| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I agree totally with the core element of the amendment, which is that the Climate Change Committee needs to be strengthened, to have greater authority and to play a greater part in the process. What that balance is we shall have to come to at the next stage.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his positive and genuine response to the weight of the arguments that Members of the Committee have expressed today. Their contributions have been thoughtful and I hope noble Lords have a picture of what we on these Benches are trying to achieve through the amendments. I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in showing how delicate the balance is between the executive powers of government and the authority that is given to a body which is not democratically accountable.
It has been a very useful debate. I am sorry that there are occasions on which the Minister feels that he has covered this ground before, but it is an important point which lies at the heart of the Bill. It is useful to consider these matters. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I suspect, has probably moderated his initial reaction in the light of the debate. I hope that is also true of the Government.
In another place, where they are allowed to discuss these things, no doubt the same kind of argument went on when the current Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England should set interest targets. No doubt these kinds of issues weighed heavily then. I do not think there is any body of opinion in either House of Parliament which would argue against that decision today. It bears out entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that if you want a body’s recommendations to be treated with the gravity you require, you have to give it authority. That lies at the base of these amendments. Imperfect they may be, but I have presented them to the Committee in order that we should think again about the balance between Parliament, government and the committee. In the light of the Government’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Consultation on order setting or amending target percentages]:
Clause 8 [Setting of carbon budgets for budgetary periods]:
Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 43:
The noble Lord said: This is a small and straightforward amendment, but it goes to the core of the Bill. All Members of this Committee have said that this is a strategically important Bill, yet this clause, which covers such a core area as setting carbon budgets for the budgetary period, states that the carbon budget for a period must be set,
8 Jan 2008 : Column 754
the targets in the Bill. That is a contradiction and completely undersells the importance of the targets. My amendment would simply remove,
so that the clause clearly states that the budget must meet the targets. It is an obvious point. I have managed reasonably well to elucidate all the complicated points that I have gone through in the past; on this one, I have completely failed. The clause needs to state that the budget should meet the targets and not have “a view to” meeting them. The current drafting undersells the purpose of the Bill. I am sure that the Government would agree with that. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We were interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, explain the amendment. It would change the Bill so that where it states:
It is not entirely clear how much difference that semantic change would make. It is unclear what advantage would be gained by changing the text from,
to “to meet”. The only purpose of a carbon budget for a period is to provide a short-term framework that will result in lower carbon emissions. No carbon budget, except perhaps the very last, which ends in 2050, can be set to meet the 2050 target completely. All our efforts in the Bill are made with a view to meeting the 2050 target. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to the Bill, as it is difficult to conceive of the differences between a carbon budget that is set,
and a budget that is set “to meet”. The amendment would do no more than add a layer of confusion, and we cannot support it.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I would dearly love to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and be very quick about it, but I shall take a few moments to give the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the time that it deserves. I understand the sentiments behind it. As he said, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set every carbon budget,
the 2050 target, the target percentage range of 2020 and any target percentage range for a year after 2050.
Budgets must be set with a view to complying with the UK's European Community and international obligations—for example, as noble Lords are aware, any international treaties to which the UK is a signatory. So there is already a statutory requirement on the Government to set budgets in such a way that the targets are met. That is the intention of the Bill.
I agree with noble Lords that it is important that the Bill focuses on, and commits us to delivering, the overall outcome of the 2050 target, otherwise why would we all be here? However, Amendment No. 43
8 Jan 2008 : Column 755
4 pm
Lord Dixon-Smith: I understood the Minister to say that the 2042 budget could not be set to meet the 2050 target. My immediate reaction is, “Why not?”. It seems incredible that such a situation could arise, but let us suppose that we actually start to make technological change at a rate that permits meeting the 2050 target by 2040 or 2044. What is the problem, if that is the case? It still meets the 2050 target. We could probably go on from there and get even further. So I do not know why the Minister felt compelled to say that the 2044 budget, or whatever, could not actually meet the 2050 target, because patently, if it were technically possible to do so, it should be allowed to do so. If it meets the 2050 target, so what?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Lord is supporting my case, in fact. If technologies became available that could bring forward meeting the target, yes, that would be taken into account. The carbon budgets are about achieving a direction of travel and setting a trajectory towards the 2050 target. What we cannot say is that a target should be met in each budget period, because then the climate change committee, the Secretary of State and all those concerned would not be able to take into account all the factors to which the noble Lord alludes.
I support the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendment. Yes, we need to drive forward the Bill’s policy objectives and we want to meet these targets—but the budgets are set taking into account a number of factors, including technological developments and economic and social factors. They are set as a direction of travel and with a view, even in the very early budget periods, to meeting the 2050 target. That is the correct terminology for the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for her reply but I disagree completely. I do not wish to pursue this and I am not going to take up the Committee’s time further, but the proposal clearly relates to the target in Clause 1, which is a percentage by a particular year. The percentage and the year are the target. I am merely trying to stop wishy-washy language being used and bring it down to specific language. This
8 Jan 2008 : Column 756
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Consultation on carbon budgets]:
Clause 10 [Matters to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 48:
“( ) the actual and expected effects of climate change on the environment and populations;”The noble Duke said: I hardly need to emphasise that much of our position in these debates has focused thus far on putting science in the driving seat and ensuring that our targets come from an authoritative and independent committee. That is, we do not want to compromise on the overarching decisions of what needs to be done. Thus, when setting carbon budgets, it is essential that scientific knowledge about climate change, relevant technology, the economic impact of proposals, fiscal policy and some of the other issues emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury earlier in Committee come to bear on decision-making.
However, the list of factors to be considered as it stands in the Bill is not exhaustive and ignores to some degree the very thing that we are trying to protect—the environment. When setting the budgets, proposals must be considered in terms of their broader environmental impact as well as the impact on the population that inhabits it. In our efforts to stop global warming we must avoid spoiling the very thing that we are trying to protect. We need to be sure that in our debate about policy, we are not prevented from seeing the forest for the trees. The proposals for reducing carbon emissions must, therefore, be considered in light of potential impacts on the environment. I put it strongly to the Committee that carbon budgets should take into account the broader issues of sustainability and adaptation, and I hope to find support on this subject. Essentially, the impact on the environment and people should not be ignored when budgets are set. If a carbon budget were set that would mean sustaining damage to the environment in reaching it, we would be faced with a policy oxymoron and have to seek out alternatives.
The other amendments in the group slightly shift the language of the Bill. As it stands, the Bill stipulates that a number of factors must be taken into account in relation to the Secretary of State’s decisions about budgets, but we feel that this is far too narrow. Our amendments that replace “the decision” with “climate change” shift the focus to ensure that the impact of climate change on various factors such as taxation and public spending are considered. The
8 Jan 2008 : Column 757
I would be the first to admit that this approach once again raises the question of what climate change is. In many ways that highlights what appears to be a great gap in the Bill. There is no definition. The purpose clauses that we discussed in the first day of Committee hinted at the issue, but only as far as temperature is concerned. “Climate change” is a nice cosy little title, but what we have is almost entirely a carbon emissions reduction Bill. Clause 10(2)(a) is more or less tacked on and thus conveys the ability to consider developing scientific knowledge.
Only one of the clause headings in the Bill proposes a report on climate change, but only by Welsh Ministers to the Welsh Assembly. If that really is what is meant, it seems a rather solitary burden for Welsh Ministers, given that we are putting in place this high-powered, technical committee. This leads me to think that it might be appropriate at a later stage to introduce amendments to make one of the first responsibilities of the committee to produce a report on the criteria against which it thinks climate change should be judged, and on how the present climate measures up to them. It could then be asked to say, along with its periodic report on carbon emissions, how the climate is progressing and what changes, if any, have taken place. This would have the advantage of letting the rest of us see on what issues the Secretary of State would exercise his extensive Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend most strongly on this. This is one of the most important amendments, and I hope that we will get a favourable response from the Government. The Treasury press notice that accompanied the report of Sir Nicholas Stern—now our noble friend Lord Stern—stated that the dangers of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5 per cent of GDP each year. The press notice went on to say that it would more likely be 20 per cent of GDP each year. Unless the climate change committee has that focus in front of it, and has taken the economic and consequential factors into account, it will not be able to set a practical target for the reduction of carbon emissions. That is why this amendment is so important.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I support the spirit of this amendment, but I have been in this House long enough to look at the small subsections. Clause 10(3) pretty well covers all the points made in this amendment. It says:
“Nothing in this section is to be read as restricting the matters that the Secretary of State or the Committee may take into account”.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 758
One point we always discuss in this House is the extent to which we should take provisions like that and make them explicit.
Targets for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are strongly related to another environmental point, the question of air quality. In urban areas, that is a serious matter. Perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 people per year in the UK die prematurely as a result of poor air quality—a higher figure than anything we are likely to see in the next 20 or 30 years for those dying prematurely from the effects of extreme heatwaves or other climatic events. The Environment Agency, which is concerned with air pollution, will also be concerned with monitoring the emissions that go into the calculations of climate change controls and regulations. I am sure that the department, the Environment Agency and the climate change committee will bear these points in mind. It would be extremely complex to put all that into the Bill. I hope the Minister, in responding to the amendment, will explain how the Government are trying to take—in the words they now use, of which I approve—a holistic approach, considering all the different factors.
The other important point that was made by the noble Duke was on the issue of adaptation—and of course adaptation is now in the Long Title of the Bill. But again, adaptation is not going to be part of the responsibility of the climate change committee, for reasons that will be explained more fully when that comes to be debated. Some of the best policies will need to consider mitigation and adaptation together. But in order to restrict its role, the climate change committee will focus on the emission aspects of the problem, and the Secretary of State’s job is to make sure that all these different and complex issues come together. The question is whether the Bill as framed meets these points, and perhaps the Minister will be able to explain that.
4.15 pm
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I support Amendments Nos. 48 and 49A, although Amendments Nos. 50B, 51A and 53A are a bridge too far for me: this is a good idea that has been rather overworked. Nevertheless, it is a good idea. As the noble Lord just said, it is important that the Committee on Climate Change should take account of the impacts of climate change in thinking about the pace at which the targets should be taken forward. Climate change is important only because of its impacts on people and on the environment; otherwise, it simply exists in a vacuum. It will be vital for the committee to have before it information about the impacts of climate change as they are experienced at that time and the best possible information to anticipate what the impacts will emerge as.
Later amendments would put in place a mechanism for the adaptation agenda similar to the one for the mitigation and target-setting agendas. If that happens, it would be important for the Committee on Climate Change to have information about these impacts in order to inform its decisions. I do not believe that it would overburden this part of the Bill simply to state that the committee needs to take account of the impacts
8 Jan 2008 : Column 759
Lord May of Oxford: The intention of the wording in the Bill is not inimical to that of the amendment, but I am in favour of something like the amendment because the current wording is liable to misinterpretation. Let me take one example from the suite that we are talking about. The Bill states that, among the matters to be taken into account, are,
rather than of climate change—
That is exactly what the two nations that failed to sign up to Kyoto gave as their reason for not doing so. I think that the Government intend to say here that the economic circumstances must be weighed in relation to, as Stern suggests, the cost of doing something against the cost of doing nothing. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the spirit behind the amendment be taken into account and that we look again at the wording in the Bill.
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when I was considering the amendment, I thought about the relationship between subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 10. Presumably the reason for specifying certain matters in subsection (2) is to ensure that those are taken into account while leaving open the possibility of others being taken into account if the committee judges them at the time to be important. It seems to me entirely right and proper that we should specify now those things that we consider, at least as of now, to be the key factors in reaching decisions on the carbon budgets. Like the noble Lord, Lord May, I support the underlying intention of Amendment No. 48 and would like something that reflects that intention to be incorporated into the clause. Like him, I am not certain that the existing wording is absolutely right, but I very much support the intention behind it.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |