| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
However, the Bill does not provide any detail about the nature of this concordat and the amendment is designed to set out the procedure to be used for reaching agreement and also to provide that the agreement shall make provision for the consequences of failure to reach an agreement and what alternative actions may be pursued by the national authorities.
It is of great regret that my noble friend Lady Carnegie of Lour has not been able to stay on because she has already addressed this question tangentially on one or two other areas during the evening. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson: My Lords, we on these Benches generally welcome what we think is a useful set of amendments to clarify and increase the co-operation with the other national authorities. This should not be too much of a difficulty for the commercial sector. Within the EU ETS, everything is plant-based—that is “plant” in terms of “site”, rather than of vegetation—not company-based, so about half of emissions are already there within the reporting systems. If that were the case in every other area as well, it would be possible to divide out carbon emissions in terms of energy consumption by area. The difficulty of that might be transport.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, that is true to a degree, but of course aviation is not plant-based. Is the noble Lord suggesting that we should try to split down aviation emissions even further into what comes from Wales, from Scotland and from Ireland? If so, does he anticipate that Scotland will refuse to have any international flights in and out for English residents?
Lord Teverson: My Lords, that is a good question. As I have said, it should be quite straightforward to write rules for this area; no rule is perfect and you have to choose the best. Given that airports in particular are in specific geographical locations and, on the whole, are not movable—unlike the planes that go in and out of them—I should have thought that it would be no more difficult than for any other area. I do not disagree that there could be issues with that,
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1074
On the whole we welcome this. There are questions about how disagreement by one of the national authorities will be resolved. To me, this is a fascinating area. There will be other policy areas where there has to be some sort of federal agreement by unanimity. I should be interested to hear from the Minister of other areas of policy at the moment that require agreement by all national authorities, what operates there, how that is dealt with and how that might be used in relation to the Bill.
9.30 pm
Lord Rooker: My Lords, at this time of night, with the Bill progressing excellently, I do not want to strike a note of dissent, but I have to say that I will be watching with interest when the Bill goes down the other end, where Members of the Scottish Executive will be looking at it. Although everything here has been done in a positive way, the underlying tone, both here and in Committee, is of failure; that is, we will never get agreement on this, they do it differently north of the border, and what are we going to do if it does not work? It is nitpicking and expects failure. Since it was introduced, we have been trying to make devolution work. There are lots of issues in Whitehall where even today we are at the edge and we have discussions. Sometimes we agree; other times we do not.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked me for an example. I will give him one. Tomorrow, although I have now forgotten the long title, the new farm animal genetics advisory committee will meet. It is a new non-departmental UK-wide public body that was set up without the slightest difficulty after discussions between Defra, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That was done under the concordat and under our normal procedures for taking the Government forward with devolution when UK issues are involved. That is a good example. It was only today that we announced the membership. It will have its first meeting tomorrow. I have got that off my chest and I feel better about it now.
Issues have been raised to which I want to respond. In the other place, there are representatives of the Scottish Executive, because of the results of the elections last year. There will therefore be a different debate there. I say in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who I understand cannot be with us at this time of day, that the draft Climate Change Bill was published in March last year before the elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. For that reason, it made no provision on devolution, but a disclaimer stated that these issues were still to be agreed. Following the elections, the devolution aspects were agreed between June and September. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly passed legislative consent Motions in the autumn. It has been hinted that the Bill is not meeting
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1075
This group of amendments looks at various aspects of how the national authorities are involved in processes under the Bill. We discussed the overall issues in Committee. The provisions of the Bill have been agreed with the devolved Administrations and consent Motions have been passed. As I have mentioned previously, we are developing a detailed concordat with the devolved Administrations which will set out how we work with them to meet the Bill’s requirements. This is the best way to ensure that our efforts are properly co-ordinated.
When we discussed the issue in Committee, one of the big questions raised was what the devolved Administrations were doing to tackle climate change. I hope that I can reassure your Lordships that all three are strongly committed to contributing to emissions reductions. For example, the Scottish Executive have recently launched consultation on a proposed Scottish climate change Bill and a target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Within the One Wales agreement, Welsh Ministers have committed to a number of actions to address climate change, including an annual 3 per cent carbon-equivalent emission reduction in areas of devolved competence. The Assembly Government have also established a Climate Change Commission for Wales that will work towards building consensus on climate change in Wales and assist the development of new policies.
The key driver for action on climate change in Northern Ireland is the Northern Ireland sustainable development strategy, which includes strategic objectives and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent by 2025. Specific actions include reducing electricity consumption by 1 per cent annually to 2012, making the government estate carbon neutral by 2015, improving energy efficiency in buildings and encouraging renewable energy sources. Perhaps I may give a little plug: virtually all that work in Northern Ireland was initiated and driven forward when Peter Hain became the Secretary of State. When we were direct rule Ministers, he made it a top priority to get cracking on it. It has been accepted and embraced by business and politicians in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Environment Minister has also made a commitment to reconsider a Northern Ireland emission reduction target once the certainty of the Northern Ireland emissions baseline has been established. So we think the Bill takes the right approach in working with the other authorities.
Amendment No. 115, along with Amendment No. 95, would require the UK Government to publish the results of consultation with the devolved Administrations. It would not be right for the UK Government to be given that responsibility. It will be for each devolved Administration to decide whether it wishes to publish its representations. We have devolved: we have to let go from Westminster. If devolution is to work, those Administrations have to make that decision. In any case, the Secretary of State is under a duty to say how he has taken the representations into account. That
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1076
There are well established procedures for resolving differences between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, as set out in the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (Command Paper 5240). This Memorandum of Understanding established the Joint Ministerial Committee, consisting of UK Government, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers, which has as one of its functions a role in resolving disputes. As I mentioned earlier, we will draw up a detailed concordat with the other national authorities in relation to the Bill. In the interests of transparency and continued constructive relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, we expect to publish the concordat when finalised. That will have to be after Royal Assent, since the precise detail of the concordat depends on the final provisions of what is included in the Climate Change Act. That is the reality of the situation.
Amendment No. 233 would require that we legislate for an agreement that sets out what happens if national authorities are unable to agree on an issue under the Bill. That is exactly what is already provided for—albeit not in legislation—in broad terms under the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding. We do not want to be heavy-handed about this.
I was asked a specific question about the carbon units themselves. The department has prepared a briefing paper on carbon accounting, which I am happy to share with interested colleagues. I shall ensure that it is sent to the normal circulation list without noble Lords having to apply for it. The UK already has a well established system for tracking carbon units under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. That system has an excellent track record and has so far been licensed to 16 countries in addition to the UK. The UK Emissions Trading Registry is administered by the Environment Agency. It is a web-based system developed by Defra which facilitates the distribution, trade and surrender of emissions allowances, but it is a UK-wide system. The devolved administrations do not have carbon accounts under the Bill.
I hope that that is considered to be a positive response. I understand why questions have been asked and I am not saying that they are all negative, but we are trying to make devolution work and procedures are in place, not just for the Climate Change Bill but for a whole range of issues where there are a mixture of devolved and non-devolved issues. My day job deals with farming, which is an EU issue and a devolved issue, so it is one that I am familiar with.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have listened with some care to what the Minister said because this is a difficult technical issue. I appreciate his difficulty in that we cannot have a concordat on the Bill until we have the Bill. Equally, it is difficult for us in drafting the Bill to know what we have to put into it until we know the contents of the concordat. There is an awful danger that we will start to go round in a whirlpool and get nowhere and that is the last thing that we want to happen.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1077
I can give my noble friend one marginal assurance. He asked a very similar question to mine at the end of Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, answered as best she could at the time about how all the Ministers in Scotland in particular would work together with the other devolved Administrations and the Secretary of State. Although she gave as competent an answer as she could, subsequently, one of the officials came across and said that the answer lay in the devolution Bills and quoted the relevant paragraphs. I am somewhat surprised that they did not put that into the Minister’s brief tonight. It still leaves us with a dilemma. Will the Minister assure us that the concordat, when it is finally arrived at, will contain sufficient requirements to report the actual details of the carbon budget for Scotland, so that the Secretary of State will have enough information to provide a sufficiently accurate carbon statement budget when he has to do so? Without that assurance we are in great difficulty.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance as regards the noble Lord’s question but he expressed the matter the wrong way round. The concordat will follow the Bill. We are not drafting the Bill in order to write a concordat. We are legislating through the Bill—that is the key issue—with as much co-operation as possible from the devolved Administrations. At the end of that stage the concordat will be agreed, based on the Bill. As I say, it is not necessary to draft the Bill in order to write the concordat. That is the wrong way round. However, there must be sufficient information to provide as much transparency as possible and I am sure that is exactly what the Scottish Administration want.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for taking this whole issue a good stage further. I cannot say that we have necessarily got to the end of it but I think that we all have a great deal more understanding.
