asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they have changed the remit to the Bank of England with regard to the funding of commercial banks and building societies.

My Lords, the mechanism by which the Bank of England provides central bank money for banks and building societies is a matter for the Bank, which is responsible for setting the framework of its sterling money market operations.

My Lords, I think that I am obliged for that Answer. As my noble friend will know, our right honourable friend the Chancellor did an interview with the Financial Times in which a major change was proposed, to which my noble friend has not referred. I think that I had better quote the article because it is very important. It states:

“The Bank is said to be relaxed about the ‘Cobra’ committee idea, which it believes clarifies the existing situation where the chancellor ultimately decides whether the central bank”,

should be the bank of last resort. That is quite a major change and I should be glad if my noble friend could confirm it.

My Lords, I am always distressed when my noble friend is not satisfied with my original Answer, but he was asking me about the remit to the Bank of England and the funding of commercial banks and I gave an accurate and proper response to the situation as it is now. In his supplementary he referred to the consultations taking place on possible future changes to those operations. The Chancellor indicated that such changes would be the subject of widespread consultation, which is now taking place, and that they would in due course require legislation. So we have a long way to go before these issues become effective. My noble friend will also recognise that this issue revolves around other aspects of the tripartite arrangement and not only those to which he referred.

My Lords, in the interview that the Chancellor gave to the Financial Times he seemed to anticipate a greater role for himself, as chairman of the COBRA committee, and for the FSA. What could the Chancellor or the FSA have done in the Northern Rock situation under the new powers that he anticipates for them?

My Lords, it is comforting to hear a member of the Opposition asking questions about what we could have done in the past. They have tended to lecture me on what we should have done, so there is some improvement there. It is clear, as has been expressed many times both here and in the other place, that we have lessons to learn from the development of the crisis last summer in relation to each aspect of the tripartite structure. We believe that that structure has stood the test of time and that it will continue to enjoy the confidence of the banking community and the wider public. But improvements may be effected, some of which relate to the Financial Services Authority, and the Chancellor was referring to possible changes there.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the legislation that set up the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England referred to it being scrutinised by Parliament, by which was meant both Houses? I understand that our right honourable friend the Chancellor is appearing before the Treasury Select Committee of the other place. Has my noble friend been informed whether the Chancellor proposes to appear before our Economic Affairs Committee during this immensely important consultation period so that he might consult us on the way forward, since several of us here know quite a bit about the subject?

My Lords, although I certainly would not gainsay the latter point, my noble friend will recognise that I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s diary secretary. I know of his diary commitment to appear this week before the Treasury Select Committee of the other place. It is a highly important meeting at which these issues will be covered with considerable intensity and we will all learn from those exchanges. However, I cannot hold out hope for a positive response in the near future to my noble friend’s seductive suggestion.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the proposal in respect of the COBRA committee in reality reflects what has happened with Northern Rock, in that the Chancellor determined that Virgin should be the preferred bidder and forced that view on the Bank of England and Northern Rock? Will he further confirm or deny recent reports that both the Virgin group and the other group currently in the running to take over Northern Rock are seeking to wriggle out of their previous commitment to make an initial substantial payment back to the Bank of England as part of the deal to take over Northern Rock?

My Lords, the noble Lord is probing in a very sensitive area in terms of the development of the discussions.

Oh!

My Lords, that is all right, but the noble Lord is prone at times to be very definitive in his solutions. When he last spoke on this matter in the House, I think that he was advocating immediate nationalisation of the bank. The Government are properly keeping options open against the distinct possibility that these issues can be resolved by private company action. We must wait and see. The noble Lord and the House can rest assured that the Government want to see the outcome that best serves the public.

My Lords, a few moments ago the Minister said again that the tripartite arrangements had stood the test of time. The plain fact, as he knows, is that they failed their first real test. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that he is happy for his written advice on the tripartite arrangements in connection with Northern Rock to be made public. The Government have so far refused. What are they afraid of?

My Lords, the Government have nothing to be afraid of because we have been clear throughout these developments that we are dealing with the public responsibility. There was very considerable investment in the Northern Rock bank, a private institution which ran into severe difficulties that had the potential to produce the most deleterious consequences for the wider financial community and with a cost to the whole nation. The Government and the tripartite structure responded positively and intelligently. As there was such pressure at the time, we can learn lessons from how all three partners acted. However, as the noble Baroness will recognise, the chief executive officer of the British Bankers’ Association is broadly in favour of sustaining the tripartite system, reflecting the fact that although improvements can be made to its operation, those structures should be in place. That is the view of the banking community and of the Government.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm—

My Lords, we are into the ninth minute.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What steps they are taking to renegotiate the current extradition treaty with the United States.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not taking any steps to renegotiate our extradition treaty with the United States. The treaty came into force on 26 April 2007, when the United States and the United Kingdom Governments exchanged instruments of ratification. Extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States are balanced and fair, despite differences in terminology and procedure.

My Lords, at present it is easier for people to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States than vice versa. Is that position not intolerable because of the difference in burdens of proof? At a time when there seem to be signs of a considerable mood change towards a greater emphasis on fairness and justice in international relations in the United States, is this not rather a good time to reopen the issue?

My Lords, I do not accept that premise. The requirements are as broadly comparable as it is possible to achieve between two different jurisdictions. It is worth setting this in context by giving some figures. Since 1 January 2004, when the prima facie evidential requirement was removed from the United States, 37 people have been extradited from this country to the United States. Of those, 11 were to face allegations of so-called white-collar crimes such as mail fraud and satellite signal fraud. However, 26 of them—or 70 per cent—involved serious offences such as murder, rape, indecent assault, drugs and child pornography. Thirteen people have travelled from the United States to the United Kingdom, of whom four were for white-collar crimes—so it is roughly 30 per cent in each case. It is also interesting that in each case 54 per cent of the requests applied for have been granted.

My Lords, I suggest that in this regard there is not injustice but a disparity. Is there not a case to review these reciprocal arrangements—one reason being the plea-bargaining structure in the United States?

My Lords, again, I do not think that that is necessary. The United States is a mature democracy with a legal system that is underpinned by its Bill of Rights, which owes its origins to our own Magna Carta. There are full and proper safeguards in the 2003 Act.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the United States is the UK’s largest extradition partner, so it is a very serious matter to ensure full equality of treatment between the two countries. Do the people of this county have to await a more liberal Administration in the United States and this country to achieve full reciprocity?

The Minister says that there is substantial equality but, with respect, that is not correct. The sixth amendment to the American constitution requires a greater standard of fairness than this extradition treaty—the Ashcroft-Blunkett treaty. Why can we not seek to remove six words from Article 8 of the treaty and achieve full reciprocity and fairness?

My Lords, I repeat that the requirements are broadly comparable. This is not only the case with the United States; the requirement not to provide prima facie evidence is not unusual—it applies also to Canada, New Zealand, Australia and to all the EU countries that are signed up to the ECE. That has been the case since 1991. So this is not at all unusual and is, I think, perfectly fair.

My Lords, can the Minister accept that the figures quoted by him are probably less than meaningful, bearing in mind the fact that the population of the United States is roughly five times that of the United Kingdom?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a point that I could not have made better. The difference in numbers of those who have gone from one country to the other relates to the fact that there are some 260 million people in the United States and some 60 million here.

My Lords, is it not the case that the EU-US extradition arrangements provide greater guarantees than this bilateral treaty?

My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. When we go from the UK to the US we have to show “reasonable suspicion” and, the other way around, “probable cause” has to be shown. We ask the US to provide information that would justify the issue of a warrant for an arrest of a person within the judge’s jurisdiction. As I have said previously, the US is a mature democracy and these arrangements are broadly comparable.

My Lords, could the Minister advise us how many cases in which the British Government have asked for extradition were related to terrorism?

My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the noble Baroness later in writing. I think that it is a very small number—one or two cases, in fact.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever and at his specific request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:

How many soldiers were deployed on overseas operations in the course of the year 2007 in breach of the harmony guidelines; and what proportion of the trained strength of the Army this figure represents.

My Lords, perhaps I could take this opportunity to send our very best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and wish him a speedy recovery.

In monitoring compliance with harmony guidelines, we do not distinguish between deployments and other causes of separated service. As at 30 September 2007, 10,110 Army personnel had exceeded the guideline of 415 days’ separated service in the previous 30 months. This represents 10.3 per cent of the trained strength of the Army.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words about my noble friend, and I am glad to tell your Lordships that he is going on extremely well and arrived home from the hospital this morning. I hope that the noble Baroness will pass on our good wishes to her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and that she will soon be fit again.

I also thank the noble Baroness for her Answer to the Question. These dismal figures amplify those in the MoD Autumn Performance Report and are surely evidence of overstretch, if the guidelines mean anything. Can the noble Baroness say whether and how the total number of our forces in Iraq has varied in the past six months and what were the numbers in Iraq on Christmas Day?

My Lords, perhaps I can let the noble Lord, Lord Luke, have in writing the number of personnel in Iraq on Christmas Day, and the number relating to his question on Iraq. No, we do not believe that the Army is overstretched; we believe that the Army is stretched, but senior military officers advise that the situation is manageable. However, we remain confident that the Army is capable of meeting current levels of commitment, although we recognise that these levels cannot be sustained indefinitely. The overall situation, however, is improving and we expect that trend to continue.

There has been a gradual improvement as regards the harmony guidelines. For instance, in 2005, 16.9 per cent of personnel exceeded them, whereas in 2007, the figure was 10.3 per cent—so the trend is improving.

My Lords, when will Ministers stop exceeding the defence planning assumptions by 100 per cent?

My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Earl’s question. That is no fault of his.

My Lords, the defence planning assumptions are the MoD’s high-level plan about the level of operations we should be undertaking. We are currently exceeding the defence planning assumptions by 100 per cent. When will we get it to a reasonable level?

My Lords, it is no secret that the Army is operating above planning assumptions. However, the vast majority of personnel are meeting harmony guidelines. Some 10.3 per cent are exceeding harmony guidelines. That tells me that we are stretched, but not overstretched.

My Lords, every one of us recognises the enormous pressures on the Armed Forces at the moment—they are operating under very great pressure and we appreciate and respect that. But is it not incumbent upon individuals or political parties who believe that they are overstretched to tell this House and other people what commitments they would cut, or the extent to which they would expand the Armed Forces to meet those commitments?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I would make the point that when we talk about the Army or the Armed Forces being stretched, we are talking about shortages in certain trades and disciplines. Others have a lot more experience than I have in dealing with these matters, but I believe that that has always been the case—there have always been shortages in certain trades and disciplines. These are being addressed through retention incentives, through increased recruiting and by rebalancing the Army under future structures. At the same time, we are reducing some operational commitments in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland and now in Iraq. This helps to decrease the frequency of operational tours, both for units and for individuals.

My Lord, will the Minister accept that there is a perception that the stress on the pinch points of those particular trades is now more intense than ever? Do we have a point that we cannot go to if we are to maintain the effectiveness of those units, with the stress that is caused to long-serving, experienced personnel?

My Lords, we are continually keeping under consideration those pinch-point areas that the noble Lord referred to. Through FAS, through the new reorganisation and reroling of specialisms within the Army, we hope to start meeting those pinch points. I believe very firmly, as do the senior officers in the services, that we have those pinch points under control, we are aware of them, and we do not see the position as catastrophic in any way.

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the meeting of harmony guidelines is an important factor in morale. When were the present harmony guidelines set up; are they under review; and is there any likelihood that the present figures will be reduced?

My Lords, as I said earlier, the figures are being reduced over time. In 2005, the harmony guidelines were exceeded by nearly 17 per cent. Now they are exceeded by 10.3 per cent, so those figures are reducing over time.

My Lords, my question relates to the figures that are the harmony guidelines, rather than the number of individuals who are not meeting them.

My Lords, there are no plans to reduce the length of time for operational tours, for instance, or to reduce the figures, within the harmony guidelines, as regards not exceeding 415 days within a 30-month limit. So 415 days would be the time when our armed personnel would be expected to be on separated service. The rest of their 30 months would be on a home base.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in an attempt to meet the harmony guidelines, essential training is being cut?

No, my Lords, I do not agree with that.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether, as a result of new evidence recently published, they will set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate in full the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.

My Lords, we have no plans to do so.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware of the new book by Norman Baker MP, which collects a large amount of new evidence? I do not know whether he read it over the Christmas holiday, but it is quite a frightening read. It concludes that suicide by Dr Kelly would be extremely unlikely and is certainly not proven beyond reasonable doubt. As my noble friend will know, the Hutton inquiry was not statutory, and no evidence was taken under oath, so is it not now necessary for the Government to set up a proper statutory inquiry to investigate fully the circumstances of the death of this senior government employee?

My Lords, I have read extracts from the report, which I would describe as a good Christmas read. There was a thorough inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, who reached the conclusion that Dr Kelly committed suicide. He found that the cause of Dr Kelly’s death was:

“Haemorrhage … Incised wounds to the left wrist … Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis”.

He was,

“satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly”,

because,

“A very careful and lengthy examination of the area where his body was found by police officers and by a forensic biologist found no traces whatever of a struggle or of any involvement by a third party … The wounds to his wrist were inflicted by a knife which came from Dr Kelly’s desk in his study in his home, and … It is highly unlikely that a third party or third parties could have forced Dr Kelly to swallow a large number of Coproxamol tablets”.

My Lords, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, used an exceptional power to direct the coroner not to continue with the original inquest and not to resume it unless there was an exceptional reason. The inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, is the only time this provision has been used in a non-statutory inquiry. Surely the new evidence that has come to light since the Hutton inquiry and to which Mr Norman Baker refers in his book is an exceptional reason, which requires the events to be fully investigated, witnesses to be called and cross-examined and a verdict to be reached beyond reasonable doubt, just as in the current lengthy inquest relating to the Princess of Wales.

But, my Lords, the Hutton report was sent to the coroner at the end of the inquiry in accordance with Section 17A and, in an open court hearing on 14 March 2004, the coroner himself decided that there was no exceptional reason to resume the adjourned inquest. There is much supposition in the report but, if evidence there is, it is open to Mr Baker and any other person, if they wish, to seek a new inquest under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988.

My Lords, surely that is not good enough. The book by Mr Baker is well researched and shows that there is no evidence that Dr Kelly was suicidal in any way. Furthermore, Mr Baker absolves MI6 and the CIA from any blame but believes that perhaps some very nasty people in Iraq, who did not want things disclosed, might have been behind his death. Do we not owe it to Dr Kelly’s wife and family to have another, thorough inquiry in the light of this new evidence?

