| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
8 Jan 2008 : Column 780
Lord Rooker: If the noble Baroness is asking for the Bill to be so prescriptive that policy-making gets interfered with and is not practical, she is not going to achieve her objectives.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My noble friend Lady Byford perhaps sought to address the point that it is quite difficult, when considering legislation in this way—with dialogue between the Government and the Opposition leading, I hope, to positive developments—to pin things down. A lot is going to depend—this is the implication behind the noble Baroness’s intervention—on the Government’s response at Report; we hope that the Government really have been listening. I have been listening to the gems—it has been a bit like being in Aladdin’s cave: the gem from the Minister and the beautiful, sparkling gem from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about legality. This is truly a different Bill and it imposes legal restraints.
I return to the previous set of amendments because in some ways it is more important that there is a clearly determined strategy in the public domain that is clear and part and parcel of the discussions. It is obvious to all of us that Governments are going to seek to implement a strategy. If they do not, they will be shown to have failed. So the publication of the strategy is probably more important than the legal duty to implement it. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Cathcart moved Amendment No. 61:
“( ) The proposals and policies set out in the report in subsection (1) must be consistent with achieving sustainable development and must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of—
The noble Earl said: As this Committee certainly appreciates, stopping the negative effects on the environment is not strictly tied to carbon emissions. Just as global warming is a global problem, so too could be the ways in which we combat climate change. Perhaps more aptly, if we are trying to stop the effects of climate change on the environment, we must ensure that our efforts to stop climate change through reducing carbon emissions do not negatively impact precisely on what we are trying to preserve. We do not want to risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This amendment seeks to situate our efforts to stop climate change in a broader context. It is essential that we have regard to the populations and societies we are trying to protect. Likewise, the natural world and biodiversity should not be sacrificed. This might seem an obvious point. No one in this House would advocate building a clean power station if it meant wiping out species of wildlife or causing serious health concerns to neighbouring residents. However, it is important that we have this proviso in the law to ensure our
8 Jan 2008 : Column 781
However, growing biofuel demand has led to widespread clearance of rainforest to plant fuel crops. The carbon released from the clearance of rainforests can be enormous. It is not much use if the UK claims to have cut millions of tonnes of carbon emissions by increased burning of biofuel if the country that has produced that fuel increased its carbon emissions by more than that. The sustainable development test would pick that up in a way in which the Bill’s budgets currently may not, as well as identifying problems of biodiversity loss, displacement of communities, and so on, that are also associated with rainforest clearance.
Finally I draw attention to paragraph (c) of the amendment requiring sustainable development to have regard to “the economy”. If we are to combat climate change it will require a serious change in our economic culture. The proposals and policies produced by the Committee on Climate Change should have regard to the ways in which economic development can be made more sustainable, and the ways in which sustainable development might affect the economy. The stakes are too high to risk economically impractical solutions that might detract from our ability to make further inroads against carbon emissions in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I am concerned about this amendment; it worries me. The noble Earl will know that I have sought to be objective throughout the Bill’s proceedings, but he referred to “regard to”. The amendment refers specifically to “damage to”. I wonder whether the lawyers might make more than a few bob out of this amendment in the event that it is included in the Bill.
I shall get back to the basics of the amendment in relation to two terms—“wealth” and “the economy”. The amendment states that the proposals,
- “must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to ... wealth and”—
in proposed new paragraph (c)—“the economy”.
Some private property may lose value as we implement a policy on climate change. Certain types of private residences, in comparison with other movements in the housing market, might be at a disadvantage because of the nature of their construction. Certain types of businesses owned by individuals, which would come under the general heading of “wealth”, might be affected by the implementation of this policy and would obviously lose out.
On the wider issue of the economy, what is meant by “economy”? We have many economists among us today and perhaps my noble friend will get up and embroider the case that I make, with his knowledge of economics. As I understand the economy, it is about activity in industry, so what about the power generation industry? It may well lose a lot of business as a result
8 Jan 2008 : Column 782
What about other industries involving building materials, supplies, heating, some white goods or freight transport? They are all part of the national economy and may well argue that they are being damaged, yet the law will protect them if the amendment is included. The law will refer specifically to,
I think that the Opposition have gone a little too far with this amendment, and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
I was going to generally support my noble friend’s amendment for two reasons, but I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has raised legitimate concerns about the wording which must be looked at carefully again before the next stage of the Bill. Without elaborating on “the economy”, what he said about “wealth” raised a number of issues that need further consideration.
I looked rather sympathetically at the amendment initially because of proposed new paragraph (b), for much the same reason expressed in an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who referred to the Severn barrage. I was not present for that debate; I was in Moscow at the time with the sub-committee of this House, but I raised exactly those issues in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. It is a very good example of how, if we are going to go down this road, we have to look carefully at the consequences of biodiversity on ecological systems.
Equally I am sympathetic to what my noble friend said about the wrong use of biofuels. There are a lot of extremely good examples showing the sensible use of biofuels, notably in Brazil where extraordinary progress has been made using sugar to almost eliminate the need for ordinary sources of motor fuels, and so on. We also see other cases where rain forests and so on are being destroyed.
There is a lot in the amendment deserving support, and this is one of the many issues raised during today’s debate. Important questions have been raised, which we will need to consider carefully on Report. There are good things about the amendment that I wholly support, but one or two matters on the precise wording must be dealt with before we go much further.
Lord Teverson: I think that I understand the reasoning, purpose and motivation behind the amendment, but if we read it strictly it could become a climate change sceptic’s charter, as it states that it,
- “must operate so as to avoid so far as is reasonably practicable any risk of damage to, or deterioration of ...the economy”.
If I were of a climate change sceptic bent, I would use that provision as far as I could legally to neuter everything that is trying to be achieved. That is the
8 Jan 2008 : Column 783
In this broader area of risk, particularly in terms of ecology, we are talking about precautionary principles, and it immediately becomes extremely conservative in terms of its interpretation. The amendment as drafted could undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, so it requires considerable rethinking.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wonder whether I could suggest a way forward, as I have probably managed to insert more sustainable development duties into Bills as they proceed than any other Peer in the land. For the past 10 years, any time I have spotted a Bill when someone ought to have a duty for sustainable development, we have tried to include it. Latterly the Government have been excellent in forestalling that by putting in those duties in a variety of settings.
It is important to set the climate change activity in this broader context of sustainable development. Climate change is an important and urgent issue, which will become even more important and urgent as it bites. The risk at the moment is that it can be seen as trumping all other considerations. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, referred to the debate on the Severn barrage. I hesitate to summarise what the Minister said on that day in a rather crass way. It was as if that amount of renewable energy justified any environmental damage by way of collateral damage, as it were. Though the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said that no one in their right mind would propose a power station that damaged biodiversity, I hate to say that the Government are now spending tens of millions on feasibility studies on the Severn barrage to do just that. We have to get clarity on where the climate change effort needs to take place in that setting of sustainable development. This may not be the right amendment. It is open to being hijacked, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others say. The solution to this is to insert a sustainable development requirement, as indeed we have done in many Bills for many functions and for many public bodies in the past, but never for the Government as a whole as this Bill would require.
The Minister may leap to his feet and pull a Bill out of his back pocket of which I am unaware that lays a sustainable development duty on the Government that would apply in this circumstance. If that is the case, I am even more joyful about the last 10 years; but I suspect that he will not. Simply to say that the reporting required by the Government in this clause should be required to take account of sustainable development—the broad wording in many Bills—would help to make sure of it, and provide a gentle prompt to government over many years about the fact that, no matter how pressing climate change becomes, if we solve it by creating other environmental, social or economic problems, we simply will not hit the mark.
8 Jan 2008 : Column 784
6 pm
Lord Dixon-Smith: I support the amendment of my noble friend in one sense, but in another sense it is the right amendment with the wrong words in it. This seems to be a reasonable conclusion for the debate we have had. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, rightly of course, raised the impossibility of getting through to a solution in 2050 without somebody, somewhere, being damaged. The essence of the action required over the coming 40 years if we are to meet the 2050 target means an immense number of changes in society—in the economy, in our structure, in the way we source our energy, and so on. That depth of change is not going to occur without some people somewhere losing money. At the same time it is equally certain that the change will introduce huge opportunities for gain. We live in this market economy and, whatever we do, we are not going to escape from that. That means things going up and things going down. We all have to accept that.
The way the amendment is worded would inhibit the flexibility of a market system. We cannot afford that. That very flexibility will be one of the great things that will make the change possible. Some interventions in the market will be required by government to produce the desired effects. That seems almost inevitable. At the same time, we need to keep this thought very much in mind in the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord May, introduced it earlier this evening and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, reintroduced it—but we must not do it in such a way that it might inhibit necessary action and, more importantly, necessary change if we are to arrive at a destination in 2050.
Lord Rooker: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I say that in my back pocket is Clause 49, the programme for adaptation to climate change. Subsection (2) states:
I say that because we are dealing with Clause 11 on the budgets at the moment. I am not saying that it meets the point related to this but, so far as the Bill is concerned, where we have looked at the various aspects, it is in terms of the adaptation policies that we have actually—
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I very much welcome the noble Lord pointing that out. All I ask is for that provision to be put in the mitigation part of the Bill as well as the adaptation part of it.
Lord Rooker: It was not in that part, but it was elsewhere. I do not want anyone to get the impression that sustainable development is not mentioned in the Bill. It is, in Clause 49, quite deliberately in the adaptation programme. There is no such requirement in Clause 11 and I am not sure whether that was raised before the Joint Committee, but we are strongly committed to promoting sustainable development and protecting and improving the environment. I am not so up to date. There have been several references to the Severn barrage. I do not think I dealt with the
8 Jan 2008 : Column 785
All new policies are subject to an impact assessment which includes consideration of the principles of sustainable development and must take into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. At present, all UK government departments are signed up to the 2005 sustainable development strategy. All departments publish a sustainable development action plan. The new cross-government public service agreements aim to ensure that all relevant departments have clear roles and responsibilities with respect to the important policy areas, so they are given full consideration in the policy-making process. The public service agreements are in place for climate change and the natural environment. We also of course ask the Sustainable Development Commission to act as an adviser, advocate and watchdog and to report publicly on the Government’s performance on sustainable development, and to help build capacity to deal with sustainable development issues. So we do not think in the round that it is necessary to place an additional sustainable development requirement on the policies and proposals report. That is not to say it can be ignored. The concentration is in the other part of the Bill—adaptation rather than mitigation—in terms of the actual words.
Lord Crickhowell: The Minister said that he was not sure what the Joint Committee on the draft Bill had said on this matter. It addressed this issue in the context of such things as wind farms and tidal barrages, and came to a very clear conclusion. We recommend that impacts on the environment, especially biodiversity, be added to the list of factors which the Secretary of State and the Committee on Climate Change must take into account. The Joint Committee was not confining that recommendation to the section of the Bill dealing with adaptation.
Earl Cathcart: I thought that I was going to be clean-bowled with the one contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but he has legitimate concerns and I take those on board. The purpose was to protect society and the economy as a whole and not individual areas. I was very grateful for some support from various contributors for what we were trying to achieve in including sustainable development in the Bill. This may not have been exactly the right amendment; it may have its shortcomings. The wording may be wrong or ambiguous and open to difficulties later, but I hope that the Committee feels that our heart was in the right place when we produced it and tried to include sustainable development.
I was going to ask the Minister whether he would consider including sustainable development in the Bill when, out of his back pocket, he produced Clause 49. Therefore, the matter has been considered and that is good news. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 63:
8 Jan 2008 : Column 786
“( ) The authorities referred to in subsection (2) shall be under a duty to cooperate with the Secretary of State in the preparation of the report.”
The noble Duke said: Amendment No. 63 concerns a matter that was raised with me by the Scottish Law Society. I return to the question raised earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour regarding the problems that arise when power over the environment issue is, to a considerable extent, devolved to various national authorities and in various ways. I accept that Clause 67(2) contains a general power which says that functions are to be exercised by all the authorities jointly. However, part of the question behind the amendment is whether that clause contains sufficient powers to draw all the contributing elements together.
We also return to the time that it will take for the Secretary of State to produce this report on policies and proposals. Obviously the Secretary of State and the Committee on Climate Change will have talked to the devolved Administrations in setting the carbon budgets, but it may still be possible for a devolved Administration to drag its heels as all approach the final hurdle of agreeing the division of the proposals. One can almost see an element of horse-trading coming up here.
It will be very important for the Bill to make everyone accept their responsibilities. The problems are many. Even if there can be agreement from all national authorities on the framework of the Bill, the carbon budgets set in Westminster will have effects on the local operations of Governments across the union. Let us consider the emissions produced by cars. Cutting automobile carbon emissions involves local changes in traffic patterns, road pricing or improving public transport.
I should also like to ask the Minister for clarification on how precisely he sees the national authorities working with the Secretary of State. Although Scotland has decided to have its own climate change Bill and there is much support for attempts to stop global warming, it appears that a duty is not necessarily placed on the devolved Administrations to implement the policies or strategies of the Committee on Climate Change or those of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |