Mr.
Hurd: The Minister is making a thoughtful speech, which I
am following with great attention. May I press him a little on the
terms of reference for the committee? First, can he make it clear that
an explicit term of reference for the committee is the 2º C
threshold, and that there will be a requirement on the committee to
form a judgment about the compatibility of the target with the
2º C threshold? Secondly, given what he said about the need for
the committee to take a view on what we might call equity—the
appropriate contribution towards the global effort, based on
equity—what terms of reference are the Government considering
giving the committee on that extremely important
matter?
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful. I should have made clear the point
about the 2º C, especially in light of our previous debate. As I
said, I personally think the 60/80 debate is rather puerile. The irony
is that in international forums, many countries argue that 2º C
is not ambitious enough. A Pacific island state would agree with that.
Our policy and the remit are based on 2º C because of acceptance
of what is realistic.
Linda
Gilroy: My hon. Friend is right about the 2º C.
World Wide Fund for Nature scientists are giving evidence to the OSPAR
commission on the convention for the protection of the marine
environment of the north-east Atlantic. That will confirm that it is
highly likely that, given the feedback in action and the tipping
points, 2º C could be too
much.
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the WWF,
whose advice on these matters, both domestically and internationally,
is
exceptional. The
hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood asked about the remit. It is a broad
remit that takes into account a number of factors. To back up my
argument, let me refer to the explanatory notes. As well as the
baseline that I mentioned, there is the issue raised by the hon. Member
for Vale of York about which greenhouse gases are relevant. That is an
extremely important debate.
We talk about
carbon dioxide as shorthand for CO2 equivalent, but methane,
for example, is 35 times more—[Interruption.]—or
25 times, or something of that order—23, I think. I am confusing
it with nitrous oxide. My point is that part of the remit is to look at
that and advise. That changes the circumstances. A rigid
target—81 per cent., for the sake of
argument—to include all greenhouse gases would affect industries
that emit methane. They would have something to say about it.
We heard
about one industry this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent, North often reminds the House about the ceramics
industry, so these decisions are important. Opposition Members are keen
to ensure stability for businesses, but those businesses must have
confidence in the
targets.
10
am
Miss
McIntosh: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Woolas: Let me make my third point, so that the Committee
has the whole
picture. My
third point is about accounting. The net UK carbon account, which is
defined in clause 27, is important. For 2050, it is the level of net UK
emissions of targeted greenhouse gases, after the number of carbon
units have been added and subtracted in accordance with carbon
accounting regulations. What does that mean? It means the amount that
is accounted for overseas and domestically. The debate is about the
balance of domestic effort and international offsetting. The whole
debate about the target is premised on an assumption about carbon
accounting, so it is
important.
Miss
McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for referring to
the broader greenhouse gases. My concern, which I am sure is general to
the Committee, and to Stoke-on-Trent and the ceramics industry, is that
the Government could introduce measures to increase energy efficiency
and other changes of behaviour. Perhaps he will confirm that now or
later. I shall be interested in his response. How does he propose not
to penalise heavy energy users such as the manufacturing sector, which
is subject to international
competition? In
areas such as the Vale of York, methane gas is created by the
agricultural industry both in its agricultural processes and as an
end-user. I hope that certain sectors of the industry will not be
penalised if they
expand.
Mr.
Woolas: I agree with the hon.
Gentleman—[ Hon. Members: “Hon.
Lady!”] I am sorry. I was carried away with the passion of my
argument.
I agree with
the hon. Lady. Concerns that hon. Members have for the businesses in
their constituencies—in this case agriculture—are highly
subjective political judgments. The House should not put a burden on
Lord Turner and his Committee, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk,
Coastal and his hon. Friends are asking me to
do.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister is making some important points. He
is right to say that the Climate Change Committee is advisory and not
directive, and that the baseline target will be based largely but not
exclusively on scientific criteria. It is critical that we and the
Committee understand why the Bill refers to 60 per cent. I hope the
Minister accepts that it is based on, at the latest, early 1990s
science, so it could give the message that we are prepared to accept a
less equitable percentage. If that is not the case, the question asked
by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood must be answered: what is the
view of equity of contraction and convergence on which we are basing
any brief to the Committee subsequently to amend that
number?
Mr.
Woolas: I will come straight to the point. The Government
chose 60 per cent., not “at least” 60 per cent., based on
the 2000 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution.
Martin
Horwood: It is 15 years out of
date.
Mr.
Woolas: Absolutely right. The science shows—I am no
scientist—that that is out of date and that the problem has got
worse, with the accumulation of gases, the growth in emissions from
developing economies, and the increasing rate of deforestation as the
biggest net contribution to that increase. The Government asked
Parliament for its view, and the parliamentary Committee that
considered the draft Bill came to the similar conclusion that the UK
would need a reduction of at least 60 per cent. in the light of the new
scientific evidence, and “at least” became the policy,
rather than just 60 per cent. That is what Parliament advised, and it
agreed that the Climate Change Committee should be the body to consider
it.
Peers in the
other place came to the same conclusion. The House of Lords voted
against changing the 2050 target at this stage, favouring detailed
expert consideration of the issue over a hasty decision by Government
or Parliament, which is what I am being pressed to take. The figure of
at least 60 per cent. recognises the point that the hon. Gentleman
made, and the Prime Minister’s speech confirmed that. Any
cursory reading of the science will tell the Committee that a figure of
around 80 per cent. is comparable with the previous figure of
60 per cent, recognising our contribution.
The hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood asked about the remit of the committee and
the scenarios that it must consider. The range of international
scenarios is important. In the major economies process, when the
developing countries asked for a commitment of 50 per cent. by 2050,
that was based upon an understanding that the developed countries would
have medium-term targets of 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. The United
States of America would not accept the latter condition, and the
developing countries would therefore not accept the long-term goal. Our
figure of at least 60 per cent. is the ambitious target that satisfies
both of those international
blocs.
Martin
Horwood indicated
dissent.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. I have
given four credible, comprehensive
answers.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister has given a perfectly valid
explanation of why 60 per cent. is no longer the scientific basis, but
the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made the original point that if
we are to accept a lower number, and if the Minister is to explain why
we are not putting “at least 80 per cent.” in the Bill
instead of “at least 60 per cent.”, he must explain what
the context of those other issues of equity of contraction and
convergence would be, and what the brief to the committee must be. He
must give some basis for that, and he has not done
so.
Mr.
Woolas: I thought I had done so, by setting out the
criteria of the base year, the accounting of carbon units, the
international scenarios and the economics in the impact assessment. The
other place came to the conclusion that Parliament should not take a
hasty decision, but should wait. I reinforce that point, and ask the
hon. Gentleman to take it seriously. This is not a one-off. It is part
of a huge process. We have already been going down this road for two
years.
My final
answer is the chairman’s own compelling argument, which I have
already quoted. It is perfectly sensible to ask the committee to look
at the range of scenarios, even though it may well come up with 80 per
cent. It is a matter of process, not a matter of principle. I know that
the amendment tries to pin down our intention, and I hope that I have
satisfied the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that our intention is
honourable.
Mr.
Hurd: The Minister has made a valiant effort, but I will
press him on one point. It is important, because he argues that the
Government require space to disagree with the committee, which will
make some very big judgments on the aspects that are not science, such
as the issue of equity, which he has rightly cited. The committee will
have to make judgments on what constitutes a fair contribution by the
UK to the global effort. The royal commission made some judgments on
that, and reached the figure of 60 per cent. The trouble is that it was
never transparent. We need transparency. Will the committee have
a blank sheet of paper in relation to the judgment on equity, which is
enormously subjective, with big variables, or will the Government
narrow the terms of reference for the committee? Will the Minister be
more explicit about the instructions and parameters that the Government
will give the committee on that key issue of
equity?
Mr.
Woolas: I clearly have not satisfied the hon. Gentleman.
The answer is yes. The Bill and the guidance, which we will debate
later, time allowing, show a range of scenarios within the different
criteria that we will be asking the committee to look at. We will not
say, “Come up with all the hypothetical international scenarios
that you can think of”, but will advise it on where the Bali
road map has got with the impact assessment and the
economics.
The ranges
are not strict and are available on the DEFRA website and in public
documents. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that I was
trying to give the Government space. That is not the case. I am trying
to give the committee space so that it can be genuinely independent,
like the Low Pay Commission, where again we were pressed on whether we
would accept the recommendation for the minimum wage, whatever the
commission said, to which we said no. We were criticised for that, but
history shows that we accepted its advice. I see a parallel between
that commission and the
committee.
Martin
Horwood: But the committee will be in a different position
from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which was making
an academic judgment on equity and global convergence. For the
committee to make such a judgment seems extraordinary without a
framework set by the Government. Will the Minister be completely clear
about the direction of contraction and convergence that will set that
framework?
Mr.
Woolas: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Perhaps he misunderstood my point about the commission. I referred to
the Low Pay Commission to demonstrate that we had a similar debate on
that, although he was right about the royal commission. Having said
that, the commission’s judgment—this is not a popular
thing to
say—on the international contribution was to stick a finger in
the air. We do not have an international agreement, so logically one
cannot say what the contribution to it should be. It was simply an
aspiration. In
answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the framework that the
committee will use to come to a judgment is clearly and sufficiently
laid out to avoid the danger to which he referred. We are talking about
clause 2—this is not Second Reading—and many of his
points will be covered later in the Committee’s deliberations.
However, I think that I can give him the assurance that he
seeks.
We have had a
debate not on the virtues of 80 per cent. or 60 per cent., but on
whether we should accept up front the committee’s recommendation
which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, will
come in our debate on clause 33. I admire the Conservative
party’s position in not jumping on the 80 per cent.
bandwagon. When we announced the policy change, I said, “If we
go for 60 per cent., everyone else will go for 80 per cent.” I
am as sure as eggs is eggs that if I announced 80 per cent. today,
postcards galore would be flying into the office by Monday morning
demanding 90 per cent.
Logically, we
should go for 100 per cent, and without an international agreement, we
had better go for 200 per cent. to avoid dangerous climate
change—seriously. As a net contributor to emissions reductions,
we could forest over the Vale of York. That would be a start It would
probably avoid flooding as well. The debate has been about whether we
should accept the recommendation up front. That would deny Parliament,
never mind the Government, the right to say no. I admire the
Conservative party’s position. It is actually trying to satisfy
one lobby arguing for 80 per cent., and another arguing for
consideration. I accept that. The right hon. Member for Suffolk,
Coastal admitted from a sedentary position that having one’s
cake and eating it is often
satisfactory. Joan
Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend
agree that the most important thing is the starting point in the Bill?
Given that we should be at 100 per cent. come the low-carbon
economy, will he try to align the timing of the Bill with the
scientific evidence, before Parliament resumes at the end of the
summer, so that “at least 80 per cent.” can be put in the
Bill?
10.15
am
Mr.
Woolas: I can give the reassurance, based on the previous
debate, that 2° C is our policy, and I am looking for a way to
satisfy the Committee on that
point. I
can also give the assurance that what matters is the mid-term goal and
the trajectory. The most important consideration for the United Kingdom
in respect of that mid-term trajectory is our signing up and adhering
to the European Union policy. Clause 6, which we will come to, deals
with our targets for 2020 and the EU offer. It means that the carbon
budgets that the Climate Change Committee will be advising on in
mid-term will be much more important than the end target. I hope that
that satisfies my hon.
Friend. I
have exhausted my arguments. I hope that I have convinced the Committee
of the virtues of giving the independent committee a bit of space to
look at the matter.
| 
