Hughes, Bruce, Stunell, Farron, Heath and Horwood on Climate Change (Political Response)

• [Oct 21] Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat): '• . . FOR the Liberal Democrats, "It's not possible" is not an answer. I remind Ministers of what the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said to his party conference: "It is the idealists and optimists that make change happen." We are idealists and optimists, but we are also political realists. There is no bigger crisis than climate change, and I hope the House and the Government will sign up to action this year-not next year, some time or never.'

I beg to move:

That this House believes that it is vital that the UK demonstrates political leadership at all levels in response to the climate crisis, and that this is particularly important ahead of the United Nations Climate Change summit in Copenhagen if there is to be an international agreement which will avert the worst effects of catastrophic climate change; further believes that immediate practical responses to the crisis should include a massive expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency and a commitment for all homes in Britain to be warm homes within 10 years; acknowledges that action taken now to tackle the climate crisis will cost less than action taken in the future; notes the declared support of Labour and Conservative frontbenchers to the objective of the 10:10 campaign which calls for 10 per cent. greenhouse gas emission reductions by the end of 2010; agrees that the House will sign up to the 10:10 campaign; calls on Her Majesty's Government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010; and further calls on the Government to bring a delivery plan before this House by the end of 2009 on how these objectives will be achieved.

We live in an age of crises, and in recent months the economic crisis has most dominated the commentary around the world, the concerns of the public and debates here. However, the global ecological and environmental crisis poses the greater challenge. In some ways happily, although very belatedly, it is now rising to the top of the domestic and international agendas. To put it in context, a UN report this year stated that 300,000 deaths a year are attributable to climate change; that 325 million people are seriously affected at a cost to the global economy of $125 billion a year; and that 4 billion people are vulnerable to climate impacts.

976

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

976

Simon Hughes: Not yet. I am trying to respect the Deputy Speaker's exhortation.

Action on climate change clearly cannot wait any longer, which is why, all over the world, individuals, communities and Governments who have understood the message are taking action. Last week, I was in west Africa. People in Nigeria realise that the wasting of oil and flaring of gas cannot continue; people in Ghana are changing the way they grow their cocoa crops, so that they do not chop down trees as part of the farming process; and people in Sierra Leone understand that deforestation around Freetown cannot continue. More and more people are getting the message. Many people will have seen the film the other day of the extraordinary meeting of the Cabinet of the Government of Maldives to emphasise the threat to that low-lying country, and millions of citizens of more populous countries such as Bangladesh will be at risk if we do not change direction.

Governments all over the world are now working hard-I commend them on that-to get a tough, fair and effective new international deal in a few weeks in Copenhagen, because, in spite of the warnings, for too long there has not been enough action. To put it bluntly, there has been too little action so far, and it has come too late. Many people are saying that the next five years-the lifetime of the next Parliament-is the period in which we will either avert the climate crisis or not.

Today's debate, chosen by me and my colleagues, aims to put the climate crisis centre stage in Parliament and to turn our minds not just to the targets of 2020 or 2050, but to what can be done now.

976

Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

977

Simon Hughes: I will give way to Rob Marris first, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.

Our motion sets out three major areas of political change that we believe are needed in Britain as a whole, as well as some specific things for us to do now. The three major areas are a massive expansion of renewable energy, a wholehearted commitment to energy efficiency and a commitment for all homes in Britain to be warm homes within the next 10 years.

977

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour): May I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole that a debate on the UK's political response to climate change on the Liberal Democrat motion-the Government amendment is hardly better-is monstrous, because the motion says nothing about adapting to climate change? As he has said, people are already dying from climate change. We need to take adaptation just as seriously as the mitigation of emissions.

977

Simon Hughes: I accept that. At our conference last month, we made it clear that the international agreement-the Prime Minister understands the agenda item-of the developed world to put money into the kitty to deal with adaptation and mitigation is just as important. The reason our motion is more focused is that there is a campaign in this county and around the world for action now and next year. We are trying to get the Government and Parliament to make decisions about this country. We are also continuing to exhort our Government to make the right decisions at Copenhagen.

However, the motion adds to the three general propositions that I have set out for the next decade and calls on the Government and Parliament to sign up to the 10:10 campaign-if we pass the motion this evening, that is what we will do-and commit this country and this Parliament to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent. by the end of 2010. At the end of this debate, I shall ask colleagues from all parties to support the motion and reject the amendment. If we make the right decision today, we can bring great credibility to Parliament, we can do the right thing for the people whom we represent and, just as we did a few months ago when we decided to give proper recognition to the commitment and service of the Gurkhas, we can show that Parliament can determine what the nation does, not just the Government.

977

Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In welcoming this opportunity to reaffirm our support for the 10:10 campaign, may I ask the hon. Gentleman why, in focusing his motion, he left out the groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008, the importance of carbon budgeting and the contribution of local authorities? Surely all are vital to success in combating climate change.

