Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 23: 23: Clause 5, page 3, line 22, leave out ““, but not more than 32%,”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group address a key issue to emerge in Committee concerning the 2020 target. In drafting the Bill prior to introduction, the Government’s view was that a range for the 2020 target would provide additional certainty for all parts of society as to our likely trajectory towards our 2020 target. However, we have listened to the views expressed in Committee. Having considered these in further detail, and as a result of discussions with business representatives and others, it is apparent that the clarity provided by a single target outweighs any additional certainty that is provided by a range. For this reason, with government Amendment No. 23, I propose removing the upper limit for emission reductions that are to be achieved in 2020. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has tabled the same amendment. Both our amendments would have the effect that the 2018 to 2022 budget must be set so that it delivers CO2 reductions of at least 26 per cent below the 1990 levels. Government Amendments Nos. 27 and 31 are consequential on this change and tidy up the drafting of Clause 6. As I made clear in Committee, there is no doubt that the 2020 target will be challenging to meet. Analysis for the recent energy White Paper shows that the 2020 target will be met only by taking the upper range of savings estimated for existing policies and measures. This suggests that further policies will need to be introduced in the short and medium terms to guarantee that the 26 per cent target is met, let alone a higher target, and that consideration of these brave decisions has already begun within government. The Committee on Climate Change will also consider the level of the 2020 target as part of its review of the 2050 target. The approach taken in the amendments is the right one and I submit them to the House. We considered Amendment No. 24 in Committee and our position remains the same. We do not consider that it is helpful to the Bill. Introducing further interim targets would pre-empt the work of the Committee on Climate Change in looking at the optimum trajectory for our 2050 target. We do not see how requiring further targets is helpful. The annual accountability process contained in the Bill, combined with a clear legal obligation on the Government to set each budget every five years, makes further target setting unhelpful and irrelevant. Amendment No. 25 would have the effect that any target set for the period after 2050 may not be expressed as a range. This may be an unduly restrictive approach, simply because, at this stage, we do not know what kind of situation we are going to be in so far ahead. It may be that, in the international context after 2050, countries’ emission reduction targets are expressed as a range. In this situation, Amendment No. 25 would make that impossible, although I am sure that the Bill could be amended in the intervening decades. Currently the Bill allows for a post-2050 target to be either a single-point target or a range. It will be set by the Government, following consideration of advice from the Committee on Climate Change and consultation with the devolved Administrations. With the detailed scrutiny processes in place before a post-2050 target may be set, we feel that it would limit our options to specify now that it may only be expressed as a single-point target. I do not see why, more than 42 years in advance, we need expressly to rule out the possibility that we might have a target at some time after 2050 in the form of a range. We have accepted the argument for a range for 2020, but that is only 12 years away. We do not see why this is of such great concern in respect of any target for the period after 2050. This argument is about demands for clarity. For 2020 it makes sense; for 2050 it does not.