New
Clause
15Advice
on climate change policy from Committee to Secretary of
State ‘(1) The Committee may
provide the Secretary of State with advice on any policy matters
related to climate change. (2)
The Committee must, at the time it gives its advice to the Secretary of
State, send a copy to the other national
authorities. (3) As soon as is
reasonably practicable after giving its advice to the Secretary of
State, the Committee must publish that advice in such a manner as it
considers appropriate.’.—[Martin
Horwood.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The
purpose behind the new clause is once again derived from the
Environmental Audit Committee report, and in particular from its
comments on the importance of the Committee on Climate Change in being
able to
provide “challenge
to, and public reporting on, Government forecasting and policy
analysis.” It
seems extraordinary to set up that expert body, with enormous authority
in the fields of climate science, economics and Government policy
making, and to give it huge influence over British Government policy
and the future shape of the British economy by being able to advise the
Government on the overall targets for carbon budgets and carbon
emissions by 2050, and then to deny that extraordinary body the right
to comment and advise on the policies that will be required to get to
those targets. That is somewhat equivalent to asking Einstein to say
that E=mc2, but not allowing him to say how that was
achieved. Earlier Government amendments have clouded the issue of
whether policies and processes will be a subject for the Committee on
Climate Change. Some of their amendments have taken out measures that
were put in by our noble Friends in another place, and they have
clouded the issue of whether the committee is simply an advisory body
looking at a dry analysis, or a body that will be able to advise and
comment on Government policy. I would welcome the Minister’s
clarification on his latest reading of the current version of the Bill,
in response to the new
clause.
Miss
McIntosh: As with any other measure that will enhance the
authority of the Committee on Climate Change, we are happy to lend the
new clause our support. The content of the new clause echoes a number
of our earlier debates, and perhaps the hon. Member for Cheltenham was
being assiduous on the back of earlier comments when he tabled it. The
duty of the committee is to advise the Secretary of State and report on
progress, and the new clause would require the committee to publish
that advice in an appropriate manner. It is thus interesting that the
new clause does not go on to say that the advice should be debated by
Committees of both Houses. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has
considered that as it would enable not only the Secretary of State, but
both Houses to consider that advice.
To have a
group of such renowned experts as the Committee on Climate Change
provide advice on policy matters should be considered not an onus, but
rather a privilege for the Secretary of State, and I am sure that the
Government will jump at the opportunity. I am mindful of our previous
debates, and perhaps the Minister will look favourably on the new
clause.
Mr.
Woolas: We are going back to our debate on clause 35
because the new clause is about the role of the committee. I fear that
to hand over policy recommendations
on “any
policy matters related to climate
change” would
effectively franchise the Government to the committee. Let me explain
our
policy. Clause
35 requires the committee to lay an annual report on its progress to
Parliament. The committee also has duties to provide advice on carbon
budgets and carry out a review of the level regarding the 2050 target
date. Clause 37 contains further duties to provide advice, and clause
38(1)
states: “The
Committee may do anything that appears to it necessary or
appropriate” in
relation to any of its functions.
There is
already considerable opportunity for the committee to express its views
on progress in tackling climate change, but there are three reasons why
I have a problem with the new clause. First, as I set out a moment ago
in relation to new clauses 13 and 14, we must ensure that the committee
is adequately resourced. The new clause could distract the committee
from its key tasks. Secondly, the committee is set up as a UK-wide body
that is responsible for the UK Government and devolved Administrations.
Finally, the committee’s key role is to provide expert advice on
the optimum levels of budgets and to report on the progress made
towards that. We do not wish to include provisions in the Bill for the
committee to come forward with specific policies.
To clarify
the situation, when Lord Turner appeared before the EFRA Committee in
March, he said that the role of the committee was to consider the range
and effectiveness of the policies in place, because without that, a
credible budget could not be recommended. He wishes to have a policy
role in that regard. However, perhaps I may quote from the other place,
when the Liberal Democrats argued against giving the committee a role
on policies in that way. Lord Teverson
said: “I
will have a great concern if the Committee on Climate Change starts
making major policy recommendations to government...It would not
depoliticise the decisions but would utterly politicise the Committee
on Climate Change.”—[Official Report, House of Lords,
8 January 2008; Vol. 697, c.
802.] Looking
at the existing policies of the Government of the day and making
progress towards the budgets, when backed up with Lord Turner’s
explanation, gives scope for what the hon. Gentleman’s new
clause rightfully addresses. However, the new clause goes too far
because it franchises decisions of policy to what is ultimately an
independent committee, not an accountable Government.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister has cited some persuasive and
authoritative voices in support of his case. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
18Waste
authority’s power to reduce amount of council tax
payable ‘After section 13A of
the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) there is
inserted— “13B
Power to reduce amount of tax payable in relation to household
waste (1) Where a person is
liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any
day, any waste collection authority or waste disposal authority may
require the billing authority for the area in which the dwelling is
situated to reduce the amount which he is liable to pay as respects the
dwelling and the day to such extent as it thinks
fit. (2) The power under
subsection (1) may only be exercised in connection with measures to
reduce the amount of residual domestic waste produced in the
authority’s area. (3)
The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to
particular cases or by determining a class of case in which liability
is to be reduced to an extent provided by the
determination. (4) Where an
authority exercises the power under subsection (1) the authority must
pay or allow to the billing authority if requested an amount equivalent
to the total reduction in the amount of tax payable each year as a
result together with the reasonable administration costs of making such
reductions.”’.—[Gregory
Barker.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
11.
