Gregory
Barker: All the contributors so far have spoken sensibly,
and the amendment is well intentioned and reasonable. The hon. Member
for Northavon put his finger on it when he said that the Committee does
not doubt that the ministerial team would like the
amendment to be made, but there is a widespread
sneaking suspicion that the enthusiasm and commitment of the DEFRA
Ministers to an effective policy is not shared by the rest of the
Government. We have a Prime Minister who perhaps does not get it in the
same way as his predecessor did. He is more battered by expediency and
is inclined to take all matters into consideration and dither when
confronted with hard decisions. [ Hon. Members:
“Ah”] Well, the record of the past 12 months speaks for
itself, but this is hardly the place to debate
that.
Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): I wonder whether
the hon. Gentleman has read the Prime Minister’s speech to the
low carbon economy summit on 26
June.
Gregory
Barker: I have not, but I have seen what the Prime
Minister has and has not done over the past 12 months.
However, I do not want to be drawn into discussing the Prime
Minister’s
record.
The
Chairman: Order. For the moment, let us confine our
attention to amendment No.
102.
Gregory
Barker: It would greatly help to inform the debate and the
decision-making process later in the year if we had access to the
committee’s views. Opposition Front-Bench members hold to the
position that the critical decision to set the target should be taken
on the basis of the committee’s informed opinion, and it would
make eminent sense to move forward by one month the date on which the
committee must advise the Secretary of State on the resetting of the
2050 target. I have not spoken to Adair Turner, but there are concerns
that by truncating the process, we might limit the scope of the
committee’s considerations or place on it an unwanted additional
burden.
I listened
carefully to the hon. Member for Northavon, and I am willing to take at
face value what he said about his discussion with Lord Turner, without
attributing anything directly to the committee chairman. It is
important that we take into account the committee’s views, if
possible. The inconvenient truth is that the Bill will not have
received Royal Assent by 1 November 2008, and we worry about how to
legislate for a deadline that will have passed by the time the Bill
becomes law. I hope the Minister will clarify today exactly what powers
the shadow Committee on Climate Change will have prior to the
Bill’s enactment.
The amendment
draws our attention to how slow the Government have been in taking the
Bill through Parliament. If they had followed the timetable that we all
expected, the Bill would have passed through both Houses and become law
by the summer recess, or sooner, which would have given the Committee
on Climate Change exactly six months in which to produce its report. As
it stands, however, the shadow committee will be official for a number
of weeks at best before it must report on the 2050 target. That
situation is far from ideal, and I commend the Liberal Democrats for
tabling the amendment, if for no other reason than to highlight the
Government’s procrastination on such a vital piece of
legislation. Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Allegations of betrayal
have been made over the 80 per cent. target, but yesterday both
Opposition parties had an opportunity
to make an important contribution to the achievement
of that target. They could have supported the application of the new
variable vehicle excise duty system to the existing vehicle fleet, but
refused to do so. In discussing the importance of that target, we must
recognise the need to support the mechanisms and policies that will
achieve it, and not just make vague gestures endorsing the target
itself.
Although I am
slightly aggrieved that the Liberal Democrats have stolen my
intellectual copyright, the amendment has some merit and I hope the
Minister will respond sympathetically. My comments on Tuesday did not
refer only to bringing forward the date of the full report, but left
open the option of an interim report. Furthermore, I do not think that
1 November is the only date that could be considered for either the
full or the interim report.
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North speaks with characteristic
profundity, to quote the hon. Member for Northavon. I will remind him
of that on future
amendments. 9.45
am I
am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon, who has helped the
Committee. He talked to the Secretary of State, giving notice of his
intention, and credited my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North in
that conversation. The hon. Member for Northavon has also talked to the
chairman of the shadow committee to see what is possible. Let me try to
help the Committee in two ways—to echo you, Mr. Cook,
the good news and the bad news. I think that the good news outweighs
the bad news, unlike your news, Mr. Cook—we will miss
you this
afternoon.
The
Chairman: Flattery will get you
everywhere.
Mr.
Woolas: That is what it says in the
brief. I
shall help the Committee by quoting subsection
(3): “The
Committee must give its advice under this section before 1st December
2008.” When
we put the figure in, we were not in the position that we are in
now—we did not know when Report and Third Reading would be.
Indeed, the suggestion by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on the
alleged delay would have made the problem worse. Pragmatically, we felt
that a requirement to provide advice before December gives sufficient
time. As
has been said, at the moment the committee is a shadow one. In
accordance with the conventions of Parliament, the committee can spend
taxpayers’ money, because the Bill has had Second Reading.