Amendment No. 79 does not lay down the exact detail of what the devolved Administrations might have to contribute. The advice of the climate change committee could be sought if we are trying to separate out the measure. However, we are clear that devolution means that the devolved Administrations will each decide what they are going to do. They will have full rein to decide by how much they wish to reduce their carbon footprint. That will form the basis on which the UK carbon budget is set and the balance will be picked up by Westminster. But will we look at how the measure has been fulfilled and at how the different Administrations have carried out what they promised to do? As we said, if some of the policies have been more successful than others, it would be good to review them.
As the Minister said, the draft Bill was published before the March election and the devolved Administrations agreed to the Bill that came before your Lordships’ House. However, in passing the legislative consent Motion the devolved Administrations do not go into the Bill in quite the same detail as we do here. Therefore, we should consider whether certain phrases
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1078
The Minister is on record as saying that the concordat will be published. That does not happen with all concordats and it will be very useful to see it. The carbon accounting system developed in London will be used for the national management of carbon accounts. Presumably, the devolved Administrations will either have to buy into that system or develop their own. It would be useful to have feedback on how they manage their accounts and consider the effect that has on the overall UK position. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 pm
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 81:
(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after laying a statement before Parliament under section 14 in respect of a period for which the net UK carbon account exceeds the carbon budget, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals and policies to compensate in future periods for the excess emissions.
(2) So far as the report relates to proposals and policies of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland department, it must be prepared in consultation with that authority.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 15 [Final statement for 2050]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Alteration of carbon budgets]:
Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 87:
“( ) An order setting the carbon budget for a period may not be amended after the period has ended.”
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. We accept its recommendation that the Bill should explicitly rule out the possibility of amending carbon budgets after they have finished. One of the underlying aims of the carbon budgeting system is to provide certainty for investors and the public about the Government’s ambitions for reducing emissions.
The Bill allows for carbon budgets to be amended, but only in limited circumstances, following advice from the Committee on Climate Change and a vote in both Houses of Parliament. We believe that this provides the right balance between providing certainty for investors and the public and the flexibility to respond to significant changes since the budget was set.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1079
As it stands, the Bill is ambiguous about whether a budget may be amended after the end of the period. As the Delegated Powers Committee and others have pointed out, the option to do so could undermine the investor confidence that the Bill is specifically designed to provide. The amendment therefore accepts the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation and would make it explicit that a budget cannot be amended after the period has finished. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, we thank the Minister for introducing the amendment, which would restrict the order-making power for amending carbon budgets by preventing the Secretary of State amending the budget once that period has ended. This is a sensible amendment, which is in line with the sort of thinking that has motivated many of our amendments.
We are pleased to see that the Government are finally starting to table amendments that limit the ability of the Secretary of State to tinker with the rules to make his life easier. The scenario was perfectly possible before the amendment, especially considering the provisions for banking and borrowing, that a Secretary of State could have amended a previous period such that the actual emissions reduction was 1 per cent over the limit and then could have banked that reduction to ease his burden later on. That is the sort of thing that we certainly hope Ministers in future will not engage in. None the less, we have tried to ensure that it does not happen.
Thus, when the Government come forward to close up a potential loophole such as this one, we should be thankful. It shows that although we might disagree on a number of points, our attitudes might be converging on issues such as tightening the accountability and responsibility of the Secretary of State. In short, it is good to see that the Government, at least in this instance, are keen not to give the Secretary of State a way to let himself off the hook. We welcome the amendment.
Lord Teverson: My Lords, after that ringing endorsement, I would love to be able to argue the other way, but on this occasion I will not do so. This reminds me of my favourite novel, 1984 by George Orwell, in which after a period was finished they would revise history to fit the circumstances at the time. I am pleased to say that the amendment prevents that, and therefore I welcome it.
It also struck me that I have to be careful not to be hypocritical here. I was a corporate economist for part of my career, and I spent a lot of time forgetting certain of my forecasts and moving on to my more recent ones. I am glad that will not happen for the carbon budgets in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome from both opposition parties for this extremely sensible amendment. I only slightly cavilled at the suggestion that any Secretary of State would tinker with the budget; a useful amendment might have crossed his or her mind. As the House will see, we have followed the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation.
4 Mar 2008 : Column 1080
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Consultation on alteration of carbon budgets]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 89:
“( ) As soon as is reasonably practicable after giving its advice to the Secretary of State, the Committee must publish that advice in such manner as it considers appropriate.”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |