Climate Change Bill [HL]

Not for the first time the structure of the Bill has got us into a bit of a tangle: an amendment has been moved in connection with Clause 28 to give a new role to the Committee on Climate Change when we are really looking at the provisions of Clause 49, which we are going to debate a good deal later. I agree that we are going to need a committee to report on this matter. As has already been indicated, there is a difficulty about my noble friend’s amendment in the sense that he or the committee are looking at future policies—the effectiveness of policies to reduce future carbon emissions and progress in that direction. When we come to adaptation, we are not dealing so much with those future policies. We are dealing with the consequences of what has already happened over the past couple of hundred years. We are now facing the need to respond to what exists at present. There will come a moment when the two things interlock as we move into the future but for the foreseeable future, we have to adapt to the consequences of past actions. There is a legitimate question of whether, by giving it this task, it should really be for the climate change committee to look at future policies in addition to its existing heavy burdens. On the other hand, I am not sure that Amendment No. 183B goes far enough. If we are to have an independent scrutiny committee, it certainly will have to do what is suggested in that amendment, but it does not actually suggest that it should report on how things are going and the achievements so far. The new clause provides that the committee should consider the adequacy of assessments and of any programmes, but does not seek the progress report that my noble friend seeks in his amendment and what I think we should require. Curiously, Clause 49 provides the Secretary of State with a reporting function, but with no indication of how frequently that should happen and whether there would be regular updates. The clause states: "““It is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament from time to time a programme””." It then provides for the proposals and policies employed to meet the objectives that have been set. Later the clause provides that: "““The second and each subsequent programme under this section must contain an assessment of the progress made towards implementing the objectives, proposals and policies set out in earlier programmes””." But it does not say how frequently new programmes and policies should be developed. We could go for many years before the Secretary of State brings forward a set of new policies and proposals or any report at all on how well these matters are being dealt with. My conclusion from all this is that we have to have a regular system of reporting. It is highly desirable, and when we come to the later clause, I shall support amendments that address the need for thorough policies; we will debate them later. I do not think that either of the amendments before us fully meets the need for regular progress reports. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say and I hope he will agree that there is a need for such reports. It may be that on Report we shall have to come back with something like Amendment No. 183B to the relevant part of the Bill and make sure that regular reports are produced and are not dependent on how frequently the Secretary of State comes forward with fresh proposals. Indeed, if the noble Lord who moved the amendment were to come forward later with a suitably adjusted proposal, I certainly would support it.