| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the IPPR made some recommendations on that latter point. Obviously, the Government will consider all these issues and deal with them appropriately at Budget and PBR time. My noble friend is right that the measure that we use, which is relative low income, is 60 per cent of current median income, rather than average income. However, that is not the only measure that we use. She is also right to say that if all we did was increase benefits by inflation, not earnings, there would be, in a sense, a downwards escalator. However, that is not all that we do. We have announced child benefit increases in excess of inflation and earnings and we have introduced changes to the child element
23 Jan 2008 : Column 228
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords—
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that poverty is not only about money, but about spiritual, social, intellectual and moral welfare as well? Sending a mother out to work is not always the right answer for these children.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I agree that poverty is about a whole range of matters. That is why we have invested an additional £2 billion in public services to alleviate child poverty, focusing on childcare provision, educational attainment, health inequalities and a range of other matters. We believe that work is the best route out of poverty, particularly for lone parents. There are 330,000 more lone parents in employment than in 1997, making more than 1 million lone parents in work. That is making a significant difference to poverty.
Pakistan: Elections
3.23 pm
Lord Desai asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What assistance they are offering to the Government of Pakistan to ensure a free and fair election on 18 February.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My Lords, we are pressing the Government of Pakistan to adopt various measures with a view to ensuring that the elections on 18 February are free and fair. In addition, the UK will provide a number of election observers. DfID has also committed £3.5 million to strengthening the capacity of the election commission of Pakistan, educating voters and supporting independent monitoring.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there are prominent lawyers still in jail, especially Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, who fought for the supreme court chief justice? While there are people under arrest who should be fighting the election, how can we have free and fair elections?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. A very concerning aspect of the current situation is that there are still lawyers under arrest. Our high commissioner sought to visit Mr Ahsan but was prevented from doing so. Of course, that raises questions more broadly about the independence of the judiciary during this election period.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government of Pakistan invited the Commonwealth to send observers and, if so, could they make a preliminary assessment
23 Jan 2008 : Column 229
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the Government of Pakistan have made it clear that, because they are currently suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth, they do not wish to have Commonwealth observers in the country in advance of the elections.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, can the Minister recall 3 November last year, when General Pervez Musharraf imposed a state of emergency? He said then that it was because of international terrorism and the threat of terrorism. Subsequently, he sacked 62 supreme court judges and arrested lawyers, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, banned all the Pakistani private TV channels, including the BBC and CNN, and arrested all the political activists. How can Her Majesty’s Government trust General Pervez Musharraf to hold free and fair elections? Finally, with his extensive knowledge of the UN, will the Minister advise him next week on a safe and a peaceful exit strategy from Pakistan?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that the events in November were very disappointing and a great setback for the conduct of free and fair elections, as was the later and tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto. But I remind him that, from 3 November onwards, we sought to apply considerable pressure to get the restrictions on the media lifted, to get political prisoners released and to ensure that there was not further slippage in the date of an election. Nevertheless, we have concerns, which is why we have been very clear in all dealings with Pakistan that these elections must be seen by the people of that country as fair and credible. This weekend, when the Prime Minister meets President Musharraf at Davos, he will repeat that message.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
3.26 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Schedule 1Clauses 6 to 14Schedule 2Clause 15Schedule 3Clauses 16 to 31.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Electricity and Gas (Carbon Emissions Reduction) Order 2008
23 Jan 2008 : Column 230
Climate Change Bill [HL]
3.27 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Redesdale: My purpose in opposing the Question that Clause 36 stand part of the Bill is to inquire about a potential problem with Clause 36 and not to deal a mortal blow to the trading scheme. I want to find out whether this will have a detrimental effect on on-site regeneration renewables, which might well be limited in their potential under the trading scheme to earn ROCs. This issue seems quite technical, but could have a major effect on the implementation of companies on site building micro-generation schemes which would reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. However, we believe that if Clause 36 is implemented there might be a significant problem with them claiming ROCs. I may be completely wrong on this issue but I very much hope that the Government will look at this potential problem. The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce the release of carbon dioxide. Therefore, anything that reduces the incentive for private firms to build microgeneration schemes would be detrimental.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has—
Lord Teverson: I apologise for not being here right at the beginning. We wanted more discussion of Clause 36 because there is concern about the issue of emission trading systems generally. We on these Benches welcome emission trading systems because they are an efficient means of reducing carbon emissions. The financial community is concerned about schemes such as the CRC, which is excellent in its own way, and the amount of trading that can take place. The number of units under the CRC, for instance, which will be the first emission trading system to be introduced under the Bill in 2010, will not be enough commercially to sustain a market. As the majority of these units will be used by those organisations that ask for an allocation in terms of an auction, is the Minister convinced that a trading system will work and that there will be sufficient liquidity in the market to make these instruments something of value that can be traded? I understand that most of the organisations involved in the EU ETS do not see the market being of a sufficient size for it to be credible and for there to be the type of market for other instruments that we have talked about under the clean development mechanism and joint implementation in the EU ETS.
23 Jan 2008 : Column 231
I have read a great many of the papers, including the excellent consultation on the recommendations of the climate change simplification project, Climate Change Instruments: Areas ofOverlap and Options for Simplification, produced by Defra in 2007. I started to print it out on my computer before realising that it was some 67 pages long. It gives an excellent description of many of these instruments. However, I do not see the question that I believe has been asked by the financial services sector about the liquidity of these types of units. If that is true of the CRC, which will probably be the largest of these schemes, does that give credibility to other schemes that might be introduced under this part of the Bill?
Lord Vinson: I remind the Minister that microgeneration schemes are very micro and need base load electricity back-up to support them when the wind does not blow or there is not enough rain or because of other factors. They have their place but I hope that the Minister will remind himself when considering legislation that at the end of the day it is base load CO2-free generation that we have to look to if we really want to save the globe. At the moment only one technology can meet that—nuclear. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward their nuclear programme.
Lord Rooker: I apologise for jumping up before the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I thought that I had the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, without going through 12 pages of speaking notes. I think that there would be support for that.
On renewables, the carbon reduction commitment aims to incentivise energy use among organisations covered by the scheme. Incentives to change the way in which energy is generated are already provided through the renewables obligation and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. We do of course want to encourage the uptake of renewable energy. However, where the carbon savings from renewables are already counted by supplier schemes, perhaps in the form of renewables obligation certificates, there would be double counting if the same units of renewable electricity could count towards the CRC targets. Therefore the proposed approach is to ensure simply that CRC participants do not double count emissions savings.
We propose, however, that participants in the CRC may count renewable electricity, generated on site, if it is not counted against targets in the renewables obligation. This approach demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that the CRC delivers additional carbon savings over and above those that the suppliers are required to deliver under the renewables obligation, and to helping to encourage the further development of on-site renewable energy. The proposals have already been the subject of wide consultation, and the Government will publish their response to the latest consultation in February. I hope that that deals with the point about the commitment to renewables. Nothing in the clause is anti-renewables; there is simply the caveat of ensuring that renewables are not double counted.
23 Jan 2008 : Column 232
I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. He is absolutely right about the base load. He commented on the Government’s paper on nuclear energy, for which I am grateful.
I am not sure whether I have given the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, an answer here or whether I gave it when speaking to other clauses. If I have not, we may be coming up to it in our debates on other clauses in the list.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply.
Clause 37 [Activities to which trading schemes may apply]:
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am on a similar tack. In opposing the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill, we seek clarification of the precise extent to which trading schemes will apply. We on this side of the Committee are uncomfortable leaving such complicated and significant portions of the Bill to regulatory fiat. Will the Minister tell the Committee how these trading schemes will work? Is the list of activities, as stated in the Bill and to which the trading schemes apply, exhaustive? The list is unclear. Indeed, it could be interpreted that any activity of any kind falls under a trading scheme. Indeed, does this extend to individuals and to personal consumption? Will individuals be made part of a trading scheme for using,
After all, that implies any material at all. That is surely not the intention of the clause but it may be construed that way. The whole clause needs greater clarity.
Will the Minister take us through the trading scheme process? Can he explain precisely what sort of activities will be included and what sort of businesses will be affected? How will this relate to the Government’s own activity? How will individual departments fit their carbon budgets into the major scheme of things? Where will a businessman find a mechanism to assess the activities that might cut carbon emissions, and indeed generate credits that could be traded? Will the Minister make clear the intention behind the trading schemes? Are they intended to act as a way of encouraging a reduction in emissions? If so, will the Government regulate them to ensure that this happens? In essence, will the Minister indicate the degree to which he sees the Government intervening in trading scheme markets?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I would be very interested to discover whether the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and his party are in favour of trading schemes.
The Earl of Selborne: While these trading schemes are designed to reduce emissions—indeed Clause 37(2) makes it clear that anything which reduces emissions
23 Jan 2008 : Column 233
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: When the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, comes to respond, I wonder whether he could indicate whether the Conservative Opposition oppose the use of any provisions in this Bill to introduce a scheme for trading in personal carbon allowances. That would be very helpful. This issue was discussed on a previous Committee day but I do not think we had the benefit of that advice.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is getting a taste of what it is like to be on the receiving end of the questions. I will do my best to explain how Clause 37(1)(a) to (d) would operate but I have a few notes to put on record first.
Clause 37 builds on the provisions set out in Clause 36. While Clause 36 covers schemes which directly and indirectly cause or contribute to emissions, Clause 37 provides more detail on the activities which may be considered indirectly to cause or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps I may give a quick example of the distinction between directly and indirectly causing emissions. The former may be the burning of coal which produces greenhouse gases emissions from power station chimneys because the emissions occur directly on-site; the latter relates to the consumption of electricity produced by the power station, wherever this may occur. An example of a trading scheme which targets indirect emissions could be one which targets the supply of heating fuel. This could be regarded as relating to indirect emissions as the emissions themselves take place at the point of use by the consumer rather than at the point of sale. However, it would be easier and more cost effective to target the suppliers of the heating fuel through a trading scheme rather than to seek to introduce emissions trading schemes between the millions of consumers of heating fuel.
The Government already have some limited powers to introduce trading schemes relating to direct emissions from a point source such as a power station chimney under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. However, there are notable gaps in these powers as they apply only to quotas of emissions and would not allow trading schemes to be introduced with the purpose of encouraging activities which reduced the emissions. In addition, those existing powers relate only to direct emissions and would not allow a trading scheme to be introduced which targeted indirect emissions alone or a combination of direct and indirect emissions. For instance, it would not be possible to introduce the new carbon reduction commitment under those existing powers as it targets direct carbon dioxide emissions from the organisations covered by the scheme as well
23 Jan 2008 : Column 234
3.45 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |