Mr.
Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his argument
and research. I admonish myself for not reading out the advice at the
beginning of my speech, which covers the point. I was handed the paper
before lunchor dinner, as we say in
Lancashire. The
hon. Gentleman has a point. The United Kingdom cannot set mandatory
standards unilaterally. They need to be agreed at EU level. We have
already set a reporting mechanism within the law. What we are trying to
do is to set out the requirements to the providers to report on the
criteria, as our building block towards the European Union policy. That
is as far as we can go before the EU adopts the
policy. The
hon. Gentleman may be right, but I would ask him to consider the point
that, in the circumstances to which he referred, we would be in the
right position by following my argument, because we have established
the reporting mechanism. We can slow down the RTFO
levels through United Kingdom secondary legislation. My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a consultation on
that point. We are following the route suggested by the hon. Member for
Cheltenham. Let
me use another argument, that of the third party, which is from the
noble Lord Teverson, the Liberal Democrat in the House of Lords. A
similar amendment was tabled, fairly, by the Lib Dems in the other
place. In response to my noble Friend, Lord Rooker, Lord Teverson
said: My
Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive
reply mine
has clearly not been as
extensive which
I have to admit was very
persuasive. He
went
on: I
am fully persuaded. The irony, as the Minister well knows, is that the
whole biofuel debate moves at a faster rate than political
dialogue.[Official Report, House of Lords;
18 March 2008; Vol. 700, c.
239.] The
noble Lord Teverson was persuaded by the argument that I have put. I
hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is, as
well.
Mr.
Gummer: I am entirely persuaded by the Ministers
argument, but does he not have to put forward a further argument? In
the discussions in the European Union, we are faced by those who want
to advantage some internal production of biofuels, for reasons nothing
to do with sustainable development, climate change or anything else. It
is important for him to be able to show clearly that he has been
entirely within the law in his position. He will need to argue with
those who want to produce biofuels from rape oil in France and from
soya beans in Germany for entirely agricultural and electoral
reasonsnothing to do with the real issues of climate change. He
must show that he has treated the issue with great seriousness, because
he might have some pretty tough discussions to get the final results
that he and we
want.
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for
providing another bullet in the chamber, if I may put it that way. He
is right. He raises a practical point. Let me try to amplify it for the
hon. Member for Cheltenham, in an attempt to convince him of the force
of my
argument. By
signing up to European Union law, the UK is not able to implement
unilaterally our own mandatory carbon and sustainability standards
while the draft directive that I mentioned is being negotiated. That is
because of the overlapping subject matter. The requirement proposed in
amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and changes
to the RTFO order to implement that, would have to be notified to the
Commission under the technical standards directive and would be subject
to a stand-still period.
The
stand-still period is expected to be 12 months, as set down in the
technical directive. It would, incidentally, be extended to 18 months,
if during the 12 months the Council adopted a common position on the
draft directive. Therefore, if unilateral UK action was proposed, by
the time the applicable standstill period finished, the renewable
energy directive would very likelyI would say almost
certainlyhave been adopted and its provisions would supersede
the proposed UK legislation. That is a new point for the hon. Member
for Cheltenham to
consider.
4.30
pm I
am pleading with the hon. Gentleman. Although the Government agree with
his policy, we think that schedule 6 is the best way to get to it.
Schedule 6 beefs up the instruction to the administrator. The
dangerif that is not too strong a wordwith the hon.
Gentlemans amendment and the amendment in the other place is
that they could pull the rug from under us, although we agree with
their policy. I rest my case, as it
were.
Martin
Horwood: I am pleased by the degree of consensus in the
Committee today and I am particularly pleased by the congratulations
from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, whose expertise on
these issues and record on environmental issues generally are to be
respected. I therefore forgive him for his earlier party political pot
shots, in this new spirit of cross-party co-operation.
As the right
hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rightly said, we have all been
on a bit of a journey on the subject of biofuels. I think that it was
the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday who slightly unkindly
quoted the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who
only a couple of years ago made the definitive statement:
Five
per cent. of all fuels sold in the UK to come from biofuels is a start,
but it is a minimum step: we will need to go further in the
future. Like
the right hon. Member for Witney, we have modified our
position. Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): What my right hon.
Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said is entirely
possible. If one talks to scientists about the developments in
biofuels, such that science and technology are employed to use the
whole plant, it is entirely possible, and certainly conceivable, that
we could be that ambitious, but not if biofuels are grown
unsustainably. My right hon. Friend would always insist that they are
grown sustainably, so I am afraid that it is a
canard.
Martin
Horwood: I am not sure that I remember the right hon.
Member for Witney saying that to the Renewable Energy Association.
However, we are on common ground in the belief that much more robust
sustainability criteria are needed. Nevertheless, it is important not
to throw out the biofuels baby with the bathwater.
The right
hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and others were a little unkind to
members of the green movement and some of the non-governmental
organisations that have been lobbying us, implying that they have
simply switched position. Those of us who regard ourselves as members
of the green movement have been accused on various occasions of holding
an almost religious fervour about some causes, such as nuclear power
and genetically modified foods, and of never being prepared to change
our position. Well, this is a very obvious standing rebuttal of that
accusation, because on this issue the consensus in the green movement
has shifted. Therefore, the right hon. Gentlemans accusation
was a rather simplistic one.
4.33
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the House.
4.49
pm On
resuming
The
Chairman: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for
Cheltenham, may I say to the Committee that the business on the Floor
of the House is likely to run without a vote until just before 6.50 pm?
After that, when the Bill starts on its Committee of the whole House
stage, there will be a series of Divisions. Members of the Committee
may think it more convenient to make some progress before that time,
because otherwise the latter stage of this Committee will be
disrupted.
Martin
Horwood: I was just extolling the virtues of cross-party
co-operation and of the green movement generally. I shall move on to
the specifics of the amendment.
As the
Minister said, there is some common ground, and he was good enough to
welcome the essence of the policy in our amendment. He was right to say
that the status of the RTFO itself is not at issue. Interestingly, he
said that what we seek to do is to give instructions to the
administrator to ensure the sustainability of the fuels involved. The
amendment proposes to use the word ensure instead of
the current word promote, making the instruction in law
to the administrator much stronger and more powerful.
In that
sense, I am completely with the Minister. He suggests that amendment
No. 1 introduces that requirement without sufficiently clearly defining
it. He said that that might introduce uncertainty over the validity of
certificates and that the criteria should be EU-wide. That is true and
we agree with that, and we agree with sufficiently robust criteria
being adopted at European level, as we have said. There is no shortage
of definitions of sustainability around biofuels.
The Swiss
Government already have a working scheme in which they have clearly
defined measures of sustainability. The Environmental Audit Committee
studied that scheme when we examined the issue. The Gallagher report
also goes some way towards defining it. Professor Gallagher made the
statement that it should be
possible to
establish a genuinely sustainable industry provided that robust,
comprehensive and mandatory sustainability standards are developed and
implemented. Professor
Gallagher thinks that that is eminently possible, and goes on to make
specific recommendations including
the replacement
of volume or energy based targets with comparable greenhouse gas saving
targets as soon as
practicable. There
is a degree of consensus already available.
We then came
on to the rather more technical and legal point. It is right to raise
the point that the noble Lord Rooker raised in another place: that, in
effect, there would have to be a 12-month standstill period for this
regulation, and that it might in the end contradict EU trade rules. If
all those scenarios came to pass and the renewable energy directive was
adopted on time, the amendment might be ineffective because it would
have to wait for the EU rules to be adopted and then it would be
superseded.
That is the
argument that my noble Friend Lord Teverson thought was so impressive
in the other place. We have reflected together on the matter and
realised that it is dependent on the renewable energy directive being
adopted. That was the technical point that I put
back to him, to which he said that I might be
rightI think that I am quoting him correctly. I think
that I am right. He said that policy cannot be set unilaterally because
of the overlap of subject matter, but that is not true because the
renewable transport fuel obligation itself is a unilateral piece of
policy that is already adopted ahead of the renewable energy directive
coming into force. I fear that I am not persuaded to withdraw my
amendment. Question
put, That the amendment be
made: The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
11.
Division
No.
11] Question
accordingly negatived.
Schedule 6
agreed to.
Clauses
75 to 77 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
78Power
of Ministers and departments to offset greenhouse gas
emissions
Mr.
Woolas: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
clause 78, page 36, line 43, after
acquire, insert and dispose
of units or interests
in.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
28
Mr.
Woolas: Having failed to persuade the hon. Member for
Cheltenham of the force of my argument, I will attempt to redeem myself
by seeking consensus on amendments Nos. 27 and 28. These are minor,
technical amendments. Clause 78 allows the Government and the devolved
Administrations to purchase carbon units which, at the moment, is not
allowed. Those could be used to help meet the targets in the Bill or to
offset emissions from the central Government office estate.
I will
explain the underlying legal position. The purpose of the clause is not
to give Ministers and Departments the power to buy and dispose of
carbon unitsthey can already do that under general law in the
same way that I and other hon. Members have the inherent power to buy
and sell things. We do not need an Act of Parliament to give us that
power. However, if this Bill becomes an Act, the purchase of units
could become a source of significant and ongoing expenditure. By
convention, parliamentary approval through such a clause is needed to
authorise such expenditure. The position is slightly
different for the Welsh Ministers who, unlike other Ministers, have only
those powers conferred upon them by statute and the clause is necessary
for that reason.
Amendment No.
27 broadens that power and allows for the acquisition and disposal of
carbon units and interests in carbon units. Interests in carbon units
includes the ability to enter into futures contracts to acquire units
at a later date based on a fixed price at the date of the agreement. It
also provides the power to dispose of carbon units or interests in
them, and will ensure that the UK and devolved Ministers have the power
to buy and sell carbon units or contracts relating to them. That power
exists anyway and this is not a debate about first principle. However,
given that the power to acquire them is expressly mentioned, it made
sense to put the point beyond any doubt.
|