Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 169: 169: Clause 48, page 21, line 18, leave out ““from time to time”” and insert ““every year”” The noble Lord said: The Committee will know that we in the Opposition consistently try to beef up the reporting process. We are anxious that every opportunity should be taken to keep government, Parliament and the nation informed and focused on climate change and our progress. In moving Amendment No. 169, and speaking to the others in the group, I seek to emphasise that reducing carbon emissions is only part of the process of dealing with climate change. The inclusion of a programme in Part 4 for adapting to climate change more broadly is warmly welcomed by this side of the Committee. Yet, as important as the issue is, it seems that the Government have not been clear enough about the ways in which they will report on the different impacts of climate change, and what must be done about it. The Bill as it stands places a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the risks for the UK of the impact of climate change, which is a very good thing. However, it states that this must happen ““from time to time””, with the first report being presented within three years and future reports every five years. We feel that this is inadequate. While we appreciate that gathering the data required to produce a good report might take time, we expect government to monitor progress on an annual basis anyway. It should not be difficult to use this to provide the statistical basis for a report. We would see such a report as a very useful driver of policy and direction. It should be annual. The impact of climate change, and our policies to stem it, should be presented in a way that enables us to gauge progress on a yearly basis. This will help to ensure that we have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information and can reassess policy in the light of these reports. The Minister expressed concerns that years vary and that therefore annual reporting could be misleading. I take a contrary view. Given an annual report which included the year in the context of past performance and future progress, we would have a continuing view in much the same way as government finance is reported at present. If the report is made only every five years, we run the risk of losing a chance to fix any problems that would have been called to the attention of the Secretary of State or Parliament had there been a yearly report. There seems to be little reason why we should wait so long. I understand that this is the sort of issue that requires a rather long-term view. However, as we make policy and begin to develop ways of assessing adaptation to climate change, a yearly report would enable us to consider our proposals in an ongoing manner with regard to their past progress and impact. It might take five years for a particular impact of climate change to become apparent but there is no guarantee that nature will correspond to the reporting periods. We need to be kept up to speed. I am also very pleased to offer my support to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford in this group. Reporting on the progress of how the Secretary of State is implementing the adaptation programme is important. Just as we should be able to see our progress towards emissions reductions, we should be able to see our progress towards meeting adaptation objectives. As the Bill stands, mere lip service to adaptation could be considered a sufficient way of dealing with it. We want to ensure that this is not the case. I beg to move.