Mr.
Weir: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the reference to the
carbon budgets in the final impact assessment, where it specifically
mentions rising oil and gas prices as a way that the Government can
lengthen the time frame for meeting the reduction target, whether it is
60 per cent. or 80 per
cent.?
Mr.
Chaytor: The short answer is no, because I have not yet
looked at the final impact assessment, but the hon. Gentleman makes a
very important point. The argument here is the same one that has
previously been
deployed against the diminishing group of professional climate change
deniers. Even if one does not accept the science of climate change,
which a majority of the world’s scientists do accept, it
makes good sense to increase our fuel efficiency in order to conserve
what everybody understands is a finite
resource.
Even though
the Government may have difficulty at this stage in accepting the
figure of at least 80 per cent., and even though I know that they
genuinely want to see the report of the Climate Change Committee, it
makes good sense to adopt the most stringent targets for 2050 now,
because nobody believes we are going to go back to the era of cheap
oil. That fact is going to drive change of a sort that we have not seen
for 150 years, since the beginning of the oil era and the end of the
age of steam. The sooner the Government, the Opposition and we as a
society start to understand and adjust to that, the less painful the
transition will be. It makes good sense to adopt a higher target now
for 2050 and, of course, for 2020—though that will be debated
later—in order to preserve and conserve our finite supplies of
fossil
fuels. The
Minister’s defence is that the figure should be determined by an
outside expert body, rather than plucked out of the air. I hope that he
does not think I am plucking it out of the air, but that I have
demonstrated that it is a conclusion drawn from the latest science. I
would be completely persuaded by his defence—I see the value of
that point of view—but it is slightly undermined by the fact
that there is already a figure in the Bill. If the argument that we
have to delegate the decision to an external body of experts is sound,
there should be no figure in the Bill. If there is to be a figure in
the Bill, it has to be based on the latest scientific
evidence.
Gregory
Barker: I pay tribute to the very knowledgeable speech
made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, with whom I had the pleasure
of serving for some years on the Environmental Audit Committee. I know
he is a great expert on these issues. I find no fault with any of his
analysis of the problem, nor do I doubt for a moment his sincerity in
wanting to tackle it urgently. I share his ambition to get on and start
doing, rather than just talking and providing a framework. However, I
find that the tables have been turned rather strangely.
In the last
debate, his colleagues did not argue against the principal objective of
clause 1, but said instead that it was not consistent with the rest of
the Bill. I am afraid that, in this case, that is my view and the view
of the official Opposition, and I suspect it is also the view of the
Government. We do not disagree with any of the hon. Gentleman’s
analysis, but we believe it is not consistent with the spirit of the
Bill, which, most importantly, establishes the independent Climate
Change
Committee.
Tony
Baldry: There is one very important difference between the
view of the official Opposition and the one espoused by the Minister in
the Chamber on Second Reading. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member
for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) will give me an undertaking
that when in due course he becomes Secretary of State for the
Environment, the Conservative Government will implement, and not
ignore, the report of the Climate Change
Committee.
5.15
pm
Gregory
Barker: My hon. Friend has made an important distinction.
We attach the highest importance to the full implementation of the
Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. We have always
stated our belief in the primacy of science over politics in the
debate.
Mr.
Gummer: Will my hon. Friend not go even further than that?
Surely the key feature of the Bill is that Governments will have to
carry out the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. That is
the point of its independence. We would be happy for the Climate Change
Committee to make recommendations to the Government and for the
Government to accept them, rather than beginning a
debate.
Gregory
Barker: Indeed. The only thing that stands between
the Climate Change Committee and its conclusions becoming law is the
democratic seal of approval of its conclusions through the
parliamentary process. As my right hon. Friend says, the intention is
not to start a debate, to consider, to ruminate upon, to deliberate or
to take other soundings. That is certainly not the intention or the
modus operandi of the next Conservative
Government. That
is why we have consistently argued for a strong, independent committee
on Climate Change, which is empowered to make recommendations on the
basis of science, not politics. That is why we successfully argued in
the House of Lords for the independent committee to have the power to
review the 2050 commitment, and report to the Secretary of State in
advance when the first five-year carbon budget is set. That is why the
official Opposition in this place have tabled further amendments to
enhance Government accountability and transparency in their dealings
with and heeding of the independent Committee.
Like my right
hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I was disappointed to read
at the weekend of the Ipsos MORI opinion poll in The
Observer, which showed that there was considerable public
reservation in the UK about taking action on climate
change.
Steve
Webb: I am trying to follow the logic of the hon.
Gentleman’s position. I understand the argument that the Bill
should not contain a target. Through the Bill, we create a committee,
the committee advises and politicians decide. But why have a target in
the Bill at all? If we are to have one, why not have the right
target?
Gregory
Barker: I shall come to that, if the hon. Gentleman will
allow me. We should recognise that there is still widespread scepticism
about the causes of climate change, and there is still a big education
job to be done. One of the reasons for the reluctance shown in the
opinion poll was the considerable public cynicism about the Government
using the veneer of green objectives to impose further regulation or,
particularly, further taxation. There is a good deal of public
scepticism out there about the imposition of green taxes. We must be
clear when we make the
case. In
order to win back that trust, and to ask the British people to join
together to meet the challenge of climate change, we must make it clear
that we are being led not by the demands of some political lines in the
sand, but
by the demands of science. If we are to raise our 2050 reduction target
from 60 to 80 per cent., we must be sure that we are taking people with
us. There is a broad consensus around the 60 per cent. figure. I do not
doubt for a moment that we will need to move much higher, and 80 per
cent. is probably the right figure, but we cannot take it for granted
that everyone will fall in behind us. When that
figure is raised to 80 per cent., we must be able to say that we are
not underestimating the challenges and difficulties that that may
impose. As alive as we are to the opportunities that a low-carbon
economy will bring, we must be able to turn to the country at large and
say why it is being called upon to make that additional effort. It is
not because the Prime Minister wants to look greener than my right hon.
Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), or vice versa,
or because we are trying to outdo the Lib Dems. It is because the
clear, independent, scientific and expert opinion is for 80 per
cent.—although I do not know why 80 per cent. should be such a
magical number, rather than 79, 81, 85 or 90 per cent. It is because
the scientific committee has come out with a clear recommendation that
that is what we must do in our struggle to contain dangerous climate
change. Public cynicism is our greatest
enemy. Mr.
Weir: The hon. Gentleman said that in a future
Conservative Administration, a Minister would accept a figure given by
an independent committee. Would he also, therefore, do away with the
power to amend the figure in clause
3?
Gregory
Barker: No. I can hear my right hon. Friend the Member for
Suffolk, Coastal, who has experience in Government. That power needs to
be held in reserve. However, I can give the clear assurance that the
next Conservative Government have a huge ambition to lead the country
into a low-carbon economy and make the fight against global climate
change a No. 1
priority.
Mr.
Gummer: Surely my hon. Friend would agree that we need a
mechanism in the Bill for the Government to accept the recommendation
of the Climate Change Committee and to enact it. That is why the power
is there. Without that, the Government could say, “Of course we
will”, but they would have no mechanism for doing that. There
ought to be no argument over
that.
Gregory
Barker: I am grateful for that first-rate
clarification. In
preparation for today’s discussion, I thought that it would be
insightful to see how many climate scientists sit on the committee. To
the best of my knowledge, there are none. I, for example, am not a
climate scientist. I have a degree in history and politics. The
Minister, able as he is, has a degree in philosophy, and the hon.
Member for Northavon, I believe, read politics, philosophy and
economics—[Interruption.] The
Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the
hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford has a science qualification. Later
in the debate, our treat will no doubt be to hear what that
is. The
serious point is that we politicians should not be the ones to decide
on the 2050 target, having gone to such lengths to set up the
groundbreaking, unprecedented
and globally authoritative body that is the Climate Change Committee. It
will include such international luminaries and authorities on climate
change as Sir Brian Hoskins, from the Grantham institute at
Imperial college, and Professor Lord Robert May, from Oxford
university. Having brought together such a distinguished collection of
experts, it is crucial that we respect their opinion. Our first act
under the Bill ought not to undermine the very reason for which they
were brought together or prejudge their most
important decision. I therefore do not support the amendment,
although I understand the motivation, impatience and ambition
of the hon. Member for Northavon in tabling
it. I
conclude by addressing some remarks to the Minister. Can he assure us
that the Government will not ride roughshod over the evidence of the
expert panel? On Second Reading there were those of us who detected a
glimmer of hedging—just a
hint.
Tony
Baldry: That was not a glimmer. The Minister spoke in
plain terms. Would the Minister give an undertaking to accept the
recommendations of the Climate Change Committee? In turn, the Minister
said no. That is not a glimmer. That is a huge
spotlight.
