Climate Change Bill [HL]

I was not intending to speak to this amendment but, having been asked to speak to it, I suppose I ought to clarify why I was not going to do so. I am confident that the Government will adhere to the undertaking given by the Minister. When we debated Amendments Nos. 158, 175 and 183B, we talked about an adaptation committee, or some independent scrutiny mechanism, that would include a mechanism or set of descriptors similar to the ones that exist in the Bill for the Committee on Climate Change, as to what that committee would do and how it would undertake its work. I look forward to seeing what results from the Minister’s undertaking to the House when we debate those amendments. In terms of the periodicity of any reports, I will hedge my bets and go for a middle course. Every five years seems slightly too infrequent, but annually is quite an onerous commitment. When we debated those amendments, it was suggested that an adaptation committee might not be a standing committee, but rather one that was set up from time to time, if that would save the Government a little cash. I pointed out that that was a bit cheese-paring, bearing in mind the cost of the impacts of adaptation that this committee would help to diminish. When we debate future amendments on the adaptation duty that needs to be laid on a whole variety of bodies, I hope we will conclude that we are rather running out of road in getting some impetus behind the adaptation agenda. Therefore, in the early stages, a committee on adaptation that reports more frequently, until the head of steam that really gets us moving has been generated, might well be one way forward.