Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 26: 26: Clause 5, page 3, line 37, leave out ““the number of years in the period”” and insert ““five”” The noble Duke said: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. We are bringing this amendment back on Report because of the persistent confusion surrounding the process of bringing our budgets in line with those in the international community as well as tying them in with the devolved authorities. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, explained the Government’s reasons for keeping the wording as, "““the number of years in the period””," instead of changing it to ““five””, which is the number of years required in the Bill as it stands. She noted that at the moment the five-year budget period mirrors the length of the commitment periods under the Kyoto Protocol and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The reason that we should not specify the number ““five””, as she expressed it, is that there is no way to assume that the five-year periods will be maintained when the Kyoto Protocol is renegotiated in 2012. That makes a certain amount of sense to begin with, but what other areas of the Bill will be affected by such a decision? The Bill states that there is a duty to comply with international regulations and that changes will be made using the affirmative resolution procedure, but is there any concern about the timeframe for this? Can the Minister assure us that orders will be laid promptly? What other aspects of the Bill would these changes in international agreements affect? There is also the challenge that will face those who form the Government at any time between now and 2050—I dare say it will not always be the party opposite—and there is a question regarding the devolved assemblies. It is right and proper that the Secretary of State should be swift in bringing the Act into line with the treaties that affect it, but like some of the amendments we have just been discussing, we are still faced with the challenge of deciding on the mechanism for the devolved authorities. Would they be compelled to mirror these agreements as well? How would it work in practice? Are the national authorities required to lay similar orders under this legislation or because of the international agreements? I would appreciate clarification. If these mechanisms are not adequately in place, it might be proper to insist more vehemently on a fixed timeframe in order to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. I beg to move.