| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: This goes to the heart of one of the problems in taking a series of amendments in isolation from the others. Amendments have been tabled that propose that the target should be 80 per cent. This amendment says that these must be actual reductions in the UK without allowing for net trading to improve that. Another amendment proposes that there must be a defined limit to the amount of trading there can be. If you put all those together, and if that was the position that we wanted to advocate to every other country in the world to get support in international agreements, I have to tell the Committee that we would not get international agreement on any of those things. If you take one proposal in isolation, that is not too bad, but if you add up the thrust of the amendments from the Liberal Democrat side, there would be a very high reduction from the UK and you could have very little net trading at all. Then you would get a very tough regime, which would mean
11 Dec 2007 : Column 172
Lord Rooker: My noble friend Lord Woolmer almost stole my central point, but it is a good point to make. The amendment would end our participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme straight away, leaving aside everything else. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, shakes his head but the fact is that that is what it would mean. Amendment No. 6, as drafted, would be incredibly restrictive on our capacity to take action.
In its report, the Joint Committee noted the concept of the “net UK carbon account”, and stated that therefore,
- “the draft Bill represents an important development in the nature of UK targets for carbon reduction”.
Deleting the concept of the net UK carbon account would mean that emissions reductions supported by UK companies or the Government which took place outside the UK could not be counted towards our 2050 target. It is as simple as that. This would be the case regardless of whether these carbon units represented low-carbon investment in developing countries through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, or whether they represented the efforts of UK companies to meet their targets under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme by trading with other companies elsewhere in the EU—as they are allowed to do under EU law.
Amendment No. 6 would therefore significantly increase the cost of meeting the 2050 target. Unless I have read my notes wrong—and I would be happy to take advice on that—and I know that we are in 2007, and 2050 is 43 years away, but I have a figure in front of me of £5 billion more that would be needed to meet our target than would otherwise be the case. That is a lot of money in anyone’s book. I understand the approach that was pleaded for at Second Reading, that we might start off being able to purchase and offset abroad but that we would gradually move away from that over a period of years. However, this amendment would not do that; far from it, it would go straight in. So it would straight away undermine the international approach to tackling climate change. That would not help anybody. It would not help the UK give a lead to other countries and the planet. We will meet our targets and we will ensure—if I can use that word—that the Secretary of State operates to meet them through both action to reduce UK emissions and action to support other countries in reducing their emissions. We need to do this in line with our EU and international obligations. That is by far the best way of doing it. We are strongly committed to the international principle set out in the Kyoto Protocol that the use of the international mechanisms should be “supplemental” to domestic action set out in the Kyoto Protocol.
The concept of the “net UK carbon account” recognises that our targets can be met through both action at home and action overseas. We shall have other debates on this aspect but the narrowness, harshness and simplicity almost of the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is such that it is
11 Dec 2007 : Column 173
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister is quite right but I wanted to have this discussion. As regards leadership pretensions, the Bill will be thoroughly dissected by other countries and we need to be absolutely certain about which bit of ground we are standing on. To some people the relevant phrase will look like weakness, and we have to recognise that. I accept the practical realities of the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, is quite right; we certainly do not want to become isolated on this issue, and I had no intention that we should. But the other way of looking at this—if we qualified it a bit—is that it would set a rather more severe and challenging 2050 target. One could perhaps come back with an amended amendment that would do that. However, it was important to have this discussion and I do not apologise for having it. Too many aspects of trading in carbon swaps and carbon offsets have, frankly, verged on the fraudulent. Even with the United Nations clean climate initiative, there are still large question marks over much of the trade that goes on because it is not a universally accepted standard and so there are very real difficulties with it.
There was even a report in the Financial Times some months ago that the Chinese were thinking of bringing in a tax on the payments that investors in carbon saving technology were receiving because for some Chinese firms their income from these carbon offsets was greater than their income from anything else. I did not like the idea that we should make that sort of fiscal contribution to the Chinese Government. So the question of this international trade in carbon certificates needs very strong and internationally agreed controls. It does not yet have that. For so long as that is the situation we shall have trouble in this area.
This has been an extremely useful discussion. I am very grateful to those Members of the Committee who took part in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 7:
The noble Lord said: We come to targets. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill was aware that the important thing at the end of the day is not to meet a 50, 60, 80 or 100 per cent carbon reduction by 2050 but to address the issue of all the tonnes of carbon that will be put into the atmosphere between now and 2050. That is what affects the climate, not meeting a 60 or 80 per cent carbon reduction by 2050. Although that issue is included in the Bill in terms of carbon budgets, it is very difficult to refer to thousands of tonnes of carbon being put into the atmosphere as a target within the Bill’s objective.
11 Dec 2007 : Column 174
We agree that there should be targets but it is important that they should be realistic and that they fulfil the objectives of the legislation. I believe that the 60 per cent target was set by a Royal Commission some years ago. We are all aware that the climate change science and our understanding of how global warming works have progressed hugely since then, and, indeed, since the draft Bill was published earlier this year. The IPCC itself has said that to keep within the limit of 2 degrees centigrade on a global basis we shall probably have to reduce carbon emissions across all nations by some 50 per cent by 2050. We believe that to achieve a fair and equitable solution for developed nations that figure needs to be something in the order of 80 per cent.
There are three ways of approaching the 60 per cent target in the Bill. Either we can decide to take out the target altogether and do what the Government suggest later in the Bill, which is to ask the committee to come back in a few months—I cannot remember the timescale—to give us a scientific, authoritative, well considered litmus test, as it were, of what we believe the target should be, so that we can agree to that target in due course. Alternatively, we can stay with 60 per cent. Frankly, that is the worst option. Putting in what everyone accepts is the wrong figure would be wrong not only for the United Kingdom but also for our position globally. The third option is for us to put in the figure that we feel is, given that this is not an exact science, most realistic and most likely.
We believe that 80 per cent is the right figure to put in the Bill. To back up my arguments, I quote two prominent Labour Party members. The first is the Prime Minister, who said in his 19 November speech that,
- “the evidence now suggests that, as part of an international agreement, developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80 per cent”.
The other is the Mayor of London, who,
We believe that it is important to have a target. That target needs to be realistic and the best understanding at this time is that 80 per cent is such a target.
The other concern—this is a correct theme of the Government—is that the business community, which has to deliver a huge proportion of this commitment, has to have a degree of certainty. However, there is almost a guarantee of uncertainty in the 60 per cent target. Keeping a target until the Committee on Climate Change has been appointed, considered the evidence and come back within the time constraints would actually delay a decision. There is much greater certainty if we go for a realistic and a best figure now. Again, I applaud the Government’s wish to lead globally on the targets, but that lead can be preserved only if we have a target of 80 per cent in the Bill now. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Much hangs on targets, but we do not see this amendment as relevant to the Bill’s intended operation. Our position is that the Committee on Climate Change, not the politicians, should set the targets. We see the committee as being
11 Dec 2007 : Column 175
6.45 pm
Lord Campbell-Savours: I was involved in quite an interesting debate on these matters yesterday evening with a number of colleagues. I left the meeting in the belief that we should set an 80 per cent target in the Bill, but I am now not altogether convinced that that is the right way to proceed. My view is that we should not refer to 60 per cent. It is a dangerous figure to put in the Bill. It would undermine the credibility of a Labour Government and it would send out the wrong message to NGOs. We have two options: either we put nothing in the Bill and leave it to the committee, or we put in a target of 80 per cent.
I have consulted people in the trade unions on these matters. As my noble friend will know, the general view in the unions—particularly Unison, with which I have talked at length—is that a target of 80 per cent should be set. However, it might well be best—I take the view of the opposition Front Bench on this—to say nothing at this stage and leave it to the committee to decide. At the heart of my case is the belief that there should be no reference to 60 per cent. That figure is dangerous for our credibility.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: At the end of discussions in the Joint Committee, my view was that it was right to have a figure of at least 60 per cent in the Bill. However, I have come to the conclusion that circumstances have changed sufficiently, even since last summer, to make it right to include 80 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson said, the Prime Minister has already spoken of recognising that up to 80 per cent is likely to be the amount of reductions needed. We know that other countries are moving in that direction, too. France is considering legislation that would provide for emissions reductions of 75 to 80 per cent by 2050. The German Government have announced a legislative package incorporating cuts of 80 per cent by 2050. In the United States, two of the leading contenders for the presidential nomination, Senators Clinton and Obama, are talking in the same kind of figures.
By sticking to 60 per cent, we will be behind what science—and, indeed, politics—in this country sees as necessary and we will lack that degree of leadership that the Government have rightly taken in the past few years and which they rightly see this Bill as demonstrating again. Eighty per cent is a very ambitious figure, but ambition is what is needed, as we have seen recently in the science.
11 Dec 2007 : Column 176
There seem to be two options: leaving this to the committee to consider or writing 80 per cent into the Bill. If there were genuine uncertainty, there would be a strong case for leaving the matter for the committee to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested. However, it seems to me, as I say, that there has been a sufficient movement in both the science and the politics since June for it to be right now to replace the 60 per cent target with an 80 per cent target, both to achieve the goal of the emissions reductions that we need and to continue to show the leadership that the Government have commendably taken up to now and which, I hope, they will continue to take. I support this amendment.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I oppose the amendment. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to amend the figure. It provides that, when he does so, he must consider the scientific evidence and take the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. It does not provide that the committee should determine the figure. That is no doubt something that we will discuss later and noble Lords will not be surprised if I have a view about it.
We are talking about deciding now that 80 per cent is the figure, when the target of at least 60 per cent was firmly based some years ago. Subsequent evidence should be carefully weighed up. The Bill makes provision for that to be done. In fact, it is an obligation on the Secretary of State to do so and to take the early advice of the independent committee. When all the stakeholders who are subsequently affected ask, “Why is it 80 per cent and not 60 per cent?”, the Secretary of State will be able to provide a coherent argument based on scientific evidence and the view of the independent committee. Then the stakeholders, whose behaviour has to change radically, will have the confidence and security that the basis is one that they can buy into. If the answer is that Parliament, having the Bill in front of it, said, “We think 80 per cent is better; we will take a judgment by a vote on scientific evidence”, that does not seem to me to be the way to get stakeholders to buy into and undertake the necessary change.
I am confident that the way in which the Bill is framed is intended to allow the Government of the day to amend upwards, as it refers to “at least” 60 per cent. That can be done in the light of evidence, so that the stakeholders—who initially will largely be industry and, through that, consumers, although they may eventually, through personal allowances, be people more directly—will be able to feel that this was not about votes by different people about whether it should be 60 per cent or 80 per cent. That is not the basis on which to take people with us. Rather, people should feel that due process has been followed. I would be surprised if the figure is not revised upwards. This contribution is not intended to challenge or question that, but to ask how we get there and how we take people with us.
Lord Puttnam: I rise to follow precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and my noble friend Lord Woolmer said. Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment, but not because I do not think that this time next year
11 Dec 2007 : Column 177
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, says, but if the figure of 60 per cent goes on being around and in the Bill, that opportunity will not be signalled in the way that it would be if no figures were to go in. I do not know what the Minister is going to say in response to this amendment. He may want to resist it, as he wants to resist most things that are tried at this stage.
The suggestion that we might do better not to have a figure at all puts the onus on the committee more forcefully than having a figure that I have not heard anyone defend. We should not be putting into the Bill at the next stage a figure that none of us thinks is realistic or wants to defend, just because it happens to be there. I hope that the Minister, in responding to the amendment, will say that he will take the figure out. If we just left it there, the signal that we would give to people who read the Bill as it goes through its processes here would be that we are not serious about attempting to up this percentage.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I would very much regret it if we lost any reference to a percentage target from the Bill. If the first clause read, “It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least lower”, it would be a pretty limp beginning to a pretty important Bill. Let us not lose a target. I personally accord with the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Woolmer, about the need to get that extra bit of work done to validate an increase in the target. A Bill that says that the carbon account should be at least 60 per cent lower gives us a backstop beyond which we cannot slide and sets us up well for a higher target, whatever that higher target is ultimately to be.
Lord Redesdale: I agree with the nature of the persuasive argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that the committee can get credibility by winning a victory that we know in advance it is going to have. Anyone who reads Hansard is not going to spot that this was set up in the first place—
Lord Puttnam: Unfortunately, I am a Spurs supporter and we take any victory that we can get.
11 Dec 2007 : Column 178
Lord Redesdale: The problem that I have in one respect, following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that I believe that we should have targets, because that is what the Bill is about. We are saying categorically that we are reducing carbon by the amount that we have to come forward with. It is not a question of greenwashing. This is the purpose of the Bill and what everyone understands it to be. I would support the 80 per cent target because it is the figure that is generally accepted in the scientific community.
If we are not as parliamentarians prepared to make the political decision that that is the way in which we are going to go, with the subsequent costs that there will be on industry, on individual freedoms and on the right to take a £5 flight to Bucharest for a stag weekend, or for any other reason, we are missing an opportunity to make a direct contribution of saying that this is the political will behind the Government. This is a brave Bill, and it says that we are looking towards that.
In a phrase used at Second Reading, I am slightly worried that by saying that we will have the 60 per cent but will move on to the 80 per cent—I do not believe that anyone is really considering taking percentages out of the Bill—we will transfer what should be a political decision on to a committee to make as a scientific decision. Everyone who has read the briefings will realise that 80 per cent is the scientific view. The Prime Minister mentioned in a speech that the Government are seriously considering taking 80 per cent as the baseline target. I very much hope that the Government will decide to do so, because it has been raised by the Prime Minister in a speech; obviously he has not said that it is a policy statement, but it is an aspirational target. As we all have come to agree that that is the very least that we can look at if we are to meet the objectives of the Bill, to pass it on to the committee would be an abdication of our responsibilities.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Did the noble Lord imply that he might come forward later saying, “at least 80 per cent”?
Lord Redesdale: The problem with the science, if you believe what has been said over the past few years, is that the scientific community might come up with a higher figure than 80 per cent. I do not have a science degree; I have only a degree in archaeology. I personally think—well, I studied prehistoric Europe, and that tells us that within a few decades the land bridge between Britain and France was broken by water. If London happened to be in that area that was flooded, in the space of decades, we would have quite a lot to say about the increase in a couple of degrees or percentage targets. It is very easy to talk about this as if it does not have a great deal of meaning and will not have a great deal of effect within a few decades, but obviously it will.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |