Climate Change Bill [Lords]

[back to previous text]

Clause 55

Report on impact of climate change
Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 55, page 25, line 35, at end insert
‘including in particular the risks of harm to—
(a) the well-being of the population,
(b) the environment, including natural resources, biodiversity, living organisms and ecological systems of which they form part, and
(c) the economy.’.
Members of the committee will have heard me speak on more than one occasion over the past few sittings. Colleagues on the Opposition Benches have echoed my concern that the Bill does not give sustainability, particularly protection of the natural environment, the prominence that it deserves in decision making. Clause 55 requires the Government to prepare risk assessments and adaptation programmes in response to the dangers of climate change.
Although clause 55(2) requires programmes of action to further sustainable development, that duty as currently drafted will not secure adequate protection or enhancement for our natural environment, nor will it guarantee that the poor and vulnerable in society do not suffer disproportionately from the impacts of climate change. That is why we feel it necessary to state those requirements specifically in clause 55.
Precedent shows that stand-alone sustainable development duties unfortunately rarely delivered a step change in the sustainability of policies and practices on the ground, without additional legal underpinning. The Sustainable Development Commission recognised that fact in a recent review of sustainable development duties, of which there are now over 100 in law. We cannot afford to risk applying a meaningless or toothless duty to the Government in the case of adaptation policy. There are important decisions to be made in all sectors, which, if we get them wrong, will further erode our natural environment and resource base, but if we get them right, could help to protect and enhance those vital assets for the future.
The water sector provides a good illustration of that point. To be truly sustainable, responses to droughts and floods must work with and benefit from healthy wetland ecosystems and the services they provide, such as flood storage and water purification. Responses focused wholly on new hard floor flood defences can damage the environment further and reduce its ability to support human needs in the future, and will ultimately cost society more.
At present, while lip service is paid to sustainable approaches to adaptation of the water sector, there is no clear obligation on any part of the Government to ensure that they are put into place. To drive truly sustainable adaptation, the Bill needs to ensure that the Government take full account of the natural environment and the services that it provides, both when undertaking their risk assessments and designing their adaptation programme. We should also take full account of the risks posed to the poor when securing justice. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on particular risks of harm to our population, our environment, biodiversity and the health of our economy from the impacts of climate change.
Martin Horwood: I shall not detain the Committee for long. My only criticism of the amendment is that it is a bit of gold-plating. Surely the impact of climate change will be judged by a competent committee to include its impact on the well-being of the population and on the environment, including natural resources. However, there is no harm in specifying that in the Bill so I welcome the amendment.
Proposed paragraph (b), in particular, specifies the importance of natural resources,
“biodiversity, living organisms and ecological systems of which they form part”.
It is well-worded, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on the phraseology used. The wider impact on ecosystems of our plans to respond to and adapt to climate change is important. It is not simply a process of reducing carbon emissions, but consideration of their total impact on our natural environment. That is a welcome clarification and would reinforce what might already be in the Bill.
Joan Ruddock: I am sorry that I shall have to resist the amendment, as I have been advised to do. I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Cheltenham said. We all know that sustainable development is crucial to our work.
Joan Walley: In view of what my hon. Friend is saying about sustainable development, will she clarify what difference the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg made so that we can ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect our natural resources and ecosystems not only in the United Kingdom, but globally?
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the extraordinary meeting in Johannesburg. I was fortunate to be present, and it has made an enormous difference to the world, particularly to some developed nations, such as our own, which, in our rush towards development, have so often neglected our natural environment. However, the lessons have been learned and, as she knows, they have been learned throughout the Government.
The amendment contains a list. Although it has the virtue of being shorter than some of the other lists included in the Bill and proposed in the other place, there is still a problem with it. All the factors listed would easily be included in any understanding of sustainable development. I know that it is boring repetition, but we have defined sustainable development as living within environmental limits that clearly cover biodiversity and ecosystems, and the achievement of a just society. That clearly includes realising the impacts on the most vulnerable and the poorest people, and we do that by means of a sustainable economy, good governance and sound science.
The amendment would insert into the Bill a reference to particular factors in respect of the climate change risk report. Clause 55(1) already requires an assessment of the risks to the UK arising from climate change. Obviously, that means all risks, so potential climate risks would be covered, including the factors that the hon. Gentleman proposes. In a sense, by putting in a short list, the scope is reduced. Also, some issues, possibly including the built environment, would not easily fall under the list as currently worded.
Gregory Barker: Does the Minister not believe that the built environment is covered by the reference to the environment?
Joan Ruddock: There is a problem of understanding. Many people understand “the environment” to mean the green environment. In speaking to his own amendment about biodiversity and ecosystems, the hon. Gentleman was alluding primarily to the green environment, as distinct from the built environment. We want to ensure that the drafting of the Bill takes all possible factors into account.
It will, I hope, give the hon. Gentleman some comfort to know that we have already appointed our statutory advisers on the environment—Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. They will be part of the steering group for the work to ensure that sustainable development, especially the environment in the way that the hon. Gentleman intends it, is given due regard. I cannot accept amendment No. 69.
Gregory Barker: I am sorry to hear the Minister’s response. This is not a central feature of the legislation but it is important for the legislation to be clear to the layman. It should not require or presume a specialist knowledge of the jargon or the vocabulary of the environmental industry. People out there, our constituents, should be able to pick up any part of the Bill and understand it as much as possible on a stand-alone basis.
The inclusive list—which does not exclude anything, although I am sure we could tweak it to improve it—would contribute to the general understanding of the Bill. It is a welcome reminder that climate change embraces disparate topics from the well-being of the population through to the economy. It is important to remind people of that and not fall back on a rather ghastly piece of jargon, however well intended and well defined it may be. Sustainable development means many different things to many different people, however it is defined in the legislation. It is worth reiterating that we are concerned not only with the well-being of the population or our economy, but with biodiversity, living organisms and ecological systems. I am wearing my biodiversity tie today, just to prove the point.
Joan Ruddock: For the record, we are indeed concerned about all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Gregory Barker: I do not doubt that the Minister is concerned about those aspects, and I welcome her comments about the contribution that Natural England and the RSPB will make. However, I am talking about being clear in the Bill and ensuring that it makes sense as a stand-alone piece of legislation that the layman—our constituents—will readily understand. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.
Division No. 10]
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Horwood, Martin
Hurd, Mr. Nick
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr. Mike
Banks, Gordon
Buck, Ms Karen
Griffith, Nia
McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruddock, Joan
Snelgrove, Anne
Walley, Joan
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments made: No. 19, in clause 55, page 26, line 5, at end insert—
‘( ) Before laying a report under this section before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take into account the advice of the Committee on Climate Change under section [Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report].’.
No. 20, in clause 55, page 26, line 8, leave out subsection (6).—[Joan Ruddock.]
Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

programme for adaptation to cimate change
Amendment made: No. 21, in clause 56, page 26, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—[Joan Ruddock.]
Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Report on progress in connection with adaptation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
2.30 pm
Joan Ruddock: We have already discussed in the debates on clause 35 and new clause 4 our proposals for a new role for the adaptation sub-committee in providing scrutiny of the implementation of the adaptation programme. In accordance with new clause 4, the Committee on Climate Change will look at progress on adaptation, as I have stressed before, as part of every second progress report under clause 35. Clause 36 will require the Government to respond to the Committee’s progress reports under clause 35. The effect of our package of amendments is to ensure that that reporting will happen more frequently than under the present clause 57. Now, the reporting will take place every 24 months, rather than every 30 months.
The reports on progress will now be conducted by independent experts, rather than by the Government, as I have previously explained. Given that the committee will now have that important role in scrutinising progress and adaptation and that the Government will be required to respond to every report, it is not necessary for the Government to produce separately their own report on progress on adaptation. That is, of course, what clause 57 presently provides. I therefore propose that clause 57 be deleted from the Bill.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 57 disagreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Guidance by Secretary of State to reporting authorities
Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 59, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) ensuring that proposals and policies for adaptation to climate change in the exercise of their functions contribute to sustainable development.’.
The amendment is on a similar theme to some of the other amendments that we have discussed, so I will not trouble the Committee for long. The amendment would make a correction in relation to a pretty clear requirement for the reporting authorities, as well as the Government, to pay attention to the concept of sustainable development. Clause 56(2), which is part of the Secretary of State’s programme for adaptation to climate change, contains a clear and admirable subsection that the Government have not tried to delete:
“The objectives, proposals and policies must be such as to contribute to sustainable development.”
That is admirable, but there is no equivalent obligation on the reporting authorities.
Under the instructions given in clause 59, the Secretary of State will simply ask the reporting authorities to prepare proposals and policies. That may seem somewhat like dancing on the head of a pin, but there are important parallels. As I mentioned before, a good example is flooding. An authority—for instance, one with responsibility for water, such as the Environment Agency with its flood risk analysis role, or water companies—could create a plan that adapted to climate change but not in a sustainable way.
I shall quote the RSPB, which, for example, said in response to droughts and floods:
“To be truly sustainable, responses to droughts and floods must work with, and benefit from, healthy wetland ecosystems and the services they provide, such as flood storage and water purification. Responses focussed wholly on new hard flood defences and increased ‘end of pipe’ treatment will damage the environment further, reduce its ability to support human needs in the future, and cost society more.”
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 4 July 2008