Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Moving on from serious crime prevention orders, a number of issues will obviously be debated in Committee. We expect there to be a full debate and, following that debate, we will have an extremely useful additional tool to combat serious crime. The data
sharing and data matching proposals will make a significant difference in detecting and preventing fraud. We are involved in close discussions. As hon. Members will know, because we have set up meetings between all hon. Members and the Information Commissioner, the Information Commission is broadly satisfied with the proposals in the Bill. We will continue to consult with the Information Commissioner to make sure that that continues to be the case.
Many of our constituents will be surprised that some of the data sharing that the Bill allowsto prevent and detect fraudis not already allowed. Rather than be concerned about the implications of the measures, as some hon. Members are, they will wonder why those measures have taken so long to come about. Of course, we have to have the appropriate safeguards, but this is about using information technology and the various means at our disposal to deal with serious crime.
Hon. Members have mentioned the merger of ARA and SOCA. Many of the current clientsif I can put it that wayof the Assets Recovery Agency are people who are involved with serious crime. The synthesis and merger of those two agencies will benefit law enforcement when it comes to taking assets from criminals, whether through the civil recovery route or the enhanced powers that we intend to give others through changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Many of our constituents would want us to continue the improvements in practice when it comes to taking ill-gotten gains from criminals.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police dealt with the question of the use of intercept as evidence. No doubt that will be the subject of further debate in Committee.
We intend to remove from the Bill Lord Marlesfords amendment on guns, which we regard as disproportionate. The Association of Chief Police Officers supports the Governments position. Lord Marlesfords amendment is unnecessary. Hon. Members who are concerned about the Governments attitude to civil liberties should note that we believe that what Lord Marlesfords amendment doesit allows a police constable, on his own, to designate an area, unspecified in size, in which to stop and search and/or question anybodyis disproportionate and an infringement of our civil liberties. I ask hon. Members who have talked about civil liberties to look carefully at that amendment.
I have rattled through my speech, under pressure to be as succinct as possible, but I do not want to disguise the fact that this is an extremely important Bill that will make a serious and significant difference to our ability to tackle serious crime, which is something on which we can all agree. I look forward to the debate in Committee as we seek to improve the Bill still further.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Serious Crime Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 10th July 2007.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. [Steve McCabe.]
Queens recommendation having been signified
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Serious Crime Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
(a) any expenditure incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. [Steve McCabe.]
That this House approves the First Report of the Administration Committee, on Improving Facilities for Educational Visitors to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 434); and endorses the Committees proposals, including a dedicated space for educational visitors to be provided on or off the Estate complemented by engagement with those who do not visit Westminster. [Mr. Straw.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Steve McCabe.]
Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this Adjournment debate today, not least because it is my birthday. I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to hold the debate on such a momentous day. It is also the last day for submissions to the consultation on the draft Climate Change Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment will take on board my contributionI will, of course, buy him a drink afterwards.
This is the first debate in the House on climate change since last weeks G8 summit, which made some important progress, albeit from a very low threshold. I want to make it plain at the start that I support the Governments initiative to launch the draft Climate Change Bill. It is a world first and, for that reason, I hope that we get it right. I support the rationale behind the Bill, which states:
The Climate Change Bill is necessary to provide a clear, credible and long term domestic framework for tackling climate change, whilst at the same time allowing the UK to demonstrate strong international leadership, which is key to helping achieve multilateral agreements.
That is what I want to focus onthe quality of leadership.
I sought this debate not because I am a pedant obsessed with figures, although some might disagree with that assessment, but because I believe that if we are to tackle climate change effectively, we should do our best to be aware of what the figures provided by bodies such as the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and in our own 2005 climate change conference, actually mean. We could set any target we liked, but we should be honest and tell people the likely consequences of whatever target we choose. We could say, as some still do at the international level, that we do not want any targets at all. Of course, if we did that, we would be inviting mammoth damages to our economic prospects, and death and destruction on a massive scale, as Nick Stern indicated. We would not be able to insulate ourselves from the consequences.
That is the most irresponsible position imaginable, but there are a host of positions on dealing with the problem, on a sliding scale of enthusiasm. At the other end of the scale, we could don a painful hair shirt and make immediate heavy cuts in emissionssomething that no Government appear willing to do, for understandable short-term reasons. We have chosen the target of a 60 per cent. cut in emissions by 2050a reasonably high figure, by most other countries standards. That is the figure in the draft Climate Change Bill, although I realise that the Bill refers to a cut of at least 60 per cent. I can see why we would use the phrase at least in the Bill, but it has no legal meaning whatever. If I told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had to pay a fine of at least £60, well, £60 would do. Indeed, more often than not, the Bills target of at least 60 per cent. is referred to in official documentation as simply 60 per cent. In Downing street, at the Department of Trade and Industry, and in the Secretary of States speech to
the United Nations last week, the prefix at least has been in the habit of disappearing.
That might appear a trite point, but it is actually very serious. To understand why, we should study how we alighted on the 60 per cent. figure. As the Government acknowledged, it originated in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report entitled Energythe Changing Climate, published in 2000. The 60 per cent. figure was derived from a calculation that suggested that a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 550 parts per million may be an acceptable limit allowing us to contain global warming at a reasonable level, but no country can calculate its own target for greenhouse gas emission reductions from a greenhouse gas stabilisation level without factoring in the share that it must bear of global emission reductions. It would be worse than pointless to pretend that we could ignore the distribution of responsibility among countries. Of course, the United Nations framework convention on climate change recognises that fact.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well, the formula that our 60 per cent. calculation relies on is called contraction and convergence, and the RCEP report used that framework, coupled with an upper limit of 550 parts per million, to arrive at the 60 per cent. target. Sadly, as our understanding has progressed, and in light of more recent reportsnotably Sternwe have realised that that target will, more likely than not, lead us into a very dangerous place, as Stern says. I therefore cannot see why we do not run the contraction and convergence formula that the RCEP used seven years ago again to get a more up-to-date figure.
There are things that we need to factor into the calculation that were not, to a great extent, factored in seven years agothings such as positive feedbacks. Examples include permafrost melting and releasing methane; the albedo effect of the Arctic icecap being lost as that icecap melts, and the seas therefore absorbing more sunshine; and the possibility of the rain forest dying. We talk about sink failures; more recently, we have heard about the acidity levels of the southern ocean reaching dangerous levels, and its therefore not being able to absorb as much CO2 as we originally thought that it might.
I can imagine several political reasons why the Government fight shy of acknowledging the intellectual basis of the 60 per cent. target, but it simply cannot be concealed any longer. I say that because I want the Climate Change Bill to become the gold standard of climate change legislation, and I want it to be emulated by other countries. For that to happen, it is essential that we heed the response that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) at the Environmental Audit Committee last week. The Secretary of State said that we must not pluck figures out of thin air. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith wanted to pluck anything out of thin air, but he did want a scientific and logical justification for the 60 per cent. target.
When we are not prepared to admit that a figure is problematic, our explanations of it become problematic. That was amply demonstrated by the Governments chief scientific adviser in evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill the day after the
Environmental Audit Committee met. He simply could not make things match up. Frankly, he tied himself up in knots. That approach is categorically not good enough. I have said recently that the reasoning behind the current figure lacks intellectual rigour, and I say so again. We have to decide whether we want to seek a safe and sustainable stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or not, and if the answer is not we should prepare accordingly, which means spending a lot more on adaptation, and we should make plain to people what we think the consequences will be. However, if we want to achieve that safe and sustainable leveland I know that the Government dowe should calculate what effort is required in the time scale available. From that figure we can backcast all the things that we need to do to achieve it; it does not work the other way round.
There is no serious, scientific study that tells us that the chance of containing a temperature increase to 2° C on the basis of a 60 per cent. cut in emissions by 2050 is more than evens. I know it, the Government know it, and anyone who takes climate change seriously knows it, so why do we persist with the 60 per cent. figure, even if the phrase at least 60 per cent. is used? Clearly, the politics is having difficulty keeping up with the science. The spectacle of George Bush apparently agreeing to a 50 per cent. target last week tells us what is going onnot frightening the horses is what is going on. I do not believe for one moment that Bush has any intention of honouring his alleged pledge, not least because he will not be President when the time comes to sign on the dotted line. That shows how difficult it is to get any movement at all at the top level, and to get others to follow us, but does that mean that we have to gut the science and make it bend to our notion of realpolitik? Do the experiences of King Canute not teach us something about that?
The question is where we go from here. We should state firmly and categorically what we intend to do with our Bill. It is being introduced because we want to make our contribution to achieving a safe and sustainable level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We should state explicitly and firmly how we have formulated our targetsin other words, we should demonstrate that we have not plucked them from thin airand we should firmly and explicitly state that the formula that we have used is considered to be fair and reasonable; surely we would not have used it if it was not.
To do those things is not to bind ourselves to an international agreement based on contraction and convergence. We should always be open to the possibility that somebody out there has devised something better, and is willing to have that idea examined and tested. It seems to me an absurdity for the Government to obfuscate the origins of our national target, as if by some freak of fate nobody could discover what those origins were. We are begging to be found out, and if we are, what will that do for our credibility? It is a strategy that invites the proposing of weaker and more fragmented frameworks. I recognise that there are many critics of contraction and convergence, and mostly those criticisms are levelled not at the need to achieve a safe and sustainable concentration level, but at the means of achieving it. As Stern found, there are great difficulties in determining what constitutes equity, and for many, the idea of a per capita share allocation is a step too far.
I find it frustrating that although these criticisms are happily thrown at contraction and convergence, rarely is an alternative proposal put forward. Instead, we hear much about fairness and justice, with abundant references to the fact that the poorest, who did least to create the problem, will be the ones to suffer most from it, but these words remain frozen in air, never to be given substance or converted into hard, practical solutions.
It is ironic that Ministers are reluctant to talk openly about contraction and convergence. We have a de facto contraction and convergence Bill, whose antecedents are easily traceable, and at the same time we are not proposing any other framework, at least as far as I know. The Prime Minister has single-mindedly driven the twin agendas of climate change and Africa to the top of the international agenda, but we shy away from acknowledging a widely accepted framework that is supported in many places precisely for its coherence in addressing these twin issues. It is time to see such coherence coming from the Government, too. They must propose a coherent link between these issues.
What is the alternative? The G8 agreed that we should have a Kyoto replacement ready by 2009, which would allow time for its ratification by 2012. We have two years for something concrete to emerge, which is inclusive of all, seeks to solve the problem faster than we are creating it, and is coherent and fairtwo concepts which, I admit, are not always found in international treaties.
I assume that in the coming months and years, we will be telling others about our Climate Change Bill. We will want to display our initiative as a model, just as last week the Secretary of State told the United Nations about it. True, some people may find our proposals too difficult for them, especially if vested interests appear to be threatened, but are we then necessarily obliged to start from a lower base and hope that somehow we can make up lost ground later?
That, in truth, has always been our hopethat if we do the right things, the result may be greater than the sum of its parts. The trouble is that we face a challenge that has no precedent in history, and our old way of stitching things together is hopelessly inadequate. The effort needed is immense, even if Nick Sterns quoted cost of 1 per cent. of GDP seems so slight. Let us remember that almost 40 years ago the UN set a target for developed countries of giving 0.7 per cent. of GDP in aid, and so far only three countries have managed it. We can break the psychology that has made for failed commitments in the past by adopting a rigorous and coherent framework now.
The World Resources Institute in its 2005 report Navigating the Numbers stated that
international agreements predicated on equal per capita emission entitlements are unlikely to garner consensus,
on the grounds that countries would not accept similar obligations if they felt they would be
significantly burdened
with responsibility. The report nevertheless concluded:
Considering that over the long term net emissions must fall to zero, convergence is a corollary of climate protection.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |