 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Sara
Howe Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 1 July 2008(Morning)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Climate Change Bill [Lords]10.30
am
Clause 12Duty
to provide indicative annual ranges for net UK carbon
account Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): I beg to move amendment
No. 53, in clause 12, page 6, line 40, at end
insert— ‘( ) Before
determining each indicative annual range the Secretary of State must
obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate
Change.’. Good
morning, Mr. Cook. Clause 12 is important. Conservative
Members in the other place did a splendid job in encouraging the
Government to introduce indicative annual ranges. The inclusion of the
ranges is a significant enhancement of the Bill. Friends of the Earth
described the inclusion of the clause as
“one of the most
important changes which the Government made to the
Bill”, because
it adds political accountability. Members of the Committee will recall
that when the Conservative party launched our climate change Bill in
advance of the Queen’s Speech in 2007, the inclusion of annual
targets was considered an essential part of the primary reason that any
five-year carbon budget would stretch across more than one
Parliament.
We rightly
argued that we should not allow NIMTOism—the new acronym,
meaning not in my term of office—to infect carbon budgets. The
system is not sufficiently accountable, so a Government could sit
through a full term without ever having to report to Parliament on
their carbon reduction performance. It is conceivable that a future
Government could then dump their failure on a successive Government,
who would have to report on the budget in their first year in office,
having had little time to do anything about meeting
it. We
need no better example of why the annual ranges are necessary than the
current Government’s performance on cutting emissions. Despite
three manifesto commitments to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by
2010, emissions have, in fact, increased since 1997, and the Government
quietly dropped their 20 per cent. target to just more than 15 per
cent. in 2006. That is what can happen without year-on-year
accountability. The addition of indicative annual ranges under clause
12 is a significant enhancement of the Bill, and it is a testament to
the sterling efforts of our colleagues from all parties in the other
place. Indeed,
Lord Rooker spoke favourably of annual accountability when he
said:
“annual
transparency and accountability about progress towards meeting the
budgets are crucial for all of us. Some indication of the
Government’s expected trajectory for reductions over the budget
period would help in providing them. It is important that there is no
divide between any sides of the House on
that.” The
Government further stated in the other place
that “setting
out an indicative range for the net UK carbon account for each year of
the budget period combined with greater clarity about the timescales of
policies to take effect...will ensure that the Government of the
day can be properly held to account for progress during each year of
the budget period, not just at the end of the
period.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25
February 2008; Vol. 699, c.
496-7.] As we
all agree on that substantive point, I hope that we can also agree that
a range without definition is of little practical use to
anyone. For
example, if a five-year budget period has a total budget of 500 million
tonnes of carbon, it is hardly of any value to say that the indicative
annual range will be between 1 million tonnes and 150 million tonnes
per year, whereas it would be of real value if the indicative ranges
were set out year by year along the lines of year 1, which must be
between 115 and 125 million tonnes; year 2, which must be between 105
and 115 million tonnes; year 3, which must be between 95 and
105 million tonnes, and so
on. As
the clause is worded, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State
to provide such an instructive range. He or she could set the range so
broadly as to be practically meaningless. That is why, in amendment
No. 53, we are proposing that the Secretary of State seeks
advice from the Committee on Climate Change before setting those annual
ranges. The committee would approach the exercise with not only an
expert but an apolitical and dispassionate eye. That should prevent any
unnecessary politicisation of the annual range, which could otherwise
be back-loaded, for example, so that much of the effort would fall into
the final year of a budget, by which time the Government who had set
the ranges might well be out of
office. I
have further broad comments on the clause, but they relate to amendment
No. 54.
Mr.
John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): I am sorry to have
been two minutes late this morning, Mr. Cook. I make the
single point that, if one had the chance to read this morning’s
newspapers, one would see just how cynical the public is about
politicians of all kinds. It made pretty miserable reading for any of
us who recognise that politicians in all parts of the House come to
this place to try and make the world a better place—even though
we disagree with each other, that is why we are here. Today’s
Daily Mail, for example, is even worse than usual in its refusal
to believe the better of anyone, of any kind, in any circumstances,
from the Prince of Wales to the humblest Back
Bencher. Why
I feel strongly about the amendment is extremely simple. We need to
provide the public with a mechanism whereby that cynicism cannot easily
be given rein. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, in the
97 per cent. of his speech that I was lucky enough to hear, made that
point clearly. We need to ensure that there is clear recourse to the
Committee on Climate Change in order that the worst may not be thought
of politicians.
I have a
self-denying ordinance not to praise the Ministers, because it has been
bruited abroad that that does them no good. Therefore, I take it as
read that they will behave properly. The Secretary of State, for whom I
have considerable respect, would certainly behave properly. However,
that is not the issue. We are, unusually, legislating for a long period
ahead. It is our purpose to create a framework within which we will be
working for a long time, under Governments of different persuasions and
Ministers of different
enthusiasms. I
take that issue hard. During my time as Secretary of State for the
Environment, I took a great interest in the design and quality of
architecture, never realising that it was my personal interest that led
it to be moved forward along the agenda. Others did not have the same
interest in the quality of the built environment, particularly my
successor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East
(Mr. Prescott). He may have had other qualities, but not
that one. The result was that that agenda was not taken forward with
the enthusiasm and desire that I had
wanted. Climate
change is also an area that can too easily rely on the enthusiasm and
commitment of individual Ministers. That is why I support my hon.
Friend’s amendment. I do not think there is anything in it that
could possibly upset anyone, unless they did not want to meet the
parameters that I know the Government, the official Opposition, the
Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists all want to meet. It
does not seem to be an unreasonable
amendment.
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
Two brief comments before I explain the Government’s problem
with the amendment, although not with its intent. First, my advice to
you, Mr. Cook, and to all members of the Committee is not to
read the Daily Mail. The problem goes away. Secondly, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East
(Mr. Prescott) is responsible for the renovation of
St. Pancras station. I must put that on the
record.
I always find
that it helps to go back to the explanatory notes to put the amendments
into context, and the explanatory notes for this Bill are especially
good. They explain the purpose of clause 12. As the hon. Member for
Bexhill and Battle eloquently outlined, annual accountability was
discussed extensively in the other place and we have been over it many
times. Clause 12 addresses those concerns by requiring the Secretary of
State to produce a report setting out the indicative range for the
trajectory of the UK’s net carbon account over the budgetary
period. The word net is important. I shall return to the expected range
in a moment. Clause 12 is a critical part of the Bill’s
framework and will ensure transparency and accountability for progress
for every year of the budget period, not just at the end of the five
years.
An indicative
annual range is superior to earlier proposals for a single-point annual
target because emissions can and do fluctuate from year to year for a
variety of reasons, some of which are well outside the control of the
Government of the day, such as the weather. A particularly bad winter
or a mild winter can have a big impact on annual figures. We all agree
that we need a system of annual accountability that can deal with
real-world fluctuations while still providing clarity about progress to
ensure that the Government of the day can be held to account
properly.
Amendment No.
53 would require the views of the Committee on Climate Change to be
sought and taken into account in respect of the indicative annual
ranges before they could be set. That is not consistent with the role
envisaged by all of us for the committee. The committee has been
established to provide expert advice on the level of the carbon budget.
It is for the Secretary of State and Parliament, in consultation with
the devolved Administrations, to make decisions on the level of the
carbon budget and the policies needed to ensure that the UK remains
within that budget, which has been recommended and to all intents and
purposes set by the committee.
In
formulating its advice, the committee will need to look at existing and
planned Government policies and the estimated impacts of those policies
in order to understand exactly what measures the Government have in
place to meet a given budget. It is then the job of the Government to
draw policy conclusions from the committee’s analysis. That will
ensure that the Government of the day retain political accountability
to Parliament, and through that to the people, for their decisions. We
do not want the committee to be seen to be taking a particular policy
position, as that could undermine the credibility of the advice that it
provides on the carbon budget and its impartiality in performing its
scrutiny function.
It will be
vital that the committee’s advice is viewed as credible and
authoritative. For that to happen, it must be formulated outside the
political arena. The committee must therefore refrain from having a
role in the choice of policy mechanisms needed to meet a budget. The
question of decisions on the indicative annual range is no different.
It will be set based on the Secretary of State’s analysis of the
policies that the Government intend to implement in order to meet the
carbon budget, and when they will take effect. That is why clause 14
requires that the Secretary of State should set out the time scales for
the policies and proposals.
The annual
ranges will depend on the policies implemented. Decisions on policy
matters should be made by the Government, not the Committee on Climate
Change, and we fear that amendment No. 53 would jeopardise that
position, as it implicitly requires the committee to provide advice on
the Government’s policy mix for meeting their overall carbon
budget.
10.45
am I
shall now answer the question from the hon. Member for Bexhill and
Battle about how wide we expect the range to be. Of course, if it is
too wide, it will not fulfil its function and will be meaningless. We
must look at the main factors that create uncertainties about annual
emissions and assess their likely effect on informing how the range is
set.
I have
already mentioned the weather; records show that exceptionally cold
winters, such as those in 1996 and 2001, caused an increase in
emissions by 4 per cent. compared with previous and subsequent years.
Another factor is the wider European context and the emissions trading
scheme, which covers about half of the UK’s carbon dioxide
emissions and allows companies to make decisions over a five-year
horizon as to whether and when they abate their emissions. The actual
emissions in any one year would not necessarily be a fifth as those
policy decisions kick in.
I remind the
Committee that the clause refers to the net carbon accounts, which
could fluctuate depending on how things are dealt with under the carbon
accounting rules. Other important factors include population growth or
shrinkage—the annually revised population forecast by the Office
for National Statistics directly affects projected emissions. Put
simply, the more households that there are in the UK, the higher the
emissions are likely to be, although the goal of our housing policy in
new build is to neutralise carbon emissions.
The point of
having annual indicative ranges, which are preferable, is so that we do
not simply take the five-year carbon budget, divide it by five and
declare that to be the annual target. We have some flexibility in
meeting the budget advised by the committee, which will give the
Government flexibility as well as the desired parliamentary
accountability. The intention of the amendment is to give more surety,
but we fear that it could inadvertently and unintentionally undermine
the committee’s impartiality. That is my argument on amendment
No. 53.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 2 July 2008 |