Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 5: 5: Clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert— ““( ) Those powers may only be exercised— (a) if a recommendation to make an order under this section is made by the Committee; (b) if the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and they must be exercised as soon as practicable after a recommendation is so approved. ( ) It is the duty of the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after the making of a recommendation by the Committee to lay it before both Houses of Parliament and make a resolution for its approval.”” The noble Earl said: In Clause 2, the Secretary of State may by order change the 2050 target and change the 1990 baseline. While I am sure that a Secretary of State would not make these important changes out of political expediency, we want to ensure that they are made with the blessing and recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the committee is playing a central role in terms of the overall scientific framework—that is, the targets in the baseline year. Orders to amend these shall not be made unless there is approval of the committee. In that respect these amendments are very straightforward. I concede that Clause 2(2) says that changes can only be made if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change. The Minister talked about ““best possible advice”” in the debate on the previous amendment, which of course means the Committee on Climate Change, and I am rather hoping that when he responds to this he will come up with the same thing. When there is a reference to scientific knowledge about climate change, it means scientific knowledge from the climate change committee. We do not want to allow the Secretary of State the leeway of ignoring the Committee’s advice, or indeed not seeking its advice at all, on these very important issues. We do not see these amendments as taking away powers from the Government. We simply feel that how much carbon emissions need to be reduced, by when, and how that is to be counted, are wholly scientific matters. Of course, how the Government go about doing so is up to them. We will come to the committee’s role in this later on. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, we want a balance between the roles of the committee, the Parliament and the Government. We called it a triangular relationship in Committee. The amendments seek to ensure that the appropriate emphasis is placed on the appropriate side of the triangle and that these scientific matters need to be considered by the committee. I appreciate that the Government do not intend to build a situation in which they can ignore the committee. We are just trying to guarantee that this does not happen. I beg to move.