| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Therefore what we have here is a mechanism behind which they can hide and say: “Not me, guv, but them”—because the committee will have to approve. And therefore Ministers—whatever they make as a recommendation—will have to have in mind what the views of the climate change committee are. If that is what is takes to give Ministers the bottle to make the big decisions then so be it and let the committee have this very important role.
Lord Teverson: I am in a strange position in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the word “depoliticise” but that can also be substituted for “de-democratise”. We need to be careful about this area. That is why there may be tension between those on these Benches and those on the Conservative Benches regarding the degree of independence, strength and role of the climate change committee, although we are moving in the same direction.
The list of things that have to be reported on in this area are those on which the Government have to report on internationally anyway. Most of them already have to be calculated. So this amendment is in the wrong place. The list of things that have to be done by the climate change committee includes calculations that, if anything, should be audited; the climate change committee should not necessarily have a separate section to recheck the work that has been done anyway by Defra. I am not convinced in this area. Depoliticisation can mean de-democratisation. Work in this area has to be done by Government and reported internationally.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 794
The Earl of Selborne: I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I cannot envisage how the climate change committee can do its job—which is after all not just to monitor but to set programmes thereon—unless it has confidence in its own figures. Simply to say that that is a responsibility of the Executive and that we will take their figures is a compete denial of its responsibilities. That is not to say the Government will not do the work themselves as well: if that is duplication, it is duplication for a good cause.
The climate change committee will use a number of organisations that are available to Government to do calculations and monitoring of greenhouse gas and other relevant emissions. This is a sensible amendment—and an inevitable one if the climate change committee is to exert its proper role.
Baroness Byford: I, too, support my noble friend. I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because clearly the climate change committee if it is going to operate successfully must come forward with a statement and have it approved. I hope that the voices around the Chamber will encourage the Minister to realise that on all sides—well, nearly all sides—of the Committee we feel that this amendment is hugely important.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I suppose that I should put a contradictory point of view. Unusually, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and disagree with my noble friend who spoke in favour.
This is about statements of fact—annually, at each four-year budgetary period or whatever it happens to be in due course and in 2050—and not statements of intention of policy proposals. It is getting almost to the point of paranoia to think that if that is done by the Government the facts will have to be verified internationally and that this will in some way reduce the role or significance of the climate change committee. I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. We want to ensure that its authority and standing is respected. This would not make the slightest difference. If there was any query by the committee of government figures, the Government would soon know that and so would the public.
6.45 pm
Lord Campbell-Savours: Clause 12(2)(b) states: “identify the methods”. The amendment refers to “approved by”. Could there not be an argument between the Government and the committee on the method?
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I apologise. Could the noble Lord refer me to which of the amendments on which page he is referring?
8 Jan 2008 : Column 795
Lord Bridges: I am tempted to refer to a statement made by the Government a few clauses back. The outcome is more important than the process. To someone brought up in the tradition of public service in this country this is a revolutionary suggestion. I suggest to the Government that in an area as novel and potentially difficult as this there is a good deal to be said for being fairly scrupulous in consulting the opinion of the committee.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I cannot disagree. But that is quite different from this statement of facts that has to be drawn up by and approved by the committee.
It is inconceivable that the Government of the day would publish figures that would clearly be disputed by the climate change committee, because if the committee disputed it so would the various international agents. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The methods used to measure and calculate would have to meet international conventions and requirements. Many times in these debates we talk as if this is simply something that this country is doing and nothing else to do with the rest of the world at all. We lose sight of this—we will come to this when we discuss aviation—as if this was not taking place in any context at all. There are so many other places where the thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is appropriate that it would be a pity to push for this area which does not add anything at all. In other areas it possibly does. When we discuss areas of policy, direction and the speed at which we can progress, the committee is going to be very important indeed.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I would like to intervene on my noble friend again on the word “method”. They may well choose a method which is disputed by the Government. My noble friend says that there are international norms in the methods that might be used. The facts are that there are other areas. Let us take the issue of the golden rule. We have our interpretation which we believe is absolutely correct on how the golden rule method of calculating works in finance. Others have another interpretation. I am worried that an argument may develop about the way in which the statistics have been drawn up—the kind of argument that might focus on political parties arguing over interpretation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Surely it is completely inconceivable that the Secretary of State, whoever it may be at the time, would ever attempt to draft such a report without first getting a detailed brief from the Committee on Climate Change. Having said that, I find it rather funny-peculiar that we do not trust the Committee on Climate Change to write its own report in language sufficiently intelligible that ordinary Members of Parliament would understand it. I find myself wondering what the compelling reason might be for the Secretary of State to have to redraft the report. So far, no one has said why it should be so.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I used to run the Met Office. We produced weather statistics and government Ministers would say that it was hot, cold or whatever, and quote the figures supplied by the Hadley Centre. The point was made earlier that the Government issue a statement based on data produced by a public service
8 Jan 2008 : Column 796
Lord Rooker: As there is some confusion here I shall start, at the risk of repeating myself after the last debate, by making a point about where the amendments add value to the Bill. The UK’s national emissions inventory publication is produced each year by independent consultants on the Government’s behalf. That is what happens now and what will continue to happen. The publication is respected, subject to peer review and supplied according to international guidelines. It is not something knocked up by Defra, far from it. Rigorous measures are in place to ensure the quality of the information, which is set out in line with the requirements of the Office for National Statistics, and is subject to further independent scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Therefore we do not agree that the Committee on Climate Change should be required to lay before Parliament an annual statement of UK emissions. Not only would this be costly, it would definitely be potentially confusing if it duplicated the work of the official emissions inventory that the Government are already required to produce under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
However, we recognise that members of the Committee on Climate Change will be experts in their field and we are considering how best to ensure a constructive dialogue on the kind of issues we have covered in the last two debates. I apologise for this, but I shall refer to another clause, Clause 30(2), which states specifically that the committee may take on a role in assisting,
There are already in place well-established mechanisms which allow other non-departmental public bodies to contribute to issues of this kind. Obviously we are willing to look at how the committee or members of its secretariat could play a similar role because that makes sense, but we do not want duplication leading to confusion.
I shall give an example. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK Government are obliged to have in place a national system to ensure that the inventory remains of the highest quality. In the UK this takes the form of a steering committee of experts and stakeholders, and we will certainly consider inviting members of the committee secretariat to the formal national system meetings to ensure that we are able to draw on their expertise in the inventory preparation process. In other words, there is a job to be done and the
8 Jan 2008 : Column 797
Underlying some of the comments were indications of dodgy government statistics and dodgy government reports produced by government departments that we do not trust. But that does not happen. As I explained, the information is produced by independent contractors. It is peer reviewed to international standards and scrutinised by the UN framework and is in conformity with the Office for National Statistics. If anyone wants to come back on Report to say that it is not working and that claims have been made and so on, then that is fine. But no one has said that today. It is as though people are saying that the infrastructure for producing the emissions inventory does not exist, but it does exist. It is important that the Committee on Climate Change is locked into it, but not in a way that would duplicate the work and thus lead to confusion. We will certainly look further at how the network of the various bodies can be linked up properly. Obviously the Committee on Climate Change does not exist yet. It is the new kid on the block, as it were, and it is very important that its pronouncements and advice are based on the best available information. But it does not add to the proposals in this Bill to seek to duplicate what already exists.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Minister talks about duplication but has already admitted that there exists a body which is effectively doing the work that I would see the Committee on Climate Change doing. I cannot see the committee being happy about not being involved in evaluating these issues because they form the working material that it will be engaged with. This is the committee’s area of activity. So I was surprised by the Minister’s suggestion that the secretariat will be allowed to come along to meetings of the other body—I have forgotten the name he mentioned—that is currently producing these figures. Representatives will be allowed, as if by grace, into the inner workings of this body.
I believe that we are drifting apart on this, not just because I am getting tired but because this is to some degree about territory. The general principle here is that this is about how much responsibility we will give to the Committee on Climate Change and how much responsibility the Executive, the Government and the Secretary of State will retain under their control.
It has become clear over the course of the last few amendments that the Minister is reluctant to give ground in this area, whereas the substance of the contributions from Members of the Committee has been to acknowledge that, if it is to be effective, the committee will need to be trusted and given authority. I except from that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is worried about giving powers to a non-elected body. However, this is such a technical matter and such a long-term issue where continuity will be important—Governments come and go, and Ministers certainly do so—that it is vital to ensure a full role for the Committee on Climate Change in all its aspects.
The committee’s authority will be important to the Government because they will need that authority to take some of the difficult decisions they are going to
8 Jan 2008 : Column 798
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 68:
“( ) state the amount for 1990 of UK emissions, UK removals and net UK emissions of that gas,”The noble Lord said: I return to the fray. We are trying to deal with the baseline year, remove some unnecessary words from the Bill and tidy up the language to make it more precise. I am moving Amendment No. 68, but will also speak to Amendment No. 74. I do not expect it to be too controversial and hope the Minister will agree to this change. Amendment No. 68 is more substantial. As long as 1990 is the baseline year, we on these Benches would like to ensure that annual reports have regard to the baseline year—the baseline on which the 2050 target is based. We want to avoid a situation in which it might appear that reductions have been made in the short term, when little substantive change has occurred since the baseline year—or worse, as the case is now. Ministers often say that carbon emissions have decreased since 1990, but, on the current Government’s watch, emissions have increased since 1997. It is true that this increase has been smaller than the decrease from 1990 to 1997, which means that there has been a small decrease overall. That paints a rather rosier picture of emissions than perhaps is justified.
I appreciate that climate change has not been taken as seriously in the past as it is now. It is of course this Government who are bringing forth this very important legislation, which we support. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that, no matter who is in government, we have an accurate picture of our progress. We cannot risk being misled into thinking that we are performing better than we are. We need to ensure that our understanding and the public’s understanding of our success in reducing carbon emissions is as accurate as possible. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne: In the debate on the previous amendment the Minister rightly pointed out that there was an international protocol for emissions and therefore not much dispute as to what the figures should say. Carbon removal is very different. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the point that, going back to 1990, the figures on how much carbon sequestration was taking place remain largely unknown. It is a question of trying to determine soil organic content, tree growth and much else besides.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 799
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for those last remarks from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He identifies the difficulty of having one base year when the base year may not be particularly effective in certain areas that we wish to measure. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we are at one with him in seeking to provide the information that gives an accurate comparative analysis so that the nation can identify the progress being made. That is of the greatest importance.
In a moment I will cross swords a little with the noble Lord on Amendment No. 74, to which we take considerable exception. I am more positive about Amendment No. 68. Clause 4 defines a carbon budget as,
for each budgetary period. Clause 12 requires the Secretary of State to report for each year of the budget period on the amount of the net UK carbon account for that year. The Clause 12 statements will provide all the information needed to calculate progress against the budget for each year of the period. I recognise that the noble Lord made a strenuous and convincing attempt to argue for greater transparency of progress. We will look at the clause as it stands and see if we can meet that position as we progress through the Bill.
We cannot accept the actual amendment. I ask the noble Lord to recognise that although we appreciate his objectives, we cannot accept his amendment. It would require comparison with the emissions of each greenhouse gas in 1990. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has identified why base year 1990 simply may not be effective for certain areas. Clause 20 proposes that the Secretary of State should select a base year other than 1990 for different non-CO2 gases if a comparison is to be drawn, recognising that 1990 is not a good base year for the accuracy of the whole picture. I hope the noble Lord recognises that although I accept his intentions and will seek to make progress on the probe that he sets out in his amendment, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
I ask the noble Lord to recognise that although we appreciate the sentiment behind Amendment No. 74, we simply do not think that it would work. The purpose of the Clause 12 statement is to set out clearly the quantity of emissions occurring in the UK, the number of carbon units used and the net UK carbon account. If we simply referred to the total carbon units, as Amendment No. 74 proposes, we would fail to capture a situation in which carbon units were worth different amounts. In this situation what would matter is not how many carbon units there were but what the carbon units were worth, which may change. The terminology of amounts of emissions and carbon units is used continually throughout, because of the point that I just made. I hope the noble Lord will
8 Jan 2008 : Column 800
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: You win one and you lose one. I thought Amendment No. 74 was quite simple and straightforward. Obviously, from the Government’s point of view it is more complex than mere semantic phraseology. We will have a chance to consider that. However, I am pleased that although our wording in Amendment No. 68 is not quite what the Government would have put forward, they will indeed look at it in order to recognise that getting a baseline relevant to popular perception and political reality is important. I look forward to seeing those government amendments tabled on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 70:
“( ) It must contain a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the climate change strategy and recommendations for new measures, proposals or policies for inclusion in the strategy.”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |