 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Sara
Howe, Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 24 June 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]Climate Change Bill [Lords]Clause 1Climate
Change Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 43, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after
‘that’, insert ‘between 2008 and 2050
total’.—[Steve
Webb.] 4
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
Amendment No.
44, in
clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave
out ‘the level necessary to contribute to’ and
insert ‘a proportionate
share of total global emissions of greenhouse gases compatible
with’. Amendment
No. 32, in
clause 1, page 1, line 9, at
end add— ‘(3) The target for
the UK contribution to limiting global average temperatures shall be
calculated with reference
to— (a) historic levels
of emissions of greenhouse gases by the
UK; (b) projected levels of
emissions growth among other countries;
and (c) such other factors as
the Secretary of State considers
relevant. (4) The Secretary of
State shall lay before Parliament within one year of the coming into
force of this Act a report setting out the basis on which the target
for the UK contribution has been
calculated.’. Clause
stand part.
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
I was in mid-stream, having just returned from a 48-hour conference
session in Korea, debating with the G8 and G5, and attempting to
convince them of the virtues of our policy on a 2° C cap and the
mid-term goals to achieve that, only to arrive back in our country to
face criticism from the Opposition that I was not committed to that.
The ironies of political life are great.
Mr.
Woolas: The significant breakthrough at the weekend was
that the G5 countries tacitly accepted the need for a 50 per cent. cut
by 2050. Some of the G8 countries were not happy with that, but as
ever, the United Kingdom played a pivotal role. Mr. Cook,
you are frowning, so I shall move on.
I was
attempting to persuade the Committee, with the greatest integrity, I
think, that clause 2, the 50 per cent. obligation, provides the surety
that the Committee seeks, through the limit of a 2° C increase
in temperature on pre-industrial revolution figures. Therefore, clause
1 is not only unnecessary, but unworkable. The Committee is looking for
assurances, so having reflected during the break, I shall answer the
questions that were asked of me, and then put my argument.
The hon.
Member for Northavon described his amendment as being “as
ever” intended to be helpful. I urge my hon. Friend the Member
for Mitcham and Morden to make a note of that, so that we can come back
to it. The hon. Member for Northavon, displaying terrific research,
referred to the purpose clauses that were included in the Sustainable
Communities Act 2007 and the Environment Act 1995. It is no
coincidence, of course, that I was the Minister during the passage of
the former, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was the
Secretary of State during the passage of the latter. I congratulate the
hon. Member for Northavon on his research.
At the time of
the Sustainable Communities Bill, I was advised that it was better not
to include a purpose clause. When I asked whether it did any harm to
the legislation or whether it was just repetitive, I was advised that
it did no harm, so I took the bold decision as a Minister to accept
one. On
the 1995 Act, I think the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will
back me up—it was his Bill—when I say that the purpose
clause was for the Environment Agency. It was not specifically a
purpose clause for the legislation. The hon. Member for Northavon will
press me and say that the Government have accepted purpose clauses in
other Bills. He makes a reasonable point, but I would say in defence
that, where legislation places an obligation on the Government of the
day to act in a certain way, such as in the fuel poverty legislation,
it places that legal obligation for as long as the Act is in existence.
In that sense, a purpose clause is beneficial to the judiciary in
defining the
Act. That
is my explanation why a purpose clause is not appropriate in the Bill.
The crucial point is that clause 2 places a legal requirement not just
on Ministers, but on civil servants, who can advise on policy decisions
only within the law. Given that clause 2(1) is based on a 2°
temperature limit at 2050, I urge Opposition Members to consider my
intention. My argument is that clause 2(1) does exactly what
it says on the tin, exactly what they want to do in clause 1, without
the disadvantages of clause 1, which I am trying to
explain. Let
me say clearly that the Government and I agree with the points made by
hon. Members on both sides about the trajectory—about the
mid-term. The point about 60, 80 or 100 per cent.—whatever the
long-term target—is that it is not important, compared to the
mid-term target. Greenhouse gases accumulate in the air. How one gets
to the target is more important than the target itself. With just a
long-term target of 60, 80 or 100 per cent. reduction, one could
increase emissions for the next period, through to 2049, then decrease
them in the last year.
That would be
analogous to my saying that I intend to give up alcohol by Christmas
day. I will drink a bottle of wine each day until 24 December, but on
Christmas day I pledge not to have a drink. I will have reached my
target of no alcohol on Christmas day, but I would probably have killed
myself by then. Seriously, there is an analogy with greenhouse gases.
What matters is not just the target, but what we say in the United
Nations talks below the curve. What is the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions below the curve? That is why, on clause 6, amendment No. 31,
tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon, is important. It is about the
mid-term
target. I
take the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon about historic
greenhouse gas emissions. The firm policy of the United Kingdom is to
accept the responsibility that comes with that. I repeat that in this
important Public Bill Committee. We accept that we are one of the
countries with that historical moral responsibility. There is no
question about
that. I
also accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the progress of
developing countries in increasing their prosperity. It would not be
tenable politically, economically or morally to say that developing
countries cannot develop because we have discovered that greenhouse
gases are damaging. My argument is that, in the long term, developing
countries will increase prosperity through a low-carbon economy, which
is in our mutual interest. It follows that the amount of overseas
offsetting of carbon emissions must take into account not only the
benefits that accrue to our country, but the benefits that can accrue
to developing countries. However, we will come to that debate on other
clauses and
amendments. The
right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal placed me in a difficult
position. He has enormous experience. When I saw his name on the
Committee, I admit that I worried. Not only does the right hon.
Gentleman have great experience—he had more experience in
Cabinet than virtually anyone else—but he is an
environmentalist. Therefore, the charge he makes against the Government
has to be taken very seriously indeed. He said that we cannot adopt an
“After you, Claude” policy, and he is right—we
cannot do that.
Of course, we
are ahead of other countries, and the Bill, particularly clause 2,
underlines that. Basing our target for a reduction in carbon emissions
on the premise of a 2o increase and making that obligatory
on the Secretary of State—which means the
Government—further enhances the policy in legislation and means
that we are not in an “After you, Claude”
situation. I
do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point that not
accepting clause 1 puts me into that category. I can see that,
presentationally, it will do so, and I have to find an answer to that,
but I hope he accepts that the United Kingdom is not in an
“After you, Claude”
scenario. Mr.
John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): I totally accept
that the Minister and the Government have produced a Bill that is
designed to put us ahead of other countries, not behind them. There is
no question about that. However, there is a difficulty if we start by
removing from the Bill something that people see as adding to it, even
though the Minister explained that there are those who believe that it
involves a legal obligation. I still find that difficult to accept. I
do not believe it to be the case, but that is the advice that he was
given. I am not a lawyer and I do not want to be
one. The
Minister said that there is nothing of substance in the clause to which
the Government do not accede. What is wrong is the legality of the way
it is expressed.
In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable to ask him for an
undertaking that he will genuinely—I know that he will do it
genuinely—look at whether there is a way of putting into the
Bill, in some other form, somewhere, something that does what we all
want done, without causing difficulty? We genuinely do not want
disagreements between us on legal matters. Lawyers are the curse of the
intellectual classes, and we should not allow them to destroy the
proposal.
Mr.
Woolas: I hope that Labour Members support my
saying that the right hon. Gentleman has just shown that his motive is
not party political—I am grateful to
him. Before
I go through the answers to the questions, with your permission,
Mr. Cook, I would like to enter a cul-de-sac and read out
the advice that I was given on a preamble, because it is worth
reading: “Preambles
are a rarity in modern Acts of Parliament. We are not aware of any for
many decades, although they were more common back in the 19th Century.
I understand the desire of politicians to make clear statements of
principle, but I must remind the Committee that Bills are about making
laws”. That
is good advice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has seen it
before—he will have seen it during his 17 years in
ministerial office—but I am teasing him. Let me return to the
argument. I
emphasise that European Union policy, to which the UK is a signatory,
does not put clause 1 into European law, although it is well known
around the world that the EU is the strongest advocate of the 2°
increase. It does not put it into law for the same reason that I have
advocated that we should not put it into law. That does not deny the
objective of capping at 2°, but it does deny that clause 1 is
the best way to do
it. Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): Is not the underlying
problem that the European Union objective of 2°, strongly stated
by all leaders, has been around since 1996? I believe that that was
when it was first adopted. The problem is that we are not making any
progress towards it, yet each year it costs us a great deal. Is not the
underlying problem the lack of political accountability for the goal?
It is easy to talk about it, but there is no accountability on
delivering
it. 4.15
pm
Mr.
Woolas: I do not accept that point entirely. The EU is
well placed internationally, because a number of EU countries,
including the UK, are on course to meet the Kyoto targets. Indeed, it
is interesting that in the international debate the objection to
2° C is sometimes that some European countries are on course to
do better in their contribution. The EU policy is a 20 per cent.
reduction in the medium term. A 30 per cent. reduction is on offer to
the international community, if we can achieve an international
agreement premised on 50 per cent. by 2050, which is the 2° C
target we are talking about. As one of the few countries within the
EU—bearing in mind that we have one of the biggest economies and
are therefore one of the biggest emitters—the UK is committed to
the point that hon. Members from both sides have urged the Government
to put in the
Bill. The
right hon. Gentleman has teased me about resisting “better
not” advice. He is right, and I am a signatory to
that policy. However, the statutory obligation that clause 2
puts upon the Secretary of State, the Government and future Governments
meets his point. My problem with clause 1 is not the principle, the
goal or the 2° C target, to which we in the international
community are wedded night and day, but that it could jeopardise what
the Committee seeks to
do. I
congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the London Eye, a comment
which is, of course, within our remit because the south bank is part of
the defence against floods, and is therefore part of adaptation to
climate change. I understand that it is also British Airways’
only profitable cost
centre.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 25 June 2008 |