Mr.
Weir: I sense a slight problem with the amendment. Under
the clause, a report must be laid before Parliament. Subsection (2)
refers to
“proposals and
policies of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern
Ireland department, it must be prepared for consultation with that
authority.” Does
the hon. Gentleman propose that the UK Parliament takes powers to
impose financial penalties on the devolved Administrations? That might
be a step too far for the powers of this
Parliament.
Martin
Horwood: I would hesitate to suggest any such thing, not
simply because I am afraid of the hon. Gentleman, but because I am
afraid of some of my Scottish colleagues. However, on careful reading,
I think that we are amending only subsection (1), so I am not sure that
the criticism is correct. However, it is an important matter and I take
the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Having had
those slightly more exciting and interesting options ruled out, we are
left with the less exciting amendment No. 35, which opens the debate
about what sanctions, if any, will be proposed against those
responsible for budget excesses. I hope that the tabling of the
amendment starts to stimulate that debate both inside and outside
Parliament. I have often drawn an analogy between the challenge and
threat that we as a society face now with that faced in war time. In
that sense, it is carbon criminals, rather than war criminals, who we
seek to hold to account. Given the consequences of failure, it is
important that we address this matter and that the Government and the
official Opposition give us their perceptions of what sanctions will
apply that will really incentivise the meeting of targets in a serious
way.
Gregory
Barker: Amendment No. 35 opens a new chapter in the story
and direction of the Bill. It proposes that the Secretary of State
report to Parliament on the reasons why, and solutions for, having
exceeded a budgetary limit. The report should include a list
of
“sanctions
against those responsible for budget
excesses.” We
cannot support the amendment for a number of reasons. First, it goes
against what I like to call the opportunity agenda around climate
change. My party likes to make both business and the public realise
that, in the climate challenge, there also lies an enormous economic
opportunity and the chance to live more fulfilling lives. We believe in
the power of “can do”, not the dour politics of
“cannot” that the Liberal Democrats are so fond
of.
The Bill
currently sets a long-term framework and clear road map within which
business can work with confidence towards developing new technologies,
growing new markets and processing the challenge of decarbonising our
economy. The vehicle for getting there can be found in policies outside
the Bill. My party has announced incentives such as feed-in tariffs for
microgeneration, an emissions performance standard for electricity that
is generated in the UK and a new green exchange market
to kick-start investment in our low-carbon economy. There is plenty more
where that came from, but the place to legislate for such policies is
not in the Bill, which should remain a lean, focused framework
document. 6.15
pm To
include a list of sanctions on any group that breaches its budget, as
the Liberal Democrats propose in the amendment, is beyond the remit of
the Bill. Who would decide those sanctions—the Secretary of
State or the Committee on Climate Change? Under which legislation would
they be empowered to lay those sanctions? Presumably, the sanctions
would take the shape of either a monetary fine or additional
legislation.
Mr.
Gummer: Is not this a manifestation of the Praise-God
Barebones approach to life, in which the only way to solve these
problems is to be thoroughly miserable and to punish people who get it
wrong? Surely, we ought to be doing exactly the opposite, which is to
be thoroughly cheerful about the fact that we are going to get through
and win, and to encourage people who do things right. Those people
should profit rather than have to wear hair shirts of the liberal
variety.
Gregory
Barker: By hair shirts of the liberal variety, I presume
that my right hon. Friend means short-sleeved hair shirts. He is
absolutely right. The Conservatives are passionately wedded to adopting
a can-do, hopeful and optimistic agenda.
Existing
market mechanisms, such as the EU ETS and the carbon reduction
commitment programme, should have sufficient sanctions if the targets
are not met. If they do not, those mechanisms should be tightened,
rather than additional costs and regulations being placed on business.
We can be sure that any final increase in cost will be passed on to
consumers, and the law of unintended consequences should be considered.
Policy makers should remain acutely aware of that at this time of
increased energy costs and heightened energy poverty. In the interests
of optimism and
ambition—
Gregory
Barker: I cannot say, “In the interests of optimism
and ambition, I give way,” but perhaps we could have a
semi-colon before “I give
way.”
Steve
Webb: I heard the hon. Gentleman’s
semi-colon. Is
he saying that we should lay all those duties on the Government and
Secretaries of State and that, if they fail to achieve them, so
what?
Gregory
Barker: Let me restate that the Bill is not the place for
harsh penalties. The message that we, as legislators, must send out to
the public, the electorate and the wider world is that we are focused
on finding solutions and funding a road map to a sustainable low-carbon
economy. We have an inherent belief in that mission, and we do not
believe that we should start things by clobbering people with fines,
regulations and tokenistic measures for taking the pay of Ministers.
The agenda is much bigger than that.
Martin
Horwood: I am listening with interest to this hug-a-hoodie
approach to Ministers who break the law. Does not the Conservative
party believe in there being consequences for Ministers who break the
law?
Gregory
Barker: Talking about carbon criminals and Government
Ministers breaking the law takes the debate in a thoroughly different
direction. We have to get back to common sense, which is to rely on
Ministers and the good judgment of the British electorate to elect a
Government—in future—who will be good to their word and
who will provide an ambitious route forward, rather than relying on
silly mechanisms in the Bill. For those reasons, I cannot support the
amendment.
Mr.
Weir: I did not intend to speak to the amendment, but I
have been spurred into action by some of the remarks made by the hon.
Member for Cheltenham. His response to my intervention was quite wrong.
In the few years left in which Scotland will be part of the UK, we will
be part of a net UK carbon budget, which covers all parts of the UK,
and the report will be on the UK carbon budget. I am sure that Scottish
Ministers will well exceed their part of things, but if one of the
devolved Administrations did not do so, under his amendment, the UK
Parliament would fine or act against Ministers over whom they have no
authority because they are part of a devolved Administration. There has
been a good bit of party political knockabout between the other two
parties, but the amendment is inept and would introduce something that
would only cause division and confusion. I oppose the
amendment.
Mr.
Woolas: I am sorry to intervene in this tremendous
disagreement between the opposition parties. I want to put on record
something that we believe is important in relation to the clause and
amendment No. 35. We are discussing a serious requirement on the
Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament setting out
proposals and policies to compensate for the excess emissions if a
budget were not met. The Secretary of State must lay that report before
Parliament, because clause 5 will establish that
responsibility.
Our view of
the amendment and its relationship with clause 5 is that, given the
statutory basis of the targets and budgets in the Bill, any failure to
meet a target or budget carries the risk for the Government of judicial
review, like most legal duties on the Government. In such a case, the
remedy would be at the discretion of the court. In most circumstances
when a Government have failed to comply with a duty, courts do no more
than issue a declaration, but we cannot rule out completely the
possibility of a court making a more stringent order, such as ordering
them to purchase credit. No Government would take that risk
lightly. 6.22
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House. 6.49
pm On
resuming—
Mr.
