Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 39: 39: Clause 6, page 3, line 39, at end insert— ““( ) That power may only be exercised if— (a) a recommendation to make an order under this section is made by the Committee on Climate Change; (b) the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and it must be exercised as soon as practicable after a recommendation is so approved. ( ) It is the duty of the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after the making of a recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change to lay it before both Houses of Parliament and make a resolution for its approval.”” The noble Lord said: After what has been a rather eventful Christmas break—and I hope the Minister is recovering from his inadvertent break during our recess—we return to consider this important Bill. The fact that these three weeks have gone by in a flash rather suggests that 2050 may not be as far off as we imagine. I am moving Amendment No.39 but I will be speaking to all other amendments in this group. It is appropriate that we return to talk on this subject because it is one that we have raised in previous debates. I remember clarifying our view that the Bill needed beefing up and that the best way of doing this was by strengthening the role of the Committee on Climate Change in its triangular relationship with the Government through the Secretary of State and Parliament. These amendments put the Committee on Climate Change centre stage in determining the effectiveness of the Bill in achieving its objectives. It makes it difficult for the Secretary of State to counter the decisions of the Committee and to override it in setting targets and budgets. How in practice do these amendments operate? They limit the order-making powers of the Secretary of State when amending target percentages as well as carbon budgets by transferring the power to the Committee on Climate Change, subject to parliamentary approval. Let me explain how this would work. Essentially no targets could be amended without the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change and the approval of both Houses in Parliament and an order must be made if those conditions are met. The Committee on Climate Change is subject to the same limitation in the exercise of power as the Secretary of State is under the Bill. The triangular balance is maintained—committee, Government and Parliament. The detailed form of the order would of course be left to the Secretary of State. Perhaps I can elaborate on this scene. As on the last day of debate on this Bill, we on these Benches will today be repeating the broad themes that form the substance of our approach. These amendments entrench those themes. We have mentioned that it is of the utmost importance that science and not politics leads the strategy against climate change and we have repeated that there is a need to strengthen the committee’s powers and to limit those of the Secretary of State. I have already rehearsed our motivation for doing this. There is an important point about balance of power that should not be overlooked. Our amendments are designed to shift that balance—I make no secret of that fact—but not to completely reverse it. We recognise that tackling climate change will require the co-ordination of Parliament, the Committee and the Government. It is the Secretary of State who will implement the policies and I do not want to suggest for a moment cutting the Government out of the equation. After all, they are the agency through whom all will be delivered. However, we on these Benches feel that it is simply not acceptable for the Secretary of State to be the one to set the targets. If the scientific realities are to be addressed, we must follow scientific recommendations. The only reason the Secretary of State would have for straying from the committee’s recommendations would be political, which cannot be allowed to happen in this framework and in the way in which the Bill is constructed. How we implement the suggested strategies might well be a political issue and consequently left to politicians. However, the targets are in a sense an absolute issue. As the Bill stands there is not enough check on the power of the Secretary of State on matters of science. Our amendments would shift the balance back to where it belongs, such that no Minister could change a target by order if he feared he might not achieve it. When considering the magnitude of the issue and the consequential significance of changing the targets, we on these Benches feel that it should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. If there is a circumstance that would make the Minister stray from the recommendation, he would have an opportunity to make his case publicly. That mechanism would allow for the scrutiny that a change of this magnitude requires. I suspect that the Minister thinks that we on these Benches perhaps go too far in our emphasis on the driving role of science in these matters. Even if he will not go as far as we would like, does he at least agree that there is a fundamental problem with leaving so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State when setting targets and budgets? Does he not think that there needs to be some shift or ground given beyond just merely taking advice that could make the Bill more effective and increase the public’s confidence in the ambitious goals that we are setting for ourselves? I expect that noble Lords will have much to say on this subject, and I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest. I beg to move.