Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 66: 66: Clause 12, page 6, line 22, after ““Parliament”” insert ““and table a resolution for its approval”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 86, 89 and 92, which bring the same argument to bear to Amendment No. 66. Interestingly, a short while ago we were talking about Parliament’s role in scrutinising the legislation and these amendments are about part of that process. Hand in hand with our efforts to increase the power and independence of the Climate Change Committee, we are seeking to increase parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. These amendments put into legislation what I have previously described as the triangular arrangement between the Government, Parliament and the Climate Change Committee. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State is required to lay down certain reports before Parliament. We on these Benches do not want to risk these statements slipping into Hansard unnoticed. The reporting mechanism on the progress in the fight against climate change needs to be rigorous. We need to have a statutory way of ensuring that reports on the Government’s success or failure do not slip between the cracks and disappear. That is why our amendments require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament not only the annual statement of UK emissions, the final statement for budgetary periods and the final statement for 2050, but also to table a resolution for its approval. In this way, we will ensure that it receives the attention it deserves. Parliamentary scrutiny of the progress is essential to ensure that the Government accounts for their actions. It allows for debate on the Floor of the House and for increased chance of public engagement. Does the Minister agree that increased scrutiny on the reports of progress increases the impetus on the Government to act? Does the Minister agree that seeking greater transparency would be beneficial? The increased chance for public engagement is not just empty rhetoric. This is a problem that will require the concerted action not only of government departments, but of individual citizens. Any opportunity that might increase public awareness and engagement with our progress towards ending climate change should be considered a very good thing indeed. Does the Minister agree? What would be the Minister’s reasons for not allowing Parliament a chance to debate the reports in both Houses? I beg to move.