Mr.
Gummer: That last speech led me to be very worrying
indeed. If we are proposing that the targets we set should be affected
by our ability to meet them rather than by the danger posed to the
future of the world, we may as well pack up and go home. The target has
to be set on the basis of what we need to do if we are to protect the
climate for our children and grandchildren. There ought to be no
argument in the Committee as far as that is concerned. We can argue
about where to put the target and how to reach it, but the Committee
must be united on the basis that the target is unconnected with our
ability to deliver it, because it is forced on us by the effects of
climate change. To say otherwise would be like saying we will fight a
war when we know we have enough guns, but in the meantime, if we are
overrun, we cannot fight the
war.
Linda
Gilroy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the
opportunity to clarify my point. It was rooted in his earlier
observation that the credibility of politicians is low, while the
credibility of those on the Committee on Climate Change is much higher.
The people who need to be persuaded to take action will therefore be
much more likely to sign up to doing so if target setting can be
accompanied by a delivery
plan.
Mr.
Gummer: That is all right as long as the hon. Lady agrees
with me that the two things are separate and that we need to have an
accredited body give us the figure at which we have to aim
seriously—rather than aim with the thought that we might not get
there—and which would deliver our real purpose. We already have
such figures, and most of us think it will be something in the region
of 90 per cent., though it might be more than that. Our real purpose,
which we have had a long discussion about, and which we have agreed on,
is to keep the temperature rise below 2° C. We recognise that
the UK has to give more than its fair share, for all kinds of historic
and moral reasons. The question is how we deliver that target. I am
instinctively an enthusiast for getting down to it, pushing up the
number and telling people exactly what we are going to do. That is the
way I work.
I am very
concerned, however, about the nature of this committee. If the
Government had not done what they have done, I would have been wholly
happy with putting in a new target. But they have put us in a very
difficult position by saying that they think the committee ought to fix
the target, showing that they recognise that the target is likely to
require upward revision by putting these changes into the Bill, and
giving the committee as its first task the need to review the target in
the Bill.
The hon.
Member for Northavon said clearly that, even if we were to agree with
him, the Committee on Climate Change would still have to look at the
target figures, so I do not think that any argument about the committee
being very busy holds up. It will have to do that anyway. If I were
chairing a committee of that sort, the very first thing I would want to
do would be to review the terms under which we were working and see
that we were on all fours. Otherwise, we might find that we were
halfway through some serious discussion and discover fundamental flaws
in the understanding of this very eminent committee as to where it
started from and where it was aiming. I do not think we can avoid that
discussion, and as we are all agreed that it is going to take place, we
ought not to give the committee any more to
do.
6
pm The
problem for me is this: we know that the 60 per cent. figure is in the
Bill because all those years back, when the Bill was first read, that
was the most sensible figure to put in according to science. We could
have given no figure at all. The hon. Member for Northavon is right
about that. Most of us would have been unhappy with that, because it
would have introduced a degree of vagueness. I would not have liked it
much, but we could have done that. However, we did not.
The Bill has
been discussed throughout with the figure of 60 per cent. in it. As the
Minister said, it has gone through the full parliamentary procedure on
that basis, and here we are now. The question is how we think the
target should be revised in future, given that we all agree that
revision upwards is necessary. We now have provision for a committee,
which we did not two years ago when the Bill was first drafted. By some
sleight of hand—I do not know what, and I shall not criticise it
because I am very pleased about it—it appears that the chairman
has already been selected, even though we have not got the Bill through
yet. Nevertheless, that seems perfectly reasonable because we all agree
that we want
it. We
have the committee and it can get on with its job. As its first task,
it could produce a clear figure for the target. There would be great
advantages to that, and they were presented well by my hon. Friend the
Member for Bexhill and Battle. Now that we have a committee, it is
sensible for it to be the body that fixes the target. If we did not
have a committee, we would have to do something else. In the past,
because there was nobody else, politicians did their best. Now that we
have a committee, I am happy with the Government’s proposal for
it. I
am less happy—indeed, dismayed—that that there is not a
natural, full part of that proposal that states, “When the
committee that we have had the confidence to appoint decides what the
target ought to be, we, the Government, guarantee that we will
implement it.” That seems to me a clear distinction between the
position that I hold and the Minister’s position. I want him to
understand how serious the situation is. There are those who want to
put the 80 per cent. target in the Bill, and many of us would normally
be happy to do that. We are held back from feeling that way because the
Government have instituted what could be a perfectly proper procedure
that we would like to follow. This will be not be the only time when
the figures need to be revised. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton,
is right that we should have a system that people recognise as a proper
one for such revisions.
The hon.
Member for Angus pointed out the problem that, if the Government are to
be able to make changes as we go along, it is conceivable, although
unlikely, that they could make changes downwards, against the science.
The best protection against that—on this point I disagree
strongly with the hon. Member for Northavon—is to have a very
clear process whereby the Government ask the committee to set the
target and then agree to make the order for a target change to take
place.
Martin
Horwood: I am sympathetic to the argument that the right
hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced, is making. We have been
arguing that the setting of the
initial baseline target is not a simple scientific judgment but a moral
and political matter, especially in the light of our voting to remove
the broader 2° outcome target from the Bill. Surely it is vital
that an appropriate and fair initial percentage reduction target is set
by the Government, not the
committee.
Mr.
Gummer: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point
and I shall explain why, because there is an important distinction to
be made. We have a real problem in this country understanding and
supporting the battle against climate change. Those of us who believe
that this is the most important physical threat to
civilisation—I think that every Committee member does—are
clear that, once we have taken that view, we are bound to do something
about it, not just for scientific reasons and not even just for
personal reasons and to save our families, but for moral reasons. If
this threat exists, we have to do our bit to defend the future against
it. In
setting targets, we are giving people the best indication of the
scientific demand. The morality arises in respect of the need to take
the measures that are necessary to meet that best indication. In other
words, the figure has to be fixed on the best science that is
available, because we have to be able to tell the doubters, who are not
in any particular party. One of the most vociferous believers in what I
shall call, for the sake of shortness, the Lawsonian thesis, is a
Liberal Democrat.
Martin
Horwood: Give us his name and
address.
Mr.
Gummer: I will not name that person, because it would
embarrass both him and
me. The
figures will have much more power if they are clearly the result of the
scientific assessment of the situation. We are the people who will then
say, “If that is what the science says, we as politicians will
make it the political figure.” I hope that we, as moral
politicians, believe that we have a moral imperative to ensure that the
measures that will ensure that we meet those figures are passed and
carried through and acted on by business and individuals. If the figure
is to have the proper effect on the public as a whole, its
establishment must be regarded as untainted, if I may use a biased
word, either by politics or some moral order. The figures should be as
scientifically clear as possible, although we are dealing with a
complex
science.
Steve
Webb: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that
the Government should listen to and follow the expert committee, but he
said that we are afraid that they may not do so. In the event that they
do not listen, does he accept that the number in the Bill is our only
insurance policy? He said himself that the number should be based on
the latest
science.
Mr.
Gummer: I am trying hard to create the best circumstances
to ensure the success of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman tempts me to
become cynical, but I will not be cynical because I have been impressed
by the fact that the Government have moved further than I thought they
would on a number of issues, although there are many things on which
they have not done enough. I shall not talk about hydrofluorocarbons
and a range of other things that I could list, because I know that
almost every Labour Committee member agrees that those things should
have been done. We draw a line under that. However, we accept that a
range of things have been done, including this
Bill. The
Committee has a duty to try to make this as good a Bill as possible and
to enable the Government to give as much as they can to it. I have done
the job that the Minister is doing, in effect, and I know that it is
not always easy to win even one’s immediate friends over on some
of the essential issues. I accept the Minister’s argument, which
is that the Government have already shown that they have tailored the
Bill to use the committee to proper extent and that they are asking it
to set a new target and to indicate that a new target is likely to be
necessary. The one thing that remains is an assurance that, when that
is done, the Government will accept that
target.
Mr.
Chaytor: Is not the difficulty with the right hon.
Gentleman’s argument simply that he puts enormous emphasis on
the importance of following the most expert scientific advice but that
the most expert scientific advice actually comes from the IPCC? The
Committee on Climate Change is not made up entirely of scientists. In
fact, as his colleague pointed out, the chairman is a part-time
chairman who was previously a director of the Confederation of British
Industry. The committee is made up of some scientists, some economists
and others with whose specialisms I am unfamiliar. If he really
believes that the target must be based on the best available science,
it must be based on the advice of the IPCC. It really is not good
enough to say that because it is an international committee of experts,
it is somehow less important than a British committee of people who are
not entirely experts on climate
science.
Mr.
Gummer: I will not go too far down that road, but it seems
that what we have is an argument about the nature of the committee. As
I understand it, we have set up a committee that has a strong
scientific membership, a strong economic membership and a strong
membership who can look at such things in the round. Some of the things
that it will be asked to do will not primarily involve science but the
interpretation of science within the economic sphere, so the committee
has to have a balance of people. When the committee comes to make
decisions on the science, it will, of course, draw properly and
entirely on the best available science. The fact that Lord May is one
of the members makes that absolutely clear. It will then make its
considered
judgment. It
will be difficult for the public to argue in any sense that the
judgment is a political one. It will be difficult to make the argument
that some newspapers will try to run that it is a decision of the
Government, or of enthusiasts. It will be seen as being as good a
statement of the science as can be made, not just by scientists but by
those who are looking at the science from an economist’s point
of view. That is actually rather important, because some people
attacked the IPCC for saying that the science was very good but the
economists were very bad. That is one reason why Nick Stern was asked
to do the job. He upset the sceptics because they thought that he would
say the opposite of what he said. As a result, what he said was
stronger. The
Government proceeded in a sensible way but I seriously say to the
Minister that they have now put themselves in a difficult position.
Having presented a
sensible proposal that commended itself to the only other party likely
to form a Government—let me put this most delicately—and
gaining the agreement of all parties likely to form a Government, they
have now suggested that there is a possibility that the
committee’s decision would not be
accepted. I
find it difficult to believe in that possibility. Imagine this: the
Government ask the official committee, which they set up, to produce
something, and then they say, “We are frightfully sorry, but we
will not accept it.” Do the Government really think that that is
a political possibility? It is a further step down the slippery slide
that they have been going down. I cannot believe that they really mean
to suggest that they want to hold in reserve the ability to say to the
Committee on Climate Change, “We asked you to give us a target.
We have accepted that the target in the Bill is wrong, but we will not
accept your target.” That appears to be what the Minister
said. For
me, the key issue is that that approach has put the Opposition, and, I
believe, Labour Members, in a difficult position. There are Labour
Members who would be perfectly prepared to go along with this
arrangement—many would have some sympathy with what I have
advanced as the philosophical basis for what is being done. They are
going to have to come to terms with the Minister explaining to them
that, despite all that, the Minister will still retain the choice. That
would not even be a theoretical choice. He has not said, “We
cannot conceive of occasions in which we would not.” Such a
phrase is possible, but he has not said that. He said no. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Banbury said, that was not a glimmer, but a
spotlight—no. 6.15
pm As
much as I am pleased that the Minister’s reply was not a
wriggle—he does not wriggle and said he cannot, which fascinates
me physiologically—I must say that he now has an untenable
position. I do not think it possible to say to the Committee, “I
want the independent committee to make that judgment, because it is
better made there than by politicians. I have asked it to do that, and
I have amended the Bill so that its making that judgment would be a
natural consequence of adding ‘not less than’,
but I am not necessarily going to accept
it.”
Martin
Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for
Labour members of the Committee feeling uncomfortable with the scenario
that he has described, but a lot of Labour Members do not support that
scenario. They say that we should have a tougher target of 80 per cent.
in the Bill Surely the Members who are in a difficult position are
those in the Conservative party who are tempting Liberal Democrats and
others to say that the Labour Government are being rescued by the
Conservative
party.
Mr.
Gummer: No. Being frank with the hon. Gentleman, I am keen
to make sure that our commitments are clear, because we will have to
carry them through. To be blunt, it is all right for the hon.
Gentleman, because he will not have to carry them through, but we will.
We are committed to carry through what the Climate Change Committee
asks of us, and we have made that absolutely clear. Therefore, it is of
considerable importance that we put the Government in the same
position. It does
not matter, frankly, what the Liberal Democrats or other people think
about it. What matters is whether the succession of Governments commit
themselves to do what the body that they have set up asks, or are we
going to treat it as a kind of advisory council? If the Government mean
that the committee is not the one that we all fought for, that goes way
beyond the goal of 80 per cent. and to the very heart of the Bill. That
is the real issue for all of
us. If
the Climate Change Committee is merely an advisory committee with no
other strengths, the Bill is not the one that I fought for, that
Friends of the Earth drew up and that the Conservative, Liberal
Democrat and other parties stood behind. The Minister is putting
forward a solution that ought to be a joint solution—a solution
of the consensus. Frankly, if he were to say that the Government agree
to implement the committee’s decision at once, some of his hon.
Friends would not be too unhappy, even though they would like to change
the wording in the Bill, and the Minister would find that any revolt
would at least be reduced. However, if he repeats that he is not
prepared to implement a committee decision, it seems to me that it is
extremely difficult—not for the Conservative party, the Liberal
Democrats or the Labour party, but for the Bill—because that
would mean that the committee we believe in would not be the committee
that the Government think that they are setting
up. I
know that the Minister thinks that we are buttering him up in the hope
that we will get a bit more out of him, but that is not the case. He
has shown himself to be one of the good Ministers. When people ask who
the good Ministers in government are, we put his name on the list. I
know that that is embarrassing for him, and it will probably stop any
possible promotion, but there is no doubt that that is what we say. We
say it because he has always been as good as his word. That is what
worries me, because his word in this case is pretty frightening. I am
not keen on this at all. It seems to me that he has given us reason to
doubt something that is much more fundamental than the 70, 80 or 90 per
cent. What we are doubting here is that the Government have the same
view of the Committee on Climate Change as the rest of us. We therefore
need a reply from the Minister not only to this debate, but to that
deep concern.
Even those
Labour Members who want to vote with the Minister—the case was
beautifully presented by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, who is
just returning to her place—will ask themselves, “What
has happened to the Climate Change Committee?” When the hon.
Lady talks to all those students, they will say, “This
Government are not going to listen to the Climate Change
Committee.”
The Government
have now said that the committee is merely advisory. If that is the
case, the members of the committee will wonder why they are members.
Why do we have such a good committee? Like us, its members thought that
the committee was going to be, in a real sense, the setter of the
course for this country to give a lead in the world on how to deal with
climate change. That does not mean to say that the Government would
have to sign up to every jot and tittle, but they would
have to sign up to the target. If the committee cannot even set the
target, what is the Bill
about? The
Opposition parties, along with Friends of the Earth and others, agreed
that we needed to set a target when we compiled the “Quality of
Life” report, which I had the honour to chair—my hon.
Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood was a member of the central
committee, if that is not too socialist a phrase. We saw the target as
the driving force in our battle against climate change.
I came to this
Committee believing that the Government had the right answer. I was
willing to support the Government, because I believed that they were
offering us the right way forward. I hoped that this Committee would
provide another example of the consensus that I am trying to build.
However, I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has
caused the trouble. His accurate memory of what the Minister said means
that the Minister has either got to change what he said and
re-establish our belief in his belief in the primacy of the Committee
on Climate Change, or we will have to consider very carefully not only
this part of the Bill but every other part. Unless the Government are
bound into the consensus that caused the Bill to be created, we are in
a really difficult
position. Anne
Snelgrove (South Swindon) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve
under you again, Mr. Cook. I apologise to the rest of the
Committee for not being able to be present for the whole of the
sitting, because I had an unavoidable constituency commitment. I have
signed the amendment, and I believe that the solution to the
difficulties described by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal is
in amending the Bill to make the target 80 per cent. rather than 60 per
cent. The
right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Ipsos MORI poll in The
Observer at the weekend, which apparently showed that a large
number of people are sceptical about climate change. I have looked up
the results of the poll, which asked people to agree or disagree with
the statement that many scientific experts still question whether
humans contribute to climate change. Six out of 10 people who were
asked that question agreed with the statement. Rather confusingly,
however, later in the poll three quarters of people who were asked
professed to being concerned about climate change, and we can take
comfort from that finding. I must also say, Mr. Cook, that I
am grateful to my portable computer for that
information. As
I have said, I take comfort from that finding, and I also take comfort
from the fact that the 80 per cent. coalition includes not only
well-respected NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF,
but the women’s institute and indeed Eurostar, from which I
received a briefing. The combined membership and influence of the vast
number of NGOs that have come together in that coalition will help to
drive understanding in this country on the importance of climate
change. I believe that there has been a sea change since the election
of 2005, which has put the environment and climate change right at the
top of our agenda. That is another reason why, as a Government, we must
show our understanding and commitment to upping the climate target to
80 per cent., because the people and groups in that coalition will be
looking to us for a very strong signal that we take this issue
seriously.
A number of
Committee members have discussed the basis for the 60 per cent. figure,
which is a 2000 report from the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution. That report is already eight years old, and it was based on
IPCC evidence from 1995, which has been updated twice since then. It is
13 years since the scientific evidence was published, and we know that
the scientific data and our understanding of them have vastly improved
since then. Rightly, the Government have said that the 60 per cent., 80
per cent. or whatever target must be based on good science, but I
wonder whether basing a target on evidence from 13 years ago is good
science. We need to re-examine that issue. If we are going to put our
faith in the Climate Change Committee, which I thoroughly support, we
should set it stiff targets, because the scientific evidence
exists. So,
the upper limit must be changed. I do not want to speak too long on
this issue, Mr. Cook, because many Opposition Committee
members have been waiting patiently to speak, and I have jumped in
ahead of them. I believe that the science is there, and our
constituents up and down the country, as well as the NGOs, expect us,
as a Government, to back the higher target. Also, 82 hon. Members, many
of whom are Labour colleagues, have signed the amendment, and more than
400 hon. Members signed a previous amendment and early-day motions. The
will in this House is there to make the target stiffer. Like Opposition
Members, I know that this is a good Minister who listens and takes
action. I hope that he will listen to the arguments about upping the
climate change target to 80 per cent. and take appropriate
action.
|
