Climate Change Bill [HL]

This has been an interesting and important debate at this point in our deliberations. I am delighted to see that the mythology that was mentioned did not affect the monitor for too long; the monitor suggested for a time that we were debating the Children and Young Persons Bill, but we have come back to climate change now. I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this important debate and I hope that I can give noble Lords a reassuring reply. The Government see these issues as being extremely important and I hope that I can build on the comments that my noble friend has made around the issue of government reporting in general. First, let me get to the specifics. As noble Lords have said, a changing climate will have an impact on developing countries; we are all well aware of that in your Lordships’ House. Those countries are less well equipped to deal with these changes than the UK is. I am pointing towards the moral and ethical issues that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned. We recognise the need to support these countries practically and, through better understanding of the likely changes, to build their resilience to a changing climate. However, we do not think that government reports under Clauses 48 and 49, as proposed in Amendments Nos. 170 and 178, are necessarily a good route for doing that. That is for two reasons. First and most important, adaptation must be integrated into our mainstream development work for it to be most effective. That is part of sustainable development in the round. Secondly, by building the resilience of the UK to the impact of a changing climate, we will be better able to help other countries and to share our experience with them. To do that, we need to have a clear focus for national risk assessment and to follow up with a programme of action. We will make a step change by doing this and by addressing those issues in the UK. On Amendment No. 170, we do not see that it would add any value for the UK to duplicate the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor do we consider that that would be appropriate. The IPCC is the leading global scientific body on climate change, as we have heard, bringing together more than 2,000 scientists from across the world. The IPCC is already charged with carrying out regular, detailed and independent analysis on the global impacts of climate change. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize, received jointly with Al Gore, for its efforts to build and disseminate knowledge on climate change and measures to combat it is a measure of the esteem in which its work is held worldwide. The UK has had a leading role in the IPCC and contributes to it through the work of hundreds of UK scientists involved in the IPCC process—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their work. We are active participants in IPCC events and through financial support. We believe that the better approach is to continue to work through the IPCC. Therefore, we cannot accept this amendment. However—and this is an important point to make—I assure Members of the Committee that the Government will take into account the existing work done by the IPCC and others on the global impacts of climate change in formulating our development programmes. Amendment No. 178 would require the Government’s adaptation programme to report on our activity to support adaptation to climate change outside the UK. However, the Government already provide this information, so this amendment would lead to unnecessary duplication. To be specific, the Government already report to Parliament on our work to help developing countries to adapt to climate change through DfID’s annual departmental report, alongside reports on our overall progress towards meeting the millennium development goals. The most recent DfID annual report is in the House Library. I shall now pick up my noble friend’s comments on government reporting. The information is there, although I understand that, from time to time, it may not stand out as much as it should. My noble friend has been very responsive to concerns expressed in Committee about how we can promote transparency and make information widely available to the public and to Parliament. I am sure that we will continue to be receptive to that. In addition, the Government have responsibility, through the International Development Act, to provide assistance for sustainable development and poverty reduction and are obliged to report annually to Parliament on these commitments through the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. There is not a strong argument for duplicating existing activity, which would be the effect of the two amendments. However, I want to reinforce how seriously we take the impact of climate change on developing countries and to remind the Committee of some of the practical steps that the UK is taking to support adaptation work internationally. The UK has already put in place a number of major initiatives to help developing countries to adapt to climate change, including £74 million for building capacity and improving knowledge of the problems in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and an £800 million environmental transformation fund. The UK is contributing £20 million to UN funds for developing country adaptation strategies and pilot projects. We are following up on actions from the climate risk assessments of the UK development programmes in China, India, Bangladesh and Kenya. This is part of the work to mainstream the need to adapt into development programmes. For example, in Bangladesh, the child livelihood programme is a £50 million programme to work with 100,000 people who live on low-lying islands, thus reducing their vulnerability to floods. It is a mainstream development activity and a direct response to the increased risk of disasters as a result of climate change. I have a long speaking note on a number of other initiatives, but I am sure that Members of the Committee would be delighted if I moved on. Previously, we have discussed the relationship between the action that we are taking in the UK and the wider international context; for example, Clause 10 requires the Government and the Committee on Climate Change to consider international circumstances in relation to carbon budgets. We also had a good discussion earlier in Committee about the need for the Committee on Climate Change to have awareness of the international dimension and not to focus purely on domestic issues. We promised to take this away and to consider it, which we are doing. The Government are willing to ensure that the Bill covers domestic and international issues, as that will add important value to the work that the Bill will promote. In this case, we are not convinced that the amendments would add value, but we think that this debate has been important; it has given us the opportunity to be clear about our commitment to take the much wider view. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.