The
Chairman: Order. I believe that this is a convenient
moment to suspend the Committee. We will resume at 9
pm.
8.1
pm
Sitting
suspended. 9
pm On
resuming—
Martin
Horwood: I want to pass on the apologies of my hon.
Friend the Member for Northavon. He is probably involved in a
particularly vital
pudding. I
appreciate the intention behind new clause 10 and, in the spirit of
cross-party co-operation, we are trying our best to support those on
the Conservative Front Bench when they make sensible suggestions.
However, I must say that the new clause is a little ropey. It is not as
good as new clause 11, which is to follow. It first commits the sin of
loose wording. We have the commitment to publish a carbon impact
assessment “for
any new measure, proposal or policy made in any area of
administration”. That
is quite a broad spread. Does it mean that, if the Charity Commission
wants to revise the public benefit test guidance for public schools, on
line and thus not even publish anything, it has to conduct a carbon
impact assessment before doing
so? To
implement such a change, the Charity Commission will have to send an
e-mail to public schools, and probably to the Cabinet Office to prepare
it for the flak from outraged Tory MPs, and that will take electricity,
which will result in a slight increase in carbon emissions. It will
then have to produce not only the carbon impact assessment itself, but
set out the measures necessary to ensure that the 2050 target is
achieved none the less. That is a big ask, and an expensive ask for the
Charity
Commission.
Gregory
Barker: There is no ask at all. On something so mundane
and simple, no action would need to be taken. A whole set of actions
cannot be constructed when none is needed. A degree of consent is
required when dealing with such matters. Common sense can be applied to
the interpretation of such a
measure.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention, but I do not see much scope for common sense in the
wording before us. The new clause states that the Secretary of
State “must
for any new measure...in any area of
administration”, and
that sounds much too broad. Furthermore, the new clause seems to go
against the spirit of some amendments that we considered earlier,
particularly those that sought to bring issues of biodiversity into a
broader sense of environmental impact. Instead, it would again narrow
issues just to the impact of
carbon. In
contrast to the example that I cited, the hon. Member for Bexhill and
Battle rightly highlighted major issues, such as Kingsnorth or
Heathrow, but an
environmental impact assessment was conducted in respect of the Heathrow
consultation. There were assessments of carbon emissions, the impact on
carbon emissions and certainly the economic cost of carbon. The
Heathrow consultation went the wrong way because the shadow price of
carbon was set at the wrong level, so the environmental impact was not
sufficiently strongly weighted in that consultation. We ought to be
wresting with those sorts of issues in respect of major projects, and I
am not sure that the new clause would achieve that end. It is well
intentioned, but not well
designed. Mr.
Woolas: I hope that you managed to get something to eat,
Mr. Atkinson, to sustain you through our fascinating
deliberations. A
similar new clause was tabled in the other place. It might have been
identical. My argument against it is that consideration of the impact
of policies on emissions is already a central part of the policy-making
process throughout Whitehall, with a system in place to make sure that
it happens. Like the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I agree with the
intent of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and
Battle, which is again urging firm action to be taken. However, as was
argued in the Lords, that is already in
place. Detailed
requirements and guidance on carbon impact assessments are already on
the public websites of DEFRA and the Better Regulation Executive, and
are followed by all
Departments.
Mr.
Gummer: I happen to live and work right next door to the
new Ministry of Justice. The Ministry has not entered its building yet,
but it is taking possession of it. The lights are on all night, every
night. I wonder at what point someone will take note of the carbon
footprint involved. I would like someone to, because I could then go to
sleep without having the lights burning into my room. I have to declare
an interest there. However, I remember that as the Minister responsible
for what were called Green Ministers, it was difficult to get people to
do what we wanted them to do. Can the Minister help by telling
us—if he will not accept the new clause—whether there are
ways in which we could help him to do more in this area? This is a
serious
issue.
Mr.
Woolas: That is a good example, and the answer to the
right hon. Gentleman’s question is the carbon reduction
commitment. When that comes in—all Departments will be covered
by it—the Ministry will have to put a price on it. We already
have the Sustainable Development Commission report into Whitehall,
which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensured was published
and circulated. We have taken measures and are moving in the right
direction, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The CRC
will factor into the finances. Once one gets the finance directors
involved in such decisions, hearts and minds tend to follow. I think
that it was Mario Puzo who said in “The Godfather” that
he wanted the meeting of the five families to be held in a bank because
there is
nothing “more
conducive to pure reason, than the atmosphere of
money.” I
take that
example. My
point before that helpful intervention was about the new procedures for
impact assessments. Members may wish to recall that in May 2007 a new
format for impact assessments was introduced to replace the then
regulatory impact assessments, and in November of
that year it became the compulsory format for all impact assessments.
That format includes a requirement that the impact of policies on both
carbon and the wider environment is considered and quantified. If one
looks at impact assessments for Government Bills, one sees that taken
into account. That approach ensures that each Department is required to
consider fully the impact on carbon of its policies, and to make that
clear in its impact assessments. One of the jobs of Ministers nowadays
is to sign those off. The current impact assessment process requires
policy makers to take carbon into account throughout the policy
development
process. The
detailed requirements and guidance on carbon impact
assessments—as I was saying—are published on the websites
of DEFRA and the Better Regulation Executive. For each policy, an
assessment must be carried out as to whether it could result in a
significant increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and where
possible—before the CRC—that change must be given a
monetary value, including costs and benefits. The use of that impact
assessment is now well embedded in Whitehall procedures, and helps to
ensure that Departments are fully aware of the carbon impact of their
policies. We also require that carbon assessment processes are kept up
to date and are responsive to developments in impact assessment
procedures and in the measurement of the impact of carbon emissions.
So, it is likely that enshrining these measures in legislation could
restrict that responsiveness and lead to inflexibility—but that
is not my main
argument. The
hon. Member for Cheltenham pointed out some of the drafting problems
and I will not repeat them. We should also remember the important role
that the Committee on Climate Change will play in monitoring progress.
Clause 35 requires that committee to look at progress towards the
targets, and the committee will do that across the board, looking not
just at the proposals and policies set out in the clause 14 report that
we agree. So, if the committee is concerned about increasing emissions,
I expect hon. Members will point this out. The intention of the new
clause is already covered by the new impact assessment and the incoming
carbon reduction commitment. My second argument would be to repeat the
arguments of the hon. Member for
Cheltenham.
Gregory
Barker: I will not rehearse the arguments. It is the Prime
Minister’s stated aim that every new policy would be examined
for its impact on carbon emissions. Although the Minister points to the
Government’s record, anyone who looks at that record in earnest
would find it hard to believe that that was the case in view of
Government policy on such issues as Kingsnorth, airport expansion and
the list goes
on. The
purpose of the amendment was to try to draw the Government to stick by
the Prime Minister’s fine words last November. I take comfort,
if not from the Government’s record, from what the Minister said
about the future role of the Climate Change Committee and the fact that
it will approach this. We would have preferred to find a way to pin
down the Government to ensure that this was enshrined right across
Whitehall, but in light of the Minister’s words and the lack of
support from elsewhere, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
11Statements
of compatibility ‘(1) A
Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament
must, before Second Reading of the
Bill— (a) make a
statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the
Bill are compatible with the principal aim of this Act (“a
statement of compatibility”);
or (b) make a statement to the
effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility
the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the
Bill. (2) The statement must be
in writing and be published is such a manner as the Minister making it
considers appropriate.’.—[Gregory
Barker.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This
new clause goes to the heart of how the Bill will work. It fixes a
deficiency in the Bill that is crucial to its working. It would require
a ministerial statement of assurance to be placed on all future Bills
that the provisions contained in them are compatible with the Climate
Change Act, which is what we all hope this Bill will become. This
function is similar to the statement regarding compatibility with the
Human Rights Act 1998, with which hon. Members will be very familiar.
It therefore has a precedent.
We do not
think that such a statement would be appropriate for other Bills,
although they might be important. It does not make sense to require
every piece of legislation to be compatible with the Forced Marriage
(Civil Protection) Act 2007 or the Crossrail Bill or whatever, but
given the overarching nature of climate change we believe that it is
appropriate for this Bill. This is a ground-breaking piece of
legislation that will affect every decision that this and successive
Governments make until 2050 and most likely beyond.
If the
Government are serious about their commitment to reducing emissions,
they should be more than happy to assure both Houses that their
legislation is compatible with the principal aim of the UK playing our
part in preventing dangerous man-made climate change. The business of
reducing emissions must be a comprehensive one or the entire project
fails. The aims of the Bill must be seen as a brush that varnishes
every policy and colours every proposal. A statement of compatibility
will make sure that this is the case. It is not enough just to pass the
Bill. Then the real work begins, not ends. We must ensure that the Act
gets the job
done.
Steve
Webb: I suspect that the new clause was drafted when the
Bill had a principal aim, which was clause 1. Now there is no clause 1,
what does the hon. Gentleman understand to be an assertion? All we have
is a target for 2050. What does this mean in the absence of that
clause?
Gregory
Barker: I think it is the trajectories that will be
implicit in the legislation. We have a target. We hope that we will
have a revised and more important target. There is a clear policy
direction in the Bill, even though it does not have the principal aim
that we had intended and which it had when it left the other place. We
are hopeful that a compromise that we discussed much
earlier in our deliberations on 2° C will be forthcoming on
Report. I am hopeful that when the Bill receives Royal Assent it will
make more sense than it does now.
I am worried
that the Bill will not be implemented as it should be, and new clause
11 would solve any such worries. I expect that the Minister will tell
me that once the Bill becomes law, civil servants will be required to
give advice within its constraints, but that simply is not enough. It
is a negative way of approaching climate change. We do not just want
the civil service to be mindful of not being in breach of the Bill. We
think that there should be active engagement with climate change issues
in all policy areas. The new clause would mean that the Bill teams
would have to work hard to ensure that everything that they put into
legislation would help to move towards the 2050 target of stopping
global warming. That would be an important way of ensuring that we
actually meet the
target. 9.15
pm An
additional argument, used in another place against a similar measure,
is that it would be very difficult to tell if a proposal were
incompatible with the Bill. In some respect, I can see the
Government’s point: it is a framework Bill that does not prevent
any particular policy from coming to fruition, but sets out a schedule
and pattern for reducing emissions. Let us imagine that legislation is
presented that would require the building of 10 new unabated coal-fired
power stations. Although that would make it extremely difficult to
reach the 2050 target, it would not be in conflict with any particular
part of the Bill—so the argument runs. It would require the
Government to rely heavily on mechanisms in the Bill that can
contribute to reductions in other areas, but it would not be against
the Bill as a whole.
That is a
problematic argument for a number of reasons. For a start, it exposes a
severe contradiction in the Government’s two reasons for
opposing new clause 11, as they did in the other place. There was the
argument that civil servants would have to abide by the Bill when
making recommendations, and in that manner the Bill would be driven
across all Departments. However, the Government then insist that no
individual policies would come into conflict with the Bill. How then
will the Bill be driven across Whitehall, as the Government claim that
it will be, if in their opinion there is no conceivable individual
policy that could conflict with it? In that case, there will be nothing
to make civil servants consider the Bill for a moment before making
recommendations. They could leave it to DEFRA to figure out how to
offset their policies
elsewhere. That
is a real concern. I have no doubt about the ability of the statement
of compatibility to be effective if tethered to a principal aim in the
Bill, which we do not have at the moment, and which we discussed in our
first sitting. As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the fate of the
new clause is also tethered to the fate of the principal aim. In light
of the Minister’s helpful indication that a principal aim could
be included in the Bill, whether in the form of a preamble or statement
of purpose, new clause 11 cannot be dismissed as
irrelevant.
| 
