| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
It is most important to emphasise that the amendment depends on international agreement no more than the Bill itself. In presenting the Bill, the Minister did not say, “Well, this Bill is dependent upon other countries agreeing to do the same thing”. He quite rightly came to the House and said, “This is taking a lead on these issues. This is actually presenting a new way of dealing with a problem which is international in scope, but in which we can play our part”. I therefore say to your Lordships that it is quite right to try to work with the amendment, in the belief that it will make for better legislation and might encourage the development of international agreement.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I feel as though I need to say this because the noble Lord has obviously cut the ground from under me, although I do not want it to be agreed that he has. While the Government are boasting about giving a lead by introducing the Bill unilaterally, without having had international negotiation—as long as one does not count the devolved Administrations—it does not mean that, when we go to the detail of the Bill, requiring international co-operation to get the right methodologies is not the right way to do it. We can be unilateral in giving the lead in introducing the Bill and the concept of the way in which we are trying to deal with climate change, but we need to operate with our international partners on the minutiae of the methodology.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I agree with the Minister. It would be far more desirable when we come to the second element of what we are trying to do, which is to find control mechanisms, to have international agreement to implement them. But as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, pointed out—and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord May—there are two separate issues. Do you include the carbon polluting elements of the British economy in our carbon accounts or not? If we can find a mechanism that does so in a much more comprehensive way, I think that noble Lords should support such a mechanism. That would not penalise the UK economy, but would lead to mechanisms to encourage the least polluting methods of goods movement and people movement.
I now turn to the second part of what is an important point to emphasise. I have valued the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, to debates throughout the Bill. He got to the heart of the issue and could see the advantages of this way of looking at things. But he too was worried about the “may” and “must” element within this group of amendments. One needs a stick as well as a carrot. Legislation that actually says “must” is a stick, but it is designed to drive the issue. If the issue is not driven there is no incentive for the Government to recognise the seriousness of the issue and they can defer decisions.
On this side of the House, we readily recognise that international negotiations, in the nature of things, mean that sometimes it may not be the right moment.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1024
a five-year period. We recognise that there may be circumstances where it is not in the national interest to lay these regulations, but we are obliging the Secretary of State not to take the option “may”, but “must” reason with Parliament about why regulations have not been laid. That is a reasonable balance between pressure within the Bill to come to an agreement on regulations and the Secretary of State's discretion that this may not be the right and proper time to do so.
The amendments would substantially improve the Bill and would be a mechanism that Governments in future would value. For that reason, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
6.03 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 65) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 191; Not-Contents, 141.
Addington, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Ballyedmond, L.
Barker, B.
Blaker, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bowness, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Bridges, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Browne of Belmont, L.
Burnett, L.
Buscombe, B.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Byford, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cathcart, E.
Chadlington, L.
Chester, Bp.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dearing, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Falkland, V.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Feldman, L.
Ferrers, E.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freeman, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodlad, L.
Goschen, V.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hanham, B.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hogg, B.
Hooper, B.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howe, E.
Inglewood, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1025
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Krebs, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lindsay, E.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Liverpool, Bp.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mar, C.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
May of Oxford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Neville-Jones, B.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plumb, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees, L.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selborne, E.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tonge, B.
Tordoff, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Turnbull, L.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Wolfson, L.
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.
Bew, L.
Billingham, B.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Bragg, L.
Brett, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Chorley, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Corston, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1026
Eatwell, L.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Erroll, E.
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.
Giddens, L.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Greenway, L.
Grocott, L.
Harris of Haringey, 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.
Hoyle, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Joffe, L.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Jordan, L.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Kirkhill, 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.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Monson, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Patel, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Prosser, B.
Prys-Davies, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller]
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Soley, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thornton, B.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Vadera, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
West of Spithead, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
* [The Tellers for the Contents reported 191 votes; the Clerks recorded 190 names.]
6.16 pm
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1027
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 69A:
(a) the amount of net UK emissions of each targeted greenhouse gas for the year 1990, and(b) a baseline amount for each greenhouse gas that is not a targeted greenhouse gas, determined on such basis as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(a) the amount of net UK emissions of the gas for the year 1990 or a different year, or(b) the average amount of net UK emissions of the gas for a number of years.”The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 69A seeks to provide greater transparency about progress in reducing UK emissions by requiring the Secretary of State to report on baseline emissions as well as emissions in the most recent year.
This amendment ensures that the Clause 12 report will contain information for each greenhouse gas on emissions in both the most recent year and the relevant baseline. I say the relevant baseline because for greenhouse gases included in our targets Clause 20 allows the Secretary of State to define this as a year other than 1990 for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. We will come to this clause later when we can discuss the safeguards to ensure that it is used appropriately.
Equally, for greenhouse gases which we have not yet included in our targets the appropriate base year may be 1990 or it may not. Government Amendment No. 69A allows the most appropriate year to be used. This is particularly important in the case of any new greenhouse gases which might be identified some time between now and 2050.
Noble Lords may recall that Clause 73 allows us to add to the list of greenhouse gases if climate science develops so that we would be required to report on the UK’s emissions of these gases. If that were the case it is possible to envisage a situation where we do not have any data for the emissions of that gas in 1990.
Government Amendment No. 69A therefore ensures that for greenhouse gases which have not yet been included in our targets information will be provided on both emissions in the most recent year and the relevant baseline year, as defined by the Secretary of State. Our amendment recognises that the baseline year may not be 1990. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, this amendment adds welcome precision to the annual reporting mechanism. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to outline the net UK emissions of targeted greenhouse gases with respect to the 1990 baseline as well as specifying a baseline amount for those greenhouse gases that are not directly targeted under the Bill as it stands. This is certainly a welcome concession.
We are thankful that the Government have recognised the need to have more robust reports and welcome the amendment. It is obviously important to have the emissions reported against the framework of a baseline year. That is how our yearly progress is ultimately to be measured. When we speak of the reporting mechanisms
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1028
It is also very welcome to see the Government’s move to include the non-targeted greenhouse gases. We understand that all greenhouse gases contribute to climate change to a varying degree. As technology develops, other gases could begin to take a more central role. Thus, understanding the true scope of greenhouse gas emissions, even if they are not being targeted at the moment, will be a useful tool in assessing our progress and our room for improvement in the future. We suspect that in 20 or 30 years’ time, other gases will become more important. Having a robust method of reporting on non-targeted gases will allow us to understand the relationships between our efforts to reduce emissions and the reduction of these gases.
We have a few concerns, and I hope that the Minister will address them. The amendment specifies that non-targeted greenhouse gases will be reported according to a baseline that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. What are the standards of appropriateness? What regard will the Secretary of State have to international agreements? Will he be obliged to follow the lead of international treaties? Why is that not part of the amendment? Does he expect the setting of the baseline date to be done in consultation with the Committee on Climate Change? Would the Minister be willing to give assurances that the Secretary of State will consult the Committee on Climate Change regarding the baseline year for non-targeted greenhouse gases? Importantly, what is the timeframe for establishing the baseline year?
Lord Teverson: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the amendment in general terms, and I would make many similar comments to those of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—although I will not repeat them—about choosing the baseline year and keeping it in an international context. We would like to see more targeted greenhouse gases, but we will come on to that later.
It is important that all greenhouse gases, by international convention, are measured against a 1990 baseline, and that is recognised in the amendment. But there should be a hierarchy of preferences for new gases so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, it is the same as international convention. It is much more straightforward if we are able to keep to 1990. Clearly, that will not be possible where records do not exist for that gas at the time, but there should always be a preference to keep the baseline year at 1990 in order to ensure that the whole process is not confused. Even now, we often forget that when we talk about targets and reductions we are referring to 1990 and not to the year in which this Bill is likely to be passed.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the amendment. To answer the specific questions, the government amendment covers both greenhouse gases that are included in our targets and
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1029
We have to be realistic about this. This was once hinted at in Committee. Let us suppose that we identify a new greenhouse gas, the by-product of some industrial process that we have not got on the radar at the moment, in 2030. There might not be any information on emissions of that gas as far back as 1990, so a different baseline would be appropriate. Clause 73(3) allows us to include other gases in the Bill and in our reports under the Bill only if there is an EU or international agreement that it is a greenhouse gas. The point is that it is about the safeguards; there will be appropriate safeguards. It is important that we are happy to consider these points. The specific question that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked me is not covered in my notes, but to me it beggars belief that the Secretary of State would not consult the climate change committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 70:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008
6.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, today we are debating the order that brings into effect two unitary authorities for Cheshire. I am well aware that this decision has raised considerable passion in this House and that is reflected on the Order Paper. We all have an interest in the future governance of Cheshire and, with this in mind and with the indulgence of the House, I hope that I can explain why we have already addressed many of the concerns raised by noble Lords in their amendments to the Motion. It has been
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1030
I will deal with this comprehensively, because it is important for the House to know how we have gone through this process and why we have reached the decisions that we have. I will therefore set out the general approach that we have adopted to unitary restructuring and the precise approach that we have taken in assessing this proposal and judging that it meets the criteria. I will also deal with the issues raised in the report by the Merits Committee. I emphasise before I do so that the JCSI, which has a key role in scrutinising legal instruments, has given the order a clean bill of health. I know that many noble Lords have emotional and political ties with Cheshire. Their concerns mirror the fact that we are also very well aware that, with every reorganisation, there comes a degree of local and sometimes historic disagreement, which can be a very unhappy experience for many people.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |