|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) spoke about the need to take action now, and asked how we would bridge the gap between the €100 billion that European leaders have agreed on and the €400 billion that developing countries have said that they will require. We know that developing countries need to grow their capacity, as there is no way that we can throw such huge sums at this problem without enabling those countries to deal with and plan for the money's use. For that reason, there will be a lead-in period, with the €100 billion being distributed annually from 2020. In the run-up to
that, funding streams from public funds will have to be increased, and I have spoken already about fast-track moneys.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a strong argument for a carbon market and spoke about the potential of assistance in tackling deforestation through credits. Again, we agree with that and believe that ultimately it will be the way to raise the huge sums that will be required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) talked about the role of the carbon markets, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in that regard. He also spoke about the nature of the agreement, a subject that I think I have dealt with already.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that we needed more action by Government. He also spoke about HFCs, which I will come to later when I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). The right hon. Gentleman thought that it was a pity that we could not sign up to the 10:10 campaign, but we were being asked to commit the whole public sector and could not possibly mandate every school and hospital. However, we have certainly said that we will do as much as we can and that we will see whether we can increase our commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) was rather pessimistic and said that Copenhagen would be a missed opportunity, but I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the talks will go to the wire. We are determined to do whatever is necessary to get there. My hon. Friend said that nuclear power would not be ready in time and that we did not have the renewable energy sources that we would need. He linked that to peaking emissions, but this country's emissions have already peaked. They will continue to come down, and we already have under way projects involving wind and other new technologies.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) criticised the Government for advertising to try to increase peoples' understanding of the problem, and then criticised us because people did not understand it. He cannot have it both ways-[Hon. Members: "Oh yes we can!"] Some Opposition Members say that he can have it both ways, but he cannot. He said that the majority of scientists may disagree with his point of view, and that is correct. That is where the global consensus comes from and no one has suggested that it is absolute. Of course there is variation in what people think, but we are going with the majority.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Met Office had not made data available, and we have taken steps to try to make that happen. The Met Office has written to all those who provided data to ask whether they will agree to release those data.
My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made an excellent speech. As a great champion of renewables, she pleaded for more help for renewable energy in emerging markets, and of course that is something that we are giving.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) spoke about various matters with which I have already dealt, so I hope that he will accept my previous answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham talked about HFCs. We
are pushing for a global agreement on a phase-down of HFCs. He might not think that that is enough, but that is the way to make progress. The process forms part of the Copenhagen agreement, and we will see that it is dealt with effectively there.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) quite properly spoke about China and rightly praised the great efforts being made by that country, which we equally applaud. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) paid welcome tribute to the Prime Minister's intervention on climate financing, for which we were grateful.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) made a passionate plea about orang-utans and palm oil exports. I will be examining that issue when I go to Sumatra next week. I have already met the industry, and I will talk to the country's Government when I get there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) focused on the US and asked several what-if questions. I have to tell him that there is no plan B-we are going to Copenhagen to get a deal. We hope that the US will be able to do what is necessary, and until there is failure, we do not contemplate failure. He talked about aspects of the action that needs to be taken now on adaptation. We are doing things now; we are not waiting for Copenhagen. We are supplying money to the Congo basin, and we have got £800,000 into the climate investment funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) spoke about the 10:10 campaign. I am glad that he is pleased about the £20 million and I have something more to tell him: the Department of Energy and Climate Change will be joining the 10:10 campaign as of today because we can sign up to a further effort.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said as he opened the debate, we need an agreement that is ambitious, effective and fair. We have worked consistently here and abroad to advance such an agreement. We have accepted our own responsibilities by putting in place the first carbon budgets in the world, accepting ambitious binding targets and being willing to go further in the event of a deal. We have driven ambition across the EU. We have intervened on finance at a critical
stage. We have worked with forest states to get deforestation into the agreement, and we have provided funding to get the adaptation fund operational. Our officials have worked around the clock to add their expertise to this massive endeavour.
No one should be surprised if at times frustration leads to pessimism when more than 100 nations sit down to grapple with more than 200 pages of negotiating text. However, few doubt that this is a deal that the world must have. I know, because I have had the privilege of going to Greenland and seeing for myself the melting Arctic sea ice. I know, because I have met Ursula, from the disappearing Carteret islands, who said:
"For leaders it is only a lifestyle change; for us it is life and death".
We need a deal to save the land, lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the developing world, and we need a deal because climate change affects us too, with a cost to our economy, our environment and our security. However, climate change is not just a message of threats and potential disaster, although we must take that to heart. It is also a positive message-a call to a global transition to a low-carbon economy. It is a call to a world in which unprecedented co-operation will have to come about, to a world in which technologies are shared for mutual benefit and resources are properly conserved, and to a world that respects nature and provides us all with a safer, cleaner and greener place to live and work.
