 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(Afternoon)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Climate Change Bill [Lords]4
pm Tony
Baldry (Banbury) (Con): On a point of order,
Mr. Cook, is it in order to ask the Minister for an
explanatory memorandum on the new schedule relating to paper bags? New
schedule 1 is 13 pages long and, as it is likely to be discussed in the
last Committee sitting and is opaque, will the Minister provide us,
between now and then, with a plain English explanatory memorandum, so
that colleagues can understand what it is all
about?
The
Chairman: It is in order to ask, and I am sure that the
Minister has taken note of your
question.
Clause 14Duty
to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon
budgets Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): I beg to move amendment
No. 46, in
clause 14, page 7, line 21, leave
out ‘report setting out’ and insert
‘detailed strategy report setting
out the
measures,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 47, in
clause 14, page 7, line 22, at
end insert ‘, and the
indicative annual ranges within the net UK carbon account for each year
must fall in order to meet the carbon budget for the relevant budgetary
period (“the climate change
strategy”).’. No.
48, in
clause 14, page 7, line 23, leave
out ‘report’ and insert ‘climate change
strategy’. No.
49, in
clause 14, page 7, line 28, leave
out ‘report’ and insert ‘climate change
strategy’. No.
50, in
clause 14, page 7, line 30, leave
out ‘report’ and insert ‘climate change
strategy’. No.
51, in
clause 14, page 7, line 33, leave
out ‘report’ and insert ‘climate change
strategy’.
Gregory
Barker: Clause 14 places a duty on the Prime Minister to
put together a report setting out proposals and policies for meeting
the carbon budget. However, the existing proposal is not robust enough.
The Prime Minister should be able to tell Parliament not only what we
should be doing to meet the budgets, but, crucially, how we should do
it. That is an important difference. Rather than merely producing a
report, it would show far greater leadership if the Prime Minister were
to set out a detailed climate change strategy on how the Government are
going to meet those demanding
targets. The
Prime Minister should not merely report on the progress made in the
past and display a map of where we need to go. They should lead on how
we will meet our targets in future. The reporting procedures in the
Bill will not be complete unless they include a duty for
the annual reports to contain an assessment of the
effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. The
amendments would require that the statement laid before Parliament
should include a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the
climate change strategy as well as details of any further policies or
proposals that may need to be included. Government policies to reduce
emissions should be assessed regularly, their successes should be
reported on openly and changes should be proposed wherever progress is
falling
short. I
am quite up front in saying that we in the Conservative party fully
intend to be the Government responsible for the report on the first
budgetary period, so we should be holding ourselves to the highest
standards of accountability in meeting those targets. I consider the
strategy report to be like the annual finance Budget. The Chancellor
proposes a tax and spending regime for a year and says that he will
bring in x billion pounds in taxation and spend y billion pounds on
providing services. However, it is inevitable that in the following
year the Chancellor will find that growth was not exactly as predicted
or that events caused a little bit more spending than proposed, so in
the next Budget he will therefore make the necessary adjustments to get
things back on track. If we are to bring carbon emissions under
control, that is how we should deal with
them. There
is precedent for placing a duty on the Government to produce such a
strategy report. For example, section 2(1) of the Warm Homes
and Energy Conservation Act 2000 places a duty on Ministers
to “prepare
and publish...a strategy setting out the authority’s
policies for ensuring...that as far as reasonably practicable
persons do not live in fuel
poverty.” Section
2(5) requires Ministers
to “take
such steps as are in its opinion necessary to implement the
strategy.” There
is also precedent for requesting a detailed report or proposal.
Schedule 5 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and
schedule 89 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 both require
the submission of detailed proposals. The requirement for a detailed
report already exists in regulation 32 of the Ionising Radiation
Regulations
1999. With
specific reference to amendment No. 47, as we have already discussed,
it would make eminently good sense to set out indicative annual ranges
in this detailed strategy report. The strategy report should be the
natural and authoritative place for the Government to publish their
indicative annual ranges.
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for laying out his
amendment, which, if I have understood him correctly, would replace the
words “report setting out” with
“strategy report
setting out the
measures”. Further
amendments would replace the word “report” with
“climate change strategy”, so I am glad to see that he
has adopted the language of new Labour, although I prefer plain
English, especially in relation to legislation.
The
hon. Gentleman has made a serious point, however, so let me respond. I
shall deal with amendment No. 47 separately, as you have asked us to,
Mr. Cook, but amendments Nos. 46, 48, 49, 50 and 51 would
change the wording to a “climate change strategy” setting
out measures, proposals and policies. The practical effect of the
amendments would be negligible. The only possible
problem with them is that the report will cover
measures to reduce emissions only and will not cover adaptation to
climate change. There might be a point to calling the report a climate
change strategy, but equally it might be
misleading. The
report published under clause 14 plays an important part in the greater
predictability provided by the Bill’s framework. We all agree
that those who are planning investments want to know not only the
overall level of the UK-wide budget, but the choice of policies that
will be implemented. The report will be crucial in bringing together
policies and showing how they will combine to meet the carbon budgets.
In that context, we cannot see what amendment No. 46 and amendments
Nos. 48 to 51 would achieve. The report required under clause 14 will
already have a high status, which has been further emphasised by the
Chancellor’s announcement that the Government’s plans for
meeting the first three carbon budgets will be set out alongside the
Budget
2009. It
is not clear how calling the report a strategy or requiring it to
contain measures in addition to proposals and policies will
fundamentally change its nature. In addition, calling it a climate
change strategy might be misleading, as the report will cover
mitigation only—measures to reduce emissions. It will not cover
adaptation to climate change, which will be dealt with by the
Government’s adaptation programme in clause 56. Of course, I
agree with the hon. Gentleman that the report will be an important
document, but the amendments are unnecessary. I shall stop there,
because I think that amendment No. 47 will be dealt with
separately.
Mr.
Woolas: Amendment No. 47 is similar to amendment No. 54,
which we have already dealt with. Amendment No. 54 would have turned
the annual indicative range into a range within which the net carbon
account “must” fall, and colleagues will remember that
debate from this morning. Amendment No. 47 would give rise to the same
problems: as before, the annual net UK carbon account for any one given
year could be outside the range but the budget could still be met.
Alternatively, for one year we could be within the range, but still
exceed the budget as a whole. The intention behind the indicative
annual range is to provide an indication of what is expected to happen
within each year of the budget based on the proposals and policies.
Therefore, while I welcome the intention behind the amendments, I do
not believe that they are
necessary.
Gregory
Barker: We believe that there is more to a strategy than
to a report. A report could be a very staid, brief and backward-looking
document, whereas a strategy must be exactly that. I take on board what
the Minister has said and note his reluctance, and I will consider the
matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
‘( ) The report
must outline the implications of the proposals and policies as regards
the crediting of carbon units to the net UK carbon account for each
budgetary period covered by the report.’.
This is an
important part of the package of Government amendments. It relates to
the balance between action to reduce emissions in the UK, action at
European Union level—by UK companies through the European Union
emissions trading scheme for example—and the purchase of
international carbon units. Clause 25, which was a change made in the
other place, seeks to ensure the correct balance by placing a limit on
the contribution that action at EU and international level can make
towards our carbon budget. We will come to that clause later.
The
Government do not believe that an inflexible limit is the best way to
approach the issue. However, we recognise that the balance between
action at UK, EU and international levels is extremely important. The
Bill helps us to achieve that by providing a clear framework for action
and ensuring greater clarity for industry and households about our path
towards a low-carbon economy. We must send a clear signal to our
international partners about our commitment in the UK to tackling
climate
change. Amendment
No. 8 will add to existing provisions in clause 34 by increasing
transparency. Clause 34 already requires the Committee on Climate
Change, as part of its advice on each of the five-year carbon budgets,
to advise on the extent to which the carbon budget should be met by
action within the UK and the use of carbon units. The amendment goes
even further; clause 14 requires the Government to lay a report before
Parliament setting out proposals and policies for meeting the carbon
budget. Amendment No. 8 means that that report must also set out the
implications of those proposals and policies with regard to the
relative balance between action to reduce emissions within the UK and
the purchase of carbon units, which hon. Members on both sides of the
Committee have asked
for. For
instance, the report could include information on the role of the
emissions trading scheme in helping to meet our budgets or detail the
Government’s broad expectations for the purchase of carbon units
through EU or international trading mechanisms that may come about in
the future. We want to keep the balance between action at UK, European
Union and wider international levels under review, and, if necessary,
we will revisit our approach ahead of each budgetary
period.
Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): The Minister has said that the
report will reflect what happens in the EU ETS. Businesses are the
bodies that buy and sell the credits, and the Government want 100 per
cent. tradability. Therefore, if a business exceeds its carbon quota
and buys credits to offset that, the net effect will be nil. Given the
Government’s world view, where there is no cap on the percentage
that can come from overseas, the number will always be the same. In
what sense will information be conveyed in the report, when we know in
advance what the answer will be because the ETS cap is fixed in
advance? 4.15
pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 2 July 2008 |