 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
Climate Change Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Sara
Howe Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 3 July 2008(Morning)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Climate Change Bill [Lords]9
am
The
Chairman: I am very conscious, gentlefolk, of the common
aspirations of the Committee in so far as climate change is concerned.
With that in mind, I have a serious announcement to make. I have good
news and bad news. The good news is that this is the last occasion on
which members of the Committee will have to suffer somewhat bilious
interpretations of “Erskine May” and the pedantic
application of Standing Orders by me. As of today, hon. Members will be
left to the tender mercies of Mr. Peter Atkinson for the
remainder of our proceedings. The bad aspect is the fact that in my
experience in the position of Chairman, which is considerable, members
of the Committee will not do justice to the proposals within the time
set under the programme motion unless there is a major adjustment in
presentation techniques. I offer that advice in the spirit of kindness
and in the hope of helping to sort out our climatic
problems. I
also want to point out that this is a maiden occasion for Minister
Ruddock, so I ask members of the Committee to be
gentle.
Schedule 1The
Committee on Climate
Change
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Joan Ruddock): I beg to move amendment No. 10, in
schedule 1, page 46, line 17, leave out paragraph 16 and
insert— ‘The Adaptation
Sub-Committee (1) There
shall be a sub-committee of the Committee, to be known as the
Adaptation Sub-Committee or, in Welsh, as yr Is-bwyllgor Addsau
(referred to in this paragraph as “the
ASC”). (2) The ASC shall
consist of— (a) a person
appointed by the national authorities to chair the ASC (“the ASC
chair”), and (b) not
less than five other members appointed by the national
authorities. (3) The national
authorities must— (a)
consult the chair before appointing the ASC chair,
and (b) consult the ASC chair
before appointing the other members of the
ASC. (4) The ASC must provide
the Committee with such advice, analysis, information or other
assistance as the Committee may require in connection with the exercise
of its functions
under— (a) section
37(1)(c) (advice etc to national authorities on adaptation to climate
change), (b) section [Advice of
Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on
impact of climate change), or
(c) section [Reporting on progress in connection
with adaptation] (reporting on progress in connection with
adaptation).’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 80, in schedule 1, page 46, line
31, at end insert— ‘( )
sustainable
development.’. Government
amendments Nos. 11 and 14 to
18.
Joan
Ruddock: It is a pleasure to work in Committee under your
chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I assure you, at the outset, that no
coffee cups are in sight.
Forgive me if
my speech seems a little lengthy, but I will certainly shorten what I
have to say on future occasions. The amendments are the first of a
comprehensive package of Government amendments to clarify the role of
the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change. All
members of the Committee know that the debate on climate change within
and outside the House has focused mainly on mitigation, so I want to
stress that the completely new adaptation duties and powers under the
Bill show how seriously the Government take the need to adapt to
climate change.
The original
provisions have been strengthened as a result of the debate in the
other place. We have also listened carefully to the arguments put
forward about adaptation and agree that expert advice and scrutiny of
how the Government assess the risks and implement the programme are
important and useful. An adaptation sub-committee of the Climate Change
Committee could have a useful role, and we therefore propose to accept
the principle of the changes made in the other place to establish the
sub-committee on adaptation issues. However, we believe that the
committee should have a slightly different role from that set out in
the Bill, and we have tabled amendments in that regard. We shall
discuss the functions of the Committee on Climate Change when we deal
with clauses 34 and 35.
Amendment No.
10 would establish an adaptation sub-committee or, in Welsh, an
is-bwyllgor addsau of the Committee on Climate Change. First, it
provides that the job of the sub-committee is to offer advice,
analysis, information and other assistance to the Climate Change
Committee. That reflects the fact that other amendments would give the
committee the function of advising the national authorities and
reporting to Parliament on adaptation issues. Secondly, the amendment
would clarify the appointment processes and provides that not only the
Secretary of State, but the national authorities should appoint the
chair and members of the adaptation sub-committee. That is in line with
the arrangements made for the Climate Change Committee itself and
reflects the fact that it is to be a sub-committee of that body.
Thirdly, the amendment provides for the sub-committee chair to be
appointed from the committee’s core membership following
consultation with its chairman and for at least five other members of
the sub-committee to be appointed after consultation with the
sub-committee chair. In practice, we expect sub-committee members to be
appointed through open competition following Office of the Commissioner
for Public Appointments rules, and we will ensure that the overall
membership will bring together a range of environmental, social and
economic expertise.
Amendment No.
10 proposes to delete, and not replace, paragraph 16(3), which sets out
a list of relevant criteria for the appointments. We are not making any
equivalent provision for a number of reasons. First, adaptation policy
is at an early stage of development. It is liable to change as we make
further developments in science and as we develop better solutions to
adapting sustainably. Putting a list in the Bill would prevent our
changing the membership of the committee in coming decades. Secondly,
the nature of adaptation and the work of the ASC, as it is currently
defined, are broad, and a comprehensive list would be very long.
Thirdly, for the first ASC we want to work with stakeholders, such as
environmental NGOs and utility companies as well as a range of
statutory bodies, to draw up a list of the expertise that is needed. We
must also ensure that the ASC does not duplicate existing expert advice
so that it provides value for money. The list will be agreed with the
chair of the ASC. The ASC must be competent in all the pillars of
sustainable development—the environment, including biodiversity,
the economy and impacts on society. Those need to be grounded in robust
science and in expertise in delivering the changes that we
require.
Amendment No.
80 would add “sustainable development” to the list of
expertise of the ASC. As I have already said, we do not believe that
there should be any such list in the Bill. Therefore, we cannot accept
the amendment. That is not to say that we do not support the principles
behind the amendment. Let me assure the Committee that we are committed
to taking a sustainable approach across our climate change policies and
that we will deliver our adaptation programme in the context of
sustainable development.
Clearly, the
ASC must have a broad understanding of the context in which the
Government work. Adapting to the impacts of climate change is itself a
good example of actively practising sustainable development. We are
working to embed sustainable adaptation across all Government policy
areas as part of our adapting to climate change programme. The Bill
commits the Government to deliver an adaptation programme that
contributes to sustainable development. The environmental aspects of
sustainable development and specific policies, such as those on
biodiversity, are key to developing a truly sustainable adaptation
programme and will be given due consideration in cross-cutting work on
adapting to climate change. For example, we are already working with
out statutory environment advisers Natural England and the Environment
Agency on the risk assessment and the statutory guidance.
Although
amendment No. 80 raises the important issue of sustainable development,
I do not accept that that issue needs to be put in the Bill. We must
maintain flexibility, and any list needs to be developed in
consultation with stakeholders and the chair of the
sub-committee. Government
amendment No. 14 proposes to amend clause 37 by adding that the
Committee on Climate Change, with the sub-committee’s help, must
provide any further advice on adaptation issues that may be requested
by the Secretary of State or any of the devolved Administrations. The
committee is a UK-wide body and adaptation issues will vary in
different countries. It is important that the devolved Administrations
make proper use of the expertise that the committee and sub-committee
can provide.
Having
established an adaptation sub-committee through Government amendment
No. 10, we have also tabled a series of amendments, Government
amendments Nos. 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which tidy up some of
the governance arrangements on the provision of information, guidance
and directions to the Committee on Climate Change. They mirror the
existing provisions around the mitigation functions of the
committee. Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I suppose that it was
inevitable that in accepting the establishment of an adaptation
sub-committee, which we welcome, the Government would wish to
substitute their own wording for that used by the House of Lords. I am
somewhat concerned that the competencies that were detailed by our
noble Friends and neighbours have been removed in the
Government’s wording, and I am not sure that I understand the
logic. Once again, the Government have simply transferred something
specific in the Bill into a good intention. That seems to be a rather
pointless exercise, especially as it removes the wording that our
amendment No. 80 seeks to
add. We
want to add to the list of competencies for the ASC the concept of
sustainable development. That issue has already been discussed in this
Committee, but our feeling is that there is a slight risk that a
complete list of the various competencies, including ecology, science,
public health and risk management, might be rather less than the sum of
its parts, and that it is important to impress upon the ASC during its
establishment the need to bring the different strands
together. Let
me give an example that shows how there might be a temptation, in
adaptation in particular, to take a more short-term view than the main
committee. Flood risk is something that I, as a Gloucestershire MP, am
aware of and consider important. However, in certain circumstances,
dealing with it could lead to a large amount of civil engineering and
substantial defensive work that is consistent with risk management,
which is one of the other competencies on the list, but might be an
inappropriate and unsustainable response to an evolving climate
pattern—in fact, it might contribute more carbon emissions than
it
prevents. We
seek to insert the words “sustainable development” in the
list to ensure that the group as a whole takes a holistic approach, and
that the ASC in particular respects Gro Harlem Brundtland’s
original request that the principles of sustainable development be
reflected in policy around the
world. Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): Good morning,
Mr. Cook. Adaptation is often seen as the Cinderella of the
climate change agenda, and the advocates of a robust and ambitious
adaptation strategy often feel that they are crowded out of the debate
by those who are concerned only with the threat of climate change and
solutions to it. Unfortunately, we cannot choose between a climate
change strategy that focuses on the solutions and adaptation. The
science tells us that climate change is inevitable; it is just a matter
of whether we can hold back the most dangerous consequences of man-made
climate change. Therefore, adaptation is
vital. There
are those who would argue that adaptation ought to be central to the
Climate Change Committee’s remit and that giving it to a
sub-committee somehow makes it a junior, or lesser, part of the agenda.
Some would say that we are trying to pigeonhole the adaptation agenda
at a rank below that which it ought to occupy.
I understand those
concerns, but I do not agree with them. Their lordships in the other
place were right to establish the ASC, because it will require a
slightly different skills set from the one that may be present on the
committee, which will be of a relatively limited
size. 9.15
am We
have pushed for an enlarged committee, but the Government did not
accept that. Given that there will be a relatively small number of
experts on that panel, it is right that the sub-committee should have a
clear adaptation focus. As important as a robust, ambitious adaptation
strategy is, a clear communication strategy is needed, too, so that it
is not sidelined in the public
debate. We
Conservatives have no substantive problems with any of the amendments
tabled on the ASC. However, it is necessary to ask the Minister just to
clarify a couple of points. In respect of the Government’s
amendment to schedule 1(16), will she explain why the national
authorities should appoint the ASC chair, when it is meant to be a
non-political appointment? No such requirement existed in the original
provision. Why did the Government feel it necessary to make that
significant
change? The
hon. Member for Cheltenham has made some sensible points about
amendment No. 80. I am happy to say that I support the inclusion of the
words “sustainable development” in the required expert
criteria for prospective ASC members. We have already had the debate
about the importance of sustainable development and the need for an
accurate, clear
definition.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 4 July 2008 |