However, anything that the committee does before it is vested has no
legal import. Therefore, the advice itself, and the relationship of the
Government and Parliament to that advice, is not based in
statute—our Bill—until the committee has been vested,
which cannot take place until the Bill has received Royal Assent. I had
hoped that I would get credit for what I thought was beautiful tapestry
with the date, because 1 December is the day before the Queen’s
Speech—I thought that that would be obvious, but it clearly was
not. Seriously, the date means before 1 December, and I am more than
happy to make that clear to the shadow committee and its
chair.
Secondly,
advice on the 2° target and what we may be able to do under our
Bill is in the interests of Parliament, and I have given a commitment
to seek advice and to take a decision on that. Having interim advice
on, for example, the long-term target would clearly benefit Parliament
and deliberations on Third Reading and Report. The hon. Member for
Bexhill and Battle was cruel to my leader, saying that he has been
“battered by expediency”, although I point to last
night’s vote for a case of battering with expediency. However, I
will keep away from partisan points.
If we were
simply acting expediently, we would accept the point of the hon. Member
for Banbury and agree with the amendment. The person whose life would
be easiest as a result would be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State—or mine and my hon. Friend’s. Seriously, if we were
to pass the amendment as it stands at the moment, the committee would
still not be based on statute, because of the lack of Royal Assent. We
have to remember that the committee does not legally
exist.
Gregory
Barker: Is anyone really saying that they will not accept
the advice of the committee, if the committee does not legally exist?
Surely what we want in Parliament, and what the public wants, is the
advice of the committee. We do not want some technical, legal assurance
that the committee exists in statute. We want to know the advice of
those wise
men— [Interruption.]—and
women. It is not the legal definition, but the opinion of that group of
experts that we
seek.
Mr.
Woolas: I understand the political point that is being
made—of course I do—but I am seeking to defend the status
of law. Opposition Members have said that it is not DEFRA Ministers
whom they do not trust, but the rest of the Government. One cannot
knowingly table an amendment to instruct a committee that does not
exist, because it would have no status in law. Clearly, if the
committee were able to make public its views and its interim advice, if
we can use that phrase, it would have a huge policy import. However,
all the debates that we had on Tuesday about the relationships between
the committee and the Government, and the Government and Parliament,
would mean nothing. It would be a Del Boy
clause.
Tony
Baldry: As the Minister probably gathered, no one
particularly wants this amendment, but we want an undertaking from the
Minister that he will write an elegant letter to the chair of the
shadow Committee explaining that we would like this advice before
Report and Third Reading. It is very simple. What we really want to
hear from the Minister is how he gets off the hook. The most shocking
thing that I have heard today is the idea of a Liberal spokesman
rampaging across the machinery of government speaking to chairs of
shadow committees. The Minister should get a grip on this, and we will
not have the Liberals interfering in the machinery of government, which
they have absolutely no place to do. That is the most shocking thing
about all this. If the Minister can get a grip on the matter, and
ensure that by the time that we come to Report and Third Reading, we
can elegantly deal with without anyone feeling betrayed, it would be
really wonderful.
Mr.
Woolas: I will take the hon. Gentleman’s sound
advice. I have tried to answer him and give him the undertaking that he
needs by pointing out the clause’s reference to “before 1
December”, and I undertake formally to bring that to the
attention of the chairman of the shadow Committee.
Large numbers
of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that we should do
what is being said. I do not see this as a partisan point. I am sure
that there will be those who say that if we are able to do this, the
Government are caving in under pressure. There is a range of views on
this, and it is wrong to say that it is the members of the Government
who are looking for a way out of this. It was the Prime Minister in his
speech in November who put the question before
us.
Steve
Webb: We are grateful for what we have just heard. Would
the Minister be willing—I cannot think why he would
not—to place in the Library of the House a copy of the letter
that he sends to the chairman of the
Committee?
Mr.
Woolas: Yes. Like, I hope, all my letters, that letter
will be
elegant. Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): I have listened very
carefully to the Minister’s argument, which appears to be rooted
exclusively in issues of law. He has not mentioned to the Committee any
concerns about practicality or pressure. Can we take it that his
understanding is that the November deadline will not create practical
problems?
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is astute. I have not used
those arguments, because the answer is that I do not know. When we
looked at the timing, we judged that before 1 December, which is a
Monday, was reasonable. I do not know the answer, and I do not know for
sure the view of the chairman on the question whether making an interim
report, or some such advice, public would separate the long-term goals
from the medium-tern goals. In my view, is possible to do that, but I
do not know whether that is the chairman’s
view.
Mr.
Hurd: If the Minister’s position is rooted in
honest ignorance, may I make a suggestion? One of my concerns about
practicalities is that the committee will have another extremely
important job to do by 1 December, which is to pass comment on not one
but three carbon budgets. Those are incredibly important judgments to
make, so I am a little puzzled why there is such a hard line on 1
December. Is there room for some
flexibility?
Mr.
Woolas: The answer concerns the relationship between that
advice and the Chancellor’s Budget in March, if one sees the
beautiful tapestry. There will be the pre-Budget report, the advice and
then, of course, the Budget. Remembering that the pre-Budget report is
a consultation, the committee’s advice will dovetail with those
events. The key words are “before 1st
December”.
To answer the
question asked by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, the Bill
creates the committee. The Secretary of State will make a commencement
order to bring the committee into existence before its advice is given,
but, obviously, that can happen only after Royal Assent. Ahead of that
date, the committee cannot legally exercise any of the legal functions
that the Bill grants it, which is the formal legal position.
I
hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Northavon. His point is
helpful to the good sense of the debate in Parliament and consequently
to the Government —I nearly said “for once”, but
that would be
unfair.
Steve
Webb: The debate has been very constructive, despite my
amendment being called the Del Boy amendment and being accused of
rampaging across the machinery of government.
Let me state
my understanding of what the Minister has said. He has emphasised that
the law requires the matter to be dealt with before 1 December, which
does not necessarily mean that date, and he has undertaken to write to
the chair of the committee and to publish that letter. I understand and
hope that that letter will make explicit reference to the parliamentary
timetable and the advantage to Parliament of receiving an interim
indication of the committee’s thinking prior to our further
deliberations.
Mr.
Woolas: My emphasis was on drawing attention to the words
“before 1st December” in clause 33(3), and on pointing
out the parliamentary
timetable.
Steve
Webb: That is very helpful. On the basis of those
assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Miss
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): I am disappointed that
we will be deprived of your tender stewardship for the remaining stages
of the Committee, Mr.
Cook. Let
me press the Minister for clarification on three points. I do not want
this to turn into the war of the Select Committees, but the excellent
report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
on the draft Bill raised certain points about the committee’s
powers under clause 33, the resources available to it, its independence
and the duty on the Government to accept its advice. The Select
Committee clearly stated in paragraph 85:
“The
Committee on Climate Change should not be a policy-making or delivery
body. It should be focussed on the provision of advice...but it
must not be prevented from advising the Government on any policy
matters that may come to its attention while carrying out its
duties.” Paragraph
86
states: “In
order to establish the independence of the Committee on Climate Change,
the Secretary of State should be required to accept its recommendations
without further
debate.” The
Committee concluded that that would place
“the
Committee’s advice alongside that of the Monetary Policy
Committee whose interest rate decisions are not challengeable by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer except under very extreme
circumstances.” In
paragraph 88, the Committee
stated: “We
do not see that the Bill prevents the Committee on Climate Change from
recommending the mid- and long-term targets, but it is not clear that
the Committee will have this power. We recommend that by 2009 the
Committee should review and recommend to the Secretary of State what
the 2020 and 2050 target should be... In addition, the Committee
should have the power and responsibility to make recommendations to the
Secretary of State at any time regarding the mid- and long-term
targets.”
10
am The
Committee went on to consider what resources there should be. In
response to the earlier amendment, the Minister said that, legally, the
committee does not exist. However, it is currently being resourced in
shadow form and the resources will go up incrementally as the committee
takes legal effect.
In paragraph
101, the Select Committee
states: “It
is imperative that the staff and information resources available to the
Committee on Climate Change are completely independent of Government.
We recommend that independent consultants be asked by the Government to
recommend the correct level of resources available to the Committee in
order to establish that it is properly
resourced.” I
do not see any opportunity in the later stages of the Bill to discuss
the important matter of resources. Usually such discussion takes place
in one of the debates on the schedules, but I see no reference to
resources in schedule 1. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary
of State will be obliged to follow the advice? We have established that
the advice will be published and debated. Will the Secretary of State
be obliged to follow that advice? Are we satisfied that the committee
will be independent of Government, and can the Minister convince us
that the resources available to the committee to perform its functions
are adequate for its
task?
| 
