Gregory
Barker: The argument made by the hon. Member for Northavon
has considerable merit. The substance of his argument, that early
action is more effective and more cost-effective than delayed action is
absolutely correct. That is the accepted wisdom—a point made
crystal clear by Lord Stern and many others, and reinforced by my right
hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.
However,
I also have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon.
Member for Bury, North that there is nothing magic about 2020. That is
why in the past the Conservative party has expressed considerable
support for the notion of rolling annual targets, because it is vital
that each Parliament and every year we have a clear trajectory to
follow. We should audit our progress regularly, so that we do
not—for reasons of political expediency, bad luck or a change in
economic circumstance, or for reasons entirely beyond the control of
the Government of the day—find ourselves suddenly towards the
end of the accounting period engaged in a desperate game of catch-up,
when really there is no hope at all. Therefore, there is a risk that we
do not meet that target, whether the 2020 target is a reduction of 26
per cent., or higher. To me, as a layman, there is considerable merit
in having a higher target. I appreciate the arguments in favour of 35
per cent. Equally, I agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North that
that is going to be a stretching target. However, it is one that we
have to show real courage and vision in supporting, not only to do our
part in the war against climate change, but to ensure that we are able
to reap the opportunities that will come from the new low-carbon
age.
We must
ensure that UK plc is a real first mover and that we pioneer the new
low-carbon economy. Our industry and commerce will be the first truly
low-carbon economy in the world only if we move ambitiously
on those markets. If we do that and seize the opportunities,
we can turn this around. For all the problems that will necessarily
arise as we try to wean ourselves off old-fashioned fossil fuels, there
will be opportunities that will give rise to economic
growth, new industries and new jobs. Look at the jobs
created in Germany, which has a far more ambitious and effective policy
of pursuing renewable energy. More than 200,000 new jobs have been
created in the renewables industry there, and within the
next couple of years that industry is set to overtake the German car
manufacturing industry, which was one of the largest employers. It is
important that we balance the opportunities and difficulties of meeting
those stretching
targets. Although
the Conservatives will support a yet more stretching target, and we
will do everything we can to implement a more ambitious and dynamic
policy to push forward industrial change to meet those near-term
targets, we come back to our belief that those targets should be set by
the Committee on Climate Change and that they should be testing. We
should not underestimate the difficulty and complexity of working out
the targets. It is therefore right that they should not be set on the
say-so of politicians or as part of a bidding war between the parties
about who is the greenest of them all. If we are going to carry the
population with us, we have to show that the targets are based on sound
scientific evidence. We have to show the
working. Although
I would like the Climate Change Committee to be able to give its view
on the targets before the Bill completes its passage through
Parliament, I think it most important that the committee is the body
that has the say-so on raising the figure. It is clear from clauses
7(1) and 6(1)(a) that there is a mechanism within the Bill to amend the
2020 figure, so that need not concern our Committee. Therefore, while
not doubting for a moment that we need to be ambitious and to move
early, I would oppose the amendment, as we believe
that it should be the Climate Change Committee that informs any
necessary move
upwards. 2.45
pm
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon for
tabling the amendment. When I saw the amendments, I thought that the
debate on this one would be the most important, and as he rightly said,
we have already debated its principles in
Committee—thankfully. I
shall address the specific first and then the general. The specific
point is contained in clause 7(1), and it is amplified in clause 8 in
respect of the proposed duties on the Secretary of State and his
relationship with the committee. This debate parallels the debate on
the 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. long-term target, and the
three points that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made give
us the reasons why. Greenhouse gases accumulate in the air, and some of
them last for 100 years—CO2 being a case in point.
Therefore, the second budgetary period must take into account the
accumulated emissions of the previous
period. That
situation is not like opening a window to let the gas drift away when
the stove has been turned on but not lit; it does not work like that.
It is more like a car engine running in a sealed garage: one has to
turn the engine off quickly to have any hope of staying alive. That
accumulation of gases is the
point. On
the parallel with the level of debt, when a constituent is heavily in
debt, it is in one sense easier than when they are less in debt. As the
old adage goes, a £100 overdraft is my problem; a £1
million overdraft is the bank manager’s problem. Unfortunately,
as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is no bankruptcy with
greenhouse gas, so his point about rapidity and the point in the
amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon are absolutely right.
The rapidity of the measures will build on the existing European
trading scheme and climate change agreements. There is also the carbon
emissions reduction target scheme, as well as the carbon reduction
commitment, which starts in 2010 and will have a profound effect on
attitudes.
Those
schemes herald the way for the Budget, and as the Chancellor has said,
following the committee’s advice, the carbon budgets will be
announced in spring next year. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but
I shall not go into the detail about why the Government do not like the
35 per cent. target at this stage. It was debated significantly during
pre-legislative consultation and in the other place. Indeed, to try to
satisfy that figure, the Government amended the clause in response to
similar points made in the other
place. The
hon. Gentleman, however, asked an important question about how the
figure fits into the European and international contexts. We have
picked the range before us to fit the European context. At least 26 per
cent. is itself a stretching target for the country, but it is
consistent with the European Union’s greenhouse gas target for
2020—whether the current 20 per cent. reduction, or a 30 per
cent. reduction should the EU be able to offer it as an incentive to
the rest of the world for an international
agreement. We
have examined the trajectory to ensure that it works in both European
scenarios, and indeed it will do
so consistent with the long-term target. The hon.
Gentleman will now ask me about the 80 per cent. figure, and he will
have a fair point. Steve
Webb: I would be grateful if the Minister answered a
question that I have not yet asked, but this is the question I was
going to ask: if the EU goes to 30 per cent. because there is global
co-operation and the UK contribution is 26 per cent., will we not
underperform relative to the rest of the EU, or is he saying that we
would then bump up our 26 per cent. target to 32 per cent. or whatever?
Is that implicit in what he
says?
Mr.
Woolas: We would then have to look at the trajectory. I
hope that that does not sound like wriggling. That is why we thought
the point made in the other place was valid. The bigger consideration
is that if we change from CO 2 only to greenhouse gases it
would affect current projections. A 26 per cent. reduction in
CO 2 emissions could reduce the UK’s emissions of the
basket of greenhouse gases, including CO 2, to around 32 per
cent. below 1990 levels by 2020. That is a potential change that I
believe would be
beneficial. To
answer the question, we believe that that is consistent, but it would
have to take into account three factors: the long-term goal, tightening
the target by including all gases and the trajectory we would take in
the first budget period. That in turn would have a consequence for the
second budget. In short, we do not think that 35 per cent.
is realistic, so we have said “at least 26 per cent.”,
but we want the independent Climate Change Committee to look at it and
advise
us. My
hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made the point about the
practicality of 35 per cent. He also made an important point about the
length of the targets period. We are talking about 2020; that is one
option we have committed to. The crucial decision to be taken, however,
is on the period covered by the post-Kyoto agreement. In my view, there
is a danger that that period is too long, and to get the early action
that we have talked about we may need to look at a different
trajectory. The point of all this is that the area under the curve, as
the Americans describe it, is what matters.
The hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle made a point about annual targets. We are
coming on to that. In practice, once the five-year period is set, it
would not take a journalist too much trouble—even our
journalists can operate a calculator—to divide by five and work
out what the annual measurement of progress would be. He said
“measurement” as well as
“progress”.
Steve
Webb: I appreciate the Minister’s style and
conciliatory approach. I was concerned when, towards the end of his
comments, he said he thought 35 per cent. unrealistic. Given that he
said this morning that 80 per cent. is the Department’s internal
working assumption, it worries me that 35 per cent. is deemed
unrealistic, as 35 per cent. is to 80 per cent. what 26 per cent. is to
60 per cent. Is he therefore end-loading it, as the right
hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested?
Is it the
position of the Government that although we are not going to get to 35
per cent. by 2020, we are working under the assumption that we will
need 80 per cent. by 2050? A huge amount of late effort would then be
needed. How well does that sit with what we have all agreed is the need
for early effort? That troubles me somewhat. There is no great point in
repeating the same
issues we have already discussed. Suffice it to say
that it is good to get on the record the considered opinion around the
Committee of the importance of early action. I was
interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bury, North
that we also need to look at targets before then. I suppose they are
implicit in the carbon budget process. Whether 26 per cent. or 35 per
cent. bites any more than any other carbon budget number does—it
is not obvious to me that it does—there is a duty to hit the
carbon budget all the time once it is in
place. I
am slightly troubled by what the Minister says, but I am not sure that
a Division would achieve anything at this point. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
7Amendment
of target
percentages Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas: The clause mirrors the requirements of clause 3,
about which I spoke earlier, in setting out the circumstances in which
2020 targets and any post-2050 target may be amended. As before, the
application of the clause is limited to specific circumstances to
ensure that the legislation provides as much certainty as possible
while retaining the flexibility to respond to the latest developments,
such as changes in scientific knowledge and the international context,
which affect the basis of our reduction target. With that in mind, we
consider that allowing changes to the 2020 target or the future
post-2050 target to be made through secondary legislation provides that
for that
process. The
potential inclusion of other greenhouse gases or emissions from
international aviation or international shipping also needs to be taken
into account, as either of those could significantly affect the
achievability of the targets. It is therefore right that, in those
circumstances, we should have that
flexibility.
Miss
McIntosh: I have a comment to make to the Minister. I
notice that the Government intend to introduce such changes through
debate under the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. There
is a little concern that throughout the Bill—clause 7 reflects
this—there is a general enabling power. Of course, the devil
will be in the
detail. I
alert the Minister to the fact that there is a general concern out
there; perhaps more detail could have been included. We do not wish to
detract from the flexibility of any future Government considering this,
but we put down a marker that perhaps there is too much dependence on
Orders in Council, albeit preceded by debate under the affirmative
resolution procedure. Perhaps more could have been included in the
Bill. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
7 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
8Consultation
on order setting or amending target
percentages Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas: The clause requires the Secretary of State to meet
certain requirements before either setting a post-2050 target, as
provided for in clause 6, or amending the 2020 target or a post-2050
target under clause 7. It mirrors the consultation requirements set out
in clause 4 relating to changes to the 2050
target.
Miss
McIntosh: On a point of clarification, under what
procedure will such orders be put before the House? I do not see the
Bill specifically saying that they will be introduced under the
affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Is that in the Bill or
am I just not seeing
it?
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Lady is not wrong, but her point is
covered by clause 7. It is the same
procedure. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
11Matters
to be taken into account in connection with carbon
budgets
David
Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in
clause 11, page 6, line 19, at
end insert— ‘( ) rises in
global temperature, ( ) the
impact of climate change on world
biodiversity, ( ) loss of world
forests (with particular reference to rain
forests),’.
| 
