Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said last time. I am sure that it is true; I am not sure whether the agreement was before the last elections in Scotland or not, but it has been agreed by the Scots Ministers. The question is how it will operate once it comes into action. How is agreement going to be got between the Scots Parliament and whichever department does this? That is nothing to do with the fact that the Bill has been agreed; we know that. My noble friend Lord Caithness put his finger on it: he said that if Scotland is to be carried with this, it is the politics of the matter. If the Scots Parliament with

4 Mar 2008 : Column 994

Scottish Ministers say they will do this and to a bigger extent than England, then England will do less, they will say, or they will refuse to do something, in which case England and the rest of the United Kingdom will have to do more. It is just a source of trouble. We are talking about the process of putting the Bill into action, not the Bill itself.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, all those issues apply to current legislation and are nothing to do with climate change. Since devolution, they apply across the piece where there are issues relating to the devolved Administration and the Government at Westminster. The Bill was introduced following the gracious Speech last year, and the Scottish Executive was elected, I think, in the summer of last year. As far as I know, the current Administration have agreed the Bill. I am not putting words in their mouth in that sense. One or two noble Lords have touched on the issue of collective responsibility. The Government work together. My experience in the past 11 years is that no major decision gets promulgated—I sometimes think it is no minor decision—unless No. 10 has agreed it. That is the way the machinery of government operates. The idea that the Prime Minister is divorced from these issues of Statements and reports to Parliament on a range of issues across government is nonsense. The fact that his name does not appear in the legislation relating to other departments and activities does not mean that he is not involved in what is going on and is not discussing things with Ministers during the decision-making process well before decisions are made. He is.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the measure of the value of an amendment moved in this House whether, if it were to be approved, it would be reversible in the House of Commons when a Bill went there from the House of Lords? Does my noble friend not accept that if this amendment was carried it could, with difficulty, be reversed in the House of Commons?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer may be yes, but I am doing my best to make sure that it is not carried in this place. We would like to have Royal Assent before the summer so that the climate change committee can get on with its work. The time this Bill spends in your Lordships’ House is fine as we wish to send it to the other place with as few problems in it as possible. That may be a problem—I do not know—but the decision is for your Lordships’ House, not for me or the Government. I want to assure the House that mechanisms exist in the machinery of government to ensure that people across government, including the Prime Minister, are involved in these decisions. The Cabinet takes responsibility for the Government’s climate change policies and objectives. It is done at the central level and that permeates throughout government to junior Ministers and civil servants who serve the Government. A sub-committee dedicated to the environment and energy issues is chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, made the point that financial issues could come to the fore for many years of this policy initiative—and the members of the committee include the Secretaries of State responsible for the environment, energy, transport,

4 Mar 2008 : Column 995

communities and local government. The committee has the Prime Minister’s authority to take collective decisions in this area, and if members of that committee cannot agree—as noble Lords who have been in government will know well—it will go to Cabinet and into the machinery at the centre of government.

I am not putting this up to knock it down, but nobody is claiming that the Prime Minister can take on meaningful duties and responsibilities on a daily basis for every policy across government. That is not the issue being raised. The point is that he delegates to Secretaries of State. Secretaries of State can come and go at the behest of the Prime Minister. That is a fundamental part of how the Government function. I fall back only slightly on the fact that No. 10 is not a large department; No. 10 has the facility to use the departments of state if it so wishes; so I will not use the argument that I used in Committee, because I was not happy about it at the time.

The precedents that have been raised are important. Some may remember that I was still in the other place at the time of the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I remember some of the debates in the other place, both in the House and in party meetings. The Prime Minister has a role in that legislation—there is no doubt about that—but he does not write the reports himself. There is an argument for not having the same model here. There are three important and independent bodies with national security roles that carry out supervisory functions, including writing reports. Those reports are laid before Parliament by the Prime Minister. They are those of the Interception Commissioner, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner. All related ministerial powers and functions are exercised personally at the Secretary of State level, as people well know, especially in this place, which is full of former Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries.

The reason that the reports are laid before Parliament by the Prime Minister is that he has traditionally taken an overarching responsibility for national security, the No. 1 issue for the people of this country. They look to the Government to keep them secure. That is national security in its traditional, narrowly defined sense, and the Prime Minister has a role. The term “national security” might be more broadly used in certain circumstances to include defence and foreign affairs, but that is not the case in legislation. That is the point: we are making legislation.

The courts have generally taken a narrow view, applying the term to fast-moving, specific situations that affect the nation as a whole. For example, banking is not viewed as an issue relating to national security; but an individual, large-scale forgery with potential to undermine confidence in banknotes could represent a threat to national security. So there are variations. Another pragmatic way in which the narrower term can be tested against the policy is whether the Security Service will be the lead organisation in dealing with it. If not, it is not generally regarded as an issue of national security.

Although we acknowledge that climate change is a serious, long-term global threat—no one is arguing

4 Mar 2008 : Column 996

against that; it goes right across government and will affect how we will work and live as individuals in this country; it is incredibly important—it is difficult to see how it could be defined as national security in the legislative sense where the Prime Minister gets involved, as in the examples that I have given. The effects of climate change are unlikely to result in a sudden risk to the security of the entire nation. We can have severe weather events, but they have not resulted in catastrophe in that sense, and it is difficult to attribute individual events to climate change.

People have mentioned that Defra is a relatively small department compared to some of the large departments of state. The implication is that it does not make sense to have the Defra Secretary of State in the lead. It may not always be like that, but allocating responsibility for sectoral emissions to certain Whitehall departments is very complex, as those who have worked in Whitehall know. We simply do not recognise the idea that Defra is therefore responsible for only a small part of our efforts to tackle climate change. We have responsibility for a large number of policy measures for reducing emissions. For instance, the department leads policy on the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which caps about half of the United Kingdom's emissions and will shortly include aviation emissions. Defra leads on climate change agreements; the new carbon reduction commitment for business, with lower emissions intensity; and the carbon emission reduction target for energy suppliers, which will replace the energy efficiency commitment from 2008. There is direct responsibility for Defra, but no one is arguing that one department does it all. I am piloting the Bill through the House as the Defra Minister acting on behalf of my ministerial colleagues, but I am also doing it on behalf of the Government. All the other departments are signed up to the Bill. When I have been able to respond to some of the debates that have clearly gone beyond Defra, answers have come back not only from the Treasury but from other departments as well. This is a government Bill and a government-wide view. There is no reason why the Prime Minister should be written into the legislation in the way that has been suggested, and the precedents that have been given do not hold up the case. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment to a vote.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I assure him that he is too modest in his surprise at being the only name on the Bill. He has broad shoulders, and I assure him that he will be remembered not only for the historic parliamentary amendment but for the introduction of this historic Bill. He is also honest. When he referred to the dodgy part, I think he spoke the truth about his argument. Noble Lords’ widespread support for the amendments during this full and useful debate shows that there is a feeling that this limited but key role should be in the hands of the Prime Minister. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

4.01 pm

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51A) shall be agreed to?

4 Mar 2008 : Column 997

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 194; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1


Addington, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Ballyedmond, L.
Barker, B.
Bew, L.
Blaker, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Broers, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cathcart, E.
Chadlington, L.
Chester, Bp.
Chidgey, L.
Chorley, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Craigavon, V.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dearing, L.
Deech, B.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Falkland, V.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Feldman, L.
Ferrers, E.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fowler, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freeman, L.
Fritchie, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodlad, L.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hogg, B.
Hooper, B.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hylton, L.
Inge, L.
Inglewood, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lewis of Newnham, L.
Liverpool, Bp.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar, C.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mawhinney, L.
May of Oxford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Neville-Jones, B.
Newby, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Northover, B.
O'Cathain, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Onslow, E.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plumb, L.
Quinton, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees, L.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.

4 Mar 2008 : Column 998

Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Saatchi, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Sandberg, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Skelmersdale, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Steinberg, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Teverson, L.
Thatcher, B.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tonge, B.
Tordoff, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Walker of Worcester, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warnock, B.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.


Acton, L.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. [Lord President.]
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Billingham, B.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Bragg, L.
Bridges, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Corston, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Darzi of Denham, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Eatwell, L.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Gregson, L.
Grocott, L.
Hameed, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Joffe, L.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Marsh, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.

4 Mar 2008 : Column 999

Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Murphy, B.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Prosser, B.
Prys-Davies, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller]
Sandwich, E.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Slim, V.
Soley, L.
Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tenby, V.
Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Thornton, B.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Vadera, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warner, L.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
West of Spithead, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Hornsey, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.15 pm

[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:

(a) the Secretary of State’s current proposals and policies under section (Duty to prepare proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets), and(b) the time-scales over which those proposals and policies are expected to take effect.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 55A:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 56 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 12 [Annual statement of UK emissions]:

Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 57:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention behind the amendments is to ensure that the appropriate attention and scrutiny continue to be given to these matters in Parliament and that climate change and the UK’s progress towards reducing emissions will be frequently debated. I understand that, despite their

4 Mar 2008 : Column 1000

lack of first-mover advantage on climate change, this is not something that the Government now want to sweep under the carpet, but our feeling was that more assurance should be given.

We had intended to try to place this on the face of the Bill. However, following discussions in the usual channels, I understand that the Government may be prepared to give a clear assurance, on the record, that they will always give positive consideration to requests for regular debates on climate change. If the Minister is able to do so, I can equally say that, in so far as it is in my power, I will certainly seek to ensure that a future Conservative Government will do the same. I will also, subject to his words, feel able to withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I can cut to the quick here. Following debates that we have had both inside and outside the House, we can be sure that climate change will be regularly debated in Parliament over the coming years. The Government alone, of course, do not dictate the scheduling of business in the House of Lords. I am forever telling people that the Government do not run the Lords. However, following consideration, I can confirm that we on these Benches will be very sympathetic to requests through the usual channels for debates on climate change. As always, this will have to be subject to the usual channels finding the right balance with all the other business coming before the House. I hope that that indicates that we have moved somewhat from our position in Committee and that we want to be as positive about this as possible. I appreciate the commitment that the noble Lord has given on behalf of his party.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 58 to 63 not moved.]

Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 64:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come back to aviation and shipping, which we debated at some length in Committee. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 and 232.

We listened to the Minister’s response to the debate in Committee. We accept that this is not an easy area and that the Bill should approach the shipping and aviation industries in different ways. Our amendments would include aviation immediately but delay the inclusion of international shipping for three years. We accept that shipping is a particularly difficult area on which to make calculations. There needs to be a thorough review—we hope within an international context but, ultimately, if it comes to it, not necessarily so—to ensure that we get the shipping figures right. That is why the amendments propose delaying the inclusion of shipping for three years.

4 Mar 2008 : Column 1001

Shipping, although less important in terms of growth and size than the aviation industry, is still a major area of emissions internationally. Given that the United Kingdom is one of the world’s great trading nations, we cannot leave that sector out indefinitely. However, the Bill does exactly that; there is no time limit, as we see it, for when international shipping has to be included. We hope that transport and trade will increase thanks to globalisation, but carbon emissions have to be taken into account so that the shipping sector also feels the pressure on its carbon efficiency in the way in which it operates worldwide.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page