Climate Change Bill [HL]

I shall try to answer the points, but one of the most confusing things for me is that I am responding to a group made up of Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 and Clause 20 stand part. The two amendments are in Clause 19, and there is another group consisting of Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 106, which affect Clauses 19 and 20, as do Amendments Nos. 103 and 105. I cannot for the life of me see why I am required to speak to Clause 20 stand part when I am only dealing with Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 in Clause 19 and I still have other amendments to deal with. The whole point of a clause-stand-part debate is that it takes place at the end of the debates on the amendments when the Committee has discussed the Bill to see whether all the points have been answered. However, I have got a speaking note and at this time of night I am going to stick to it because it is the last time I am coming to this Box tonight. That is unsatisfactory because it is not a clear cut-off, but simply because of the way we are. With regard to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, which would include the basket of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases—the Clause 64 gases—within the Bill’s targets and budgets framework, we accept that there are strong arguments for including other greenhouse gases in our targets. However, the vast majority—some 85 per cent—of the UK’s contribution to climate change is from carbon dioxide emissions. We have a good understanding of the costs and benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, whereas there is much less understanding about the cost-effective potential of reducing other greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the long-term. That is not to say that we are doing nothing about it because we are taking measures in terms of local authority waste to reduce methane emissions from landfill, which account for 3 per cent. In pushing the uptake of anaerobic digestion for manure slurry and other organic waste and attempting to reduce other greenhouse gases, detailed work is going on in the department. However, 85 per cent of our contribution is to carbon dioxide emissions and we know more about how to deal with them. The Joint Committee looked closely at this issue, and came to the view that: "““These issues are complex and, in our view, cannot easily or quickly be resolved””." It therefore recommended that there should be annual reporting on all greenhouse gas emissions, and we have accepted that recommendation. The Joint Committee also recommended that this should be a stepping stone, as the noble Lord said, towards an approach which addresses all greenhouse gases. That is provided through Clause 19 and will form part of the review of the 2050 target by the Committee on Climate Change. We have asked the Committee on Climate Change to look at this issue as part of its review of the 2050 target, so that we can take an informed decision on the level of the target and on whether to include other greenhouse gases now. I am here as the Defra Minister, it is true, but it is not my day job, and I regret that I do not know whether we have publicly said that we have asked the Climate Change Committee—which we have not set up, but the secretariat is there in shadow form—to do that so the work is under way. We believe that it makes sense for all these issues to be looked at together, and that the climate change committee will have the right expertise to do this most effectively. We therefore propose to await the committee’s advice before making any decision to change the basis of the target. In addition, since the Bill was published, the timing for the committee’s review of the 2050 target has been brought forward. We are therefore also looking at whether Clause 19(2) remains appropriate. Clause 19(2) would prevent other greenhouse gases from being included in a budget period which had already started—the intention behind this provision was to provide greater certainty to the relevant sectors of the economy. However, now that the committee will review the 2050 target alongside its advice on the first three carbon budgets, we are reassessing the effect of Clause 19(2) and may—I suspect that means ““will””—bring forward a Government amendment on this point in due course. Turning to the intention of the noble Lords to oppose the Question that Clause 20 stand part of the Bill, Clause 20 is an important part of the Bill which builds on the provisions of Clause 19. We will shortly discuss this clause in more detail—for example in addressing Amendment No.105—but let me say for now that the main intention of Clause 20 is to ensure the approach taken in the UK is able to match the international context. I would urge noble Lords to reserve their judgment on whether or not this clause should stand part of the Bill until we have debated the other amendments relating to it. I realise that in our selection it is Amendments Nos. 99, 100 and Clause 20 stand part, but if we do not push that now we will come back to this and we can clear up the points relating to Clauses 19 and 20 early tomorrow.