Climate Change Bill [HL]

We appreciate that the power of the regulation made in Part 3 of the Bill to repeal or revoke existing primary legislation, which Clause 46 provides, might appear unnecessarily broad, so I shall seek to explain why it is included—and the conditions in which we consider it will apply, which is the point that the noble Duke raised. There are a number of trading schemes in primary legislation or made using very narrow powers, including the landfill allowance trading scheme and the renewables obligation, which we consider might at some point be consolidated or replaced with schemes made using the new powers. In these circumstances, it would be more appropriate to make the appropriate revocation, repeal or amendment using secondary legislation. This would allow the consequential changes to be made at the most appropriate time and with suitable transitional arrangements. For example, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 made small consequential amendments to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and to the Environment Act 1995 to ensure that the Environment Agency and other regulators were able to charge operators for the various services that they provide under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. A key aim of this power is to allow the burdens on business to be managed more effectively. It will also remove the need to make primary legislation to effect minor or technical changes when the principle and contents of a new trading scheme have been consulted on, debated and passed using the affirmative procedure, which is an explicit requirement for changing existing legislation under Clause 40. In addition to this safeguard regarding the parliamentary procedure which must be followed, as we have previously discussed, Clause 40 also requires public consultation and advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Any consequential amendments to existing legislation would be done in certain specific circumstances, with a view to streamlining the process and reducing the administrative burden on business and industry. Although I have not specifically addressed the matter, I do not think that it is possible for the legislation to be used or—as the noble Duke meant, although he did not use the word—misused by the Scottish Parliament in particular to change legislation made by Westminster, probably save for when it is agreed that they are purely technical and minor adjustments. Parliamentary counsel is the arbiter on that. That is the norm: sometimes Bills go through and technical and minor adjustments in how they are printed are made even at the last minute, just to make things practical, without necessarily coming back to the House. I do not think that the way in which the Bill is drafted leaves it open or gives scope for misuse to the Scottish Parliament to amend legislation passed by the UK Parliament. I remind the Committee that this Bill is agreed by the devolved Administrations as it is brought before your Lordships' House.