Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister. It would be far more desirable when we come to the second element of what we are trying to do, which is to find control mechanisms, to have international agreement to implement them. But as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out—and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord May—there are two separate issues. Do you include the carbon polluting elements of the British economy in our carbon accounts or not? If we can find a mechanism that does so in a much more comprehensive way, I think that noble Lords should support such a mechanism. That would not penalise the UK economy, but would lead to mechanisms to encourage the least polluting methods of goods movement and people movement. I now turn to the second part of what is an important point to emphasise. I have valued the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, to debates throughout the Bill. He got to the heart of the issue and could see the advantages of this way of looking at things. But he too was worried about the ““may”” and ““must”” element within this group of amendments. One needs a stick as well as a carrot. Legislation that actually says ““must”” is a stick, but it is designed to drive the issue. If the issue is not driven there is no incentive for the Government to recognise the seriousness of the issue and they can defer decisions. On this side of the House, we readily recognise that international negotiations, in the nature of things, mean that sometimes it may not be the right moment. The reason why we have chosen five years is that that takes us into the second budget period. Subsection (5)(b) of Amendment No. 116 states that the Secretary of State must, "““lay before … Parliament a report explaining why the regulations have not been laid within””," a five-year period. We recognise that there may be circumstances where it is not in the national interest to lay these regulations, but we are obliging the Secretary of State not to take the option ““may””, but ““must”” reason with Parliament about why regulations have not been laid. That is a reasonable balance between pressure within the Bill to come to an agreement on regulations and the Secretary of State's discretion that this may not be the right and proper time to do so. The amendments would substantially improve the Bill and would be a mechanism that Governments in future would value. For that reason, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 65) shall be agreed to? *Their Lordships divided: Contents, 191; Not-Contents, 141. * [The Tellers for the Contents reported 191 votes; the Clerks recorded 190 names.] [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]