Climate Change Bill [HL]

All Members of the Committee agree that we cannot look at the UK’s management of its climate change policies without looking at the world as a whole. The questions are to what extent that has to be put in the Bill and to what extent this amendment is relevant. I support the amendment for reasons we have heard many times. I should declare an interest as the chair of the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which is generously funded by Defra, bearing in mind the contribution that British science, not just at Kew, but at many other institutes, can make in helping to protect biodiverse systems and to develop mediation towards climate change. A lot of the work funded at institutions such as Kew recognises the seamless nature of the science in addressing these climate change issues. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about the work in the Congo basin; that is not Kew work, but Kew is working in Borneo, Madagascar and many other countries. I find it inconceivable that the Committee on Climate Change would not be well plugged into this science. It may come under the category of environmental or climate change science, but there must be knowledge of how relevant these natural carbon sinks are, to what extent they are threatened and to what extent that therefore impacts on procurement or land management policies in this country, and much else besides. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, deserves credit for supporting Kew and other institutes in developing this international portfolio. He will recognise that it is inconceivable that the committee would not be aware of this work going on around the world and how we lock into it. I accept, with the right reverend Prelate, that as it is inconceivable that the committee would not be aware and have a degree of expertise in this, it should not also be included in the Bill. That is why I support the amendment.