moved Amendment No. 7:
7: Clause 38, page 20, line 16, leave out paragraph (a)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 8. This relates to the Committee on Climate Change and its powers and functions, which we discussed earlier. It will provide the Government with independent expert advice and keep track of our progress towards meeting our targets. We consider that the Bill as it stands provides a strong institutional structure for the committee. On Report, we made a number of enhancements to further strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Bill’s framework to ensure greater clarity about the expected progress over the whole of the budget period. We also discussed amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and these government amendments respond to the points made during that debate.
I realised that during the course of that debate, I had the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, with me through most of my speech. It was only in the last few minutes that I lost him and, privately afterwards, I informed him that in the last few minutes I had stuck to the brief. The noble Lord made some valuable points and I hope, in what I am about to say, that it will be appreciated that we have listened and had discussions about this.
In introducing his amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that, "““it is in the interests of the Government and us all that the Government should have, through the committee, the information and analysis required to formulate good policy””.—[Official Report, 11/3/08; col. 1494.]"
The Government agree with that sentiment, and these amendments are intended to make it crystal clear that the Committee on Climate Change may do anything that appears to it necessary or appropriate in relation to any of its functions. That includes gathering information and carrying out research and analysis, and commissioning others to carry out such activities. Importantly, this also includes publishing the results of all such activities, if the committee so desires, so that information can be made public and openly debated. For instance, in providing its advice on budgets and targets, the committee will need to carry out an in-depth analysis of the potential for reducing emissions across the economy and rationally presents the costs, benefits and other impacts of doing so. It is also now required to advise on the sectors in which there are particular opportunities to reduce emissions and to publish the reasons for its advice.
We expect that the committee will publish its workings in some detail, so that its advice is seen as being as credible as possible. For comparison—although this is not a target—the first report by the Low Pay Commission ran to almost 300 pages, so we will not be short of analysis. That is not a target but we would expect the committee to publish its workings in some detail. We want its advice to be credible in the view of the public. The decision on what level of analysis to carry out and to publish, in support of its advice, is for the Committee on Climate Change to take and nothing in the Bill restricts that.
The committee’s analysis will also inform its annual report to Parliament which will be an essential part of holding the Government and the country to account for progress. Clause 35 requires that the committee’s annual report must refer to progress made so far towards meeting the targets and budgets; to progress that remains to be made; and whether, in the committee’s view, the targets and budgets are likely to be met. So if the Committee on Climate Change considers that further progress is required to meet the United Kingdom's carbon budgets, there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent it from using its annual report to point out exactly where in the economy it believes there is the greatest potential to reduce emissions, and so enable the United Kingdom to get back on track.
As I have consistently argued, it is the job of the Government to draw policy conclusions from the committee’s analysis, whether that is analysis in support of the committee’s advice on budgets or contained in the committee’s annual report to Parliament. So, for instance, we could imagine a scenario where the committee's analysis demonstrates that there is a cost-effective potential to reduce emissions, say, from domestic heating, or from increasing the energy efficiency of existing homes. But it would be for the Government to decide how to tap into that potential—whether to regulate, to tax, to incentivise, or to encourage, and when to do so. That will ensure that the Government retain political accountability for their decisions.
I hope that is clear. When these amendments are placed in the Bill, it will be seen that a committee of the calibre of the Committee on Climate Change will have a much freer hand—not carte blanche—than might have been thought before this debate started. I beg to move.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c761-2 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:14:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459259
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459259
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_459259