Lords Hansard text for 18 Dec 200718 Dec 2007 (pt 0007)

1.37 pm

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to what I believe is a welcome for the Statement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for what he said. I managed to complete a successful visit to the Copas turkey farm at Maidenhead, which I visited nine years ago. I wanted to see the expansion of a really good production facility which is going full pelt at the moment, but I missed my visit to the RPA headquarters, which I was planning to make. Nevertheless, that was important.

It is historic in the sense that our key objective was to get the start of comprehensive and global discussions with everyone at the table. That key objective was achieved. I know that around the edges there can be all kinds of arguments about that, but the fact remains that to get every country signed up and agreeing to start discussions is important, although not everyone will agree with what everyone says. In the past few days, I have seen the television and press reports like everyone else, but when one looks at the United States Government's view, one has to remember that different things have been happening there—especially in California and in Florida compared with the rest of the country or compared with the attitude in Washington.

By the way, we did not assist the United States in removing binding targets for developed countries. In fact, the United Kingdom and the EU pressed for the reference. Contrary to what the newspapers say, the figures have not completely disappeared. I have not got the figures in front of me, but my note states that the numbers for the 25 to 40 per cent reduction by 2020 are in both tracks of the road map. In the Kyoto track, the guideline range of 25 to 40 per cent is clearly in the text, and in the convention dialogue track the same numbers are referred to on the first page of the preamble. The footnote clearly points to several pages of the intergovernmental panel’s fourth assessment report and to the table that includes the 25 to 40 per cent range. So the figures have not completely disappeared, and those who want to go for them can point to them.

The discussions will start in Copenhagen and will conclude by 2009. By then, there will be new Governments in some of the major democracies and new heads of

18 Dec 2007 : Column 614

government—in one in particular. I make no comment on which way things will go, but there will clearly be a change in the head of government in the United States in November next year. I cannot say anything about why; I am not keyed up on that.

It was a breakthrough, and I need better advice on deforestation and what can happen now. To get all the countries of the world signed up and agreeing to start discussions was a key objective. I realise that there were people with other objectives, but it would be very difficult for people to walk away once those discussions start. That is what it is all about: discussing it around a table with a commitment to get an agreement. If key players were not at the table, it would be a problem for the rest of the world. It will not be, because they will all be there, and the objective will be to get agreement on figures and on a timetable.

1.41 pm

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale:My Lords, in congratulating the Government on their role in the successful negotiations in Bali, I urge my noble friend to do his best to persuade the Government to think bigger and bolder when it comes to the development of known and developing renewable energy technologies. We know where we are going with wind and we are beginning to know where we are going with waves. I hope that we will get a successful outcome to the study of the Severn barrage. We must think bigger. If we think bigger and bolder, by 2040 we can end up making a much larger contribution to the amount of energy we get from renewable sources than looks possible at the moment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is right: we need to change substantially. It is our intention to up the range of energy from renewable sources. He is quite right to point to the potential of the Severn barrage, which could provide 5 per cent of our energy requirements. The two nuclear power stations that closed on New Year’s Eve last year provided just under 2 per cent of our energy requirements, so that is the potential of the Severn barrage. However, it will not be a one-size-fits-all. We will still need a mix of fuels and energy sources. We need to increase renewable sources substantially. There will always be difficulties: people do not like the windmills, and they may not like the environmental impact of the Severn barrage. Those are some of the issues that have to be dealt with. They cannot be fudged; we must make decisions, and we need a substantial increase in renewable energy resources.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Secretary of State’s Statement, which was repeated by the Minister, is interesting, but it strikes me as extraordinarily one-sided. Does the Minister realise that for those of us who are not scientists but who nevertheless study what many people are saying, it is worrying to see the sentence,

Does the Minister agree that there is no unanimity on the science in this matter? Has the Minister read, as I

18 Dec 2007 : Column 615

have, the letter from a hundred scientists, many of them immensely distinguished, which was sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 13 December? Is he aware that there are many differing views about the causes and the incidence of climate change? I yield to no one in my view that we should cherish the environment and make better use of energy. As far as the UK is concerned, I would be much more convinced than I am by pieces of paper such as this if the Government had by now tackled the real need in the United Kingdom, which is a new nuclear programme, because otherwise there will be a huge gap in our electricity supplies which will put the lights out. After 10 years, it is really rather shameful that the Government have got no further than consulting, consulting, consulting.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I tend to agree with the latter part of the noble Lord’s speech. The Government have not yet made a decision on the increase in nuclear power, which is responsible for almost one-fifth of our electricity. In 20 years or so, if the lights do not go on when the switch is pulled, someone will get the blame, which is why we need a mix of energy. I understand a decision about that will be made very early in the new year. At the moment, about 74 per cent of our electricity comes from high-carbon fossil-fuel generation—coal, gas and oil—and only 4 per cent comes from renewables, so we have some way to go. All our nuclear power stations except one will probably close within about 20 years, so we will lose one-fifth of our electricity unless we do something about it. This is a serious issue.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the only thing that is not clear in the Statement—my only criticism—is the length of some of the sentences. He picked a sentence, and I know there is an argument about this, but the 4,000 or 5,000 scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have delivered to the world the best and broadest range of scientific views that something is happening with the climate and that we are putting future generations and the planet at risk if we do not take some action to deal with it. I realise that not every scientist is signed up to that, but I rest my case—it is a one-sided case, if you like—with the intergovernmental panel’s view that we need to take some action. It is the view of the Stern report that if we take some action now, it will not be cost free, but it will be a lot cheaper than doing nothing. Having to take massive action in 20 years will wreck our economy and those of a lot of other advanced nations. I am not prepared to advise anyone in government to take that risk.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while I wholly support the sentiments that my noble friend has just expressed, does he not agree that certain aspects of the compromise deal at Bali are not entirely satisfactory? I agree that poorer countries can expect real hope from the deal on global warming and help for forestry, but is it not a fact that the United States has stood in the way of making the sort of progress that is demanded from the world today? Accordingly,

18 Dec 2007 : Column 616

does my noble friend agree that influencing the possible change of government in that country is vital? What is he going to do about it?

Lord Rooker: Very, very little, my Lords. Bali is just over and not all of the reporting is clear—there were a lot of journalists there. The fact is that if all the developed countries cut their emissions to zero—the United States and Europe, including ourselves—the planet would still be in trouble. There must be action elsewhere. It is self-evident that emissions are increasing. If one measures the global total emissions from some countries, they are enormous, but if they are measured on a per capita basis, they are tiny compared with what are being churned out by Europe and the United States. The fact is that even if developed countries cut to zero emissions, the planet would still be in trouble, so action has to be taken. It is for the people of various democracies to influence their choice of government. But, as I have said, the United States speaks with more than one voice; I invite noble Lords to look at what has happened in California and what is planned in Florida, and compare it with attitudes in Washington.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I could follow up on the last comment of the noble Lord. My noble friend mentioned that the United Kingdom is not reaching its target, and has not done so in four out of the past seven years. I raise two issues. One is deforestation. Did the agreement decide how checks and balances would be made against a target set to reduce deforestation? Will an overall body be set up? Who is responsible for monitoring that?

Secondly, and particularly on the section where the noble Lord dealt with the Bali action plan and was talking about the negotiations of a long-term global goal for emission reductions, my question is exactly the same. The Statement says that the plan was,

My question there is exactly the same: who at the end is responsible for checking what is going on in different countries to make sure that the very worthy aims internationally will be achieved?

Thirdly, does he agree with me—I think that he will—that the one thing we must not do in this country is export our own responsibilities? Clearly, if we use carbon trading schemes in a way that helps us nationally but which places greater difficulties on developing countries, I am sure we shall have failed at the same time ourselves.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on that latter point, I have nothing to add to what was said yesterday about carbon trading being supplemental to what we have to do. The test will be whether we can get direct carbon reductions in the UK economy. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in the new year in the discussions on the Bill.

There is not the time to explain what was said on the Bali action plan and the road map. I mentioned in the Statement how it will work. The processes—it would take me as long to read them out as to read the

18 Dec 2007 : Column 617

Statement—will take place under a new subsidiary body under the convention; namely, the ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. It will complete its work in 2009 and present the outcome to the conference of parties in Copenhagen of that year. Work will begin without delay. The first session will be no later than April next year. The UK is looking to see how we can support the process both financially and intellectually, in the sense of the help the Government can give.

I cannot answer the question on deforestation. I cannot find the note on that. I am sorry.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement. Will he elaborate on the incentives against deforestation? Will he also answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about who will be monitoring the whole process to ensure that these targets are achieved?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will do my best to answer. I have not had time to go though the brief. The Bali discussions set in motion a pilot process to identify the best approach, including the best market mechanisms and government arrangements to feed into Copenhagen in 2009. In other words, this is how to get an agreement and how to monitor the work on deforestation. It has been set up as part of the discussions at Bali. A mechanism has been set up organisationally to make sure that we can monitor that. But it will take from now until Copenhagen to report back to get detailed arrangements. As I have said, work will start straightaway and the first meeting will be in April next year.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are approaching another anniversary of the terrible tsunami. That reminds us of the burden carried by developing countries. I would like to congratulate not only the cricketers for inaugurating the new pitch at Galle this morning but also the people of Sri Lanka, Indonesia and India who over the past months and years have all overcome those terrible events we saw on television.

My question again is on forestry. Can the Minister help me with a contradiction? We are talking about developed and developing nations as though we were not globally joined. Take the case of Brazil; are we not as a Government still putting pressure on the Brazilians to create more ethanol as a substitute fuel? Is not the effect of that to create more deforestation in the Amazon? How is that being tackled? Was it mentioned in Bali?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know whether it was mentioned in Bali. The transport renewable fuels obligation will come into operation in April. Biofuels have to come from sustainable sources. We have some biofuel production in this country. It is sustainable. There is no question about that, because it is not

18 Dec 2007 : Column 618

replacing agriculture as it is coming from over-produced sugar beet. Therefore, chopping down forests to plant seeds for creating, say, palm oil and other things is not sustainable. It is not acceptable. That should not be allowed to be covered by the transport fuels obligation. That is what we have been saying. So the mechanism for stopping it has to be a market mechanism. We cannot tell the Brazilians what to do, but if we say, “Sorry, we are not buying your product because you have chopped down the forest in order to grow the biofuel” that is the market mechanism which would change behaviour.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, while welcoming the outcome of the Bali conference, is it not the case in substance that what we have achieved is an agreement to enter into further discussions? In the event of those further discussions not leading to any substantive outcomes in two years’ time—I hope that that does not arise—is there anything in the agreement that will take forward the process of dealing with climate change?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I suspect that the answer to that is no. The key objective was to get an agreement that every country, bar none, would enter into negotiations. That agreement was achieved. So no one can walk away; they are walking away from the rest of the planet if that is the case. I suspect that there might be some further thoughts there. The key objective, if you like, to corral everyone to the table was achieved.

Lord Rowe-Beddoe: My Lords, I welcome and applaud the enthusiasm the Minister has displayed for action, something we were debating last week in your Lordships’ Chamber. I wonder whether he could infect that enthusiasm to other parts of government. We now hear that the scoping study for the Severn barrage will not be ready until August next year.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I did not know that. I do not have the details. I know that there is work going on on the Severn barrage. The short answer to his question is “Yes, I will see what I can do”.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, following up on the question of my noble friend Lady Byford, can the Minister help the House by telling us who are the individuals who make up the Bali action plan, or is there an identifiable body that is tasked with the duties given to it?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the individuals will be both officials and Ministers who have passed through Governments from time to time. I do not have a list of names. I do not think that is necessary. The countries and the scientists representing the countries would be involved in that. I described in the Statement the organisations that were set up at Bali. Those are the people who will take it forward, monitor it and subsequently be accountable for it.

18 Dec 2007 : Column 619

Business of the House: Adjournment

2 pm

Lord Grocott: My Lords, it now falls to me to move the adjournment of the House for the Christmas break. It has become traditional that we use the opportunity—by “we” I mean my colleagues, the other Chief Whips and the Convenor—to thank the members of staff in this House for the sterling work they do during the course of the year and to pay individual tribute to one or two people who have retired, particularly those who have retired after very long service. We have a long list of people who have retired after quite long service, so the four of us have divvied up the responsibility to make sure that they are all appropriately mentioned. Obviously we are collectively associated with all the tributes that are given.

I will mention one or two people, but also want to mention a particular department. I was prompted to do this because I have in the past paid tribute to the various departments that are fairly well known to us, whom we meet day in, day out. I will not repeat those today, although I am sure that others will. One particular group of people who have not been mentioned for the past few years as far as I know are those responsible for all the sound and broadcasting of our proceedings, which I am sure posterity will enjoy viewing over many years. They sit patiently listening to our debates, and I confess to being so committed to my work that during a Recess I have even been known in sad moments to watch the digital parliamentary channel. These things do not happen by accident. I know that they do not have colossal viewing figures in comparison with “EastEnders” or things of that sort, but they do a tremendous job for us. This House, of course, pioneered the televising of Parliament, and the other House followed suit a little while later. I pay tribute to all of them.

I turn to a number of individuals who require special mention. I shall concentrate on three members of staff; they have not been picked arbitrarily, it is just that each of them has individually served this House for longer than 25 years and, collectively, have served the House for 110 years. That is not a bad level of service to the place.

Paul Hayter, our Clerk who retired a little earlier this year, has already had tributes but I add my own. It goes without saying that he was an absolutely outstanding servant of this House. He worked here for 43 years. I can only say that when I arrived just a few years ago, any stereotype I might have had in mind of someone who was so institutionalised after that length of service that they would not be open to suggestions, however far fetched, could not have been further from the truth. He had that wonderful mixture of knowing what the House would take, knowing its traditions and, obviously, its procedures, and listening to new suggestions. He would occasionally give you the Sir Humphrey look and point out where you had gone wrong, but he was always open. I think that 43 years of service to this House is outstanding, and we owe him a great debt.

18 Dec 2007 : Column 620

Another person I shall mention is June Russell, who sadly died a short while ago. She had given 41 years of service as a pastry chef in this House. She achieved great things during that time: she was involved in something like 40 State Openings; award-winning buffets with which many of us will be familiar; and more recently—if I can say that meaning “25 years ago”—for the past 25 years she was particularly involved in the preparation of the annual Children of Courage awards lunch, where she always had a theme to her work, much admired by many and particularly by the young people. Again, 41 years of service is outstanding. She died in service, and I am sure that all of us here would want to extend our thoughts to all her friends and relatives, particularly at this time of the year.

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page