Debate on the Address

My Lords, the gracious Speech was a practical and necessary programme for administrative and legislative action. There was enough vision there for a utilitarian. It affirms that the Government will protect the environment and deal with climate change. I declare an interest as I am involved in environmental, non-governmental bodies, am chairman of an environmental company and a professor at University College. Government policy is difficult because the Government have to maintain their commitment to a strong and growing economy and to secure and expanding energy supplies. They also try to help and work with developing countries that are affected even more by climate change than those in northern latitudes. Indeed, last week the High Commissioner of Ghana, when commenting in connection with air miles, said that in areas of Africa that are suffering from climate change, agricultural development is very important both for our food and to help with poverty in those areas. Therefore, the Government need to co-ordinate environment, economics and development policies. It is interesting to see how words change in government policy. Sustainability was a great thing 10 or 15 years ago and affected our legislation. The new word in Government responses is ““holistic””. It is an important word that is also used by international agencies such as the OECD and the World Bank. Holism is a way of looking at the world and how it all connects. As I discovered this year, the author of this concept wrote brilliantly in his book Holism and Evolution in 1926. He was a Prime Minister of South Africa and his statue is in Parliament Square. This approach on holism will require a considerable sea change in Whitehall. I use that metaphor because the Government’s policy on marine issues came under some criticism in the committee in the other place. Marine issues will become more and more important, as the American Government are also finding, because it is the meat-eating Chinese who are being supplied by the Americans, who put nitrates in the ground which are being washed down the Mississippi and are leading to the ecological death of many parts of the Gulf of Mexico. They are the complex issues that we have to deal with. In pushing forward their environmental and climate change policies the Government need to take people with them. Despite opinion polls that indicate a general belief in climate change, this may not be as deeply or widely understood as some people believe. I was surprised to find that at a large meeting of civil engineers in London two weeks ago, most questioners were highly sceptical. Environmental NGOs are probably not as representative of public opinion as they claim. There are two main ways of helping and leading communities as they grapple with threats to the environment and climate change. The first is to combine adaptation and mitigation—these are not alternatives—dealing with today’s problems, particularly in the UK with flooding and the threat of high temperatures in cities. This affects people’s health and is also worsened by the effects of local air pollution. I very much welcome the change in the Long Title of the Climate Change Bill, which was implicitly alluded to in the Minister’s speech this afternoon. That was mentioned last week in the White Paper. I believe that if the Government show commitment to today’s population they are more likely to agree to investments to improve tomorrow’s environment, especially if they adopt these holistic measures, which do both, such as putting windmills on dykes, as our Dutch colleagues are doing, or perhaps building the Severn barrage, despite the criticisms we heard this afternoon. Combined heat and power, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and local resilient power systems are also ways of dealing with today’s and tomorrow’s problems. The second way of involving people effectively in climate change and environmental development is through local government. The draft Bill and the White Paper replies last week were emphatic that there is no plan at the moment for involving local government in climate change education. There was powerful lobbying from the local government associations and the City of London but still the Government said that that would not be in the Bill. However, I hear various whispers from Labour politicians and others who are hoping that amendments will be passed in this House to rectify that omission, as we have often seen before. Local government played a central role in reducing air pollution in cities from the 1950s through to the 1980s and 1990s. Air pollution is important because it causes significant health problems and it will be much worse in the high temperatures that we are expecting. One has to note that some local authorities are already seriously engaged but others are sceptical and are even resisting action. Clearly, we cannot introduce thought police in relation to climate change in the UK but, at the same time, councils need to commit to considering climate change as well as sustainability. Local authorities, with government agencies, will have a critical role in dealing with future flooding. Environment Agency policy has now changed to flood risk management from flood defence, and architects and engineers are considering designing houses that can survive floods. These are very large changes, and it is an enormous responsibility for government to make such huge conceptual and living-style changes acceptable. On mitigation policy, the Government are following Stern, the French Government and the United States in planning for a wide range of energy technology, including nuclear power, as the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned in his remarks on the Queen’s Speech. However, I noticed earlier that, in saying that the Liberal Democrats endorsed a wide range of technologies, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, deliberately did not mention nuclear. Has there been a policy change? I am always hopeful. Finally, there are people who believe that Germany may change before long. I hope that, in winding up, the Minister will clarify progress on nuclear power, which is clearly critical to the mitigation policy.