Gregory
Barker: I welcome what the Minister is saying, if that is
an olive branch that he is holding out. That is a very sensible way
forward. I am mindful of the precedents for a purpose clause in the
Legal Aid Act 1988 and the Family Law Act 1996. Even though I have not
been in Parliament for nearly as long as other Committee members, I
have enough experience in Committee to know that blandishments offered
in the spirit of consensus somehow melt like spring snow by the time we
get to Report or Third Reading. I press the Minister to be more
specific on how he anticipates solving the problem, which we have been
wrestling with all
day.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman has asked a fair question. I
reject the implication that Ministers make statements in Public Bill
Committee that are not followed through—it may be that the
Opposition fail to push such issues in the future months and
years—and I am not aware that I have ever done that. In any
event, the Third Reading and Report stages of this Bill will be
scrutinised, I suspect, over and above other Bills passed in this
place. The
advice that I have received states that there are potential problems in
incorporating 2° C in the long title, but it is one suggestion
that I am going to take away and look at. Another suggestion is that we
have a preamble. I have to tell the Committee that David Renton MP
looked at the question of preambles in his influential report on
legislation in 1975, so I am not coming up with this off the top of my
head and there are precedents. The bottom line is that as much as
politicians like to put manifesto commitments and so on in Bills, we
make law in Committee. Although I do not rule out the first two
suggestions, other suggestions have been made. It is clearly in the
interest of the Bill that we find a way of stating clearly that a limit
at 2° C is our objective. I just remind the Committee that not
everybody in the world is content with that and that there are those
who say that that goes too
far.
Gregory
Barker: The Minister has mentioned the preamble and the
long title, but he has made no reference to the precedent of a purpose
clause, as I mentioned with reference to the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the
Family Law Act 1996. Is he therefore ruling out the possibility of
returning with a reworded, reworked purpose
clause?
Mr.
Woolas: There are always such arguments in Standing
Committee. I remember the then Member for Kensington and Chelsea,
Michael Portillo, a former Transport Minister with many years’
experience, being appointed to the Transport Bill Committee and
pointing out, rather like the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal
did, that where civil servants say “better not”, one
should be brave and stand up to it. The important point is that the
preamble to a Bill must not diminish its legislative
coherence.
Mr.
Woolas: I am going to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, so he
does not need to intervene. If I can find a way of meeting the
objective without damaging the coherence of the Bill in its legal
terms, of course I will do
so.
Martin
Horwood: Given that his argument is that it is impossible
in British legislation to have even the aim of contributing to
objectives that are influenced by events outside this country, may I
refer him, using my trusty computer—a welcome innovation, in my
view—to the International Development Act 2002, which includes
statutory duties in part 1, section 9 to carry out agreements
for
“improving the
welfare of the population of”
countries outside the
UK.
Mr.
Woolas: I am beginning to wonder why we ever set up the
Modernisation Committee, because what has happened is what you warned
against, Mr
Cook.
Mr.
Woolas: I do not think the hon. Member for Cheltenham has
made a fair comparison—his example relates to what this country
does to influence another country. What I am arguing here is that it is
irresponsible to legislate on things over which one does not have
control.
I have given a
commitment to the Committee, and I must draw my remarks to a close.
Amendments Nos. 33, 43 and 44 would not add to the Bill, and I believe,
as my right hon. Friend Lord Rooker argued in the other place, that
they would create
problems.
Miss
McIntosh: I want to help the Minister, because I want us
to coalesce around a form of words and a way forward. The long title of
a Bill has legal status and is legally binding, although that is
possibly not the case with the preamble. Is he therefore minded to
change the long title rather than the
preamble?
Mr.