978

Simon Hughes: If the right hon. Gentleman had seen the preparation for my speech, he would know that I will applaud the Government for the 2008 Act, as well as the work done in both Houses and by all parties to ensure that the 2008 Act was stronger than originally proposed. He would also know that I am clear that it is a good thing that Departments now have carbon budgets and that the role of local authorities is important.

All those things are important, but the 10:10 campaign is not about those things. The 10:10 campaign is about asking individuals, organisations, companies, councils, the Government and Parliament to make a specific commitment to reduce our emissions by 10 per cent. between now and the end of next year-that is, 10 per cent. by the end of 2010. The campaign builds on the work that we have done, but it is because people believe that the long-term planning is not sufficient that we must now do those things that the right hon. Gentleman and I, as well as many others, no doubt already do in our personal lives and our communities.

978

Several hon. Members:

rose -

978

Simon Hughes: I will take one more intervention in a second and then I will press on.

We have worded the motion in the way that we have because we are talking not about a "tomorrow" problem, but about a "today" problem. Parliament has the authority to make decisions today that can change things from today in the days and months immediately ahead.

978

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Like many in the House, I have personally signed up to the 10:10 campaign, but it is not clear from what he has said so far whether he is calling on Departments or the UK as a whole to cut emissions by 10 per cent. by the end of 2010. Indeed, can he give an indication of the pathway for achieving a 10 per cent. reduction in the country as a whole by 2010?

978

Simon Hughes: I can deal with both those questions, and the answer is yes. I am calling on the Government as a whole to sign up, which would involve all Departments and agencies of Government. The Department for Energy and Climate Change-the Minister's Department-has already signed up, and public sector organisations, such as the national health service, have also done so. The pathway is set out in the motion, which calls on the Government to come back with a programme for how this can be delivered by the end of this year. The Government would be committed to doing that, if the motion were passed. In that way, everyone would know how the Government believe that they can implement the plan. Bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England have made it clear that they can achieve more than a 10 per cent. reduction by the end of next year. This is not impossibilist politics; it is politics for now that would commit not only this Government but whomever is in government after the election to deliver in the months ahead.

978

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat): Is my hon. Friend saying that the strength of the motion and the narrative that he is putting forward is that they seek to involve not only corporations but individuals, and that, as the Centre for Alternative Technology has pointed out, we can achieve this only by working together to create attitudinal and practical change in the way that we, as individuals, live? If we can do that, we can achieve this target. If we do not, we have no hope whatever of doing so.

979

Simon Hughes: That is absolutely correct. I had the privilege of being at the launch of the 10:10 campaign outside the old power station in my constituency that is now Tate Modern. This is a campaign in which ordinary people are saying that they want to do things in their communities. They are also now saying that they want Parliament and the Government to lead and to do the same. I would hazard a guess that, in the constituencies of all my friends-and, indeed, of every colleague in the House-there will be many individuals and organisations that will want us to be bold today, not timid, and to sign up to a campaign that many individuals have signed up to in recent weeks.

979

Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour): We want to be bold in Stoke-on-Trent. We want to sign up to the 10:10 campaign, and it is vital that we work together right the way across Parliament and down to the people at grass-roots level. That is taken as read. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that it would have been helpful if his motion had mentioned the report that was delivered only last week to Parliament from the Committee on Climate Change, entitled "Meeting carbon budgets-the need for a step change"? It is vital that everything that is done on the 10:10 campaign should be done within the framework of the CCC.

979

Simon Hughes: Of course I accept what the hon. Lady says. She has a very good track record. I was present at the announcement of the report to Parliament, and I think that Ministers have already given an undertaking that it will be debated-it is bound to be debated. May I just point out to colleagues, however, that this motion is not meant to encompass every single thing that anyone could ever do, or everything that we should have done? It is designed to focus our attention on the demand that is being made of us to sign up now to a campaign that is gathering support daily around the country. If Parliament and the Government do not sign up to it, it will send a terrible message to other people. We will seem to be saying: "You do the job, but we're not willing to follow."

979

Graham Stuart (Beverley & Holderness, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that we need to be bold, not timid. Is not this therefore the time for the Liberal Democrats to show leadership and to accept the need for new nuclear power if we are to meet our green needs and our energy needs?

979

Simon Hughes: I could be distracted down that road, and I am very happy to have that debate. There is perfectly reasonable debate involving the argument that nuclear power should play a part in our energy mix, but I believe that it is flawed in a huge number of respects. For example, it is too expensive, it will be late and it is too risky. There are all sorts of reasons why it is not a good option, but the really important thing is that we can meet our energy needs without nuclear power. It is not necessary. The Government and the Conservatives, who are allied in their love of the nuclear industry, are wrong about that. My colleagues and I have held to that view over the years.

This country has a particular responsibility in this regard, for three reasons. We have an historic responsibility because we were the country of the industrial revolution and we have contributed hugely to the amount of emissions on the planet. We also have a responsibility because we are a member of the European Union, which has many industrialised countries, and because we are a member of the Commonwealth, which stretches around the world. We must therefore achieve a really strong deal at Copenhagen-a weak deal will not be worth having. I applaud the Prime Minister and his colleagues for the fact that they are working hard to get a good deal at Copenhagen. We boast that we are a world leader, but we have to show that our deeds match our words.

Here, sadly, we have not delivered the goods. We have had a Government target in every manifesto since 1997-there was a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010, for example, but we are barely halfway there. Emissions reductions through the recession do not count; we simply have not delivered. Another Government target was to have 10 per cent. of our electricity through renewables by 2010. We have the best potential source of renewables anywhere. I attended the British Wind Energy Association conference in Liverpool this morning, and I know that the number of people expressing an interest in renewable energy has gone up nearly 50 per cent. since last year alone. Yet where are we? Not at the top of the league table for renewables in Europe, like Sweden, but at the bottom with countries such as Luxembourg. The Minister told me earlier this year that only 1 per cent. of our homes are energy-efficient-we are the cold man of Europe. The Government now support the expansion of Heathrow-blind to the evidence of the need to reduce aviation emissions and still willing to have dirty coal produced in the future. Commitments to the environment have been broken again and again; sadly, we have not delivered.

979

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): In condemning the third runway and expansion at Heathrow, my hon. Friend anticipated my point, but does he agree that it is imperative that we hear from the Conservatives some condemnation of the "Boris island" estuary airport, which would be a climate change and environmental disaster on an even worse scale?

980

Simon Hughes: I say to my hon. Friend, who has led our work on this issue, that it always seemed to me entirely inconsistent for Conservative Members to say on the one hand that they are against expanding Heathrow while saying on the other hand that they are quite happy to have lots more activities in airports elsewhere in the south-east of England. [Interruption.] That is not our policy-absolutely not. If Ministers, civil servants, fellow MPs, local government officers, councillors and all the people in public office used trains rather than planes in this country when they could do-and they set an example, which it is perfectly possible to do in mainland Britain-we would not need the sort of expansion that the Government are now supporting.

We have been committed environmentalists since our Liberal Democrat party was formed in 1988, and many of us were committed even before that. Indeed, I remember flagging up the urgency of climate change in a debate with Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, who was the Minister with responsibility for the matter, in 1988. We argue that the policies must always follow the science. We argue that to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions-this is what the intergovernmental panel on climate change has said-global emissions must peak and decline no later than 2015. We are clear-this was also the point made by Rob Marris-that if we are going to have a sane world, the developed countries will have to give to the developing countries something in the order of £160 billion a year for adaptation and transition. We must continue to reduce our emissions rigorously over the next 10 years and then beyond. We will probably also have to phase out all fossil fuel by 2050.

All that has a fantastic cost-benefit, which is an issue that many people do not understand. Emission cuts are cost saving. The argument that money spent now will be money saved later is becoming increasingly influential. The environmental argument is thus also an economic argument, and in straitened times it seems to me to be a very persuasive argument indeed.

980

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat): Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that the Government have not sufficiently linked those very arguments about people struggling to pay fuel bills in the recession with the need to tackle climate change? It is particularly disappointing that the Government are moving the goalposts on their targets for fuel poverty and saying that the targets will be in place only as long as it is practicable, which makes a nonsense of them altogether.

981

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is right, which is why we have said that one of the most useful things that we can do is have a plan to make every home a warm home. There is a win all round-warmer homes, fewer people dying, lower fuel bills and the climate saved. It is absolutely a winner, and it must be made central to policy.

981

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

981

Simon Hughes: No. I really want to move to a conclusion now, as a huge number of colleagues want to contribute to the debate, which is as it should be. The Government spend £1.6 billion every year on energy. Lord Stern, probably the foremost climate economist in the world, has warned that if we do not take action, between 5 and 20 per cent. of global GDP will be lost due to the effects of climate change. To prevent that, we need to spend about 2 per cent. of global GDP. For every £2 spent now, we could save £5 to £20 in the future. The conclusions are obvious: we should take collective action together. What individuals and companies have done, Government and Parliament should now do too.

Many councils, of all parties and those with no overall control, have signed up to the campaign. Among Liberal Democrat-run councils, colleagues in Camden and Cambridge, Eastleigh and Islington, Richmond and Newcastle, and my borough of Southwark, have signed up. [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend Mark Hunter adds Stockport, and there may be others, including councils run by other parties. Sadly, at City hall in London the other day, the Tories walked out when the motion was put, not allowing the motion to be voted on.

Many organisations have signed up. The Prime Minister has said:

"I fully support the...campaign and its challenge for everyone to cut carbon emissions by 10 per cent. in 2010."

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has said:

"The Government welcomes the...campaign".

Nearly 30 per cent. of Labour Members, nearly 20 per cent. of Conservative Members, and half of Liberal Democrat Members have signed up personally.

If we pass the motion, we can achieve things now. I shall end with a short shopping list: we can ensure that travel arrangements are energy-efficient; we can improve energy awareness and introduce energy efficiency measures throughout the Government estate, so that everyone understands the implications of what they do; and we can reduce heating. As advised by the Sustainable Development Commission among others, if we use renewables to power Government stock, we can save 1.8 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. In this place, we can turn off annunciators, televisions, lights and computers when they are not needed, and people can use the stairs rather than the lifts. We could have tap water rather than bottled war; we could do a phenomenal amount.

In the past year, we have all probably made a little contribution. My orange taxi has stayed in its drive entirely, unmoved-I have cycled or used public transport. If individuals are willing to do that, I hope that Government will now do it, too. At the end of this debate, I hope that colleagues will send this message: low carbon is job creating; action now is cheaper than action later; and we can grasp the low-hanging fruit.

For the Liberal Democrats, "It's not possible" is not an answer. I remind Ministers of what the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said to his party conference:

"It is the idealists and optimists that make change happen."

We are idealists and optimists, but we are also political realists. There is no bigger crisis than climate change, and I hope the House and the Government will sign up to action this year-not next year, some time or never.

• . . Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend Simon Hughes made it clear that the Liberal Democrats are trying to focus on a very simple thing that the House could do today: sign up for the 10:10 campaign. I have absolute admiration for the Minister. Her commitment on this subject is acknowledged and her contribution is huge, but the fact remains that the Government sound like they are looking for excuses not to adopt a motion that her own policies would enable them to deliver if they were implemented. Surely the House should be able to decide whether it signs up for 10:10. If the House votes for the Government amendment, it will be unable to do so; only by voting for the Liberal Democrat motion can the House assert that it wishes to do so.

999

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour): rose-

999

Malcolm Bruce: I shall not take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I will anticipate it. He said that the House of Commons Commission has indicated that it does not wish to go down that route, but that does not prevent the House from saying that it wants it to do so and asking it to think again. The 10:10 website, which I looked at today, says that the House of Commons has the opportunity to sign up for 10:10 today and asks people to ask their MP to do so. If the House does not pass this motion, I assume that tomorrow the website will say, "Parliament failed to join the 10:10 campaign because the Labour Whips would not allow it to do so." Some Labour Members should ask themselves whether they want to be in that position.

999

Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour): The right hon. Gentleman feels strongly that Parliament has to commit to the 10:10 campaign today, but why was that not proposed by the Liberal Democrats as an amendment to the Climate Change Act 2008 when we passed it just a few months ago? Is it not a fact that this is about not a serious, sustained reduction in carbon emissions, but a gimmick to make them feel better?

1000

Malcolm Bruce: Hang on. I did not like the last bit of the hon. Lady's intervention. So 10:10 is a gimmick? Is that what she is saying? The fact is that there was no 10:10 campaign when the 2008 Act went through Parliament, but there is now and it has widespread support individually and collectively. It is right for the House to use this opportunity to give a lead by saying, "We wish to join that campaign as a Parliament," as well as by urging the Government and other bodies to do so.

1000

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour): rose-

1000

Malcolm Bruce: I am anxious to let other people make their speeches.

The point that I want to get across is that all of us have to think hard about the practicalities involved and how we can engage with central and local government on how we can help each other to achieve the aim of joining the campaign.

1000

Joan Ruddock (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour): I have defended, and explained, the Government's position. I have made no mention of the House and its administration, which is a matter for the House. We have not in any way sought to prevent that from happening.

1000

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, and I accept her sincerity. On the other hand, the House faces a practical problem. If it wishes to join 10:10, it needs to vote for the Liberal Democrat motion, because it contains the wording that would allow that to happen. It is unfortunate that the Government, in seeking to amend the motion, did not incorporate that part of it and so, I suggest, make it easier for their own Members to support it. Some Labour Members should examine whether they really want to be in the position of having rejected that option.

1000

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour): rose-

1000

Malcolm Bruce: I cannot take another intervention as others need to speak.

I will come to what Mr. Prescott said shortly-I completely agree with his closing remarks-but before I do, let me say that we need to give people a lot more help domestically to deliver reductions. We are still taking a rather scatter-gun approach. Everybody knows that there are technologies out there, but it is difficult to get hold of them. For example, for the past seven or eight years, I have been told that micro-combined heat and power systems will be available next year-indeed, I am still told that. However, people find it difficult to know how to engage with that process and whether to choose air or water source heat pumps, or where to get them from.

