Climate Change Bill [HL]

May I agree with many of the recent comments of Members of the Committee and add one or two reasons? First, for many businesses, the idea that five years is a long time and three is appropriate is far from the truth. The overall targets that the committee will introduce will, I assume, be the result of building up a number of sectoral targets. In some sectors, to break down targets into three-year as opposed to five-year periods would be impossible. In the power-generating industry, to break down into a succession of three-year periods what will happen over 15 years is pie in the sky. The result would be that the committee would become discredited. The committee would set not only the overall target but a number of sectoral proposals. They are as important as the overall target because what does the target mean for different sectors and consumers—the people who actually buy the product? If time and again the three-year figure is not remotely met, very quickly, the series of three-year targets would be discredited. If when the committee is established it is asked whether it would prefer three five-year periods or five three-year periods, I have no doubt what the answer would be. The noble Lord should consider that point. I note from many of the remarks that the CBI briefing has been effectively referred to. We have to take industry and business with us and the advice of industry and business is in no doubt about this. I hope that, on this occasion, we can agree this on an all-party basis. Finally, on the question of three-year or five-year periods of the political cycle, the objective is to have all-party agreement and consensus. To build an argument around suggesting that if a government change everything might change or that someone will apportion blame is not helpful. In any case, even with three-year periods and four-year Governments—that has tended to be the case—it is perfectly possible that a new Government could come in and inherit a three-year cycle at the end of its first year and then, blow me, set another one in its second year and be out of office before the period ends. It is not a simple matter. To try to set the requirements of the Committee on Climate Change based on where it may fit into an electoral cycle is hopeless. If you were to ask the committee, it would say that the best thing to do is to ignore electoral cycles. There is food for thought there and I hope that the noble Lord will consider that, although this has been a useful debate, he will withdraw the amendment.