Climate Change Bill [HL]

The noble Earl raised the issue of Bali and talked about the onset of a new US Administration and what they might do. I have a calendar on my desk that tells me that there are 377 days to the end of George Bush, so we have a 377-day countdown on the issue that the noble Earl raised. I cannot comment on what a new US Administration might do, but I understand the reason why questions are raised about subsection (2). As I said earlier, Clause 20 builds on the provisions of Clause 19 and allows the Secretary of State, when including further greenhouse gases in the targets and budgets under the Bill, to designate the base year for those gases. This power is necessary to take account of international practice. For example, the Kyoto Protocol currently allows countries to choose 1990 or 1995 as the base year for emissions of industrial gases. This flexibility was allowed internationally because not all countries have reliable emissions data for those gases for 1990. The UK has therefore chosen to use 1995 as the base year for those gases for the Kyoto protocol. Clause 20(2), the subject of this amendment, is therefore intended to ensure that we are able to take a consistent approach between our domestic targets and our Kyoto targets. If we decided to include those industrial gases in our domestic targets, this clause would allow us to include them on the same basis as they are included in our Kyoto targets. It is also possible—the noble Earl raised this point earlier on—that at some time between now and 2050 an additional gas or gases may be identified by the international community as contributing to climate change. It is possible that there could be no reliable data for emissions of that new gas—I shall call it ““gas X””—in 1990. If that gas is included in the international climate change framework with a different base year, it would be helpful for our domestic approach to mirror what happens internationally. Amendment No. 105 would remove that flexibility. It is not there for a fiddle—the noble Earl did not use that word, but he is right to ask the question. The removal of that flexibility would not be a good idea, which is why we cannot accept the amendment. However, recognising the arguments behind the noble Earl’s point, we are very happy to consider whether the safeguards in Clause 20 can be strengthened. The drafting is being looked. We want to ensure proper scrutiny of this power. The Bill already provides that any orders made under this clause would need to be made by the affirmative resolution procedure. However, we are happy to look again at whether there are ways in which we can provide further reassurance to the House and to those outside that these powers would not be used inappropriately. We are at one on that and are happy to take this away and look at it again.