| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understood it, the growl of assent—I was closer to it than the noble Lord, Lord Elton—was made on the basis that, if, for example, there was an issue arising from previous misconduct or Clause 10, it would ultimately be for Parliament to decide it. Parliament must protect the liberties of this country, if it thinks that that is the appropriate course. Obviously, in this House, we have a particular responsibility for that.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not mind me intervening. In his speech—for which he has been given appropriate credit—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, said that convention was important. If we are considering the protections that are available, it might be useful to have them clearly on the record, as they have not been placed on the record recently. As I understand it, it is a well-established convention that if the Lord Chief Justice of the day wishes to raise matters of importance with the Prime Minister he is always given an immediate audience.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course. I welcome the opportunity that the noble and learned Lord has given me to affirm that that convention exists. It is part of the important relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I fear to tread on this ground, but has not the conversation of the past few minutes illustrated the fact that judicial independence is sustained and strengthened by holding these things together rather than by pulling them apart? Is that not the benefit of the noble and learned Lord's office in all these matters? Is it not the benefit of our constitutional arrangements, however they are shaped for the future? We all accept that these matters are always open for adjustment, but the danger of pulling them apart in a half-hearted way is that we could ultimately undermine that independence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a very important point, and it is at the heart of the debate. I do not think anyone would say we are being half-hearted about this. As far as the pulling apart is concerned, the question I pose is whether the ministerial role and the judicial protector role are such that the conflict can no longer be sustained in the long term. In practically every other area of life, you try to resolve a conflict by taking away from one individual pressures that may be conflicting. I have made it clear that I will continue to discharge both jobs but I think it is sensible, in the long term, to seek to resolve that conflict by giving one person the ministerial function and another person the function of head of the judiciary.
As noble Lords have noted, there was not much opposition to the principle of a Judicial Appointments Commission. There is a strong feeling, particularly exposed by the work done by Sir Colin Campbell, that the time has come for a more transparent, methodical approach to the appointment of judges.
A number of noble Lords asked how we will define merit; that is an almost impossible question to answer. But the critical point is that merit comes first; all the other aims, such as promoting diversity, come second. The right approach to take in relation to that is to put merit as the guiding principle—the overwhelming principle—on the face of the Bill and make it clear that everything else comes second to it. Lord Chancellors have always had to wrestle with the question of what is merit. What they are seeking is a first-class judiciary and merit for a first-class judge.
Finally, on the Supreme Court, my noble friend Lord Brennan set out, as I did in my opening speech, the arguments that had been advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. In essence, the noble and learned Lord is saying that our final court of appeal is, in reality, not part of the legislature; it is a separate court. We should reflect that in the arrangements we make. Everybody who says that it has to be clear that there are proper facilities for them is also right. I was interested to hear the debate about the precise level of facilities in this House. Everybody is also right that the court should come into existence only when those facilities are available. However, our judgment would be that you would never get anywhere near those facilities until you had, by legislation, changed the current arrangements or were in the course of doing so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, said that a very successful and admired body of law was being produced by the House of Lords. That is absolutely right—it is admired throughout the world. I have no doubt whatever that what the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom produces, with just the same quality of people, will be just as admired throughout the world. Many noble Lords have said that it will cost more. Yes, it will, but I think it is right that we have a separate United Kingdom Supreme Court, admired throughout the world, reflecting our constitutional arrangements.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He said a moment ago that he thought he would never get near having a proper building and a proper resource budget until legislation had established the court. Is the implication that he has absolutely no promise from the Treasury at the moment that he will get the necessary budget?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would not like to go into the precise detail of what promises I have received from the Treasury. I was making a different point: the idea that, in abstract, one could find a court, get the money to get it going and then start the legislative process is not, with respect, a realistic way of going about things. The right course is to do the legislation and the research for the building at the same time.
I have trespassed much too long in relation to my time. I have sought to make the case for each of the three proposals. I fully accept that these are very important issues and we will have an opportunity to debate them in the near future when we introduce the Bill to this House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, am I right in understanding his last sentence to mean that, although he would like to have the legislation in place, he would not bring it into force until the building and facilities were available?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there will be an issue about precisely when the building might be ready, and I do not want to commit myself completely.
Obviously the best solution would be for the legislation to be brought into force only when the building is ready. However, I do not want to give a complete commitment to that because I want to see the relationship between the building and the legislation.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, how long will that take?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we will have to wait and see. We will have another opportunity to debate this matter shortly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Goff of Chieveley —Took the Oath.
