I support my noble friend on this amendment. I was saddened by the Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s recommendations on this matter. The most that the Government managed to come forward with was the statement that they were proposing to amend the Bill to require the Government to explain in Parliament why they had failed to meet the carbon budget. However, that is not good enough. When one has a budget of this nature, it is unacceptable to say, ““These are the reasons why we have not achieved it””, and then to sit down and do nothing about it. The whole point of the amendment and the Joint Committee’s recommendation was that something had to be done about it. The Government argued in their response that, if there were a compliance mechanism, it would be likely to weaken the statutory result from a judicial review. I do not think that that is right. I do not think that a judicial review will be very likely to happen under this Bill, for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. However, a compliance mechanism is necessary, just as it is with the Kyoto agreement, and it should be very simple. In it, the Government should set out exactly how they are going to remedy the situation in which they find themselves.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Caithness
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 December 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c539 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:00:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430969
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430969
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430969