Climate Change Bill [HL]

Perhaps I should not have paid as much attention as I did to the last debate, as I had not intended to speak in it. However, I am taking the opportunity to refresh my memory of the evidence given to the Joint Committee by the Bill team and the then Secretary of State, David Miliband, who was cross-examined in detail on this point, but, first, I shall take up the point that has just been made from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench about European targets. It is worth remembering—the evidence was given to us by Mr Mortimer of the Bill team—that the UK’s target of 26 to 32 per cent for CO2 translates into 32 to 37 per cent of all greenhouse gases. Therefore, the suggestion that we should lift the CO2 target to 40 per cent has some fairly substantial implications. However, I draw attention to the evidence given by the then Secretary of State, who has since been transferred to other responsibilities. I think that we should at least understand the case that he advanced under cross-examination, as it may help us to decide whether it was a strong argument. The Joint Committee finally concluded that it was not a very strong argument and said that it was not convinced by it. Basically, the Secretary of State’s case was that this range of targets would be extremely tough to achieve. He said that, considering all the policies that the Government were putting in place, we had just about reached the limit. However, he also said that, "““what has come through to us from the business community very, very strongly is that the debate about 2050, which has been significant, and the debate about so-called annual targets … ‘We are making investment decisions not on the basis of where we are ""going to be in 2050 and not on the basis of where we are going to be in one year, but where we are going to be over a five, ten, 15-year horizon’””." He went on to say that he regarded it as extremely important to give a clear indication to business of exactly where the Government wished it to go. He said: "““From a business point of view, the range actually provides a degree of confidence and certainty””." He was then challenged by Helen Goodman from the other place who said: "““So you are not saying that you would be concerned if we did better than 32 per cent?””." Mr Miliband said no. Helen Goodman then said: "““You could read the Bill like that, as it is drafted at the moment””." Mr Miliband replied: "““I would be more concerned if we were below 26 than if we were above 32, if that is what you are asking””." He was then asked whether it was not rather odd to put an upper cap of 32 per cent on the provision, and then there was a diversion into the arrangements for changing the legislation and removing the cap if the circumstances should change. There we have it from the Secretary of State that the whole reason for this cap is to give confidence to business and industry. I entirely and completely understand why we have to tell business and industry exactly where they need to get to if we are to achieve the results we want, but I find it difficult to believe that the confidence of business and industry is going to be shaken by the possibility that they might beat the target. It is not a situation I have ever discovered in business. Indeed, the Secretary of State—or it may have been one of his officials—pointed out in evidence that it would be possible to bank the surplus and use it in future. Most businessmen would be quite pleased to know that if they exceeded the target they would have a cushion for any subsequent setbacks. So while I understand the desirability of giving confidence to business and wholly support the need to let business know exactly where the Government want to go, after rereading the Secretary of State’s evidence under cross-examination, I remain as unconvinced as the committee was at the time. It is now up to the Minister, who is always compelling and convincing, to provide us with the certainty and the assurance that the now Foreign Secretary was unable to give us when he gave evidence to the committee.