Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 36: 36: Clause 8, page 5, line 9, at end insert— ““( ) A carbon budget for a budgetary period may only be set by the Secretary of State if— (a) it is in accordance with a recommendation made by the Committee; and (b) the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. The amendments seek to limit the order-making powers of the Secretary of State with regard to the budgets. This is part of our general theme of empowering the Committee on Climate Change to assume a central role regarding questions that concern scientific judgments. The amendments further entrench the triangular arrangement between the Secretary of State, Parliament and the committee. Essentially, the budgets will not be amended except by recommendations of the committee and subject to parliamentary approval. We believe that it is especially important to empower the committee with regard to the budgets. The way in which the budgets are to be met is the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. However, the budgets are not policy mechanisms; they are a breakdown of scientific priorities into manageable chunks. In other words, the amount that a Government need to reduce their emissions in a given budget period is not a political decision. There will be some political concerns, perhaps, but the budgets are essentially designed to reflect what needs to be done in the light of the necessity of reducing our carbon emissions. The amendments are an attempt to prevent the Secretary of State from adjusting his own targets. That is important for a number of reasons. The first is a cynical one: although we do not expect the power to amend the budget period to be used in this manner, we want to guarantee that the budget period cannot be altered to fit because of political expedience. If a Secretary of State were faced with a burden that he considered too great, or indeed if he felt that it was not a priority, we hope that there would be resistance to his attempts to amend the budget. However, we cannot leave this mechanism simply to trust. For this reason, it is important that the recommendations to amend the budgets come from the Committee on Climate Change. The second reason will be familiar to all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill thus far. It has been stressed but still needs further emphasis. Budgets, like the targets, need to have the appearance of being authoritative. We hope that the Secretary of State would not amend the budgets without advice from the committee and we suspect that, in practice, they would not. However, given that most Secretaries of State responsible for this issue will have to report on the completion of at least one budgetary period—and this may be the important target that they have to report—we feel that it is essential that this is seen to come from an independent and authoritative source. Some concern was expressed in Committee that our amendments would, in effect, remove the role of the Secretary of State. We recognised that there were some risks under our proposals of this being the case. Therefore, on Report, we are bringing back only those amendments that reflect the instances in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is making decisions that would be more suited to scientific deliberation. We feel that the budgets are such an area. If the budgets are not set on such a basis—that is, if they are not founded on the reduction necessary in a five-year period to reach the overall target—on what basis will they be set? It seems clear to us on this side of the House that the budgets should not be changed unless there is some scientific basis for doing so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that other considerations might necessitate a change in the budgets, such as a shift in international law. We hope that this will be taken into account by the committee, as indeed we hope that international law might have some regard for scientific advancement. We see no reason why the committee should not make such a recommendation. I beg to move.