Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 479)
WEDNESDAY 23 MAY 2007
RT HON
DAVID MILIBAND
MP AND MR
ROBIN MORTIMER
Q460 Patrick Hall: Is there a danger
in giving too much emphasis to the linear trajectory which you
have emphasised and explained several times—
David Miliband: I have not emphasised
it. The Chairman has emphasised it. Yes, there is a danger.
Q461 Patrick Hall: ---over in response
to questions, which is what questioning is all about. But what
I want to ask is, if there were to be a major advance in technological
change, for example carbon capture and storage and that suddenly
comes in, then you might get a step up, or down, whichever way
you want to look at it, so you do not have to be totally wedded
to the—
David Miliband: Completely. I
would say to you that of course there are dangers in being wedded
to a linear trajectory, and we are not certainly wedded to one.
What we have been invited to answer is whether or not the trajectory
that is suggested by the Committee on Climate Change and then
decided on by the Government can be compared to a linear trajectory,
which is what the Chairman asked me, to which the answer is, "Yes",
but one should not believe that is the only way to do it. Equally,
I would caution against---. I would not like to be sitting here
saying something is going to come up; I am betting the House on
nuclear fusion in 25 years' time. So, one should not be enslaved
by the linearity, but I think it is indicative.
Q462 Patrick Hall: Indeed. Already
we are having to rely a little bit on that because we are falling
behind that trajectory from 1990; so to some extent we are looking
for that --
David Miliband: What I say to
you is correct, in that actions, policy decisions have been taken.
That should be the beauty of the way the system works.
Q463 Chairman: You have chosen in
the Bill to have, if you like, one single target broken down in
certain ways. The Government has, even in today's Energy White
Paper, signed up to a number of other targets associated with
greenhouse gas reductions. Were you minded to include any of those
targets in the Bill, because there is no provision for you to
add to further targets as it is currently drafted?
David Miliband: Were you thinking
of European Union renewable energy?
Q464 Chairman: That could be one
of them. There could be a target, for example, on renewables.
There is a raft of targets which the Government is publicly signed
up to but which at the moment you have chosen not to give the
weight of law to underpin, but you might in the future want to
do it.
David Miliband: My rather strong
inclination is that the Bill should frame the outcomes that we
are seeking to achieve, whether you measure them in terms of CO2
or GHG. We then want maximum freedom within that the envelope
to achieve reductions, whether from electricity, heat, transport,
waste—the main sources of emissions. I was not very tempted
to include a whole raft of other commitments in there because
I think that there is benefit in the clarity that comes from an
outcome focus in this Climate Change Bill.
Q465 Sir Peter Soulsby: Can I ask
you to go back briefly to the 26-32% by 2020 figure. Can you clarify
how you see that 32%? Is it a limit, is it the full extent of
aspiration for that date or is it, indeed, something that you
would hope we might actually meet and exceed?
David Miliband: It is a milestone
on the road to 2050, is the way I would put it. It is a guide
price, if you like, to help businesses, individuals, government
departments in thinking through their policy strategies and helping
them know whether they are on track or off track. Its origins
are obviously the 2003 Energy White Paper which committed the
Government to make real progress by 2020.
Q466 Sir Peter Soulsby: But not in
any sense a limit to progress?
David Miliband: No. I think that
would suggest somehow I would feel I should be sent to the Tower
if we ended up with 33%, which would not be a sensible position.
We need a very strong partnership with the business community
on this. They wanted an interim, I think I am right in saying,
target on the face of the Bill to give them confidence about what
range they had to be aiming for, and I think it is better to say
26-32 than just to say more than 26. I think it gives them a landing
spot that is helpful.
Q467 Chairman: How do you know you
are going to be so precise with your policies that you are not
going to exceed the 32% limit? Because the Bill is quite explicit;
it says not more than 32. What happens if you go over 32? Are
you going to be judicially reviewed on that as well?
David Miliband: Que sera sera.
I think it is a decent enough band for us to have. You can either
say it is a milestone or a landing pad. I think it gives us the
right sort of thing to aim for.
Q468 Chairman: "The right sort
of thing to aim for." Just fill me in on the underpinning.
We have got now a target, we have got three five-year budgets,
you have declined to put any other targets into the Bill, there
is a range of other aspirational targets, therefore, that the
Government has signed up to for renewables, for energy efficiency,
and so on and so forth. Are you going to be updating and producing
some form of more detailed sectoral breakdown as to how different
parts of the economy and, indeed, individuals will be expected
to take their share of these budgets as we move along, or are
you just hoping that all the collective actions of everybody are
going to add up to the sum total of where you want to be?
David Miliband: Surprisingly enough,
we are neither sitting in Defra with a great Stalinist map of
the country allocating different reductions to different sectors
of the economy and society, nor are we saying: "Let us just
see what happens." We are taking a judicious, even middle,
course. For example, half the economy is currently covered by
the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, half the economy's
greenhouse gas emissions. That requires us to make sectoral decisions,
because the Government has taken the view that the greater burden
of emissions reduction should not be borne by internationally
competitive sectors of the economy. So, we are already making
decisions within that spectrum that you have laid out. When aviation
goes into the EU ETS you are up to 56, 57% rising of greenhouse
gas emissions, so de facto you are already, not for 100%
of the economy but for substantial parts of the economy making
sectoral decisions. I do not think we will be saying by 200X Mrs
Jones on Fylde High Street has got to make the following reduction.
Q469 Chairman: But if we look at
perhaps the weakest link in our reductions in emissions, which
is the transport sector, you have mentioned that in due course
aviation will become part of the EU Emissions Trading Schemes,
but what about the rest?
David Miliband: If you take the
Stern view, markets like the EU ETS are not the only way to achieve
emissions reductions. If you think about cars, which are a significant
contributor, cars and vans, 27% of emissions come from surface
transport. We hold the prospect that you might include in due
course surface transport in the Emissions Trading Scheme, but
actually we have taken action directly by setting standards, by
regulating the level of fuel efficiency, and the European Union
has come forward with proposals in this area—currently 165,
168 milligrammes per kilometre emissions. The EU is proposing
to get that down to 130. The Chancellor has said we need a medium-term
ambition of getting that down to 100. You are seeing action there,
for the first time ever, to tighten mandatory fuel efficiency
standards for cars. I think that is consistent with Stern and
the right thing to do.
Q470 Chairman: Help us to understand.
You have got advice from your Office of Climate Change and you
are going to be getting advice from the Climate Change Committee
that we will come on to talk about in a moment. Is the Office
of Climate Change therefore going to be tasked with monitoring
the sectoral progress and advising you as Secretary of State as
to how we are doing?
David Miliband: No. I think you
looked at this in another context. Decisions about the work programme
of the OCC are a matter for a ministerial board and they can decide
in the future. We tasked the OCC with helping us work on the Bill
and set up the parameters of the Committee on Climate Change,
but once the Committee is established that will then be the independent
body doing the analysis. The Office of Climate Change can perform
a range of tasks on behalf of ministers as to policy development,
but I do not see---. They are handing on the baton.
Q471 Chairman: It says in your press
release of the 22 September last year, the first item, "Higher
level management and reporting of progress on existing commitments"?
David Miliband: That is right,
and that is because there was no Office of Climate Change, there
was no Committee on Climate Change, and there still is not a Committee
on Climate Change.
Q472 Chairman: Can we ask you about
the reporting side of this whole process to Parliament? There
is a requirement for the Climate Change Committee to report annually
to Parliament, but so do a lot of other people report annually
to Parliament and there is no debate?
David Miliband: Like?
Q473 Chairman: Most of your statutory
non-departmental public bodies. The Apple and Pear Development
Commission, for example, to name one minor body, used to report.
David Miliband: I think in the
interests of streamlining we have added them to the Cherries Marketing
Board!
Q474 Chairman: I am delighted to
the hear that, but nobody can accuse you of cherry-picking the
reports to be put before Parliament for debate because none of
them come for debate. So you have not put in the Bill an absolute
requirement that there will be an annual parliamentary debate
to debate this report on a substantive motion. Why not?
David Miliband: That is interesting.
I think probably because in the end that is partly a matter for
Parliament, or significantly a matter for Parliament, as to how
it schedules—
Q475 Chairman: Secretary of State,
you know as well as I do that that is a wonderful piece of linguistics,
because it is the Government of the day who decide on the use
of Parliament's time. Unless the Leader of the House's revolutionary
changes which he keeps trying to put through amount to the House
determining its own business, then for the foreseeable future
it is the Government who decides on the use of Parliamentary time.
So, I put it to you, what guarantee is there that the report from
this Committee is actually going to be debated in Parliament in
a way that Parliament can give you an opinion as to how you are
doing?
David Miliband: There is no guarantee.
Q476 Chairman: So it is really words,
but the idea that Parliament can hold to it account—
David Miliband: No, you asked
me: is there a guarantee of a debate on a substantive motion each
year in respect of---. Unless I have missed something, there is
not.
Q477 Chairman: No, you are quite
right.
David Miliband: So, a straight
answer to a straight question: there is not a guarantee. What
we have guaranteed is that the Government must respond substantively
to the report of the Independent Committee on Climate Change.
I think it is an interesting idea about what the step after that
is—whether it should come through a select committee, whether
there should be a substantive debate, how that is organised. As
I say, I think one might come to a conclusion on that but still
not believe it is the job of government to proscribe that because,
for obvious reasons and for correct reasons, parliamentarians
are jealous of their desire to construct their own business, but
I think it would be an interesting thing for you to offer some
views on whether it is appropriate to have it on the face of the
Bill.
Q478 Mr Gray: Secretary of State,
if this thing is as important as you are saying it is, surely
it would be helpful to parliamentarians, it would be useful if
the Government were more than ready to submit themselves to an
annual report, an annual debate and a substantive vote. If parliamentarians
then in their wisdom chose not to do so, that would be a matter
for us, but to somehow shield behind the fact that it is a matter
for parliament seems to be a breach. It is like the estimates,
for example. The estimates come before the House for debate every
year and there are a number of things that do as well. If this
is terribly important and you actually believe that it will work
and will save the globe, why do you not say, "We, the Government,
would like to see it come before Parliament once a year for a
vote"?
David Miliband: I am very happy
to say that. I have absolutely no fear of debating the response
of the Government to the annual report of the Committee on Climate
Change. In fact, I would relish it. We actually debate more than
once a year climate change, which is obviously a good thing. I
am very happy to think about that. As I say, I think, if my memory
serves me right, that there are some issues about whether it is
right for the Government to proscribe that. You might be able
to inform me: the annual debate on the estimates—I cannot
remember if that is a convention or actually written down anywhere.
Q479 Chairman: The estimates are
a requirement, otherwise you do not get any money.
David Miliband: The estimates
are a requirement, but I am not sure about the debate.
| 
