FORMAL MINUTES
Extract from the House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings
of Tuesday 27 March 2007
Climate Change — The Lord President (Baroness
Amos) moved that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords
and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Climate
Change Bill presented to both Houses on 13 March 2007 (Cm 7040)
and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 13 July.
The motion was agreed to and a message was sent to the Commons.
Extract from the House of Commons Votes and Proceedings
of 18 April 2007
Draft Climate Change Bill (Joint Committee),—Resolved,
That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 27th March,
that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons
be appointed to consider and report on the draft Climate Change
Bill presented to both Houses on 13th March 2007 (Cm. 7040), and
that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 13th July
2007.
Ordered, That a Select
Committee of twelve Members be appointed to join with the Committee
appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Climate Change Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the
House;
(iii) to report from time to time;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United
Kingdom.
That Ms Celia Barlow, Mr David Chaytor, Helen Goodman,
Nia Griffith, David Howarth, Mr Nick Hurd, Mr David Kidney, Mark
Lazarowicz, Mr Graham Stuart, Dr Desmond Turner, Dr Alan Whitehead
and Mr Tim Yeo be members of the Committee.—(Claire Ward.)
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Extract from House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings
of 23 April 2007
Climate Change — The Chairman of Committees
moved that the Commons message of Wednesday 18 April be now considered,
and that a Committee of twelve Lords be appointed to join with
the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report
on the draft Climate Change Bill presented to both Houses on 13
March 2007 (Cm 7040);
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection,
the following members be appointed to the Committee:
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
| L Puttnam
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
|
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed
by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to send for persons,
papers and records;
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding
any adjournment of the House;
That the Committee have leave to report from time
to time;
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if
the Committee so wishes, be published;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist
advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place
to place within the United Kingdom;
That the Committee meet with the Committee appointed
by the Commons on Wednesday 25 April 2007 at 9.00am in the Boothroyd
Room in Portcullis House;
And that, notwithstanding the Resolution of this
House of 27 March, the date by which the Joint Committee is required
to report should be 25 July 2007 rather than 13 July 2007.
The motion was agreed to.
Extract from House of Commons Votes and Proceedings
of 24 April 2007
Draft Climate Change Bill (Joint Committee),—Resolved,
That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 23rd April,
relating to the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons appointed
to consider and report on the draft Climate Change Bill, presented
to both Houses on 13th March (Cm. 7040), that—
(1) the Committee appointed by this House do meet
the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships; and
(2) notwithstanding the Resolution of 18th April,
it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the draft Climate
Change Bill that it should report by 25th July 2007.—(Claire
Ward.)
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Wednesday 25 April 2007
Present
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Puttnam
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Helen Goodman MP
David Howarth MP
Mr Nick Hurd MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
|
Members' interests: The full lists of Members' interests
as recorded in the Commons Register of Members' Interest and the
Lords Register of Interests are noted.
It is moved that Lord Puttnam do take the Chair.—(Dr
Desmond Turner.)
The same is agreed to.
The Orders of Reference are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Professor
Paul Ekins and Mr John Newbigin be appointed as Specialist Advisers
to assist the Committee.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 9 May at 2 o'clock.
Wednesday 9 May 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Mr David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Wednesday 25 April are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Strangers
be admitted during the examination of witnesses unless otherwise
ordered.
Ordered, That the uncorrected
transcripts of evidence given, unless the Committee otherwise
order, be published on the internet.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 16 May at half-past One o'clock.
Wednesday 16 May 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay
L Teverson
L Whitty
L Woolmer
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Mr David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
David Howarth MP
Mr Nick Hurd MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Wednesday 9 May are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memoranda
numbers CCB 1 to CCB 5 submitted to the Joint Committee be reported
to the House for publication on the internet.
Resolved, That the Committee
be represented at the Youth Parliament's Newcastle Climate Change
Event on 24 My.
The following witnesses are examined:
William Wilson, Director, Cambrensis, and barrister,
Environmental Law Unit, Burges Salmon, Christopher Norton, Baker
and McKenzie, and Professor Christopher Forsyth, Cambridge University.
Lord Lawson of Blaby and Professor David Henderson,
Westminster Business School.
Dr Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Centre, Dr David Griggs,
and Dr Chris Gordon, Hadley Centre.
Martin Brough, Oxera, and Richard Gledhill, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Tuesday 22 May at half-past 3 o'clock.
