| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Caithness: For once, I disagree with my noble friend. For better or worse, we have devolution. I was not in favour of it and I still do not think that it is a great idea, and I think that the harvest from it is yet to be reaped in full. However, having got devolution, one must accept that countries such as Scotland can do their own thing. My noble friend and I are very fortunate that the home information pack is voluntary in Scotland, whereas it is compulsory in England. It is of great benefit to us in Scotland to have different law. Scotland will bring in its own climate change Bill and it may do things slightly differently from the way they are done in England. However, having got devolution, I think that the devolved Administrations should be given the flexibility to act. Certain things might be done better in Scotland than in England and certain things might be done worse, but that is a problem with devolution. Therefore, asking for a duty to be placed
8 Jan 2008 : Column 787
6.15 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has expressed things in precisely the same terms as I would be likely to express them from this Dispatch Box. We have devolved Administrations and they must exercise their responsibilities, but of course we are assured that each devolved Administration in the UK is committed to tackling climate change. The Secretary of State is responsible for meeting the targets and budgets in the Bill, but the report on policies and proposals must be developed in consultation with the devolved Administrations, as is their right, bearing in mind that this is a UK Bill. It is essential that it is a UK Bill because the UK has to operate in the international arena as an entity. However, some areas of climate change policy are devolved, and we respect that, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, properly pointed out that we should.
The proposals and policies required under this clause will clearly set out what measures each devolved Administration intends to take to reduce emissions in areas of its responsibility. We have agreed this approach with the devolved Administrations and believe that it represents a fair way forward. We are also developing a more detailed concordat with the devolved Administrations, which will set out how we work together with them to meet the Bill’s requirements. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that our efforts are properly co-ordinated, as opposed to seeking to impose on them a statutory duty to co-operate.
I reiterate that all the devolved Administrations are fully committed to this process. We have enjoyed very constructive discussions with them and are grateful to them for their co-operation so far. I am pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have both recently approved legislative consent motions to this Bill, and we expect to build on this constructive process.
It is right that the Bill is focused on the UK level, given the highly integrated nature of the UK economy and our energy system. Clause 11 already requires that the report, including the contribution of the devolved Administrations, be laid before Parliament, so there will be full transparency about what the Government, together with the devolved Administrations, intend to do to reduce emissions and meet the budget.
I hope that the noble Duke will feel reassured by the Government’s response and suitably chastened by his Back-Bench contribution to the extent that he will recognise the proper role of the devolved Administrations in this matter. At the same time, I hope that he will appreciate that this is a UK Bill with UK targets to be hit and that we will achieve that through the transparent process of consultation with the devolved Administrations, as we are obliged to do. I hope that the noble Duke is reassured and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 788
The Duke of Montrose: I am afraid that I do not feel able to go along with the Minister one bit. Here, I am drawing to the Committee’s attention the anomalies that we face in the Bill. We have given devolution to various national or sub-national authorities—however one wishes to put it—but, at the same time, this is currently a UK Bill. There is a possible way for the Government to get around that. If they can agree the policies and proposals at the same time as setting the budgets, then, when they come forward with the carbon budgets, the policies and proposals will be agreed ahead of time and all horse-trading will already have been done. The only other way to get round the problem is to turn this into an England and Wales Bill or an England, Wales and Northern Ireland Bill and leave Scotland out of it altogether. The objective that we are striving towards is that there should be a UK policy on climate change and that everyone will fit into it. We are not saying that they should do exactly what Westminster says; we are simply saying that there should be a requirement on the national authorities to co-operate. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 64A not moved.]
Clause 12 [Annual statement of UK emissions]:
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 66:
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 86, 89 and 92, which bring the same argument to bear to Amendment No. 66.
Interestingly, a short while ago we were talking about Parliament’s role in scrutinising the legislation and these amendments are about part of that process. Hand in hand with our efforts to increase the power and independence of the Climate Change Committee, we are seeking to increase parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. These amendments put into legislation what I have previously described as the triangular arrangement between the Government, Parliament and the Climate Change Committee.
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State is required to lay down certain reports before Parliament. We on these Benches do not want to risk these statements slipping into Hansard unnoticed. The reporting mechanism on the progress in the fight against climate change needs to be rigorous. We need to have a statutory way of ensuring that reports on the Government’s success or failure do not slip between the cracks and disappear. That is why our amendments require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament not only the annual statement of UK emissions, the final statement for budgetary periods and the final statement for 2050, but also to table a resolution for its approval. In this way, we will ensure that it receives the attention it deserves.
