Climate Change Bill [HL]

I am in trouble here. Regarding the final points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about having debates on the Floor of both Houses, this amendment requires no such thing. I can assure noble Lords that that would not happen. I will come to the substantive point on whether it adds any value, because that is an important aspect of this. From a practical point of view, this House obviously has a different structure from the other place, but I can assure noble Lords that there is no way that a piece of legislation would require there to be debates on the Floor. There would be ways to put it to a committee somewhere or to make it more targeted. However, I take the point about the level of parliamentary interest and scrutiny. All the amendments want the issue to be put upfront, which is important. We have discussed the balance of responsibilities between the Committee on Climate Change, the Government and Parliament. However, we should ask ourselves if the amendments as drafted—because I can deal only with the way that they are drafted—add any value. Clauses 12, 14 and 15 already require these statements to be laid before Parliament. If there were any concern in Parliament about the content of the publications, there is a dozen ways of raising any issue in the other place. I have no doubt that, one day, when I am no longer at this Box, I will find a dozen ways of raising issues in this place because I simply do not the procedure from the Back Benches. However, there are enough ways of raising concerns in Parliament. Therefore, having laid them before Parliament for formal approval, we would argue in terms of what is the best use of parliamentary time. However, that might not require a debate. If the business managers got to work, it could be done without one, but the objective of ensuring that these things were upfront in Parliament would be lost. It is important that Members of this House keep a very close watch. I turn to some important technical aspects. The Bill requires that the statements provided under these clauses have to be compiled in accordance with international methodologies. That means that the most up-to-date and accurate information available must be used, as must the same systems and emissions data as in the annual emissions inventory which the UK is already required to submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A background paper on how this emissions inventory is compiled has already been circulated. Briefly, the annual emissions inventory publication is produced by independent consultants on the Government's behalf, and is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics. It is respected, subject to rigorous quality assurance and peer review, and supplied according to international guidelines. The information provided is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and all UK emissions data are also independently scrutinised under the framework convention arrangements. The latest United Nations review of the UK inventory accepted all UK emissions statistics without adjustment. It is not as though we are a completely free agent in the way that these reports are put together; I emphasise that they are done to criteria set out internationally, peer reviewed and produced by independent consultants. Given the safeguards that are already in place to ensure the quality and reliability of the information provided under these clauses and Parliament’s existing scrutiny powers, we are not convinced that the proposed requirement for Parliament to approve the statements would add any value. There are lots of items of legislation that require annual debates on the Floor. I shall not list them, as I have not checked recently which they are and I could be a bit out of date, having left the other place. However, certain items and aspects of legislation are required to have an annual debate. That is not necessarily the same as approval. The question is what the noble Lord wants. If it is approval, I can assure the Committee that that would probably be done without debate, which does not add value to what is already happening. The accuracy and reliability of the information is almost outside the Government because we are subject to international rules, and we do not want to change that. If it is intended to have a look at this, the objective has to be to add value to what is already going to happen, given the requirement in the Bill to lay the reports before Parliament. A requirement for an annual debate is not the same thing as a requirement for Parliament to approve.