Climate Change Bill [HL]

We have added our names to this amendment, and we fully endorse those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to which our names are not added. I have always concentrated on mitigation in terms of climate change, because we all wish that we could solve the problem before it gets so difficult that we almost have to plan for failure. That is the bad news about adaptation; it means planning for failure. Clearly, we have to do that. That is the responsibility of the Government and the other public agencies in this country and, more broadly, in the international sphere, as we will hear later on another amendment. When we read in the Bill: "““It is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament from time to time a report””," that the first report should be, "““no later than three years””," and when we have had many examples over the past two years of what we believe to be the effect of climate change on our communities and society, clearly the matter is far more urgent than the Bill suggests. It is excellent that adaptation appears in the Bill, otherwise it would be a Bill around enabling carbon trading, setting targets and setting up the Committee on Climate Change. It is to the good that adaptation is included, but it needs to be far stronger. To have a clause saying, ““Despite the very long timescale for reports, the Secretary of State has power to put back even those””, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out, adds insult to injury. I do not think that the Government would disagree with this line of argument, but it is absolutely essential that the timetable is tightened up, not only in taking this topic seriously but in really starting to plan for something very big that is going to happen to local communities, regions and us as a whole.