I thank hon. Members for the good wishes that they have given us today, because all that is what is at stake in the Copenhagen talks, and it is why we in this Government will do everything that we can to achieve the ambitious agreement that this world so desperately needs.
That this House has considered the matter of climate change: preparation for the Copenhagen climate change conference.
That, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) of the proviso to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), notices of questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland for oral answer on Wednesday 25 November may be given on Wednesday 18 November.- (Mary Creagh.)
That Ms Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Efford, Siobhain McDonagh and Mr Andy Slaughter be members of the London Regional Select Committee.- (Mary Creagh.)
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): I wish to raise some objections to this motion. The House first considered the matter back in June, and at the time there was a wide-ranging debate involving Members from all parties. Many MPs expressed concerns about the creation of the London Regional Select Committee and the impact that it might have on London's devolved settlement, which is of course so very important to Londoners. Many Members were surprised that, having debated the issue in Parliament, it apparently disappeared from view for so many months. We kept an eye out to see what progress Ministers would make, and the Leader of the House was at the Dispatch Box to tell the Members in the Chamber on the day that we debated it how important she felt it would be in addressing what she called an "accountability gap" in London issues. Yet here we are, almost six months later, after no real progress and, all of a sudden the motion is brought before the House with no chance to debate it further.
So I want to take some time this evening once again to talk about the concerns that Opposition Members had. We were worried that the London Regional Select Committee would cost money. It is money that we as taxpayers should be saving or putting into supporting some of the many small businesses throughout London that are struggling to survive-particularly those that have been hit by the withdrawal of transitional relief in this year's rate bills, and those that are concerned about rises in next year's bills.
We also believe that there are better, more cost-effective alternatives to the Committee. One suggestion that I made to the Leader of the House, and which she never thoroughly addressed, was the possibility of creating London questions. London is one of a number of United Kingdom regions that have devolved government. Wales has its Wales questions and Scotland has its Scotland questions, but here in London we cannot have London questions. A London question session would be an opportunity for all London MPs to ask questions, whereas a London Regional Select Committee would be necessarily a much smaller group of London MPs, excluding other Members who would no doubt wish to be part of it. When we raised the issue back in June, the Government gave us no assurances that the Members on the Committee would even be London Members representing London communities, which I am sure you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was a real concern for us.
There is no evidence that existing Select Committees do not look at London issues. If we look at the work that they have done over the past several years, we find that they have absolutely looked at London issues. The Select Committee on Transport has produced a report on the London congestion charge and the performance of London Underground; the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has produced excellent and
interesting reports on the London Olympics; the Select Committee on Education and Skills, when it existed, produced a report on skills in London; and I am sure that many Members will remember that only this year the Select Committee on Home Affairs produced a report on counter-terrorism and community relations in the aftermath of the London bombings. Select Committees have every ability to conduct positive and useful inquiries.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): I have listened to the hon. Lady with a great deal of interest, but what is she afraid of? She has called for the opportunity to ask questions on London, but she does not want the opportunity to cross-examine people who provide essential services to the people whom we represent. Surely that would be far more effective than a question-and-answer session.
Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, surely that is the role of the London Assembly. He seems to have forgotten its existence, yet it was his Government who brought in the devolution settlement. If there are concerns about the accountability of the London Mayor, we should be strengthening the ability of the London Assembly to hold him to account. Instead, the Government have come up with an entirely spurious way of doing it-
That Mr David Kidney be discharged from the West Midlands Regional Select Committee and Mrs Janet Dean be added.
That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the constituency of Daventry in respect of the parliamentary ombudsman's report on Equitable Life. The petitioners state that they are, represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of Equitable Life Assurance Society. I should declare to the House that a member of my family is a former member of that society and a member of my staff is a current member of that society. The petitioners refer to the findings of the ombudsman, particularly in relation to matters concerning maladministration leading to injustice.
The Petition of residents of the constituency of Daventry in Northamptonshire,
Declares that the petitioners either are or they represent or support members, former members or personal representatives of deceased members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society who have suffered maladministration leading to injustice, as found by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in her report upon Equitable Life, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 16 July 2008 and bearing reference number HC 815; and further declares that the Petitioners or those whom they represent or support have suffered regulatory failure on the part of the public bodies responsible from the year 1992 onwards, but have not received compensation for the resulting losses and outrage.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the constitutional standing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman by complying with the findings and recommendations of her Report upon Equitable Life.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|