Climate Change Bill [HL]

I have often raised this matter in debates. When we debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—which included the biodiversity clause—I was very active in trying to persuade the Government that there were certain considerations that should be included in it. I was always clearly told that they were already in legislation. I accept the noble Lord’s point. Somebody reading the Bill from outside would not necessarily think that they needed to go back and look at ““X””. This is an extremely important Bill. Although I understand the Minister’s response—indeed, I introduced the biodiversity provision in to the CROW Act—I hope that he will consider it again. I would like to return to the list in front of us. I was not going to intervene but this issue has brought me back to square one. The matters to be taken into account are specifically laid down in Clause 10, subsection (3) of which states that nothing in this section may be read to restrict other matters. My question is related to previous legislation: will not the Government of the day give more priority to what is laid down in paragraphs (a) to (h), and apply a higher degree of responsibility, than to any other matters? Paragraphs (a) to (h) are clearly laid down in the Bill and surely the Government of the day will give them priority over any other matters. Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I have been concerned on several occasions and thought it a pity that in new legislation introducing a subject such as biodiversity, it is just accepted that this is not the way it is done. This is particularly the case with this Bill, which is so important and will, I suggest, be of interest to a wider audience than some other Bills that we have taken through the House.