Mr. Neil Walker:

The UK is unusual in having such advanced climate legislation. It is the exception rather than the norm. Every member state has transposed EU legislation that would have the impact of promoting renewables, energy efficiency, building standards, sustainable transport or reducing carbon emissions but few have introduced a climate Bill, which has targets that do not specifically relate to what has been negotiated in Brussels. We have an effort sharing agreement on renewables, energy efficiency and climate targets for the non-emissions trading sector. The way those targets were reached was through modelling similar to Dr. Brian Ó'Gallachóir's, except that he reckons they got the numbers wrong. Although there was meant to be an equal sharing of the burden, the numbers for Ireland are much higher because they did not take proper account of agriculture, but then Ireland's target was adjusted upwards as part of social cohesion. Instead of us getting 16%, we got 20% and we were meant to carry more of the burden than other less wealthy EU states. They thought we were rich back in 2006 and we would help them. The question is whether we would help them by going the extra mile doing domestic abatement at ever-increasing cost or whether we would have financial transfers to cause abatement to be done at a lower cost, thereby helping economic development in poorer countries. That is different from buying dubious credits from Third World countries where there have been issues about how real they are. This is within the EU and the Commission wants us to promote social cohesion. Target setting is a complex process, which is negotiated in Brussels.

The UK does many things well but it has determined its climate targets without adequate reference to the EU policy framework and one of the unintended consequences, for example, of the carbon price law is to depress the price of carbon in the European market. It has targets up to 2050 but if the Senator Googles it, he will find in two minutes that there has been a series of public spats between the committee on climate change and the Government. Perhaps he will say that is holding the government to account but has it been constructive? I invite him to form his own view.