Martin
Horwood: I have similar concerns about the amendments.
Government amendment No. 13 is a rather strange dilution of the
reporting requirement on adaptation, in that it will no longer be
annual. The Minister argued that mitigation and the associated
long-term strategies justify an annual report by the Secretary of
State, but that somehow adaptation should be excluded from annual
reporting. Adaptation is a matter of current Government policy on flood
budgets, health strategies and transport infrastructure, which, as we
all know, changes from month to month, let alone from year to year, so
I find her argument rather strange. Perhaps she would reiterate exactly
why she thinks that adaptation, in particular, is not a matter for
immediate annual reporting concern.
The Minister
said that Government amendment No. 21 would remove simple
duplication, but that is not quite the case. Clause 56(3), which would
be removed, refers specifically not only to reporting on adaptation,
but “the
progress made towards implementing the objectives, proposals and
policies set out in earlier
programmes.” There
is no such wording under new clause 4 or any of the other Government
amendments so, in a sense, the proposal seems to be yet another wriggly
amendment designed to remove the immediate responsibility of the
Government to report on something specific. In this case, it would be
whether they were actually meeting the targets and objectives that they
had set out in previous adaptation programmes. That is important
reporting, and it should stay in the Bill.
1.15
pm
Joan
Ruddock: I turn first to what was said by the hon. Member
for Bexhill and Battle. I need to reiterate that we are in no sense
diluting matters. We are removing requirements that existed for the
Government before we decided to give the power to the committee. The
committee will be asked to make an independent assessment of progress
on the Government’s adaptation programme. It will be giving
advice on the progress that is made. There is no way in which such
action will dilute things. Indeed, we would have expected the hon.
Gentleman to understand that an independent committee undertaking such
work is likely to strengthen provisions rather than dilute
them. The
progress reports will cover all adaptation programmes, past and
present. That is shown by the reference under new clause 4 to
“programmes”. We believe that adaptation requires more
time in respect of the progress that is made. The subject is enormous.
It covers every aspect of our society, country, people and economy in
their adaptation to climate change. We have non-statutory programmes at
present, and we believe that annual reporting is unlikely to give a
proper analysis of what is happening and of the
Government’s
progress. I
am talking about an analysis of the progress made against the programme
that the Government have set. The hon. Member for Cheltenham suggested
that we should retain clause 56(3), but the issues that it covers are
more concerned with policies than progress. I stress that there is no
point in duplication. We need the Government to have an adaptation
programme and for proper scrutiny to be made of its progress.
Amendment agreed
to. Clause
35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
36 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
37Duty
to provide advice or other assistance on
request Amendment
made: No. 14, in clause 37, page 19, line 26, leave out
from ‘or’ to end of line 27 and
insert— ‘(c) adaptation to
climate change,
or (d) any
other matter relating to climate change.’.—[Joan
Ruddock.] Clause
37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
40Powers
to give
guidance Amendments
made: No. 15, in clause 40, page 20, line 31, at end
insert— ‘(e) section [Advice
of Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on
impact of climate change),
or (f) section [Reporting on
progress in connection with adaptation] (reporting on progress in
connection with
adaptation).’. No.
16, in
clause 40, page 20, line 32, leave
out ‘such guidance’ and insert
‘guidance under any of paragraphs
(a) to (e)’.—[Joan
Ruddock.] Clause
40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
41Powers
to give
direction Amendments
made: No. 17, in clause 41, page 21, line 15, at end
insert— ‘(e) section [Advice
of Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on
impact of climate change),
or (f) section [Reporting on
progress in connection with adaptation] (reporting on progress in
connection with
adaptation).’. No.
18, in
clause 41, page 21, line 16, leave
out ‘such directions’ and insert
‘directions
under any of paragraphs (a) to (e)’.—[Joan
Ruddock.] Clause
41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
43Trading
schemes
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Miss
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Atkinson. I
want to press the Minister on trading schemes. Much of the detail that
we will consider will be set out in regulations. Clause 43 defines the
trading schemes, but does not specify which trading schemes will be
introduced using the enabling powers in later clauses. The Minister
will be aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
picked up on that and we were disappointed that more detail was not
given at this stage.
My second
point is that the clause could have gone a little further by stating
how the national trading scheme for England will relate to the devolved
trading schemes, and especially how the UK trading scheme will relate
to the EU emissions trading scheme. Who is to rule on the compatibility
of the two trading schemes? Will it be the Secretary of State? A little
more meat on the bones would be very
helpful.
Mr.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr.
Atkinson. I
make a similar point to that of the hon. Member for Vale of York. The
clause seems to give all national authorities the power to begin their
own trading schemes, but it is not clear how they will interact with
each other and, more crucially, the EU ETS. As the Minister will know,
one of the early problems with the EU ETS was a fall in the price of
carbon to a very low level. It is not clear how the carbon price would
be dealt with in the various sub-national and UK-wide schemes, as
opposed to the EU scheme. I am concerned that we might arrive at a
situation in which the various schemes cover the same industry, but the
price of carbon in each one may be different. That could cause problems
for both the UK scheme and the EU scheme as a whole, and I would like
some reassurances about how that will be dealt with. Obviously, the
price of carbon will be crucial in making the EU—or any
other—scheme work.
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
Thank you, Mr. Atkinson, and welcome to the sitting. It is a
pleasure to be
here. Hon.
Members have asked important questions. Carbon trading schemes, on
which there is consensus, lie at the heart of the Bill, and their
success should be judged on not just the EU scheme, but on similar
arrangements, such as the previous scheme for sulphur dioxide and the
very successful Montreal convention, which we recently celebrated 20
years
of. In
answer to questions raised, it is important that carbon trading schemes
are compatible and that there is an exchange mechanism so that we can
roll out such schemes across the globe. Our long-term aim is to see the
expansion of the ETS to cover more sectors and gases, but some sectors
might not be appropriate for inclusion. The enabling powers in the Bill
will provide the Government or devolved Administrations of the day with
additional options to take domestic action in sectors that are
unsuitable at the time for inclusion in the ETS. They will also allow
them to take domestic action ahead of the EU when that is
cost-effective and necessary to reduce UK emissions. We believe that
that approach might also help sectors to prepare for inclusion. Any
decision on the best policy instrument will take account of the UK
Government’s objectives in the round. For example, we might wish
to supplement the EU-level action and introduce our own policies to
uncover inefficiencies and to support clean technologies. The powers
here will provide them and the devolved Administrations with the
opportunity to do
that. I
am trying to create an architecture for carbon trading schemes that
allows inter-exchange. It might be that prices will differ, in which
case we would have exchange rates, would we
not?
Mr.
Weir: The Minister said that the schemes are meant for
industries that are not appropriate for inclusion in the EU ETS, but it
seems to me that the definitions would allow a national scheme to
include industries that are in the ETS. In such a situation, would the
ETS take precedence, or could industries find themselves operating in
both
schemes?
Mr.
Woolas: I see the hon. Gentleman’s point. It would
be a question not of preference, but of a scheme’s operability.
For the sake of argument, let us say that one established a scheme for
bus companies to trade carbon credits and that a European bus trading
scheme—for example, a sectoral scheme—was also in place.
Those two schemes would have a relationship through, for example,
independent auditing and buying and selling. At any one time, the price
of carbon in the different scheme might be different.
If I
interpreted the hon. Gentleman’s question correctly, he is
worried that a Scottish bus carbon trading scheme, for example, might
undermine the European ETS, if not set up correctly. That would not be
possible because, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Northavon,
the architecture of the European ETS is based on units, not on
countries. It would not be subservient any more or less than the pound
in Scotland is subservient to the
euro.
Mr.
Weir: Try telling that to English
shopkeepers!
Mr.
Woolas: In answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York,
clause 43 on its own provides for the enabling power for the Government
or devolved Administrations to establish trading schemes. Powers to
establish those schemes are provided later within the rules. At
present, neither the Secretary of State nor Welsh Ministers have the
power to establish such trading schemes through legislation. The
Scottish Parliament can make trading schemes within
its competence in Scotland. Interestingly, the Northern Ireland
Assembly can make trading schemes within its competence in Northern
Ireland. 1.30
pm
Our aim is
for each national authority to have the same set of powers without
changing or upsetting the devolution settlements that are already in
place. As the hon. Member for Angus said, the idea is to enable joint
trading schemes to be made in secondary legislation, and that cannot be
done at
present. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
43 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
44Activities
to which trading schemes may
apply Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): As we are dealing with a new part
of the Bill and a clause on trading schemes, I want to ask the Minister
a question about the philosophy and principle underlying the creation
of trading schemes. To what extent do the Government think that
sectoral schemes are a good idea over and above what one might loosely
call aggregate schemes? By analogy with the argument that has been used
elsewhere in our deliberations, one could say that carbon is carbon is
carbon. In that case all we need to do is set overall caps. If we
create sectoral schemes within those caps, or alongside them, we may
create a new bureaucracy and a new infrastructure, but not add a great
deal. On
the other hand, just as we have argued that a tonne of carbon saved in
the UK has a different meaning and value to that saved elsewhere
because of the leadership role, one might argue that a sectoral trading
scheme has value quite apart from the aggregate effect, because we want
to create innovation in transport or in industry. As clause 44 is about
the activities to which trading schemes may apply, what are the
principles that will guide the Government in deciding when it is
appropriate to establish a sectoral scheme and when it is appropriate
to let the carbon price, the ETS or some aggregate scheme that is not
sector specific be the dominant approach?
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman poses an important question.
The issue is widely debated in the international forum, so it is useful
to have the opportunity to
respond. The
word “sectoral” is used by different people in different
ways. Sometimes it refers directly to a particular industrial sector.
Ceramics comes to mind, for reasons that are evident on the Labour
Benches, but we could also use the example of steel or aluminium. Some
people use the word “sectors” to mean energy production
or transport. Clearly, it is important that we answer the question
posed by the hon. Member for Northavon.
Our
policy is firmly based on the pre-requisite of national emissions cap
and trade—national targets and binding agreements. On that
basis, we believe that there may well be advantages for further
reduction of emissions through sector schemes—international
sector schemes on steel come to
mind. Joan
Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend
confirm that in those sectoral arrangements, it is the
Government’s intention to allow as much flexibility as possible
within the individual sectors so that we can achieve our global
emissions? Do they recognise that we need such
flexibility?
| 
