House of Commons
Thursday 5 November 2009
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Business before questions
Canterbury City Council Bill ( By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 12 November (Standing Order. No. 20).
Nottingham City Council Bill ( By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 12 November (Standing Order. No. 20).
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 12 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 12 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Leeds City Council Bill ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 12 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Reading Borough Council Bill ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 12 November (Standing Order No. 20).
City of Westminster Bill [ Lords] (By Order)
That so much of the Lords message [12 October] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [ Lords] be now considered.- ( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November.
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)
That the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November
Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)
That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November
Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)
That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November.
Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November.
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
That the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November.
Reading Borough Council Bill (By Order)
That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 12 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
Energy and Climate Change
The Secretary of State was asked-
Carbon Mitigation (Developing Countries)
1. Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): What steps he is taking to reach an international agreement on climate change, with particular reference to helping developing countries introduce carbon mitigation measures. [297747]
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Edward Miliband): The Government are working to ensure an ambitious, fair and effective international agreement at Copenhagen. The recent European Union decision to support €100 billion a year of public and private finance by 2020 is designed to help developing countries both to adapt to climate change and to pursue low-carbon growth. We now want other developed countries to join us in supporting this financial commitment.
Mr. Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Front-Bench team on the lead they are taking on Copenhagen, which is very pleasing to see. Does he accept, however, that there is an awful lot to do, particularly with reference to the developing world? From trips to Africa, for example, it is quite clear how far it has to come. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that he talks to the Department for International Development about the way in which it can provide real resources to ensure that we get mitigation in those countries?
Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a sense, one of the cruellest things about climate change is that the people who have done least to cause the problem, including in Africa and elsewhere, face the worst consequences, while at the same time we have to persuade developing countries to do not as we did, which is to grow in a high-carbon way, but to do as we say, which is to grow in a low-carbon way. That is why it is right that we make a financial contribution to make that possible.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): While the EU offer of €100 billion is welcome, it is clearly not yet persuading the developing nations that it is sufficient for mitigation and adaptation. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether our Government are willing to take a lead in suggesting an international levy on airline and maritime fuel as a way of adding to the international fund to deal with the needs of the developing world?
Edward Miliband: We are looking at the way in which aviation and maritime can, through a trading regime-as a number of airlines have suggested-play a role in providing the necessary finance for a Copenhagen agreement. I think the most important thing-we will be debating the issues again later today-is that countries make clear commitments on finance. Sources of finance are important, but the real prize at Copenhagen is a clear sense that countries are going to put their money where their mouths are. That is what we are striving to achieve.
Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): Given the difficulties in the Barcelona talks this week, particularly in getting the annexe 1 countries to agree to more ambitious targets, does my right hon. Friend sympathise with the Africa group for walking out of those talks?
Edward Miliband: I am not sure that walking out is a great way of achieving progress, but that shows that the United Nations framework convention on climate change talks have a history, I am afraid, of mistrust, so progress has been too slow. That is why we have to find other forums, such as the Major Economies Forum that we hosted in London, to pursue success. The truth is that the way to overcome that history of mistrust is to do what the EU and, indeed, Britain has done, which is to start to break the deadlock in the negotiations-for example, by saying to developing countries that we are willing to make a financial contribution so that they can make the necessary changes in their economies.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): For more than 20 years Britain has had a record of leadership on climate change, and that leadership will be vital at Copenhagen. Everyone at Copenhagen should know that there is complete unity of purpose between us on this issue, and that we need to achieve a deal that proves equal to the challenge of climate change. Does the Secretary of State agree that the principles of such a deal are that it must be fair, that it must be ambitious and that it must be binding on all countries?
Edward Miliband: I do agree. We set out exactly those principles in our "Road to Copenhagen" document, which was published in June, and I entirely endorse them.
I think that ambition is very important. We know that temperature rises of more than 2° will have devastating effects on many parts of our world, including the United Kingdom, and I believe that we need an agreement at Copenhagen that can put us on a path towards preventing them.