Parliamentary scrutiny of the progress is essential to ensure that the Government accounts for their actions. It allows for debate on the Floor of the House
8 Jan 2008 : Column 789
The increased chance for public engagement is not just empty rhetoric. This is a problem that will require the concerted action not only of government departments, but of individual citizens. Any opportunity that might increase public awareness and engagement with our progress towards ending climate change should be considered a very good thing indeed. Does the Minister agree? What would be the Minister’s reasons for not allowing Parliament a chance to debate the reports in both Houses? I beg to move.
Lord Teverson: This seems to be a very good way of ensuring that these reports are debated within Parliament. We are supportive of this group of amendments—although expect that votes might go the wrong way, recalling the reminder to us all from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the strength of government Whips and Parliament’s procedures to make sure that the Government get their way. This effectively makes sure that these reports presumably are debated on the Floor of both Houses. We believe that is essential and good for the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My remarks will be extremely brief. I support the amendments moved by my noble friends for the very reasons that they gave, but will give an additional reason. I can well recall when we were taking the lottery Bill through that we made it clear to the House that we would make available a day’s debate every year, to see if the House wished to vary the amount of money going to the particular lottery interests and distributors, according to the change in the circumstances of cultural life.
That there was going to be such an opportunity was a powerful reason the figures that we put into the Bill originally were not amended. We did not, as I recall, in any way stipulate this as being a formal part of the lottery process. It is no surprise that an incoming Administration chose to handle the lottery in a quite different way, perhaps because that restraint was not available. Had we had the opportunity to debate the purposes of the Lottery more frequently, the lottery might be in a happier position today. For that reason—the same as given by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—it is highly desirable that the opportunity for debate, as this 43 years unfolds, is all to the good.
The Earl of Selborne: I suspect that the Minister will tell us that it would be unusual to stipulate the need for an amendment or debate on these measures. However, I suggest that we should give that more thought and that this recommendation should be supported. After all, we are talking about something very much more fundamental. It is something that if unusual, is so for a good cause.
Lord Puttnam: I, too, support this amendment. It is perfectly sound and all of a piece with the overall recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Committee.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 790
Lord Rooker: I am in trouble here. Regarding the final points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about having debates on the Floor of both Houses, this amendment requires no such thing. I can assure noble Lords that that would not happen. I will come to the substantive point on whether it adds any value, because that is an important aspect of this.
From a practical point of view, this House obviously has a different structure from the other place, but I can assure noble Lords that there is no way that a piece of legislation would require there to be debates on the Floor. There would be ways to put it to a committee somewhere or to make it more targeted. However, I take the point about the level of parliamentary interest and scrutiny. All the amendments want the issue to be put upfront, which is important.
We have discussed the balance of responsibilities between the Committee on Climate Change, the Government and Parliament. However, we should ask ourselves if the amendments as drafted—because I can deal only with the way that they are drafted—add any value.
Clauses 12, 14 and 15 already require these statements to be laid before Parliament. If there were any concern in Parliament about the content of the publications, there are a dozen ways of raising any issue in the other place. I have no doubt that, one day, when I am no longer at this Box, I will find a dozen ways of raising issues in this place because I simply do not know the procedure from the Back Benches. However, there are enough ways of raising concerns in Parliament.
Therefore, having laid them before Parliament for formal approval, we would argue in terms of what is the best use of parliamentary time. However, that might not require a debate. If the business managers got to work, it could be done without one, but the objective of ensuring that these things were upfront in Parliament would be lost. It is important that Members of this House keep a very close watch.
I turn to some important technical aspects. The Bill requires that the statements provided under these clauses have to be compiled in accordance with international methodologies. That means that the most up-to-date and accurate information available must be used, as must the same systems and emissions data as in the annual emissions inventory which the UK is already required to submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
A background paper on how this emissions inventory is compiled has already been circulated. Briefly, the annual emissions inventory publication is produced by independent consultants on the Government's behalf, and is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics. It is respected, subject to rigorous quality assurance and peer review, and supplied according to international guidelines. The information provided is in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and all UK emissions data are also independently scrutinised under the framework convention arrangements. The latest United Nations review of the UK inventory accepted all UK emissions statistics without adjustment. It is not as though we are a completely free agent in the way that these reports are
8 Jan 2008 : Column 791
6.30 pm
Given the safeguards that are already in place to ensure the quality and reliability of the information provided under these clauses and Parliament’s existing scrutiny powers, we are not convinced that the proposed requirement for Parliament to approve the statements would add any value. There are lots of items of legislation that require annual debates on the Floor. I shall not list them, as I have not checked recently which they are and I could be a bit out of date, having left the other place. However, certain items and aspects of legislation are required to have an annual debate. That is not necessarily the same as approval. The question is what the noble Lord wants. If it is approval, I can assure the Committee that that would probably be done without debate, which does not add value to what is already happening. The accuracy and reliability of the information is almost outside the Government because we are subject to international rules, and we do not want to change that. If it is intended to have a look at this, the objective has to be to add value to what is already going to happen, given the requirement in the Bill to lay the reports before Parliament. A requirement for an annual debate is not the same thing as a requirement for Parliament to approve.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Probably for the first time in the Committee’s discussions, I feel really disappointed by the Minister’s response. To some extent, I feel that he has missed the point. If I say that it is Civil Service-speak, I do not mean it in a derogatory sense. It is the Executive seeking to maintain discretion on these matters and not truly seeing the enormous importance of engaging public interest, through Parliament, in what the Government are seeking to do. A Government who cannot and do not wish to engage Parliament as an ally in this pursuit will fail. The Minister may suggest that no Government will seek to fail to engage Parliament in this great adventure. He has conceded that many significant measures are currently in force that require an annual debate. The Climate Change Bill—or Act, as it will become—is of such importance that public debate on an annual basis is necessary.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I listened closely to what my noble friend said. I did not understand him to say that he is totally opposed to it; he said that it was technically not possible because of the way procedure works in the House of Commons. That is surely a reasonable response.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It may appear to be a reasonable response, but the reason why these amendments may be important is because they give Parliament an opportunity to say that it requires this. Currently, as I understand it, it is a matter for the business managers to determine.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 792
Lord Rooker: I feel really hurt about this. I went way beyond my brief. I actually explained, almost, how the noble Lord could go away and draft an amendment to get the objective he wanted because his amendment does not require any parliamentary action or scrutiny—or maybe only one of the silent votes they have in the other place when they tick a box on a Wednesday afternoon. That would be approval, but it is not a debate. If the requirement is to get the thing on the Floor to have an annual debate, that is another issue altogether. That is not what this amendment does. I was giving an answer to a problem that arose—as my noble friend spotted straight away—and I am chastised for giving the most negative response so far.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: In which case, I have to ask the Minister’s forgiveness. I have managed to clarify the situation in my own mind, at least; he is hostile not to the objective of this amendment but to the wording. I am a new parliamentarian—I am very new to the ways of this place and have no idea about the ways of another place—but I am very aware that parliamentary business can be controlled by the Executive, and I feel that the Bill needs to give a lever for parliamentarians to have the opportunity of debating these reports. If we can find a way—and the Minister said that he has already talked to his advisers on this matter and about the ways in which Parliament can be set centre stage—that would make an enormous difference. I hope that the Minister will look at this between now and Report to see whether there is a way and a wording that can be put into the Bill to make these annual reports a matter for parliamentary discussion on an annual basis. Subject to that, and the comments made by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 67:
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments follows on from our previous debate. In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 90. These amendments do involve not parliamentary procedure but the climate change committee. They form the other part of the triangle. I hope our concepts are clear; they are part of a structural system for getting agreements, consensus and action.
We feel that the statement that the Secretary of State is to lay before Parliament should be prepared by the climate change committee. It is important that the statements reporting on UK emissions—for example, whether the budgets have been met—are prepared by the people who are best qualified to assess success or failure and the experts of the committee. We have said all along that we feel that we must leave the science to the experts. Allowing the climate change committee to prepare the statement depoliticises the process and fosters the credibility of the reporting mechanism. The independence of the committee ensures that a report that might be critical
8 Jan 2008 : Column 793
Lord Campbell-Savours: I like this amendment a lot. It takes us back to the earlier debate on the powers of the climate change committee—what I call the party and what the noble Lord referred to as the triangular relationship. If the committee has this kind of responsibility, it will focus the minds of the membership on the need to take realistic and real decisions for which they are accountable.
I have another reason as well. Ministers in all Governments are very often fearful of taking very difficult decisions. It is just the way we are. Sometimes Members of Parliament—particularly in the other place—grumble in the Tea Room about a decision that has been taken by the Government. Sometimes they know the reason behind it. Sometimes—and I am talking across parties—they talk about the inadequacy of Ministers because they fear to take those great decisions. My noble friend Lord Rooker was very firm in the decisions that he took during the period when I was in the House of Commons on the Back Benches and he was a Minister. I hope I do not embarrass my noble friend when I say that he was quite exceptional in being very deliberate in the decisions that he took. I am fearful that Ministers might duck decisions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |