Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on bringing us back to the reality of how this affects people. I shall always remember the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about making brave decisions. Is this a brave decision? We shall certainly have to confront that matter after the climate change committee has reported. We discussed some of these amendments in Committee when we had a useful debate on sectoral targets and I rested my case then on the need for flexibility. We believe that these amendments would considerably constrain this flexibility by giving powers to government to carve up the budget into sector-specific parcels. As I said in Committee, the Government may be unable to realise fully the emission-abating potential of some new technology. We do not want to be prevented from diverting resources into using this technological breakthrough to reduce emissions more quickly in one sector instead of reducing emissions in a different sector because that is what our sectoral targets say we must do. We do not want to be held to that rigidity. We also discussed the importance of avoiding a rigid top-down approach to sectoral targets. It is not clear that these amendments would prevent such an undesirable approach. Amendment No. 20, for example, gives no clear role to the Committee on Climate Change in deciding which sectors should be subject to its own targets within a budget, nor how this target would be set. The committee would have a role in assessing progress towards meeting such targets under Amendment No. 158, but would have no role ahead of this stage. This suggests there is a risk that the amendments would result in just the kind of inflexible, top-down approach towards sectoral targets that we are strongly opposed to. While we are therefore strongly opposed to mandatory sectoral targets, there are also shortcomings with the idea of optional sectoral targets, as proposed in these amendments. As they would be optional, there would be a risk that if the Government decided not to set sectoral targets, nothing more would happen. We would therefore not be any further forward than under the current situation in the Bill. I recognise that these are new amendments since Committee stage, and agree that it is important that information is provided on the emissions from different sectors of the economy. There is no dispute between us on that. However, we do not think that Amendments Nos. 61, 78 and 85 would achieve this because they relate to sectoral targets which are optional—and which therefore may not exist. I reassure noble Lords that this information will already be available, regardless of whether any targets are set for particular sectors. The UK is already under an obligation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to report the annual emissions of a detailed range of sectors in accordance with the sectoral tables in the common reporting format set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So the latest UK national emissions inventory, for example, contained UK emissions data disaggregated by key sectors of the economy under broad headings including energy, industrial processes, agriculture and waste. These categories are then further disaggregated to provide more specific sectoral information. In view of the optional nature of any sectoral targets and sectoral reporting under these amendments, we therefore consider that the Government already go further than these amendments propose. On Amendment No. 145, I should say at the outset that household emissions are crucial, as the noble Lord indicated. In 2005, emissions from the residential sector represented 23.8 per cent of overall UK greenhouse gas emissions. It is interesting that since 1990 the sector’s emissions have reduced by 7.4 per cent. That is a significant change, so there are moves under way. Amendment No. 145 would require the Committee’s advice to include specific consideration of the contribution to the carbon budget to be made by the domestic sector. Again, we think that that approach would be unduly restrictive by requiring the Committee on Climate Change to provide advice specifically concerning the domestic household sector. Instead, we consider a more suitable approach will be to allow the Committee on Climate Change to be free to provide advice on the effect of the carbon budget on any sector of the economy and we have tabled Amendment No. 144 to that effect. While we agree with the need for greater sectoral transparency, we cannot support the amendment, which proposes an approach that we consider too restrictive. It could be argued that it does not enable us to make brave enough decisions. We hope that the Committee on Climate Change will, in its wisdom, turn its attention to these issues at a time that it thinks appropriate. We believe that government Amendments Nos. 54, 141 and 144 take a much more robust approach to the issue. They provide greater clarity and transparency concerning the effort that individual sectors will need to make to help ensure the budgets and targets in the Bill are met, while maintaining the flexible approach that we believe is essential to the Bill. Unlike Amendment No. 20 in this group, Amendment No. 144 places a duty on the Committee on Climate Change to identify the potential for emissions reductions in a particular sector or sectors when providing its advice on the level of the carbon budgets. Under government Amendment No. 54, the Secretary of State must explain how the proposals and policies for meeting budgets and targets are expected to affect different sectors of the economy. This will make a demonstrable difference to the Bill and will ensure transparency in how individual sectors may be expected to help deliver the targets and budgets. Together, Amendments Nos. 54 and 144 will ensure that all interested parties, be they business groups, the wider public or Parliament, can clearly see how the budgets and targets may be met through specific sectors. Our aim with the amendments is to ensure that the Bill maintains a flexible approach for the Committee on Climate Change. We do not think that it would be helpful to set out in the Bill which sectors should be reported on. It is more appropriate to ensure that the Government and the Committee on Climate Change are able to make a reference to any sector or group of sectors they consider most important in the policies to meet the budgets and are able to take account rapidly of changes in technology. Priority between sectors can change for the Committee on Climate Change and the Government. Parliament will not be far behind; the level of information and advice in Parliament on technology changes is far superior to what it used to be. So there needs to be that flexibility. Our amendments would ensure a forward-looking process for the Committee on Climate Change in providing advice and for the Government in setting out how the proposals and policies for meeting the budget may affect the different sectors. This would not be an option; the information would need to be provided but—and this is the difference—it would also be flexible in that we are not laying down which sectors should be covered or requiring the targets to be set for them. That may sound like a damp squib, but it is not intended to be. Our aim is the same and I think that we share the way that we want to travel. We want the flexibility and we do not want the rigidity. We certainly want the information on the sectors, but we want the flexibility to be able to change between the sectors and not be held to a target that we might not want to pursue because it will be laid down and we will be measured against it. But in terms of value for money, pound for pound, if some new technology comes along, we will want to move resources into getting reductions in another sector. That is why we want the flexibility—there is no principled objection just because the amendments have come from the Opposition.