David
Maclean: My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly telling
point, and far more eloquently than I could. However, ours is more than
just a moral obligation. Millions of species could be at risk by
2050—not millions of one kind of species, but possibly millions
of different and undiscovered species in the rain forests—and it
would be utterly wrong to lose them. We all worry
about the polar bears and orang-utans, which of
course are important, but they are probably sexier and more television
friendly than some of the bugs, creepy crawlies, flora and other things
in the rain forests that could be vital to human health.
Pharmaceuticals, biomedical research, the production of food, whether
on land or in the oceans, fibres, fuel, clean water, healthy soil and
the ability to store carbon all depend on biodiversity. Those are
crucial aspects of scientific knowledge that the Minister ought to
consider. I
am certain that the Secretary of State would consider some of those
things, but I would like the Minister to assure us that, if the power
in clause 3 is exercised, all the biodiversity aspects will be taken
into account—not just whether the temperature is up or down
0.5°, or whether we should opt for 60 or 80 per
cent. Mr.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. I do not intend to detain
the Committee for long, but I raised some concerns about this clause
earlier. In the previous debate, the Minister told us that in setting
the target the Committee on Climate Change would take into account a
wide set of factors, including economic factors. That is perfectly
reasonable, but my concerns relate to the stage after the target has
been set. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power
to alter by order the percentage target. To answer my own Bercow
question, that would be done by the affirmative resolution procedure.
It tends to be assumed that that would be a power to increase the
target after the committee’s report, but as I pointed out on
Tuesday the clause does not state that the target can only be increased
upwards, so the Secretary of State could decrease
it. I
am sure that the Minister will argue that subsection (2) contains
safeguards by stating what factors must be taken into account in
deciding to amend the percentage target or change the baseline. On the
face of it, that is perfectly true. Indeed, on first reading the
clause, I thought it inconceivable that the target could be reduced,
given the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence pointing to an
increase, whether 60 or 80 per cent. However, I was struck by the
Government impact assessment presented to the Committee on Tuesday. On
page 29, under the heading, “Issue 3: Review of statutory
targets and/or interim budgets”, paragraph 3.2.25
states: “It
is important to consider whether, and in what circumstances the
proposed system of unilateral statutory targets and budgets could be
amended in the context of managing environmental risk, economic cost
and wider policy objectives
effectively.” What
does that mean?
The
following paragraph cites the need to review the multinational
agreement, which might be necessary given the European Union’s
commitment to increase the target in the event of a multilateral
agreement. However, my concern relates to paragraph 3.2.27, which
states that amendments could be made
“so that
emissions reductions could be spread over a longer timeframe, if it
became clear that the emissions forecasts used when a budget had
initially been set proved to be significantly inaccurate. This could
result from large changes in the price of gas on international markets,
or the pace of development in a new
technology”. So
economic factors could come into the equation as well. However, it is
not entirely clear whether that refers only to the carbon budget, or
also to the target itself.
Paragraph
3.2.28 goes on to
say: “The
capacity to review budgets or targets would enable policy makers to:
minimise economic and social costs and competitiveness risks arising
from significant changes to key drivers of mitigation costs; and,
continue to demonstrate international leadership in the light of
revised assessments surrounding environmental
risk.” That
seems to be a much wider interpretation, and allows the Government,
whoever they may be at the time—this is not a party political
point because up to 2050 there will inevitably be changes in
Government, whatever we think about current opinion polls—to
make changes, specifically in the price of gas in international
markets Later
in our deliberations, we shall come to the rightly wide-ranging factors
that will be taken into account in setting the carbon budget. However,
there is a world of difference between the carbon budget and the 2050
target. The former is a method of delivery, and the latter is the
ultimate destination or the guiding star of where we want to go. Given
that the target was set after taking account of economic and other
factors, and that the budgets are the five-year plans, if that is not
too Stalinist a description, for achieving those targets, I can well
understand that unforeseen and pressing economic reasons may arise, and
that it may necessary to alter a five-year carbon budget, although I
hope that subsequent budgets would try to make up any shortfall.
