Climate Change Bill [HL]

In one respect, these two amendments say the same thing: that the upper limit should be removed. We support that. In the unlikely event that the UK’s emissions reductions are 50 per cent by 2020, it would be admirable and we would be patting ourselves on the back, but as things stand, with the upper limit at 32 per cent, a higher achievement would be against the law, which would be absurd. We believe that setting the upper limit by 2020 would fly in the face of the thrust of the Bill, but that is where the similarities end. The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is for the reduction to be at least 40 per cent. That is consistent with what they previously said about target setting. We on these Benches do not support putting 40 per cent in the Bill. When Clause 1 was being discussed last week, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach argued that the committee not politicians should set the targets. His arguments apply equally to these amendments to Clause 5. Nearly all noble Lords who have contributed to debates on the Bill have said that the 2020 and 2050 targets are too low. Who knows? It might be that 40 per cent is the right answer, but we are saying that the committee should look at it and once it has looked at all the evidence and the science, the 2020 target can be set, but without an upper limit.