Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested that this was a general purpose clause, but it is more a general non-purpose clause from the Government’s point of view. The amendment would prevent the Government bringing forward any secondary legislation that was not strictly ““necessary”” for the ““proper operation”” of the Act, or which was not compatible with the 2 degrees centigrade goal. The noble Lord made clear, and I understand, the spirit behind his amendment. We debated its intention in Committee. My noble friend Lady Morgan said that the amendment could have a very significant effect on the Government’s ability to meet targets and budgets set under the Bill. Requiring all secondary legislation to be ““necessary”” for the operation of the Act would prevent trading schemes being introduced under Part 3, or the amendment of targets and budgets—just to give some examples. The Government would be liable for judicial review if we did not meet the tests set out by the amendment, and the court could order that any secondary legislation that did not meet those tests should be quashed. I entirely understand why the noble Lord is seeking to be specific in the amendment and to ensure that the main principles of the Bill are realised. The Bill’s powers to make secondary legislation have been scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and we have been able to accept virtually all its recommendations; so there has been a proper process to ensure that the powers in the Bill are appropriate. I note that the majority of powers to make secondary legislation use the affirmative resolution procedure, so they will have to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is the essential parliamentary safeguard on the majority of secondary legislation that could come forward under the Bill, and there is ample opportunity for scrutiny. The Government have introduced a significant number of amendments on Report that would strengthen Parliament’s role, and we have debated a number of them today. In some cases, for instance with regard to parliamentary oversight of the carbon accounting rules, we are actually going beyond what the Delegated Powers Committee recommended. We have also made commitments about the scope for further parliamentary debates on climate change. Amendment No. 224 requires all secondary legislation to be compatible with limiting the average increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees centigrade. As we discussed in Committee, the idea of a compatibility test would have limited practical effect. It would be ever so difficult to establish that a single piece of secondary legislation was, on its own, incompatible with the Bill. Even if a particular statutory instrument could lead to an increase in emissions, that would not in itself necessarily be incompatible with the aims of the Bill, because there would be nothing to stop compensatory action being taken in another area. So, in that respect, we could honestly say that no Government with an order or statutory instrument, if looked at in isolation, could be accused of producing something that was not compatible with the Bill. Therefore, we have two positions. First, we do not think that the amendment could achieve its aims. Secondly, if it were to do so and under judicial review it was established that a piece of secondary legislation was incompatible with the aims of the Bill, we would be in the extremely difficult position that such secondary legislation would be quashed. All Governments, properly, both for themselves and for their successors, seek to avoid in legislation any dangers of that kind. I am not denying the intentions of the noble Lord; I am saying that Amendment No. 224 is either dangerous or ultimately futile because of the way in which a Government could phrase their arguments. In either case, it will be understood by the House why the Government reject it.