Dr.
Whitehead: I am somewhat dismayed that my attempt to
elucidate matters was not followed in the way that I had hoped. For
clarification, clause 20 of the draft Bill, which has the
heading,
“Advice
in connection with carbon
budgets”, describes
a function of the Committee on Climate
Change: “It
is the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State, in
relation to each budgetary
period”. That
clause has been transposed in the current Bill to clause 34, which has
exactly the same wording. At no stage in the proceedings has anyone
sought to amend it, and there is no amendment on the amendment paper
today to suggest that that function should be
changed. Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): With respect, no one is
disputing that it is the duty of the committee to advise the
Government. The Opposition question whether the Government will heed
the advice. From what they said, it was always our clear assumption
that they would do so, but in the Chamber and in Committee to date
there has been some equivocation, which is giving rise to concerns that
the Government may not heed the advice in
full.
Dr.
Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that
intervention, as it shows progress in understanding the point. It
anticipated the second part of my 10-peso version of the explanation,
which is that if it were considered that any function other than an
advisory function for the committee should to be placed in the Bill,
someone at some stage should have tabled an amendment to illustrate
that. That has not happened and no such amendment is before the
Committee
now.
Gregory
Barker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is
deliberately obfuscating. What the official Opposition are saying is
clear. We are not disputing that the role of the committee should be
advisory. We are saying that the Conservative party in government would
implement the advice in full. What we have heard from the Government
Front Bench to date—I hope the Minister will clarify
this—is equivocation as to whether his Government would
implement the advice in full. We are looking for a clear promise from
those on the Government Front Bench that they will implement the advice
in full. We are not trying to change the terms of the
Bill.
Dr.
Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point,
which is consistent with what I am about to say. If the committee is,
indeed, advisory, it would be an abuse of the English language to say
that its advice must be taken under all circumstances. Therefore, on
the question whether the Government must under all circumstances take
the advice of the committee, the answer logically—not to abuse
the English language—must be no.
If the
question were whether the Minister can easily envisage circumstances in
which the committee’s advice relating to a change from a 60 per
cent. minimum to 80 per cent. would not be taken, I am
certain that a different answer would be given. However, a debating
point cannot be made of the fact that, as the hon. Member for Bexhill
and Battle said, the committee is advisory. Unless Opposition Members
wish to change that status, the answer to the general question about
the committee’s advice always has to be no. There is no logical
escape from that
position.
Mr.
Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister
is a very intelligent member of the Government—some of us would
say one of the most intelligent? When asked such an important question,
he is perfectly capable of saying, “This is an advisory
committee. I can assure the Committee that on this point, which lies at
the heart of the committee’s remit, we cannot think of
circumstances in which we would not accept its advice.” However,
he did not say that. He said no. It is insulting to him to suggest that
he cannot understand the point made so laboriously by the hon. Member
for Southampton, Test. If the Minister is now willing to say, “I
can conceive of no circumstances in which I would not accept the
advice”, I would take that to be as near to a yes as is
possible. Unless he can say that, however, his no is a serious no,
because he is a serious
man.
Dr.
Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both
ways —[Interruption.] I accept the
conditional validity of that statement about the right hon. Gentleman.
If the Minister is asked a straight question, he will give
a straight answer, but he was not asked such a question. That is my
point. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not try asking him a straight
question? He might find the outcome
interesting.
Tony
Baldry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is this a
Whip’s brief, or is he an 80 per cent. man? If the former is the
case, I know that I can ignore it, but if the latter, he is working
hard to persuade me not to support the amendment tabled by the hon.
Member for Bury, North, which I was previously minded to support. Will
he explain where he is hoping to take us at the end of the
argument?
Dr.
Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting
intervention. I assure him that this is all my own work, based on my
understanding of the present Bill, the original Bill, amendments to it
and how statements should be interpreted in that context. I trust that
he will take that at face value. I invite the Committee to reflect on
what the Bill says, as opposed to what people might like it to say
about how its provisions will
work. Miss
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Atkinson. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. We have had an interesting debate, and it is getting more
interesting.
On clause 2,
my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle clearly stated our
position, which is that we look to a strong and independent Committee
on Climate Change. It is empowered to make recommendations on the basis
of science, not politics, which is why we argued in another place for
the committee to be empowered to review the 2050 target and to report
to the Secretary of State before the first five-year carbon budget is
set. My hon. Friend said that we would be wedded to the advice handed
down by the committee. Of course, nothing in the Bill prevents deeper
cuts or more ambitious targets in
future. Will
the Minister consider a question that has not been raised so far?
Clause 2(2)
reads: “‘The
1990 baseline’ means the amount of net UK emissions of targeted
greenhouse gases for the year
1990.” Would
he be minded to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change on
extending the list of recognised greenhouse gases? Will that be one of
the first things that the Government ask it to do?
During the
debate, there was much discussion about public scepticism. It is
important that we carry the public with us. The Minister has been kind
enough to correspond with me on a number of constituency cases, to
which I shall refer later. This is a good opportunity to thank him for
being so assiduous in his work, as it is an enormous help when he
responds fully.
Constituents
and the public generally want to tackle climate change, but they do not
want to do so personally. They believe that someone else will tackle
it. With regard to the debate today on wind farms and where they should
be placed, our problem in north Yorkshire is that most of the pylons
connecting wind farms to the national grid come through our territory,
and we would much rather they went through someone else’s. It is
often the case that we want to battle climate change in principle, but
we would rather someone else took the pain.
I would like
to raise with the Minister some of the points that he was good enough
to set out in his letter of unspecified date in June, which I received
this week, in response to the concerns of my constituent Mr.
Colin Inglis about the Bill and in particular early-day motion
736.
I am trying
to help the Minister because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill
and Battle said, we believe that he may be prevaricating. Obviously,
the Minister might like some wriggle room, but it is important,
particularly in the context of the debate on the amendment and clause
2—the 60 or 80 per cent. debate—to pin him down. He
helpfully
writes: “The
Prime Minister has already stated that evidence now suggests that
developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80 per
cent. if we are to have an effective international agreement to tackle
climate
change.” There
is no argument there. The Minister continues, equally
helpfully: “The
Government is therefore asking the new independent, expert Committee on
Climate Change to carry out a review of the 2050 target and, as we
announced on 18 February, the Government has proposed making this
review a statutory duty under the
Bill.” He
goes
on: “Before
taking any decision, we need to properly understand the implications,
costs and benefits of different options. For example what would be the
economic costs and benefits of different levels of the 2050
target?” I
shall focus on the costs and benefits and try to get some information
from the Minister about the cost implications.
The Minister
continues: “How
would this be affected if the rest of the world was also taking
meaningful action to tackle climate change, or if the UK was going it
alone?” To
me, this is the key passage and the Government’s
commitment:
“This
is why we have asked the Committee on Climate Change to review the 2050
target, and advise on whether it should be tightened up to 80 per
cent.” The
Minister
states: “I
agree on the need for an urgent decision, which is why the review will
be one of the Committee's first tasks, alongside its work on advising
on the first three carbon
budgets.” The
Minister is keen for a decision. Is he saying that the Secretary of
State will take a decision on the basis of the advice from the
Committee on Climate Change, and that, assuming the advice is in favour
of 80 per cent., the Minister will accept it? He has committed himself
to taking a decision. I am trying to clarify, on behalf of
Mr. Inglis and the Committee, the basis on which the
Minister or the Government would not take that advice. Would it be on
the basis of alternative scientific evidence? Presumably, if the
Government are committing the Committee on Climate Change to undertake
the review—the Minister said that that is why they are setting
up the Committee—they will have access to the greatest
expertise. The
Minister goes on to
say: “We
are keen to get the first three budgets in place as quickly as possible
in order to ensure that there are binding constraints on UK emissions
which inform investment decisions
now.” 9.30
am Going
forward, we must recognise those who are going to take the hit,
especially in the business community. A York brick company in my
constituency has been badly affected by the climate change levy, and I
am sure
that it will take a big hit, whether there is a 60 per cent. or 80 per
cent. reduction. We owe it to businesses in this country to say what we
think the target will be and to give them enough time to prepare for
alternatives. Turning to
the final impact assessment of April 2008, will the Minister clarify on
what basis the Government are proceeding with their thinking about the
advice that they will receive from the committee? The impact assessment
states: “The
Stern Review concluded that, based on an extensive review of the
current literature, the long run costs of global
action”,
assuming that there
were concentrations of 550 ppm carbon dioxide, would
be “around
1 per cent. of GDP by 2050, within a range of +/-3 per
cent.” That
is obviously quite a big leverage. Paragraph 2.1.7 of the impact
assessment
says: “It
is possible to calculate the present value of the cumulative cost of
reducing emissions by 60 per cent. by
2050.” It
states that the reduction in GDP would be between 0.3 per cent. and 1.5
per cent. in 2050, which would
be “in
the order of £30 to £205
billion.” Does
the Minister still stand by that
assessment? Turning
to the costs of the higher target, page 16 of that assessment
states: “Under
an 80 per cent. reduction scenario, costs have been estimated to be
between 1.1 per cent. to 2.6 per cent. of GDP in 2050, depending on the
assumed level of future technological change, fossil fuel prices and
availability of particular technologies.”
My understanding is
that the actual range of the costs to businesses within the context of
the impact assessment, whether we have a 60 per cent. or an 80 per
cent. target, is very small. Does not the Minister think that it would
be fair to give businesses the longest possible lead-in time that they
could
have? Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I am struggling to understand
the logic of the hon. Lady’s position. She seems to be saying
that the committee’s advice should be binding on the Government
and that they must always take its advice. She seems to be not only
contradicting an amendment that she has tabled to clause 4, which is
about the mechanism by which the Government can disagree on occasion
with the committee, but, by asking the Minister to take a view on the
impact assessment, she is asking him to take a view on the
circumstances in which different issues might be measured regarding
whether to take the committee’s advice. In a sense, is that not
irrelevant if the committee’s advice is always to be treated to
as binding?
Miss
McIntosh: I am trying to understand the Minister’s
thought process. It would be helpful if he would refer to the basis on
which the Government have reached the decision on 60 per cent., and how
they will make their mind up. Will the Minister confirm that they might
decide not to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Climate
Change? If that is the case, in what circumstances would he be prepared
to reject its advice? He should be mindful of implications for the
business community. The Opposition have made our position extremely
clear, and we seek guidance from the Minister
on how, in precise circumstances, the Government will react to the
advice of the Committee on Climate Change on whether to set a target of
60 per cent. or 80 per
cent.
Linda
Gilroy: It is a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. I want to make it clear that I
am an “at least 80 per cent.” woman. Given the advice
that I am receiving from marine scientists, I might even advocate a
higher figure. That is because the complexity of what we are facing is
significantly greater than some people might have realised. There might
be time at a later point to say more about
that. Incidentally,
I am greatly reassured by what Adair Turner said on 26 March. He said
that he would be very surprised if he and his committee simply came
back and
said “60
per cent. is absolutely fine, end of
story.” He
also said: “I do think” a
figure “is
a perfectly sensible thing to hand to the Committee to express a point
of view on, rather than simply leap into let us not do 60, let us do
80, because...there is a value (even if we do end up simply saying
yes, 80 per cent. is the right figure) in setting out the reasoning of
why it is and also perhaps exploring a set of alternatives because we
do not have to say 60 or 80, we could say 70. We could say 70 per cent.
in 2050 but 90 per cent. by 2070; we could say 70 per cent. as a UK
unilateral commitment but 85 as part of an international
agreement”
| 