Division
No.
14] Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
19Carbon
emissions reduction targets: obligation to
cooperate ‘(1) The Secretary
of State may by
regulations— (a) make
provision requiring energy suppliers to cooperate with responsible
local authorities in the preparation and delivery of relevant local
area agreements, and (b) make
provision as to the arrangements for such
cooperation.
(2) The Secretary of State may by
regulations— (a) subject
to subsection (3), make provision requiring energy suppliers to make
such contribution as may be determined by the Secretary of State in
respect of measures to achieve carbon emission reduction
targets, (b) make provision as
to the arrangements for such contribution, in particular as to the
restrictions upon energy suppliers in including any element of such
contribution in charges to
consumers. (3) The contribution
referred to in subsection (2) shall not exceed an amount equivalent to
the sums raised through relevant consumer contributions made to energy
suppliers. (4) In this
section— “energy
suppliers” shall mean persons who are gas transporters or gas
suppliers for the purposes of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44); and persons who
are electricity distributors or electricity suppliers for the purposes
of the Electricity Act 1989 (c.
29); “responsible local
authorities” shall be as defined in section 103 of the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c.
28); “local area
agreement” shall be as defined in section 106 of the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act
2007; “relevant consumer
contributions” shall mean those contributions made to energy
suppliers by consumers in respect of Carbon Emission Reduction Targets
as permitted by the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006
(c. 19).’.—[Dr.
Whitehead.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I beg to move,
That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose
of the new clause is to suggest that the framework of the Bill be
augmented by a number of practical measures. I believe that the carbon
emissions reduction target programme is a superb addition to the
armoury of action as far as climate change and energy efficiency are
concerned. The resources of both the Government and energy utilities
may be directed towards providing energy efficiency in homes. There is
a process to ensure that fuel bills are lessened not by undertaking to
provide assistance with payments, but as a result of changes to the way
in which houses operate. The insulation of walls and microgeneration
devices will lessen energy bills over a long period of
time. The
new clause suggests that the CERT programme could be augmented and made
even more effective by requiring utilities to contribute the amount of
money that consumers are paying as a result of the programme, which is
an average of £33 over the next few years. Utilities could place
that money into an additional programme to ensure that energy
efficiency was at its maximum in terms of changes to the way that
households work. That could be done by ensuring that local authorities
take the lead in identifying and undertaking work that can bring about
energy
efficiency. With
the contribution of the energy companies and the Warm Front programme,
a range of programmes could be brought together to ensure that energy
efficiency worked as well as possible. New clause 19, as hon. Members
can see, would require energy suppliers to contribute that proportion
of funds—the £33 per consumer—to the process.
Therefore, the money, in addition to the £150 million that the
CERT programme
has already started to contribute towards the process, will be augmented
by several hundred million pounds over a period of years, through the
contribution of energy companies—utilities—to the
process. 10.30
pm One
of the key targets of the Climate Change Bill is that we move
permanently to a low-carbon economy. The success will be judged by
whether that low-carbon economy works on a permanent basis, ensuring
that we can live a life something like that which we live at the
moment, but on the basis of a quantum reduction in carbon emissions as
a result of our energy activities. That will be brought home,
literally, by the preparation and retro-fitting, as it were, of homes
across the country securing their domestic energy supplies on that
low-carbon
basis. I
anticipate that the exact wording of the new clause might not
completely find favour, but I offer it as a structure for how we might
proceed in making a real change, as a result of the Bill, to set us on
the path to at least a firm low-carbon domestic economy. That, after
all, accounts for something like 40 per cent. of the
consumption—particularly in heat—in our energy economy.
The new clause could make that substantial change to how those
households work. I might add, in terms of the targets that the
Government have set and continue to stand by, it would make a
substantial contribution to the amelioration of fuel poverty by
changing the basis on which people pay their energy bills. No longer
would they be, as it were, a funded player in an energy market where
prices inevitably are going to remain high, but they would have in
their homes a facility to reduce their energy bills. They would have in
their homes the equipment, devices and insulation, supported by the
energy utilities, that would mean that their energy bills would stay
permanently lower, with the savings that that would
represent.
| 
