Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 23: 23: Clause 4, page 3, line 6, after ““budget””),”” insert— ““( ) to set within each of the five years within a budgetary period an annual amount for the net UK carbon account (the ““annual target””), ( ) to set in every calendar year until 2044 an annual amount for the net UK carbon account for the year six years ahead (the ““rolling annual target””),”” The noble Lord said: When we decoupled these amendments we did so in order to differentiate our proposals from those that we were debating before we broke off. It was not my intention to give the Minister a couple of hours to think about these two sets of amendments. Having said that, I am grateful for his response to the previous debate, particularly for his acceptance of the notion that the annual reporting mechanism might include measurements, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord May. One might perhaps go on to say indices. From there it is a relatively short step to talk about indicators; in other words, milestones—annual milestones, as we were suggesting. I hope I will not repeat too much of the previous debate because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to build on the answer he gave regarding that set of amendments. I do not want to repeat old arguments but a rolling target mechanism is a different creature with a different—and, I hope, more effective—weapon for the Minister to use in whatever position he might find himself in five years’ time. The amendments would set up yearly targets that were adjusted for the following six years and create a duty to meet those targets. The mechanism in place for setting a rolling annual target in Amendment No. 30 is that the Secretary of State would set the target in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change and after it had been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Those two conditions would have to be met before the annual target was set. The other amendments stipulate that in the reports, annual and interim, rolling targets would be included. We believe that rolling annual targets are the more appropriate way to have milestones. They offer flexibility and accountability. As mentioned above, the fact that targets were adjusted yearly would allow the Secretary of State and the climate change committee to take account of the multiplicity of variables that might affect the successful accomplishment of a target. That is not intended to give any Minister—or anyone else, for that matter—a way to shirk their responsibilities. On the contrary, the idea of having projections updated every year simply allows for targets to correspond more closely with scientific realities that affect the process of reducing climate change. Reduction in emissions does not follow a steady yearly pattern; all the speakers in all our debates have recognised that, and it is important that any annual milestone arrangement reflects it. The risk is that if some great improvement is made at the beginning of five years—say, a group of old power stations is finally phased out—the Minister will be able to do very little for the remaining five years if he wishes and will still meet the target. That is not acceptable. In order for progress to be maintained, yearly evaluations, with an eye on how one year will affect the coming years, are essential. That would affect Ministers—and everyone else. I have altered my notes, because I am sensitive to the point made by the Minister that the Government are responsible for only 50 per cent of emissions. The response to the Bill, when it is enacted, will go way beyond Whitehall. Everyone will have a responsibility to see that the targets are met. So, with yearly evaluations, Ministers and everyone else could be made more accountable. Actions to reduce climate change could then be assessed independently of some of the accidents of fate that might bring failure or success to a particular year’s budget. That system would allow for an organic assessment process that saw current efforts matched with their related future possibilities. Additionally, having rolling annual adjustments would ensure that projections on expected progress were carried over between Governments. By having the next six years assessed annually, there would be a continuity of the process of reducing emissions that was outside the sphere of everyday politics. No Government could blame their predecessor if the targets for the following six years were under constant scrutiny. That is a major tenet of our position on the Bill as a whole. I am sure your Lordships are beginning to see that with rolling annual targets we would have yet another way to ensure that we were being as faithful to scientific advancement and analysis as possible while removing the ability of Ministers to avoid what we recognise is a great responsibility. At their core, indicative milestones would increase the pressure to ensure that measures were working early in the budget period and would detract from the ability of Ministers, or anyone else, to pass the buck. I beg to move.