Gregory
Barker: My hon. Friend is spot on. I was trying to be
consensual and not too partisan—most out of character for
me—but he is right. That leads to obvious concerns. I can assure
him that a future Conservative Administration would have no such
reluctance or hesitation. That will reassure many people about the
future. This
is not an ephemeral issue of the day. Politicians should not trump the
primacy of science. There is an overarching necessity to respect it
over politics. If we do not listen to the experts, if we undermine them
before their first sitting, if we prejudge what they will say, if we
inform them that we know better than they do, we
will—
David
Maclean: I am sorry for interrupting my hon.
Friend’s peroration. One can easily find sceptics who will
debate the exact rise in global temperature, and people who will argue
for years about what it may reach by 2050, but we know for certain,
almost to the hectare, the millions of acres of world forests that are
being destroyed and lost, never to be recovered. We know exactly the
amount of diversity that is being lost, all of which has an immediate
impact on climate change and world health. The World Health
Organisation makes that clear. So, yes, the sceptics and scientists may
argue, but there is already a huge body of
fact.
Gregory
Barker: That is a sound point, but it does not detract
from my party’s essential tenet. We believe that the Climate
Change Committee is an important innovation—it is, perhaps, the
most important tangible part of the Bill—and that all support
should be given to it. Therefore, we urge the Government to allow it to
produce its preliminary recommendation as soon as possible. I have no
doubt that it will advise a significant raising of the target, but we
believe that the target would have more impact, importance and
authority if it were set by that committee rather than by politicians
in this Committee.
Mr.
Chaytor: As the hon. Gentleman went on with his remarks, I
became more and more concerned. He is trying to argue against the
formulation of “at least 80%” by saying that it would be
based on a political judgment, not on scientific evidence. My argument
is that it is based on the latest evidence from the most authoritative
international body of climate scientists. Why does he not accept it? Is
it simply that he prefers a British committee to an international one?
That is rather like the point earlier that the guillotine is not
particularly British. A guillotine is a guillotine, regardless of the
nation in which it is used. Why does the hon. Gentleman not accept the
clear, overwhelming, substantial consensus that the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change expressed in its latest report, which was its
fourth assessment
report?
Gregory
Barker: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns,
but, having brought the new committee into being, having invested it
with such authority and having asked it to make important decisions, we
should, on this most important of decisions, defer to it. That would
involve only a matter of months and would not materially affect our
ability to hit the long-term 2050 target. Allowing the committee to
make the judgment call on what the target should be would, I hope, have
a significant effect on public opinion and the authority and
credibility of the target—far more so, I am afraid, than if the
decision is made simply by politicians, on whatever basis we make our
judgment. I
do not doubt the science that informs the hon. Gentleman’s
argument. All I am saying is that to win the support of the public,
whose good will we must win if we are to be successful in the battle
against climate change, it is vital that the higher target, which will
be stretching and incredibly ambitious, enjoys the utmost authority. We
would invest it with greater authority if we were to allow the experts,
not politicians in this Room, to come forward in the next few months
with a
recommendation. 5.30
pm Joan
Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): It is a great
pleasure to serve on this Committee, to have the opportunity to
influence what will be Government policy for many years to come, and to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I am sure that you
will keep us in order and ensure that we make the best possible
contribution to the Bill today. I am grateful for the opportunity to
speak in favour of amendment No. 2 in a probing way. It was moved by my
hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who has served for many years
on the Environmental Audit Committee, as has the hon. Member for
Bexhill and
Battle. I
shall speak briefly, because it is important to give the Minister the
best possible ammunition so that when he is dealing with civil
servants, Governments and his Cabinet colleagues, he knows the strength
of feeling among my hon. Friends who have signed the amendment tabled
by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths),
who spoke in the Chamber
earlier. It
is most important to get this right. The hon. Member for Bexhill and
Battle said that it is important to leave the matter to the Committee
on Climate Change
and scientific evidence. My perspective is that our starting point
should be the scientific evidence, which initially led to 60 per cent.
and then to “at least” 60 per cent. as being so
importantly the starting point for this Bill, and being put in the
Bill. If
the Bill, when it has completed all its stages, is to be up to date
with the latest science, it will not be about leaving it to the
scientists, but about the marriage of politics and science, and
ensuring that we have informed legislation that is fit for purpose and
that will stand the test of time. We all know that time is running out
for dealing with the matter, so it is all the more urgent to get the
starting point
right. It
seems to me that 60 per cent., or “at least” 60 per
cent., is not enough. There may be worries that if we do not go further
we will send the wrong message and dilute the Government’s
credibility, which they deserve for having introduced such an
innovative Bill. I wonder whether some of the opposition from the hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle, who speaks for the Conservative party,
is on account of not wanting the Labour Government to have the credit
for introducing the best possible Bill. He said that we should leave it
to the scientists, but we already have that
here.
| 
