Climate Change Bill [HL]

I would dearly love to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and be very quick about it, but I shall take a few moments to give the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the time that it deserves. I understand the sentiments behind it. As he said, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set every carbon budget, "““with a view to meeting””," the 2050 target, the target percentage range of 2020 and any target percentage range for a year after 2050. Budgets must be set with a view to complying with the UK's European Community and international obligations—for example, as noble Lords are aware, any international treaties to which the UK is a signatory. So there is already a statutory requirement on the Government to set budgets in such a way that the targets are met. That is the intention of the Bill. I agree with noble Lords that it is important that the Bill focuses on, and commits us to delivering, the overall outcome of the 2050 target, otherwise why would we all be here? However, Amendment No. 43 seeks to ensure that the levels of all carbon budgets are consistent with the targets in the Bill. That is a very specific and not just a semantic amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, the difficulty with the amendment is that it would require every budget to meet the targets in the Bill. I agree that that would not be possible. The level of the 2038 to 2042 budget, for example, cannot be set at such a level that it meets the 2050 target, as the target does not fall within the budget period. If the noble Lord accepts that as an example of a budget being unable to meet a specific target, he will accept that the amendment is unnecessary, although I fully appreciate that the sentiment behind it is to drive the policy objective of the Bill forward. I hope therefore that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.