Climate Change Bill [HL]

I disagree with the noble Earl’s amendment. On these Benches we think that we should just simplify the Bill and get rid of Clause 13. My motivation for that is to help the Government’s reputation and to save face in the international arena. What is this clause about? It concerns small numbers that are there to fudge figures in retrospect. What is the point? By having both the borrowing and the banking mechanism in Clause 13, there are two ways in which targets which have not been met can in retrospect be made to have been met. In doing so, the Government and the UK open themselves to criticism of fixing figures—what is exactly what they would be doing. These mechanisms would be used only if borrowing targets were not met. Why bother to do this with a figure of 1 per cent? Clauses elsewhere in the Bill allow emissions trading and credits, so if there is a problem in this area the Government can buy international credits. We believe these should be restricted, but not excluded. Why then bother to go into this complication of borrowing and banking to fix the figures in retrospect? This area of the Bill can be criticised both within the UK and internationally. It will lead to all sorts of accusations if it is ever used. It is not particularly practical. If the target is missed by 1.1 per cent it cannot be used. Why 1 per cent and not 2 per cent? Why even 0.5 per cent? And if 0.5 per cent, why bother with this mechanism at all? International credits can be bought. That is the way out if there is a real problem with the margin, but it should be done as far ahead as possible. On the banking facility, again I would ask what other business or organisation, when it gets ahead of its target, is allowed to carry that lead forward? The answer is that if there is momentum, keep it. These targets are difficult to meet as they are so let us move them forward rather than provide an excuse to backslide during the next budget period. I genuinely feel that the Government are creating a rod for their own back with Clause 13 and that it would be better purely to use international credits if they wish to do so. But at the least they should take out this clause because it leaves them open to the accusation of fudging the figures.