Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 90: 90: Clause 17, page 9, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ““three months from the date the Committee’s advice was sent to the authority”” The noble Duke said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 95. They concern the order-making provisions for the alteration of budget periods and the necessary consultations that must take place before such an order is laid. I shall speak to each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 90 is an attempt to standardise the timing constraint on the consultation period and to allow slightly more time for consultation to take place. In the Bill as it stands, an order to amend the budgetary period must be made within one month of the advice of the Committee on Climate Change being sent to the relevant national authority if the order is to amend that budgetary period, and within three months if it is to amend the future budgetary period. We understand the importance of sending a clear signal to business and industry and, thus, we appreciate the fact that, if a budgetary period has already started, it would be important to have the change made as quickly as possible to allow the industry and government departments to accommodate the new budgetary constraints. Because of this, we understand the short time limit that the Government have placed on the consultation period when the budget period has already begun. However, we have some slight reservation that this might not give the national authorities enough time for a full and proper consultation. We do not want this to be a situation in which the national authorities are not given adequate time or, to take a very cynical view, we do not want this to be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to push through a change in the budget that might be hugely unpopular without giving the authorities adequate time to prepare a thorough response. We do not feel that three months is too long in terms of industry and business. There might be considerations, depending on how close to the end of a budgetary period the order is being laid, but standardising this timeframe to three months would give everyone involved adequate time to be consulted on the alteration, as well as to prepare for its effects. Amendment No. 91 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out why the order ignored particular representations of the national authorities. This is an important way of ensuring that the national authorities are not left out to dry. We want to avoid the Secretary of State altering a budget for reasons of political expedience; we think that having a positive duty to summarise what has been ignored would strengthen this aspect of the Bill and prevent, if only to a mild degree, political expedience from creeping into the equation. This would seem to provide a straightforward mechanism to increase accountability. I know that the Bill seems to create a huge amount of reports and responses to reports but, given the gravity of the matter, it is essential that Parliament and the public are kept constantly informed. Does the Minister think it inappropriate for the Secretary of State to outline his reasons for disagreeing with the national authority before making an order? Surely not. Indeed, on what might be considered more major issues, the Government have produced amendments similar to this one. Consider the requirement for the Secretary of State to respond to the Committee on Climate Change’s assessment on progress, for example. I know that this concerns the reputations of the national authorities, but the logic is similar. The fact remains that an alteration of a carbon budget would not be a small thing. We envisage it happening only in the most extraordinary circumstances. Could the Minister explain the circumstances in which he would envisage the Secretary of State altering the carbon budget? Would he expect it to happen for every budget? This brings us to more philosophical issues about the nature of budgets. My understanding has always been that these were relatively fixed things and would not be altered or changed much. Would the Minister be willing to give us this assurance? Surely the national authorities’ role in the consultation process will be crucial. I know that the Bill as it stands requires the publication of the representations that are to be taken into account, but we simply want a brief summary of those that are not being taken into account when the order is made. Although this might be the intention of the Government and, indeed, any sensible Secretary of State who want to provide the reasons, we would like to ensure that that is enshrined in the Bill. The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 95, simply affects the timing of the publication of the consultation. We hope that there is not too much objection to placing in the Bill the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the result of the consultation once the order is made. I beg to move.