Miss
McIntosh: It may be appropriate to raise this later, but
on the baseline, is the hon. Gentleman also considering setting out and
possibly amending targets that we should reach by 2020, so that
businesses will know in advance? For the reasons he gave earlier, the
early years are just as important as the later
years.
Mr.
Woolas: I remembered the point as the hon. Lady repeated
it. The assurance she needs is in clause 6. The point was made
eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, and I used the
word “symbolic” regarding the 80 per cent. target in the
context of the high political debate taking place in this country, not
with regard to its scientific importance.
On the
trajectory, the carbon budgets are dealt with in clauses 5 and 6, and
the potential changes to those are dealt with in clause
7. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
4Consultation
on order amending 2050 target or baseline
year
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in
clause 4, page 3, line 16, after
‘publish’, insert
‘at the same time as laying before
Parliament the relevant
order’. May
I seek your clarification, Mr. Atkinson? Should I also speak
to amendments Nos. 57 and
70?
The
Chairman: No. That is the next group of
amendments.
Gregory
Barker: Thank you for that clarification.
As we have
discovered over the course of our debates, there is some concern that
in future the Government may decline to implement the full advice of
the independent Committee on Climate Change. Amendments Nos. 57 and 70
deal more fully with that, but this is a largely technical amendment,
which would make it clear that the committee’s advice must be
published and that, if decisions made by the Minister differ from the
recommendation, the reason for the difference must also be specified
and published. This is a probing amendment and I shall make my
principal remarks on amendments Nos. 57 and
70. Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Clause 4 is about transparency,
which is a wise provision to have in the Bill given the confusion that
we have already witnessed in Committee over the Government’s
intentions on the balance of decision-making power between the
Committee on Climate Change and the Government and/or Parliament. At an
earlier stage of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle
seemed to suggest that some hypothetical future Government, in which he
might be a Minister, would always take the committee’s advice.
The logical position for him to take on clause 4 would therefore be to
delete
it.
Gregory
Barker: That is an interesting proposition, and we look to
the next general election with increasing confidence. Anticipating that
the Administration of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr.
Cameron) will run all the way to 2050 would stretch to the limit the
confidence of even our most ardent
supporters.
Martin
Horwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention,
but I think that he may be missing the point slightly. The amendment to
the 2050 target can be made much sooner than
that.
Mr.
Gummer: Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members may not always
be as enthusiastic as each other on various things, but everyone is
clear about the fact that there is a specific commitment to accept what
the committee suggests to the Government about the target. We take the
same view as the Government about it being an advisory committee, but
we have said that if the Government are not going to put it in the
Bill, they have to make it clear that they will accept what the
committee says on the target.
Martin
Horwood: As ever, I am grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman. Amendment No. 56 refers to the subsection in
which “the
order makes provision different from that recommended by the
committee”. So
we are discussing the Secretary of State disagreeing with the
committee’s advice. I will resist the temptation to further
debate the party politics, which would not be wise. I accept the good
faith of the Conservative spokesman, on this occasion at
least.
The debate
on other parts of the Bill has also, probably quite accurately,
revealed a level of potential distrust about Government intentions in
such proceedings. We have heard the phrase, “wriggle
room”, and I have worried about the influence of “go-slow
Departments” in other parts of Government perhaps trying to
influence the process. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal
referred to civil servants who might say at some stage in the process,
“Better not Minister”. Therefore, it seems right to have
amendments that make the process absolutely watertight wherever
possible, and in that respect, I happily support amendment No. 56. It
is part of the process of making crystal clear what should happen under
those circumstances, which is that, if the Government differ from the
Committee on Climate Change’s advice on the target, Parliament
must know the reasons why at the time at which the order to change the
target is being laid. That will enable us to test the methodology
suggested, to hold the Government to account and to spot any undue
influence by wrigglers, go-slowers or
better-nots.
Mr.
Gummer: I hope that amendment No. 56 is not seen in anyway
as an attack on the Government; it is an attempt to ensure that the
Government and any future Government are properly concerned with the
issue. It is important because the Minister has shown himself willing
to try to meet us. I referred on a radio programme to his willingness
to move on the 2° in terms that may be embarrassing to him. I
want to make it clear that the measure is there because we all feel
that all Governments of any kind should be so constrained because it
gives confidence to the public, and, after all, we are looking 40 years
ahead—that is a very long time to predict how good future
Ministers might
be.
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his
flattering remarks but I wish that he would stop—there may be a
reshuffle or something. Somebody may read the wrong things into his
comments.
1.45
pm Let
me try to help the Committee. On amendment No. 56, we know that the
Committee on Climate Change has been established to give us expert
advice. Clause 4 requires the Government to take the advice of the
committee before making any amendment to the long-term target. That is
an important part of the process. To reinforce the importance of the
committee’s advice further, we accepted an amendment in the
other place so that if the target is amended in a way that differs from
the committee’s recommendation, the Secretary of State must set
out the reasons for doing so. We accepted that point. It is quite
possible that the Government would want to publish those reasons at the
same time, and as I shall go on to say, it is not only quite possible,
it is quite likely. Any Government will be aware of the likely
public interest in a change to the long-term target. In addition, clause
3 requires that the order amending the target, as I have said twice
already, must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I
think that it is unlikely that any Government would be keen to go into
a debate in both Houses without having first made their rationale
clear. Gregory
Barker: I do not think that anybody would doubt the point
that the Minister is making, certainly in respect of the current
Government or the next Administration, so far as we can see. However,
as has been pointed out, we are dealing with the next 40 years here,
and with the best will in the world, it is impossible to try to
anticipate the political make-up or dynamics of an Administration 30 or
40 years hence. Is he confident that he can see that far down the
road?
Mr.
Woolas: I am very confident that I cannot see that far
down the road. I am in a slightly difficult position in that the
Government do not have a position on the tabling of the amendment.
However, I am prepared today to put on record that if this Government
propose to amend the long-term target in a way that differs from the
committee’s advice, we will publish our reasons at the same time
as laying the order for the amendment. I hope that that satisfies the
point that the hon. Gentleman is rightly
making.
Gregory
Barker: That is a very generous offer, but it covers only
two of the next 42 years, so it does not really address the substance
of the
point.
Mr.
Woolas: As I do not anticipate a change in Government in
the next 42 years, it goes much further than that. I hope that what I
have said gives the hon. Gentleman surety. I do not disagree with the
point that he has made, and I can go as far as putting that commitment
on record. I hope that the Committee will agree that that has been done
in good faith. I thank him for his probing
amendment.
Gregory
Barker: The amendment was tabled initially as a probing
amendment, but the arguments that the Minister has advanced have done
nothing to reassure me. The key issue is not the good intentions of
this Government, or indeed the next one, but establishing a modus
operandi that would bind all Governments through the next four decades.
We remain somewhat concerned, and although we hear what the Minister
says, we will reserve our position for Report. I do not intend to press
the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in
clause 4, page 3, line 17, at
end insert— ‘( ) Before
laying before Parliament an order making provision different from that
recommended by the Committee, the Secretary of State shall consult the
Committee on the effect that difference will have on the risks for the
United Kingdom of the predicted impact of climate
change.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 70, in
clause 55, page 26, line 2, at
end insert—
‘( ) In preparing reports
under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to whether
the net UK carbon account is within the indicative annual range for the
relevant periods and the effect of any differences on the risks for the
United Kingdom of the predicted impact of climate
change.’.
Gregory
Barker: As we have just heard, amendment No. 56 would have
required the Secretary of State, in the event of setting a target that
differed from that recommended by the committee, to publish at the same
time as resetting the target the reasons why the advice of the
committee was not followed. Moreover, in the event of a Government
ignoring its advice—we are not anticipating that the Government
today, or next year, or the year after would do so, but we are looking
at the whole lifetime of the legislation until 2050—amendment
No. 57 would require the Secretary of State of the day to consult the
committee on what effect that diversion from its scientific advice
would have on the risks that the UK would face from the predicted
impact of man-made climate change.
Amendment
No. 70 would then further require the Secretary of State to consider
whether the country was still on course to meet its indicative annual
range when making the report on the impact of climate change. In the
absence of the amendment, the Government of the day could more easily
ignore the good counsel of the independent committee and make a
decision based on political challenges or even political
expediency. Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a
point? He is suggesting that if the Minister decides to ignore the
committee, he must ask its advice on the implications of doing so. Is
the Minister then bound to take notice of that advice? Is there a
sanction if he fails to take notice of the committee’s advice on
the implications of his ignoring it in the first
place?
Gregory
Barker: No. The process would inform debate in Parliament,
as the matter would be one for Parliament. Debate in Parliament, and
indeed in the country, would be better informed about the intended
consequences of the Minister’s actions. It is likely that the
Minister will wish not to reject out of hand what the committee advises
but to trim. It is unlikely to be black or white. The Minister might
say, “We’re going to have some difficulty with this.
We’re not going to implement the Committee’s
recommendations fully.”
On that
basis, we will be facing a new scenario. It is thus important that the
House of Commons and the public at large have access to the
committee’s opinion, rather than leaving the impact of the
revised strategy to further interpretation, especially by the
Government of the day.
Martin
Horwood: I hesitate to differ with the hon. Gentleman on
his own amendment, but it actually
says: “the
Secretary of State shall consult the
Committee”. It
does not mention
Parliament.
Gregory
Barker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman
understands. The Minister would consult the committee, but he would
then have to report to Parliament. There would be a debate when he laid
his budgets. There would still be five-yearly budgets, and there would
still be debates in Parliament, but the Minister would have to consult
the committee on the impact of his
decision.
Mr.
Gummer: Surely my hon. Friend is drawing attention to
something that is already a failing of the Environment Agency? There is
a worry that when the Environment Agency’s advice is turned into
ministerial propositions, it is often not tested against the
Environment Agency. He is on to an important point: Parliament must be
able to debate such matters with the knowledge of the
committee’s judgment of the Government’s proposed
changes. Parliament may well say, “It seems that the
Government’s got it right,”—I am not suggesting
that it will always be on the committee’s side—but we
must know from an authoritative source what the effect of that change
might
be.
Gregory
Barker: Absolutely spot on. Once again, my right hon.
Friend puts it far more eloquently and articulately than I could hope
to do. He has encapsulated the argument. We want to avoid a situation
in which the committee has only one opportunity to give its opinion,
which may be reinterpreted by the Minister. We argue that if the
Government are willing to depart from the committee’s advice,
they should have to explain to the public why they are doing so and be
told authoritatively by the committee what effect that decision might
have on the impact of climate change. We do not perceive this to be a
problem in the short term, but as the life of the legislation will
extend all the way to 2050, it needs to be foreshadowed in the
Bill.
| 
