Mr.
Woolas: I give way to the hon. Gentleman who, I know,
feels strongly on the
issue.
Mr.
Hurd: The requirement to report the impact on the
environment is not the same as the requirement to report greenhouse gas
emissions directly. Will the Minister be clear? Do the Government
support the mandatory disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions from
companies that are required to produce a business review under the
Companies Act
2006?
Mr.
Woolas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government, like
him, support the idea of cap and trade and of carbon trading. In order
to pursue that policy, one has to have common standards of measurement,
verification and reporting. It would be irresponsible for the
Government to pursue a mandatory system of reporting until there was a
clear understanding of what that system should be for those companies
that would be taken in by the wider measures. That is why we have set
out what we believe to be a sensible pathway forward. Hon. Members are
expressing frustration, but they should remember that companies are
already required to report on their activities under the environmental
requirements of the Companies Act. Those requirements could include the
point made by the hon. Gentleman. They cover other matters, as I have
explained in the past 60
seconds.
Mr.
Hurd: Entirely correctly, the Minister has laboured the
point about the need for a consistent system. The debate is more about
timing than purpose. However, he is still dodging the question. Do the
Government believe that it should be mandatory for companies that are
required to produce a business review to report specifically their
greenhouse gas emissions, not their impact on the
environment?
Mr.
Woolas: I am not dodging the question, but the question
that would have to be answered would be, “On whom?” Would
we be talking about all companies in the United Kingdom, including
those many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands for which it might not
be practical? That is why I think that this method is a good way
forward.
New clause 6
commits the Secretary of State to produce guidance on reporting by 1
October 2009. That is the time scale in which we believe that we shall
have a common understanding. It also fits in with the international
timetable.
Mr.
Gummer: It is clear that the Government require the
business review from only companies of a certain size. Is it not fair
to come back to the Minister and ask a simple question? Do the
Government believe that it is right to have mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions from companies of the size for which a
business review is
required?
Mr.
Woolas: I understand why the right hon. Member for
Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood are pressing
me on this point. I repeat that we already have a system in place for
companies that fall within the cap-and-trade schemes to report. Let me
remind the Committee that one half of UK emissions are covered by
schemes. That is already the case, and the schemes include the major
companies, some of which have been referred to
today. I
will not fall into making what I believe to be a tokenistic
gesture—given the suggestion that this is somehow an
environmental virility test—by saying that I will require all
companies under all circumstances to report when I do not know what the
methodology of such reporting would be. Frankly, that would be
irresponsible. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems to
shake his head in frustration, but he has not answered my question.
What system of reporting does he want me to
mandate?
Mr.
Gummer: I have often sat in the Minister’s position
and I know that it is embarrassing. He knows that he wants to confuse
two questions because it is easier to answer one than the other. Let me
un-confuse him on the questions, of which there are
two. The
first is about the method on which the reporting is based. The Minister
has already admitted that half the companies have a method for
reporting, so this is not as far removed as he sometimes makes it
sound, but let us put that on one
side. We
are asking about the principle, not about every company or medium-sized
company or anything else. We are talking specifically about the
companies that the Government already cover with their business review
requirements—the companies that they have said are big enough to
make this sort of system work. Will he please tell the Committee
whether he thinks that they should report under a mandatory
requirement, once a system is designed that fits
everyone?
Mr.
Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman has dissected the
question fairly. We would not support a comprehensive mandatory system
that involved all companies, irrespective of whether there was a view
that such reporting would contribute towards the reduction of
emissions. As I expect that he knows, mandating a common reporting
standard for companies requires something that is proportionate and
that
works. I
hope that I have answered the question to the right hon.
Gentleman’s satisfaction. If not, let me add that the strategy
that we are laying out in new clause 7 is to commit the Secretary of
State to reviewing the contribution of mandatory corporate reporting to
achieving the
UK’s climate change objectives and to reporting back to
Parliament. That review should take account of reporting under the new
reporting requirements introduced by the Companies Act 2006. Companies
are now beginning to draft their first business reviews under the new
requirements, and DBERR has already announced that it will look at the
first batch in 2010. For my Department, I intend to ensure that that
reporting is contributing to a reduction in
emissions. My
timetable is responsible, given companies’ reporting periods. It
is based on existing powers in the 2006 Act, and, if the Committee
accepts the Government’s new clauses, that will be further
strengthened by a timetable for the role of the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. Clause
80 does not require a timetable. It sets out that reporting should be
mandatory without expressing—I repeat this—what the
definition of the common standard is or what timetable should be put
forward. My argument is that the Government’s position has been
caricatured. This is not a debate on the difference between saying,
“Let’s be bold and let’s be brave; let’s
get on with it and do it,” and a Government who are dragging
their feet because of a misunderstanding of capitalism, as has been
described. Instead, it is a debate between the tokenism of Opposition
Members and, as suggested by this side, a sensible way forward that
will provide for a reduction in UK emissions and provide the world
leadership that I know that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood and
the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal
seek.
Mr.
Gummer: If the situation is as the Minister says, why is
he not prepared to amend the clause with a date by which the guidance
would be laid and to accept the rest of the mandatory arrangements? It
is not just a question of whether a company makes a major contribution
to meeting our climate change requirements. It is a matter of interest
for stakeholders all over the country as to how far a company carries
forward its responsibilities for reducing its greenhouse emissions. All
of us ought to know about that and make our businesses decisions in
respect of it. Why did he not table two amendments so that we could
have agreed with
them?
Mr.
Woolas: If we were to make reporting mandatory at this
stage, before reviewing whether the compiling of the information took
place across the board—this is the right hon. Gentleman’s
PepsiCo example—we would be doing that before we knew whether it
improved the situation. We should remember that we are talking about
many thousands of companies, especially beyond the existing carbon
trading schemes. Perhaps I should have put more emphasis on that
point. I
reject the argument that the Government are dragging their feet. We
have set out a way forward that is based on an effective strategy that
will allow Governments to consider the experience and that fits into
the reporting timetable. As I emphasised, we have the power under the
Companies Act 2006 to do what hon. Members are urging us to
do. I
urge Committee members to reject existing clause 80 and to
agree to the Government new
clauses. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division No.
12] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 80
disagreed
to.
New
Clause
2Duty
to have regard to need for UK domestic action on climate
change ‘(1) In exercising
functions under this Part involving consideration of how to
meet— (a) the target in
section 2(1) (the target for 2050),
or (b) the carbon budget for
any period, the Secretary of
State must have regard to the need for UK domestic action on climate
change. (2) “UK domestic
action on climate change” means reductions in UK emissions of
targeted greenhouse gases or increases in UK removals of such gases (or
both).’.—[Mr.
Woolas.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
3Advice
of Committee on Climate Change on impact
report ‘(1) It is the duty of
the Committee on Climate Change to advise the Secretary of State on the
preparation of each of the Secretary of State’s reports under
section 55. (2) The Committee
must give its advice under this section in relation to a report not
later than six months before the last date for laying the report before
Parliament (see subsections (2) to (4) of section
55). (3) The Committee must, at
the time it gives its advice under this section to the Secretary of
State, send a copy to the other national
authorities. (4) As soon as is
reasonably practicable after giving its advice under this section the
Committee must publish that advice in such manner as it considers
appropriate.’.—[Mr.
Woolas.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
4Reporting
on progress in connection with
adaptation ‘(1) Each report
of the Committee on Climate Change under section 35 to which this
section applies must contain an assessment of the progress made towards
implementing the objectives, proposals and policies set out in the
programmes laid before Parliament under section 56 (adaptation to
climate change). (2) This
section applies to the report in the second year after that in which
the Secretary of State lays the first programme under section 56 before
Parliament.
(3) After that, this section applies to the report
under section 35 in every second year after that in which
the Committee last made a report to which this section applies, subject
to any order under subsection
(4). (4) The Secretary of State
may by order provide that this section shall apply to the report under
section 35 in the year specified in the order and in every subsequent
year. (5) An order under
subsection (4) is subject to negative resolution
procedure.’.—[Mr.
Woolas.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
5Collection
of household waste ‘In
section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)
(receptacles for household waste), after subsection (10)
insert— “(11) A
waste collection authority is not obliged to collect household waste
that is placed for collection in contravention of a requirement under
this section.”.’.—[Mr.
Woolas.] Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill. 6.15
pm
New
Clause
6Guidance
on reporting ‘(1) The
Secretary of State must publish guidance on the measurement or
calculation of greenhouse gas emissions to assist the reporting by
persons on such emissions from activities for which they are
responsible. (2) The guidance
must be published not later than 1st October
2009. (3) The Secretary of
State may from time to time publish revisions to guidance under this
section or revised
guidance. (4) Before publishing
guidance under this section or revisions to it, the Secretary of State
must consult the other national
authorities. (5) Guidance under
this section and revisions to it may be published in such manner as the
Secretary of State thinks fit.’.—[Mr.
Woolas.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second
time:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
4.
| 
