| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the Prime Minister's inadequate responses today--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I decide whether it is a point of order. Let me hear what it has to do with me.
Mr. Evans: The Prime Minister's responses today were inadequate and there may be the implications for the House. It is too soon for you to have received a request from the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement today on the National Assembly for Wales, but should he make one would you please accede to it as soon as possible so that we may question him about the involvement of the Prime Minister and Millbank in the appointment of a new leader of the Labour party in the Assembly?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Speaker has no authority in respect of whether Secretaries of State want to make statements. They make them when they wish to, without consulting me. They just tell me, and that is how it should be.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to Sessional Order No. 4, which the House passed on Wednesday 17 November 1999? It requires the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to keep the roads leading to the House clear and free of obstruction when the House is sitting. You will have noticed the extensive roadworks in Parliament square, which are causing considerable difficulty to Members seeking access to the House. I understand that the Metropolitan police agreed with the contractors that those works should be carried out now without consulting Officers of the House, who were merely informed after the event. Will you instruct the Serjeant at Arms to discuss the matter further with the Metropolitan police to establish whether the Commissioner has carried out the order's requirements?
Madam Speaker: I understand that traffic disruption in and around Parliament square is on account of cabling work. The Serjeant at Arms warned Members of those works and they should be prepared for delays until early March. The Sessional Order to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerns matters such as demonstrations and processions, which come under the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It does not cover roadworks, which are of course the responsibility of Westminster city council. However, I am greatly concerned at the significant disruption in Parliament square and its impact on Members' ability to reach the House expeditiously. I regard it as most important that there is proper liaison, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, and consultation between the council and our House authorities on such matters. I shall review the current arrangements in that connection so that we have better liaison as to when repairs can be carried out in that area. For example, we could mutually agree that they could be done during a parliamentary recess.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the
hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to accuse another hon. Member--in this case, the Prime Minister--of lying in the House?
Madam Speaker: Certainly that is totally unacceptable in the House. I did not hear such a thing, otherwise I would have asked the Member concerned to withdraw it immediately. The hon. Member for Lichfield is here; could he offer me some explanation?
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I made no such statement. If I accused the Prime Minister of lying, of course I withdraw the remark. However, I am not aware of what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) is talking about. I can only assume that she is referring to something that occurred during Prime Minister's Question Time. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not have lied, but if he had lied, I would have shouted "Liar".
Madam Speaker: Sometimes tempers in the House are a little more frayed than I would wish them to be. I accept the hon. Gentleman's word.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although you are aware of the content of questions on the Order Paper, you cannot possibly be aware of the supplementary questions during Prime Minister's Question Time. You will recall that questions were asked today about events in the Welsh Assembly. You will also be aware that the Scottish Assembly--
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Ross: The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have certain devolved functions that are outwith the competence of this House. Madam Speaker, when a question is bounced on you from Back Benchers, how are you to decide whether the issue raised is a matter for this House or for the devolved institutions? Were the questions put today about the Welsh Assembly devolved matters or matters for this House?
Madam Speaker: The questions today were perfectly in order. I always come to the House prepared in my own mind to deal with such supplementary questions. I have good relations with the Presiding Officers of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We have arrangements whereby we can deal with such matters daily in the event of them coming before us. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing that has been said in this House since those areas were devolved has been out of order. I try to watch these matters carefully.
BILL PRESENTED
Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Mandelson, Mr. Secretary Hoon and Mr. Charles Clarke, presented a Bill to make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 64].
Emissions Trading
3.37 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish emissions trading; to create an emissions trading authority; to require the corporate disclosure of emissions; and for related purposes.
The Kyoto protocol signed in December 1997 demands legally binding targets to reduce the emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases. Having been included in that historic protocol, emissions trading has arrived on the international stage. It is being considered by countries that have little previous experience of this issue. Indeed, the details of an international emissions trading scheme are already being worked on.
The purpose of my Bill is to establish a domestic emissions trading system to work alongside and supplement the climate change levy, which is a new drive to stimulate renewable energy, and other action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Bill would require Ministers and Parliament to fix an overall cap on emissions, and would enable the distribution of emission permits, equal to the value of the overall agreed level, to participating businesses.
The Bill would allow the trading of permits between businesses, thus ensuring that businesses can trade off the cost of controlling their pollution with the cost of buying other businesses' spare emission permits. It would establish an emissions trading authority, with representatives from business, the City, environmental non-governmental organisations and academic specialists, to oversee the issuing and trading of emissions permits, monitor a robust verification process and impose penalties for non- compliance with the scheme rules.
The Bill would allow Ministers to require all companies over a certain size to calculate and publish the level of their carbon dioxide emissions. Lord Marshall made it clear in his report to the Treasury in November 1998 that the calculation of emissions from fossil fuel use was relatively straightforward.
The current company law review being carried out in the Department of Trade and Industry is considering environmental reporting, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has already published "Guidelines for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions", which are being used by Wessex Water and CGU to disclose their level of emissions. Firms with more than 250 employees have been consistently encouraged to disclose voluntarily their environmental performance, and the need for monitored and audited reporting to help deliver Kyoto targets has been highlighted by a range of investment organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations, not least the excellent World Wide Fund for Nature.
My colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have also strongly encouraged environmental reporting. A shift now to require the
mandatory disclosure of emissions would undoubtedly stimulate further action by businesses to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, improve their cost competitiveness and stimulate participation in emissions trading.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated that a global reduction in carbon dioxide of about 60 per cent. was needed by the middle of the century to stabilise our climate, with a 70 to 80 per cent. reduction by 2050 likely to be necessary for developed countries. Such a reduction will require careful but considerable change in technology and behaviour. Emissions trading, supported in principle by much of big business, would be an additional policy weapon and be part of a wider climate change strategy.
Crucially, emissions trading allows companies to achieve specified reductions in carbon emissions flexibly and cost-effectively Having been allocated a target for reducing emissions, those that can reduce them at least cost can go further than their target and sell the excess to companies that are finding it more difficult or expensive to reach their target. In turn, those that find it difficult to reduce emissions can buy the extra permits from those that have gone further than they needed to, paying someone else in effect to achieve their reduction in emissions. It allows the more environmentally efficient firms to receive a reward in the form of trading profits, and will inevitably stimulate investment in innovative energy-efficient technology. It would also help British companies to develop expertise in emissions trading prior to the launch of an international emissions trading scheme.
An emissions trading pilot was recommended by Lord Marshall in his report to the Treasury in November 1998. The CBI and the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment have produced the broad outline of an emissions trading scheme backed by a diverse range of businesses and bodies, from British Steel and the Corporation of London through to Cadbury-Schweppes and the Eastern Group.
There is already evidence around the world of successful emissions trading schemes. The largest such scheme is in the United States, addressing emissions of sulphur dioxide and their role in acid rain. Since the scheme's establishment in 1995 the overall total of controlled sulphur dioxide emissions has fallen to 23 per cent. below allowable emission levels. The flexibility offered by trading is estimated to have reduced total compliance costs by between a third and a half.
Similarly, the regional clean air incentives market, or RECLAIM, came into force in January 1994. It is a trading scheme designed to tackle severe air quality problems in southern California. Total stationary source emissions are capped, with the cap declining each year until targets are met, and with participating facilities receiving and trading emission allowances. The cost reductions from using this trading scheme to achieve environmental targets were forecast to be 42 per cent. over the years 1994 to 2000. The indications are that the scheme is already being highly positive.
Closer to home, BP Amoco established an internal emissions trading system in September 1998, trading emissions between 12 profit centres around the world
rather than in one country. The aim is to help the company achieve a voluntary target of a 10 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 compared with 1990 levels. The scheme will be rolled out next year to all the company's business users. The results to date suggest that the environmental benefits can be obtained more cost-effectively than through some other possible measures. Monitoring and tracking are less burdensome than some regulations. Incentives exist within the scheme to achieve more than the minimum, and the scheme has already stimulated more innovation in technology.
In Europe, too, Germany is already engaged in very limited trading schemes. Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands have also all used a limited form of trading scheme for existing power stations to implement EU limits of sulphur dioxide emissions. The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry has also proposed a sulphur trading scheme, in which permits would be allocated to both sulphur emitters and producers of oil products.
Emissions trading is inevitably complex. It poses many difficult questions, not least about how emissions permits are best allocated. But it is increasingly being considered around the world as a serious tool in the drive to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Britain needs to build on the momentum achieved by the work of the CBI and ACBE, and introduce our own focused emissions trading scheme soon.
My Bill would allow businesses to choose whether to join a trading scheme, but, once committed, a business would be committed for a determined length of time, and its participation in the scheme would be on a statutory footing. The scheme would be linked with the climate change levy and the negotiating agreements. A key task of the emissions trading authority would be to ensure that participating companies were delivering sustained reductions in emissions, or paying a price for their eco-inefficiency.
The authority would be required to monitor delivery on emission reduction targets, to enable all organisations to see that the scheme was achieving its environmental objectives. It would be able to commission research to monitor the flexibility and cross-effectiveness enjoyed by participants. It would be required to ensure rigorous monitoring of the quality of emissions data reported by participating companies to maintain the credibility of the scheme.
International emissions trading is coming. Our neighbours and competitors are already being forced to consider introducing it. According to a recent briefing from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,
Establishing our own emissions trading scheme would give British business a head start in the coming international emissions market. It would also be a
powerful addition to the policy weapons that are available to help us to achieve our necessary reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.
"If the UK began a domestic scheme prior to the introduction of an international scheme it might be able to lead the design and implementation of international emissions trading and even to be the location of the brokerage system that would conduct trading".
That would provide a powerful commercial advantage for our business community. In August last year, Ilex, the energy consultancy, suggested that selling carbon emission permits under an international trading scheme could earn the United Kingdom an extra £700 million a year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |