Mr.
Gummer: Does my hon. Friend remember any argument during
the passage of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 in which the
Minister suggested that such a phrase would be inappropriate at the
beginning of the Act?
Gregory
Barker: I hear from the Minister that he was given the
advice, “better not”, but clearly, on that famous Friday
he came to the House having eaten three Shredded Wheat, and his
political convictions got the better of him. I am sad that the Minister
has not had his breakfast this
morning.
Ms
Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman remember any
discussions during the passage of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007
that required the UK Government to promote sustainable communities in
America, Africa, Asia, Australasia and indeed across the world? That is
the point—the Sustainable Communities Act applied to what lies
within the powers of the British
Government.
Gregory
Barker: Nevertheless, the Minister, or subsequent
Ministers, will not be hauled off to jail if they fail to deliver
sustainable communities in the
UK.
Mr.
Gummer: The hon. Member for Regent’s Park and
Kensington, North has shot her own fox. The difference is this: the
Government’s purpose is to make sure that other nations follow
us. If the Government do not bother to do that, by their own admission
they will be letting down not only this nation, but future generations
throughout the world. It is exactly as the clause
outlines.
Gregory
Barker: My right hon. Friend is correct. Surely the Bill,
which was devised and introduced by the Government, is not a timid
piece of domestic legislation. It is legislation of which we can be
rightly proud, I hope, and which will be an example around the world.
It is about asserting international leadership. Surely setting out the
principal aim of a Bill at the start makes that clear.
I give another
example. Many Acts give principal aims to public bodies. For example,
the Environment Act 1995
states: “It
shall be the principal aim of the Agency...in discharging its
functions so to protect or enhance the environment,”
It is no more specific
than that. Other broad aims appear in the Food Standards Act 1999, the
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Children’s
Commissioner for Wales Act 2001, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act
2002 and the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order
2006.
Beyond the
national precedent, there is international precedent for including a
purpose clause in the Bill. Although the UK was the first in the world
to commit to introducing a Climate Change Bill, progress has not been
as speedy as we would have liked. During the period of procrastination
in bringing the Bill through Parliament, it appears that the Canadian
Parliament may have got there before us. Interestingly, the Climate
Change Accountability Act in Canada includes a purpose clause which was
recently passed by the Canadian House of Commons, and it reads
thus: “The
purpose of this Act is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate
system.” So
the clause is not without precedent, at home or abroad. It is not a
subtle attempt to legislate for the rest of the world. It does not
place any obligation on the UK to deliver the principal aim
single-handedly, nor does it leave any Minister—particularly any
future Minister—liable, should the global effort
fail. It
is worth noting that the legislation is called the Climate Change Bill.
It is not the Carbon Emissions Reduction Bill. It is the Climate Change
Bill—the global Climate Change Bill.
[Interruption.]
Mr.
Gummer: Nor is it the Climate Change (UK)
Bill.
Gregory
Barker: My right hon. Friend is right. This is the Climate
Change Bill. What this principal aim does is to anchor what is
otherwise—
The
Chairman: Order. I am trying to preserve a fairly free and
easy exchange of opinions here and to that extent, I am happy for
everyone who needs to do so to make an intervention on anyone who is
holding the floor. What I cannot stand—partly because of my
partial deafness—is the amount of chuntering that is going on.
It is unnecessary. It is unparliamentary, so please take my advice and
chunter not.
Gregory
Barker: Thank you, Mr. Cook. It is worth noting
that the legislation is called the Climate Change Bill, not the Carbon
Emissions Reduction Bill. It has a global leadership purpose and we
should be proud and celebrate that fact. The principal aim clause
anchors what is otherwise just a framework of targets to a central
ambition and purpose that we all share: for Britain to do our part in
the battle against dangerous climate
change. The
principal clause lifts the Bill from simply being a series of technical
and administrative reforms and innovations. It gives the legislation a
clear statement of our national shared intent, our national purpose and
the ambition that I believe all members of the Committee have, in their
heart of hearts, for the Bill. As another
member said, let us pin our colours to the mast and put at the very
start of the Bill a clause of which we can proud. We had
intended to vote against the Government on this most important clause.
However, I am advised that, although the Committee cannot do so, it is
possible for the Government to insert a preamble to the Bill. I am
advised that it would be difficult to insert an effective form of
wording into the long title. The idea has merit, but technically that
would not be feasible. However, the Government could bring forth a
preamble. I invite the Government to consider that proposition, in the
spirit of consensus and in the spirit in which all members, on both
sides of the Committee, wish to work in scrutinising the Bill. Let us
see whether, between us, we can come up with a form of words, as a
preamble to the Bill, that would be acceptable to all members of the
Committee.
12.45
pm
Mr.
Woolas: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Cook,
and for allowing us to have an extremely useful and wide-ranging
debate. I want to use this opportunity not only to answer questions,
but to explain why the Government do not want the clause in the Bill.
Opposition Members are motivated by the fear that the Government are
trying not to commit to 2° C as a target. They are trying to
strengthen that target, and I do not challenge their
motive. I
will try to put the matter in an international context. Within the
United Nations negotiations and talks, the European Union—of
which we are a leading member in those talks—is committed to the
2° C bloc. We are seen by the world as the leaders. There is a
group of countries that does not support 2° C: the Pacific
island states. For them, 2° C is too much, because that means
that they disappear. Other countries are not prepared to commit to a
long-term goal of a 50 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050, which
is how the 2° C limit is expressed in terms of emissions. The
poorer countries are not prepared to commit to that at this point
because they fear that doing so, without legally binding commitments
from the richer countries, would put too much of a burden on them. So,
there is not a consensus around 2° C from those countries. Some
members of the G8, particularly the United States of America, but also
Russia and Japan, are also not prepared to commit at this point to
2° C. The consequence of that situation is that if we were to
legislate for something outside our control, we would be passing
legislation that, in our view, would be meaningless, thus damaging the
credibility of the
Bill.
Miss
McIntosh: My understanding is that the EU will negotiate
en bloc. It will negotiate from a position of
2°
C.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Lady is right. Her argument fails to
understand—I would ask Opposition Members to ask themselves this
question—why the European Union has not legislated for 2°
C. It has not done so because, as in my argument, that would be a
meaningless act. Legislating for a global goal of 2° C, and
whether or not we are committed to that, are separate questions. That
explains both our stance and that of the European
Union.
Mr.
Gummer: I genuinely would be on the Minister’s side
if I thought that that was what the paragraph meant. All the clause
says is that
the “principal
aim of this Act is to ensure
that” our “emissions...do
not exceed the level
necessary”— in
effect, to make up our
contribution— “to
limiting the global average temperature increase
to...2°C”. It
says nothing about us legislating for other people; it says that about
us. Subsection
(2) says that
the “functions
under this Act must be exercised
with” that
objective. I cannot see the “better not” in saying
that.
Mr.
Woolas: When I reach the end of my argument, the right
hon. Gentleman will see the logic of my point of view. He is one of the
most experienced Ministers in the history of our country. I think that
I am right in saying that only four other people in history served a
longer period in the UK Cabinet, so he is an extremely experienced
legislator. He knows that when one gets advice that says “better
not”, “resist” or “resist if
pushed”, one has to take a decision. He also knows that the
advice that is given to Ministers from parliamentary counsel and
officials is often to resist on the grounds of legislative incoherence.
The strongest thing for a Minister to do is to put aside party
political objective. It would be easy for me and the Government to say,
“We accept it, and it is our policy.” We are basing all
of our efforts on getting 2° C, so why do I not just put it in
the Bill? The answer to that is rather than saying “better
not”, such a decision would render the Bill
meaningless Let
me explain to the right hon. Gentleman why that is the case. I have not
had a chance to check Hansard, but I bet that
during consideration of the Environment Act 1995, there was advice that
said, “Do not accept a purpose clause.” Incidentally, the
clause to which the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle referred was the
primary purpose of the Environment Agency, not the
Bill. Let
me explain my argument. I refer the Committee to clause 2 because it
directly relates to this question. It is the other side of the coin of
why the Government do not want clause 1. I beg the Committee’s
indulgence, but I will keep my remarks very brief.
Clause 2(1)
does two profoundly important things—let me take the second
first. It considers the target of “at least 60 per cent.”
on the 1990 baseline by 2050. Where does that figure come from? It has
been subject of national debate, and of hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of communications. That figure comes from a royal commission
report that recommended the cut in emissions that would be required in
the United Kingdom as a contribution to the world effort to do the same
thing, assuming that the world signed up to that and that the science
did not change. Since then, the science has changed, which is why the
Government have changed the original royal commission recommendation of
60 per cent. to “at least 60 per
cent.” Let
me answer the question of whether or not the target should be higher.
First, the year 2050 and the figure of 2° C are based on the
royal commission’s recommendation, and that is our policy.
Secondly, and
this is the crucial point, in the first part of subsection (1), the Bill
goes far beyond other legislation—far beyond what the
Sustainable Communities Act 2007 and the Environment Act 1995 did. The
Bill puts a legal duty on the Secretary of State—the
Government—to ensure that they act to achieve the objective of
“at least 60 per cent.” cuts in emissions in the UK, or
more depending on what the committee advises. If there were an
additional clause, for example existing clause 1, that rendered it
impossible for the future Secretary of State to act legally because of
the actions of other countries, we would be undermining the ability of
future Governments to implement the Bill. We would also put other
people or organisations, such as local authorities that have duties
under the functions of this Bill, in a position in which they would be
acting illegally and in impossible circumstances. We would take away
the very certainty that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood sought
for businesses and third parties and render impossible the very basis
of cap and trade and the top-down approach of the European Union and
this country, as against the bottom-up pledge and review approach of
other Governments. It would be easy for me to say that I accept the
clause, but I do not, precisely because I am committed to the working
of the Bill. Martin
Horwood: The Minister is trying to make the case that
there is a fundamental incompatibility between the target of 60 per
cent. in clause 2 and the target of 2° C in clause 1.
He suggests that that introduces some legal uncertainty. In fact, the
target of 60 per cent. is explicitly based on the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution’s report in 2000, which was itself
explicitly based on the IPCC second assessment report, which was in
turn based on a stabilisation target for the number of degrees of
global warming. There cannot be inconsistency between those two
targets. I do not see where the legal uncertainty he talks about
arises.
Mr.
Woolas: Let me try to explain more slowly and more
clearly. Clause 2(1) puts a duty on the Secretary of
State “to
ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60
per cent. lower than the 1990
baseline.” That
is within his power, and if he fails to achieve that, he can be
subjected to legal action. Future Governments, of whatever persuasion,
will have to be accountable in that way. However, clause 1 puts a duty
on the Secretary of State to do something—control the
temperature—that is based on the actions of the rest of the
world. That he cannot
do.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister is introducing inconsistency when
there simply is none. Clause 1 does not oblige a Minister to do
anything outside his power. It simply defines the aim, and the aim is
precisely the same as that explicitly adopted by the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution when it came up with a 60 per
cent. target. There cannot be an inconsistency in
aim.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is missing the purpose of
legislation. If, in 10 or 20 years, the rest of the world has not acted
in accordance with the demands of the United Nations framework
convention on climate change; if deforestation has not been stopped, as
urged
by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal; and if global
temperatures have increased in such a way that it is not possible for
the target in clause 1 to be
met—
| 
