Climate Change Bill [HL]

For the avoidance of any doubt, my earlier intervention was not in any way a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it is just that old habits die hard. Because he laboured the point, I thought I would say for the information of the Committee that it is covered. I make no bones about the fact that I am sympathetic to having this in the Bill, and we will have a look at it. But—I have to say ““but””—one of the golden rules that is drummed into us—into ex Ministers as well—is the strong advice of parliamentary counsel never to legislate for the same thing twice. Only legislate for an issue in one place and do not even repeat it in another piece of legislation. The fact is that once the lawyers get to work, interpretation will suffer. It is dangerous to legislate for the same thing twice. Notwithstanding that, I am more than happy to see if we can achieve greater clarity. Biodiversity was not raised in the earlier debate, but I know from my Q&A that it is included in one of the paragraphs. But the fact is that because of the nature of the Committee on Climate Change as a public body, like all other public bodies—although I suppose not necessarily government departments—it will have a statutory duty under Section 40 of the 2006 Act to have regard to the natural environment and rural communities. However, I am more than happy to have a look at it. I also understand the point about presentation, which is no bad thing because this has to be sold to the public. We are looking for a change of culture and changes in behaviour, so I understand the point. But I must give a warning that the advice may be not to legislate for the same thing in two places. I do not have much more to say because the reasons I gave in my response to the previous debate apply here. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that as the clause is drafted the Committee on Climate Change and the Secretary of State must take into account the issues listed in the Bill. I have not sought to imply that they cannot consider anything else they may choose. That is the point: this is not prescriptive. They can look at any other issue, but in guiding their initial decisions, Parliament will certainly look at those they must take into account and how they have done that. When we come to Clause 27, which I highlighted earlier, covering functions and how this is to work, we can look at the matter in more detail because the question is highly valid.