Climate Change Bill [HL]

I fully understand why having the words ““from time to time”” in the Bill might send the wrong signals; I am with noble Lords on that. I still have a rule as a parliamentarian, as well as a Minister, that two things should not be contradictory. I understand why those words might send bad vibrations, but I hope I can give a satisfactory answer. The caveat is the requirement in the subparagraphs following the words ““from time to time”” which refer to three and five years. I am not criticising the use of the term—I realise that it is well tried, well tested and understood in legislation—but I can understand why, when the Government are being held to account on new provision such as this, the signals might seem somewhat negative. As we move to the discussion on adaptation, I should apologise to the Committee that my substantial block of amendments was not tabled sooner. They have been tabled for a while, but it has taken us time to finalise the details. I shall speak to those amendments later, at the appropriate time. Adaptation requires a long-term approach and has to be based on sound evidence and evaluated as far as possible. To that extent, a five-year reporting period is the most appropriate. We have to remember that we are dealing with gradual changes over a very long time. It is true that you can find examples where change seems to be speeding up but that is because the penny has dropped on the planet only in the past few years that these changes are happening and we will be in trouble if we do not do something. That does not alter the fact that the changes have been incredibly gradual. It has taken 100 years for the temperature to rise by 1 degree. That is a long time. I do not argue that adaptation is not important, but we are talking about a long period of time. If we were to try annual reporting, it would not be practical, and so many people would need to work on it that we would not get anything else done. We are committed to providing regular risk assessment reports for the United Kingdom. We believe that it is unlikely that there will be significant progress in the evidence base more frequently than every five years and certainly not within the space of 12 months, as Amendments Nos. 169 and 173 would require. A yearly update of the risk assessments would not be a worthwhile task. Work of this nature is detailed and complex. Perhaps I may give a comparison. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, has worked on a six to seven-year basis, and modelling on the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme 2008 scenarios started as far back as 2001. The assessment of the risks of climate change under Clause 48 is a major piece of work—I make no bones about that. We need something that is thorough, based on proper analysis and not superficial. New scenarios need to incorporate advances in new observations, new models and new methods, but none of those gets updated annually. Creating a new methodology annually would also require significant advances in computing capacity, and it is beyond the resources and academic capabilities of the relevant staff at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, who are world leaders in this policy area. That is the reality of what noble Lords are asking for. I have not come here with any surprises. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction to say, ““We want annually to know what’s going on””, but in this case that is just not a practical proposition. Adaptation will of course be reported on in Defra's annual departmental report on departmental strategic objectives and as part of its public service agreement reporting. However, we want to guard against unnecessary reporting burdens detracting from our delivery capabilities. So much resource would be put into this that we could not deliver what we are supposed to deliver. Departments will continue to address adaptation throughout the period and work with stakeholders to ensure that they are aware of the measures. Amendment No. 172 would require the first risk report under Clause 48 to be produced within 12 months of Royal Assent. The risk report is an important and unprecedented piece of work which will form the basis of the Government's adaptation programme. It is important that the quality of the report is not compromised by rushing the work before all the relevant evidence is available. We are due to deliver new probabilistic climate change scenarios for the UK in autumn 2008 in UK Climate Impacts Programme 2008. It will provide up-to-date information based on a number of climate change models and with a greater degree of spatial and temporal detail. Due consideration of these results as well as other scientific developments from, for example, the intergovernmental panel will be required. Further work will then be undertaken to produce a robust assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Therefore, we do not plan to publish the initial risk report within 12 months but will produce it as soon as possible without compromising the quality. Our best estimate is that it will be within three years. Amendment No. 174 would remove the flexibility to vary the reporting cycle under Clause 48. I would like to assure the Committee that the Government do not expect to have to extend the reporting period and that they have plans in place fully to meet the reporting requirements. However, we also want to ensure that we are able to take into account new developments in the scientific and economic evidence as and when they occur. A lack of flexibility in the reporting cycle could make the adaptation programme less responsive to the latest scientific developments and international research, such as new findings from the intergovernmental panel. It would be self-defeating if, for example, we were forced to publish a UK risk report a few months ahead of a new piece of work from the intergovernmental panel analysis that significantly advanced the global scientific consensus on the issue. We therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 174. Amendments Nos. 176 and 182A to Clause 49 would require the adaptation programme to be produced annually. However, the programme will be addressing risks that change over timeframes that are longer than one year and more likely to be five years plus. Insufficient information would be available to produce a meaningful updated report on progress every 12 months. In addition, annual reporting risks overreaction to extreme events. It tends to lead to reflex responses to a current crisis, such as the floods last summer. That is not to say that the proposal is not important or that we do not need to react—we certainly do—but it could de-prioritise the longer-term, and equally problematic, incremental impacts of climate change . Many adaptation measures may take time to take effect and it is important to be able to evaluate their effectiveness. Effective indicators for adaptation are not yet available, but one measure of the effectiveness of the government programme will be whether it makes a difference to our exposure to risk. That would not be possible without the risk assessment. It is therefore crucial that sufficient time is available for a robust assessment to be developed. Departments will continue to address adaptation throughout the period and work with stakeholders to ensure they are aware of and contribute to these measures. I am not pouring cold water on this, saying that it is impractical or too expensive and cannot be done. I have not used cost as an argument at all—that is not an issue. The response is based on sheer scientific practicality, to ensure that we have the necessary flexibility to make meaningful reports in conjunction with other work being done on an international basis. As I said, we will operate on the basis of what is in the clause, but annual reporting is just not a runner in this part of the Bill.