There is still a huge role for solar power in this country, which is totally un-resourced. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman said in a previous incarnation that he would make it a building regulation that solar panels would be incorporated into the roofs of all new houses, but that does not seem to have happened. We therefore need to move towards giving people those opportunities.

I represent a constituency that is a major producer of oil and gas, and it will continue to be so for many decades to come. However, my constituency is also trying to adapt the technologies used for developing oil and gas to support the development of large-scale renewables systems, particularly in the marine environment. That is being done by installing offshore wind farms and tidal and wave technology, as well as other mechanisms to which the technology developed to install oil and gas platforms and pipelines is appropriately adapted. Indeed, we are looking for the opportunity to adapt such technology to deliver on our targets.

The point was made at a presentation in the House only a few months ago that if we are to deliver on our offshore wind targets, we need huge investment in lifting vessels that are capable of installing them, yet there is no indication that that is happening. As a consequence, we will not be able to achieve our targets. I am not criticising; I am simply saying that there is so much to be done if we are to deliver on that.

Finally, on the domestic front, I wonder whether the Government could use their unexpected role as the owner of substantial parts of our financial institutions to give people the mechanisms to invest in renewable technology and, in the process, create the thousands of green jobs that would help us out of the recession and reduce our emissions. There is now a unique and unexpected serendipity of circumstances, which, if the Government joined all those threads together, could enable us to move faster than we are. That is not a criticism of the Government, but perhaps a challenge and an invitation to take that idea forward.

I want to pick up on the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman made about Copenhagen. He is absolutely right: if Copenhagen degenerates into the rich nations' club, with those countries trying to decide how to share out their emissions, there will be no point in going. It is as simple as that. Why on earth should the poor countries of the world sign up to anything that is conducted in that spirit?

As the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, I know only too well that the perpetrators of climate change are us-the developed world-while the victims are the poorest countries in the world. My Committee will be in Bangladesh and Nepal next week. Bangladesh is probably one of the poorest countries in the world that is suffering most from climate change. Half the country could disappear in 20 years unless Bangladesh has not only the mitigation measures, but the adaptation measures-Rob Marris has left the Chamber-to enable it to manage.

As I found out from evidence given to my Committee yesterday, Bangladesh does not need a Dutch solution, because the way that the water flows there is a lot different from how it stands in the Netherlands, and it therefore requires a different set of technologies. Those technologies are ones that the west will have to help Bangladesh with, through both practical resources and technology. We have to commit to undertake to do that at Copenhagen. It is about technology and money.

With that qualification, I welcome the Government's indication that they accept wholeheartedly the limit of 10 per cent. of overseas aid and development for climate change, but I suggest that there might be more strictures than that, and perhaps voluntarily. The second one may not be acceptable, but the first is that we should consider taking climate change investment out of official development assistance only if it also delivers poverty reduction at the same time.

1000

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour): Of course.

1002

Malcolm Bruce: Well, I take that as a given, but it is important that that qualification is written in and the understanding is clear, so that projects are evaluated accordingly.

The second stricture that I was considering was that this proposal would be uncomfortable for the United Kingdom and should perhaps apply only to the countries that have achieved the 0.7 per cent. of GDP. People in poor countries are saying that the 10 per cent. rule implies that 10 per cent. is being skimmed off the development aid that they were expecting in order to deal with climate change, which is a problem of our making from which they are suffering. I agree with the Prime Minister that we must find substantial additional resources, and that we need to make it clear that those resources are going to be transferred from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them to meet the challenge.

I should like to mention one particular exchange with the Prime Minister. At one point, he called for the World Bank to be turned into the environment bank. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and say that that was a well-intentioned suggestion, but our Committee saw the danger of the World Bank, which has as a prime responsibility the reduction of poverty, being subsumed into making climate change a priority. I am glad to say that that proposal has not been pursued. We need to tackle both problems.

The Minister and I were active in the GLOBE forum of legislators, which is still continuing. She and I chaired the first meeting in London, in the run-up to Gleneagles, and another is taking place in Copenhagen this weekend. Legislators from around the world are going to try to help world leaders to come up with a text that is deliverable, that has the support of Parliaments-Governments and Oppositions-and that persuades the poor countries that there is a benefit to be gained, rather than a continuation of their suffering as a result of climate change. If we can bind Parliaments and Governments together, and bind successive Governments to meeting those commitments, we will have achieved a great deal. I believe that the interaction of Parliaments and Governments is the only way to do this, because Governments come and go, but Parliaments, although they change, can continue to provide the steel in the commitment to ensure that we not only make targets but deliver the policies that will make a difference.

• . . Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat): I rise to support my hon. Friend Simon Hughes and this motion. Ever since I entered this House in 1997, I have had a deep interest in this issue and have tried to ensure that this House took it seriously. I served as my party's energy spokesman for about eight years, during which time I shadowed seven Labour Energy Ministers-I believe there were also five Conservative shadow Ministers, so consistency has not always been around in this area.

