Gregory
Barker: I understand the Minister’s argument, but
he has said some things that are slightly troubling, which I will
return to. Indicative annual ranges can take into account varying
circumstances or unforeseen events, to which the Minister has alluded.
The Committee on Climate Change, which I hope will be made up of
eminent but sensible people, will be able to take that in its
stride.
I find it
slightly strange that the Minister mentioned housing numbers as an
unforeseen circumstance. It is odd to think that we might suddenly be
taken by surprise at the number of houses built in any one year, as I
imagine that the Government can foresee the likely number of new houses
or dwellings that will be occupied. The weather, I agree, is out of
their control, but I expect them to have a firmer grip on the housing
stock. The Minister has alluded to severe winters, but there are mild
winters, too. We are more likely to experience milder winters than
severe ones as global warming continues apace.
The crux of
the issue is the Minister’s suggestion—albeit implicit
rather than explicit—that targets should follow policy rather
than policy should follow targets. He seemed to imply that it was not
for the committee to set policy and that we should therefore not have
indicative annual targets, because the policy may direct or produce
something rather different. Clearly, it should be the other way round.
We should have indicative annual ranges, which have inherent
flexibility, and policies should be designed to meet those ranges
rather than putting the ranges in place once we know the policies. The
policy is the servant, not the master, of indicative annual ranges and
the overall carbon budget. The danger with that slightly lazy thinking
is that it makes for less ambitious policy making and for the slight
sense that there is get-out-of-jail-free flexibility on the targets,
particularly if in the two or three years of the near term there is
some doubt whether the indicative ranges of the short-term trajectory
will be met. The trajectory should be the real spur to more ambitious
policies by Governments of whatever political hue.
The case for
indicative ranges is very clear, and I have not been persuaded by any
argument other than that they should be there. However, the Minister
has pointed
out his belief that that point is already in the legislation. Clause
12(1) sets out a duty to provide Parliament with a report setting out
annual indicative ranges for the UK. For the elimination of doubt, I
would have preferred that clause to be tightened by our amendment, but
if the Minister is going to resist on that point, I will not push the
amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
clause 12, page 6, line 41, leave
out from ‘which’ to end of line 43 and insert
‘the net UK carbon account for the
year must fall in order to meet the carbon budget for the relevant
budgetary
period’. Amendment
No. 54 directly relates to our previous discussion. It is informed by
our concern that indicative annual ranges could be politicised,
particularly in a period of likely political change, when the end of
the carbon budgeting period would be likely to fall within the term of
a new Government. That could lead, if not to political shenanigans then
certainly a lack of ambition or other priorities on the part of the
Government of the day, whoever they
are. To
prevent that situation from arising, we have tabled amendment No. 54,
which would put a requirement on the Government to produce an annual
range that is tight enough to meet the trajectory required to meet the
carbon budgets. As clause 12 stands, all that the Government need to do
is predict where the carbon account should be in any given year.
Amendment No. 54 would ensure that the annual range is set
so as to fall inside the net carbon account for that budgetary period,
which would necessitate tightening the annual range to a more
meaningful figure.
We are not a
long way apart from the Government. Indeed, Lord Rooker, during the
passage of the Bill through the Lords,
said: “We
need a system of annual accountability that can deal with these
real-world fluctuations and uncertainties but which still provides
sufficient clarity about progress to ensure that the Government of the
day can be held to account appropriately... setting out an
indicative range for the net UK carbon account for each year of the
budget period... will ensure that 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.
497.] That is
the crux of amendment No. 54. We believe that tightening the annual
ranges to a more meaningful figure will help the Government of the day
and inform this legislation.
Mr.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I have a lot of sympathy with the
hon. Gentleman’s point, but, given the earlier discussion on the
ability of Ministers to amend the carbon budget within the five-year
period, how would his amendment fit within that, as it would mean that
the range has to show a fall within each year of the five-year
budget?
Gregory
Barker: I will repeat the amendment for the hon.
Gentleman: “the
net UK carbon account for the year must fall in order to meet the
carbon budget for the relevant budgetary period”.
That is what we need to
be aiming for. If that budget were not met, an adjustment would be
required in the following year, but we should not anticipate that the
budget will rise or that the trajectory will be anything other than
down. We
all accept that there could be unforeseen circumstances, but we do not
accept that there are foreseen circumstances in which we would
anticipate a rise in the budget. If we can see factors that are likely
to push up carbon emissions, we should take other actions ahead of time
in other parts of the economy to depress carbon emissions. The whole
point of flexibility is to allow us to deal with unforeseen events,
which can only be addressed with the benefit of
hindsight. Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman help me
with my understanding of the clause, because I have become more
confused? In subsection (2), does “fall” mean decline? It
means fall within a range—in other words, the provision states
that an indicative annual range is a range within which the figure must
fall. That does not mean that the figure must go down; it just means
that the figure must fall within the range. Am I right in that
understanding?
Gregory
Barker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but so too is the
assertion that the trajectory must be met. Obviously, the trajectory is
declining, and we do not anticipate that it will rise. The only reason
why it would rise is unforeseen circumstances. Does the Minister
foresee any circumstances in which we would anticipate the trajectory
rising and not take preventive
action?
Mr.
Woolas: My understanding is the same as the hon.
Gentleman’s—“to fall” in subsection (2)
means to lie within the five-year budget. I cannot envisage
circumstances in which the trajectory would not fall, unless the
American presidential election throws up something really
unexpected.
Gregory
Barker: I thank the Minister for that clarification, and
it has been useful to raise our concerns. I am looking forward to what
the Minister has to say on amendment No.
54.
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling a
helpful amendment. The amendment sounds like common sense, but I did a
bit of digging and the issue boils down to the difference between
“expects” and “must”. Let me
explain—my argument is convincing and I am going to use
maths. The
clause requires the Secretary of State to set out the indicative annual
range within which he “expects” the net UK carbon account
to fall—to lie within—for each year of the budget period.
Amendment No. 54 would change that to the range within which the net UK
carbon account “must” fall to meet the carbon budget. I
consider the amendment unnecessary, given the existing provisions in
the Bill about both the Government’s duty to meet the five-year
carbon budget and the strong framework for annual accountability. By
inserting “must”, the amendment would effectively change
the budgetary period to an annual one, which is not the
intention.
Let me
explain the practical
problems.
11
am The
way in which the Bill is worded makes it clear to Parliament, and to
everyone else, whether the Government are taking the necessary actions
throughout a budgetary period to ensure that the budget is met, but the
Government will not be acting unlawfully if emissions increase,
although I imagine that they could increase only slightly beyond the
level that the range sets out. Underpinning that, clause 5 places a
duty on the Government to ensure that the net UK carbon account for a
period does not exceed the carbon budget—the five-year
period.
That means
that the indicative annual ranges will effectively have to be set with
a view to meeting the budget. No matter where we are within the range
each year, at the end of the period we must still meet the budget. In
addition, there is the strong annual framework that I have spoken
about. Under clause 35, the annual report by the committee must set
out, inter alia, whether the budget is likely to be met. That is part
of the process which, I think, the other place urged upon us;
certainly, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee did.
I am not sure
how amendment No. 54 would work in practice, as there would be both a
budget that had be met and a range for each year, which also had to be
met. The range recognises that emissions fluctuate—we are agreed
on that—so it would be possible for the net UK carbon account to
lie within the range for each year of a budget, but for the total net
carbon account to exceed the budget at the end of the period, because
if we hit the top of the annual range each year, that would, by
definition, be greater than the five-year budget. There is, therefore,
a practical problem with changing “expects” to
“must”. My argument is that it essentially makes the
annual period the budget and not a range, and mathematically, the
possibility of hitting the top of the range for each of the five years
would defeat the five-year budget target, which is more
important.
Mr.
Gummer: That is a good explanation. Perhaps the Minister
would be kind enough to recognise the thought behind this amendment and
others, which was admirably expressed by the hon. Member for Angus. If
one looks at how the Bill must be written, the Government should be
able to make alterations, which may be up or down. Those of a cynical
disposition might say that that is all very well, but if the Government
were so minded, they could defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. We
know that it would be difficult, within the parliamentary arrangements,
for that to happen. It would be helpful, however, if the Minister
undertook to identify other parts of the Bill that exemplify the points
that he made in accepting the reasonable nature of the amendment. This
is one of those occasions where we must ensure that we are getting it
right and meeting public expectations. I have some sympathy with what
the hon. Member for Angus said, both today and in previous
sittings.
Mr.
Woolas: I have been reflecting that perhaps The
Guardian is even more cynical than the Daily Mail. It
certainly puts me in a worse mood. I can do what the right hon.
Gentleman requests. I do not believe that in the other place there was
a challenge to the point that he makes. I made reference to the
interrelationship with clause 5.
I shall
briefly put my mathematical argument, which I think is a convincing
one. Let us say that the relationship between a range within which
emissions must fall and an overall budget did not work. Suppose the
budget is 100, and for each year of the period the range is set
between, for the sake of argument, 15 and 25. If the net carbon account
for each year was 23, 22, 24, 25 and 21, we would still have complied
with amendment No. 54, which states that the net carbon account
“must” fall within the range, but we would have missed
the five-year budget.
Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): The Minister’s maths are
good, but his politics are less good. The annual targets do not release
the Government from the obligation to meet the five-year budget. The
mathematical possibility that the top of the range could be hit five
years running and the budget therefore missed does not mean that the
budget must not be met. That still applies. There are two sets of
complementary targets. Of course, if the top range of the budget for
the annual targets were hit repeatedly, budgets in later years would
have to be made tighter and
lower.
Mr.
Woolas: That is why I said that the problem is the word
“necessary”. The amendment is unnecessary because of the
point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. By inserting the
word “must”, a duty is placed on the Secretary of State
under clause 12 that could be used to override the obligation that we
spent three hours debating earlier. It confuses budgets and annual
ranges.
Martin
Horwood: Again, the Minister is mathematically right but
politically wrong. The problem is not that the maths do not add up, but
that they would need to be added up only after the subsequent general
election. By supporting the amendment together with the Conservative
Front Benchers, we seek to hold the Government more precisely to
account on an annual basis.
Mr.
Woolas: I am glad the hon. Gentleman accepts my maths,
even if he does not agree with me on the policy. I do not believe that
the amendment achieves what he wants it to do. In fact, it could
achieve the opposite. In the run-up to a general election, the
Government could set the annual indicative figure at the top of the
range. That would be within the law under the amendment, but outside
the law under the earlier obligation to meet the five-year carbon
budget. That would create political confusion. Precisely because I do
not want to do that, the amendment is
unnecessary. The
amendment would take us into an area where the annual indicative range
would effectively become an annual budget. That is not what we are
trying to achieve here or in the other place. I hope the hon. Gentleman
accepts that my policy is right, that my politics are right and not
particularly partisan, as this will happen in the future, and that
clause 5 overrides the need for amendment No.
54.
Gregory
Barker: I have listened carefully to the Minister and have
endeavoured to follow his maths. His point is persuasive. I understand
and appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham that
setting more
robust indicative annual ranges does not in any way negate or offset the
Government’s legal obligations to meet the carbon budget.
However, I am mindful of the Minister’s point that inserting the
word “must” could call into question the supremacy of the
five-year carbon account, and we do not want uncertainty or confusion
in the Bill.
Clarity is
desirable, but I accept that the amendment may not be the best way of
achieving that. We will look again at the issue. In an ideal world,
there remains a case for tighter, clearer and more effective annual
indicative ranges within the context of a finite five-year carbon
budget. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
| 
