Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I regret to inform the House that as Amendment No. 116 has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 117 and 118.

[Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 not moved.]

5.15 pm

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 119:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I say for the record that Amendment No. 118 related to the definition of international aviation and shipping under Clause 25, but, as a result of Amendment No. 116, which we debated last week, being accepted, Clause 25 no longer contains any provision relating to the definition of international aviation and shipping, and the parliamentary process for making such definitions by order.

Amendment No. 120 provides that, before making regulations to include international aviation or international shipping emissions, the Secretary of State must seek, and take account of, advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Any such regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure full scrutiny. To avoid duplication, Amendment No. 119 therefore deletes Clause 25(7) as it is now covered by Amendment No. 120. The amendments will ensure that this process is fully transparent, so that the committee’s advice is made available, subject to the usual exemptions set out elsewhere in the Bill,

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1434

and so that the Government have to explain if they propose a course of action which departs from the committee’s advice. They will ensure also that decisions on international aviation and shipping emissions are based on the best possible evidence and on independent analysis. The amendments strengthen the Bill’s framework and make it more robust. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, we have had many fruitful debates on Clause 25. We recognise that securing appropriate regulations under this section will be an arduous task. We welcome the amendments, which strengthen parliamentary accountability and place a duty on the Secretary of State to take into account the view of the Committee on Climate Change. It is certainly a matter in which it should play a central role.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 120 and 121:

(a) whether the percentage specified in section 1(1) (the target for 2050) should be amended, and(b) if so, what the amended percentage should be.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 [The Committee on Climate Change]:

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 122:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a long and constructive debate in Committee on the types of expertise that would be desirable in the composition of the committee. Having reflected on the discussions,

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1435

I move two amendments which I hope will help to clarify the types of expertise that we believe are needed.

Amendment No. 122 will make it clear that the committee should have expertise in climate policy at both national and international level. During our debate in Committee, I noted that while Clause 10 requires the committee to take,

into account, expertise of an international nature was not present in the list of desirable expertise for the committee as set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. The amendment is intended to address this discrepancy. It is important as the UK’s approach to tackling climate change must be considered in the context of wider international effort and impacts, and a range of international issues will be relevant to the committee’s advice on budgets. It is therefore right that the committee has an appropriate awareness of the European and international context.

Amendment No. 123 is intended to clarify that it would be desirable for the committee to have expertise not only in climate science but also in other branches of environmental science. Having reflected on our discussions in Committee, we are sympathetic to the arguments put forward in support of the Committee on Climate Change having some expertise in a wider range of areas than implied by the term “climate science”. By including “other branches of environmental science” we make it explicit in the Bill that national authorities must have regard to the desirability of securing that the committee as a whole has this expertise.

Like the other areas of expertise covered in the list, “environmental science” is of course a broad category. This is important as it provides the flexibility for the national authorities and the chair to appoint members with specific expertise within this broad area, as the committee’s work demands.

For the record, I say once again that the list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive and that the national authorities could choose to appoint a member with expertise in an area not listed, if the national authorities and the chair thought it desirable. Furthermore, I reiterate that the Government continue to consider climate science to be the most important aspect of environmental science for the committee. However, by including “environmental science” on the list we are demonstrating that it will be important for the committee as a whole to have an understanding of the impacts of climate change on the natural environment. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, Amendment No. 122 is very significant. There is much appreciation on these Benches for the Minister’s decision to introduce the amendment and for the inclusion of the words “at national and international level”. The Bill will now read that,

On issues of climate change no nation is an island, not even this island nation. The national and international cannot be divorced. What happens in

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1436

one country has an impact on another, and the choices of one people are the consequences for another. That is why tackling climate change is a global issue and why international agreements are the only way forward. It is vital to recognise this in the Bill, and the Government are to be congratulated on recognising that at Committee stage.

It is of major significance that the amendment links the phrase “at international level” to the phrase “social impact”. The Bill on climate change now recognises the reality of what is happening in other parts of the world, places that are already devastated by the changes in climate for which people were not prepared.

Last week, the Minister resisted the amendment on poverty reduction, saying—and I paraphrase—that this point is implicit in other parts of the Bill. He is right, and here it is, “the social impacts” at “international level”. This draws attention to issues of poverty in other parts of the world.

Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I welcome the Government’s speed in announcing the six members of the Committee on Climate Change. It has been good to have the noble Lord, Lord Turner, in his place this afternoon. The Minister said that he would do this by Report, and he has. However, the final paragraph of the press release announcing the membership of the committee, states:

The press release then lists these as,

There is no mention in the press release of social impacts at international level. Will the Minister assure us that, with the passing of this amendment, this area of expertise—namely, social impacts at an international level—will be explicitly added to the committee?

Before I sit down, perhaps I may draw attention to the new strategic framework from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which, in a section headed “Promote a low carbon, high growth, global economy”, says that its intention is to,

That is in a section on the low-carbon global economy.

We on these Benches welcome this strategic framework published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We believe that this government amendment to the Bill will indeed give the committee the opportunity to have before it this strategic framework and to advise the Government further on how the millennium development goals can be achieved as they pursue issues of the social impacts at an international level. I support the amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we, too, welcome the amendments, with perhaps two and a half cheers, for much the same reasons as the right reverend Prelate has given. However, while what the Government have done appears to follow fairly closely what the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Northover tried to

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1437

say on an earlier occasion, what we were talking about was expertise in international development, and those words do not appear in the Bill. The right reverend Prelate has also rightly welcomed the speed with which the Government have announced the names of those being appointed to the climate change committee. Some of them—such as Dr Fankhauser, with his knowledge and experience on the World Bank—could be said to have the requisite experience of international development.

I so agree with what the right reverend Prelate said—that we need to have regard to the official government objective of helping developing countries to realise the millennium development goals to which the international community is heavily committed—although we see now, for example from the recent UNICEF report on State of the World's Children, that in many regions of the world those goals are unlikely to be attained within the timescales set. So although we welcome the Government's proposed additional words, we are concerned that there is not apparently a person with particular expertise on international development nominated to the committee. We hope that the words that the right reverend Prelate quoted do not exclude the appointment of additional persons in the future with that particular expertise.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these two amendments. I shall not repeat what the right reverend Prelate said, but I entirely support his comments. Amendment No. 122, which will include “national and international level”, speaks for itself and I welcome it.

Amendment No. 123 will add,

It is an important amendment. Food production, both domestically and abroad, is an issue that has changed rapidly over the past year. Paragraph 1(3)(g) of the schedule mentions “energy production and supply”. I am sure that there will be conflicting interests as a result of how we address climate change, how we produce and supply energy and how we supply food, because the three are totally linked.

Earlier yesterday the Minister attended and spoke at a meeting of the Wildlife Link group. Environmental and wildlife protection issues need to be considered at the same time as we consider food and energy supply. I am grateful that the Government have introduced this amendment to include environmental science. Its voice should be there and it should be heard. Although the other committee members covered by paragraph 1(3)(a) to (i) will have these issues in mind, Amendment No. 123 will not go amiss because of the clear challenges we will face in coming years to round the circle of the many demands made on our planet. I welcome Amendment No. 122 and particularly Amendment No. 123, and I thank the Minister for them.

5.30 pm

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we thank the Government for bringing these amendments forward. They address a concern that we raised in Committee on the anomaly between Clause 10 and the part that

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1438

we are dealing with; namely, that other branches of environmental science were not among those areas of experience listed as necessary for the membership of the Committee on Climate Change.

We also support the idea of further anchoring our efforts in an international framework by having the committee’s membership reflect expertise in international as well as national climate change policy.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome given to these amendments. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool that the answer to his question is yes. The press release is simply a summary. Some things are included, some are not. The press release would have been improved if it had been more explicit. The fact that the issue the right reverend Prelate mentioned is not included does not mean that it is not covered.

The relevant wording encompasses a wide range of expertise. Only the first group of members have been appointed to the committee. There is a maximum but other members will be appointed in due course. However, the devolved Administrations and the chair will consider what expertise is needed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 123:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 124 to 130 not moved.]

Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 131:

“The Climate Change Adaptation Sub-Committee(a) climate change science and other branches of environmental science;(b) contingency planning;(c) ecology and biodiversity;(d) economics;(e) flood risk;(f) infrastructure asset management;(g) public health;(h) risk management;(i) international development; and(j) any other significant adaptations required to address the risks identified in the most recent report under section 48.”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 131, 152, 165 and 197. The Joint Committee identified at an early stage that the original draft Bill was heavily concerned with mitigation targets and devoted little attention to adaptation. That situation

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1439

has improved to a certain extent. However, people in the environmental movement are clear that adaptation to climate change is as important as mitigation. It is a regrettable fact that many of the consequences of climate change will continue to be felt even if we ceased emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases immediately—hence the urgency to introduce mitigating measures. There is a time lag of between 100 and 200 years in that regard. Therefore, adaptation is incredibly important and is the reason these amendments were tabled. They stand in my name and those of other noble Lords from other sides of the House. The United Kingdom needs to focus on adaptation through this Bill.

I listened carefully to the debate we had on this issue in Committee and redrafted the amendments as a result. At that stage we wanted to have an ad hoc adaptation committee entirely separate from the rest of the machinery in the Bill. On reflection, we decided that our proposal was flawed and have therefore redrafted the amendment to place even greater emphasis on adaptation. Clearly, the best way to do that is to include it in one of the Bill’s main structures; namely, the Committee on Climate Change. The Bill provides for sub-committees of the climate change committee but is not specific about them, nor about who should be on them or what subjects they should tackle. We think that there should be a sub-committee specifically concerned with adaptation and that it needs to be separate from the committee because the subjects that it will tackle, its goals and the assessments it will need to make require very different skills than those required to tackle mitigation. Therefore, while we adopt a holistic approach in bringing mitigation and adaptation together under the climate change committee, it is very important to have a separate sub-committee to tackle adaptation. The amendment states very clearly the skills and expertise that members of that sub-committee will require. Amendment No. 152 sets out the important roles that the sub-committee would perform.

Amendment No. 165 states that the committee’s report must assess the Government’s programme for adaptation to climate change, consider its implementation and, most importantly, look at,

So this is a very important and powerful committee.

Amendment No. 197 would strengthen the parliamentary response to climate change as it would require the Secretary of State to,

We believe that would help ensure that the Government would be held fully accountable to Parliament for their policies and programmes on adaptation, as they are for those on mitigation. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, we appreciate the fact that the Government have gone a long way to try to address our concerns regarding their commitment to adaptation, but in our view they have not gone far enough. For this reason we support these amendments to which we have put our names.

11 Mar 2008 : Column 1440

As we have said before, it is important that in our efforts to stop climate change we do not lose sight of the things we are trying to effect. We must ensure that policies and proposals aimed at reducing carbon emissions are also sustainable and that adequate policies are put in place to adapt to the unavoidable changes in the climate that are taking place.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page