Clause
55Report
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.
That is why,
as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle acknowledged, clause 56(2)
already requires the adaptation programme to contribute to sustainable
development. My argument is that the amendment is
unnecessary. It might seem to be harmless and benign, but it is
unnecessary because we have in the Bill all the means for covering the
aspects that the hon. Gentleman outlined. 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] 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
56programme
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
57Report
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
59Guidance
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.” I
know from conversations that we have had only this week that the
Minister accepts many of the arguments made by the RSPB and the
Blueprint for Water coalition that we must take a holistic approach to
issues such as
flood defence, flood response and drought. Given
that the Minister is not unsympathetic to that point of view and that
we have an anomaly in the Bill—the Minister points to his hon.
Friend—I hope that both Ministers are therefore equally
sympathetic to the point of view advocated by the Blueprint for Water
coalition and the RSPB and that they will embrace the amendment with
open arms. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to refuse every
reasonable amendment that the Opposition move in
Committee. | 