However, I do not fully understand why it should be necessary to alter
the long-term target as a result of economic changes—such as the
rise in the cost of gas as quoted in the impact assessment—which
one hopes would be relatively short-term economic
shocks.
Mr.
Gummer: I follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument and
have great sympathy with it, but is it possible to ask a Committee, as
the Government have done, to make a judgment on what targets should be,
but to tell it that those targets must be in only one direction?
Surely, if people are to believe the Committee, it must have the
opportunity at some future date of saying that the science has moved on
and that we need to raise the targets further. Similarly, it must have
the opportunity of offering the Minister the possibility of a
reduction. We do not believe that that would ever happen, but it would
be odd legislation if the Government could not, even on the advice of
the Committee, change the target if something that we know nothing
about now, and which we do not believe will happen because it would
seem almost impossible, were to happen in 2020. There must be a
mechanism whereby the Government could change the targets in either
direction.
Mr.
Weir: With respect, that is not my point. I understand
what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but my concern is the factors
that allow a change. I accept that if a huge change in the science
proved that climate change was not as bad as we thought—that is
highly unlikely—clearly there would be an argument for reviewing
the
targets. My
concern is that we are setting a target for 2050, by which time I shall
be waiting for my telegram from the Queen. We could be saying that as
gas and oil are going up in price, we must abandon that long-term
target because of what we hope are short-term economic impacts. I can
well understand that in the five-year carbon budget there may have to
be a change to get over an immediate difficulty, but the long-term
target should
remain in place, and we should make an effort to recalibrate that
long-term target. My concern is that we could have a series of economic
shocks in that long period and find that the Government abandon that
long-term carbon reduction
target. I
have no intention of voting against the clause, but I seek reassurance
and an explanation from the Minister, because it not clear from the
final impact assessment whether it refers to the target, or merely to
the carbon budget. It seems to refer to both. I am concerned about that
narrow point—not the scientific evidence, but a change to the
target, perhaps because of an economic downturn or shock within the
period. Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): My right hon. Friend
the Member for Penrith and The Border is proving to be a powerful
champion for the rain forests, building on his important work on behalf
of the United Kingdom at the Rio conference. I endorse his view. The
case for including a consideration of biodiversity loss in the clause
is strong. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to keep repeating
his concerns about the alarming rate of biodiversity loss. According to
the United Nations global environmental outlet report October
2007, 30 per cent. of amphibians, 23 per cent. of
mammals—
The
Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon.
Gentleman. I allowed a certain amount latitude to the right hon. Member
for Penrith and The Border during his contribution, but we are not
debating biodiversity in this clause. If the hon. Gentleman refers to
clause 11, he will see that that debate is more appropriate to that
clause. I would be grateful if the Committee did not enter into a long
debate on that subject.
Gregory
Barker: Ah, in that case I shall draw my remarks to a
conclusion. I echo the sensible points made earlier by my right hon.
Friend. Miss
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): In concluding his
remarks on clause 2, the Minister made some interesting comments
relating to my remarks on how business could prepare. The clause will
allow the Secretary of State to amend the baseline. What the Minister
did not say is whether, in the trajectory towards that, he will give
any illumination on what the percentage target should be, for example
in the run up to 2020. The business community, notably the CBI, has
said that it is keen to have a credible framework for working towards a
low-carbon economy and it believes that the Climate Change Bill can
achieve that. It would particularly welcome the use of an interim
target and rolling carbon budgets to provide that. Is that a
possibility within the context of the clause and later clauses related
to this one?
I wonder
whether the Minister could clarify clause 3(4), which
clearly states that the power
“may only be
exercised if it appears to the Secretary of state that there have been
significant developments in European or international law or policy
that make it appropriate to do
so.” Is
he therefore suggesting that if a 2009 treaty flows from the Copenhagen
follow-up to Kyoto, at that earlier stage the Government might be
minded to alter the baseline, or is he looking out to the longer
grass?
