Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, for this legislation to be successful, it must require the Government to set the right policies to meet the targets, which the Bill does not do. We have been concerned about five-year budgetary periods purely regarding targets, and it takes a long time for policy measures to make a difference in this area. It is rather worse than when a supertanker changes direction. There have to be requirements in the legislation for the Secretary of State to start to take action if it looks like targets will be missed. That is precisely what the noble Earl’s amendment would do. It is absolutely right that it should not be a historic reaction. The leads and lags are so long in this area. If we are waiting for 18 months before we know what the score is and it takes us perhaps another two years—perhaps six months to work out the policy change and probably another two years for that to make a difference—we are talking about a huge lag in time. If there is one message that has come through on climate change from the Stern review or the IPCC, it is that action now saves much greater and further action, cost and distress. Less bravery and courage are needed to take early decisions now than will be needed in the future. That is why the amendment is so important. It may not be perfectly worded, but it means that, when there is a judgement that targets are not going to be met, there has to be a reaction then. That is the only way in which the legislation can start to be effective. Like the noble Earl, I welcome the Government’s change towards this policy; but, for us on these Benches, the key thing is not what targets and enabling powers are in the Bill but what government policy is in it to meet the targets and change the nature and degree of carbonisation of the UK economy.