In 2004, I was fortunate to be top of the ballot and able to introduce the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill in this House. I wish to say to the House and to the Minister that there have been missed opportunities as a consequence of the Government not choosing to implement what was in that Bill, which allowed them to amend the building regulations to take account of the sustainability and efficiency of buildings. The Minister knows this very well, but I wish to remind her that buildings are responsible for more than 60 per cent. of this country's carbon emissions. If we are to make any serious effort to tackle the problem, we have to do something about buildings.

I also wish to remind the Minister that the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004, as the Bill became, has lain dormant for five years and that the Department for Communities and Local Government has a consultation document out on the next generation of building regulations that still does not include any reference to implementing that Act or making any of its provisions legally enforceable. I am not sure, because this has not been mentioned, whether any other Member in the House is aware that the Audit Commission today published a report entitled "Lofty ambitions", which makes the point that the single most important thing that the Government could do to reduce carbon emissions would be to increase the regulatory requirements in part L of the building regulations and commence an immediate programme to tackle the terribly poor standard of our building stock. Such an approach would reduce people's bills, reduce fuel poverty, increase the quality of life of the people living in these houses and help to save the planet.

I was terribly disappointed by the Minister's speech. Mr. Prescott made one of the best speeches that I have heard him make-that is because he is a Back Bencher now. I have heard the Minister make many excellent speeches when she was on the Back Benches, but her contribution today was a terrible disappointment. When she comes to write her autobiography in 30 years' time, she will not have this as her proudest day in support of the environmental movement.

When are the Government going to improve part L of the building regulations? When are they going to take advantage of the 2004 Act, which this Minister supported, as did the Government at the time? When is it going to come into force? May I also ask her when we will have a spark of life on tackling the built environment? Oh, how I agree with Mr. Gummer-we are not building schools for the future; we are building schools just as we did in the past. We have to tackle the issue of public buildings, the built environment in the public sector and homes-the legislation is in place to do so. The Audit Commission wants her to do that, as does the Association of British Insurers. I could cite a tremendously long list here. This House wants her to do it, so for goodness' sake let us start tackling the problem of the building stock now.

• . . Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat): In supporting the motion, I shall restrict my comments exclusively to the Government's failure to demonstrate leadership over climate change when it comes to our food market and reducing food miles.

The world's population is set to increase by 50 per cent. over the next 40 years. Demand for food is set to double in that time, yet the Government have presided over a criminal reduction in this country's food production capacity. That matters, because the Government's target of an 80 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions-to which we all agreed-looks ludicrous when set against the ever-expanding emissions caused by the transportation of rapidly increasing amounts of food from overseas to our tables.

According to the Government's own figures, since 1997 the proportion of imported meat has increased by two thirds, the proportion of eggs that we have imported has tripled, and the proportion of vegetables that we import has risen by one third. In the last two years alone, the proportion of liquid milk that we import has increased by almost 60 per cent. If we are going to tackle climate change, we must ensure that we produce as much as possible of the food that we eat as close to home as we can.

To do that, we have to ensure that we produce more food, not less, with the help of a farming industry that is confident and not fearful about its future. That means that, if we are to reduce carbon emissions, we have to expand our capacity to produce food in the UK. It is one of the easiest things that the Government could do to tackle climate change, and there are thousands of innovative farmers around the country itching to take the lead.

The reduction in capacity is happening because the Government will not tackle seriously the power of supermarkets, which place no environmental standards on their procurement policies and will not act to ensure fair trade for our farmers so that they stay in business. As we have heard, the public sector spends about £2 billion a year on food procurement for Government Departments, schools, prisons and hospitals. The NHS is the largest food purchaser in the country, spending nearly a quarter of the total public sector food budget, yet 75 per cent. of the meat and fish used in our hospitals is imported from abroad.

Another dreadful consequence of the importation of meat products is the destruction of the rain forest. Every 10 minutes, an area the size of 200 football pitches is chopped down in the Amazon rain forest, all to provide pasture land for cattle or to make way for soy plantations to provide feed for them. We could-and should-produce both in this country, slashing food miles and ensuring the preservation of the crucial carbon sink that is the rain forest.

1011

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour): Is the hon. Gentleman going to mention the increased emissions as a result of our huge food waste? That is far more significant than food miles for our CO2 emissions.

1012

Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Lady has read my mind, as I was about to mention that. About one in three of the bags of food that we purchase at the supermarket or wherever is effectively dumped. We wasted £10 billion worth of food in the last year, which is the equivalent of throwing away every third bag. The contribution to harmful emissions from landfill and emissions associated with wasted production is immense. There has been no leadership on tackling that from the Government: they have not attempted to address the wasteful, buy-one-get-one-free culture or, for example, the unbelievably fussy and excessive guidance on sell-by dates. Cutting out that waste would reduce greenhouse gases, as Lynne Jones suggests, by the equivalent of taking one in every five cars off the road.

The Government have also failed dismally when it comes to making sustainable use of food waste. Why are we not transforming organic waste into green energy? In Germany, there are 25,000 anaerobic digesters, but there are only 38 in the UK. I hope that the 39th digester will be opened soon in Casterton in my constituency, but that will be the result of work done by the local community, and despite the Government.

In conclusion, nearly everyone-apart from one or two of the Tories' mates-now accepts that climate change is real and the result of human activity. However, if that is the case, it can be reversed by human activity as well, with "activity" being the important word. It is important that the Government act. They need to do the simple things as well as the difficult things, because they are what will make the difference in this crucial fight. The good news is that some of the simplest things that the Government could do to tackle climate change are to be found in the food market.

• . . David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): It is a delight to hear Alan Simpson talk about fuel poverty in such impassioned terms. That is precisely the issue that I tried to address through the Fuel Poverty Bill which I presented to Parliament and which, shamefully, this Government and this Minister finally killed off last Friday.

As I walk around the parts of my constituency that are below sea level and see the houses that are flooded each year, and as I look at the one-in-25-year and one-in-50-year events that are now happening regularly, the scientist in me says, "You cannot extrapolate from the particular to the general," but my heart tells me that something is going badly wrong. That is what is causing so many people in this country to recognise at long last that there is an urgency to this-that it is something that we cannot wait any longer to deal with.

That is why the 10:10 campaign is so important, and why it is so disappointing to hear the Government, yet again, using all the excuses in the book to say that they will not do something positive about it instead of saying, "This is something that we want to embrace-it's consistent with our principles and what we say we're going to do about public buildings, so yes, we will make it happen." I agree with Mr. Gummer, who made a superb speech in support of the contention that if the Government cannot achieve the 10:10 objectives, they cannot achieve the other objectives that lie in the future.

It is deplorable that the Government, by virtue of deleting the reference in our motion, are not allowing Parliament itself to sign up to 10:10, given that there is hardly a Member in this House who does not believe that the Commission could do the necessary work if it put its mind to it and that we should instruct it to do so. I hope that Labour Back Benchers will be prepared to take a risk tonight and come into the Lobby with us to insist that that should be the case.

1016

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

1017

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): I have only one minute left.

What we have done in this House is considerable, and the Government should take credit for the good things that they have achieved, such as the Climate Change Act. They arrived at it by dint of pressure from all parts of the House, but it is of value. They rejected feed-in tariffs for a long time but eventually accepted them-although I agree that the design of them is deplorable. They are groping towards an energy policy, but there is no coherence to it.

I look at all those things and think that we have an opportunity to arrive at consensus. We are lucky compared with America, where there are divergent views. We generally have a consensus in this country, not just between the political parties but with big business. We have a huge opportunity, and we can do so much more if we shut off the poverty of aspiration that still bedevils us and grasp the fact that doing the right thing is not only right environmentally but right economically. Alan Simpson made that point. So many of the measures that we can take make economic sense, particularly in a recession when we are trying to save money. We can save the environment while saving money and creating jobs, and that should be the aspiration of this House.

• . . Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat): Copenhagen is our last best chance to avoid catastrophe. For 30 years we have known about man-made climate change and I am deeply proud that the Liberal party, all those years ago, was the first British political party to address it. Since then, the science has become clearer and more worrying. There is now a clear global consensus among scientists that climate change is man-made but still preventable by human action-just.

The economics have also become clearer. The sooner and more urgently we act, the less risk of an economic collapse that will make the current recession look like a vicarage tea party. The Stern report spelled that out very clearly. It concluded that an atmospheric concentration of about 550 parts per million CO2 was perhaps adequate as a stabilisation target. It is now pretty clear that that was much too high.

We now know that about 2° C of global warming is all but inevitable, and that there is a significant risk of 4°, 5° or 6° C unless we have a concerted international deal. That would mean catastrophic disruption of food production, irreversible collapse of ice sheets and rain forests, huge areas of the planet rendered uninhabitable and mass displacement of people. With my background in Oxfam, I know what unimaginable human misery that would mean.

As environmental shocks mount, more and more nations realise that a global deal is in their interests. China and India now clearly understand that. They have many of the poorest people in the world, who will be the hardest hit by global warming. They have taken a lead on many issues, including renewable energy and reforestation, in their own countries.

We all agree that Britain also needs to take a lead; Parliament needs to take a lead. I pay tribute to the House of Commons Commission and the parliamentary estates management, which are making efforts. Only this week, they met myself and some of my constituents to attempt to find a solution to the large numbers of high-energy candle lights that proliferate on the estate, which take enormous numbers of people to replace all the time.

1018

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour): I shall ask a question that I asked of Conservative Members. Earlier this week, the Commission decided that it would not sign up to the 10:10 commitment. Nick Harvey, who speaks for the Commission in the House, is a Liberal Democrat. Did he support the Commission's view?

1019

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat): I was giving credit to the Commission for the work that it has done, but I am afraid that on the 10:10 campaign the Chamber must trump the Commission. This is where we decide on Parliament's ambitions.

I also give credit where it is due to the Government. It is fair to say that they have shown leadership in helping to put climate change on the international agenda and introduced the world's first climate change Act, although they were dragged somewhat reluctantly to the target of 80 per cent. However, it was supported by the Government in the end, which is good. They have also shown a commitment to renewable energy and carbon capture and storage, although they showed similar reluctance on feed-in tariffs and left something of a giant loophole in the CCS policy.

However, the Government must also accept that there are some worrying signs of complacency and lack of urgency. As Mr. Gummer pointed out, it does not really compute that the Government can give the go-ahead to the third runway at Heathrow based on flawed calculations of the future cost of climate change while trying to maintain an international position as strong as that of President Obama. The right hon. Gentleman was spot on when he spoke of how much greener most of the stimulus packages around the world are than our own.

There is a constant recitation that we have been on target for Kyoto when, as Gregory Barker pointed out, that target was met long ago by the dash for gas. Actually, if the target is met, it will be partly because of the recession- [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, but it is true.

The Government are at risk of being seen to ask everybody else to act, but not to act themselves. They have an energy bill of some £4 billion and massive buying power. The public sector has the chance to shape entire markets, and how British industry and the private sector respond to the challenge of climate change. It is very worrying that the Minister, I hope in a lapse, described the 10:10 campaign as a gesture- [ Interruption. ] Those were her very words. It is also worrying that she cast doubt on the Government's ability to sign up to 10:10 despite the fact that her Department has done so. Look at the list of organisations that have had that ambition and signed up to 10:10. It includes the Environment Agency; Newcastle, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Bristol universities; 52 local councils responsible for 8.8 million people, including most recently, I am proud to say, Bristol City council; more than 150 schools; 40 NHS trusts; B&Q; Aviva; Microsoft; Atkins Global; and the Royal Mail-the latter does not get everything right, but it has signed up to the 10:10 campaign. It is a fantastic campaign that has finally captured the real sense of urgency that is needed to put us on almost a war footing-that psychology that we must act soon to avert catastrophe.

We have had one or two regrettably partisan and bad-tempered speeches. Nigel Griffiths claimed that the Liberal Democrats opposed wind power at local level. I can tell him about York, Leeds, Ipswich, Lewes, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Islington, West Berkshire, Devon, Vale of White Horse and Cornwall-I do not have time to finish the list. However, we have mostly heard real passion and wide support on both sides of the House. Many of the contributions have shown why the 10:10 campaign has captured the public imagination.

I am proud to have followed my hon. Friend Simon Hughes, who has shown leadership on environmental issues for a few decades-I will not embarrass him by saying how many-and helped to make the Liberal Democrats such a green party.

To the Conservative Front Bench, I say that I forgive their nuclear peccadilloes and some of the people with whom they keep company in Europe on climate change, and the occasional Back-Bench outburst on wind power, and pay tribute to Gregory Barker on his articulate defence of the 10:10 campaign. He rightly pointed out that there is no conflict between carbon budgets of the kind supported in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the 10:10 campaign commitment. In fact, I would go further and say that committing to 10:10 will make those carbon budgets easier and cheaper to achieve for the British economy.

I also give credit to Alan Simpson and all those Labour Back Benchers who have signed up to the 10:10 campaign. I hope that they are prepared, just this once, to defy the party Whips and do the right thing for this country, for the planet and the environment.

I make a final appeal to the Minister. She has a proud record as a political campaigner. Many members of my party have followed her on marches in the past and listened to her defiance of the establishment. Her Secretary of State has asked for a popular mobilisation to help to push through action on climate change. Well, we have got that. It is called the 10:10 campaign and tonight is the night when we can take a decision as a Parliament to support it. The Minister has signed her Department up to it and she says that Departments are working hard to improve their admittedly miserable record to date. It is therefore a mystery why she will not allow her colleagues to commit the whole Government-or at least this Parliament-to the 10:10 campaign. This is our chance to send the clearest possible signal to campaigners across the country and negotiators on Copenhagen across the world that we are committed to urgent action. The truth is that the Minister probably does support this campaign and it is the establishment in the Treasury, No. 10 or Lord Mandelson's Department who have got to her. This is the moment when she should join hon. Members on both sides of the House, rediscover her radical roots, be brave, ambitious and bold, and believe that together we can do more than we think we can-and support this motion.

David Howarth: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question. The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 297. Question accordingly negatived.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament