| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 90:
Clause 17, page 9, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “three months from the date the Committee’s advice was sent to the authority”
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 95. They concern the order-making provisions for the alteration of budget periods and the necessary consultations that must take place before such an order is laid. I shall speak to each of the amendments in turn.
Amendment No. 90 is an attempt to standardise the timing constraint on the consultation period and to allow slightly more time for consultation to take place. In the Bill as it stands, an order to amend the budgetary period must be made within one month of the advice of the Committee on Climate Change being sent to the relevant national authority if the order is to amend that budgetary period, and within three months if it is to amend the future budgetary period.
We understand the importance of sending a clear signal to business and industry and, thus, we appreciate the fact that, if a budgetary period has already started, it would be important to have the change made as quickly as possible to allow the industry and government departments to accommodate the new budgetary constraints. Because of this, we understand the short time limit that the Government have placed on the consultation period when the budget period has already begun. However, we have some slight reservation that this might not give the national authorities enough time for a full and proper consultation. We do not want this to be a situation in which the national authorities are not given adequate time or, to take a very cynical view, we do not want this to be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to push through a change in the budget that might be hugely unpopular without giving the authorities adequate time to prepare a thorough response.
We do not feel that three months is too long in terms of industry and business. There might be considerations, depending on how close to the end of a budgetary period the order is being laid, but standardising this timeframe to three months would give everyone involved adequate time to be consulted on the alteration, as well as to prepare for its effects.
Amendment No. 91 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out why the order ignored particular representations of the national authorities. This is an important way of
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1081
I know that the Bill seems to create a huge amount of reports and responses to reports but, given the gravity of the matter, it is essential that Parliament and the public are kept constantly informed. Does the Minister think it inappropriate for the Secretary of State to outline his reasons for disagreeing with the national authority before making an order? Surely not. Indeed, on what might be considered more major issues, the Government have produced amendments similar to this one. Consider the requirement for the Secretary of State to respond to the Committee on Climate Change’s assessment on progress, for example. I know that this concerns the reputations of the national authorities, but the logic is similar.
The fact remains that an alteration of a carbon budget would not be a small thing. We envisage it happening only in the most extraordinary circumstances. Could the Minister explain the circumstances in which he would envisage the Secretary of State altering the carbon budget? Would he expect it to happen for every budget? This brings us to more philosophical issues about the nature of budgets. My understanding has always been that these were relatively fixed things and would not be altered or changed much. Would the Minister be willing to give us this assurance? Surely the national authorities’ role in the consultation process will be crucial.
I know that the Bill as it stands requires the publication of the representations that are to be taken into account, but we simply want a brief summary of those that are not being taken into account when the order is made. Although this might be the intention of the Government and, indeed, any sensible Secretary of State who want to provide the reasons, we would like to ensure that that is enshrined in the Bill.
The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 95, simply affects the timing of the publication of the consultation. We hope that there is not too much objection to placing in the Bill the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the result of the consultation once the order is made. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope it is accepted that many of the principal issues on devolution were broadly covered by the previous debates. I shall not repeat many of the points there but will stick to the narrow issue of the amendments and answer a couple of specific questions that the noble Duke asked me.
With regard to Amendment No. 90, Clause 17 requires the Secretary of State, before amending the level of a budget, to obtain the views of the Committee on Climate Change and consider the views that the devolved Administrations may have regarding this advice. If the budget has yet to begin, the devolved Administrations will have a minimum of three months
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1082
The difference here is simply to account for the fact that, if the budget has already begun, the decision on whether to amend it will need to be taken far more quickly. Amendment No. 90 would give the devolved Administrations at least three months to put forward their views, whether the budget had begun or not. That would limit the flexibility provided for in the Bill.
We consider it right to require a decision to amend an ongoing budget to be taken more quickly, which is why the devolved Administrations are given less time to submit their views if the budget period has already begun. However, if at the time the circumstances dictated that the devolved Administrations could be given longer, it would be open to the Government to give them more time. This approach has already been agreed with the devolved Administrations, who, I am pleased to report, are perfectly happy with these timetables.
Regarding Amendment No. 91, Clause 17 as drafted requires that the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out whether and how the amendment of the budget takes into account any representations by the devolved Administrations. The important point here is that in legal terms “whether” means “whether or not” and “how” means “how or how not”—it looks better when it is written down. The Secretary of State is already obliged to say what he disagrees with and the reasons why, so we believe that the Bill already addresses the legitimate concerns behind the amendment.
I was asked specifically what the reasons might be for changing a budget. There could be a number. I cannot set them out in detail but they might include the following: changes to the international context—for example, a new multilateral agreement that required the UK to adopt a reduction target that was not envisaged when the budget was set—or that set new requirements for the UK under EU or international law. Another example would be if progress in developing or deploying a particular technology was faster or slower than expected. Another would be changes to the 2020 and 2050 targets, meaning that budgets needed to be revised—perhaps to incorporate other greenhouse gases. A final example would be a significant and possibly unforeseen shift in fuel prices which changed the basis of emissions forecasts on which the budget had initially been set. All those are substantial possible reasons for change but would not be used as a backdoor method of changing a budget just because we could not meet it for some reason.
Amendment No. 95 requires the UK to publish the results of the consultation with the devolved Administrations. It would not be right for the UK Government to be given that responsibility. I shall repeat the phrase: we have to let go. The devolved Administrations must decide whether to publish their representations. They are free to do so; there is nothing to stop them. In any case, the Secretary of State is under a duty to say how he has taken the representations
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1083
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the House should be very grateful for having that much detail filled in on what is obviously a very open question about what might cause changes. As this is a skeleton type of Bill, we are very anxious to have some feeling of what is supposed to be within its remit and what is likely to happen. One presumes the devolved Administrations will understand the necessity of a short period for alterations within the period of a budget, although it will be a great challenge to them to get their heads round why the changes have taken place and how much of the changes they wish to implement themselves. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1084
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
“( ) If the order makes provision different from that recommended by the Committee, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Alteration of budgetary periods]:
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 10.02 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |