| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the annual statement and the fact that it should report on the effectiveness of measures; in other words, that it is a matter not only of the annual statement saying what the facts are but of how effective individual initiatives have been. This is an extremely important point. Many of the previous amendments moved today have focused on increasing the accuracy and transparency of the reporting process. I am pleased to hear from the government Benches that they accept that this is an important aspect of what the Bill should seek to do. We feel that these are important mechanisms to have in place to ensure that the Government, Parliament and the Committee on Climate Change are working together in the right balance.
The most essential feature missing from the Bill’s reporting procedures is the duty for the reports to contain an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. Amendment No. 70 requires that the statement laid before Parliament should include a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the climate change strategy as well as details of any further policies or proposals that may need to be included. Government policies to reduce emissions should be assessed regularly; their successes should be reported on openly and changes should be proposed wherever progress is falling short.
As I mentioned before, we fully intend being the Government responsible for the report on the first budgetary period and many of us are spending a great deal of our time ensuring that that comes about. We are willing to stand up to this kind of scrutiny and I hope the current Government are also prepared to do so. In a sense, this is like the annual finance Budget:
8 Jan 2008 : Column 801
The environmental group Friends of the Earth claims that the amendment is exactly the approach needed under the Bill. Does the Minister agree? I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is an interesting amendment because if the figures produced by the Committee on Climate Change are sufficiently strong and are presented sufficiently clearly, which we all hope they will be, they will in themselves be a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the measures. I am worried that the amendment would add to the verbiage presented to Parliament and possibly cloud the issue. I hope the figures will speak loudly for themselves.
Although the Committee on Climate Change should play an active role in recommending new measures and proposals, we need to think very carefully about this. Going back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Teverson on a previous amendment, there is a fine line between the democratically accountable body responsible for producing policy—which, after all, the Government are elected to do—and the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body which is there to produce the figures and monitor whether the Government are succeeding with their policies. The amendment seems to cloud those two issues together.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Before the Minister responds perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will clarify two matters. First, in introducing the amendment he emphasised that it was to do with a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of policy and what is going on. In fact, the amendment goes on to say that it should include,
A few moments ago the noble Lord proposed that the statement should be drawn up and approved by the Committee on Climate Change. I assume that he is not suggesting that the committee should draw up recommendations for new measures, policies and proposals; that he separates in his mind the responsibility of the Committee on Climate Change for drawing up data from making policy proposals—for example, whether there should be more nuclear power stations and so on. I assume that is not something he thinks the Committee on Climate Change should do.
7.15 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The amendment does indeed contain the phrase,
8 Jan 2008 : Column 802
If our amendments had been accepted by the Committee and not withdrawn by ourselves, the statement would have been produced by the Committee on Climate Change. It is important to emphasise that we on this side of the House see the Committee on Climate Change as having considerable authority in these matters and as a considerable skill base with which to provide government with recommendations. In many cases, we have been reluctant to talk about “advice” or “recommending”—we have been firmer than that—but in this area the word used is “recommendations” because those people who are aware of an energy imbalance may well be capable of pointing out that it could be addressed by a particular course of energy policy.
If the Committee on Climate Change is to be the authoritative body we would like it to be, I would expect it to be in a position whereby it could present such proposals. If it is not to be the Committee on Climate Change but, by the will of Parliament, it is to be the Secretary of State, it would do no harm at all if he at least included in the statement those matters he considered necessary to put the climate change agenda back on course. I hope that clarifies matters for the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and Members of the Committee.
Lord Teverson: I shall probably embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, by agreeing with him again in this area. I will have a great concern if the Committee on Climate Change starts making major policy recommendations to government. That would be the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, wants: it would not depoliticise the decisions but would utterly politicise the Committee on Climate Change. It would be like many other bodies, such as the Sustainable Transport Commission, which are very important and have many important people on them, but they make all kinds of recommendations and are therefore seen as part of the political scenery and not as part of the scientific scenery.
