Steve
Webb: Does the hon. Lady accept that amendment No. 2 has
no bearing on whether we should ask the Climate Change
Committee—because we still will—what sort of answer it
might come back with, and what we should then do with that answer?
Surely, however, we do not enhance the credibility of the whole process
if we hand the committee a Bill that everyone thinks has got the
self-evidently wrong number in it?
Linda
Gilroy: I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the
Member for Southampton, Test said earlier and to try to follow the
logic of where this argument is coming from. I had a lot of sympathy
with what some Opposition Members were saying, particularly because of
the discussions that I have had with the climate change panel that I
have been working with throughout the pre-legislative
process.
A lot of
debate stems from the question of whether or not there is an analogy
with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Again, I
think that the debate that took place in the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon.
Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), when he pressed the chair of
the Climate Change Committee very hard, casts very interesting light on
the argument that the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Vale
of York are trying to put.
I have a lot
of sympathy with the idea that this committee should be independent, in
the sense of the MPC. Another analogy that I discussed with my
climate change panel was the Low Pay Commission. In a way, the Low
Pay Commission might be a better analogy, given the complexities with
which it must deal.
Adair Turner
pointed out the differences. First he
said: “the
Bank of England itself does not even recommend on what the target
should be; it simply has to take the target as actually defined by the
Chancellor...The 2 per cent. plus or minus 1 per
cent.”
On one level, therefore,
the MPC is less independent than the Climate Change Committee. However,
he also pointed
out: “in
relation to inflation policy you can define one specific lever, the
interest rate, and you can give that to an independent body to call up
or down.”
He also said, and I
really plead with Opposition Members not to get into too much of an
“angels dancing on the head of a pin” debate about
this: “You
cannot really do that for the Committee on Climate Change, because
otherwise you would have to give them pretty much the whole of
government policy because the levers that we could pull cover building
regulations, they cover speed limits, they cover appliance regulation,
they cover the design of the EU
ETS”— the
emissions trading
scheme— “they
cover taxation, et
cetera.” He
cast a very interesting light on the issue and went on to debate what
would happen if the Government disagreed with the
committee.
Miss
McIntosh: I do not wish to destroy the hon. Lady’s
argument, because it has been eloquently put, but I was present at that
sitting. I was hugely impressed by Lord Turner’s
evidence—amazingly, he gave it without a note or an official by
his side—and it will be a great loss when he is no longer
permanent chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. However, does
not the hon. Lady accept that the MPC’s recommendation to the
Bank of England is very different for the reasons that the hon. Member
for Southampton, Test eloquently outlined? Clause 20 clearly states
that after the carbon budget for the period has been set, it cannot be
revoked, so the Committee on Climate Change’s advice and the
period that it covers will be completely different from the
MPC’s
advice.
Linda
Gilroy: As I understand it, we are talking about the
target and the budget, and as I just set out by citing Adair
Turner’s evidence, the complexity is significantly greater. I
thought that there was an inherent logic to what my hon. Friend the
Member for Southampton, Test tried to explain. The Committee on Climate
Change is advisory, so the Government could of course
disagree.
I shall
finish on this point—my brief is very much not a Whips’
brief, so the Whip is probably thinking, “Why don’t you
sit down, Linda?” Lord Turner pointed out that when the
Government respond to the committee’s
recommendation, “it
would be odd if we did not respond back and, therefore, if there were a
very major divergence I think we would expect to see and, indeed,
Parliament would expect to see and, indeed, I think the legislation
requires that there is an explanation to Parliament of why the
recommendations of the Government have
diverged”. The
advice issue has many more nuances and dimensions than as under the
straightforward confrontational situation that Opposition Members have
set out.
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
It is a pleasure to serve under you on this important Committee,
Mr. Atkinson. Let me try to reassure Opposition Members
about the Government’s attitude to the advice that they will
receive and Labour Members about the Government’s ambition being
sufficient in
respect of the important international effort. Given our wide-ranging
debate, I am taking the liberty of assuming that you will not allow a
stand part debate, Mr.
Atkinson.
The
Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can clarify the situation. The
Committee has had an extensive debate about clause 2(1), but not about
subsection (2), so if there were to be a clause stand part debate, it
would, in my view, have to concentrate on the second half of the
clause, not the first. I hope that that is helpful to the
Minister.
Mr.
Woolas: As ever, you are extremely helpful, Mr.
Atkinson. If I mention subsection (2) straight away, I shall have
achieved my objective. We want a debate in the round.
The important
point is that with all the debates about the targets and the percentage
by a certain time in the clause, one can shift the goalposts by moving
the baseline year. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that one trick
of international negotiations is not to include a base year; we often
manage to reach agreement by avoiding that question. Importantly, page
7 of the explanatory notes makes it clear that the target for 2050 is
set by reference to a 1990
baseline “rather
than a particular quantum of emissions because the baseline itself is
subject to revision as understanding of historic emissions
improves.”
That adds a further
complication to the situation, and that point answers the second
question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of
York. 9.45
am It
sounds strange to say that one could revise the emissions from 18 years
ago, but we all know that all these matters must be subject to
international compatibility and agreement if they are to be meaningful,
because this is, as all hon. Members have said, a global effort. We are
dealing with the ultimate embodiment of the concept of mutually assured
destruction. As science and its methodologies improve our knowledge
about our historical emissions going back to the base year of 1990,
that may move the goalposts. Why is that important? It is of central
importance to the United Nations framework convention on climate change
process because of the point, which we accept, that the targets must
take account of the historical burden of the developed, industrialised
countries. Similarly, countries can use a change in the baseline and in
the methodology of calculation to move the goalposts in their favour. I
hope I have covered subsection (2) to the Committee’s
satisfaction. The
clause is the centrepiece of the Bill. It underpins the
emissions-reduction framework that the Bill establishes and puts into
law our commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60
per cent.—not 60 per cent., but at least 60 per
cent—through domestic and international action by 2050. Let me
remind the Committee where this figure comes from. The science tells us
clearly that in the context of the global effort, developed countries
will need to cut their CO2 emissions by more than
50 per cent. if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.
Action in the UK is, of course, a crucial part of that.
The science
in itself does not dictate that the developed countries—the
annexe 1 countries; the industrialised countries—must make a
greater contribution because
of our historical obligation. In our judgment, it will be impossible to
reach international agreement unless developed countries accept that
point. If
the advice to the committee and the remit of the committee were purely
to look at an arithmetic contribution to equal burden sharing based on
the best assessment of science, the point that hon. Members make could
be accepted. However, as we are talking about a contribution that will
take into account other factors, including economic factors, as was
made clear by the hon. Member for Vale of York in a well informed
intervention on the impact assessment, and as we must take into account
other factors, including the social and the international dimensions,
we are asking the committee for very important advice that is based on
science, but over and above science. That is my first
argument. My
second argument is based on parliamentary accountability. My answer on
Second Reading was premised on the belief that Parliament would want to
be able to assess the recommendations of the Committee and the
Government’s response. That is why the scrutiny of the advice
and the Government’s reaction is not at all comparable with what
we normally debate in Public Bill Committees. This is not a one-off
piece of advice and a statutory instrument put out on a Thursday
evening. Not only is the Government’s response subject to the
affirmative procedure—that is, of course, the case on a matter
of such importance—but, more importantly, it is part of the
process of the nation’s budget-setting decisions. I urge the
Committee to consider that
point. The
Chancellor announced that the carbon budgets would be announced in
parallel with the financial Budget in March. I have no prior knowledge
of the date of the Budget, in case there is a journalist in the room,
but I expect it to be in March. When that announcement is made, the
scrutiny of the carbon budgets and the policy that follows from that
will be of huge importance to this nation. Therefore, I want to
convince the Opposition and reassure my hon. Friends that by not
necessarily accepting the advice of the committee in advance, I am not
trying to wriggle off the advice. We are trying to create a process
that is of huge importance to this country. I will deal with the
conditions after I have given
way.
Gregory
Barker: The Minister is genuinely trying to be helpful,
but he must accept that we would not expect the Government to sit on
their hands, waiting for the figure to emerge in due course. There must
be preparatory work by officials in his Department and right across
Government in anticipation of a figure in the region of 80 per cent.
that is likely to be accepted. Can he reassure us that there is a
working assumption in Whitehall that that figure will be in the region
of 80 per
cent.?
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman has cut to the quick. Yes, I
can give that reassurance. The Bill’s Second Reading in the
other place gave statutory authorisation to the Government—my
Department is the lead—to expend public money on the preparation
of the Bill. We have the office of climate change, which is a section
within the Department with the job of working in such areas, as well as
what we call the shadow Committee on Climate Change, which is already
working.
As my hon.
Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton pointed out, Lord
Turner’s evidence confirmed the point
to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction. It is interesting and
important to hear Lord Turner. He said to the Committee on 26
March: “I
do think it is a perfectly sensible thing to hand to the Committee to
express a point of view
on”— he
was referring to the stretching of the 60 per
cent.— “rather
than simply leap into let us not do 60, let us do 80, because I think
there is a value (even if we do end up simply saying yes, 80% is the
right figure) in setting out the reasoning of why it is and also
perhaps exploring a set of
alternatives”. That
was Lord Turner’s view. My own view—this is a third
argument with which to try and convince the
Committee—
Steve
Webb: The Minister is giving a constructive response,
but—I am not being facetious—if there is a value in the
committee going from 60 to 80 per cent. and explaining why, what is the
standing of 60 per cent? Joking apart, why not 3 per cent? Why 60 per
cent?
Mr.
Woolas: That is an important question. First, as the hon.
Gentleman would accept, the figure is “at least 60 per
cent.” Secondly, as we all agree, we must base the figure
primarily on science. The carbon markets will not invest the trillions
of pounds that we want them to if they believe that carbon targets are
not based on science. If they believe it is a political fix, it will
not
work. However,
the figure is not just based on the science. The point that is not
understood in the debate in the United Kingdom, which is not the case
in other countries, is that whether the target is 60 or 80 per cent.
does not really matter. What matters is how we get there.
Personally—I hope journalists do not quote me out of context,
but now that I have said that, I suppose they will—I am a 100
per cent. man. The debate that we will have on the trajectory is much
more important than the debate on the end target. Indeed, unless we
specify that the trajectory must be downwards, it would be possible to
reach an 80 per cent. reduction by 2050 even after 30 years
of increases, by which time we would have dangerous climate change.
Although I understand that the 60/80 debate symbolises something
important, it is not so
important.
Mr.
Woolas: Let me continue my argument, before the right hon.
Gentleman tempts me or presses me
further. I
mentioned that what we do has to be done though co-ordinated global
action. We have to give a clear signal to the international community
that we are prepared to do our share, plus more. That has to be done
within the trajectories that the European Union budgets and targets set
out, because our offer as the European Union is to go as far as 30 per
cent. by 2020, or 20 per cent. if we do not get the international
agreement. That will be the primary pressure upon the level of our
mid-term
targets. In
that context, I need to see what the committee advises. The committee
is more aware of these matters than I am, which is why I say seriously
that I cannot envisage circumstances, other than the absurd, in which
the Government could not accept the recommendation. Others may
disagree, but I do not see circumstances in
which Parliament would reject that advice. My hon. Friend the Member for
Southampton, Test argued that we should say in advance that we would
automatically accept the advice. The committee is an advisory
committee, the chairman of which does not want us to tie him down in
that
way. | 