Greg Clark: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's answer, but we all know that international summits have their final photo calls and their leaders' handshakes booked well in advance. We all want success at Copenhagen, but the worst kind of failure would be an inadequate deal dressed up as success. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most important roles that Britain can play at Copenhagen is to cut through the diplomatic language and tell the truth about whether the deal is rigorous enough?
Edward Miliband: I do, but on this occasion, although the photo calls may have been booked, I have not heard about them.
This is an issue that will go all the way to the wire. The hon. Gentleman is right: the choice at Copenhagen should not simply be between no deal and a deal. We must choose the kind of deal that we want, and we shall be striving for the most ambitious deal that we can get. It will have to involve finance, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to look again at the important question of official development assistance in the form of financial additionality. As I have said, however, we need the most ambitious deal that we can get, and that is what we shall be striving for.
Greg Clark: I am glad to say that there seems to be a strong degree of consensus between us. I agree with the Secretary of State that for a deal to be worth having, it must be consistent with what science demands, namely a global warming limit of 2°. I also believe that the deal must help the world's poorest people to cope with the effects of climate change, that it must be in addition to, not instead of, fighting their current poverty, and that it must involve immediate action to halt the destruction of the rain forest. Does the Secretary of State agree that those are the tests of a rigorous deal?
Edward Miliband: I do, and I am pleased if the hon. Gentleman is giving a commitment-as he has not done on previous occasions-that climate finance will be additional to official development assistance. That is an important assurance that we need to give to developing countries. If we transfer money out of ODA and into climate finance, the effects will be negative.
I also agree about the rain forests. Rain forest deforestation represents about 20 per cent. of carbon emissions-more than the percentage of emissions from the world's transport sector-and we need to make progress on that as well as part of a Copenhagen agreement.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment has my right hon. Friend been able to make of this morning's reports that, according to influential voices in the United States, an agreement may not be reached until after Copenhagen?
Edward Miliband: I do not think that we should be in plan B territory. I think that we need to be in plan A territory, and plan A territory is about striving for an ambitious deal in December.
The truth is that this is not going to get any easier. We face very difficult issues. Why is it so difficult? It is difficult because the world is trying to do what it has never done before, and cut global emissions. Kyoto and previous agreements never achieved that. It is tough, but I think that we must strive all out for December. In a sense, the deadline is concentrating minds. We have to raise the stakes and make sure that we get an agreement in December.
Power Cuts
2. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): What assessment he has made of the level of risk of power cuts over the next 10 years resulting from shortages in electricity-generating capacity. [297748]
3. Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): What assessment he has made of the level of risk of power cuts arising from insufficient electricity-generating capacity over the next 10 years. [297749]
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Edward Miliband): With 10 GW of new generation under construction and another 10 GW with planning consent, we are on track to replace more than the 18 GW of stations scheduled to close by 2018. We are therefore confident that the risks to security of supply are low. To accelerate the pace of building new generation, we are reforming the planning system to ensure faster and better decision making. We still hope to receive all-party support for those measures.
Mr. Swayne: The chief executive of Ofgem has said that we are way behind the French and Germans in generating additional low-carbon capacity. How has that arisen? Was it due to negligence, stupidity or what?
Edward Miliband: No; the chief executive has not said that. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about low-carbon generation, he should tell his Front Benchers to support our planning reforms. What has been holding up low-carbon generation such as renewables, in this country, is precisely the planning system. That is why we are reforming the planning system, why we will publish national policy statements, and why we have the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the Conservative party wants to abolish that commission, and that will do nothing to obtain the low-carbon generation that the hon. Gentleman says he wants.
Mr. Harper: The Secretary of State has said that the Government need to take more of a role in delivering security of supply. Given that he acknowledges that we must replace one third of our generating capacity in the next 10 years, why have the Government left things so late?
Edward Miliband: I do not agree that we have left things late. Indeed, it was this Government, in the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party, who said that we would end the nuclear moratorium and start building nuclear power stations.
I know that the Conservatives oppose onshore wind, but I was interested to see what the hon. Gentleman says about offshore wind, which is important, on his website:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |