---

Climate Change Bill [HL]

In the debate on the previous amendment, the Minister said that he was putting words into my mouth when I nodded in agreement about the foolishness of replacing the words ““Secretary of State”” with ““Prime Minister””. I was nodding in agreement because we have collective government in this country: we have Cabinet government. The Bill states: "““It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60% lower than the 1990 baseline””." That drives a coach and horses through our whole constitutional approach. No Government can bind their successors. A Secretary of State may be a member of an Administration that has a target to reduce, "““the net UK carbon account for the year 2050””," so that it is 60 per cent lower. But, as the Bill is worded, the Secretary of State is put in an impossible position. He or she will not know what their successors will do. Far from offering any radical change to the nature of the Bill, the amendment puts into common sense the position of a Minister, as my noble friend has argued. I also worry a little about the use of legislation to make declaratory stands on policy. In the other place, I was involved, as I am sure was the noble Lord, in taking tours around the Aye and No lobbies. In one of the lobbies one can see the legislation that has been passed. I was always rather embarrassed that there were far more shelves for the period when we were in office, never mind for the modern period, than for the previous 150 years. I repudiate the idea of using legislation to make a point, to highlight an issue or to set a target. I worry that this no doubt well intended Bill is being used for this purpose, which does not seem to me to be a proper purpose. The first line of the Bill falls down in that respect and the amendment does much to improve it.