David
Maclean: I shall be brief, as I anticipate that we may be
voting shortly and we may all wish to have a little lull in
proceedings. I am delighted that the Minister says that carbon sinks
are included and that the UK believes passionately in maintaining and
enhancing them. He explained that clause 29(2) states that our carbon
policy must be
determined “with
international carbon reporting
practice” in
mind, and that clause 89 provides further definitions. I have checked
them out and he is absolutely right. I did not read far enough ahead
before I bashed down my amendment to clause
25. I
am content that my amendment is not necessary. Therefore, irrespective
of what other colleagues may wish to do with their amendments, or of
other votes that may or may not take place, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
12.
Division No.
6] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 25
disagreed
to. Clauses
26 to 29 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Steve
Webb: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I may be
mistaken about the procedure, but we would like to amend Government
amendment No. 7 with amendment (a), if that is
possible.
The
Chairman: I am grateful for the interest of the hon.
Member, but the skills of chairmanship will become very clear if he
waits and has
patience.
Clause
30Emissions
from international passenger travel or imports or exports of
goods Amendment
proposed: No. 7, in clause 30, page 15, line 36, leave out
subsections (1) to (5) and
insert— ‘(1) Emissions of
greenhouse gases from international aviation or international shipping
do not count as emissions from sources in the United Kingdom for the
purposes of this Part, except as provided by regulations made by the
Secretary of State. (2) The
Secretary of State may by order define what is to be regarded for this
purpose as international aviation or international
shipping. Any such order is
subject to affirmative resolution
procedure. (3) The Secretary of
State must, before the end of the period of five years beginning with
the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision by regulations as to the
circumstances in which, and the extent to which, emissions from
international aviation or international shipping are to be regarded for
the purposes of this Part as emissions from sources in the United
Kingdom, or (b) lay before
Parliament a report explaining why regulations making such provision
have not been made. (4) The
expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (3) does not affect the
power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this
section. (5) Regulations under
this section— (a) may
make provision only in relation to emissions of a targeted greenhouse
gas; (b) may, in particular,
provide for such emissions to be regarded as emissions from sources in
the United Kingdom if they relate to the transport of passengers or
goods to or from the United Kingdom.’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
Amendment
proposed to amendment No. 7: (a), in line
13, leave out from ‘Kingdom’ to end of line
15.—[Martin
Horwood.] The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
12.
Division
No.
7] Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment
proposed to amendment No. 7: (b), in
line 13, leave out from ‘Kingdom’ to end of
line 17.—[Gregory
Barker.] The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
12.
Division
No.
8] Question
accordingly negatived.
Question,
That amendment No. 7 be made, put and agreed
to.
Clause
30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 31
and 32 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1
The
Committee on Climate
Change
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in
schedule 1, page 44, line 5, at
end insert— ‘not
fewer than seven and not more than 12 members of
which—’.
The
Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 59, in
schedule 1, page 44, leave out lines 6 to 9
and insert— ‘(a) up to six
must be nominated by the national authorities, and
(b) up to six must be nominated by the President for
the time being of the Royal
Society.’. No.
60, in schedule 1, page 44, leave out lines
10 and 11 and insert— ‘(2)
The Chairman must be appointed by the Secretary of
State.’. No.
61, in
schedule 1, page 44, line 11, at
end insert— ‘( ) The
nominations made under paragraph 1 must be considered by a relevant
select committee of the House of Commons and no person shall be
appointed unless and until their nomination has been approved by such
committee.’. No.
62, in
schedule 1, page 44, line 12, after
‘authorities’, insert
‘and the President of the Royal
Society’.
Gregory
Barker: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 58, 59
and 62, which would change the nomination procedures and composition of
the Committee on Climate Change. The adjustments that we propose would
make the committee more independent, more scientific and better
equipped to deal with the new responsibilities that have been given to
it.
As the Bill
stands, the committee seems too small to cope with those extra duties.
Amendment No. 58 would increase its membership to ensure that the
additional burdens could be covered adequately. We believe that a
membership of seven is not quite sufficient. It is important to ensure
that the committee is able to give due attention to those matters as
well as to nominate people with relevant experience. We therefore
believe that it is important to allow the option to increase the
committee to no fewer than seven members and no more than 12.
Amendment No.
59 relates to the nomination procedure. To ensure the independence of
the committee, we believe that approximately half of the appointments
should be made by the Royal Society. That would depoliticise the
committee, so that we did not end with a group of people potentially
beholden to Ministers, political parties or special interest groups. I
expect that there might be some
criticism— 8.16
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House.
8.55
pm On
resuming—
Gregory
Barker: I am delighted to resume proceedings,
Mr. Cook. As I was saying, the amendment is an effort to
depoliticise the committee and not end up with a group of people who
are potentially beholden to Ministers of the day, political parties or
special interest groups. There might be some criticism that the Royal
Society has its own internal politics. It has been mentioned in
previous debates that the world of science is not one of monolithic
agreement and unified opinion, but I hope that members of the Committee
will agree with the intention behind the
amendment. There
needs to be a mechanism to ensure that appropriate experts and
scientists are appointed to the committee through a process that is
apolitical, independent and credible. What assurance can the Minister
give that that will be the case, even if he can explain that
nominations and appointments will be carried out with the utmost care
and contentiousness? We do not doubt the
Government’s commitment to ensure that members of the committee
are indeed appropriate, but we consider that there needs to be a
provision under the Bill to ensure that that will continue to happen in
future. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that, after the initial
appointments, the committee will continue to be truly
independent? I
am keen to move on to amendment No. 63, but amendments Nos. 59 to 62
are effectively probing amendments, so I shall confine my
remarks.
Mr.
Weir: Amendment No. 60 would remove the devolved
Administrations from any decision in respect of the appointment of the
chair. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he has tabled such an
amendment?
Gregory
Barker: No, I cannot—off the top of my head. If I
were a Minister, I would promise to write to the hon. Gentleman.
However, I am not, so I shall have a word with you outside in the
corridor
later.
Martin
Horwood: It is delightful to be resuming our business,
even at this slightly late hour. I congratulate all those Labour
Members present on their stamina, although I warn them that Liberal
Democrats will talk about climate change until Christmas if given half
a chance. However, I shall try to be brief in the interests of
everyone’s blood
pressure. We
are happy to support amendments Nos. 58 and 61. Amendment No. 58 is
wise. It would increase the potential for a diverse committee with a
range of expertise, while amendment No. 61 quite rightly seems designed
to reinforce Select Committee scrutiny. Amendment No. 59 and its
derivative, amendment No. 62, would give an interesting role to a
charitable body, the Royal Society, which also has within its
charitable objects and strategies the remit to influence the
Government’s policy, so in a sense it is a logical and
appropriate body to be reflected in the Bill as a strong, independent
voice. The
only slight worry is that the Royal Society might consider that its
freedom of action to criticise the Government’s policy would be
compromised by the arrangement. Nevertheless, the amendment is
important. We suggested an alternative amendment, which has not been
selected. It would have provided the SDC with an independent remit and
expertise in a wide range of areas relating to sustainable development.
It was an alternative for the Government to reflect on, if they
considered that the Royal Society was
inappropriate. I
am completely baffled by amendment No. 60, which seems designed to
irritate the Scots and the Welsh and to re-impose of central UK
authority by the Conservative party. However, since the hon. Member for
Bexhill and Battle is as baffled by his own amendment as we are, I
suggest that we do not spend further time on
it. 9
pm
|