Tuesday 22 May 2007
Present:
B Billingham
E of Caithness
L Whitty
L Woolmer
L Crickhowell
L Jay
L Teverson
L May
L Vinson
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Mr David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
Mr Nick Hurd MP
Mr David Kidney MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Wednesday 16 May are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memoranda
numbers CCB6 to CCB13 submitted to the Joint Committee be reported
to the House for publication on the internet.
Resolved, That the Joint
Committee do visit Oxford, Edinburgh and Woking.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 5 June at half-past 3 o'clock.
Thursday 24 May 2007
Mr David Kidney visited the Youth Parliament's
Newcastle Climate Change Event, in accordance with the decision
of the Committee of 16 May.
Wednesday 5 June 2007
Present:
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Mr David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr Nick Hurd MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
In the absence of the Chairman, Mr Tim Yeo is called to
the Chair.
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Tuesday 22 May are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memoranda
numbers CCB 14 to CCB 78 submitted to the Joint Committee be reported
to the House for publication on the internet.
The following witnesses are examined:
Professor Sir David King KB ScD FRS, Chief Scientific
Adviser to HM Government.
Mr Stefan Moser, European Commission, DG Environment.
Lord Crickhowell declared an interest as the father
of Mr Rupert Edwards.
Dr Anthony White, MBE, Managing Director of Market
Development and Chairman of Advisory, and Mr Rupert Edwards, Managing
Director and Head of Portfolio Management, Carbon Markets, Climate
Change Capital.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 6 June at 2 o'clock.
Wednesday 6 June 2007
Present:
B Billingham
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Mr David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
In the absence of the Chairman, Mr Tim Yeo is called to
the Chair.
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Tuesday 5 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
The following witnesses are examined:
Mr Brian Samuel, Head of Policy Research, and Mr
Dan Staniaszek, Evaluation Director, Energy Saving Trust, Professor
Michael Grubb, Carbon Trust, and Mr Steve Smith, Managing Director
of Markets, Ofgem.
Lord Whitty declared an interest as a member of the
Board of the Environment Agency.
Baroness Young of Old Scone, Chief Executive, and
Mr Clive Bates, Head of Environmental Policy, Environment Agency,
and Mr Andrew Lee, Director, Sustainable Development Commission.
Mr Stephen Hale, Director, Green Alliance, Mr Martyn
Williams, Senior Parliamentary Campaigner, Friends of the Earth,
Mr Charlie Kronick, Climate Campaign Manager, Greenpeace, and
Dr Keith Allott, WWF-UK.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Tuesday 12 June at half-past 3 o'clock.
Tuesday 12 June 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Tuesday 6 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memorandum
number CCB 79 submitted to the Joint Committee be reported to
the House for publication on the internet.
The following witnesses are examined:
Ms Megan Wheatley, UK Business Council for Sustainable
Energy, Dr Keith MacLean, Head of Sustainable Development, Scottish
and Southern Energy, Mr Ravi Baga, Director of Environment and
Market Regulation, EDF Energy, and Mr Philip Wolfe, Chief Executive,
Renewable Energy Association.
Michael Roberts, Director, Business Environment,
and Gillian Simmonds, Senior Policy Adviser, Energy and Climate
Change, CBI, and Mr John Holbrow, Environment Chairman, Federation
of Small Businesses.
Mr Dan Skopec, Under-Secretary, Californian Environmental
Protection Agency.
Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister of State for Science and
Innovation, Lord Truscott, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for Energy, and Peter Brunt, Policy Adviser, Department of Trade
and Industry.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 13 June at 2 o'clock.
Wednesday 13 June 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
L Crickhowell
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Tuesday 12 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
The following witnesses are examined:
Mr Graham Smith, Senior Vice-President, Toyota Motor
Europe, Andrew Barker, Planning Director, easyJet, and Robert
Ashdown, Environmental Manager, British Chamber of Shipping.
Gillian Merron MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary,
Adrian Gault, Divisional Manager Transport Analysis and Review
and Martin Capstick, Head of Aviation Environmental Division,
Department for Transport.
Lord May declared an interest as a member of the
Royal Society.
Professor Keith Shine, Head, Department of Meteorology,
University of Reading, and Dr Terry Barker, Director, Cambridge
Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge,
Royal Society, and Dr Sue Ion, Vice-President, Chairman of Standing
Committee on Engineering Policy, Royal Academy of Engineering.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Tuesday 19 June at half-past 3 o'clock.
