Climate Change Bill [HL]

That was the other part of my argument. We are very reluctant to add to the list because most of the issues raised are covered within the Bill. Indeed, I have not heard of one that is not, and have had no advice to the contrary. Biodiversity is covered in legislation elsewhere, as a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change. This is something they must do. It is the way it comes out and the way it is explained. I make the point because it says ““must take into account””. It also says that they can take anything else they want into account. That would not have the same force, because you could not have a checklist. They would choose to do that. The Government and the committee will, of course, look at the costs and benefits in the context of all factors listed there. The drafting makes that clear. Where the current provisions refer to the impact, it means the impact as a whole, which necessarily includes an assessment of both the positive and negative elements. I hope I made that clear when I was forecasting what we might debate on Clause 27, in terms of the costs, benefits and drawbacks of different suggestions and advice the committee may give. We would see the negatives as well. The reference in Amendments Nos. 51 and 54 are therefore superfluous. With regard to Amendment No. 55, the reference to European and international circumstances in Clause 10(2)(h) already implicitly includes the international dimension of the other factors on the list. One factor on the list impacts on others, so Amendment No. 55 is unnecessary. I have already indicated the breadth of issues that can be added, but they would not fall under the ““must”” category. The noble Lord specifically mentioned Amendment No. 50A, which looks at the benefits of reduced energy use. This will be considered in the context of overall economic circumstances. The committee would have to look across the economy as a whole, at the different impacts, positive and negative, of different reduction pathways. In addition, energy use will be covered by paragraph (f) on energy policy. A similar argument could be made about the range of environmental circumstances put forward in Amendment No. 53. Social deprivation, covered in Amendment No. 52, would be covered under ““breadth of social circumstances,”” which is a fairly broad phrase. These issues are indeed covered. I am sure we will come back to how the committee might work and present its advice when we debate Clause 27.