Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for introducing the Bill, for its Second Reading and for the manner in which he has presented the proposed legislation. The Bill derives from the Government’s draft Climate Change Bill last year. That was fully scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which produced a fine critique to which the Government have responded. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the diligence with which that committee operated. Like the issue that the Bill seeks to address, the Bill does not come here out of the blue. The Minister knows that he will find widespread support from across the House and from these Benches in particular for the principles of the Bill. It is widely acknowledged that climate change represents the most important challenge of our time. We debate this issue knowing that we cannot afford to do nothing and that, even if we follow a strongly focused trajectory to reduce carbon emissions, we will see global warming in the forthcoming decades. This accounts for our belief that government policy needs to be robust and that mitigation and adaptation are necessary lines of action that will lie at the heart of government policy. What drives our ambitions for the Bill? It must be the need to reduce global warming. This, in turn, is dependent upon scientific knowledge, scientific judgment and scientific prediction. That is why these Benches will seek to place science at the heart of the Bill. It sets a target of 60 per cent. The real goal is a 2-degree reduction in the likely rise of temperature. This will be achieved only by a global concerted effort, as the Minister pointed out. To do our part, perhaps in the hope of leading the way, we must ensure that the Bill is focused on the right way of setting up a durable and effective system. The current focus seems to be simply on a number. I hope that we do not lose sight of our overarching goal. The 60 per cent reduction figure used in the Bill comes from the 2003 report which was, in turn, based on the World Commission report of 2000. This, as has been noted by many environmental groups and NGOs, may not be enough, and even the Prime Minister indicated that in a speech last week to the World Wildlife Fund. The Government have voiced their support for three major international agreements. All these have a higher ambition than the targets contained in the Bill. I refer to the Government’s commitment to the G8, the Vienna climate talks and the European Council spring summit, and I expect that they will take a similar approach in Bali. However, seeing the 60 per cent target in the Bill, one senses a fundamental inconsistency right at the beginning of the process. I ask whether the Minister intends to change the targets during the passage of the Bill. In the mean time, we are in receipt of a mixed message from a Government who appear to acknowledge the advice they receive when it suits and not when it comes to doing something about it. That brings us to what we on these Benches consider to be a key deficiency in the structure of the Bill. I am sure that all sides of the House will accept that the effectiveness with which we will make progress in reducing carbon emissions, thereby protecting ourselves against climate change, lies in the balance between the scientific realities and the agency of government. We find the Government’s creation of a Committee on Climate Change purely to advise the Secretary of State to be a wholly inadequate vehicle to bring science to the heart of this great endeavour. To put it bluntly, the committee needs to be beefed up: it needs to have clout; it needs to have credibility; and it needs to know that its work will be the foundation for government action. That is why we will recommend that it is given the status of a commission—the commission on climate change. We intend this to give the members status as commissioners and their work to go beyond the mere giving of advice to making recommendations and outlining detailed strategies for climate change reduction. That will drive government action—in effect, putting the commission centre stage in the process. We will offer amendments to transfer many of the powers now lying with the Secretary of State to the commission on climate change. Among these, importantly, is the power to set and amend the targets. We strongly feel that, whatever targets are set, they can be given strength and credibility in the public sphere only if they come from a commission of experts. That brings me to the second major point that I wish to make. Any effective government action has to acknowledge that there is scarcely a government department, scarcely an item of government business and scarcely a piece of legislation that does not have implications on this issue. To place overall responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of State of a relatively minor department is inadequate in the face of the project to which we are committed. For this reason, we believe that it should be the responsibility of the Prime Minister to present the annual report of the commission on climate change to Parliament and to seek debate on this and on the annual targets which we will also be seeking to put in the Bill. Success or failure in this area reflects on the whole Government, not just a single department. A budget period of five years, as proposed, neatly removes the continual monitoring of a Parliament. It means that any incoming Government following an election could always blame their predecessors for failing to achieve targets. Parliament needs annual rolling targets and reports. Rolling annual targets—what some NGOs have called milestones, and I heard what the Minister said about that—would also allow for the flexibility of tilting targets according to the progress that has been made. We need the commission to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of government action, to monitor sectoral initiatives, if they are deemed useful, and to ensure that Parliament is aware of the full implications of government action. In that way, Parliament’s authority is vested in that of the commission. I take this opportunity to examine in more detail our proposals for a commission. We acknowledge that devolution means that national authorities, as the Bill refers to them, form part of the process. We cannot successfully pursue a United Kingdom policy unless there is an agreement with all parts of the United Kingdom. We therefore accept the need for the commission to reflect this interest in its make-up. We also acknowledge that the commission needs to be able to draw on the experience of specialists stretching way beyond climate change science, particularly to include those who can best assist in assessing the impact of the proposals on both the economy and the environment. We need the commission to be able to provide comprehensive solutions. At its heart, the commission needs to be made up of leading scientific figures. We believe that the Royal Society should be the nominating authority for a majority of the places on the commission. Once again on this issue, it is science not politics which needs to be driving change. We have to accept that at times this will be uncomfortable. Those of us who are active in politics are never too happy about seeing key decisions in the hands of others, but if we are to be successful in achieving objectives and reaching targets, we will have to be prepared to respond to what science is telling us. We understand the need for proper consideration to be given to the setting of targets and the establishment of data on which they can be based. I have admitted that our preference is for these matters to be the responsibility of the commission. We understand, therefore, that until the commission is established it may be difficult to fix targets precisely. In recognising that targets are important for long-term planning in business and the stability of markets, to which the Minister alluded, we do not see the point in Ministers setting arbitrary targets which might simply be revised as soon as the committee, under current proposals, presents them to the Secretary of State. Have the Government considered setting up their committee or our commission prior to the legislation passing, if only to ensure that targets are based on full advice? If not, this Bill will be enacted in an atmosphere of uncertainty and instability. The date given for the first report is two years away. Why the delay? Why cannot the committee report within six months, or indeed, at least before a general election? I sincerely hope that politics is not becoming a priority here. We favour carbon credit trading schemes to a degree, and look forward to the commission’s position on the matter. As yet, we do not know the Government’s position. A government Minister last week promised that she would provide information about the percentage of carbon credits that will be allowed to be internationally traded. Is the Minister willing to give a precise percentage today? If not, is it acceptable to negotiate at Bali and other international forums with such important issues still under review? Are the Government planning on giving assurances in Indonesia that they are not prepared to give to this House? There are a number of significant gaps that I hoped the legislation might address. We assume that domestic aviation is included, although it is not mentioned on the face of the Bill. Meanwhile, it is a great anomaly that international aviation is not included in the Bill, although it provides for aviation to be included, along with shipping at a later date. Aviation is a large contributor to carbon emissions and its exclusion is, frankly, immensely short-sighted. If we are truly to tackle carbon emissions, it is scandalous to omit such a large contributor. The reason often cited for excluding international aviation is that it is difficult to measure. However, the UK already reports emissions from international aviation to the UN. Inadequate measurement therefore cannot be an excuse. If aviation increases at the current rate and is not included, by 2050 it will completely nullify attempts to curb carbon emissions in all other sectors. It is fundamentally illogical to exclude aviation at this stage, and we will offer amendments to this effect. Like many environmental bodies, we have also sought to include the carbon footprint of international shipping in the overall carbon budget. This is a more complicated issue than aviation, as shipping represents a relatively environmentally friendly way to move goods. It would be contrary to our ambition to reduce overall carbon emissions to discourage heavily this means of transport. At the same time, shipping contributes carbon emissions and completely ignoring the problem, as the Bill appears to do, will not make it go away. Can the Minister comment on how he proposes to solve this problem? I understand that transport matters are always tricky. It might be to the disadvantage of both the environment and UK industry if ships simply diverted to Rotterdam and planes opted for Charles de Gaulle over Heathrow, and then made up the difference with heavily emitting freight. However, as I mentioned, we cannot simply pretend that transport of this nature has no effect on the environment. Can the Minister therefore explain the logic of excluding aviation and shipping?