Friday 15 June 2007
Lord Jay of Ewelme, Lord May, the Earl of Selborne
and Lord Whitty visited Oxford, in accordance with the decision
of the Committee of 22 May.
Tuesday 19 June 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
David Chaytor MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Wednesday 13 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memoranda
numbers CCB 82 to CCB 84 submitted to the Joint Committee be reported
to the House for publication on the internet.
The following witnesses are examined:
Mr Mark Watts, Policy Adviser to the Mayor, Greater
London Authority, and Graham Tubb MBE, Chief Sustainability Advisor,
South East England Development Agency.
Ms Tanya Olmeda-Hodge, Head of Environment, and Michael
Sayer, CLA member, Country Land and Business Association (CLA).
Dr Martin Gibson, Director, Envirowise.
Lord Whitty declared an interest as Chairman of the
National Consumer Council.
Allan Asher, Chief Executive, Energywatch, and Ed
Mayo, Chief Executive, National Consumer Council.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 20 June at a quarter to 3
o'clock.
Wednesday 20 June 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Vinson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Tuesday 19 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
The following witnesses are examined:
Jonathan Brearley, Director, Office of Climate Change
and Robin Mortimer, Head of Draft Climate Change Bill Team, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Rt Hon David Miliband MP, Secretary of State, and
Robin Mortimer, Head of Draft Climate Change Bill Team, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and John Healey MP, Financial
Secretary, and Chris Taylor, Economic Adviser, HM Treasury.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 26 June at half-past 3 o'clock.
Thursday 21 June 2007
Lord Puttnam, Nia Griffith and Dr Alan Whitehead
visited Woking, in accordance with the decision of the Committee
of 22 May.
Mark Lazarowicz visited Edinburgh, in accordance
with the decision of the Committee of 22 May.
Wednesday 26 June 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
David Chaytor MP
Helen Goodman MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr Nick Hurd MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Wednesday 20 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Thursday 5 July at a quarter to 10 o'clock.
Thursday 5 July 2007
Present:
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
Nia Griffith MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Tuesday 26 June are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memoranda
numbers CCB 86 and CCB 88 submitted to the Joint Committee be
reported to the House for publication on the internet.
The following witness is examined:
Dr Lu Xuedu, Deputy Director General, Office of Global
Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Science and Technology, People's
Republic of China.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Wednesday 18 July at 2 o'clock.
Wednesday 18 July 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
David Chaytor MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr Nick Hurd MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be adjourned to Tuesday 24 July at half-past 3 o'clock.
Tuesday 24 July 2007
Present:
|
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
L Jay of Ewelme
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E Selborne
L Teverson
L Whitty
L Woolmer of Leeds
| Ms Celia Barlow MP
David Chaytor MP
Nia Griffith MP
David Howarth MP
Mr David Kidney MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Mr Graham Stuart MP
Dr Desmond Turner MP
Dr Alan Whitehead MP
Mr Tim Yeo MP
|
Lord Puttnam (in the Chair)
The Order of Adjournment is read.
The proceedings of Wednesday 18 July are read.
The Joint Committee deliberate.
Ordered, That Memoranda
numbers CC 89 to 91 and CCB 102 submitted to the Joint Committee
be reported to the House for publication on the internet.
A draft Report is proposed by the Chairman.
It is moved that the draft Report before the Committee
be read.
The same is agreed to.
Paragraphs 1 to 22 are agreed to.
Paragraph 23 reads follows:
On the other hand, to recast the draft Bill to encompass
all greenhouse gases might risk diluting the focus on CO2. It
would also raise issues in relation to
- the treatment of non-greenhouse
gas emissions which nevertheless contribute to global warming
(eg. the greater impact of high-altitude emissions of water vapour
by planes); and
- whether a single target and trading system should
be set across all gases, rather than specific targets and policy
instruments for each.
These issues are complex and, in our view, cannot
easily or quickly be resolved. Expanding the Bill in this way
might therefore jeopardise its coherence and the extent of support
which it might command.
It is moved by David Howarth, in line 7 of paragraph
23 to leave out the words from "each" to the end of
the paragraph.
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
Paragraph 23 agreed to.
Paragraph 24 reads follows:
We agree with the Government on balance that it is
reasonable for the Bill to focus on reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide, and we therefore accept its overall architecture. However,
this in no way relieves the Government of its responsibility to
continue to reduce other greenhouse gases (both by reason of domestic
necessity and our international obligations). Accordingly, it
is essential to monitor all greenhouse gas emissions, in part
so as to provide greater transparency when comparing UK performance
against EU and Kyoto targets. We recommend that the Bill should
be amended to require both the Government and the Committee on
Climate Change to include within their monitoring and reporting
a clear analysis of all emissions which contribute to global warming,
including non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. We further
recommend that this be done with the explicit intention of providing
a stepping stone to a more comprehensive approach to setting targets
across the whole range of greenhouse gases, were that approach
to emerge as a result of future international negotiations.
It is moved by David Howarth to leave out paragraph
24 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"Despite the complexities of the issue, excluding
other greenhouse gases from this legislation is not defensible.
International targets are couched in terms of greenhouse gases,
as are the Bill's own powers in respect of emissions trading schemes.
While it is true that greenhouse gas emissions other than CO2
have fallen since 1990, there is no guarantee that this will remain
the case. Furthermore, this is no good reason for excluding them
from the 2050 target. The scientific experts who submitted evidence
to us made it clear that the omission of greenhouse gases from
the Bill was a weakness. We recommend that the Bill be amended
to include all greenhouse gases in the emissions reduction target
for 2050. If it is thought appropriate to keep the pressure up
specifically on carbon, the Committee on Climate Change could
advise the Government on what proportion of the emissions reductions
should be made in CO2."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
Paragraph 24 agreed to.
Paragraphs 25 to 31 agreed to.
Paragraph 32 reads follows:
The draft Bill currently does not include within
the scope of the targets, and the net UK carbon account, emissions
from international aviation. We consider this to be a serious
weakness which, in view of the significant likely growth of such
emissions, has the effect of reducing the credibility of the 60%
carbon reduction target. Given the clear expectation of the Secretary
of State that international aviation emissions could be included
in the net UK carbon account once they are incorporated within
the EU ETS, we expect the Government to take all necessary steps
to ensure that this is achieved. The draft Bill should be amended
in such a way that it requires both the Government and the Committee
on Climate Change to include separately international aviation
emissions within the scope of their monitoring and reporting,
including projections of future emissions - in a manner similar
to the parallel reporting we are recommending in relation to non-CO2
greenhouse gases.
It is moved by David Howarth to leave out paragraph
32 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"We note that Mr Moser, from the European Commission,
told us "we have seen very strong support from Member States
in the Council and also from the Parliament to go ahead and show
leadership at the European level, and with your very innovative
Bill in the United Kingdom, which again, moves ahead of everybody
else, you could give that signal to these two sectors and say
they should be included".(Q128) We consider the exclusion
of international aviation emissions from the target a serious
weakness which reduces the credibility of this legislation. Dr
Anderson of the Tyndall Centre suggested that the EU already has
a policy in place for apportioning emissions in 2012: we are not
convinced by the Government's statements that the issue is too
complex to consider. Since international aviation will be included
soon, as part of the EU ETS, it is much less disruptive to include
international aviation emissions now on a basis that will be close
to the final methodology than to include them in one big leap
in 2012".
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
Paragraph 32 agreed to.
It is moved by Lord Whitty to insert a new paragraph.
New paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 33).
Paragraph 33 read, amended and agreed to (now paragraph
34).
Paragraphs 34 to 42 agreed to (now paragraphs 35
to 43).
Paragraph 43 read, as follows:
In seeking to balance the arguments over the level
of the long-term carbon target, we conclude that the approach
adopted by the Government is appropriate and that increasing the
target further would, at this stage, only serve to undermine its
credibility. We therefore support the 60% target as currently
drafted with the proviso that the long title of the Bill should
be amended to explicitly state, as the Secretary of State emphasised
several times in his evidence to us, that the target should be
at least 60% and subject to review.
It is moved by David Howarth to leave out paragraph
43 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"It is clear from the evidence submitted to
us that a target carbon reduction of 60% from the 1990 baseline
is based on outdated science. The recommendation that this figure
is taken from was made in 2000; even the Secretary of State agreed
that scientific opinion has moved on since that time. The same
factors, including the contraction and convergence method of apportioning
emission reduction targets among states, which led the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution to produce a proposed reduction of
60% at that time now suggest that carbon emissions must be reduced
by at least 80% to maintain any realistic chance of restricting
the global temperature rise to 2°C. We do not think that
the considerations of interest groups or industry should outweigh
the scientific facts in the mind of Government. We recommend that
the Bill be amended to require a carbon reduction of at least
80% by 2050."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
It is moved by Mark Lazarowicz to leave out paragraph
43 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"There are arguments that need to be balanced
in deciding upon the level of the long-term carbon target. Bearing
in mind, however, the weight of scientific evidence before the
committee that a target of significantly more than 60% is likely
to be necessary, we believe that before the introduction of the
definitive Climate Change Bill, the government should review the
latest scientific evidence available and consider whether to what
extent the target should be raised above 60%. We believe that
the 'shadow' Committee on Climate Change should be asked to carry
out such a review with a view to making recommendations on the
appropriate long-term target before the Bill completes its passage
through Parliament."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
Mark Lazarowicz
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
It is moved by David Kidney to leave out paragraph
43 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"We understand, and sympathise with, the
argument in favour of setting a higher target for the long-term
reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. But recognizing how very
demanding the target set out in the draft Bill for 2050 is, and
facing up to both the complexity of domestic budgeting and international
requirements, we conclude that the approach adopted by the Government
is appropriate provided that it is understood that this is but
the first step along a path towards a low-carbon future for the
UK. We make further recommendations later about reinforcing this
direction of travel. We also recommend that the long title of
the Bill should be amended to state explicitly, as the Environment
Secretary of State emphasised several times in his evidence to
us, that the target should be at least 60% and subject to review."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
| David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
|
New Paragraph accordingly agreed to (now paragraph 44).
It is moved by Dr Alan Whitehead to insert a new
paragraph.
Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 45).
Paragraphs 44 to 63 read and agreed to (now paragraphs
46 to 65).
Paragraph 64 read, as follows:
While we accept that a system of statutory targets
based on five-year budgets appears reasonable, we do have a number
of concerns. First, it will inevitably be the case that external
organisations will analyse future budgetary targets and calculate
the proposed trajectory in terms of annual emissions. These figures
would become de facto annual targets. Rather than leave
this process to external forces, it would be preferable for the
Government to agree indicative annual milestones, based on the
advice of the Committee on Climate Change, against which performance
could be assessed. This would also assist both the Government
and those scrutinising its work to check that progress towards
the five-year targets is satisfactory.
It is moved by Lord Teverson to leave out paragraph
64 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"However we do not accept that a system of statutory
targets should be based on five-year budgets. A period as long
as this stretches beyond most Parliamentary terms and even with
annual targets gives too long a period before there is any risk
of substantial sanction. From industry's point of view the most
important aspect is that of certainty of Government intent. A
five-year timescale allows, even with annual targets, for Governments
to relax for the first couple of years until the end of the budget
period comes closer. We therefore believe that budget periods
should be three years. A three year period is also in line with
Government Comprehensive Spending Reviews which is particularly
relevant given the importance of Treasury decisions in terms of
environmental and carbon taxation, and also the introduction of
specific UK emission trading systems and auctions."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L Puttnam
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
Paragraph 64 agreed to (now paragraph 66).
Paragraphs 65 and 66 agreed to (now paragraphs 67
and 68).
Paragraph 67 reads follows:
We support the proposed system of five-yearly
budgets provided there is a strong system of annual reporting
on progress. We recommend that, in setting the level of future
budgets, the Government should also provide indicative annual
milestones to help assess progress on an annual basis. More
generally, we would be concerned if the budgetary period were
lengthened to maintain alignment with international reporting
and emissions trading periods, given that this could reduce the
frequency of the Government's strategy reports and outturn assessments.
Clause 12(4) gives the Secretary of State power to make "necessary
or expedient" amendments to the proposed Act where the length
of the budgetary period is altered in line with similar periods
under any international agreement. We recommend that the draft
Bill compels the Secretary of State to make an order under Clause
12(4) that requires strategy reports under Clause 6 to be prepared
at least every five years in the event that the existing five-yearly
budget period is lengthened. The Government's desire to maintain
this alignment appears to be based on an expectation that emissions
trading and the use of foreign credits will provide a substantial
proportion of the effort required to achieve UK carbon reduction
targets.
It is moved by Lord Teverson in line 10, to leave
out the words from "agreement" to "The" in
line 13 and insert the words "We recommend that any lengthening
of the budget term should require primary legislation".
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L May of Oxford
L Teverson
L Puttnam
L Whitty
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E of Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
E Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Woolmer
|
The amendment is disagreed to accordingly.
Paragraph 67 agreed to (now paragraph 69).
Paragraphs 68 to 92 read and agreed to (now paragraphs
70 to 94).
Paragraphs 93 to 95 read follows:
There was a level of opposition to the power to borrow
up to 1% of the emissions from the subsequent budget. The Association
of British Insurers stated, "The ability to 'borrow' against
future periods should be limited to excessive emissions caused
by external shocks (such as severe weather). Banking and borrowing
should be limited to a rolling five-year period with the year
in question as the central point. This would enable smoothing
where there is genuine need, without opening up the danger of
constant deferment but encouraging investment and early action
in anticipation of subsequent shocks."
The Environment Agency stated, "[w]e do not
support borrowing, even at the limited levels envisaged in the
Bill. Any additional emissions reductions needed in the current
budget period should be met from purchasing international credits
in the current budget period, not from a transfer of additional
burdens to a subsequent period." The Mayor of London was
also against any form of borrowing between budgets.
The Environmental Industries Commission suggested
that any exercise of the power to borrow should be subject to
a detailed explanation by the Secretary of State: "In the
event that borrowing becomes necessary to meet the carbon budget,
EIC believe that there should be a legally binding obligation
on the Government to explain to Parliament why such borrowing
was needed and what action has been taken to remedy the situation."
Given the fact that the entire purpose of the five-year budgetary
period itself is to smooth out variations, we are somewhat
surprised that the Government feels the need to include any borrowing
provision at all. We therefore recommend that this provision be
deleted from the draft Bill.
It is moved by Mark Lazarowicz to leave out paragraphs
93 to 95 and insert a new paragraph as follows:
"The draft Bill currently allows the Government
to borrow up to 1% of the current budgetary amount from the next
period in order to avoid missing its target by a very small amount.
The Government explained in evidence that it regarded the borrowing
provisions as a minimalist measure designed simply to prevent
the Government from missing its target by a very small amount,
due to an unexpected variation in weather patterns in the final
year of the budgetary period, or as a result of small changes
in validating data. Ministers also clearly confirmed that the
1% borrowing proposal is not cumulative. There was little specific
comment to us on the borrowing provision, and there appeared to
be a general acceptance of the government approach. We therefore
consider that the borrowing provision should be retained in the
Bill."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
E of Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
| E of Caithness
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
L Puttnam
|
Paragraph accordingly agreed to (now paragraph 95).
Paragraph 96 agreed to.
Paragraph 97 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 98 reads as follows:
However, there remains a possibility that a Government
could purchase carbon credits cheaply in one period to offset
against emissions incurred in the following budgetary period.
Indeed, the complete collapse in price of Phase 1 EU ETS allowances
demonstrates how easily this could now be done. While we support
the principle of banking of domestic over-achievement for use
in a subsequent budgetary period, we recommend that the draft
Bill be amended so as to place a limit on the extent to which
carbon credits can be banked for use in this way.
It is moved by David Howarth in line 4 of paragraph
98, to leave out the words "done" to the end of the
paragraph and add the words: "We are not persuaded that
allowing the banking of credits should be allowed under any circumstances".
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
David Howarth
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Teverson
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E of Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
L Puttnam
E of Selborne
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
|
Amendment accordingly disagreed to.
Paragraph 98 agreed to.
Paragraphs 99 to 114 agreed to.
Paragraph 115 reads as follows:
We are not persuaded that Clauses 1(1) and 2(1)(b)
impose a legally enforceable duty on the Secretary of State to
"ensure" reductions in carbon emissions for the period
up to 2050. We question the wisdom of Parliament approving legislation
in a form that does not make enforceable law, and could be regarded
as a 'political gesture'. Were there to be a perception that the
'statutory' regime has no legal force, there is a consequential
danger that, instead of the Bill creating confidence in the UK's
climate change policy and establishing a leading legal framework,
these aims could undermined and weakened.
It is moved by Lord Whitty in line 1 of paragraph
115 to leave out the words from the start of line 1 to "duty"
in line 2 and insert "We have serious concerns regarding
the legal enforceability of Clauses 1(1) and 2(1)(b), which impose
a".
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E of Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Puttnam
E of Selborne
L Teverson
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
L Woolmer
| L Crickhowell
David Howarth
|
Amendment accordingly agreed to.
It is moved by Mark Lazarowicz to leave out paragraph
115, as amended, and replaced with the following new paragraph:
"We have concerns regarding the legal enforceability
of Clauses 1(1) and 2(1)(b), which impose a duty on the Secretary
of State to ensure targets and budgets are met. We believe, therefore,
that these provisions need to be altered or strengthened."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
Mr David Chaytor
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L Puttnam
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
| E of Caithness
L Crickhowell
David Howarth
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
E of Selborne
L Teverson
L Woolmer
|
Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 115).
Paragraph 116 agreed to.
Paragraph 117 reads as follows:
An alternative, which is our strong preference,
is to introduce a compliance mechanism within the Bill that will
give both meaning and strength to the duty to "ensure"
by compelling the Secretary of State to redress any failure to
meet a target or budget, where necessary through court intervention
based on the compliance mechanism. There
are appropriate compliance mechanisms that can be introduced to
fulfil this role and we address this issue below.
It is moved by Lord Crickhowell to leave out paragraph
117 and replace it with the following paragraphs:
"An alternative approach, which we favour, would
be to combine a Purpose Clause of a kind that is common in UK
legislation with Clause 2 imposing duties over a succession of
five-year periods which the Secretary of State and the Government
have the capacity to fulfil, and which in some circumstances might
be judiciable, combined with compliance measures of the kind that
we describe in paras [x] below.
A possible alternative to the present draft Clause
1(1) would be: "It is the duty of the Secretary of State
to set targets, and prepare proposals and policies to achieve
five-year carbon budgets with the object of ensuring that the
net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60% lower
than the 1990 baseline". With this Purpose Clause as an indication
of intent, the preparation of carbon budgets set in accordance
with Clause 2, the duty of the Secretary of State to report to
Parliament on proposals and policies (Clause 6), together with
the annual statement of UK emissions (Clause 7) and a Kyoto type
Compliance Mechanism deducting excess emissions from a carbon
budget for a subsequent period (see para [x] below) would put
more pressure on the Government to deliver than would be the result
of imposing an unenforceable duty to deliver an outcome of more
than 40 years in the future."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
L Crickhowell
L Woolmer
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
E of Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Mark Lazarowicz
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Puttnam
E of Selborne
L Teverson
Dr Desmond Turner
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
|
Amendment accordingly disagreed to.
Paragraph 117 agreed to.
Paragraphs 118 to 122 agreed to.
Paragraph 123 reads as follows:
It would not be difficult to introduce an action
plan procedure into the existing framework of the draft Bill.
In effect, it would simply extend the duty to report on policies
and proposals under Clause 6. More significantly it would, in
the opinion of Professor Forsyth and Mr Wilson, impose a duty
that is sufficiently precise to allow the court to compel its
preparation and, potentially, implementation following a judicial
review. For these reasons, we recommend that failure by the
Government to meet a carbon budget or an annual benchmark should
trigger a duty to prepare a report explaining the reasons for
the non-compliance and an action plan for remedying the situation.
It is moved by Lord Whitty at the end of paragraph
123 to add the words "The action plan should cover any necessary
policy changes, legislative proposals and resources need to implement
it; any public funds identified should be paid into a 'climate
change compliance fund'."
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Objected to; on Question?
| Contents | Not Contents
|
E of Caithness
Mr David Chaytor
L Crickhowell
David Howarth
L May of Oxford
B Miller of Chilthorne Domer
L Puttnam
E of Selborne
L Teverson
Dr Alan Whitehead
L Whitty
| Ms Celia Barlow
B Billingham
Nia Griffith
Mr David Kidney
Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment accordingly agreed to.
Paragraph 123, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 124 to 228 agreed to.
The Abstract is agreed to.
The following annexes to the Report are agreed to:
List of acronyms used in the Report
Summary of online consultation
Note on visits undertaken by the Committee
Analysis of costs of the Committee on Climate
Change
Schedule of comments on the draft Bill.
The Committee agreed that the draft Report, as amended,
be the report of the Joint Committee.
Ordered, That certain
papers be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the provisions
of Standing Order 134 (Select Committee Reports) of the House
of Commons apply to the report.
Ordered, That the Chairman
make the report to the House of Lords and Dr Desmond Turner make
the report to the House of Commons.
Ordered, That the Joint
Committee be now adjourned.
| 
