Climate Change Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I will just come back on a couple of things. On the points of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, we should not forget what I should have said earlier but am sure all noble Lords are well aware of, that the 40 per cent reduction is on 1990 levels. As a nation, we have already achieved some 12 per cent—in terms of carbon dioxide, I think—although we know that since 1997 it has fairly flatlined. Those targets are rather difficult, because we are talking about figures relating to a baseline some 17 years ago—a bit like the rates or the council tax, which we never get around to rebasing. However, that is how it is internationally and that is how it should be in the Bill. Forty per cent is, I agree, a big target, but it is not as big as it seems for the first period. On the low-hanging fruit argument, as I said myself, there are arguments both ways. The huge potential from the unexciting and unsexy area of energy saving is well accepted—particularly in the domestic sector, let alone from energy saving in industry. That is a whole area where, with the right government policies and—let us not forget—public and personal motivation, we could achieve much. Having said that, I agree that there is more sense in the medium-term target going back to the climate change committee—more perhaps than the final one, although we have all accepted around the Chamber that the final target, at 60 per cent, is wrong. We are not absolutely saying that it is wrong, but we all believe that it is wrong. Therefore, what I am saying is that, if you have a mid-term target in the Bill, then it is going to have to be something of the 40 per cent order. That is a fact in order to meet the types of target that are going to be set for us—through Government, but suggested by the climate change committee. I misunderstand the Bill the way that I read it at the moment. To me, the statutory targets have to be between those two numbers—that is how it reads. If I read that wrong, then fair enough. Even then, it certainly needs amendments to point out that that is a target range above the statutory figure or however we move forward. That, to me, is not clear in the Bill at all—in fact, to me it seems clear the other way around. I thank the Minister for his reply. I think that the approach is starting to move in the right way. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]