Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 108: 108: Clause 21, page 11, line 11, leave out ““or otherwise keeping track of”” The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 108, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 109 and 112, would leave out the words, "““or otherwise keeping track of””." Unparliamentary language has a special connotation and probably should not be used to describe that phrase. However, ““otherwise keeping track of”” does not sound terribly legalistic, nor can it be designated as plain English. What is intended? If registration is unsatisfactory or unworkable, presumably there will have to be a system of calculating and recording. Has any research been done on this area? Has there been a pilot registration scheme? If so, what was the outcome? Why do the Government think that it may be necessary to do other than register carbon units? Will the Minister explain the thinking behind this phrase? Amendment No. 109 would leave out the words ““or impose””. Titles of various sorts are ““conferred””, with the implication that this is with the prior, probably enthusiastic, agreement of the recipient. Duties or responsibilities may be ““imposed””, with the possibility that they are not welcomed by the unwilling recipient, who is under some constraint to discharge them. Here, the Secretary of State, "““may make provision by regulations””," and those regulations may apparently impose on the Secretary of State one or more functions. Is it possible that a Secretary of State can lay upon himself a function with which he disagrees, either in its content or in its positioning? Would it be ethical for the Secretary of State to do so? Can the Minister give an example of the type of situation that might be covered by that phrase? I move on to Amendment No. 112. Clause 21 concerns carbon units and how they are to be accounted for. The Bill allows for the affirmative resolution procedure when the scheme is first established. Any changes thereafter will be under the negative procedure. I do not wish to appear naive or unfamiliar with the workings of these things, but the problem with the negative procedure is that either the proposed change is thrown out in its entirety or differences are aired and then it is accepted in its entirety. The Government may of course withdraw the regulations and replace them with something that reflects more closely the opinion of the House. This, however, seems to happen most often when there is an error of fact or drafting but only rarely when opinions differ. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Written Statement on Crossrail, which states: "““A new joint high-level sponsor board will be established between DfT and TfL ... The Crossrail delivery company, Cross London Rail Links, will also be restructured ... DfT will also retain significant rights””.—[Official Report, 26/11/07; cols. WS 133-34]," and so on. Did the Government consult Parliament on this? Is this the sort of manoeuvre that could be applied to a carbon accounting scheme? We have heard in the past month of several instances where the involvement of private companies in the workings of government departments or agencies has resulted in confusion. We believe that Parliament should be involved in changes to the organisation of schemes arranged under the auspices of the Climate Change Bill. The opportunities for mismanagement and simple thoughtlessness are too great to abandon basic structural changes to statutory instruments under the negative procedure. We want Parliament to be part of this decision-making process. I beg to move.