Climate Change Bill [HL]

I was conscious as I made that point that I had got the line wrong—it is line 5 but it is the first line of the first clause the way the Bill is drafted—but it was a slightly different argument that was being advanced. That line was drafted so as to send a signal to the Civil Service; the noble Lord knows how the culture of Whitehall works. That is what Clause 1, line 1 is intended to do but, with respect, this is a slightly different issue. The duty to implement would create a risk that a Government might choose to limit the policies included in the report in order to avoid a requirement to implement those policies. This could create a barrier to transparent and ambitious policy-making. A further point, and one that I hope will appeal to your Lordships, is that a duty to implement a plan could be seen as a very broad enabling power for the Government to carry out any actions they proposed through the plan. I have no doubt the Delegated Powers Committee will have a look at that. I only say it ““could”” be seen to be a very broad enabling power. I do not think a power of that breadth would win the support of your Lordships’ House. I turn to Amendment No. 64A. I appreciate the proposed duty, "““to take reasonable steps to implement””." The proposals and policies may be intended to provide greater flexibility rather than a simple duty to implement but we think the Bill takes the right approach—Ministers always say that—in focusing the legal duty on the outcome. It is the outcome not the process that is important and that the Government need to be challenged by. Rather than arguing about the means of achieving the budget we need to know that the outcome has been achieved. This ensures that we can take a forward-looking approach to policy-making and avoid being restricted to policies originally set out in the Clause 11 report when a change in approach since that report might deliver more effective emission-saving. In other words, there has to be a degree of flexibility. If we set this out in a highly restrictive fashion, which is what the initial Amendment No. 60 would do, that would have the exact opposite effect to what your Lordships are seeking to achieve. I note the caveat that this goes back to Clause 1. At Report I am going to better delineate the arguments on Clause 1 and Clause 11.