for it simply to be made through an order. That reinforces the need for transparency. It is imperative that a change such as this cannot slip by unnoticed. Perhaps it would not, because there is usually an alert Member of this House keeping an eye open for these things. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could simply amend the heart of the Bill without anyone really knowing. We need parliamentary approval to allow for public scrutiny, as well as scrutiny in Westminster, of the reasons for adjusting the targets and the baseline year. The Bill will affect everyone in its implementation. It needs to have the transparency and authority that will have public support throughout. We need consensus; we have consensus on so much on this Bill and we need consensus to change things in this way. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.