Miss
McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for drafting
and moving the amendment. The Committee will note that my hon. Friend
the Member for Bexhill and Battle has made sustainable development a
priority in his remarks in Committee. He spoke eloquently of its
importance in his words on clause 55 and, more specifically, clause 13.
Without wishing to pre-empt remarks on clause 60, we consider the topic
of local co-operation and consideration in drawing up adaptation
policies to be extremely important. That is why we are delighted and
happy to support the
amendment. My
hon. Friend made the case earlier in his discussion on amendment No.
55. When the Government or local government are drawing up plans for
adaptation to climate change, they must be mindful of the need for
sustainable development. The long-term view—the big
picture—is what we are all looking towards. It is not just a
case of “If you don’t like the heat stay out of the
kitchen,” or “You can’t make an omelette without
smashing eggs.” We believe that that would be a derogation of
our responsibility as political leaders and policy makers, so I support
my hon. Friend’s remarks on clause 55. When it comes to
preparing for local adaptation issues, such as flooding, responses
focused wholly on new hard flood defences can damage the environment
further and reduce its ability to support human needs in the future and
will ultimately cost society more.
I should like
to make a personal plea to the Minister. The title of my
constituency—Vale of York—suggests that I represent the
low-lying areas around and north of York. In fact, it is probably about
a 65 per cent. functional and an occasional flood plain. I am sad to
say that following the next election, I shall no longer be able to
speak for Vale of York. Despite its many mentions on the
“Today” programme for its climate and weather conditions,
Vale of York will be no more. I hope that she will look favourably on
the amendment, because I believe that the way forward has to be local
and small alleviation schemes such as the one that I propose. Through
the good offices of the Environment Agency, the scheme is preventing
Thirsk from flooding again by allowing the land upstream to flood and
rewarding the landowner for letting it do so. I conclude by saying that
there must be a responsibility on local policy makers to make
decisions, while still considering the requirements of sustainable
development and the long-term view.
Joan
Ruddock: Well, sour voices indeed. The hon. Members try
hard to tempt me into accepting the
amendment.
Gregory
Barker: The lady is not for
turning.
Joan
Ruddock: Yes. First, let me respond to the good arguments
that the hon. Member for Cheltenham made about the fact that we cannot
take a simplistic approach
to adaptation and that many forms of adaptation may not be sustainable.
One of the important things that we are doing through the Committee on
Climate Change is to look at adaptation and mitigation, because a means
of adaptation that creates greater quantities of emissions would
interfere with our aims on mitigation. We agree with what he has said.
It is true to say that, whereas hard defences were perhaps thought to
be the only way forward for flood prevention and were often the
preferred request of local people, we now know that there are more
sophisticated ways in which we can try to protect areas and enable them
to adapt to climate change. That means using the natural environment
and working with it, rather than trying to resist, as in the case of
rising sea levels. We are minded to take a holistic approach, and I am
quite sure that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for
floods would reiterate that.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for her reassuring
comments, but the purpose of the amendment is not about the Secretary
of State or Ministers taking a holistic approach; it is about asking
the reporting authorities to take a holistic approach as well. In that
sense, it is a purely innocuous amendment, but one that might be useful
to Ministers in trying to get the right result from their reporting
authorities.
Joan
Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that
he knows that many of the reporting authorities are guided by the
Government’s strategy and are in receipt of considerable funds
to carry out their plans, so the connection between the Government and
the reporting authorities is
important. As
I have repeated ad nauseam, adapting in ways that reinforce and deliver
sustainable development is already well covered by the fact that the
objectives, proposals and policy of the adaptation programme under
clause 56 must contribute to sustainable development. A number of key
reporting authorities, such as regional development agencies, Ofwat and
Ofgem, are covered by the guidance and already have a duty to have
regard to sustainable
development. 2.45
pm I
offer my assurances to the Committee that the statutory guidance for
public bodies will provide guiding principles on sustainable ways in
which to address climate risks. It will help public bodies and
statutory undertakers to demonstrate that their adaptation plans
consider sustainable development. That was set out in the briefing of
my noble Friend Lord Rooker, which gave the key headings that we
propose for the guidance. We will develop the guidance following the
usual consultation processes so that it will reflect accurately the
needs of
stakeholders. Stakeholders
who represent a range of sustainable development issues will also be
involved in the development of the guidance. When we have a fuller
picture of the content of the guidance, we can decide more accurately
how sustainable development will be reflected in it. We are also
working closely with our statutory advisers—Natural England and
the Environment Agency, members of which sit on the working group on
developing the guidance—to ensure that we pay full regard to
sustainable
development. The challenges and opportunities raised
by the need to adapt to climate change also encourage people to think
about the interaction among the environment, society and the
economy. The
forthcoming “adapting to climate change” website, and the
summary document that will accompany it, will set out the
Government’s adaptation programme and expand on how the five
principles of sustainable development are interpreted with respect to
adaptation. I must oppose the amendment, but I hope that my explanation
has reassured the hon. Members for Vale of York and for
Cheltenham.
