Climate Change Bill [HL]

I am grateful for the debate. I do not want to be accused of not listening because I agree with many of the points that have been made. Also, although there has not been a lot of support for the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, he made a central point that seems to be lost sometimes; that is, that ““the Secretary of State”” means the Government. As an ex-Secretary of State, the noble Lord probably realises that. Decisions are not made by an individual in a ministry; it is not like that. It is not possible—although it would be convenient, of course—to have all our energy provisions wrapped up in one Bill with one ministry in charge. All that is for the Government. Otherwise there would be no division of labour at all. The noble Lord, Lord May, apologised for not being here for previous sittings, and we understand fully the reasons why. But he was certainly here in spirit because his amendment was fully debated even though he was not personally present to move it. Members of the Committee found it incredibly helpful to have that amendment before them that day because it provided us with a possible lifeboat while we looked for a solution. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said when he kicked off, this group of amendments raises the question of the relationship between the Government, the Committee on Climate Change and Parliament, which we discussed before Christmas and no doubt will discuss again. My answer today is the same: so far as issues of transparency are concerned, we undertake to take this group of amendments, as with others before it, away for consideration. That is genuinely meant and is not a one-off response to a particular debate. There is a theme running through the amendments concerning the Committee on Climate Change and its relationship with Parliament and the Government. In the end the country will still want to know who is in charge, and thus be able to hold them accountable. The country cannot demand that the Committee on Climate Change be accountable to ““the people””; people will demand that from their elected representatives whether they be at Westminster or in the devolved Administrations. We have to find a satisfactory way round that. But as I say, consideration has already commenced regarding the transparency of the decision-making process and the relationships between the three bodies and it is hoped that we will be able to come forward with something on that at Report. It is not my job to push the Bill along; it is the will of the Committee. I only have the same message to give in this area of debate: we will very seriously consider looking at the transparency arrangements. We do not believe that the decisions should be made by an unelected body. They must be made by a body accountable to Parliament, with proper scrutiny, which is another area that we have committed to consider again. Obviously we want advice from the independent committee, and we want far more robust scrutiny than Parliament or its mechanisms have at the moment. We will take away and consider aspects of that part of the process; it is important. We will do this where there are similar thrusts behind different groups of amendments, which are clearly there on the Marshalled List. Looking ahead, there are amendments to Clauses 19 and 20 that cover the same issue. I shall make exactly the same commitment on behalf of the Government. Amendment No. 97 specifically relates to the alteration of the length of budget periods under Clause 18. The Committee on Climate Change does not currently have a role. This is because the only circumstances in which the powers in Clause 18 may be exercised are if a change to budgetary periods is needed to keep them in line with similar periods under European or international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. As we have discussed, the key reason for choosing the five-year period proposed in the Bill is to ensure that the UK framework mirrors international timescales. There is no need for the committee to have a role in decisions about the length of budget periods, as any decision to move away from a five-year period may only be based on changes in the international situation. Any use of that power would simply realign the United Kingdom with those international frameworks. I make that point in relation to Amendment No. 97 because I do not want to be too dismissive. There is a practical reason why the committee will not have a role in changing the budget periods. The general thrust of this group of amendments concerns the relationship between the three bodies, certainly as far as Parliament, individual Members in both Houses and people outside are concerned. They need to trust that the system is working and can only do so if it is genuinely transparent. As I said, we will come forward after discussion with proposals to make sure that this issue is far more transparent than it is in the Bill at present.