There is also confusion—perhaps not on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but within the Committee—and later in the Bill we will discuss the Committee on Climate Change itself. In one of the sections there is a call for an annual report. We on these Benches want to see in the Bill not only that annual report but a requirement for the Committee on Climate Change to go as far as to judge whether present government policies are likely to meet their own targets. It should have that important role but it should not be allowed to go as far as to then say, “But, Secretary of State, you should be doing this”. The moment that happens it becomes a political organisation and not a scientific organisation.
You could argue that in another way if all scientists had the same view about things, but they do not. The whole point about science is that there are peer reviews and all kinds of differing opinions and there then tends to be a consensus about a particular subject. We can see this in climate change science at the moment.
I am worried about the proposal to move the Committee on Climate Change into, effectively, a political lobbying organisation, which the amendment would
8 Jan 2008 : Column 803
Lord Rooker: We appreciate the spirit of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I repeat that we are keen to ensure the transparency of the overall framework of the Bill, and not just of individual clauses. That will be looked at throughout the Bill.
We have provided a system of annual accountability through the Government’s statement of UK emissions under Clause 12, the committee’s progress report to Parliament under Clause 28, and the Government’s response under Clause 29. We look forward to discussing those clauses later on.
However, the amendment would not help the process of annual accountability, because the statement under Clause 12 is meant simply to provide factual information on net UK emissions and carbon units. The information will be quantified and verified. It will put the facts clearly on the table for everyone. It should then be for the independent Committee on Climate Change to make the first assessment of whether those facts demonstrate sufficient progress. This would ensure that the assessment was robust and objective.
The approach in the Bill is for the Clause 12 report to be laid in March, to provide the essential factual information. Much of this information would not be available until that date. Based on the factual information contained in the Clause 12 statement, the Committee on Climate Change would then have until June to make its assessment of progress and lay its Clause 28 report before Parliament. The Government would then have to respond under Clause 29 by—I think—October. The amendment, taken with Amendment No. 67, which we discussed earlier, would require the committee to make a first assessment of progress in March under Clause 12, and then a second assessment in June under Clause 28. That would lead to massive duplication.
I am not seeking to cut debate short, but I hope that we will have a full discussion of the issue in the context of Clauses 28 and 29. It is best, if noble Lords agree, to leave it until then, when we can debate the matter in the round.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: This has again been a useful debate. It will perhaps be useful to bear in mind what we have said about the amendment when we consider the role of the climate change committee. If we have the Government’s assurance that much of the debate that we have on the climate change committee as we progress through the Bill will influence the way in which we view amendments along the way, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and accept what
8 Jan 2008 : Column 804
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]
Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 75:
Clause 12, page 7, line 10, leave out from “than” to end and insert “12 months following the laying of the previous year’s report”
The noble Lord said: I had a specific purpose in tabling the amendment, but when I read how it was drafted, it did not seem to mean the same thing. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that. I shall therefore explain to the Committee what I want the amendment to do. The report to which it relates is important, whatever its final content. From a psychological, management and every other perspective, for it to be issued in the March of the second year following that to which it relates is too late. It would be two calendar years later, even though it would be 15 months after the end of the year. The amendment would require the report to be issued and submitted within a calendar year of the end of the year for which it accounts; that is, not within 15 months, but 12 months. The period in the Bill is too long. We need to bring it down to within a year of the year in question. The amendment would achieve that, which would be important in terms of maintaining momentum and of the management of the process. If we get too out of date in terms of the numbers that we are looking at, it prevents reasonable management action being taken and loses momentum in terms of public interest and the currency of the report. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is certainly interesting. It would help the Committee if the Minister provided a little more explanation. Will he explain why it takes two years to make the report? Is it by any chance tied in with the intervals that are fixed under the European Emissions Trading Scheme, or are we trying to comply with an international norm? Could the delay be solved by the committee taking a more active role or even being expanded? Are all budgets and statements likely to be subject to a two-year delay? If not, why are some easier to report than others?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand the motivation behind the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made clear in his opening contribution, but it would not add anything to the Bill. Clause 12(9) sets a deadline for each annual report, which ensures that Parliament receives information on the UK’s emissions as soon as it becomes available and by a set timetable. The danger is that the amendment could create two possible disadvantages. It might mean that Parliament received less information, because it would apply only to the second and subsequent emissions statements. There would be no deadline for the first emissions statement, relating to 2008, to be laid before Parliament, whereas we have made a commitment in the Bill for that report to obtain for that year.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 805
The second possible disadvantage will be recognised on all sides of the Committee. If in any one year the Government found themselves able to publish the report earlier than they did in the previous year, they might be tempted to hold back, not because they were not ready to present the report, which would be recognised by parliamentarians as an advantage, but because by presenting the report early one year, they would then be committing themselves to exactly that timetable for the next year. The rigidity of the timetable which the noble Lord’s amendment contains creates the danger of the Government being tempted to hold back the report until the last minute, because, once they publish early, they would be committing themselves to that date in the following year.
We all recognise that we live in a real world in which all this is work for government and a challenge to the Civil Service machine, and there is very great importance attached to the work that is done. In the Bill we have provided for regular reports on each year, while the noble Lord’s amendment potentially presents two disadvantages. The Government have their commitment to a report on each year, which is preferable to the particular rigidity that the noble Lord’s amendment would introduce into the operation, which could lead to the responses and developments that I have indicated.
7.30 pm
Lord Teverson: I apologise that my amendment does not say what I meant it to say. As the amendment stands, I would probably agree with the Minister’s reply myself. However, for a point of debate for a later stage, I am saying that the report should be within 12 months. That is shorter but no more rigid than the timetable proposed. The Minister does not suggest that it is technically impossible; indeed, multinational corporations produce global accounts in far more detail, in far less time. That is what I would like the Minister to respond to, if he could. At the same time, I recognise that I have not drafted the amendment as it should be.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will recognise that I am obliged to respond to the amendment before the Committee. That is my obligation to the Committee—but it is also my obligation to the Bill. I have to respond to what the amendment would actually do to the Bill and it is on that basis that I am objecting to it. I understand what the noble Lord is saying in more specific terms, but it is not what his amendment would do.
The problem that we have in terms of the immediate annual report is that the inventory requires collection of data from a wide variety of sources, including the department’s Digest of UK Energy Statistics, which is published annually seven months after the end of the reporting year in question—namely, in July. That is such a crucial set of statistics in relation to these issues, so tying down a position in which this report might have to be out in March, when we do not have the data that will become available later in the year, creates an obvious difficulty. That is why, while sticking firmly to the principle of proper reporting, we must
8 Jan 2008 : Column 806
Lord Teverson: I thank the Minister for his response, but to be honest I do not buy it, because multinational corporations have to produce worldwide figures in huge detail under different jurisdictions in a much shorter timescale. I do not see how this is a problem. I thought that the Minister might say that it was impossible due to various other international timetables, but he did not say that—so that is fine. I shall bring the amendment back at another time, because it is very important for the credibility of the whole process and for the Government’s credibility in what they are trying to achieve that the figures that come out are relevant to the particular period. That is not a party-political point in any way. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I suggest that this would be an appropriate moment to break and that we do not return until 8.37 pm. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Health: Audiology
7.35 pm
Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in implementing the National Audiology Action Plan contained within the Department of Health report, Improving Access to Audiology Services in England; how they intend to ensure that audiology is regarded as a priority area by strategic health authorities and primary care trusts; and what specific role they envisage for the independent sector.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have used hearing aids of one kind or another for almost half a century. More recently, I have had the considerable benefit of the new digital aids, in both ears. Put bluntly, because I have been able to afford the independent sector’s excellent audiology services, I am able to remain a fully included Member of your Lordships’ House and the wider community.
My concern is that everyone with hearing needs should receive the same timely service from the NHS. Sadly, that is not the case at present, as capacity in the NHS is not keeping pace with demand. As your Lordships will recall, on 1 March last year, in order to address this problem the Government published their long
8 Jan 2008 : Column 807
There can be no doubt about the scale of the problem which, with our ageing population, is bound to become more pressing. The RNID estimates that 55 per cent of people over 60 are deaf or hard of hearing. In total, over 4 million people in the UK have a hearing difficulty that would be assisted through the use of properly prescribed hearing aids, and it is common ground, which I hope the Minister will confirm, that about 2 million people in need are not yet provided with a hearing aid or aids. So there is clearly a huge task still to be tackled.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |