Martin
Horwood: On the specific issue of the Department of
Health—I again refer the Committee to the personal interest that
I declared earlier—there are highly developed action and
contingency plans in every primary care trust across the country for
the human variant of avian flu, which is a potential catastrophe. Whole
conferences have been held. Can the Minister give one example of
equivalent planning that has been attached to anything to do with
adaptation to climate
change?
Joan
Ruddock: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment
helpfully suggests to me that he believes that our plans on flooding
have progressed in that direction. I would also say to the hon.
Gentleman that adaptation is something of a new science. To apply it in
a sustainable way, which is what we are all concerned about, will
require a great deal of research, effort and learning by everyone in
government. We cannot expect adaptation to have already been sorted;
there would then be no point in having the Bill and all that goes with
it. Adaptation is something that we will have to work on consistently
over many years into the foreseeable future. It is not something that
is done and dusted, and on which we get a report and that is the end of
it. The work will continue for many years across the Government. We
would not expect to have complete packages at this
stage. We
are saying clearly that the adaptation sub-committee of the Climate
Change Committee will examine the Government’s progress on
delivering adaptation, provide independent and expert advice on what
further action the Government need to take, and deliver that advice. As
I have said, Departments are already working closely together and will
soon be launching the adaptation website to communicate the
Government’s overall approach to responding to the impact of
climate change, and to provide a useful framework for developing the
programme, including a practical toolkit for use by organisations to
help them to adapt to climate change. That will include future
priorities for each Department. I was reminded that the Department of
Health undertook work in response to the heat waves in 2003, which led
to about 2,000 deaths. It has carried out a great deal of planning to
deal with the health effects of heat waves that might
occur. We
shall include future priorities for each Department and demonstrate the
joined-up approach that is taken. We will also publish an accompanying
document summarising the cross-Government programme. I hope that I have
satisfied the hon. Member for Cheltenham that all Departments will be
engaged in the normal way and that there is no need for the
amendment.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister’s critique of amendment No.
78 was well informed, as I would expect. I accept that the list is not
perfect and that it might contain inconsistencies. However, the fact
that it is not as comprehensive as it could be is not an argument
against having a list. Some complex and diverse organisations in the
further reaches of the Government might think that, in some way, this
is not their problem.
I
am less reassured and convinced by the hon. Lady’s critique of
amendment No. 79. We are trying to construct a framework for the
Government’s policy that will be resilient to short-term
political storms and calculations. She said that the plans for
adaptation would encompass actions by other Ministers and that the
Secretary of State for EFRA could report on them. However, encompassing
other people’s plans is not the same as issuing guidance and
using all the expertise and resources at DEFRA’s disposal to
encourage, or even to direct, other Ministers to get a move on and
develop
plans. The
Department of Health provides a salutary lesson in such matters. We are
all starting to talk about adaptation on a grand scale. We would assume
that everyone had dealt with mitigation long ago and had been thinking
about it for many years, yet the Department of Health issued its first
consultation on the response of the NHS to climate change mitigation
issues only in the past month. That was a slow
response.
Tony
Baldry: The Minister did not raise the matter, so my
understanding might be out of date, but the Crown is indivisible. One
Secretary of State cannot prosecute another Secretary of State because
they are all part of the Crown. Our constitution is based on the
concept of a collective Government. We cannot have a position in which
one Secretary of State is trundling off to the High Court to sue
another Secretary of State. The proceedings would be struck up as the
Crown suing the Crown, but perhaps I have misunderstood the basic
principles of constitutional law.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
learned intervention. The clause does not refer to anyone taking legal
action against anyone else, but to issuing guidance. If Ministers are
not allowed to issue guidance to each other, that must be news to the
Chief Secretary to the
Treasury.
Tony
Baldry: The sanction in any legislation is ultimately
judicial review, and that works only if there is a sanction. This would
necessitate one Secretary of State seeking a sanction against another
Secretary of State if one believes that the other has not issued
suitable guidance or complied with the terms of the
Act.
Martin
Horwood: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
his well-informed intervention. I understand his point, but it is an
unduly pessimistic scenario in which one can issue guidance only if it
is backed up by a legal sanction. However, given the Minister’s
comments and her uncharacteristic reluctance to accept our positive
suggestions once again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
59 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
60Directions
by Secretary of State to prepare
reports
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in
clause 60, page 27, line 42, at
end add— ‘(5) The Secretary
of State may by
regulations— (a) make
provision requiring reporting authorities to co-operate with other
reporting authorities in the provision of information and the
preparation of any report under this section.
(b) make provision as to the arrangements for such
co-operation.’. The
amendment would place a duty on local authorities to co-operate on
adaptation— 3.10
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House. 3.53
pm On
resuming—
Gregory
Barker: If I may refresh the Committee’s memory,
the amendment would place a duty on local authorities to co-operate on
adaptation. That is important because there is a gap in the Bill
whereby councils may be substantially deficient in their ability to
prepare for the effects of climate change if they do not have access to
information from other reporting authorities. The amendment seeks to
bridge that gap by facilitating the pooling of information between
public bodies and ensuring their co-operation with councils so that
local areas are adequately prepared for the effects of climate change
planning. Councils
are unique in that they have close access to local information on
infrastructures and the ability to produce comprehensive, detailed and
accurate reports that will be greatly beneficial to central Government.
While local government has the capacity to report on its estates and
services under its direct control, it is not in a position to chase and
collate information from non-council public authorities, by which I
mean former public utilities such as water, electricity or gas supply
companies.
Moreover, if
councils are required to make a report, they need the power to require
relevant, reliable and timely co-operation from non-council public
authorities. The prevention of flooding is a key example of an area in
which the amendment would be mutually beneficial to both public bodies
and local councils.
As was
demonstrated by last summer’s floods, a number of public bodies
are involved in operations to deal with the consequences of floods and
with flood prevention. To achieve that, it is essential that the
relevant bodies are able to impart information and collaborate in
investigations to root out the causes of the floods. However, to
resolve the problem successfully in all cases, it is necessary that
they explain their actions and work with local authorities to make
improvements.
The
ineffectiveness of the current process was demonstrated last summer in
Leeds, when the city council was able to access Yorkshire
Water’s sewer records only on a stand-alone basis. It was not
permitted to superimpose that data against its own information to gain
a fuller picture of surface water drainage. Unsurprisingly, it is
difficult to investigate drainage problems holistically when the
various records can be seen only in isolation. That strikes me as an
inefficient use of data, when sharing information at no real expense to
either third party would have had distinct benefits for tackling
flooding.
It is clear
that there is a need for those who have a statutory duty to keep
drainage records to also have a duty to share such records with other
related organisations. For example, the effective maintenance and
upkeep of drainage infrastructure requires those bodies responsible to
maintain adequate records to highlight any risks. By
sharing and collating that information, all the
facts required would be in place to make an accurate assessment
of how such infrastructure should be maintained and
by whom. The experience of Hull city council, in an area that suffered
severely from floods last summer, is a prime example. The draining
system was overwhelmed and an independent report investigating the
floods subsequently highlighted that the lack of information on the
ownership of watercourses and their maintenance regimes resulted in
there being no sole agency or combined body in control. It is not
enough simply to assume that non-council reporting authorities, through
central guidance, will in all cases take reasonable steps to co-operate
and respond effectively with councils. It is thus necessary to underpin
effective action with statutory obligations. As we remember the
appalling floods that damaged parts of the country so badly on two
occasions last year, and we are mindful of the fact that much of the
human misery caused was preventable through better co-operation between
public bodies and councils, I hope that the Minister will accept the
amendment.
Joan
Ruddock: Amendment No. 105 recognises and highlights the
importance of co-operation in producing adaptation reports. In that
sense, we agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said in support of his
amendment. There is a need for co-operation. When it is essential for a
successful approach to adapting to climate change, we have already put
a number of measures into the Bill to ensure co-operation between
relevant reporting authorities. Our approach is measured and
proportionate to the
task. The
Secretary of State’s and Welsh Ministers’ guidance to
reporting authorities will include co-operation, as set out in clause
59(1)(c). Additionally, clause 60(2) already provides for the power to
request joint reports from reporting authorities. When considering
which public bodies should be subject to directions to prepare
adaptation reports, we will consider which other bodies should be
subject to similar directions to ensure that each sector is undertaking
adequate assessments of climate risk and that particular areas of the
country are covered properly in a joined-up way.
I have sought
advice on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about the floods. I
am told that the powers in the Bill require reporting authorities to
co-operate, and that will specifically include sharing information. It
is clear that what I am saying in general would cover the case that he
has raised because of the specific requirement to share information.
With that duty to co-operate and share information, and the power to
direct authorities to produce joint reports, which would require them
to bring their information together, I believe that we already have in
the Bill a set of measures that provides a strong framework and offers
a more proportionate response to ensuring that there is appropriate
co-operation between reporting authorities in producing the adaptation
report. I
understand that the amendment was well meant and the purpose behind it.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that the Bill provides
what he
seeks. 4
pm
Gregory
Barker: I appreciate the Minister’s words about the
amendment. Given that this is an important area and that there have
been practical examples of where a lack of co-operation has had a bad
effect on
local ability to deal with severe weather, which
will only increase with the onset of climate change, we would have
liked the Bill to contain a more clearly stated obligation on local
authorities to co-operate on adaptation. However, I heard what the
Minister said about the obligations being diffused elsewhere in the
legislation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
60 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
61Compliance
with Secretary of State’s
directions Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Miss
McIntosh: My questions pertain directly to clause 61 and
this part of the Bill, but they also have relevance to other measures
in the
Bill. The
Government stated in their command paper on the draft Bill that the
legislation places a legal duty on the Government to ensure that the UK
meets its targets and stays within the limits of its carbon budgets.
Clause 61 gives the Secretary of State a duty
to “publish
the report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers
appropriate.” Subsection
(1)
states: “A
reporting authority must comply with any directions under section
60.” Will
the Minister explain how the Government could be required to take
remedial action by order of a court? Will the directions of the
Secretary of State be justiciable and legally enforceable? Will they be
subject to judicial
review? If
the Bill—particularly clause 61 and, indeed, the whole part on
adaptation—is to have legal effect at all, it is important that
there should be a possibility of a challenge. This relates to some of
the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. In its
report on the draft Bill, the Select Committee said that if what the
Government seek to achieve is to mean anything at all, there should be
legal sanctions and the possibility for a case to be taken before a
court of
law.
Joan
Ruddock: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Lady by giving
her a very direct answer: yes, the directions will be legally
enforceable. It may be helpful to the Committee if I say that the
clause means that a reporting authority that has been given directions
to produce a report by the Secretary of State is under a duty to comply
with those
directions. Furthermore,
the clause requires that reporting authorities must have regard, as far
as is relevant, to the Government’s reports under clause 55,
which deals with the national climate change assessment, and under
clause 56, which deals with the UK adaptation programme. That will
ensure that reporting authorities factor in the latest information
about climate impacts in the UK and take into consideration Government
priorities and policies on adaptation. I hope that the hon. Lady is
satisfied with the
clause. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 61
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 62
to 68 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
