 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Climate Change |
Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Sara
Howe, Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 26 June 2008(Morning)[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Climate Change Bill [Lords]Clause 2The
target for
2050 Amendment
proposed [24 June 2008]: No. 2, in
clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave
out ‘60%’ and insert
‘80%’.—[Mr.
Chaytor.] 9
am Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made. Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): On behalf of the
Committee, may I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson? You
join a lively debate on what we might call the 80/60 issue. Personally,
I regret the way in which this issue has been allowed to become totemic
in relation to the Bill, because in my view the most important target,
and the political prize at the moment, is the 2020 target—the
interim target.
If we are
serious about meeting the 2° C threshold, my understanding of
the science tells me that it is critical that we stabilise
concentrations of greenhouse gases at around 450 parts per million.
Given that we are at 380 ppm and rising at 2 ppm every year, it seems
to me that we face an enormous challenge. The only way in which we can
achieve that target is through some form of peak and decline framework.
On the science that I have seen, we need global emissions to peak in a
framework of around 15 to 20 years. Given that we are on a trajectory
to fail in that task, the political energy of this Committee should be
focused on the 2020 target and the credibility of the policy framework
that underpins it. The 2050 target is, of course, important, because it
sets a direction of travel and trajectory for carbon budgets, which are
the key innovation in this Bill.
The dividing
lines of that debate, the importance of which I do not want to
understate, are now clear, and amendment No. 2 is supported by two
esteemed members of the Environmental Audit Committee, who are clearly
extremely sincere in their view. The Liberal Democrats, who carry
conviction on this subject, also support the amendment, and I believe
that they also see some political advantage in their position. The
Conservative party position is that a great deal of sympathy has been
expressed for the principles behind the amendment, but, for reasons
that have been very adequately expressed by my hon. Friends, we would
prefer to see leadership on this issue from the independent Climate
Change Committee, and we have placed on record our commitment to uphold
the recommendation of any such committee. The Government’s
position is broadly in line with that, with one very big caveat: the
Minister has placed on
record that a Labour Government will not feel under any obligation to
follow the recommendation of the independent Climate Change
Committee—that was when the Minister’s said no on Second
Reading. Those are the key dividing lines in the
debate. For
the record, I am an “at least 80 per cent.” man. I placed
that view on the record in December 2006 in a paper that I co-authored
for the quality of life policy group, which was so ably chaired by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. That report was
called “Don’t give up on 2° C”, and it made
it clear that we should be thinking about at least 80 per cent. That
was the view that guided the work of the quality of life policy group.
All the evidence that I have heard in the Environmental Audit Committee
and in the Joint Committee that scrutinised this draft Bill has served
to reinforce that
view. Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): Good morning to you, Mr.
Atkinson. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the
debate so far, but as an 80 per cent. man—I have no doubt about
his sincerity on that point—does he accept the inherent risk in
the Conservative position? Given what he has said about the
Government’s position and an election not happening for another
two years, there is the risk that a 60 per cent. target will be used.
Why should we risk a 60 per cent. target, given that we are going to
ask the Climate Change Committee for its opinion anyway? Why not have
80 per cent. in the Bill as an insurance
policy?
Mr.
Hurd: The hon. Gentleman and other supporters of 80 per
cent. continue to ignore two very important words in the Bill, which
are “at least.” I touch on the importance of those two
words, because they mean something to me. I would be amazed if the
independent Climate Change Committee were to reach any conclusion after
examining the evidence other than that 60 per cent. is inadequate.
Therefore I have a great deal of confidence that an independent
committee will come forward with that view, which, as has been pointed
out, goes with the grain of the international movement in California
and Germany.
In my view
and that of my party, there is a great deal of value in having that
position validated and challenged by an independent Climate Change
Committee of experts, because the background to the Bill is the damaged
credibility of the political process in setting and meeting targets,
and we must respect that point. For me, the whole value of the Bill
lies in the word “accountability”, which means a much
better process for setting and revising targets and for holding the
Government of the day accountable for those targets. The lack of
accountability has undermined the current process. For me, that is the
whole value of the
Bill. In
that context, the independent Climate Change Committee is a key
innovation. It will be extremely helpful for that committee to be seen
to take the lead in proposing a target or a shift in a target, which
would—we must be honest about this—have significant
economic implications. Because our political process has been devalued,
there will be tremendous value in the committee, if it is independent.
I spent many months scrutinising the Bill in the Environmental Audit
Committee and the Joint Committee, and I could ally myself with the
Government’s position, if I felt confident that they
genuinely believe in the independence of the committee and that they
genuinely believe that the committee should have
teeth. Mr.
John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Does my hon. Friend
agree that we share two views? First, the figure will have to be
80-plus per cent.; secondly, that figure is best decided by the
committee, not least because that will guarantee the way in which we
are going to proceed. The problem is that it looks as though the
Government cannot give us the assurance that they will treat the
committee properly. It is a question of not only that decision, but all
decisions. If that decision cannot be left to the committee, then what
other decisions could be? I am afraid the Government are pushing me
towards the position of saying that in these circumstances it is better
to have the 80 per cent. target in the Bill than not at all. I do not
want to do that, because the alternative is better. The Government seem
to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the most remarkable
manner.
Mr.
Hurd: I have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon.
Friend’s point. We were both reasonably comfortable with the
Government’s position when we came to the Committee, if there
was a genuine sense that the committee was to have bite. Early signs
were encouraging in terms of the appointment of the chairman of the
committee. Adair Turner was an extremely good choice, and it is a
source of great concern that he has decided to move on so
quickly. Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): Has the hon.
Gentleman had the opportunity to look at the oral evidence on the
independent Committee on Climate Change given to the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs Committee on 26 March? At that time, Adair Turner
himself said
that “you
cannot have a body for climate change which is given complete
independence in pursuing a
target”.
Mr.
Hurd: I have not seen that evidence, but that is a
perfectly sensible remark. There is no dispute that the final decision
must rest with Parliament, which is accountable to the people. There
are degrees of independence: we need an independent Climate Change
Committee that can make life tough for the Government, but that is not
to say that it should be ultimately responsible for setting targets. It
is a question of the degree to which the committee can make life tough,
and the degree to which the Government of the day feel obliged to
accept its recommendation. That is where there are gaps between
us.
Mr.
Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is
different, because the Government said to those who want 80 per cent.
that it would be better if the committee decided the target? The
Government indicated that that was not in to water down the target, but
to get the decision made in a more sensible way.
If the hon.
Member for Plymouth, Sutton remembers the words that she has just
quoted, why on earth did she vote yesterday for Parliament to lose all
control over the planning system? It is really two-faced to say what
she has said.
The Minister
has picked up the Opposition’s genuine concerns about his reply
to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury on Second
Reading. The Opposition have already said that we will accept the
recommendation of the independent Climate Change Committee in relation
to the key target. We do not think that we should be overly
prescriptive about the level at this stage, because, as my right hon.
Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal has argued, that would undermine
the authority and credibility of the Committee at a crucial stage. The
words “at least” are very important. I will listen very
carefully to what the Minister says in relation to the
Government’s attitude to any recommendation from the committee.
If the Minister continues to pursue the no, no, no line, which has not
served previous political leaders too well, I suspect that he will have
a problem with Opposition
Members. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I have been
listening very carefully, and I must confess that I am puzzled. On the
one hand, it has been suggested that the Committee on Climate Change
should not be a wholly freestanding body, with no relation to anybody
else, while on the other my hon. Friend the Minister is being berated
for suggesting that the committee should have that particular
arrangement attached to it. My puzzlement is increased by the fact that
in both the draft Bill and the Bill as it came out of the House of
Lords, there is a clause—it is clause 20 in the draft
Bill—with the
heading: “Advice
in connection with carbon
budgets”. The
clause
states: “It
is the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of
State”. That
draft clause is clause 34 in the Bill that is before us today. The
heading
states: “Advice
in connection with carbon
budgets”, and
the clause states
that “It
is the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of
State”. In
other words, the wording is identical. No one sought to amend the
clause during the pre-legislative scrutiny or the Bill’s passage
through the House of Lords. I also note that the right hon. Member for
Suffolk, Coastal has not tabled amendments to clause 34 suggesting that
that committee should be other than it was always intended to be, which
is an advisory
committee. I
have a straightforward, common-sense understanding of the word
“advisory”, namely that the committee advises. To enable
a committee to command, the wording would have to be different. For the
committee to be required metaphorically to make an offer that cannot be
refused would not be an appropriate way to legislate as far as
Parliament is concerned. It is clear that the committee has an advisory
role.
A moment ago,
the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood clearly indicated that that is
his view of the committee, which is at odds with the view expressed by
the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who appeared to insist on
the idea that the committee should not have that function. When the
Minister was asked the question on Second Reading, he gave the only
answer he could given where the Bill stood. The Bill was not unformed
on Second Reading, because it had already been discussed and scrutinised
in the House of Lords before coming to this House on Second
Reading.
When the
Minister was asked whether there were any circumstances in which he
could envisage the considerations of the Committee on Climate Change
not being implemented, the only possible answer without doing injustice
to this Bill was no. One may say that that was a blunt answer. Although
my hon. Friend the Minister is known for his straightforwardness and
bluntness, his answer was not only the correct answer but the only one
that could have been given. The question could have been phrased
differently. For example, if he had been asked about circumstances in
which, given the terms of the relationship between the committee and
the Government and the committee’s responsibilities, the
Government could not easily take the committee’s advice,
particularly with regard to whether the target should be at least
60 per cent. or 80 per cent., I suspect that he would have
provided an extended
response. 9.15
am It
is specious to make a great point about the Minister’s reply on
Second Reading when the record states that it was the only thing that
could have been said under the circumstances. I hope, therefore, that
that avenue will not be followed, as it is not a serious point about a
process which I think everybody here agrees will almost certainly
result in an increase from at least 60 per cent. to 80 per
cent. Tony
Baldry (Banbury) (Con): I find the hon. Gentleman’s
point incomprehensible. I do not want to delay the Committee, but could
he please take us through it again? With all due respect, the first
point was totally nonsensical. I want to concentrate on what he is
saying. Could he take us through the logic of his argument again? It
sounded like complete
nonsense.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 27 June 2008 |