Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 95: 95: Clause 17, page 9, line 30, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ““three months from the date on which the Committee’s advice was sent to the authority.”” The noble Lord said: We have moved so fast, I am almost dizzy. We are now at Clause 17, and this, too, covers the devolved authorities and the way in which the Bill is going to work in this area. I will speak also to Amendment No. 96. I turn first to Amendment No. 95. The reasons for altering carbon budgets will vary from the blindingly obvious to the more abstruse. The advice will appear at any time of the year and could reach national authorities at the start of a holiday period, such as Christmas or during the summer. Moreover, any changes need not be based equally in each part of the United Kingdom. Some national authorities may have greater difficulty in assessing their validity and local effects. The climate change committee will contain experts carefully chosen to represent the various branches of relevant knowledge, experience and expertise. The national authorities will be entitled and may feel obliged to consult similar specialists outside the committee. In such circumstances, there may be occasions when a one-month response time limit is unreasonable. Clause 17 is entitled, ““Consultation on alteration of carbon budgets””. The title and the wording of the clause suggest that the Secretary of State will know some considerable time in advance that a change is likely and presumably the reasons why. It seems probable that he and his staff will also know the scope of any advice before it is published to the other national authorities. In other words, he and his staff will have rather more time than those others to adjust, to plan and to revise arrangements for measuring, monitoring and reporting. The existence of a three-month statutory deadline does not mean that national authorities must take three months. They may never need to; there may be no occasion on which such a response is required. The purpose of the amendment is to build in an allowance for a situation whereby, through either complexity or timing, one month is inadequate. On Amendment No. 96, if the affirmative procedure is to be effective, the House must have access to a reasonable summary of the full information provided to the Secretary of State. If there is to be a debate and there can be no doubt of the need for it, it must be an informed debate. The views of the national authorities both for and against are critical components of that information. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the debate is so informed. I beg to move.