Climate Change Bill [HL]

With respect, I do not think the drafters of the amendment have fully appreciated its practical significance so I will seek to explain that. It is far more efficient in most cases for the UK to act as a whole—there is no doubt about that or any criticism—but we do not think it would be helpful to preclude these single authorities acting alone. On a much more serious note, this amendment does not take account of the fact that in many of the areas where action will need to be taken, it is a devolved issue. This amendment will stop things happening in those areas. The Secretary of State cannot act in terms of Scotland and Northern Ireland in devolved matters. We have a pig in a poke here. What I think was intended from the noble Earl’s speech would be a much more complicated amendment. My note needed that preamble because this is quite a serious issue and I would not want it to go by default. The amendment would remove the ability to introduce UK-wide trading schemes in areas of the UK which were devolved. That ought to turn everybody off. Once the penny drops that taking out ““national authorities”” and putting in ““Secretary of State”” means that in any area of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales where it is a devolved issue, you cannot have a UK-wide system because the Secretary of State has no authority to bring in those measures. They have to be brought in by the devolved authority. At a stroke, UK-wide trading schemes would be stopped in areas where what you are doing for trading is a devolved matter. The amendment would also remove the power of the devolved Administrations to establish trading schemes using the powers in the Bill either individually or in concert with one or more of the other national authorities. Taking that approach would not be consistent with the flexible approach we have adopted elsewhere in the Bill. We think that flexibility is important, given the long-term framework of the legislation to establish us to 2050 and beyond. As I have said, it is the case that significant parts of climate change policy are devolved in different parts of the UK, and the devolution settlements are themselves different. This amendment would make it impossible for the very thing noble Lords have talked about to happen: it would be impossible for UK-wide trading schemes to be introduced. I rest my case there because we all want the schemes to be as large as possible and thus get economies of scale. It would limit the effectiveness of the powers and the ability to reduce emissions through them, and it would lead to considerable duplication and administrative complexity for business. In other words, the amendment would have precisely the opposite effect of what is intended simply because whoever drafted it forgot that in parts of the UK, policy issues are devolved and the Secretary of State has no authority. I shall give one example: that of the new carbon reduction commitment. The new trading scheme targeting the emissions from large non energy-intensive public and private organisations is in a policy area which is devolved across the UK. We have proposed for consultation to introduce this policy on a UK-wide basis using the powers in this Bill. However, the amendment would make that impossible. There would be no UK-wide emissions trade schemes where areas are devolved. Because most schemes would be based on the UK, it would be much more efficient that way.