- House adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock until Monday 23 February.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Energy Bill [HL]
(Eighth Day) Thursday, 12 February 2004.
The Committee met at twenty past two of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): We have delayed starting for the Statement in the House. Welcome to the eighth day in Grand Committee on the Energy Bill. Members of the Committee know the rules and I shall not read them out. Noble Lords stand up when speaking and there will be no Divisions.
Lord Carter moved Amendment No 113ZB:
- After Clause 104, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a vice-chairman of BABFO, the British Association for Biofuels & Oils. I am delighted that the president of BABFO, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has added his name to the amendment. I also pay tribute to Mr Peter Clery, the chairman of BABFO, whose energy and expertise has kept the issue of biofuels firmly on the policy agenda.
We calculate that at present biofuels cost more than fossil fuels, but there are five good reasons why a domestic biofuel industry would be a good gain for the UK. With the Committee's permission, I shall briefly rehearse those reasons.
"Liquid biofuels" is the generic term for biodiesel and bioethanol when used as a substitute for fossil diesel and petrol. These fuels cut CO2 emissions by between 55 and 80 per cent, depending on production techniques and by-product use, when compared with fossil diesel and petrol. A car running now on 100 per cent biodiesel manufactured to EU quality standard EN 14214 would meet the Government's targets for biofuels for at least the next 10 years.
I should add that before I joined the Government I was involved for 30 years with United Oilseeds Marketing, a major farm co-operative concerned with oil seeds. Some 15 years ago we sent a car that was fuelled entirely by rape oil from Land's End to John O'Groats, raising a large amount for charity on the way. As I have said, that was 15 years ago.
Secondly, biofuels increase the diversity of our fuel supplies. There is real value in supplying road fuel from our farmland rather than from the Middle East and Asia. Both strategic and balance of payments considerations are relevant. Within the 10-year timespan of the EU biofuels directive 2003/30/EC, we could provide at least 5 per cent—rising over time to 10 per cent—of our road fuel needs from our own rural resources. As oil supplies dwindle and become more expensive, it must make sense to put together the nucleus of a domestic biofuel industry. Home production would also help to keep down the costs of imports.
Thirdly, biofuels improve local air quality. While great strides have been made in improving the efficiency of vehicle engines, cleaner fuel will still have a major role to play as the technology of particle traps and catalytic converters are complementary to biofuels. Efforts are currently being made to ensure that all London taxis run on biofuels, but without further support this will not happen.
Fourthly, biofuels increase rural productivity. More than half a million hectares of farmland in the UK are idle under set aside. That half a million hectares could produce close to 1 million tonnes of biofuels annually. We have wheat exports of the order of 3 million tonnes a year. This tonnage could produce 1 million tonnes of bioethanol. Under the current review of the common agricultural policy, which we have heard about today, farmers will have a wider choice of cropping open to them. It is vital that the production of road fuels should be one of the realistic options.
Fifthly, biofuels conserve energy by leaving the finite fossil fuels in the ground and using current solar energy instead. Best practice, incorporating by-product straw for power generation, can yield a positive energy balance in excess of five to one.
When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he would deal with each of the five arguments: a reduction of CO2 emissions; increased diversity and security of fuel supply; improvements in air quality; an increase in rural productivity; and the conservation of energy.
Given a fair fiscal and legislative position, British agriculture could produce annually 2 million tonnes of road fuel in fairly short order. There is wide public
However, because of the cost differential to which I referred earlier, this desirable end can take place only with government intervention. The Treasury have already agreed to a 20p per litre rebate for biodiesel and a 20p per litre rebate for bioethanol is to be introduced in 2005. This is a welcome start. The biodiesel rebate has led to the build-up of a small industry, producing 25,000 tonnes per year using recycled vegetable oils and so-called recycled vegetable oils.
The establishment of a serious industry will depend on deploying the resources of mainstream agriculture. Industry experts have told me that something of the order of a further 10p per litre rebate—that is, up to 30p per litre—is needed for serious investment in bioethanol. A period of at least five years for such biofuel rebates is also a prerequisite and appropriate capital grants would clearly assist.
The road gas fuels, LPG and CNG, enjoy a rebate in the order of 40p per litre. Surely the environmentally superior biofuels deserve similar support, in whatever form it takes. A requirement that all fuel producers should include a given amount of biofuel in their total annual sales would ensure that the balance of support not provided by the Treasury is met by the ultimate fuel user. This amendment proposes a renewable transport fuel obligation that would achieve just that. There is a good precedent for this in the electricity renewable obligation.
The levels of biofuel inclusion suggested in the amendment would be set mindful of the EU guidelines of 2 per cent by the end of 2005 and 5.75 per cent by the end of 2010. We recognise that the UK has, sadly, been a slow starter compared with other EU members, and it will take a little time to get up to speed. We know that a renewable transport fuel obligation, ReTFO, is in line not only with the UK position, but also with EU plans for the implementation of the biofuels directive to which I have referred.
An obligation such as that proposed in this amendment would enable us to catch up, cut CO2, clean our airspace, have a new source of fuel and stimulate the rural economy. The ends are agreed; we are now talking about means. The Treasury has already agreed fuel duty rebates of 20p per litre for biofuels to be met out of general taxation. If we accept the principle that the polluter should pay, then the car and the lorry user should pick up the rest of the tab, along with the oil companies. That is exactly what this amendment seeks to do.
However, I am conscious that both the Treasury and the fuel buyer must be sure that they are receiving value for money. That is why there is a requirement in subsection (5) that carbon saving shall be demonstrated to be at least 60 per cent over the comparable fossil fuel. This will be straightforward for efficient British farmers, but may not be so easy for imports of uncertain provenance.
The obligation proposed by the amendment proposes would require all fuel companies selling road fuel in the UK also to sell each year a given amount of environmentally sound biofuel. A cost will be attached to this, but ultimately this is not met at the pumps. It will be met by shareholders in the oil companies who may well be willing to shoulder this small burden in the cause of a better environment for us all.
By July of this year, the UK must inform the EU of its plans for biofuel use for December 2005 and for the five following years. The obligation will be an ideal way to settle this matter as our Government could both set the figures and ensure compliance, yielding the consequent CO2 savings and other benefits I outlined earlier.
When my noble friend at the Dispatch Box replies, I am sure that he will mention the consultation to be undertaken by the Department of Transport. It would be helpful if the Committee could be told who will be doing the consultation, who will be consulted—will it be all the stakeholders, not just the oil companies?—and how long the consultation will take.
I sent the Minister a letter circulated by the director-general for energy and transport matters in the Commission setting out the EC position. Member states are free to require each fuel supply company to achieve a given proportion of biofuels in its annual sales in a member state's territory, without specifying how this should be achieved in terms of blending.
In my view there is a very strong argument for the obligation. This amendment may not be perfect in its drafting, but it sets the scene for the wider debate and, I hope, eventual acceptance by the Government. I hope too that the Minister will not say that this is the wrong Bill for introducing such a measure. The Long Title of the Bill includes the phrase:
"RENEWABLE TRANSPORT FUEL OBLIGATION
(1) There shall be a renewable transport fuel obligation for the United Kingdom.
(2) The obligation shall require all producers selling road transport fuel in the United Kingdom to show that over the course of a calendar year a specified proportion of such fuel was biofuel.
(3) For the calendar year 2006 this proportion shall be 1 per cent by energy content and this proportion shall increase annually by 1 per cent until 2010.
(4) Producers, blenders and other relevant companies and persons shall make such returns to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise as may reasonably be required to demonstrate compliance with the obligation both as to the amount of biofuel produced and used and the origin of the relevant feedstocks.
(5) No fuel shall be recognised as a biofuel for the purpose of the obligation unless the carbon dioxide saving on a full life cycle analysis can be shown in the returns made under subsection (4) to be in excess of a 60 per cent improvement compared with the relevant fossil fuel comparator; and in the case of biodiesel this shall be ultra low sulphur diesel and for bioethanol it shall be ultra low sulphur petrol.
(6) For the purpose of the obligation, biofuels shall be defined as fuels produced from biodegradeable fraction of agricultural products, wastes and residues (including vegetable and animal substances), forestry products and waste and the biodegradeable fraction of industrial and municipal waste."
"To make provision for the development, regulation and encouragement of the use of renewable energy sources".
The amendment would fit nicely into Part 2 of the Bill which the Minister knows is helpfully headed, "Renewable Energy Sources". I beg to move.
2.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page