The
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Phil Woolas):
I thank you, Mr. Atkinson, and the Committee for some
thoughtful points. Let me try to explain the purpose of the clause
briefly, and then answer the questions equally briefly, I hope. As has
been said, we are talking about the circumstances in which the 2050
target and the baseline year on which it is based—currently
1990—may be amended. We are trying to achieve—all hon.
Members have signed up to this—greater predictability for
businesses and households, so that when they invest in low-carbon
technologies, they do so with confidence. That is why we are setting up
the framework.
I think that
we all agree that the legislation is intended to be in place for many
decades. Changes in that period are likely, in both scientific
knowledge and in the international context. With that in mind, we
consider that allowing the 2050 target to be changed through secondary
legislation provides necessary flexibility, but let me give some
reassurances to the Committee. The procedures that have been put in
place to allow this change are especially strong, perhaps stronger than
in other areas of legislation, to ensure that the power is not used
inappropriately. In parliamentary terms, any change in the target or
the baseline year will be subject to affirmative resolution in both
Houses. That is important and will guarantee high levels of
transparency and parliamentary
control. 1.30
pm Furthermore,
if you will allow me to stray, Mr. Atkinson, under clause 4
no amendment may be made until the advice of the independent committee
has been taken into account and the devolved Administrations have had
the opportunity to make their views
known.
Mr.
Gummer: For the sake of those who do not understand the
parliamentary arrangements, will the Minister confirm that the
affirmative resolution procedure will provide strong protection because
it can be voted against in both Houses? People sometimes think that
this is a very complex system. Such statutory instruments cannot be
amended, but they can be defeated. As this is a single and simple
matter, it would easily be defeated were this or any Government to
behave
dishonourably.
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who has
vast experience in these matters. He is right. The provisions sound dry
on paper, but if one envisages the circumstances of such a vote, one
can see that they provide surety. My point about the
devolved Administrations is important because this is a United Kingdom
Bill, introduced with the consensus of the devolved Administrations. I
hope that that answer is acceptable to the
Committee. I
will answer the points about the target and then provide the assurances
on biodiversity sought by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The
Border. First, as the hon. Member for Angus is anticipating the arrival
of his telegram so far in advance, I note his acceptance that Scotland
will still be in the United
Kingdom.
Mr.
Weir: The Minister is quite wrong in that assertion. We
seek the dissolution of the Union and of Parliament, not necessarily of
the Crown.
Mr.
Woolas: I am sure that she or he will send a telegram
anyway. However, the hon. Gentleman asked some reasonable questions.
The target can be amended only with regard to developments
in “scientific
knowledge about climate
change” or
in “international law or policy”. I will explain why
“scientific knowledge” includes biodiversity, not just
semantically but legislatively.
The only
other reason for a change in the target is that the basis of it has
changed. For example, we may add other greenhouse gases to it in the
future. One reason for including changes in international law and
policy, in lay terms, is so that the UK has negotiating power at the
international table. As I have said, the target can be changed only
within those strict criteria and based on the advice to which I have
referred. The
right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is quite right to push the
Committee and the Government on biodiversity. The phrase,
“scientific
knowledge about climate change”
includes biodiversity
because that is a scientific point. He mentioned the international
agreements on biodiversity to which the UK has signed up under various
Governments. They include the convention on biological diversity, to
which he referred, the convention on international trade in endangered
species, the convention on the conservation of migratory species of
wild animals and others. Given that the UK is a signatory to those
treaties, the international context provides the protection that he
seeks. The
establishment of a cap-and-trade system, which this is designed to
accomplish, offers great hope, if not the best hope, for financing the
world’s anti-deforestation measures. The hon. Gentleman will
know that the policy he has pursued has been supported by the
Government, and the United Kingdom has a strong stance on it, although
we would like to have more to do with
it. The
hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made his point effectively, and the
hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the trajectory and about
Copenhagen. I think that I have covered the latter, but I ask for help
on the
trajectory.
| 
