Dr.
Whitehead: Opposition Members have made a number of
important points this morning, but there has also been quite a lot of
mealy-mouthed talk, which augers badly for the progress of the Bill in
Committee on the basis of consensus. I am concerned about the insertion
of the principal aim clause in the other place, because it may have
been designed not so much to emphasise the principal aim as to beat the
Government around the head on the grounds that they are not really
committed to that principal aim because they will not put it in the
Bill. As
I said in an earlier intervention, it is possible to put all sorts of
things in such clauses. We could have a whole list of things that we
are committed not to do and on which, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Bury, North has said, we have no traction. I really do not want to see
polar bears disappearing from the north pole, but I would not be
prepared to stand in this House and place in legislation that the UK
Government have a duty to ensure that polar bears do not disappear in
the Arctic.
An important
question on the overall mechanisms in this Bill, which it is very
important that we get right and which will be the subject of our debate
this afternoon, is what will the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State
or whoever it is be faced with in 2051 when they come before the House
of Commons to say what they have done. Let us say that that person
stands up in the House and says, “Great news! According to our
carbon budgets, we have reduced our emissions by 80 per cent., and
therefore we have succeeded in what this Bill set out to do all those
many years ago.” Somebody else could say, “No, sorry, you
have not actually kept below 2° C, and therefore you have
failed.” One approach involves what we can do as far as the UK
is concerned; the other involves what we might do if many other
countries were to enter the process of making sure that there are
international commitments that enable both reductions
in emissions to be undertaken in particular countries and an overall
reduction in emissions across the globe as a result of those
commitments. Then the global targets on parts per million and
temperature can be
achieved. 12.15
pm That,
of course, depends on crucial upcoming negotiations and discussions.
If, for example, the United States continues on a path of not wishing
to address seriously the sort of emissions that are envisaged by the
Bill, or if other countries do the same, the percentage that the UK
will have to undertake if we are to succeed will be different. However,
if the United States and other countries take a different
path—as I hope that they will—achieving something getting
on for 80 per cent. would represent a move very solidly towards the
idea of keeping the world within a 2° C temperature rise and
restraining the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to around 450
ppm.
To suggest
that everything hinges on this clause, and that if we do not go for the
clause, we are not serious about all the rest of this, is not just
overblown but, frankly, a little insulting to those people who are
trying to draft legislation that will get those mechanisms right for
this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, the
Bill will demonstrate to several countries that are looking very
seriously at our climate change legislation that devices can be
introduced in legislation that enable a country to play its proper role
in reducing emissions. If we fall at the very first
hurdle—before we have even started looking at how to put this
together—frankly, to paraphrase the right hon. Member for
Suffolk, Coastal, our grandchildren will say “What were they
doing? Why were they not constructing serious legislation on what the
country could properly do as far as carbon emissions are concerned? Why
were they posturing and deciding what should or should not go in
declaratory parts of the Bill at the expense of making the Bill
work?”
The Committee
is seriously concerned with making the Bill work. My modest suggestion,
and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, would be that if
we were to make any changes, we should place the principal aim of the
Bill in the long title. I appreciate that we cannot put all clause 1 in
because the long title has to reflect what is in the Bill. Yet, surely
the whole Bill is for this purpose, and placing something like that in
the long title would mean that those who have made serious comments
this morning about how to ensure that business proceeds properly could
be satisfied about the intentions of the Bill. That would also make
sure that the Bill worked not just to satisfy the ambitions of our
country on addressing climate change, but to ensure that other
countries follow our lead with similar
legislation.
Gregory
Barker: This has been a most instructive and interesting
sitting. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for Southampton,
Test because our proceedings augur very well for the debates and
discussions that we will be having in Committee over the next few days.
The debate has been by no means a diversion. Our discussion goes to the
very heart of what we are trying to achieve, and I do not think that
the debate has detracted in any way from the meat of the Bill, or from
the frameworks, mechanisms and committees that it will
establish.
If I may
respond to the hon. Gentleman directly, his suggestion that the debate
has taken place at the whim of Opposition parties—either
Conservative or Liberal Democrat—was beneath him. He knows that
non-governmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth and
Greenpeace—I am sure that he and, certainly, the Ministers hold
those organisations in esteem—have given vociferous support for
the principal aim. I propose to address my remarks to that aim, as my
hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York spoke extremely eloquently
about amendments Nos. 43 and
44. At
the outset of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk,
Coastal really set the benchmark for this Bill by making a wonderful
and inspiring speech that I hope his children and many other children
will read. It reflected the ambition that we all have for this Bill and
reminds Members on both sides of the Committee why we came into
politics, why we get out of bed in the morning, why we are proud to be
Members of Parliament, and why we campaign: because there is a higher
purpose. It is very easy to lose that higher purpose in the tit for tat
trading of brickbats across the Committee. My right hon. Friend really
rose above the party political divide, and he reminded us how
profoundly important the Bill is and what we are all
about.
Ms
Buck: In the spirit of bipartisanship, and given that we
are all highly committed to the overall end, will the hon. Gentleman
recognise that we are discussing not a principal aim, but a process:
the extent to which the Bill give us the right framework? There may be
a disagreement about that, but it does not go to the heart of the
question of the aim. Will he take this opportunity to put on record
that he does not believe that any disagreement about process reflects a
fundamental wavering by the Government or the Minister on achieving a
2° C
reduction?
Gregory
Barker: I certainly agree. I am not here to question the
Government’s commitment to 2° C, although at the tail end
of an Administration, it is not this Government who should greatly
concern us, but the commitment of future Governments, whether they are
formed by my party, the Labour party or any other. We are talking about
a process that will run for decades and decades. When people look back
at the measures and technicalities to which the meat of this Bill
addresses itself, it will be important that its overall aim is clear in
their minds. We are beginning our discussions with the first page of
the Bill, and it is important that the aim is there, clearly and
squarely.
Mr.
Chaytor: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made a
very thoughtful and interesting speech, but he threatened that if
clause 1 were withdrawn from the Bill, he would travel around the
country and launch a campaign against the Government for doing
precisely that. I am inclined to invite him to my constituency because
that could be very helpful to my cause—I might issue him with a
personal invitation—but how can the hon. Member for Bexhill and
Battle reconcile that threat with his assertion that the right hon.
Gentleman was able to rise above the party political
divide?
Gregory
Barker: I would love to answer that, but I fear that my
right hon. Friend could answer it even
better.
The
Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to allow any kind of
response to an intervention from someone who was not even holding the
Floor.
Gregory
Barker: I think that I follow that advice, Mr.
Cook. I
think that my right hon. Friend was trying—no doubt he will
correct me if I am wrong—to challenge Labour Members, whom I
know in their heart of hearts most emphatically endorse the aim, to
have the courage of their convictions, to be bold and not to listen to
the siren calls of the civil service chiming in from behind
Ministers—
The
Chairman: Order. It would now be correct for the right
hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal to intervene. That keeps both the
Committee and the Chairman in
order.
Gregory
Barker: I give way—spontaneously—to my right
hon.
Friend.
Mr.
Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for
Bury, North made a partial comment about what I said? I said that I did
not want the Government to put themselves in a position in which one
would be tempted to behave in such a way. I was trying hard to get the
Government to recognise that the more they enable people to keep the
Bill consensual, the better. Perhaps I have been misinterpreted. If I
was so opaque as to make it possible to believe such a thing, I
apologise. However, if I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Bury,
North was, perfectly reasonably, making the kind of mischief that is
perfectly reasonable across the Floor. I assure my hon. Friend the
Member for Bexhill and Battle that it is my intention to keep the
Government on the straight and
narrow.
Gregory
Barker: Indeed. That is what we are all endeavouring to
do. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, who was the
Minister who represented the UK to great effect at the Rio conference,
drew out a very important point that answers many of the points that
were raised quite validly by Labour Members. This Bill is infinitely
more than the sum of its parts. It is more than just a collection of
technical measures. It is more than a series of sensible measures to
bring to life committees, reporting mechanisms, budgets and
commitments to report further and to make public appointments. It is so
much more than that.
We will be
doing a disservice to the public, to the layman, to students, to
children and to interested parties who have heard so much about the
Climate Change Bill in the press if, when they pick up the Act that the
Bill becomes, they are immediately confronted with quite technical
gobbledegook that is meaningless in the overall battle to keep down the
rise in temperature. Putting a clear aim in the Bill is not just
totemic, but common sense.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Ruislip-Northwood reminded us of the costs and
catastrophes that would befall the world if we did not keep the rise
below 2° C. He also reminded us of the excellent report by Lord
Stern commissioned by the
Government. I
could not quite follow all the argument outlined by of the hon. Member
for Bury, North because while he clearly set his face against
supporting the clause, he said that he would be in favour of including
its wording in the Bill’s long title. He seemed to accept the
principle but then, because his own side is against the practice, he
did not support such wording in the clause. I am advised—I will
stand corrected if I have wrongly interpreted the advice—that it
is not possible to revise the long title of the Bill, and nor is it
possible for the Committee to insert a preamble into the Bill, although
I believe that the Government could do so. I will come back to that in
my closing remarks. Perhaps a chink of light is being shed on our
proceedings.
The
Chairman: Order. Perhaps I may help from the Chair. The
title can be changed as long as the changed title does not impinge on
the content of the Bill. The title must still reflect the content of
the
Bill. 12.30
pm
Gregory
Barker: Indeed, Mr. Cook. The problem that we
would encounter in changing the long title of the Bill is that that
which we sought to put in the long title would not be in the Bill if we
removed it from clause 1. Is that correct, Mr.
Cook?
The
Chairman: The purpose of holding the title of the Bill
until the closing stages is to ensure that it reflects everything that
has gone before, by
agreement.
Gregory
Barker: Indeed. I do not profess to have a monopoly on
wisdom, but it would be difficult to incorporate something into the
long title if there was no mention of it in the Bill. The hon. Member
for Southampton, Test is making wonderful gestures. He would find it
difficult to interpret in the long title something that was not stated
specifically in the text of the Bill.
Dr.
Whitehead: The long title reflects what is in the whole
Bill. If the Bill is about climate change and temperature rise, which
is a concomitant of climate change, it is perfectly reasonable for that
to be reflected in the long title, whether or not there is a specific
mention within the Bill of the precise description that is in the long
title, provided that it does not stray outside the subject matter of
the Bill. That was the basis of my
suggestion.
Gregory
Barker: That is very interesting, but while the hon.
Gentleman was making his speech I sought informal advice, and I am
given to understand that what he suggests would be difficult to
accomplish. I understand the point that he makes, but technically
speaking, it would be difficult to incorporate that reference into the
long title at the end of the Committee, for the reasons that I
mentioned.
Mr.
Gummer: Will my hon. Friend at least reassure the Minister
that, were he to give us an assurance that he would seek to do as we
propose, we would be happy for that to replace the
clause?
Gregory
Barker: My right hon. Friend has robbed me of my coup de
thÃ(c)âtre at the end of my speech, for which I thank him,
although I had been warned by colleagues about his ability and talent
for so
doing.
Mr.
Chaytor: I am sorry that my remarks earlier were not
entirely clear. I was trying to draw a distinction between the validity
of the reiteration of the objective of securing as a global limit a
2° C temperature increase, and its relevance—whether it
should be in the text of the Bill at this point. My reference to the
long title was not intended to trigger a serious debate as to whether
the long title could be amended. I was certainly not suggesting an
amendment to the long title, but perhaps the Minister would give that
some consideration and report back later.
Gregory
Barker: A consensus is starting to emerge, which can only
be a good thing. That is the result of a rather robust conversation
this morning. It is an example of the robust scrutiny that my right
hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned earlier during
discussion of the programme motion.
I shall
summarise the primary arguments in favour of the clause and our
criticism of the Government’s argument. The Government’s
opposition to this important clause is based on three arguments: that
the principal aim is unworkable and unenforceable, that Britain alone
has no control over keeping global warming under 2° C, and that
the Government have stated in the past that the principal aim is
without precedent. We believe that none of those three
arguments holds up under scrutiny.
First, we all
understand that the UK cannot be held responsible for all the
world’s emissions, but that is not what the clause says, or what
it aspires to. There is nothing in the principal aim that places an
obligation on the United Kingdom to deliver single-handedly the
ambition to keep global warming under 2° C. We understand that
even if global emissions stopped today, there is no guarantee that we
would not exceed the 2° C target.
The principal
aim set out in the Bill does not offer such a guarantee. It states that
the United Kingdom should be committed to doing its fair share to
prevent a dangerous outcome and should show international leadership.
The aspiration to limit the global average temperature increase to not
more than 2º C above pre-industrial levels is not some obscure
aspiration dreamed up by those on the Conservative Front Bench to bait
the Government with, or plucked from the sky. The Prime Minister said
last November:
“Our
vision has one overriding aim; holding the rise in global temperatures
to no more than two degrees
centigrade.” The
2º threshold is the agreed policy of this country and, in
writing, the stated aim of the entire European Union. If the Government
are truly committed to this “overriding aim”, why are
they so timid and cautious about saying so in a landmark Bill? Why have
they committed to a target with the EU that they will not put in this
unprecedented domestic
legislation? Neither
the Minister nor any of his successors should fear being hauled off to
jail should temperature rises exceed 2º. Even if that dangerous
2º scenario is reached, the UK Government would still have
fulfilled the terms
of the principal aim as long as they had made emissions cuts which, had
they been replicated across the developed world, might have prevented
such a
rise. What
of the argument that the principal aim is inappropriate, or
“unprecedented” in UK legislation? Evidence suggests
otherwise, and I thank Friends of the Earth for looking into the matter
so carefully. There is a sizeable list of laws on the statute book
which set out the broad aims of Acts and the purposes of the bodies
that they set up. For example, in the Sustainable Communities Act 2007,
section 1 states:
“The principal
aim of this Act is to promote the sustainability of local
communities.” For
that, I pay handsome tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for
Ruislip-Northwood.
| 