Woolas: A long title of a Bill is a descriptive title as
to what the Bill is. It is not there to set out the Bill’s
purpose, but I am happy to investigate whether we could do that. One
could argue that limiting global temperature increases to 2° is,
in common-sense terms, the purpose of the Bill. Common sense is not a
bad policy, so I shall continue to consider
that. The
arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North, for
Southampton, Test and for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North,
are very powerful, and none of us wants to do something that would
jeopardise the UK’s ability to implement the Bill. My advice is
that clause 1, even if it were amended—I accept the intention
behind the amendments—would do that, and I therefore urge the
Committee to reject
it. 4.45
pm
Gregory
Barker: I shall not detain the Committee long. We listened
carefully to the Minister and we do not accept that there cannot be a
principal aim or a purpose clause in the Bill. We think there is room
for that, but we are open-minded about working with the Government to
improve the clause further and ensure
that it complies with the best legal advice. If there is another way in
which the intention in the principal aim can be incorporated, in a
preamble or otherwise, we shall consider it constructively. We
therefore do not intend to obstruct the Minister.
We shall work
constructively with the Government, but we will hold them to their
word. They must return with a workable solution that does not water
down the intention behind the principal aim. If they cannot, we shall
bring forward our own solution on Report. I hope that we will be able
to work with the Minister to achieve broad
consensus.
Steve
Webb: All that talk about bears has been slightly
polarising, so I shall try to identify common ground.
[Interruption.] Perhaps I should stop there. I think I have lost
them. On
a serious note, there is far more agreement in the Committee than one
might have imagined from listening to the debate for the past three or
four hours. In logical sequence, we accept that there is scientific
evidence that there is a global figure for emissions consistent with a
2° change; we accept that the UK needs to play its part; and we
accept, as the Minister has confirmed that the Government accept, that
the UK’s part needs to be more than the global average because
of our history, as amendment No. 32 states, and because of the desire
for other economies to grow. The debate is therefore about whether the
clause helps to establish how we can move from a global to a national
figure. The
debate has been constructive. I shall not go through the contributions,
but we have benefited hugely from those of two former senior Ministers.
I have not heard the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood speak on the
subject before, but he made a well informed and well considered
contribution. The hon. Members for Bury, North, and for Southampton,
Test, raised the matter of whether there is a better way to meet our
goal than is provided for in the clause. We appreciate the
Minister’s willingness to consider that, whether through the
long title of the Bill or another
mechanism. We
would like to keep the clause, in case the Minister makes a lot of
promises and, shall we say, does not have time to fulfil all of them.
However, if there is a better way to achieve what is largely a common
goal, we will be happy to work with him to that end. We shall not
divide the Committee on the amendments, but we will do so on clause
stand part. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
11.
Division
No.
1]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 1
disagreed
to.
Clause
2The
target for
2050 Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): I beg to move amendment
No. 2, in
clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave
out ‘60%’ and insert ‘80%’.
The amendment
is straightforward and short, but that does not necessarily mean that
the debate will be short. I thought it was the shortest amendment on
the amendment paper, until I discovered that amendment No. 52 to clause
16
reads: “leave
out ‘1%’ and insert
‘0.5%’.” That
amendment is one digit shorter.
The
Chairman: We must concentrate on amendment No.
2.
Mr.
Chaytor: Of course. The history of the
amendment—the debate about 60 per cent. and 80 per
cent.—has been well rehearsed. It has been well argued in the
Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, and I imagine
that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has also debated
the matter at length. It was debated at enormous length in the Joint
Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill this time last year, and of
course, it was given consideration in another place, so we do not need
to go over the arguments in great detail. It is also not necessary to
reinforce the urgent need for action and, in the context of the
amendment, more stringent action on climate change, because of the
damage that it is causing and is increasingly likely to cause. We are
all familiar with those effects and predictions.
It is
important, first, that as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the
Government’s decision and the Bill reflect the scientific
evidence, and secondly, that it has credibility. I shall come to the
different kinds of credibility, if necessary, in due course.
In the debate
on the previous clause, the Minister expressed concern that I would
undermine his arguments. I am delighted that he was relieved that I did
not. I want to reassure him that I do not intend to undermine his
arguments in defence of the wording in the Bill. I want to strengthen
the case that will underline some of his arguments and may get him to
reconsider them, if not today, then before the Bill comes back on
Report.
When the
Government first expressed their intention to establish a 2050 target,
it was framed in terms of 60 per cent.—the wording in
the Bill is “at least 60%”—owing to the landmark
2000 report by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. That
report concentrated the minds of many policy experts and the
Government, and helped to generate a wider debate on climate change.
The important thing is that the report based its judgment on the
scientific evidence presented in the second assessment report by the
intergovernmental panel on climate change, which was published in 1995.
We are now in 2008 and the scientific basis for the figure adopted by
the Government is therefore 13 years old. It is time that we reviewed
the state of the scientific
evidence. Two
years ago, the intergovernmental panel on climate change published its
fourth assessment report, in which it made it much clearer that the
evidence base had changed and that the likely reduction in emissions
needed to remain within the 2° had increased. To be precise, the
report stated clearly that if annexe 1 countries wish to keep to the
guideline carbon concentration of 400 ppm by volume, we need to aim for
cuts in the range of 25 to 40 per cent. by 2020, and 80 to 90 per cent.
by 2050. Even if we keep to those guidelines, there is no guarantee
that the temperature increase will remain below 2°. However,
they represent our best chance.
If the
scientific evidence undermines the Bill’s content, we need to
base our judgment on the fourth assessment report. The Government
recognised that to some extent by replacing their original formulation
of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050 with a reduction of “at
least” 60 per cent. That provides a certain flexibility, but of
course it could include 61, 62, or 60.003 per cent., and according to
the fourth report that would not be
enough. Tony
Baldry (Banbury) (Con): As I understand it, the
Government’s position is slightly broader than that.
Essentially, they are telling the Committee that the decision cannot be
taken by MPs, but by the Committee on Climate Change. On Second
Reading, the Minister was asked twice whether the Government would
accept and implement the Committee’s recommendations. I was
concerned, because on both occasions he replied no. Even if the
Committee comes up with a recommendation of 80 per cent. or more, we
have no guarantee that Ministers will accept it, unless we get a clear
undertaking. Surely that raises another issue of
credibility. 5
pm
Mr.
Chaytor: That is an important point, but the Bill provides
opportunities elsewhere to debate the role and significance of the
Committee on Climate Change’s advice. I know that that was
discussed in another place.
If
we are to have credibility, we must stick with the Government’s
position, which is that the final judgment on the 2050 target should be
based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. I need to say at this
stage—I think I said it on Second Reading, and perhaps this
morning, as well—that we have to avoid the assumption that the
science is precise. We have to avoid the danger of getting hung up on
an absolutely precise percentage, because the world is not like that;
the knowledge that we have is not yet sufficiently advanced and may
never be so. We are always going to be looking at figures within a
range. To set a minimum, when we know that the latest evidence clearly
indicates that we need to go significantly beyond that minimum, is the
very least we can do. I also do not accept that, if the Climate Change
Committee came up with a specific percentage or if a fifth assessment
report from the IPCC suggested another percentage of 82 per cent. or 85
per cent., that should be the only factor, because those figures are
not absolutely precise; it is not possible to predict what
circumstances will be in 2050.
Simply because
of the competing interests in any large, industrialised democracy, how
the issue can best be managed has to be a matter of political judgment.
In one sense, that answers the intervention from the hon. Member for
Banbury. It is important that the voice of those who are generating
wealth in our economy are listened to. It is important that consumers
are listened to and the impact on their standard of living and way of
life is reflected. It is crucial that the survival of the planet is at
the centre of our considerations. However, it is also important that we
listen carefully to those who have the skills and the knowledge to
develop the new low-carbon technologies that are going to get us out of
this deep
problem. There
has to be credibility. There has to be a balance of credibility within
those four different competing interest groups, but there also has to
be credibility at international level. Again, I shall try to reflect
the essence of the argument put by the Opposition on clause 1. If the
Government are going to retain international credibility, it would be a
contradiction if, having established such a lead internationally and
having been the first country in the world to introduce a Climate
Change Bill with binding targets, one of those key targets fell well
short of what was proposed by the latest scientific evidence. In order
to maintain credibility domestically, and internationally, it is
crucial that we stick with the
science. Of
course, it is not just the IPCC report; the United Nations Development
Programme has also been very clear that an 80 per cent. reduction by
2050 from annexe 1 countries is necessary. In addition, on 21 January
this year, the Government received a letter from the chairman of the
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and, I think, two former
chairmen. It may be as well for me to read it into the record again
just to reinforce its importance. The letter was addressed to party
leaders from the former chairman, the former chief executive of the Met
Office and the past president of the British Ecological Society and
former chairman of the RCEP. The letter said very clearly that
the “UK
Climate Change Bill targets are based on out-of-date science. In
tackling the global challenge of climate change, governments must
follow the latest science that clearly shows the need for the UK to
reduce its C02 emissions by at least 80 per cent. by 2050.
This will require much more substantial action by 2020 than the
Government is currently considering. The UK Climate Change Bill
proposes a reduction in C02 emissions of at least 60 per
cent. by 2050. This target is based on a report of the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) from 2000. Since this time,
developments in climate change science show that this target is
insufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change for people,
species and
habitats.” I
want to argue the case for an increase in the target at this stage from
at least 60 per cent. to at least 80 per cent. I also want to deal with
some of the objections that the Government have raised when this point
has been made previously.
It has been
said, rightly, that the target in 2050 is not necessarily the
determining factor in whether we avoid a rise in temperature of more
than 2° C. The interim targets for 2020 are equally if not more
important. The Minister said earlier that it would be possible
significantly to increase the stringency of the targets by 2020 and
suddenly to decrease the targets in 2050—highlighting the point
that 2050 was perhaps a little bit arbitrary. In theory that is so, but
in reality that would not happen.
We need two sets of targets—interim and longer term—and if
the interim target is sufficiently stringent, the technologies deployed
to achieve that target will continue to generate emissions reductions
as we move to 2050. I recognise that 2020 is crucial. In fact, the IPCC
fourth assessment report argued clearly that, in the advanced
countries, CO 2 emissions need to peak by 2015 and then start
on a downward trajectory, so there is no dispute about the urgency of
the situation. Of course, that message was reinforced by the Stern
report. The
Government have said that the at least 60 per cent. reductions formula
is not necessarily the definitive one, because the Climate Change
Committee is charged with the task of reviewing the existing science,
considering the first carbon budgets and reporting by 1 December. That
is true, but, returning to the question of credibility, it would seem
contradictory if the Bill completed its progress through the
House—perhaps not before the recess; it will probably come back
in October on Report and Third Reading—with a target of at least
60 per cent. and the Climate Change Committee published its review four
or six weeks later, suggesting a target of at least 70 per cent. or 75
per cent. It would be uniquely embarrassing if the target figure on
which the Bill was based were immediately made obsolete by the Climate
Change Committee’s report on 1
December. The
power to amend the targets cuts both ways. If the Climate Change
Committee came up with a higher figure, it would be easy to amend the
existing formula of at least 60 per cent., but if a formula of at least
80 per cent. was included in the Bill now and the Climate Change
Committee on recommended a 70 per cent. target, it would be possible to
amend the Bill downwards to mention 70 per cent. It is unlikely that
the powers proposed under the Bill as it stands would enable us to do
that. A
point of crucial significance has not yet received the debate it
deserves—not in the Joint Committee on the draft Climate Change
Bill last year, in the other place, or on Second Reading in this place.
Let me quote briefly from the Prime Minister’s statement to the
House yesterday, reporting from the European Council meeting in
Brussels over the weekend, in which he reminded us
that, “This
time last year the price of oil was about $65 a barrel. At the last
European Council in March it stood at $107. At the June Council, the
oil price had risen further still to more than $135 a
barrel.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2008; Vol. 478,
c. 23.] The
conclusion that we can draw from the relentless rise in the oil price
in the past 12 months is that that may achieve as much if not more than
any targets that any Government set, because the price of oil will
drive a fundamental change in our use of fossil fuels, our lifestyles
and our
technologies.
| 
