Climate Change Bill [HL]

If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, considers that we are moving at a dizzying pace, it shows how well he has adjusted to the parliamentary process and the timescale to which we work. I believe that we are making the progress that we could all have anticipated and I am grateful for the thoughtful way in which both opposition parties are putting their views at this stage. Clause 17 requires the Secretary of State to obtain the views of the Committee on Climate Change and to consider the views of the devolved Administrations before amending the budget. It sets out a slightly different approach to how the views of the devolved Administrations should be taken into account, depending on whether the budgetary period has already begun. I should have thought that it was eminently reasonable to be able to give a more extended time before the budgetary period is under way. We must remember that the consultations will have taken place before the budgetary period has begun. In setting up the budgetary period, the Secretary of State has to involve the devolved Administrations in consultation. However, once the period is under way, amendments will by definition need to be effected more quickly, because they will relate to a more limited timeframe. That is all that Clause 17 does. It provides for a reasonable period for the more considered opinion, which is the basis on which the Secretary of State goes forward. However, if adjustments are necessary during a budgetary period and the case has been established for such changes, it is right that the devolved Administrations should respond within those constraints. The noble Lord’s case would be stronger if the devolved Administrations had put this position to us with the force that he has, but they have been consulted about this clause and are entirely happy with it; they see the logic that underlies it. As my noble friend said, we have carried out very extensive consultations with the devolved Administrations, and Northern Ireland and Scotland have already passed motions of assent to the proposals before us. The noble Lord is as ever extremely well motivated with regard to his amendment, but the devolved Administrations do not think it necessary. If we look at the logic of the way in which the consultation process is to be undertaken, there is not a great deal to object to there. The amendment would greatly limit the flexibility provided in the Bill in Clause 17 and we obviously want to sustain that flexibility. I turn to Amendment No. 96. Clause 17 as drafted requires that the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out whether and how the amendment of the budget takes into account any representations by the devolved Administrations. I want to emphasise that it may look as if the clause rather suggests a limited obligation on the Secretary of State. In legal terms, ““whether”” means ““whether or not”” and ““how”” means ““how or how not””. In other words, the Secretary of State under the phraseology in Clause 17 is obliged to give a very full account in his statement on whether and how the amendment of the budget takes into account the representations of the devolved Administration. It is not a limited or cursory approach but a fully comprehensive analysis of the representations that have been made and the Secretary of State’s responses to it. I recognise that as a probing amendment this is a very well motivated amendment and a very accurate one. At first sight of the clause it may look as if the Secretary of State is potentially involved in a rather superficial response in his statements—not so. In order to be watertight in legal terms, that statement has to take in the full range of representation and to argue the case for and against such representation. It is a very comprehensive document and I hope the noble Lord feels assured on that point.