Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 20: 20: Clause 4, page 3, line 4, leave out ““five”” and insert ““three”” The noble Lord said: I also speak to Amendment Nos. 21, 28, 147 and 148. I hope that this will be an opportunity for the Minister to have five pieces of good news in a row but we shall see. This is a very serious point and an important one. The length of budget periods is important to everybody in terms of business and planning. It is important to Government, Parliament and all the stakeholders in the climate change issue. We on these Benches believe that five years is too long. Why is it too long? Nearly all Administrations last four years or less; certainly they do not extend beyond five years. This means that we will not know whether any commitment entered into by a Government has been met until the next Administration or the next Parliament. We do not feel that that is healthy. It is not the right incentive and it will not be seen from the outside as being able to bring accountability. Much of this Bill concentrates on accountability and it is an area which a number of noble Lords want to strengthen. We believe that this is an area where there is a gap between intention and accountability. Also, psychologically—I mentioned this at Second Reading so I will not go into it at any great length—five years for anybody is a long, long way off; certainly it is for us as individual human beings. I notice that that is not true for all noble Lords but at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, talked about hyperbolic discounting in terms of the future being discounted by individuals at a higher rate than the normal financial rate. We take decisions based on the short term. That is true for organisational planning. In the first year we think five years is a long way off and we normally do not get around to taking it seriously until at least year three. That is very dangerous because, as the Minister has reminded us several times this evening, the earlier and the quicker we take action, the less painful that action is. A five-year time horizon is too far away to concentrate minds and get action that will help carbon emissions and reduce future global warming. We feel that three years is much more suitable. There are other arguments—such as the fact that spending reviews are around that period of time as well—but if there are not interim targets or there are not interim milestones, a three-year period is even more important. Lastly, this is all about the business sector and others believing that there is real intent behind this Bill. I believe that that intent will be better reinforced over a shorter time period than a Government and a Parliament looking at what they want to achieve five years hence, which does not bring the urgency and the action needed by stakeholders in this whole climate change issue. I beg to move.