Mr.
Gummer: When those Governments look at the Bill, will they
not also look at the Committee stage, and say, “Why the blazes
are the Government bringing forward the Bill, and then taking out this
very clause?”? Let us not kid ourselves. This is not a private
activity that will not be recognised elsewhere. If they have not
already done so, many non-governmental organisations will make sure
that they notice the change that the Government have
made.
Mr.
Hurd: I agree with that intervention. The Government are
in danger of sending the wrong signal, a damaging signal, because, as
members of the Committee have said, as far as we can see, the
Government are committed to the 2° C goal. It is stated EU
policy.
Ms
Buck: The hon. Gentleman made a very important point a
moment before taking the last intervention. It was about targets and
accountability. Is it not at the
heart of the argument that one cannot write into UK legislation a
commitment to a target for which one does not have sole responsibility
and sole
accountability?
Mr.
Hurd: That is what we are debating. I take a different
view, for reasons that I shall explain. First, there is tremendous
value in having the 2° C target as a guiding star, a general
duty for the legislation. Critically, the UK target must be linked to
something. It cannot just stand as an absolute
number.
Martin
Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the basis of
the Stern report was to derive UK domestic targets from a perception
and an analysis of the global stabilisation
targets?
Mr.
Hurd: Indeed. That is the key piece that is missing. The
original 2050 target of 50 per cent. was a rather arbitrary number, and
there has been no analysis linking it to any collective international
goal at all. The Bill is an opportunity to make a link between a global
collective goal, and our individual contribution.
As far as I
can see, the Government’s arguments are about the difficulty of
legislating to control global tensions. We know that, and we know that
there may be underlying concerns about the vulnerability of Ministers
to judicial review. However, it is clear, as Lord Taylor said in the
Lords,
that “a
general duty not intended to provide a test for individual
decisions”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25
February 2008; Vol. 699, c.
451.] is a
general duty that can be evaluated, that reinforces the direction of
travel at a crucial time, and that puts the targets in some
context.
I close with a
quote from Lord Rooker in Committee. He
stated: “The
UK remains committed to the European Union 2º target, but there
is no simple relationship between that target and the UK’s 2050
target, which is why we oppose the
amendments.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11
December 2007; Vol. 697, c.
130.] That is
wrong. Of course, there is no simple relationship, but we need to
understand it. We must make it transparent. We need to make that link,
which is why I strongly believe that clause 1 must remain in he
Bill.
Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I want briefly to
discuss the three amendments in the group. I can see the arguments for
including the original clause, for withdrawing it and for trying to
amend
it. I
do not disagree with the general sentiments expressed by all the
Opposition Members who have spoken. However, they have perhaps
undermined and weakened their argument by exaggerating their case by
claiming that the Government have somehow abandoned their sense of the
moral significance of climate change as a political issue, suggesting
that the Government are not interested in the way in which British
efforts relate to international efforts and saying that the Government
no longer support the 2º objective.
The central
point here is that the 2º objective is a statement of the
self-evident. There is no dispute about the importance of 2º in
maintaining the volume of emissions in the atmosphere to less than 450
parts per million. In fact, the 2º objective may not succeed in
restraining emissions to 450 parts per million as the Stern report and
the intergovernmental panel on climate change have made
clear. The real issue
is not whether we should be reiterating the importance of the 2º
objective and the reason for it, but whether it needs to be in clause 1
of the Bill. There are good reasons for it not to be included in clause
1, because Ministers, including the Prime Minister in a major speech in
November last year, and all the scientific advice from the United
Kingdom, the European Union and through the whole post-Kyoto process
have reiterated the significance of 2º. If a reference to
2º is needed, it should be in the long title of the Bill, which
would be a more appropriate place specifically to refer to keeping
emissions globally within 2º. However, we are not here to amend
the long title,
unfortunately. As
drafted, clause 1 contains a serious limitation. It
states: “The
principal aim... is to ensure that UK emissions of greenhouse
gases do not exceed the level necessary to contribute to limiting the
global average
temperature”. What
on earth does “contribute” mean? Again, it is absolutely
self-evident that whatever the United Kingdom does is going to
contribute, which prompts the question of what the level of that
contribution should
be.
Martin
Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman support amendment No. 44?
It would remove the words around “contribute” and replace
them
with, “a
proportionate share of total global emissions of greenhouse gases
compatible
with”, which
is much
clearer. 12
noon
Mr.
Chaytor: I will come to amendment No. 44 in a moment,
although my comments about “contribute” apply equally to
“proportionate”, which is why I do not support amendment
No.
44. There
are problems with the wording, because it prompts the question of the
nature of the contribution. The difficulty is that, by maintaining the
clause as it stands, we are confusing the political and ethical purpose
of Government policy with the precise legislative detail designed to
implement that policy. For example, in the Counter-Terrorism Bill,
which was a matter of great controversy just a few days ago, was there
a purpose provision setting out clearly the objectives of 42-day
detention? I would have thought that the objective of extending the
current period of detention to 42 days is obvious. The objective was
not in the Bill, because it was not necessary, absolutely self-evident,
well understood by everyone and reiterated by Ministers on numerous
occasions.
Mr.
Gummer: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s
argument carefully, but what is the precise disadvantage of having the
provision in the Bill? What would happen that should not happen because
it is in the Bill? We would need to know that in order to overcome the
obvious disadvantage of removing the statement from the Bill, which
would give a signal to the rest of the world. What is the precise
disadvantage?
Mr.
Chaytor: The obvious disadvantage of removing the
statement is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the world at
large will not know the significance of the Bill. I think that it was
included in the Bill so that it
could be taken out, which will allow the Opposition parties an
opportunity to campaign. Frankly, if the right hon. Gentleman or his
colleagues wish to come to my constituency and campaign on the issue
that clause 1, with its reference to 2°, has been
taken out of the Bill and that is a major flaw in Government policy, he
is welcome to do so. Most of my Conservative opponents in my
constituency are still in denial about climate change, so it would help
my
cause.
Gregory
Barker: That was a rather flippant answer to a serious
question. What is the precise disadvantage to the Bill of the clause
being there? Leaving aside the party political point scoring, what is
the precise disadvantage to the
Bill?
Mr.
Chaytor: I was coming to that point, had the hon.
Gentleman not intervened. The disadvantage is that the clause prompts
the question of the level and nature of the contribution. The precise
disadvantage would be for a future Government in a future Parliament
with a future climate change (amendment) Bill, when hundreds and
thousands of hours would be spent by hon. and right hon. Members, civil
servants, lawyers, the public at large, the media and non-governmental
organisations in trying to define what “contribute”
means
Mr.
Gummer: Can the hon. Gentleman conceive of circumstances
in which people would not discuss the contribution? How will the clause
make it more likely that we will discuss it? We will always discuss it,
so I find it difficult to see a disadvantage. We will discuss that
whether in this House or elsewhere, but taking out that commitment
would make a clear
statement.
Mr.
Chaytor: That is not the case, because the provision was
not in the Bill in the first place—it was inserted for the
purpose that I described earlier. The precise disadvantage is that
there is no advantage in making the wording of the legislation less
precise than it needs to
be. If
clause 1 were to stay in the Bill, amendment No. 43 would be helpful
because it would improve the wording and make it more precise.
Amendment No. 44 would weaken the clause, because it introduces the
issue of “proportionate share”, which prompts the
question of what that
is. A
similar objection applies to amendment No. 32, which refers to
“historic levels of emissions”. I am not sure whether
there is, has ever been or is ever likely to be exact methodology for
calculating historic levels of emissions. Therefore, there is no point
in referring in legislation to something that cannot be calculated. The
same argument applies
to “projected
levels of emissions growth among other
countries.” What
on earth does that mean? How many other countries project such levels
and over what period of time? The key objection to amendment No. 32 is
the imprecision of the language and the fact that it introduces
concepts that are subject to vastly different interpretations and, in
many respects, do not have a solid statistical base.
This
afternoon, by coincidence, it is Foreign Office questions. A
characteristic of those questions is that hon. and right hon. Members
turn up to ask the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers questions about
what Britain
is going to do in countries such as Burma, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, Sri
Lanka and Afghanistan in the full knowledge that the
Government’s capacity to influence events in many of those
countries is far less than most of us would wish. The same applies to
this morning’s debate about 2° C and the development of
an international climate change policy. We must recognise that the
Government are limited in their capacity to influence international
events and the trajectory of global emissions over the next 50
years. Our Government
have one key way in which to influence the situation, which is by
putting forward legislation that is precise, workable, and backed up by
policy that is designed to give effect to the objectives described in
the legislation and that provides a model for other countries to
follow. It is far more important that we get a piece of legislation
that is precise and workable, that Parliament supports the policies
that are necessary to implement it, that we achieve the emissions
reductions so that we provide a model for other countries to adopt, if
they choose to do so, and that we engage enthusiastically in
international negotiations to try to persuade other countries to adopt
that model rather than resorting to what can only be described as
gesture politics by trying to make a reference to 2° in clause 1
the be all and end all of the
Bill.
Steve
Webb: I do not for a second doubt the hon.
Gentleman’s commitment to tackling climate change. This
afternoon, he will move an amendment to put an 80 per cent. target in
the Bill. If the Bill is not amended and retains the reference to 60
per cent, we will have a target that does not achieve the goal that he
and I share and we will have no statement of purpose. We will emerge
with a Bill that does not achieve the goal that we share and does not
say what the Bill is for. Surely that cannot be
acceptable.
Mr.
Chaytor: We must remember that the phrase
“at least 60 per cent.” could include 80 per cent. or
even 95 per cent. I do not think that that is a fundamental
point of importance. The “at least 60 per cent.” target
will be revised by the Climate Change Committee when it produces its
report on 1 December. However, when we get to clause 2, I may put a
slightly different
argument. Finally,
a reference has been made to contraction and convergence. The Liberal
Democrats attempted to challenge the Government on whether they support
the principle of contraction and convergence as the basis for
international negotiations. I support the principle, but not because it
absolutely relies on specifying 2° C, or 450 ppm, as the
ultimate objective; I support it because that is what is happening now.
The consequence of the Kyoto protocol gave targets to annexe 1
countries and not to non-annexe 1 countries. It is the general
objective of even the most recalcitrant countries, such as the United
States and, until quite recently, Australia. So, my response to the
Liberal Democrat challenge on contraction and convergence is that
frankly, there is no alternative. That is what is happening now, and
what will happen over the next 50 years and perhaps beyond.
That does not mean that the precise model of contraction and
convergence put forward by the Global Commons Institute is going to be
followed to the letter—I suspect that it will not
be—but the general drift to the richer countries contracting
their emissions and the developing countries increasing their
emissions, and therefore securing convergence, will obviously
happen. Mr.
Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech,
but he has mentioned 450 ppm as an agreed target on two occasions. He
knows that the Government, whom he supports, has a target range for
stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions, which is 450 to 550 ppm.
Will he join me in urging his Government to drop their outlying rider
of 550 ppm, because analysis has shown it to be increasingly
incompatible with the 2°
target?
Mr.
Chaytor: I have not said at any point that 450
parts per million is the target. I referred to the fact that the
scientific advice suggests that above 450 ppm the likelihood of
dangerous climate change increasing is even greater. We need to set the
matter in
context. For
the reasons that I have outlined, there is a solid argument for
withdrawing clause 1, when we come to the Question on clause stand
part, but even though the Opposition have made important points on the
underlying principles, because of the lack of precision in clause 1 and
the nature of the Opposition amendments, I am not convinced that they
have successfully made their
case.
| 