Martin
Horwood: I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s
words, although I remained mystified about why the Government insist on
rejecting a series of Opposition amendments that would strengthen the
hand of DEFRA in respect of other authorities. They are apparently so
completely in line with the Government’s policy that Ministers
think that they are unnecessary. I would have thought that there was no
harm, but great advantage, in the Government accepting them. However,
on the understanding that they will not support the proposal, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 59, page 27, line 25, at
end add— ‘(3) The Secretary
of State shall issue guidance
to— (a) the Health
Protection Agency, (b) the
Office of Gas and Electricity
Markets, (c) the Water Services
Regulation Authority, (d)
Natural England, (e) the Marine
and Fisheries Agency, (f)
Britishwaterways, (g) the
Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment, (h) the Statistics
Board, and (i) the Royal
Commission on Environmental
Pollution.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 79, in clause 68, page 31, line 16, leave out paragraph
(a).
Martin
Horwood: Amendment No. 78 reflects the worry that we have
expressed at other stages during the Bill’s passage that the
relative importance of DEFRA within the Government as a whole perhaps
means that not all agencies and public bodies will have grasped what
needs to be done. DEFRA has clearly had to cope with some of the
impacts of climate change; arguably, the bluetongue epidemic would not
have been possible had the average temperature of the country not been
rising, because the infection would not have been able to thrive.
Moreover, I am well aware of DEFRA’s role in the Gloucestershire
floods last year and the importance of emergency planning on a
cross-disciplinary basis, yet some of the agencies listed in the
amendment might not have grasped the
implications. The
purpose of amendment No. 78 is to put those agencies on notice that
change will be required and that the provision will affect their work
in a major way. It would make it clear, under the Bill, that they need
to start working now on adaptation policy. I suppose that
its one weakness compared with some of the other
amendments that have been tabled is that the names of agencies tend to
change every five minutes, and that many subsidiary amendments might be
required each
time the Government reorganise them. Nevertheless,
it is important to be specific, and that was why we tabled the
amendment. Amendment No.
79 picks up on something rather peculiar in the Bill. Buried away on
page 31, there is a list of bodies that do not count as reporting
authorities. Some of those are straightforward: “either House of
Parliament”—we can accept that—and devolved
authorities and legislatures, which are dealt with in other ways in the
Bill and form part of the whole structure. However, the list also
exempts Ministers of the Crown, and we would like to remove that
exemption. DEFRA is not the whole Government, and it seems reasonable
that other Ministers should, from time to time, be asked by the
Secretary of State to prepare a report on how they are adapting to
climate change.
We have
looked at some Departments that govern areas that are responsible for
higher emissions than DEFRA. In terms of the impact on people’s
well-being, it is again clear that DEFRA will not be responsible for
many areas of government that will have to face the main impacts of
climate change. The most obvious example is, of course, the Department
of Health, where a repetition of the flood events would certainly
involve public health issues—I declare a personal interest in
that as my wife was the director of public health in Gloucestershire
during the floods, and she and her NHS team worked hard to safeguard
public health during that emergency. If such emergencies take place
much more regularly, that will have a considerable impact on primary
care trusts, foundation trusts and other NHS bodies.
If the model
of bluetongue on the agricultural side is repeated for human beings,
and what were previously tropical diseases start to invade these
shores, the Department of Health will have to start planning for
adaptation on a major scale. The Department for Transport will also
have a major role to play. It might think that one way of adapting to
climate change would be to provide plane flights in and out of Heathrow
for people affected by climate change in other countries, but that
would not be particularly appropriate. The Department for Communities
and Local Government will be affected because of the impact of
temperature change on existing housing stock and the necessity for
local authorities to manage environmental health. There are major
impacts with which other Government Departments will have to deal. Why
should the Ministers in those Departments be exempt from the Secretary
of State’s instructions to prepare policies and report back to
Parliament on adaptation? That is a very strange exemption to have in
the Bill, and I would like Ministers to justify
it.
Miss
McIntosh: It seems sensible for the Secretary of State to
issue guidance on the impact of climate change to all those authorities
that are vital to the national effort to mitigate the effects of, and
to adapt to, climate change. In particular, the involvement of the
Health Protection Agency is very appropriate. I have a question for the
hon. Member for Cheltenham. The amendment does not strike me as
exhaustive. For example, why has the Environment Agency been left out?
That is the most appropriate agency, as it is the body that would
co-ordinate most recovery efforts and cleaning after a
flood.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s
comments. I would welcome specific additions to the list, but the
Environment Agency already reports to
DEFRA.
Miss
McIntosh: There are others, such as English Heritage,
which is a statutory body that is responsible for many of the most
precious and valuable buildings. I was just making a comment.
Climate
change would significantly affect human health, and hotter summers will
particularly badly afflict the elderly and infirm. The Committee will
recall that the 2003 summer heat wave caused an estimated 35,000 deaths
across Europe. Thankfully, we do not have too many heat waves in
northern Britain, but if such incidents become more frequent, we must
ensure that there is optimum communication between our health
authorities and the Government. Clearly, Natural England, the Marine
and Fisheries Agency, the Water Services Regulation Authority and the
other agencies listed in the amendment have a vital role to play in our
efforts to mitigate and
adapt. On
amendment No. 79, I would like to ask why a Minister of the Crown
should be exempt from being considered a reporting authority for the
purposes of clauses 59 to 67? Although I agree that the Secretary of
State should not be empowered to issue guidance to or give direction to
any reporting authorities that are devolved, or to Parliament as a
whole, there does not appear to be any reason why the Secretary of
State should not be able to issue advice or give direction to a fellow
Government Minister. Will the Minister explain why she wishes to retain
such a requirement in the
Bill?
Joan
Ruddock: I have already explained that the statutory
guidance on adaptation will help reporting authorities to understand
how to assess the risks of climate change and plan any related
action.
The hon.
Member for Cheltenham offers us a list, but makes a rather good
argument for why there should not be a list, given the changing names.
That goes to the heart of the issue: there can be a problem whenever
there are lists in legislation. He needs to be assured that all
reporting authorities will be covered. There was a short exchange about
why the Environment Agency was not included, and the reason that he
gave was that it reports to DEFRA. However, Natural England and British
Waterways also report to DEFRA and they have been included. That
illustrates the difficulties. We understand perfectly well the good
reasons behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but the
difficulties of drawing up such lists have also been
illustrated. We
propose issuing guidance to all reporting authorities, and any other
organisation should be able to access that guidance freely. That will
help to ensure greater consistency and robustness in the approach taken
by reporting authorities. The guidance will also be publicly available,
which we hope will mean that other organisations will have some
interest in the guidance, even those that are not required and are not
reporting authorities. That makes a specific list of organisations
completely
unnecessary. Furthermore,
specifying such a list in the Bill would send out the wrong signal to
other crucial bodies that are not involved in adaptation by suggesting
that they might not be as important as others in our efforts to try
to become a well adapted United Kingdom. In trying to identify key
bodies for adaptation, amendment No. 78 misses out important
organisations, such as other parts of the health service, local
authorities, infrastructure providers and so on. The amendment also
includes some organisations that, although not unimportant—they
are very important—do not have responsibility for delivering
adaptation. I cite the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in
that context. We are
committed to producing a strategy for the use of the reporting power in
clause 60 within a year of Royal Assent, and will set out what we think
are the priority bodies at that time. That will be done in consultation
with those bodies and through a study of the existing capacity and
tools to address adaptation. We believe that that is a better approach
than simply listing bodies. We plan to consult on the guidance,
alongside our strategy for use of the adaptation reporting power, early
next year. Perhaps those comments make it clear why we need to resist
that particular
listing. 3
pm Let
me turn to amendment No. 79. As we discussed on earlier clauses,
climate change is an issue for not just DEFRA, but the whole of
Government, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said and as has been echoed
elsewhere in the Committee. That is even more the case with adaptation,
because all sectors of the economy and society are likely to be
affected to some degree by the physical impacts of climate change. The
definition of reporting authorities that we have adopted in the Bill is
therefore intentionally wide to capture all relevant bodies that need
to take action. Both hon. Gentlemen referred to the question of
Ministers of the Crown not being included in the definition of
reporting authorities. Amendment No. 79 suggests altering the Bill so
that they are included, so I must look at what that would
do. We
believe that the amendment is both unnecessary and constitutionally
peculiar. It is unnecessary because the Government already have express
duties under clauses 55 and 56 to assess the risks from climate change
and to draw up programmes of action, which would encompass action
across all areas of central UK Government activity. The amendment
simply duplicates those fundamental requirements of the Bill. Frankly,
there is little point in giving the Secretary of State a power to ask
himself to do what he is already required to do. We will resist the
amendments, which would ensure that all Ministers and Departments
across Government were listed as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because
we believe that we have the working mechanisms within Cabinet
government to deliver what is required. Cabinet government is an
effective way of ensuring that such policy issues are addressed in a
joined-up manner and that decisions can be taken
collectively. Just
for the information of the Committee, all Departments already work on
adapting to climate change—we are not waiting for the Bill to
provide for that. Ministers in every Department are doing such work. I
am the Minister with responsibility for adaptation in DEFRA and I have
bilaterals with my colleagues. I can assure the Committee that the
Department of Health, the Department for Transport and the Department
for Communities and Local Government—I think that that
Department was mentioned—are working on that issue. They have
much to tell us, not least of their proposals, which I can assure hon.
Members are
sustainable. | 
