---

Climate Change Bill [Lords]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To implement the targets in the Bill will require funding. My worry about the Department responsible being DEFRA, not the head of the Government, is that the budget of the Department is torn in many different ways. When it is struggling on the farming and rural affairs side, the environment side gets squeezed—as, for example, in the cuts to business recycling projects. During the debate we have heard about cross-party consensus. The vital thing is that whichever of the three major parties is running the country in future, the Bill's targets are enforced. My worry is that we have had intimations this afternoon that if the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) were in charge, he would have exactly the same problems as the Secretary of State will have. The hon. Gentleman's ““Dear Colleague”” letter, which has mysteriously fallen into my hands, pre-empts the concerns that we have heard during the debate about the Bill. He is torn. I think he genuinely wants to go further, but his Back Benchers are trying to rein him in. If we had a change of Government, would we see the targets driven forward? The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill goes far enough already. No one out there in the scientific community thinks so. I shall give an example. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a scientist but I know some people who are. On 21 January four eminent scientists wrote to the Prime Minister. Two of them are former chairs of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, who gave us the 60 per cent. figure in the first place, and the third is the current chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. They write an astonishingly brief letter headed, ““UK Climate Change Bill targets are based on out-of-date science”” and they say—I quote just one sentence:"““In tackling the global challenge of climate change, governments must follow the latest science that clearly shows the need for the UK to reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 80 per cent.””" The last part of the sentence is in bold and is a simple, unqualified statement. The Government's response throughout has been, ““Maybe. We'll ask Adair Turner, if he has any spare time.”” The worry, however, is that even if Adair Turner and his friends come back with 80 per cent., the Government might not accept it. Many Labour Members want 80 per cent., and I genuinely believe that there is support in all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Banbury supports early-day motion 736, which proposes an 80 per cent. target. But the Government's response to those who want the target has been to say, ““We'll see what the Climate Change Committee says.”” If the Climate Change Committee proposes 80 per cent., we need to know that the Government will abide by it; otherwise, it is no reassurance at all. That is my worry about what the Minister said. He was very clear and unequivocal, for which I thank him, but it alarmed me that his defence was, ““We'll ask the committee.”” Even if the committee proposes 80 per cent., we might not get it, and that is not enough reassurance for me. Barely can we open our newspapers without reading another report stressing the urgency of faster and deeper action than is in the Bill. Only last weekend, the Stockholm Network study said that on present policies we will miss our climate change goals in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. We need to go deeper, further and faster, but the worry is that we are relying on outdated science. If there were no number, there might be an argument. One might say, ““The number is constantly moving,”” but the Government—quite rightly, in my view—decided to include a number in the Bill. If we are going to have a number in the Bill, it ought to be the right one, not the wrong one that everyone accepts is wrong but hopes someone will put right later. That should not be the basis on which we legislate. We have already heard from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about some of the problems that will occur if we do not address climate change: the massive environmental migration, the flooding in some areas and the droughts in others, the impact on biodiversity and the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world being hardest hit. Because of that, and because I believe that many Members from all parts of the House are committed to going deeper, further and faster, we have today launched a campaign called CanvassYourMP.com, which is the reverse of the normal model whereby we canvass our constituents. The website went live today. Last week, I got together a group of—I feel a song coming on—10 green bloggers, sitting in a room here at Westminster, to ask, ““How can we empower individuals who want climate change action but feel that they cannot get through?”” They are the individuals who send the postcard and receive the standard reply from the parties, but feel that the message is not getting through. CanvassYourMP.com has been put together by volunteers, and it is even hosted on a wind-powered web server, which is a nice touch. Every Member is listed on the site, and every Member's contacts details and surgery announcements are being posted. We would welcome to the site every Member from every party stating their position on the 80 per cent. issue. We want constituents to go in person, to talk to Members and to tell them about the issue. Many Members from all parts of the House support 80 per cent., and I would very happily put all their pledges on to the site. We want to get together a popular movement to convey to Ministers in particular the strength of public opinion.