Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500
- 519)
WEDNESDAY 23 MAY 2007
RT HON
DAVID MILIBAND
MP AND MR
ROBIN MORTIMER
Q500 Mr Gray: The key point is a
much more fundamental constitutional one. The subject we are getting
at is that, unless the judicial sanction has real meaning, then
the targets that you describe in the Bill are no different to
child poverty reduction targets or targets for a reduction in
violent crime or millions of other targets such as unemployment
reduction. All of these are perfectly legitimate government targets
and there are political and public pressures to make sure the
Government achieves those targets, and they are good targets,
but there is no judicial sanction to make sure that child poverty
is, indeed, abolished by 2050, or whenever it was that Gordon
Brown claimed it would be, but you are bringing in a judicial
sanction on this target. Therefore, if the judicial sanction,
as no doubt the Bill is merely, as you describe it, a deterrent
since we hope we will get there, then there is no point in having
the Bill.
David Miliband: No, do not take
my words out of context. The fact that something is a deterrent
does not mean it does not exist. The fact that something is a
last resort does not mean it does not exist. The fact that we
have spent ten minutes talking about the role of the judiciary
in this suggests it is a rather significant creation which focuses
minds and plays an important role, both in terms of its potential
threat and, if ever it came to pass, being drawn into it.
Q501 Chairman: Can I be clear? I
may have switched off for a moment, but the question of the Bill
not having a sanction if you miss a target by X% of there being
a requirement to purchase credits outwith the United Kingdom,
if you like, to bring us back on track, why was that not put in
the Bill?
David Miliband: Lynne did not
get time—
Q502 Chairman: She mentioned that?
David Miliband: Yes, she did not
get a chance to probe, although she foreshadowed that she might.
The reason is that there is a range of things that you might want
to do. Lynne herself mentioned higher targets in subsequent periods.
I think to pre-empt now that the only and right way to impose
sanction is through budgetary credits is unnecessarily narrow.
Q503 Chairman: It might be narrow,
but in the real world we hope, in a way, that bit is irrelevant
because it would be nice to think that all the policy things you
are doing will mean that this is just a very interesting theoretical
quarter of an hour's conversation, but we do need occasionally
to concentrate governments' minds on what they say they are going
to do to make certain that their publicly stated targets actually
do mean something, and if you found that you were drifting badly
off course, then it may turn out that somebody says, "Look,
Secretary of State", 20 or 30 years down the road, "it
is impossible to play catch up in terms of what we have got to
do in the UK. If you are genuinely going to hit that end point,
you have got to go out and purchase some credits to get us back
in terms of the total amount of carbon emissions that we can have—another
way of expressing the budget—up to 2050 the 5.5", or
whatever it is, or some huge quotion. You might have to do it,
but there is not anything in this Bill that says if you really
do drift off by a certain amount, you have actually got to do
something practical to bring us back on track again.
David Miliband: There is a legal
duty on the Secretary of State to live within his budget, which
is quite strong.
Q504 Chairman: Does that then mean
that you would have to do something tangible?
David Miliband: Yes, but not necessarily
purchasing credits overseas. I do not know if we are going to
discuss this, but the whole point about purchasing credits overseas,
given it is a global problem, is one I would defend, but I would
defend overseas action on a supplementary basis to domestic action.
I do not think it should substitute for domestic action, or wholly
substitute, it should only be supplementary to domestic action.
For the sake of clarity or for the sake of guidance, I would see
overseas purchasing as being something that is more likely to
be used in the interim but not used to buy yourself out by 2050.
Q505 Chairman: Do you think you should
be limited on the amount of overseas credits you could use: because
the Bill does not do that at the moment?
David Miliband: Just let me finish
the point. By 2050 I and the Government want UK emissions to be
at least 60% below 1990 levels. By 2050, for a very long time
before 2050, and in 2050, you will want more countries to be taking
on an emissions reduction commitment. In respect of limits, I
think that it would not be right for us to buy 100% of our emissions
reduction abroad. I think it is right that we have a combination
of domestic and international action. I think the fact that there
are international rules on supplementarity and there is scope
for the Committee on Climate Change to give guidance on it is
the right degree of flexibility.
Q506 Chairman: At the moment you
would not welcome part of this Bill limiting the amount of overseas
credit: because you made a very important point with which I personally
sympathise, which is that we have got to put our own house in
order.
David Miliband: No, I do not think
it would be right. We have provision in here, I think that we
say that the Government is going to seek the advice of the Carbon
Committee in respect of how it interprets international supplementarity
rules. At the moment around 8% of our emissions reduction can
be bought overseas, two-thirds of effort.
Q507 Chairman: You used a very interesting
piece of language there. You said, "The Carbon Committee".
It is actually the Climate Change Committee in the Bill. Do you
want to rename it?
David Miliband: No, I just made
a mistake; I am sorry.
Q508 Chairman: No. There are some
who might say, because I think we have all dropped into the same
linguistic shorthand, that it might actually help to add focus?
David Miliband: It might. The
GHG Committee does not have quite the same ring to it. You are
right to pick me up on it though, the Committee on Climate Change;
I am sorry.
Q509 Chairman: I am going to ask
Mr Hall to ask some questions, but I want to ask one technical
one. We have just been talking about legal vulnerability. Did
you as Secretary of State seek the law officer's advice to ask
as to where you thought you might be the vulnerable to judicial
review?
David Miliband: I thought we did.
We certainly sought legal advice about what the court might do
in this respect, and they said you cannot really predict what
they can do.
Mr Mortimer: We certainly did.
The Bill Team certainly discussed it closely with Parliamentary
Counsel. Absolutely; yes.
Q510 Chairman: So you explored the
boundaries of vulnerability?
Mr Mortimer: Indeed.
Chairman: Patrick.
Q511 Patrick Hall: Could I go back
to something that I think we may have missed, although we have
mentioned it in passing, which is greenhouse gases. The Bill sets
down in statute carbon emissions budgets. Why does it not do so
with regard to the other greenhouse gases?
David Miliband: We looked at this,
because I think it is a perfectly legitimate point to make, that
you may want to move on to a GHG basis rather than a carbon basis.
You end up with a bill that is impossible to understand if you
are dealing in different currencies. We would have ended with
a bill that was incomprehensible if we had not got a single currency.
I do not know if you want to say more on the drafting problems
that existed in that respect.
Mr Mortimer: Yes, clause 22(2)(c)
allows the Committee to give advice specifically on the question
of whether we should have legislation to include other greenhouse
gases later, but to pre-empt that and trying to do that through
secondary legislation would be complicated, in our view.
Q512 Patrick Hall: The Committee
could enter the realms of becoming too complicated later?
David Miliband: No. What you would
do, if the Committee recommended and the Government agreed, you
would switch the whole thing over on to a GHG basis.
Q513 Patrick Hall: Which would be
logical in terms of the temperature change?
David Miliband: Yes. I talked
earlier in answer to Lynne about carbon dioxide equivalents. Given
that we have got the 60% CO2 target, to have had the
60% CO2 target but also a greenhouse gas currency in
this would just become incompatible.
Q514 Patrick Hall: On to the Committee
on Climate Change, which is what is called at the moment.
David Miliband: Yes, sorry.
Q515 Patrick Hall: At the evidence
session that we had last Monday I questioned William Wilson, who
is an environmental lawyer, about the nature of the Committee,
and he said (I think he said this in his written evidence as well)
that he thought it should give scientific advice only and that
it would, therefore, be more like the Expert Panel on Air Quality
Standards, that the Government would hear the advice and then
decide what to do. Do you think that having a much wider range
of people on this Committee dealing with the economy, social issues,
technology issues might confuse the message to government, because
does not government want to have clear, if you like, pure "advice"
on the numbers?
David Miliband: I do not think
it will corrupt the Committee's advice to have people who are
scientists but also people who are coming from other walks of
life, and it certainly will not corrupt the independence of the
monitoring and other reporting that they are doing. I think it
adds to it. It is scientists plus. So, you get the benefit of
the independent scientists but you have got other expertise as
well. Obviously, I do not agree with the professor.
Q516 Patrick Hall: I think the point
he made, and I think it is a fair one to explore, is that the
presence of other people on the Committee, as outlined in the
Bill, the Committee itself might say, "What is being proposed
by the climate scientists there is impractical or too costly and
too ambitious", and all that sort of thing, so it will kind
of censor itself. The Government will make those decisions in
the wider sphere, of course. Is not the message for government
though to be one that is really on whether or not these targets
and budgets are achievable and how they should be changed?
David Miliband: Given that the
budgets are down here, I think it makes sense to have scientists
and others who are able to come forward with independent advice.
If there was no interim or final target on the face of the Bill,
I think your point or the point of the professor would have greater
strength, but since that is not the case and since the Government
will have to make the decisions whatever the advice of the Committee,
or on the basis of the advice of the Committee, I think that does
not quite follow.
Q517 Patrick Hall: The Committee
will be making recommendations to government in the wider context,
in the context that government itself is there to do. I think
that is the point that is being made, I am just seeking to explore
that, and you have answered it to an extent. I think there is
some merit and narrow logic in what he said. I am not necessarily
advocating it myself. You do understand the point. The Expert
Panel on Air Quality gives advice just on that and government
responds in terms of the wider policy context, and it is an issue
that is worthy of consideration?
David Miliband: I would say that
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is not just scientists.
Q518 Chairman: Out of curiosity,
on the list of competences I notice that biodiversity is not spelled
out specifically. Is there a reason for that?
David Miliband: No, not in particular.
Q519 Chairman: Given the impact of
climate change on biodiversity, I thought you might have wanted
some advice from somebody with that expertise?
David Miliband: Interesting.
| 