My Lords, I do not think that any of us can speculate on what Dr Kelly’s family are thinking at the present time or around the tragic circumstances of his death some years ago. I have nothing further to add. The Government believe that the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in this matter was conclusive. The noble and learned Lord set out the reasons for his conclusion. I say again that, if any person has evidence, they can take it to the authorities—to the police—and there is a procedure for a further inquest to be held. That is surely the approach that should be taken here.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Clause 6 [Amendment of target percentages]:

moved Amendment No. 39:

I was not going to follow my noble friend immediately because I thought that other Members of the Committee would rise.

Before the Minister responds I have one or two observations to make about the amendment. My noble friend has performed a valuable task in raising an important issue, but I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am not absolutely certain that the balance in the proposed scheme is completely right. We need to give a good deal of thought to this critical issue before we go further in Committee. Interestingly enough, it was not a matter that we really dealt with in the Joint Committee on the draft Bill.

My tentative reaction was prompted by the brief that I received from Friends of the Earth, which, like my noble friend, wants to strengthen the Bill to make it more effective, but which also has doubts about the solution that he has suggested. That organisation points out that these are not just scientific questions; it describes them as moral and ethical, involving judgments about what we and the rest of the world should be doing. In that sense they are political issues as well. There is a case for saying that such crucial issues should not entirely depend on the advice of a committee, however well qualified or well respected it may be. These are crucial decisions that will affect all our people and generations to come.

It is always very difficult when two noble friends present obverse and reverse sides of the same argument. It is an argument which goes right to the core of this Bill and the way in which this subject is being dealt with. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, it raises the issue of government structure and the way in which the Government do their business. Clearly, as I have said before, one department is dealing with energy policy and another is dealing with the consequences of that policy. The result is not that there is not cohesion but that there is a lack of definition and clarity of perception.

However, in the end, it seems to me that the argument about the powers of the Secretary of State is subordinate to an even more powerful argument, which, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, is the control of Parliament. Ultimately, as I hope the Minister will acknowledge, the Secretary of State has no power except for that derived through Parliament and, in this case, through this Bill. It seems to me that that is the sovereignty that we have to preserve. I accept that essentially the executive authority of the Government comes from the Crown and, in that sense, Parliament has the right of oversight and of regulation. However, when it comes to new legislation, there is no question at all in my mind that the view of Parliament has to be paramount.

I listened to my noble friend Lord Taylor with a certain amount of delight because I can envisage the time when we become the Government and I shall be embarrassed to some degree by his present proposals. I can imagine a future Conservative Secretary of State having slight difficulty as a consequence of these amendments. I am not absolutely convinced one way or the other about the argument but I am convinced that parliamentary control is paramount. That, it seems to me, is preserved in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Taylor because the orders will have to be subject to the approval of both Houses. That in itself might lead us into difficulties in this House where, as a matter of custom and tradition, in the past we have not voted against orders even when we felt that we should or only on the rarest of occasions.

We need to recognise the territory that we are getting into in this Bill. It goes way beyond the Bill itself, which is essentially procedural and sets out a parliamentary mechanism. It does not deal with the detail of the energy policies that will be required. In a month or two, a planning Bill will come to us from the other place and it will have to deal with aspects of the implementation of things that may make this policy and energy policy work. The whole complex has to come together and fit but I think that on balance, because my noble friend has preserved the oversight of Parliament, his amendments deserve the most serious consideration.

I will break in on a good quality debate among those on the Conservative Benches. The noble Lord is right to stress that changing targets is a crucial part of the Bill. Getting the balance between science and political decisions—between the powers of Parliament and the Secretary of State—is important and difficult.

I was heavily persuaded by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. We say that it is important that the part of this amendment that says that the recommendation is improved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament is right. We should remember that this Bill looks to 2050. Even within that timescale, this House might be reformed—at least slightly—so that it feels that it has the ability and integrity to reject orders more regularly than it has done in the past.

However, my own view is that we cannot be—or the Government or the Secretary of State cannot be—completely tied down by the Committee on Climate Change. Indeed, if this amendment went through, it could lead to extreme pressure on the independence of the committee when there was a diversity of views. That argument may not be completely de rigueur, but it is practical—that these different bodies and people have different roles. Therefore it is essential that the climate change committee has to be consulted, heard and considered on any target changes. However, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State has to retain a sensible degree of executive power in this area.

If you want to concentrate the committee’s mind on the need to act responsibly, you have to give it real power. The danger of a committee that does not feel that it has power is that it will act irresponsibly. It may well come up with conclusions that are simply impractical. I disagree profoundly with the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. If I might say, there is an element of inconsistency in his case, when I compare it with his earlier contributions during the passage of this Bill.

At this party, I see three people or organisations taking decisions—the committee, Parliament and the Government. There are going to be conflicts between those three. The problem is that when Governments take decisions, they are subject to all the pressures that they could be subject to. Members of this House, many of whom have been Ministers, know exactly the pressures to which I am referring—such as lobbyists and outside organisations—all of whom are exerting pressure and often producing decisions and making recommendations to Parliament that Members of Parliament, in their wildest understanding and dreams, cannot even begin to understand.

You often look at legislation and think, “Where on earth did they get this idea from?”. For example, the Gambling Bill went through and many Members of the other place could not understand who had asked for it. In all the years that I was a Member of Parliament in the other House, I never had one letter asking for gambling legislation to be introduced and yet, somehow, it appeared out of the woodwork. It arose as a result of pressure being exerted by lobbyists. It is those pressures that worry me. As they exert their way through the system—and they will be exerted on the Government when they are faced with crisis decisions in this very area where important decisions are going to be taken on policy—the Whips drive them through, very often in opposition to the views of Members of Parliament. That does not happen uniquely on the Labour Benches; it happens on all sides of the House. We all know that Members of Parliament often find themselves voting in a way that they do not altogether agree with, but in this area the danger is that decisions will make their way through the system. They will find their way into Parliament and will have been promoted by Government. They will be opposed in the Committee on Climate Change because they are not its recommendations, and they will simply be driven through the House of Commons. I am very worried about that.

I shall speak in support of what I conceive to be the essence of this amendment: the preservation of an appropriate balance between government, Parliament and the science in the broadest sense, embracing the economic as well as the physical and biological sciences, made immanent, one hopes, in an appropriately constituted climate change committee. In briefly elaborating that, I crave the Committee’s indulgence and apologise for being out of the country for the first two Committee sittings. I have read the reports with considerable interest. I was not surprised but very favourably impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who frequently said that while he did not necessarily agree, he could see the point and would go back to the department. I am equally clear that I am surrounded in this Committee by people who understand far better than I how to construct the verbiage of these arcana, which will put in place properly what we all wish—an appropriate balance between Government, Parliament and a climate change committee.

It is not going to be easy. This discussion started as if it was coming from only one Bench, but we are looking at a time span of 50 years in which different Governments will come and go. We need a framework that is robust against those changes.

Perhaps I may venture—and then I will shut up—a typical academic mini-discourse on the subject. A fascinating paper is about to appear in one of the world’s premier journals. It is one among many such papers as people concentrate more on the social science of how to resolve what is variously called the free-rider problem, the prisoner’s dilemma or the tragedy of the commons. It is a fascinating and depressing experiment done by a group of people in Europe, but headed in Switzerland. Students were put together in groups and each group member given a chunk of money. They went through 10 rounds of five-year quotas, as it were. They played 10 rounds in which each student had to put in a certain fraction of the money that they owed with the idea that, at the end of the exercise, if they had reached a certain target sum of money, they would all get to keep the money they had not put in. If they failed, however, they lost all their money. It is a crude and flawed metaphor for asking people to make decisions today that will lead to later and later decisions contingent on what other people decide about whether we will achieve the goals that we are trying to set ourselves.

Depressingly, the outcome of those experiments was that at the beginning most people tried to cheat and hoped that others would help. Then they realised that they were all going to lose and tried to catch up. There was a curious pattern of not enough action at first and then trying to catch up at the end. More often than not everybody lost and they all went away with nothing. That is why I am concerned about the inevitable political tensions to take it easy now—not to do the uncomfortable thing, not to bite the bullet on nuclear power, not to put in tough building restrictions. You can name your own favourite thing that we need to do. This is why I would have preferred annual and not five-year targets, so that they were not sowing seeds for a future Government to reap. That is why I would have preferred the Secretary of State to outline in general and not binding terms broadly how he saw the annual target being met. I recognise some of the impracticalities.

The real need is to recognise the essentially different interests of individual Governments and even individual Parliaments. The supervening realities against these unresolved paradoxes of co-operation lead me to believe that we have to be really careful about putting this legislation in place in a way that is even-handed in ensuring the strength of the appropriately constituted climate change committee, the Government—made appropriately immanent in the Secretary of State—and both Houses of Parliament. Much as I listened to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I am in favour of the broad spirit of the amendment. I think that the Committee probably is also, if it is appropriately done.

I have not joined in this discussion before but I listened to the debate with great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about the problem being between Parliament, the Government and the committee. The noble Lord, Lord May, referred to the committee as science, which he is quite right to do.

I remind my noble friend Lord Taylor and the Committee that not only Parliament and the Government will be concerned; the devolved Parliament and Assemblies will be concerned as well. They will have a great deal to say on this. Mr Salmond, the First Minister, is already saying that in no way will there be nuclear power plants in Scotland. I think he is saying that for political reasons; he cannot be saying it on scientific or cost grounds. But he is saying it and he is going to go on doing so. The Government know that and no doubt will allow for it when they bring forward their proposals. The political situation will be quite complex. It will not be just the Westminster Parliament and the Government having to deal with these matters with the committee, it will be the devolved bodies as well. I would ask my noble friend to remember that when he thinks about the future of his amendment.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was speaking as a former Secretary of State for Wales, and no doubt he was thinking about what is to happen when someone has to make a critical decision on something immediately or in the very short term. As I understood him, he was asking where the power is to lie. The situation is rather more complex than just that of Westminster dealing with this matter politically. Indeed, I think that it will be very problematic. I am not sure of the answer, but it should be taken into consideration.

I urge the Minister to regard this amendment as an entirely honourable and almost noble attempt to strike a balance in an extremely difficult area. I want to add one argument to those of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who I agree with entirely. Let us remember that the people principally affected by this Bill are the young. They are going to demand a different kind of politics, and I think that this amendment attempts, not unsuccessfully, to strike the type of balance that the young will be seeking. We will be asking for behavioural change from them in the form of changes in attitude towards the environment and changes in thinking about their futures. I do not believe that all that can be achieved through a determinist position by any Government, and I identify completely with the quotation used by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I hope that the Prime Minister meant what he said to the Liaison Committee because he is spot-on: politics will not continue to be done as it has been in the past, and this Bill is a litmus test of how far the Government are prepared to advance in changing the very nature of politics.

I am grateful for the debate. I do not want to be accused of not listening because I agree with many of the points that have been made. Also, although there has not been a lot of support for the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, he made a central point that seems to be lost sometimes; that is, that “the Secretary of State” means the Government. As an ex-Secretary of State, the noble Lord probably realises that. Decisions are not made by an individual in a ministry; it is not like that. It is not possible—although it would be convenient, of course—to have all our energy provisions wrapped up in one Bill with one ministry in charge. All that is for the Government. Otherwise there would be no division of labour at all.

The noble Lord, Lord May, apologised for not being here for previous sittings, and we understand fully the reasons why. But he was certainly here in spirit because his amendment was fully debated even though he was not personally present to move it. Members of the Committee found it incredibly helpful to have that amendment before them that day because it provided us with a possible lifeboat while we looked for a solution.

As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said when he kicked off, this group of amendments raises the question of the relationship between the Government, the Committee on Climate Change and Parliament, which we discussed before Christmas and no doubt will discuss again. My answer today is the same: so far as issues of transparency are concerned, we undertake to take this group of amendments, as with others before it, away for consideration. That is genuinely meant and is not a one-off response to a particular debate. There is a theme running through the amendments concerning the Committee on Climate Change and its relationship with Parliament and the Government.

In the end the country will still want to know who is in charge, and thus be able to hold them accountable. The country cannot demand that the Committee on Climate Change be accountable to “the people”; people will demand that from their elected representatives whether they be at Westminster or in the devolved Administrations. We have to find a satisfactory way round that. But as I say, consideration has already commenced regarding the transparency of the decision-making process and the relationships between the three bodies and it is hoped that we will be able to come forward with something on that at Report. It is not my job to push the Bill along; it is the will of the Committee. I only have the same message to give in this area of debate: we will very seriously consider looking at the transparency arrangements.

Before my noble friend responds to the Minister perhaps I may raise a couple of issues. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, was able to be with us today and I reiterate our thanks to him for his previous amendment. I totally support the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who reminded us of how important this Bill is to the young. My grandchildren are aged 14, 12 and 12. When you ask them what is important to them, they bring up climate change as one of the most important things. I am sure that the ways we do business now will have changed enormously in 50 years’ time.

I support my noble friend’s amendment. It may not be perfect, but that is another matter. I am a strong believer in the need for a consensus between the Government, science—though I am no scientist myself—the committee itself and Parliament. I am raising these points now, before my noble friend replies to the Minister’s response, in order to try to help the Committee. In the previous two sittings the Minister has been very honest in responding and has taken our points on board, saying that he will come back with ideas on Report. I have a feeling that we are covering the same ground again and again in many of these amendments. Is there any chance that we might have a more general feeling for how the Government might meet us halfway on some of the proposals that we debated in the previous two sittings and are debating again today? Otherwise we are clearly going to keep going over the same ground, raising the same issues with the Minister, and we will get no further until Report. That does not mean that I think that it is a waste of time. But perhaps we are not progressing on this Bill as we have on previous Bills when the Government came back between sittings and gave us a slightly fuller response on how they saw matters progressing.

I do not know about previous Bills but the House has its procedures. We are not revising a Bill that we have received from the other place; we are doing the first round of work and it would be impossible for the Government to keep coming back during the Committee stage. Once the Committee stage is over we shall complete an analysis of the voices—we are working on that now—discuss that with the parties in the House, collectively as well as individually, and see where we can move; we know areas where we want to be able to move now. What the noble Baroness is asking for is impossible during the Committee stage.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the Bill is an indicator of the way in which politics needs to change in the future. However, we will not change politics by delegating to a meritocratic, although extremely worthy and important, committee. The key is changing the way in which democratic politics works in this country, rather than this particular area. That is why it is a risk to put huge powers into the Climate Change Bill. I am persuaded by many of the things the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said and we on these Benches will consider this fully again.

I agree totally with the core element of the amendment, which is that the Climate Change Committee needs to be strengthened, to have greater authority and to play a greater part in the process. What that balance is we shall have to come to at the next stage.

I thank the Minister for his positive and genuine response to the weight of the arguments that Members of the Committee have expressed today. Their contributions have been thoughtful and I hope noble Lords have a picture of what we on these Benches are trying to achieve through the amendments. I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in showing how delicate the balance is between the executive powers of government and the authority that is given to a body which is not democratically accountable.

It has been a very useful debate. I am sorry that there are occasions on which the Minister feels that he has covered this ground before, but it is an important point which lies at the heart of the Bill. It is useful to consider these matters. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I suspect, has probably moderated his initial reaction in the light of the debate. I hope that is also true of the Government.

In another place, where they are allowed to discuss these things, no doubt the same kind of argument went on when the current Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England should set interest targets. No doubt these kinds of issues weighed heavily then. I do not think there is any body of opinion in either House of Parliament which would argue against that decision today. It bears out entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that if you want a body’s recommendations to be treated with the gravity you require, you have to give it authority. That lies at the base of these amendments. Imperfect they may be, but I have presented them to the Committee in order that we should think again about the balance between Parliament, government and the committee. In the light of the Government’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Consultation on order setting or amending target percentages]:

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Setting of carbon budgets for budgetary periods]:

moved Amendment No. 43:

We were interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, explain the amendment. It would change the Bill so that where it states:

“The carbon budget for a period must be set with a view to meeting”,

it would state:

“The carbon budget for a period must be set to meet”.

It is not entirely clear how much difference that semantic change would make. It is unclear what advantage would be gained by changing the text from,

“with a view to meeting”,

to “to meet”. The only purpose of a carbon budget for a period is to provide a short-term framework that will result in lower carbon emissions. No carbon budget, except perhaps the very last, which ends in 2050, can be set to meet the 2050 target completely. All our efforts in the Bill are made with a view to meeting the 2050 target. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to the Bill, as it is difficult to conceive of the differences between a carbon budget that is set,

“with a view to meeting”,

and a budget that is set “to meet”. The amendment would do no more than add a layer of confusion, and we cannot support it.

I would dearly love to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and be very quick about it, but I shall take a few moments to give the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the time that it deserves. I understand the sentiments behind it. As he said, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set every carbon budget,

“with a view to meeting”,

the 2050 target, the target percentage range of 2020 and any target percentage range for a year after 2050.

Budgets must be set with a view to complying with the UK's European Community and international obligations—for example, as noble Lords are aware, any international treaties to which the UK is a signatory. So there is already a statutory requirement on the Government to set budgets in such a way that the targets are met. That is the intention of the Bill.

I agree with noble Lords that it is important that the Bill focuses on, and commits us to delivering, the overall outcome of the 2050 target, otherwise why would we all be here? However, Amendment No. 43 seeks to ensure that the levels of all carbon budgets are consistent with the targets in the Bill. That is a very specific and not just a semantic amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested, the difficulty with the amendment is that it would require every budget to meet the targets in the Bill. I agree that that would not be possible. The level of the 2038 to 2042 budget, for example, cannot be set at such a level that it meets the 2050 target, as the target does not fall within the budget period. If the noble Lord accepts that as an example of a budget being unable to meet a specific target, he will accept that the amendment is unnecessary, although I fully appreciate that the sentiment behind it is to drive the policy objective of the Bill forward. I hope therefore that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

I understood the Minister to say that the 2042 budget could not be set to meet the 2050 target. My immediate reaction is, “Why not?”. It seems incredible that such a situation could arise, but let us suppose that we actually start to make technological change at a rate that permits meeting the 2050 target by 2040 or 2044. What is the problem, if that is the case? It still meets the 2050 target. We could probably go on from there and get even further. So I do not know why the Minister felt compelled to say that the 2044 budget, or whatever, could not actually meet the 2050 target, because patently, if it were technically possible to do so, it should be allowed to do so. If it meets the 2050 target, so what?

The noble Lord is supporting my case, in fact. If technologies became available that could bring forward meeting the target, yes, that would be taken into account. The carbon budgets are about achieving a direction of travel and setting a trajectory towards the 2050 target. What we cannot say is that a target should be met in each budget period, because then the climate change committee, the Secretary of State and all those concerned would not be able to take into account all the factors to which the noble Lord alludes.

I support the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendment. Yes, we need to drive forward the Bill’s policy objectives and we want to meet these targets—but the budgets are set taking into account a number of factors, including technological developments and economic and social factors. They are set as a direction of travel and with a view, even in the very early budget periods, to meeting the 2050 target. That is the correct terminology for the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

I thank the Minister for her reply but I disagree completely. I do not wish to pursue this and I am not going to take up the Committee’s time further, but the proposal clearly relates to the target in Clause 1, which is a percentage by a particular year. The percentage and the year are the target. I am merely trying to stop wishy-washy language being used and bring it down to specific language. This relates not only to a percentage but to a percentage at a date, so I see no difficulty at all with this amendment. However, this Committee has more important things to discuss, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Consultation on carbon budgets]:

[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Matters to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets]:

[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 48:

I support my noble friend most strongly on this. This is one of the most important amendments, and I hope that we will get a favourable response from the Government. The Treasury press notice that accompanied the report of Sir Nicholas Stern—now our noble friend Lord Stern—stated that the dangers of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5 per cent of GDP each year. The press notice went on to say that it would more likely be 20 per cent of GDP each year. Unless the climate change committee has that focus in front of it, and has taken the economic and consequential factors into account, it will not be able to set a practical target for the reduction of carbon emissions. That is why this amendment is so important.

I support the spirit of this amendment, but I have been in this House long enough to look at the small subsections. Clause 10(3) pretty well covers all the points made in this amendment. It says:

“Nothing in this section is to be read as restricting the matters that the Secretary of State or the Committee may take into account”.

One point we always discuss in this House is the extent to which we should take provisions like that and make them explicit.

Targets for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are strongly related to another environmental point, the question of air quality. In urban areas, that is a serious matter. Perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 people per year in the UK die prematurely as a result of poor air quality—a higher figure than anything we are likely to see in the next 20 or 30 years for those dying prematurely from the effects of extreme heatwaves or other climatic events. The Environment Agency, which is concerned with air pollution, will also be concerned with monitoring the emissions that go into the calculations of climate change controls and regulations. I am sure that the department, the Environment Agency and the climate change committee will bear these points in mind. It would be extremely complex to put all that into the Bill. I hope the Minister, in responding to the amendment, will explain how the Government are trying to take—in the words they now use, of which I approve—a holistic approach, considering all the different factors.

The other important point that was made by the noble Duke was on the issue of adaptation—and of course adaptation is now in the Long Title of the Bill. But again, adaptation is not going to be part of the responsibility of the climate change committee, for reasons that will be explained more fully when that comes to be debated. Some of the best policies will need to consider mitigation and adaptation together. But in order to restrict its role, the climate change committee will focus on the emission aspects of the problem, and the Secretary of State’s job is to make sure that all these different and complex issues come together. The question is whether the Bill as framed meets these points, and perhaps the Minister will be able to explain that.

I support Amendments Nos. 48 and 49A, although Amendments Nos. 50B, 51A and 53A are a bridge too far for me: this is a good idea that has been rather overworked. Nevertheless, it is a good idea. As the noble Lord just said, it is important that the Committee on Climate Change should take account of the impacts of climate change in thinking about the pace at which the targets should be taken forward. Climate change is important only because of its impacts on people and on the environment; otherwise, it simply exists in a vacuum. It will be vital for the committee to have before it information about the impacts of climate change as they are experienced at that time and the best possible information to anticipate what the impacts will emerge as.

Later amendments would put in place a mechanism for the adaptation agenda similar to the one for the mitigation and target-setting agendas. If that happens, it would be important for the Committee on Climate Change to have information about these impacts in order to inform its decisions. I do not believe that it would overburden this part of the Bill simply to state that the committee needs to take account of the impacts on people and the environment as part of its deliberations. That should be right up there as a fundamental part of the committee’s deliberations. The committee could then decide whether it needed to quicken the pace, toughen the effort and urge us all on because the impacts were becoming increasingly deep at any time.

The intention of the wording in the Bill is not inimical to that of the amendment, but I am in favour of something like the amendment because the current wording is liable to misinterpretation. Let me take one example from the suite that we are talking about. The Bill states that, among the matters to be taken into account, are,

“economic circumstances, and in particular the likely impact of the decision”—

rather than of climate change—

“on the economy and … competitiveness”.

That is exactly what the two nations that failed to sign up to Kyoto gave as their reason for not doing so. I think that the Government intend to say here that the economic circumstances must be weighed in relation to, as Stern suggests, the cost of doing something against the cost of doing nothing. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the spirit behind the amendment be taken into account and that we look again at the wording in the Bill.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when I was considering the amendment, I thought about the relationship between subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 10. Presumably the reason for specifying certain matters in subsection (2) is to ensure that those are taken into account while leaving open the possibility of others being taken into account if the committee judges them at the time to be important. It seems to me entirely right and proper that we should specify now those things that we consider, at least as of now, to be the key factors in reaching decisions on the carbon budgets. Like the noble Lord, Lord May, I support the underlying intention of Amendment No. 48 and would like something that reflects that intention to be incorporated into the clause. Like him, I am not certain that the existing wording is absolutely right, but I very much support the intention behind it.

This has been a useful debate. I was almost going to rest my case on the fact that my noble friend Lord Hunt read out Clause 10 (3) but that would be trite. A point that has not been made is that while subsection (2) has that list—and I will come to a discussion on that—subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State as well as the Committee on Climate Change to consider the contents of that list in making decisions. These are matters the Committee on Climate Change has to take into account when it provides its advice on the level of the carbon budgets and the Secretary of State must also take them into account in making their decisions. I will not go over the list in full. It is not a big list but it includes the economic and social contexts as well as scientific factors and the international context. We think it is a broad and comprehensive list and the Joint Committee noted that balancing existing considerations will be quite a complex task for the Government and the Committee on Climate Change, requiring both technical analysis and, of course, political judgment. We do not want to overburden the Committee on Climate Change in preparing its advice on carbon levels but it is entitled, in addition to the areas that must be taken into account by the Secretary of State, to take any other factor into account. That is what Clause 10(3) means. It is not limited; it is a free agent. We are appointing a committee of independent people and if it chooses to look at other issues, that is entirely within its remit. In some ways we agree very much with the thrust of the debate but we think we have covered the points made in our drafting of the Bill.

The interpretation that my noble friend puts on this is consonant with other legislation. It is not at all unusual.

It is. There are lots of committees. I am sticking to the Committee on Climate Change at the moment. It is a completely free agent; I make that absolutely clear. This Bill does not restrict the Committee on Climate Change from looking at any factor outside that list, whether social, economic, technical or political.

We do not think that Amendment No. 48 is helpful. We believe the specific issue of decisions on the level of carbon budgets to be already adequately covered by the matter of scientific knowledge about climate change. We drafted that list to allow for very wide interpretation of its scope by both the Committee and the Secretary of State. Both the Committee and the Government are required to take climate change into account in the consideration of carbon budgets. We are not sure what value would be added by the amendment. We think the points made are adequately covered by the list. We do not want to add to the list unless some cast-iron case is brought forward, and we have not seen one at the present time. As I have said, Clause 10 (3) gives the Committee massive scope.

Amendments Nos. 49A, 50B, 51A and 53A would adjust the focus of the matters in Clause 10 to be considered by both the Committee on Climate Change and the Government. These amendments would require the Government and the committee to consider the impact of climate change on these issues. I understand that these amendments may have been prompted by the concern that considering the impacts of the level of the budget on economic and fiscal circumstances may lead to inaction or the setting of an unambitious budget.

I begin by emphasising that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a carbon budget for each period—inaction is not an option. There is no get-out for the Secretary of State in that respect because of the requirement on the office. When considering the impacts of decisions on the level of the budget on the matters listed in Clause 10, the Government and the committee will need to consider the impacts, costs and benefits of a range of levels for the carbon budget. That will ensure that the costs of the impacts of climate change will be considered alongside the costs of setting a budget at a particular level. We feel that the amendments misunderstand the intention of Clause 10, which refers to,

“matters to be taken into account”,

and balanced by the Committee on Climate Change and the Government when providing advice and making decisions. In considering the level of the budget, it is right that the impact of such decisions on the matters in Clause 10 should also be considered.

The committee is required to take account of,

“scientific knowledge about climate change”,

which will include consideration of the effects of climate change. We have not been prescriptive in drafting the clause. While Ministers have a good degree of sympathy with the amendments, we genuinely believe that the way in which the clause is drafted has the desired effect. Therefore, I ask the noble Duke to withdraw the amendment.

Can we have another go at this? I do not think that the Minister fully understands what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose is aiming at. This involves looking at the problem from a different point of view. The committee is a free agent—to use the Minister’s words—to look at whatever it wants, which is covered by Clause 10(3). In fact, we could delete Clause 10(2) and just revamp subsection (3) to say that the committee and the Secretary of State can take anything they like into account. There has been that usual get-out clause in lots of Bills.

Clause 10(2) refers to particular points for the committee to take into account. I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is intended to get the Committee on Climate Change and the Secretary of State to consider the consequences of not moving as fast as could be. It seems to me that Clause 10(2) is negative, whereas my noble friend’s amendment is positive.

Going back to the point that I made about the Treasury press notice and the effect on GDP, if the effect of a proposal from the Committee on Climate Change is to reduce GDP by, say, 1 per cent over five years, that is a fairly tough hair shirt. However, if the committee were to find that the consequence of not doing more would be a greater reduction in GDP, it is much easier—

Will the noble Lord give way—

Please let me finish my sentence. It would be much easier for the British public who have to buy the policy to appreciate why the action has been taken.

Why does the noble Earl say that the,

“matters to be taken into account”,

defined in subsection (2), are negative? I cannot see that at all.

They are negative in the sense that they are taking into account the consequence of what is being suggested by the carbon budget. The point that I am trying to make is to consider the consequences on the economy of not doing more.

I was going to intervene later on a related matter, but it has come up now. I should like to make a couple of points because I think we are talking at cross purposes. The reason for the confusion is that there is no fiscal delivery mechanism in the Bill, which I shall discuss in an amendment that we will consider at a later date. To get to 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent, or whatever, there will have to be a painful fiscal tax—or whatever we call it—delivery mechanism. We have to find, at some stage, a way of getting a price tag into the Bill and some broad-brush ideas.

There is no point in having so-called dramatic carbon budgets for the year two thousand and something or other if we have no idea about the fiscal side of the equation. If people say that we cannot be very precise about that, we are being jolly precise about the other side of the balance sheet. This must involve either tax increases—balanced with some other reductions, but with a net increase of tax in this field and maybe with some hypothecation—or the allocation or purchase of tradable permits or subsidies of one sort or another. That is how the whole thing will work. These are at the heart of the action that will be very painful for many people.

I do not see how this part of the Bill can accommodate the point that the noble Earl wishes to make. It is a very important question, but first we must see what the price tag will be. That will be reflected in the world price of carbon, whether there is a European carbon tax, what happens to European emissions trading, and all of the rest of it. That cannot be the job of the Committee on Climate Change either; we have got to leave it for now. It is a Treasury matter and the central fiscal responsibility will be for the finance Minister at the Treasury. Hence the separate mechanism that I will propose a week on Monday in Amendment No. 182B.

I will explain why I am not proposing an amendment here. The central fiscal problem will arise from the fact we have a double bind with carbon. Increasingly, we have reports about shortage of reserves and exploration problems. That drives up prices on the normal supply-and-demand basis and there is very low elasticity of demand for carbon; hence home heating. You cannot suddenly turn it off without freezing to death and you cannot suddenly and easily halve overnight your car journeys.

The tax increases of 50 per cent or so cannot be stealth taxes. They have to be explained to the public and we have to start now to explain them and their order of magnitude. The trouble otherwise will be that people will say, “You agreed on this Bill but you did not tell us what it really meant. It was a false prospectus. You didn’t tell us anything about the taxation consequences—doubling the price of heating oil and so on”. That is why politicians are often accused of duplicity—unless we believe that what I am saying is absolutely wrong. Well, if it is wrong, let somebody say so. If noble Lords suspect that it is correct, we had better start to get our act together. People have talked about a new politics; well, goodness gracious, the real change in politics—this is new—is that we have got to produce tax and expenditure projections over 20 or 40 years to go along with the so-called carbon budget. The word “budget” normally—if I may be pedantic and semantic for a moment, as other noble Lords have tended to be—is, in a sense, a weasel word. It tends to imply that we know something about finance when actually we do not. That is just a taster of what has to be in the Bill, but it cannot be in this part of the Bill.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I added a further paragraph on that. If we ask ourselves how we know that the committee has taken all matters into account, I draw the Committee’s attention—at the risk of delaying things, which I do not want to do—to Clause 27, which relates to the functions of the committee and its advice in connection with carbon budgets. Clause 27 will require the committee to provide the reasons for its advice on carbon budgets. It will set out how it has arrived at its conclusions and how it has weighed up the costs and benefits and the risks associated with different abatement pathways so that we in Parliament, other stakeholders and the Government can understand why that carbon budget has been recommended. Therefore, jumping forward, there is a debate to be had and I think that answers to this debate are buried away in Clause 27.

This has certainly been an interesting debate; it has shone a light on to this issue from many different angles. I listened with some interest to what the Minister said. I cannot accept his comments immediately but I should like to read them in slightly more detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who is no longer in his place, was right to draw the Committee’s attention to subsection (3). The powers are there but this is one issue that we keep working away at in the Bill. The Bill contains so many open and endless powers and we simply wish to see at what stage and to what degree each power should be defined. In Amendment No. 48 we have tried to bring about a little more explanation of the matters to be taken into account by the Secretary of State and the committee.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the debate. It was very interesting to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, from the perspective of the Environment Agency. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 49 and 49A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 50:

I am sorry to intervene—it is a habit from the other place—when the noble Lord is moving his amendment. However, he starts off from a basis that is completely wrong. The Climate Change Bill sets up a public body which will therefore be under a statutory duty, under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to consider the purposes of conserving biodiversity. Therefore, that aspect is covered but does not show up in this Bill because it relates to other legislation. A requirement is there so I would hate the debate to start by saying that we had forgotten biodiversity. That is my point.

I thank the Minister for that intervention, which is extremely useful. I understand that. However, I am guessing that we could probably look through other areas and say that they also had to be looked at. My point is that it is important that such a thing is listed. I accept what he has said but that area does need to be listed within this Bill because it is the core part of climate change policy. On that basis, I beg to move this amendment.

Like the noble Lord, I could have made my remarks on the previous group debated, but perhaps chose not to because having added a slight word of disagreement with my noble friend on the Front Bench, I did not want to do so immediately again. I turn to the emphasis put on the importance of science by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, with which I do not disagree. However, I also emphasise that within the list there are other important matters to be taken into account. In that context, I want to round off my remarks made earlier this afternoon.

These are not negative matters. After all, going back to Clause 8, those matters are taken into account with the object of setting a carbon budget with a view to meeting the target—in Clause 1—for 2050. The Climate Change Committee and the Secretary of State will have to have that objective clearly in mind.

When debating the various matters that have to be taken into account, my noble friend the Duke of Montrose referred to economic, political and social circumstances and then moved on without mentioning energy policy—one of the most important factors to be taken into account and to which I referred earlier.

I want to make what is far from being a negative point. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is not in his place, because during the second day in Committee he said he felt that the sense of urgency was beginning to seep out of our debates. I want to introduce a way of getting some urgency back, not into the debates, but into the achievement of what we are all setting out to do. That is not to set a lot of targets and prepare a lot of budgets, but to change the conditions created in the world by carbon emissions.

I again refer briefly to a remarkable and completely relevant contribution in a book written by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and Carole Nakhle. My noble friend was saying that these issues are hugely important but the problem in trying to persuade people to do something about them—and to accept the burdens that the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, suggested were going to be put on them—is going to be quite difficult. You are being asked to do something that may be quite painful in the short term and will not produce any results until many years later.

I shall intervene only briefly on this amendment to return to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his amendment. My noble friend intervened to draw the noble Lord’s attention to the existence of legislation on these matters, but what I want to emphasise about this amendment is that if noble Lords were looking at the Bill as a member of the public might look at it and were seeking to establish what matters must be taken into account, it is important that they are defined. The responsibility that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is referring to is defined in this section. In many ways, this is presentational. The argument was not so much about an absence of these responsibilities, but about their definition being clearly identifiable in this part of the Bill. I hope that despite my noble friend’s response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, he will take that matter into account before Report.

I have often raised this matter in debates. When we debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—which included the biodiversity clause—I was very active in trying to persuade the Government that there were certain considerations that should be included in it. I was always clearly told that they were already in legislation. I accept the noble Lord’s point. Somebody reading the Bill from outside would not necessarily think that they needed to go back and look at “X”. This is an extremely important Bill. Although I understand the Minister’s response—indeed, I introduced the biodiversity provision into the CROW Act—I hope that he will consider it again.

I would like to return to the list in front of us. I was not going to intervene but this issue has brought me back to square one. The matters to be taken into account are specifically laid down in Clause 10, subsection (3) of which states that nothing in this section may be read to restrict other matters. My question is related to previous legislation: will not the Government of the day give more priority to what is laid down in paragraphs (a) to (h), and apply a higher degree of responsibility, than to any other matters? Paragraphs (a) to (h) are clearly laid down in the Bill and surely the Government of the day will give them priority over any other matters.

Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I have been concerned on several occasions and thought it a pity that in new legislation introducing a subject such as biodiversity, it is just accepted that this is not the way it is done. This is particularly the case with this Bill, which is so important and will, I suggest, be of interest to a wider audience than some other Bills that we have taken through the House.

I support my noble friend’s amendment. I can understand why the Minister would make the intervention that he did because he comes from Defra, where I am sure biodiversity is always at the front of his mind. But at other departments, such as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, bio-diversity is not always at the front of people’s minds. Although they have a duty to regard it, it is very low down the list of priorities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that this is presentational. It is important for that reason.

If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had been here for the debate on the Severn barrage introduced by my noble friend Lord Livsey, he would have heard about the worries and the balance that will have to be weighed on renewable energies. The Severn barrage particularly highlights the fact that, while it can produce 5 per cent of energy from a renewable source, there will probably be an enormous habitat loss. That will be a balance that the Secretary of State will have to weigh up, and that the committee will have to consider. If the value of biodiversity is not made explicit in the Bill, it may be easier for the Secretary of State to make a decision that might be popular with people because it will impinge less on their lifestyle than others, but will impinge much more on habitat. We must give habitat and biodiversity a fighting chance by putting them in the Bill.

Perhaps I may speak briefly in support of the biodiversity amendment, but first I declare an interest through past and present associations with bodies such as the WWF, the Natural History Museum, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and various others I have probably forgotten about.

I want to make two points. There is a reason we should think about this more for our own sakes. The recent UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment considered 24 categories of ecosystem services that we depend on and found that two-thirds are deteriorating, and that most of the rest are not assessable. There is also a necessarily rough assessment that suggests that the actual economic value of ecosystem services is roughly comparable to that of conventional global GDP. So there is a selfish reason.

The second reason for thinking about biodiversity is that this Bill is all about us, about humans. We might find room in one paragraph to refer to the rest of the living world.

We broadly agree with the spirit of these amendments, but think that our way of going about it is better. Many of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, qualify the word “decision” in the list of factors that are to be considered when setting carbon budgets. His qualification indicates that the impact on fiscal matters should be assessed whether it is positive or negative, but this seems to be already implied in the Bill. If one is to consider the impact of a decision, surely it includes considering whether that impact is positive or negative.

We have tabled Amendment No. 50A in this group, which inserts at the end of Clause 10(2)(c) the words,

“including the benefits of reduced energy use”.

This follows the line taken in the Stern report because we want to make sure that energy usage is emphasised in this part of the Bill.

For the avoidance of any doubt, my earlier intervention was not in any way a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it is just that old habits die hard. Because he laboured the point, I thought I would say for the information of the Committee that it is covered. I make no bones about the fact that I am sympathetic to having this in the Bill, and we will have a look at it. But—I have to say “but”—one of the golden rules that is drummed into us—into ex-Ministers as well—is the strong advice of parliamentary counsel never to legislate for the same thing twice. Only legislate for an issue in one place and do not even repeat it in another piece of legislation. The fact is that once the lawyers get to work, interpretation will suffer. It is dangerous to legislate for the same thing twice. Notwithstanding that, I am more than happy to see if we can achieve greater clarity.

Biodiversity was not raised in the earlier debate, but I know from my Q&A that it is included in one of the paragraphs. The Committee on Climate Change, like all other public bodies—although I suppose not necessarily government departments—will have a statutory duty under Section 40 of the 2006 Act to have regard to the natural environment and rural communities. However, I am more than happy to have a look at it. I also understand the point about presentation, which is no bad thing because this has to be sold to the public. We are looking for a change of culture and changes in behaviour, so I understand the point. But I must give a warning that the advice may be not to legislate for the same thing in two places.

I do not have much more to say because the reasons I gave in my response to the previous debate apply here. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that as the clause is drafted the Committee on Climate Change and the Secretary of State must take into account the issues listed in the Bill. I have not sought to imply that they cannot consider anything else they may choose. That is the point: this is not prescriptive. They can look at any other issue, but in guiding their initial decisions, Parliament will certainly look at those they must take into account and how they have done that. When we come to Clause 27, which I highlighted earlier, covering functions and how this is to work, we can look at the matter in more detail because the question is highly valid.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for clarifying that for me. I assumed that was the case. In some ways, that reinforces why it is so important that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is in the Bill.

That was the other part of my argument. We are very reluctant to add to the list because most of the issues raised are covered within the Bill. Indeed, I have not heard of one that is not, and have had no advice to the contrary. Biodiversity is covered in legislation elsewhere, as a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change. This is something they must do. It is the way it comes out and the way it is explained. I make the point because it says “must take into account”. It also says that they can take anything else they want into account. That would not have the same force, because you could not have a checklist. They would choose to do that.

The Government and the committee will, of course, look at the costs and benefits in the context of all factors listed there. The drafting makes that clear. Where the current provisions refer to the impact, it means the impact as a whole, which necessarily includes an assessment of both the positive and negative elements. I hope I made that clear when I was forecasting what we might debate on Clause 27, in terms of the costs, benefits and drawbacks of different suggestions and advice the committee may give. We would see the negatives as well.

The references in Amendments Nos. 51 and 54 are therefore superfluous. With regard to Amendment No. 55, the reference to European and international circumstances in Clause 10(2)(h) already implicitly includes the international dimension of the other factors on the list. One factor on the list impacts on others, so Amendment No. 55 is unnecessary. I have already indicated the breadth of issues that can be added, but they would not fall under the “must” category. The noble Lord specifically mentioned Amendment No. 50A, which looks at the benefits of reduced energy use. This will be considered in the context of overall economic circumstances. The committee would have to look across the economy as a whole, at the different impacts, positive and negative, of different reduction pathways. In addition, energy use will be covered by paragraph (f) on energy policy.

A similar argument could be made about the range of environmental circumstances put forward in Amendment No. 53. Social deprivation, covered in Amendment No. 52, would be covered under “breadth of social circumstances,” which is a fairly broad phrase. These issues are indeed covered. I am sure we will come back to how the committee might work and present its advice when we debate Clause 27.

I thank the Minister for his reply and further explanation. It is still extremely important for this Bill, be that in the way it looks to the public, the climate committee or Parliament, to make some reference similar to this. This may not be the exact wording, but it needs to make some reference not only to biodiversity, but to broader ecological systems.

I am surprised, though I clearly do not share the experience of the Minister, that legislation would apply to a body as independent as the Committee on Climate Change. However, I doubt that, for instance, at board meetings of the now defunct Strategic Rail Authority the question of biodiversity was looked at in every investment decision it made. No doubt it had a statutory obligation to do so, but I am quite certain that it never—or hardly ever—did. That is one of the reasons why this still needs to be within this Bill.

On reflection, I tend to agree with the Minister’s comments on the other amendments, but it is important that we come back to extend this list in this one important area. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 50A to 56 not moved.]

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Duty to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets]:

moved Amendment No. 57:

There are various ways in which this issue can be approached; for instance, by questions and by debate. Why should it be included in the Bill in the way suggested now?

The clause is very open. This matter could indeed be dealt with in all kinds of ways, but there needs to be a specific point at which the Secretary of State has to lay the report before Parliament. The amendment suggests a reasonable time limit of six months. We do not believe that that would be unduly onerous on government or the Secretary of State. The time limit should be specified in the Bill, otherwise there will be a temptation to put it off. All organisations, government departments and individuals work better if they are accountable to deadlines; hence it is quite correct and proper that there should be a specific time period by which these orders need to be laid before Parliament, and we suggest that six months is a reasonable period. On that basis, I beg to move.

Surely there is an even stronger reason for the time limit to be included, which will be contained in the next group of amendments to be moved by my noble friend. The budgets will be without much meaning unless there is a strategy as to how they are to be produced. It cannot therefore just be left to the parliamentary Question or the possibility of debate. If we are going to have budgets, we must have a strategy, and it must be reported on and presented to Parliament very quickly.

We fully support measures to make sure that carbon budgets and proposals are set quickly and efficiently, but we are not convinced that the amendment achieves that aim. The subsection in question seems to relate to all orders that set budgets. We welcome the idea that the budgets be set as soon as possible, but mandating the Secretary of State to lay down a report that outlines all the budgets for the next 43 years in the six months after Royal Assent seems completely to alter the purpose of the clause.

As I understand it, the clause attempts to ensure that reporting mechanisms are in place every time a budget is set but not necessarily to fix and place permanently all budgets for the next four decades. The amendment lacks clarity. As our knowledge of climate change improves, so will our ability to set and amend budgetary periods. It is important that we have a dynamic process to address these issues. Likewise, it is important that this place responds in an open and democratic way every time that it happens. Reports to Parliament on budgets and budgetary periods are important, but they need to be strengthened, and we have tabled amendments to that effect.

I share the reservations of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, about the amendment. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that what is in the clause is not a very open position. The legal requirement to publish a report as soon as reasonably practicable is very far from being open; it is a strong requirement. It means that we must publish the report as soon as we possibly can. If we could not convince the courts, should the matter go that far, that we had complied with the clause in these terms, the Government would be at fault.

As the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, indicated, the budgets involve great complexity. That is why we need the phrase in the clause. Policies to meet budgets are likely to cut across a wide range of issues. The Government must allow time for the Committee on Climate Change to provide its significant advice on carbon budgets and we have to consult the devolved Administrations before bringing forward the necessary instrument for parliamentary approval. That is a pretty demanding schedule. Setting a specific deadline would therefore impose a great restriction on processes when we are seeking the contributions of other significant institutions.

As my noble friend Lady Morgan mentioned, we are discussing the timing of the Committee on Climate Change’s advice on both the first three budgets and the 2050 target with the shadow secretariat to the committee. After those discussions we may be able to come forward with an amendment that provides a potential timetable on giving due effect to the legislation. We all share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there not be undue delay. However, the phrase,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

does not countenance delay; it merely avoids our having to accept, as the amendment would have us do, an absolutely rigid timeframe within which all consultation would have to be completed.

I therefore hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have an open mind on this consultation process and on how long it will take. We are taking intelligent steps to move as rapidly as we can, but it would not be right to introduce into the legislation an absolutely rigid timetable that might severely affect the quality of the consultation that we could have with those whom we need to consult. On that basis, with the assurance that we are looking at the matter with seriousness, I hope that the noble Lord will feel confident in withdrawing his amendment.

I thank the Minister for his reply and for some comfort that he may understand the need for discipline here. If someone asked me to do something as soon as was reasonably practicable, I would probably put it off until next year. While that may not be a legal interpretation of the responsibility on the Secretary of State, it is important that there is a form of timetable that is rather more onerous in this important area—and I mean onerous—than there is in the Bill at the moment. However, I accept the Minister’s assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 58:

I shall intervene briefly to speak tangentially to the amendment, as this offers me a peg to put a thought into my noble friend’s mind.

A very interesting committee, the Quadripartite Committee, has been established in the other place. It draws on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and the Overseas Development Committee and deals with issues of defence sales. Some say that it has not been successful in the sense that it has not been able to secure the required level of accountability, but it was what I had in mind some years ago when I was pushing the idea of a defence exports scrutiny committee. If the mechanisms in the House of Commons are correctly constructed, you can get a forum for accountability that does not meet like a Select Committee—weekly, two-weekly or whatever—but at the right time to take evidence on issues when something has happened and where the view of Parliament should at least be in the mind of Ministers and others when decisions are taken.

I just wonder whether climate change as an issue should not necessarily be left to a committee such as the environmental protection committee. The issue would be only one item on its many agendas but it would obviously be a critical one. Perhaps a structure will be established in Parliament—possibly a Joint Committee arrangement; I do not know—that parallels that sort of quadripartite reporting mechanism in order to deal with developments in this area as they make their way through departments.

I should think that that is a way of communicating on issues such as targets for action, what is going to happen and what action is being taken, as a mechanism for ensuring that Parliament is kept informed during this whole process. As I say, the body would not meet weekly or bi-weekly as Select Committees in the House of Commons do but would be like the Quadripartite Committee and meet when necessary. It would not have to be defined in legislation; it would not have to be defined in legislation at all. However, it could be something that the department itself wanted to sponsor as a way of dealing with these problems. I ask the Committee to forgive me for using this amendment as the peg for raising the issue.

I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment for the reasons that I indicated when I spoke briefly on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It seems extremely important to spell out a strategy on how these matters are to be dealt with. I am pretty confident that the Minister, in response to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will say, “That is absolutely nothing to do with us in this House or with the Government; it is a matter that will be decided by the other place”.

As for whether there will be a separate committee, I would have thought, given my experience of working, for example, on the European Union Committee’s sub-committee on foreign affairs and defence, that if a strategy paper were to be presented to Parliament, it would not be lost as a single item to be dealt with in a great batch. An appropriate House of Lords committee would almost certainly decide that it was exactly the kind of topic on which it should devote a day to cross-examining witnesses. Without going down the road of inventing parliamentary procedure, a matter which is not for us, my noble friend’s amendment would by its very nature produce exactly the kind of examination that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wants.

Neither Clause 11 in its present form nor the amendment quite captures the fact that you can have much more detailed plans for carbon budgets or whatever for the next five years than can be planned 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ahead. I am therefore not entirely happy with the proposal that these budgets should be detailed. I suggest that when this clause comes back it should recognise the difference in detail that can be offered for different stages. This goes back to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, withdrew. I think that he was trying to provide for a relatively quick response for the immediate future, for the first five years. What will happen in 10 or 15 years can be a matter for much more deliberation. I hope that it will be possible to incorporate some of these ideas in a revised clause.

I was going to make almost exactly the same point as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, just made. It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said a few minutes ago, this is a fundamental part of the Bill. Unless there are proper policies and a proper strategy to meet the budget, it will not amount to very much. It is hugely important to get the timing right. I rather like the six-month proposal for the first part of the period but think that it would be entirely unreasonable to expect reports for future periods to be produced in six months. A certain unbundling of the clause may be needed to reflect these different time horizons.

I am grateful to the last two noble Lords who spoke because they represented the Government’s thinking on this matter. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that he has done the Committee a service by raising the issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with his previous amendment. We will certainly look at whether more detail should be provided than is currently provided for in Clause 11. I assure the noble Lords that their thinking is very much the Government’s thinking on this.

Perhaps I may deal first with the extraneous matter. I had a wonderful experience over the weekend watching that great film “The Kite Runner”, but I did not think that I would be involved in flying kites this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has flown one of the more obvious kites and I will neither cut it down nor respond to it except to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, that the safest position to adopt is to point out that this is nothing to do with the Government or with this place but is for the other place. My noble friend is always ingenious. He has tagged his proposal on to this amendment and he deserves a response.

I can only assure my noble friend that both Ministers on this Bench, particularly the senior one, were alert and listened carefully to what he said. He has firmly registered the point with the Government and we will see what needs to be done. However, I am with him on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, indicated in his contribution. We all recognise that Parliament has a very important role to play in this and it would be helpful if considerable thought was paid to the mechanisms by which that is done. I am grateful to my noble friend for his kite-flying.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the report required under Clause 11 will already have high status. As it will set out the proposals and policies that the Government intend to implement on carbon budgets, it is an important report. However, I am not clear that calling the report a strategy or requiring that it contain measures in addition to proposals and policies will change its nature very much.

There is also the obvious problem that calling it a “climate change strategy” could be somewhat misleading. After all, this report will be concerned only with mitigation—measures to reduce emissions. It will not cover the crucial issue of adaptation to climate change. That is the subject of Clause 49, which appears later in the Bill. Although the Government are not oblivious to the important points which the noble Lord makes about the necessity for strategy, this is not the appropriate clause for it because this report is more narrowly defined to deal with the more narrowly defined issues.

The noble Lord has raised an important topic and we will have a chance to discuss it much more fully when we reach Clause 49. As he will also recognise in my response to the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Jay, our minds are very far from closed on the level of detail required. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the Minister for that response. Words mean everything and nothing, really. I suppose that the difference between “report” and “strategy” is that “report” tends to be retrospective while “strategy” is looking forward. The whole thrust of this Bill is about the need to look forward to see what we do next. We need to report and to know where we are, but we also need—and this is the point of these amendments—to place centre stage the notion that we require methods for addressing the issues and a course of action that is clearly stated by the climate change committee and available to the Government. As I said, we need more than just suggestions and I hope that that will run through all the Government’s thinking on this. The Committee on Climate Change is not just a suggestion box. It exists to provide the thrust of the argument that the Government will then use to implement policy.

Is Amendment No. 60 not moved? Are we sure?

I think that my noble friend might want to move this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 60:

Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord that I understand his problem.

Indeed. Perhaps I should have taken more time.

This is all part and parcel of the debate that we have just had. The last group of amendments would have required the Committee on Climate Change to publish a detailed climate change strategy and these amendments would require the Secretary of State to implement the strategy. We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State buys into the strategy that the committee has produced.

This is another attempt by us on these Benches to cut out the politics surrounding the efforts to stop climate change. Without a duty to implement, it would not matter what sort of advice or strategy the Secretary of State received. There would be room for political manoeuvring at the expense of progress. I am immensely sceptical of the spaces in the Bill that will allow political decisions to nullify scientific conclusions with inaction. We need a duty to implement the strategy that the committee presents to the Minister. Placing that duty on the Secretary of State would be consistent with the approach taken in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which in Section 2(1) places a duty on Ministers,

“to prepare and publish … a strategy setting out the … policies for ensuring … that as far as reasonably practicable persons do not live in fuel poverty”.

Section 2(5) requires that Ministers,

“shall take such steps as are in”,

their,

“opinion necessary to implement the strategy”.

There is consistency here with previous legislation.

Although it could be argued that the Secretary of State is already under a duty to meet the budget and so will have to implement the policies and proposals in the report, closing this loophole would ensure that the policies and proposals put forward are the ones implemented, rather than a different set of policies that the Secretary of State may decide suits him better. This is important in monitoring Ministers’ progress towards meeting the budgets. I beg to move.

I support my noble friend, who has said what I was going to say on my Amendment No. 64A, which is grouped with this amendment. The wording that I have used is similar to that quoted by my noble friend and would have almost the same effect. I based mine on Section 2(5) of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, so I will not repeat what he said. It seems ludicrous that, having presented a report under Clause 11, the Secretary of State has no duty to implement it.

My intervention will be modest, technical and brief. I in no way disagree with my noble friends on the Front Bench or with my noble friend Lord Caithness on the spirit of their amendments. I have to confess to an ignorance, which has existed on my part for 30 years in Parliament, as to whether there is any relationship between the wording of the clause and the title of the clause. Clause 11 has the title, “Duty to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets”, which does not seem to me immediately to include the words that my noble friends want to put in the Bill. I have no objection to there being a new Clause 12, if I am right in my supposition. However, if my supposition is entirely incorrect, I apologise to my noble friends for not having discussed this with them before I came into the Chamber.

My noble friend’s dilemma would be solved if the Government accepted the amendment and altered the preamble to the clause at line 10.

The way in which Bills are drafted changed some time ago. Clause titles always used to be set at the side in about a three-point font so that you could hardly read them. I was always told, “You can ignore them. They’re of no consequence whatever in terms of the legalities”. That probably goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord’s point.

In my short note in response to the amendment, I have an absolute gem of a sentence, which I am determined to put on the record, but first I have one point to make to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. The Clause 11 report is drafted by the Government, not the committee. There should be no misunderstanding about that. The legal duty to meet each budget, which we discussed at an earlier sitting, provides a strong motivation to deliver the proposals and policies. I think that that was one of our very first debates, on line 1 or 2 of Clause 1 of the Bill. In addition, there will be regular progress reports by the Committee on Climate Change to Parliament under Clause 28. I am sorry to refer to these later clauses, but they set out in some detail the operation of the Committee on Climate Change.

Here is the gem. A legal duty to implement the proposals and policies would be highly unusual in legal terms. Ministers can say all they like about implementation, but a legal duty—this is what my note says—would be highly unusual in legal terms. On another point, the amendment would be very restrictive. If the Government were unable to implement one element of the plan—through, say, unforeseen events—they would be in breach of the law. The same problem would apply if evidence came forward supporting a change in policy approach. It is not intended—this is not to demean the Bill at all—that the programme should be drafted as a legal document. It is therefore likely that any duty to implement would raise questions about precisely what the duty is and what needs to be done in order to fulfil it, and it would be very difficult to determine whether the duty had actually been fulfilled. Legal duties need to be set out in a way that shows precision and inflexibility. We do not want the proposals and policies to be drafted in this way. We want them to be understood and informative to the public. This goes back to the point my noble friend made about presentation.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does not what he has just said apply exactly and precisely to line 1 of Clause 1 of the Bill, which seeks to impose a legal duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for 2050 is at least 60 per cent lower than the 1990 baseline? As I propose to come back to this matter at Report, I will gratefully accept the gem that the Minister has produced and I promise him that I will produce it again.

I was conscious as I made that point that I had got the line wrong—it is line 5 but it is the first line of the first clause the way the Bill is drafted—but it was a slightly different argument that was being advanced. That line was drafted so as to send a signal to the Civil Service; the noble Lord knows how the culture of Whitehall works. That is what Clause 1, line 1 is intended to do but, with respect, this is a slightly different issue. The duty to implement would create a risk that a Government might choose to limit the policies included in the report in order to avoid a requirement to implement those policies. This could create a barrier to transparent and ambitious policy-making.

A further point, and one that I hope will appeal to your Lordships, is that a duty to implement a plan could be seen as a very broad enabling power for the Government to carry out any actions they proposed through the plan. I have no doubt the Delegated Powers Committee will have a look at that. I only say it “could” be seen to be a very broad enabling power. I do not think a power of that breadth would win the support of your Lordships’ House.

I turn to Amendment No. 64A. I appreciate the proposed duty,

“to take reasonable steps to implement”.

The proposals and policies may be intended to provide greater flexibility rather than a simple duty to implement but we think the Bill takes the right approach—Ministers always say that—in focusing the legal duty on the outcome. It is the outcome not the process that is important and that is what the Government need to be challenged by. Rather than arguing about the means of achieving the budget we need to know that the outcome has been achieved. This ensures that we can take a forward-looking approach to policy-making and avoid being restricted to policies originally set out in the Clause 11 report when a change in approach since that report might deliver more effective emission-saving. In other words, there has to be a degree of flexibility. If we set this out in a highly restrictive fashion, which is what the initial Amendment No. 60 would do, that would have the exact opposite effect to what your Lordships are seeking to achieve. I note the caveat that this goes back to Clause 1. At Report I am going to better delineate the arguments on Clause 1 and Clause 11.

I would like to support my noble friend’s amendment but I am getting quite concerned by the Minister’s response. We are in Committee but we nearly seem to be backing off from making sure that what we are trying to do happens. That worries me excessively. Can the noble Lord point me to a part in the Bill as it stands which would allay these fears? I really am quite concerned that unless implementation is grabbed fully we will not succeed with this Bill in the way we want to.

If the noble Baroness is asking for the Bill to be so prescriptive that policy-making gets interfered with and is not practical, she is not going to achieve her objectives.

My noble friend Lady Byford perhaps sought to address the point that it is quite difficult, when considering legislation in this way—with dialogue between the Government and the Opposition leading, I hope, to positive developments—to pin things down. A lot is going to depend—this is the implication behind the noble Baroness’s intervention—on the Government’s response at Report; we hope that the Government really have been listening. I have been listening to the gems—it has been a bit like being in Aladdin’s cave: the gem from the Minister and the beautiful, sparkling gem from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about legality. This is truly a different Bill and it imposes legal restraints.

I return to the previous set of amendments because in some ways it is more important that there is a clearly determined strategy in the public domain that is clear and part and parcel of the discussions. It is obvious to all of us that Governments are going to seek to implement a strategy. If they do not, they will be shown to have failed. So the publication of the strategy is probably more important than the legal duty to implement it. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 61:

I am concerned about this amendment; it worries me. The noble Earl will know that I have sought to be objective throughout the Bill’s proceedings, but he referred to “regard to”. The amendment refers specifically to “damage to”. I wonder whether the lawyers might make more than a few bob out of this amendment in the event that it is included in the Bill.

I shall get back to the basics of the amendment in relation to two terms—“wealth” and “the economy”. The amendment states that the proposals,

“must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to … wealth and”—

in proposed new paragraph (c)—“the economy”.

Some private property may lose value as we implement a policy on climate change. Certain types of private residences, in comparison with other movements in the housing market, might be at a disadvantage because of the nature of their construction. Certain types of businesses owned by individuals, which would come under the general heading of “wealth”, might be affected by the implementation of this policy and would obviously lose out.

On the wider issue of the economy, what is meant by “economy”? We have many economists among us today and perhaps my noble friend will get up and embroider the case that I make, with his knowledge of economics. As I understand the economy, it is about activity in industry, so what about the power generation industry? It may well lose a lot of business as a result of the inclusion of such an amendment. It may decide that it wants to go to law to prevent the implementation of a particular policy because it damages its interests, citing the inclusion of “economy” in the amendment.

What about other industries involving building materials, supplies, heating, some white goods or freight transport? They are all part of the national economy and may well argue that they are being damaged, yet the law will protect them if the amendment is included. The law will refer specifically to,

“damage to, or deterioration of”,

their interests.

I think that the Opposition have gone a little too far with this amendment, and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

I was going to generally support my noble friend’s amendment for two reasons, but I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has raised legitimate concerns about the wording which must be looked at carefully again before the next stage of the Bill. Without elaborating on “the economy”, what he said about “wealth” raised a number of issues that need further consideration.

I looked rather sympathetically at the amendment initially because of proposed new paragraph (b), for much the same reason expressed in an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who referred to the Severn barrage. I was not present for that debate; I was in Moscow at the time with the sub-committee of this House, but I raised exactly those issues in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. It is a very good example of how, if we are going to go down this road, we have to look carefully at the consequences of biodiversity on ecological systems.

Equally I am sympathetic to what my noble friend said about the wrong use of biofuels. There are a lot of extremely good examples showing the sensible use of biofuels, notably in Brazil where extraordinary progress has been made using sugar to almost eliminate the need for ordinary sources of motor fuels, and so on. We also see other cases where rain forests and so on are being destroyed.

There is a lot in the amendment deserving support, and this is one of the many issues raised during today’s debate. Important questions have been raised, which we will need to consider carefully on Report. There are good things about the amendment that I wholly support, but one or two matters on the precise wording must be dealt with before we go much further.

I think that I understand the reasoning, purpose and motivation behind the amendment, but if we read it strictly it could become a climate change sceptic’s charter, as it states that it,

“must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of …the economy”.

If I were of a climate change sceptic bent, I would use that provision as far as I could legally to neuter everything that is trying to be achieved. That is the risk of the amendment. I applaud the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who tabled the amendment for bringing biodiversity to the fore but, in a different context earlier, my amendment was about taking it into consideration and then weighing it up.

In this broader area of risk, particularly in terms of ecology, we are talking about precautionary principles, and it immediately becomes extremely conservative in terms of its interpretation. The amendment as drafted could undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, so it requires considerable rethinking.

I wonder whether I could suggest a way forward, as I have probably managed to insert more sustainable development duties into Bills as they proceed than any other Peer in the land. For the past 10 years, any time I have spotted a Bill when someone ought to have a duty for sustainable development, we have tried to include it. Latterly the Government have been excellent in forestalling that by putting in those duties in a variety of settings.

It is important to set the climate change activity in this broader context of sustainable development. Climate change is an important and urgent issue, which will become even more important and urgent as it bites. The risk at the moment is that it can be seen as trumping all other considerations. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, referred to the debate on the Severn barrage. I hesitate to summarise what the Minister said on that day in a rather crass way. It was as if that amount of renewable energy justified any environmental damage by way of collateral damage, as it were. Though the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said that no one in their right mind would propose a power station that damaged biodiversity, I hate to say that the Government are now spending tens of millions on feasibility studies on the Severn barrage to do just that. We have to get clarity on where the climate change effort needs to take place in that setting of sustainable development. This may not be the right amendment. It is open to being hijacked, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others say. The solution to this is to insert a sustainable development requirement, as indeed we have done in many Bills for many functions and for many public bodies in the past, but never for the Government as a whole as this Bill would require.

The Minister may leap to his feet and pull a Bill out of his back pocket of which I am unaware that lays a sustainable development duty on the Government that would apply in this circumstance. If that is the case, I am even more joyful about the last 10 years; but I suspect that he will not. Simply to say that the reporting required by the Government in this clause should be required to take account of sustainable development—the broad wording in many Bills—would help to make sure of it, and provide a gentle prompt to government over many years about the fact that, no matter how pressing climate change becomes, if we solve it by creating other environmental, social or economic problems, we simply will not hit the mark.

I support the amendment of my noble friend in one sense, but in another sense it is the right amendment with the wrong words in it. This seems to be a reasonable conclusion for the debate we have had. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, rightly of course, raised the impossibility of getting through to a solution in 2050 without somebody, somewhere, being damaged. The essence of the action required over the coming 40 years if we are to meet the 2050 target means an immense number of changes in society—in the economy, in our structure, in the way we source our energy, and so on. That depth of change is not going to occur without some people somewhere losing money. At the same time it is equally certain that the change will introduce huge opportunities for gain. We live in this market economy and, whatever we do, we are not going to escape from that. That means things going up and things going down. We all have to accept that.

The way the amendment is worded would inhibit the flexibility of a market system. We cannot afford that. That very flexibility will be one of the great things that will make the change possible. Some interventions in the market will be required by government to produce the desired effects. That seems almost inevitable. At the same time, we need to keep this thought very much in mind in the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord May, introduced it earlier this evening and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, reintroduced it—but we must not do it in such a way that it might inhibit necessary action and, more importantly, necessary change if we are to arrive at a destination in 2050.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I say that in my back pocket is Clause 49, the programme for adaptation to climate change. Subsection (2) states:

“The objectives, proposals and policies must be such as to contribute to sustainable development”.

I say that because we are dealing with Clause 11 on the budgets at the moment. I am not saying that it meets the point related to this but, so far as the Bill is concerned, where we have looked at the various aspects, it is in terms of the adaptation policies that we have actually—

I very much welcome the noble Lord pointing that out. All I ask is for that provision to be put in the mitigation part of the Bill as well as the adaptation part of it.

It was not in that part, but it was elsewhere. I do not want anyone to get the impression that sustainable development is not mentioned in the Bill. It is, in Clause 49, quite deliberately in the adaptation programme. There is no such requirement in Clause 11 and I am not sure whether that was raised before the Joint Committee, but we are strongly committed to promoting sustainable development and protecting and improving the environment. I am not so up to date. There have been several references to the Severn barrage. I do not think I dealt with the debate or was the Minister who gave the crass answer. It was obviously one of my colleagues. I am not going to get involved in that.

All new policies are subject to an impact assessment which includes consideration of the principles of sustainable development and must take into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. At present, all UK government departments are signed up to the 2005 sustainable development strategy. All departments publish a sustainable development action plan. The new cross-government public service agreements aim to ensure that all relevant departments have clear roles and responsibilities with respect to the important policy areas, so they are given full consideration in the policy-making process. The public service agreements are in place for climate change and the natural environment. We also of course ask the Sustainable Development Commission to act as an adviser, advocate and watchdog and to report publicly on the Government’s performance on sustainable development, and to help build capacity to deal with sustainable development issues. So we do not think in the round that it is necessary to place an additional sustainable development requirement on the policies and proposals report. That is not to say it can be ignored. The concentration is in the other part of the Bill—adaptation rather than mitigation—in terms of the actual words.

The Minister said that he was not sure what the Joint Committee on the draft Bill had said on this matter. It addressed this issue in the context of such things as wind farms and tidal barrages, and came to a very clear conclusion. We recommend that impacts on the environment, especially biodiversity, be added to the list of factors which the Secretary of State and the Committee on Climate Change must take into account. The Joint Committee was not confining that recommendation to the section of the Bill dealing with adaptation.

I thought that I was going to be clean-bowled with the one contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but he has legitimate concerns and I take those on board. The purpose was to protect society and the economy as a whole and not individual areas. I was very grateful for some support from various contributors for what we were trying to achieve in including sustainable development in the Bill. This may not have been exactly the right amendment; it may have its shortcomings. The wording may be wrong or ambiguous and open to difficulties later, but I hope that the Committee feels that our heart was in the right place when we produced it and tried to include sustainable development.

I was going to ask the Minister whether he would consider including sustainable development in the Bill when, out of his back pocket, he produced Clause 49. Therefore, the matter has been considered and that is good news. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 63:

For once, I disagree with my noble friend. For better or worse, we have devolution. I was not in favour of it and I still do not think that it is a great idea, and I think that the harvest from it is yet to be reaped in full. However, having got devolution, one must accept that countries such as Scotland can do their own thing. My noble friend and I are very fortunate that the home information pack is voluntary in Scotland, whereas it is compulsory in England. It is of great benefit to us in Scotland to have different law. Scotland will bring in its own climate change Bill and it may do things slightly differently from the way they are done in England. However, having got devolution, I think that the devolved Administrations should be given the flexibility to act. Certain things might be done better in Scotland than in England and certain things might be done worse, but that is a problem with devolution. Therefore, asking for a duty to be placed on the authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State will go against the spirit and the whole point of the devolution legislation.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has expressed things in precisely the same terms as I would be likely to express them from this Dispatch Box. We have devolved Administrations and they must exercise their responsibilities, but of course we are assured that each devolved Administration in the UK is committed to tackling climate change. The Secretary of State is responsible for meeting the targets and budgets in the Bill, but the report on policies and proposals must be developed in consultation with the devolved Administrations, as is their right, bearing in mind that this is a UK Bill. It is essential that it is a UK Bill because the UK has to operate in the international arena as an entity. However, some areas of climate change policy are devolved, and we respect that, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, properly pointed out that we should.

The proposals and policies required under this clause will clearly set out what measures each devolved Administration intends to take to reduce emissions in areas of its responsibility. We have agreed this approach with the devolved Administrations and believe that it represents a fair way forward. We are also developing a more detailed concordat with the devolved Administrations, which will set out how we work together with them to meet the Bill’s requirements. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that our efforts are properly co-ordinated, as opposed to seeking to impose on them a statutory duty to co-operate.

I reiterate that all the devolved Administrations are fully committed to this process. We have enjoyed very constructive discussions with them and are grateful to them for their co-operation so far. I am pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have both recently approved legislative consent motions to this Bill, and we expect to build on this constructive process.

It is right that the Bill is focused on the UK level, given the highly integrated nature of the UK economy and our energy system. Clause 11 already requires that the report, including the contribution of the devolved Administrations, be laid before Parliament, so there will be full transparency about what the Government, together with the devolved Administrations, intend to do to reduce emissions and meet the budget.

I hope that the noble Duke will feel reassured by the Government’s response and suitably chastened by his Back-Bench contribution to the extent that he will recognise the proper role of the devolved Administrations in this matter. At the same time, I hope that he will appreciate that this is a UK Bill with UK targets to be hit and that we will achieve that through the transparent process of consultation with the devolved Administrations, as we are obliged to do. I hope that the noble Duke is reassured and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am afraid that I do not feel able to go along with the Minister one bit. Here, I am drawing to the Committee’s attention the anomalies that we face in the Bill. We have given devolution to various national or sub-national authorities—however one wishes to put it—but, at the same time, this is currently a UK Bill. There is a possible way for the Government to get around that. If they can agree the policies and proposals at the same time as setting the budgets, then, when they come forward with the carbon budgets, the policies and proposals will be agreed ahead of time and all horse-trading will already have been done. The only other way to get round the problem is to turn this into an England and Wales Bill or an England, Wales and Northern Ireland Bill and leave Scotland out of it altogether. The objective that we are striving towards is that there should be a UK policy on climate change and that everyone will fit into it. We are not saying that they should do exactly what Westminster says; we are simply saying that there should be a requirement on the national authorities to co-operate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 64 and 64A not moved.]

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Annual statement of UK emissions]:

[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 66:

This seems to be a very good way of ensuring that these reports are debated within Parliament. We are supportive of this group of amendments—although expect that votes might go the wrong way, recalling the reminder to us all from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the strength of government Whips and Parliament’s procedures to make sure that the Government get their way. This effectively makes sure that these reports presumably are debated on the Floor of both Houses. We believe that is essential and good for the Bill.

My remarks will be extremely brief. I support the amendments moved by my noble friends for the very reasons that they gave, but will give an additional reason. I can well recall when we were taking the lottery Bill through that we made it clear to the House that we would make available a day’s debate every year, to see if the House wished to vary the amount of money going to the particular lottery interests and distributors, according to the change in the circumstances of cultural life.

That there was going to be such an opportunity was a powerful reason the figures that we put into the Bill originally were not amended. We did not, as I recall, in any way stipulate this as being a formal part of the lottery process. It is no surprise that an incoming Administration chose to handle the lottery in a quite different way, perhaps because that restraint was not available. Had we had the opportunity to debate the purposes of the Lottery more frequently, the lottery might be in a happier position today. For that reason—the same as given by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—it is highly desirable that the opportunity for debate, as this 43 years unfolds, is all to the good.

I suspect that the Minister will tell us that it would be unusual to stipulate the need for an amendment or debate on these measures. However, I suggest that we should give that more thought and that this recommendation should be supported. After all, we are talking about something very much more fundamental. It is something that if unusual, is so for a good cause.

I, too, support this amendment. It is perfectly sound and all of a piece with the overall recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Committee.

I am in trouble here. Regarding the final points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about having debates on the Floor of both Houses, this amendment requires no such thing. I can assure noble Lords that that would not happen. I will come to the substantive point on whether it adds any value, because that is an important aspect of this.

From a practical point of view, this House obviously has a different structure from the other place, but I can assure noble Lords that there is no way that a piece of legislation would require there to be debates on the Floor. There would be ways to put it to a committee somewhere or to make it more targeted. However, I take the point about the level of parliamentary interest and scrutiny. All the amendments want the issue to be put upfront, which is important.

We have discussed the balance of responsibilities between the Committee on Climate Change, the Government and Parliament. However, we should ask ourselves if the amendments as drafted—because I can deal only with the way that they are drafted—add any value.

Clauses 12, 14 and 15 already require these statements to be laid before Parliament. If there were any concern in Parliament about the content of the publications, there are a dozen ways of raising any issue in the other place. I have no doubt that, one day, when I am no longer at this Box, I will find a dozen ways of raising issues in this place because I simply do not know the procedure from the Back Benches. However, there are enough ways of raising concerns in Parliament.

Therefore, having laid them before Parliament for formal approval, we would argue in terms of what is the best use of parliamentary time. However, that might not require a debate. If the business managers got to work, it could be done without one, but the objective of ensuring that these things were upfront in Parliament would be lost. It is important that Members of this House keep a very close watch.

I turn to some important technical aspects. The Bill requires that the statements provided under these clauses have to be compiled in accordance with international methodologies. That means that the most up-to-date and accurate information available must be used, as must the same systems and emissions data as in the annual emissions inventory which the UK is already required to submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

A background paper on how this emissions inventory is compiled has already been circulated. Briefly, the annual emissions inventory publication is produced by independent consultants on the Government's behalf, and is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics. It is respected, subject to rigorous quality assurance and peer review, and supplied according to international guidelines. The information provided is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and all UK emissions data are also independently scrutinised under the framework convention arrangements. The latest United Nations review of the UK inventory accepted all UK emissions statistics without adjustment. It is not as though we are a completely free agent in the way that these reports are put together; I emphasise that they are done to criteria set out internationally, peer reviewed and produced by independent consultants.

Probably for the first time in the Committee’s discussions, I feel really disappointed by the Minister’s response. To some extent, I feel that he has missed the point. If I say that it is Civil Service-speak, I do not mean it in a derogatory sense. It is the Executive seeking to maintain discretion on these matters and not truly seeing the enormous importance of engaging public interest, through Parliament, in what the Government are seeking to do. A Government who cannot and do not wish to engage Parliament as an ally in this pursuit will fail. The Minister may suggest that no Government will seek to fail to engage Parliament in this great adventure. He has conceded that many significant measures are currently in force that require an annual debate. The Climate Change Bill—or Act, as it will become—is of such importance that public debate on an annual basis is necessary.

I listened closely to what my noble friend said. I did not understand him to say that he is totally opposed to it; he said that it was technically not possible because of the way procedure works in the House of Commons. That is surely a reasonable response.

It may appear to be a reasonable response, but the reason why these amendments may be important is because they give Parliament an opportunity to say that it requires this. Currently, as I understand it, it is a matter for the business managers to determine.

I feel really hurt about this. I went way beyond my brief. I actually explained, almost, how the noble Lord could go away and draft an amendment to get the objective he wanted because his amendment does not require any parliamentary action or scrutiny—or maybe only one of the silent votes they have in the other place when they tick a box on a Wednesday afternoon. That would be approval, but it is not a debate. If the requirement is to get the thing on the Floor to have an annual debate, that is another issue altogether. That is not what this amendment does. I was giving an answer to a problem that arose—as my noble friend spotted straight away—and I am chastised for giving the most negative response so far.

In which case, I have to ask the Minister’s forgiveness. I have managed to clarify the situation in my own mind, at least; he is hostile not to the objective of this amendment but to the wording. I am a new parliamentarian—I am very new to the ways of this place and have no idea about the ways of another place—but I am very aware that parliamentary business can be controlled by the Executive, and I feel that the Bill needs to give a lever for parliamentarians to have the opportunity of debating these reports. If we can find a way—and the Minister said that he has already talked to his advisers on this matter and about the ways in which Parliament can be set centre stage—that would make an enormous difference. I hope that the Minister will look at this between now and Report to see whether there is a way and a wording that can be put into the Bill to make these annual reports a matter for parliamentary discussion on an annual basis. Subject to that, and the comments made by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 67:

I like this amendment a lot. It takes us back to the earlier debate on the powers of the climate change committee—what I call the party and what the noble Lord referred to as the triangular relationship. If the committee has this kind of responsibility, it will focus the minds of the membership on the need to take realistic and real decisions for which they are accountable.

I have another reason as well. Ministers in all Governments are very often fearful of taking very difficult decisions. It is just the way we are. Sometimes Members of Parliament—particularly in the other place—grumble in the Tea Room about a decision that has been taken by the Government. Sometimes they know the reason behind it. Sometimes—and I am talking across parties—they talk about the inadequacy of Ministers because they fear to take those great decisions. My noble friend Lord Rooker was very firm in the decisions that he took during the period when I was in the House of Commons on the Back Benches and he was a Minister. I hope I do not embarrass my noble friend when I say that he was quite exceptional in being very deliberate in the decisions that he took. I am fearful that Ministers might duck decisions.

Therefore what we have here is a mechanism behind which they can hide and say: “Not me, guv, but them”—because the committee will have to approve. And therefore Ministers—whatever they make as a recommendation—will have to have in mind what the views of the climate change committee are. If that is what is takes to give Ministers the bottle to make the big decisions then so be it and let the committee have this very important role.

I am in a strange position in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the word “depoliticise” but that can also be substituted for “de-democratise”. We need to be careful about this area. That is why there may be tension between those on these Benches and those on the Conservative Benches regarding the degree of independence, strength and role of the climate change committee, although we are moving in the same direction.

The list of things that have to be reported on in this area are those on which the Government have to report on internationally anyway. Most of them already have to be calculated. So this amendment is in the wrong place. The list of things that have to be done by the climate change committee includes calculations that, if anything, should be audited; the climate change committee should not necessarily have a separate section to recheck the work that has been done anyway by Defra. I am not convinced in this area. Depoliticisation can mean de-democratisation. Work in this area has to be done by Government and reported internationally. There is a risk of doing this twice. The climate change committee has more important things to do in this area. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will come back to me and put me right.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I cannot envisage how the climate change committee can do its job—which is after all not just to monitor but to set programmes thereon—unless it has confidence in its own figures. Simply to say that that is a responsibility of the Executive and that we will take their figures is a compete denial of its responsibilities. That is not to say the Government will not do the work themselves as well: if that is duplication, it is duplication for a good cause.

The climate change committee will use a number of organisations that are available to Government to do calculations and monitoring of greenhouse gas and other relevant emissions. This is a sensible amendment—and an inevitable one if the climate change committee is to exert its proper role.

I, too, support my noble friend. I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because clearly the climate change committee if it is going to operate successfully must come forward with a statement and have it approved. I hope that the voices around the Chamber will encourage the Minister to realise that on all sides—well, nearly all sides—of the Committee we feel that this amendment is hugely important.

I suppose that I should put a contradictory point of view. Unusually, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and disagree with my noble friend who spoke in favour.

This is about statements of fact—annually, at each four-year budgetary period or whatever it happens to be in due course and in 2050—and not statements of intention of policy proposals. It is getting almost to the point of paranoia to think that if that is done by the Government the facts will have to be verified internationally and that this will in some way reduce the role or significance of the climate change committee. I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. We want to ensure that its authority and standing is respected. This would not make the slightest difference. If there was any query by the committee of government figures, the Government would soon know that and so would the public.

Clause 12(2)(b) states: “identify the methods”. The amendment refers to “approved by”. Could there not be an argument between the Government and the committee on the method?

I apologise. Could the noble Lord refer me to which of the amendments on which page he is referring?

I am tempted to refer to a statement made by the Government a few clauses back. The outcome is more important than the process. To someone brought up in the tradition of public service in this country this is a revolutionary suggestion. I suggest to the Government that in an area as novel and potentially difficult as this there is a good deal to be said for being fairly scrupulous in consulting the opinion of the committee.

I cannot disagree. But that is quite different from this statement of facts that has to be drawn up by and approved by the committee.

It is inconceivable that the Government of the day would publish figures that would clearly be disputed by the climate change committee, because if the committee disputed it so would the various international agents. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The methods used to measure and calculate would have to meet international conventions and requirements. Many times in these debates we talk as if this is simply something that this country is doing and nothing else to do with the rest of the world at all. We lose sight of this—we will come to this when we discuss aviation—as if this was not taking place in any context at all. There are so many other places where the thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is appropriate that it would be a pity to push for this area which does not add anything at all. In other areas it possibly does. When we discuss areas of policy, direction and the speed at which we can progress, the committee is going to be very important indeed.

I would like to intervene on my noble friend again on the word “method”. They may well choose a method which is disputed by the Government. My noble friend says that there are international norms in the methods that might be used. The facts are that there are other areas. Let us take the issue of the golden rule. We have our interpretation which we believe is absolutely correct on how the golden rule method of calculating works in finance. Others have another interpretation. I am worried that an argument may develop about the way in which the statistics have been drawn up—the kind of argument that might focus on political parties arguing over interpretation.

Surely it is completely inconceivable that the Secretary of State, whoever it may be at the time, would ever attempt to draft such a report without first getting a detailed brief from the Committee on Climate Change. Having said that, I find it rather funny-peculiar that we do not trust the Committee on Climate Change to write its own report in language sufficiently intelligible that ordinary Members of Parliament would understand it. I find myself wondering what the compelling reason might be for the Secretary of State to have to redraft the report. So far, no one has said why it should be so.

I used to run the Met Office. We produced weather statistics and government Ministers would say that it was hot, cold or whatever, and quote the figures supplied by the Hadley Centre. The point was made earlier that the Government issue a statement based on data produced by a public service agency. The issue with this drafting is that Clause 12(2) does not state who actually produces the figures. It may be that with redrafting this subsection could state that the Committee on Climate Change should be responsible for emissions figures which will be quite complex and open to question. For example, UK removals is a very difficult calculation to make, depending on forestry, emissions from waste areas and so on. I imagine that the Government will take data from the Committee on Climate Change and perhaps other organisations and then make their statement. As for the notion that the Met Office provides what the Government say about the weather, that is not something that we normally do.

As there is some confusion here I shall start, at the risk of repeating myself after the last debate, by making a point about where the amendments add value to the Bill. The UK’s national emissions inventory publication is produced each year by independent consultants on the Government’s behalf. That is what happens now and what will continue to happen. The publication is respected, subject to peer review and supplied according to international guidelines. It is not something knocked up by Defra, far from it. Rigorous measures are in place to ensure the quality of the information, which is set out in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and is subject to further independent scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Therefore we do not agree that the Committee on Climate Change should be required to lay before Parliament an annual statement of UK emissions. Not only would this be costly, it would definitely be potentially confusing if it duplicated the work of the official emissions inventory that the Government are already required to produce under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

However, we recognise that members of the Committee on Climate Change will be experts in their field and we are considering how best to ensure a constructive dialogue on the kind of issues we have covered in the last two debates. I apologise for this, but I shall refer to another clause, Clause 30(2), which states specifically that the committee may take on a role in assisting,

“in connection with the preparation of statistics relating to greenhouse gas emissions”.

There are already in place well-established mechanisms which allow other non-departmental public bodies to contribute to issues of this kind. Obviously we are willing to look at how the committee or members of its secretariat could play a similar role because that makes sense, but we do not want duplication leading to confusion.

I shall give an example. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK Government are obliged to have in place a national system to ensure that the inventory remains of the highest quality. In the UK this takes the form of a steering committee of experts and stakeholders, and we will certainly consider inviting members of the committee secretariat to the formal national system meetings to ensure that we are able to draw on their expertise in the inventory preparation process. In other words, there is a job to be done and the Committee on Climate Change has a role in it, but it certainly cannot be a job of duplication.

Underlying some of the comments were indications of dodgy government statistics and dodgy government reports produced by government departments that we do not trust. But that does not happen. As I explained, the information is produced by independent contractors. It is peer reviewed to international standards and scrutinised by the UN framework and is in conformity with the Office for National Statistics. If anyone wants to come back on Report to say that it is not working and that claims have been made and so on, then that is fine. But no one has said that today. It is as though people are saying that the infrastructure for producing the emissions inventory does not exist, but it does exist. It is important that the Committee on Climate Change is locked into it, but not in a way that would duplicate the work and thus lead to confusion. We will certainly look further at how the network of the various bodies can be linked up properly. Obviously the Committee on Climate Change does not exist yet. It is the new kid on the block, as it were, and it is very important that its pronouncements and advice are based on the best available information. But it does not add to the proposals in this Bill to seek to duplicate what already exists.

The Minister talks about duplication but has already admitted that there exists a body which is effectively doing the work that I would see the Committee on Climate Change doing. I cannot see the committee being happy about not being involved in evaluating these issues because they form the working material that it will be engaged with. This is the committee’s area of activity. So I was surprised by the Minister’s suggestion that the secretariat will be allowed to come along to meetings of the other body—I have forgotten the name he mentioned—that is currently producing these figures. Representatives will be allowed, as if by grace, into the inner workings of this body.

I believe that we are drifting apart on this, not just because I am getting tired but because this is to some degree about territory. The general principle here is that this is about how much responsibility we will give to the Committee on Climate Change and how much responsibility the Executive, the Government and the Secretary of State will retain under their control.

It has become clear over the course of the last few amendments that the Minister is reluctant to give ground in this area, whereas the substance of the contributions from Members of the Committee has been to acknowledge that, if it is to be effective, the committee will need to be trusted and given authority. I except from that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is worried about giving powers to a non-elected body. However, this is such a technical matter and such a long-term issue where continuity will be important—Governments come and go, and Ministers certainly do so—that it is vital to ensure a full role for the Committee on Climate Change in all its aspects.

The committee’s authority will be important to the Government because they will need that authority to take some of the difficult decisions they are going to face. If the Government take all responsibility for decisions and leave the committee in a sort of advisory offstage role, allowed out only when it suits, they will find it quite difficult to cope with the political consequences. It would be far better to have the committee in on the decision-making process and clearly recognised as the author of the statistics. These statistics will not be out of line with those required by the Kyoto Protocol because they will be the same vehicle by which all these matters will be measured by the Committee on Climate Change itself. But in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 68:

In the debate on the previous amendment the Minister rightly pointed out that there was an international protocol for emissions and therefore not much dispute as to what the figures should say. Carbon removal is very different. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the point that, going back to 1990, the figures on how much carbon sequestration was taking place remain largely unknown. It is a question of trying to determine soil organic content, tree growth and much else besides. You might say that the monitoring and assessment is a moving target; there is no international protocol that I know of that can help. This is helpful because the figure for reductions, rather than emissions, will be nothing like as obvious as we might assume.

I am grateful for those last remarks from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He identifies the difficulty of having one base year when the base year may not be particularly effective in certain areas that we wish to measure. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we are at one with him in seeking to provide the information that gives an accurate comparative analysis so that the nation can identify the progress being made. That is of the greatest importance.

In a moment I will cross swords a little with the noble Lord on Amendment No. 74, to which we take considerable exception. I am more positive about Amendment No. 68. Clause 4 defines a carbon budget as,

“an amount for the net UK carbon account”

for each budgetary period. Clause 12 requires the Secretary of State to report for each year of the budget period on the amount of the net UK carbon account for that year. The Clause 12 statements will provide all the information needed to calculate progress against the budget for each year of the period. I recognise that the noble Lord made a strenuous and convincing attempt to argue for greater transparency of progress. We will look at the clause as it stands and see if we can meet that position as we progress through the Bill.

We cannot accept the actual amendment. I ask the noble Lord to recognise that although we appreciate his objectives, we cannot accept his amendment. It would require comparison with the emissions of each greenhouse gas in 1990. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has identified why base year 1990 simply may not be effective for certain areas. Clause 20 proposes that the Secretary of State should select a base year other than 1990 for different non-CO₂ gases if a comparison is to be drawn, recognising that 1990 is not a good base year for the accuracy of the whole picture. I hope the noble Lord recognises that although I accept his intentions and will seek to make progress on the probe that he sets out in his amendment, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.

I ask the noble Lord to recognise that although we appreciate the sentiment behind Amendment No. 74, we simply do not think that it would work. The purpose of the Clause 12 statement is to set out clearly the quantity of emissions occurring in the UK, the number of carbon units used and the net UK carbon account. If we simply referred to the total carbon units, as Amendment No. 74 proposes, we would fail to capture a situation in which carbon units were worth different amounts. In this situation what would matter is not how many carbon units there were but what the carbon units were worth, which may change. The terminology of amounts of emissions and carbon units is used continually throughout, because of the point that I just made. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that we are therefore very resistant to changing the terminology of the Bill in accordance with Amendment No. 74. We will certainly look at Amendment No. 68, although I have indicated that the amendment will not quite do. We recognise his powerful plea for greater transparency and will see what we can do to meet that at a later stage.

You win one and you lose one. I thought Amendment No. 74 was quite simple and straightforward. Obviously, from the Government’s point of view it is more complex than mere semantic phraseology. We will have a chance to consider that. However, I am pleased that although our wording in Amendment No. 68 is not quite what the Government would have put forward, they will indeed look at it in order to recognise that getting a baseline relevant to popular perception and political reality is important. I look forward to seeing those government amendments tabled on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 70:

This is an interesting amendment because if the figures produced by the Committee on Climate Change are sufficiently strong and are presented sufficiently clearly, which we all hope they will be, they will in themselves be a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the measures. I am worried that the amendment would add to the verbiage presented to Parliament and possibly cloud the issue. I hope the figures will speak loudly for themselves.

Although the Committee on Climate Change should play an active role in recommending new measures and proposals, we need to think very carefully about this. Going back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Teverson on a previous amendment, there is a fine line between the democratically accountable body responsible for producing policy—which, after all, the Government are elected to do—and the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body which is there to produce the figures and monitor whether the Government are succeeding with their policies. The amendment seems to cloud those two issues together.

Before the Minister responds perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will clarify two matters. First, in introducing the amendment he emphasised that it was to do with a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of policy and what is going on. In fact, the amendment goes on to say that it should include,

“recommendations for new measures, proposals or policies”.

A few moments ago the noble Lord proposed that the statement should be drawn up and approved by the Committee on Climate Change. I assume that he is not suggesting that the committee should draw up recommendations for new measures, policies and proposals; that he separates in his mind the responsibility of the Committee on Climate Change for drawing up data from making policy proposals—for example, whether there should be more nuclear power stations and so on. I assume that is not something he thinks the Committee on Climate Change should do.

The amendment does indeed contain the phrase,

“and recommendations for new measures, proposals or policies for inclusion in the strategy”.

If our amendments had been accepted by the Committee and not withdrawn by ourselves, the statement would have been produced by the Committee on Climate Change. It is important to emphasise that we on this side of the House see the Committee on Climate Change as having considerable authority in these matters and as a considerable skill base with which to provide government with recommendations. In many cases, we have been reluctant to talk about “advice” or “recommending”—we have been firmer than that—but in this area the word used is “recommendations” because those people who are aware of an energy imbalance may well be capable of pointing out that it could be addressed by a particular course of energy policy.

If the Committee on Climate Change is to be the authoritative body we would like it to be, I would expect it to be in a position whereby it could present such proposals. If it is not to be the Committee on Climate Change but, by the will of Parliament, it is to be the Secretary of State, it would do no harm at all if he at least included in the statement those matters he considered necessary to put the climate change agenda back on course. I hope that clarifies matters for the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and Members of the Committee.

I shall probably embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, by agreeing with him again in this area. I will have a great concern if the Committee on Climate Change starts making major policy recommendations to government. That would be the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, wants: it would not depoliticise the decisions but would utterly politicise the Committee on Climate Change. It would be like many other bodies, such as the Sustainable Transport Commission, which are very important and have many important people on them, but they make all kinds of recommendations and are therefore seen as part of the political scenery and not as part of the scientific scenery.

There is also confusion—perhaps not on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but within the Committee—and later in the Bill we will discuss the Committee on Climate Change itself. In one of the sections there is a call for an annual report. We on these Benches want to see in the Bill not only that annual report but a requirement for the Committee on Climate Change to go as far as to judge whether present government policies are likely to meet their own targets. It should have that important role but it should not be allowed to go as far as to then say, “But, Secretary of State, you should be doing this”. The moment that happens it becomes a political organisation and not a scientific organisation.

You could argue that in another way if all scientists had the same view about things, but they do not. The whole point about science is that there are peer reviews and all kinds of differing opinions and there then tends to be a consensus about a particular subject. We can see this in climate change science at the moment.

I am worried about the proposal to move the Committee on Climate Change into, effectively, a political lobbying organisation, which the amendment would do. We shall come to one of our amendments later in the Bill. The Committee on Climate Change must have a greater ability than being only the accounting organisation described in the Bill, but the furthest it should go is to assess government policy and whether it will strategically meet its targets, state that openly and objectively, and then it will be up to government to respond and be responsible to Parliament for that response. I genuinely think this is a dangerous amendment in terms of the politicisation of the Committee on Climate Change.

We appreciate the spirit of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I repeat that we are keen to ensure the transparency of the overall framework of the Bill, and not just of individual clauses. That will be looked at throughout the Bill.

We have provided a system of annual accountability through the Government’s statement of UK emissions under Clause 12, the committee’s progress report to Parliament under Clause 28, and the Government’s response under Clause 29. We look forward to discussing those clauses later on.

However, the amendment would not help the process of annual accountability, because the statement under Clause 12 is meant simply to provide factual information on net UK emissions and carbon units. The information will be quantified and verified. It will put the facts clearly on the table for everyone. It should then be for the independent Committee on Climate Change to make the first assessment of whether those facts demonstrate sufficient progress. This would ensure that the assessment was robust and objective.

The approach in the Bill is for the Clause 12 report to be laid in March, to provide the essential factual information. Much of this information would not be available until that date. Based on the factual information contained in the Clause 12 statement, the Committee on Climate Change would then have until June to make its assessment of progress and lay its Clause 28 report before Parliament. The Government would then have to respond under Clause 29 by—I think—October. The amendment, taken with Amendment No. 67, which we discussed earlier, would require the committee to make a first assessment of progress in March under Clause 12, and then a second assessment in June under Clause 28. That would lead to massive duplication.

I am not seeking to cut debate short, but I hope that we will have a full discussion of the issue in the context of Clauses 28 and 29. It is best, if noble Lords agree, to leave it until then, when we can debate the matter in the round.

This has again been a useful debate. It will perhaps be useful to bear in mind what we have said about the amendment when we consider the role of the climate change committee. If we have the Government’s assurance that much of the debate that we have on the climate change committee as we progress through the Bill will influence the way in which we view amendments along the way, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and accept what the Government have said about the timetable that is available for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 75:

The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is certainly interesting. It would help the Committee if the Minister provided a little more explanation. Will he explain why it takes two years to make the report? Is it by any chance tied in with the intervals that are fixed under the European Emissions Trading Scheme, or are we trying to comply with an international norm? Could the delay be solved by the committee taking a more active role or even being expanded? Are all budgets and statements likely to be subject to a two-year delay? If not, why are some easier to report than others?

I understand the motivation behind the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made clear in his opening contribution, but it would not add anything to the Bill. Clause 12(9) sets a deadline for each annual report, which ensures that Parliament receives information on the UK’s emissions as soon as it becomes available and by a set timetable. The danger is that the amendment could create two possible disadvantages. It might mean that Parliament received less information, because it would apply only to the second and subsequent emissions statements. There would be no deadline for the first emissions statement, relating to 2008, to be laid before Parliament, whereas we have made a commitment in the Bill for that report to obtain for that year.

The second possible disadvantage will be recognised on all sides of the Committee. If in any one year the Government found themselves able to publish the report earlier than they did in the previous year, they might be tempted to hold back, not because they were not ready to present the report, which would be recognised by parliamentarians as an advantage, but because by presenting the report early one year, they would then be committing themselves to exactly that timetable for the next year. The rigidity of the timetable which the noble Lord’s amendment contains creates the danger of the Government being tempted to hold back the report until the last minute, because, once they publish early, they would be committing themselves to that date in the following year.

We all recognise that we live in a real world in which all this is work for government and a challenge to the Civil Service machine, and there is very great importance attached to the work that is done. In the Bill we have provided for regular reports on each year, while the noble Lord’s amendment potentially presents two disadvantages. The Government have their commitment to a report on each year, which is preferable to the particular rigidity that the noble Lord’s amendment would introduce into the operation, which could lead to the responses and developments that I have indicated.

I apologise that my amendment does not say what I meant it to say. As the amendment stands, I would probably agree with the Minister’s reply myself. However, for a point of debate for a later stage, I am saying that the report should be within 12 months. That is shorter but no more rigid than the timetable proposed. The Minister does not suggest that it is technically impossible; indeed, multinational corporations produce global accounts in far more detail, in far less time. That is what I would like the Minister to respond to, if he could. At the same time, I recognise that I have not drafted the amendment as it should be.

The noble Lord will recognise that I am obliged to respond to the amendment before the Committee. That is my obligation to the Committee—but it is also my obligation to the Bill. I have to respond to what the amendment would actually do to the Bill and it is on that basis that I am objecting to it. I understand what the noble Lord is saying in more specific terms, but it is not what his amendment would do.

The problem that we have in terms of the immediate annual report is that the inventory requires collection of data from a wide variety of sources, including the department’s Digest of UK Energy Statistics, which is published annually seven months after the end of the reporting year in question—namely, in July. That is such a crucial set of statistics in relation to these issues, so tying down a position in which this report might have to be out in March, when we do not have the data that will become available later in the year, creates an obvious difficulty. That is why, while sticking firmly to the principle of proper reporting, we must take account of the fact that compiling this data—which have to be accurate and meet international standards, as that is absolutely crucial to the country’s position with regard to these issues—is a complex task. I hope that noble Lords opposite will recognise that that is why the Bill is drafted as it is with regard to the timetable.