Woolas: I was drawing my remarks on amendment No. 35 to a
close. I want to add that schedule 2 provides powers to establish
trading schemes and that includes,
of course, provisions for penalties. In that case,
for example, within the context of the new carbon reduction commitment,
we are looking to develop a compliance regime that provides a
transparent and proportionate deterrent against
non-compliance. The
sanctions relate to the level of the individual trading scheme or
policy, and that is because they are tied to the obligations that fall
upon the individual participants in the scheme. In the same way, the
framework of sanctions set out in clause 18 falls upon the Secretary of
State, because that is where the obligations are placed. I hope that
those reassurances about the transparency of the provisions will allow
the amendment to be
withdrawn.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister has made some serious criticisms of
the amendment. He says that there is a risk of judicial review, and
that therefore sanctions will be imposed at the discretion of the
courts. That is an extraordinary admission in respect of a Bill of this
seriousness. We are saying that we will leave whatever sanctions emerge
against Governments, specific Ministers or Secretaries of State to
unelected judges and that we will refrain from ever specifying
sanctions in the Bill or in any legislation that comes before the
House. That does not seem to be very
democratic. The
Minister suggests that one of the possible sanctions might involve
forcing the purchase of credits and that that might be imposed by the
courts. That is one of the scenarios that I described in my opening
remarks. As I said, it runs the risk—especially if it is not
done at a premium but simply involves buying more credits outside the
planned regime—of allowing the Government to buy their way out
of a situation, with all the problems around domestic effort and
purchasing of credits that we will probably discuss later this
evening. Finally,
the Minister said that if we take the model of things such as the
carbon reduction commitment, there will be sanctions for certain
sections of the economy. In a sense, he is saying that participants in
such schemes—in other words, business—will face severe
sanctions but politicians will not. That is not a very positive signal
for this Parliament to send
out. Most
of the Conservative criticisms of the amendment seem to relate to our
dress sense, with references to dour, short-sleeved Liberal hair
shirts. I seem to remember similar criticisms coming from the
Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, when we were accused of being
sandal-wearing bearded hippies, but those were the days when the
Conservative party thought that carbon reduction meant closing down
coal mines. We were ahead of our time then, and we are ahead of our
time
now. In
the light of political reality and some genuine criticisms from the
hon. Member for Angus, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 18,
page 10, line 10, at end
add— ‘(4) The Secretary of
State shall certify that the Committee on Climate Change agrees the
factual content of any report laid in accordance with this
section.’. My
comments will be reasonably brief. We propose the amendment because
distrust has been expressed in Committee, mainly of the Daily Mail
and The Guardian,
but also of potential successors to this Minister
and other Ministers. At some level, we share some of that distrust. We
see the need for some gold-plating in parts of the Bill, and this is
one of
them. The
amendment would ensure that when action plans and reports were
presented to Parliament as the means to remedy the excess over the
carbon reduction targets in the budget, they were not simply a strategy
or a report as described by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, but
were rigorously based on sound science and analysis. For that reason,
the amendment would ensure that the Committee on Climate Change had
agreed the factual content of any such report and that its authority
was attached to the assumptions underlying
it.
Gregory
Barker: In the interests of balance and fairness, I assure
the Liberals that we are happy to support the amendment on the grounds
that it would enhance the authority of the Committee on Climate Change
and improve the transparency of Government reporting on proposals and
policies for meeting future
budgets. The
report provided for in the clause will outline what proposals the
Government would bring forward in the event of an excess of emissions
in a given budget period, and it will be issued as a result of
Government failure. Transparency and accountability are key themes of
the Bill and it is important that we improve it in that direction
wherever possible, so I am happy to lend my support to this
measure.
Mr.
Woolas: One word comes to mind—shocking. It is
shocking that the allegation should be made that the committee would be
required to check the factual content of a ministerial report. On a
serious point, people have asked what is the statutory enforcement of
the Bill. One thing that the Bill does is put in statute the
relationship between the civil service and Ministers regarding advice.
It will be illegal for civil servants to advise Ministers contrary to
the Bill. That is an important point, although it may not be seen by
the outside
world. Let
me give some reassurances to counter what I see as the undue
scepticism—not cynicism—of the hon. Member for
Cheltenham. Under the clause, the Government proposals will be a
statement of fact to the extent that they will represent facts about
what the Government intend to do. The report will be a statement of the
policies that the Government intend to implement, so it does not seem
entirely logical that an independent committee should be called on to
verify the factual content of the
report. More
importantly, it is crucial that the committee should remain completely
independent from the Government—that is a debate that we have
had before. It is Parliament that will hold the Government to account
for the progress that we are making towards our 2050 target and it is
important that I emphasise that. That is why, although I understand the
intent in relation to subsection (3), requiring that the Secretary of
State’s report be sent to the authorities listed, I cannot
envisage circumstances where the report will not be based on fact. If
it were to be so, Parliament would hold us to account through due
process.
| 
