Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 20: 20: Clause 4, page 3, line 18, at end insert— ““( ) A carbon budget may contain amounts for particular sectors of the economy.”” The noble Duke said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. With it I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 78, 85 and 158. In Committee, the Minister remarked on what an interesting debate we had on this subject. We are very grateful to see the amendments that he has put down on this issue. Our amendments in this group offer provisions which would allow the Committee on Climate Change to set carbon budgets for particular sectors, should it feel that this would be a useful tool in reducing emissions. They also stipulate that the reports on carbon emissions should contain breakdowns by sector. We think that this is an important mechanism, even if there are not sectoral targets, as it gives a clearer picture of where particular challenges lie. We are pleased to see that, though the Government thought they were essentially negative in Committee, they have been persuaded by our arguments regarding sectoral reporting. I am most grateful to noble Lords to see that the Government have also tabled amendments to the effect that the advice from the committee to the Secretary of State may include breakdowns by sector that it thinks represent a particular opportunity to reduce emissions. On the face of it, this does seem to come a long way to our position, but appearances can be deceiving. First, there is no provision for the inclusion of actual sectoral targets. In Committee, we touched on many of the arguments for and against targets for particular sectors. It has been our view since the beginning that it is up to the committee to decide whether these would be beneficial. Crucially, the Government have not followed us thus far; that is, in enabling the Secretary of State and the committee to set sectoral targets. They might claim that it is already in the power of Government to do this by order, but we would like to see a more specific enabling section in the Bill. The important difference between our amendments and the Government’s is the way in which they operate. One of the biggest advantages of sectoral targets is that they provide industries with a framework within which they must innovate; that is to say, they encourage an element of bottom-up approach to the targets. So much of this Bill involves top-down government action. This was a window of opportunity to encourage innovation within the individual sectors. The Government's amendments do not really allow for that. Their Amendment No. 54 stipulates that reports must explain how the proposals and policies will affect the different sectors. That would be a very useful tool for industry, but do we not have enough faith in the industries themselves? Were targets placed on individual sectors or policies implemented that concerned them, they would know better than anyone the impact on their line of work. If we are going to embrace the potential benefits of the idea behind sectoral targets and reporting, we must seek to ensure that a bottom-up approach can be encouraged so that the most cost-effective savings can be made. I have later amendments that I think would re-emphasise that element. The other government amendment, Amendment No. 144, calls for the committee to identify sectors where there are particular opportunities for reducing emissions. The same arguments apply. Although we very much welcome the Government's newfound appreciation for looking at individual economic sectors, we still feel that the real benefit in this type of thinking comes not when it makes it easier for the Government to see what they should do, though that is part of it, but when it can encourage those in sectors to identify savings for themselves. Thus while we appreciate the Government coming some of the way, we still feel that they miss out on some of the core benefits by not going far enough. I beg to move.