Climate Change Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, partly gave the game away by saying what he personally thought and then going into the science. He said that he was not a scientist, but his personal view was that 80 per cent was involved and he was relying on the science. Around the Chamber, others have been wary of politicians making the change, because we need the scientists to do it. As I said earlier, we do not have the committee, but we will have. Opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, quoted Prime Minister, who said: "““But the evidence now suggests that as part of an international agreement developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by up to 80%””." The noble Lord stopped there, but the quote continues: "““So we will put this evidence to the committee on climate change and ask it to advise us, as it begins to consider the first three five-year budgets, on whether our own domestic target should be tightened up to 80%””." At the time I read that as the Prime Minister giving a lead and as being as near to extending an invitation by the new committee to make the adjustment as you could possible get, without saying that the personal view of a non-scientist is involved. It is best left to the committee—noble Lords have put the case for that. We admit that the 60 per cent target is an old one; it is seven years old. It is consistent with the European Council conclusions in March 2007, which called on developing countries to reduce their emissions by 60 to 80 per cent. The Bill says, ““at least 60%”” by 2050. The view of Stern was that developing countries needed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 per cent. There have been significant advances in science since the 60 per cent target was set—everyone admits that; the Government admit that, and the Prime Minister could not have been be clearer in his speech. We should wait for the Committee on Climate Change before deciding the appropriate target. We want a considered view, based on the best evidence, of the cost of changing from 60 to another figure—I do not say 80 per cent, just another figure. There will be environmental, economic and social implications of changing the target and operating it. The implications need to be understood before a decision is taken; that is the role of the Climate Change Committee. There is no doubt that there will be economic costs. Stern says that the earlier these things are done, the cheaper it will be. We need to look at the effect of the rest of the world taking meaningful action on climate change; the Committee on Climate Change can do that. On the other hand, what would be the implications of including other greenhouse gases, if the UK was going it alone? We are dealing only with some of the greenhouse gases here. They are all defined in the Bill; we will come to them later on. Before we take a decision of this magnitude, it is important that we have a clear understanding. That view is shared by the two Front Benchers and, probably, the majority of those who have spoken. If there was a quick vote on ““Yes or no; what would you prefer?””, the overwhelming majority would be clear: the figure would change. I say that as a non-scientist; our view is to wait for the committee to be set up on the basis of what the Prime Minister said. Using the legislation and a committee of international repute, we want to send the right signal to other countries about the way that we go about setting our targets. We are entitled as the legislature to do it, but we have to face the consequences. We should do it on the basis of a considered scientific view and come to Parliament on the basis of the best science, not on the basis of an amendment during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. I am not knocking that, but we need a good science base, and an understanding of the economic and environmental considerations and consequences.