Treaty of Lisbon (No. 8)

We have had a good debate—I think that we all agree on that. The first Back Bencher to speak was the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has a distinguished record on environmental matters. Although I do not always agree with everything he says, I acknowledge that he made some sensible comments on the future of European reform. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), a distinguished member of the Environmental Audit Committee, also spoke, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who, in a well informed contribution, spoke movingly about world food shortages and concerns about biofuels, and about how Europe should deregulate more and grow more food. We also heard speeches from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who spoke of the positive role for the EU in environmental matters, but expressed great consternation about the Government's denying a proper debate on the treaty more generally. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) drew attention to Drax and the fact that one chimney emits more CO2 than more than 100 small countries—an extraordinary figure that I had not heard before. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) spoke with his usual expertise and broad understanding. Although I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), he made his points with great passion and I found myself nodding in agreement with some of them. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) displayed his usual knowledge. Usually when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) speaks, I learn something; on this occasion, however, somewhat disappointingly, most of his remarks were about process and words, rather than the solutions with which he is normally associated. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who is also a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, made an excellent speech: he has become quite an expert on biofuels. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is also a great expert, but he, too, ended up talking about process and tinkering with institutional reform. Ultimately, his speech summed up what many of us feel about the debate, because he could not tell us one thing that the constitutional amendment will allow that the EU cannot already do or will not be able to do if the treaty is not passed. It is completely irrelevant. If any Labour Member would like to stand up now and tell me one substantive area where EU competency will be extended by adding those six words, I will gladly take an intervention. Answer there came none. This debate has been a waste of time in the context of debating the Lisbon treaty. Time spent in this place talking about climate change is never wasted, however; well-informed right hon. and hon. Members can be found in all parts of the House, and I always gain from hearing what others have to say. The genuine conviction felt in all parts of the House is apparent, and when we talk about climate change, we see Parliament at its best. When they got down to solutions, many of the speeches we have heard today demonstrated that point. Conservative Members also welcome the opportunity to flag up the treaty's failings, but the EU has effectively tackled all sorts of environmental challenges up to now without needing additional binding treaties. The Government are clearly all too aware of the irrelevance of the latest EU treaty to our UK and international efforts to tackle climate change. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) reminded us, the Foreign Secretary said as much. Despite that irrelevance, the Government have insisted on setting aside a whole day for debate on the Lisbon treaty issue of climate change. The Conservatives have argued today that it is more important to debate UK policy, and the policy delivery needed to drive down carbon emissions, delivery solutions and adaptation, than to discuss institutional reform and tinkering with treaties, which are irrelevant to the goal. In the time remaining, I shall consider a few examples of where the Government are going wrong in their performance on climate change. In the Climate Change Bill—a Bill that I am proud to say my party has been enhancing steadily throughout its passage through another place—the Government are rightly legislating to commit the UK to a minimum emissions reduction of 60 per cent. by 2050. I think that we all accept that that figure may have to be re-examined soon, but how can the Government expect significant carbon reductions in Britain when they have consistently underspent, cut and redirected budget commitments for energy efficiency—to say nothing of other things—primarily because of shortfalls in the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs due to chronic mismanagement? How can the Secretary of State expect emissions reductions from the UK housing stock when the low carbon buildings programme, the capital grants scheme for energy efficiency, has been underfunded since its inception and is now being scrapped? How can the Government expect the development of a renewable technology economy in Britain when they do not offer the industry any long-term market confidence? First they tried to U-turn and squash the Merton rule for microgeneration technologies; then they tried to wiggle out of the EU 2020 renewable energy target. The Government have failed to support plans to build the world's first carbon capture and storage power station in Peterhead, opting instead for yet another round of dithering and consultation, followed by a competition. It is not that they are headed in the wrong direction; it is just that they cannot move fast enough. We reject that dithering, delay and incompetence. We reject institutional tinkering. What we really need are dynamic solutions to climate change. We need more vision, more ambition, more conviction and more delivery. We need robust policies that will deliver real change on the ground and drive dynamic industrial change in the economy. In December, David Cameron announced our party policy to introduce feed-in tariffs—[Hon. Members: ““Who?””] My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) announced the tariffs—a mechanism that has resulted in the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs across Europe. That policy could do the same for the UK by providing long-term market certainty to the British microgeneration industry and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey noted, it could greatly enhance our energy security and lower our carbon emissions in the process. Our feed-in tariff policies are just the beginning. This afternoon at Imperial college, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), announced three more policies that will energise UK plc to start reducing our emissions on a significant scale while helping to grow our economy by creating policy initiatives at three ends of the market. The first is in start-up and venture capital. We have some of the finest research institutions and universities in the world, yet in Britain today it is much too difficult to turn bright ideas into viable businesses. Too many technologies have failed to reach the market, getting caught in the gap between a great idea and a viable company. That is why we announced plans today to establish green technology incubators across the UK that will allow more ideas from our finest minds to become reality. Secondly, Britain is privileged to have access to some of the world's finest financial minds and largest investors in the City of London. The Conservatives recognise what an enormous economic opportunity it would be for Britain if we could harness that talent and entrepreneurial spirit and direct it towards the dynamic de-carbonisation of the global economy. To that end, we have announced our intention to establish, in conjunction with the London stock exchange, the world's first dedicated trading market for companies focused on green technology. It will have its own listing criteria and its own set of principles and regulations. The green environmental market is designed to help London become the world's leading centre for the listing and trading of companies in the field of environmental technology. The GEM will build on the alternative investment market's success in attracting green technology companies, but will have its own distinct identity. That new market will help to drive the unprecedented levels of green investment required to transform Britain's economy. Only by unleashing the full potential of London's capital markets will we meet our ambitious goals and get the substantive investment that we require. Thirdly, the shadow Chancellor today announced our intention to introduce green individual savings accounts, which will enable the public to save more than they are currently allowed to, tax-free, provided that the funds are invested only in the most progressive, environmentally friendly companies. The green ISAs—or GISAs, as some bright chap has named them—will engage the public in climate change issues in a new way and show them clearly the economic benefits of green investment. By providing lucrative new sources of investment, GISAs will create a race to the top, incentivising businesses to adopt environmentally friendly policies. At the moment, only 39 per cent. of FTSE 350 companies account for their carbon effectively. Hopefully the proposal will incentivise them and drive them all to do so. It is policies and incentives such as those that will allow Britain to deliver on our climate change commitments. They will deliver dynamic industrial change and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the economy. We are not afraid of change, and we are the only party that can deliver it.