Climate Change Bill [HL]

I would like to be as brief as the noble Lord in introducing this, but the issues raised are absolutely crucial. I want to be as open as I can be in Committee as it will help on Report. First, let me reassure your Lordships that the Government develop their policies and deliver their services within the overriding framework of sustainable development. We are trying to live within environmental limits and to achieve a just society by means of a sustainable economy, good governance and sound science. The policy development process is based on a sound analysis of the costs and benefits of different courses of action. That said, these amendments do not add value to what is already in the Bill. Amendment No. 171 would insert a reference to particular issues in relation to the risk report under Clause 48. I want to make it clear that the risk assessment will be thorough and comprehensive. The report will make use of expert and independent knowledge and include spatial, sectoral and temporal coverage of the risks from climate change and the associated vulnerabilities of these risks for the UK. It will identify gaps in the knowledge of these areas. At the moment, Clause 48(1) requires an assessment of the risks for the United Kingdom that do or may arise from climate change. This covers risks to the whole range of factors in the amendment and more besides. It is already as wide as it could be. We think it better that the Secretary of State should have a duty to assess all the risks to the United Kingdom, rather than to pick out particular risks now, before we have even conducted the first risk assessment under Clause 48. On Amendment No. 177, we fully intend to base the adaptation programme under Clause 49 on the risks identified in the risks report under Clause 48. To this end, Clause 49, line 38, reads, "““addressing the risks identified in the most recent report under section 48””." This applies to Clause 49(1)(a), (b) and (c), not just to the objectives—that is, paragraph (a)—which Amendment No. 177 refers to. We do not think that the amendment adds to the existing provisions. On Amendment No. 179, we agree that consideration of costs is an important part of developing policy responses to climate change adaptation. Costs are routinely considered as part of the impact assessment carried out through the normal policy development process, and we do not feel that a specific provision is required to this effect in the Bill. Amendment No. 179A introduces a new definition of adaptation. While we sympathise with some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, we take the overall view that this new definition is unnecessary. At the moment, adaptation is not defined in the Bill. That was quite intentional, because we think that its meaning is clear. The Oxford English Dictionary defines adaptation as, "““the process of modifying a thing so as to suit new conditions””." That is exactly what we intend to do—modify all sorts of things to suit the new conditions presented by climate change. We really think that that is enough. The danger with having more than one detailed description of an ordinary word is that it can change the focus in ways that are not necessarily helpful. It is, of course, important to take into account both the harmful and the beneficial effects of climate change, but that is covered by the natural and ordinary meaning of adaptation. If the intention is to ensure that the adaptation programme addresses the need to secure a healthy natural environment and a healthy and just society, then this is already covered by the provision requiring the adaptation programme to contribute to sustainable development. Amendment No. 180 would amend Clause 49(2) to require the contents of the adaptation programme to be consistent with achieving sustainable development. The current text provides that the adaptation programme must ““contribute”” to sustainable development. We are grateful for the noble Lord’s explanation of his amendment, and are particularly pleased that there is a consensus that sustainable development is an important consideration in any adaptation programme. Yet we do not think that this amendment enhances the Bill. It is better that the adaptation programme should contribute to sustainable development as an active part of the overall effort made to achieve sustainable development. We would be concerned that, if the programme only had to be consistent with sustainable development, some of the sense of activeness might be lost. ““Consistent”” seems neutral to us. The noble Lord did not speak to Amendment No. 181 so I will ignore it. I hope I have addressed the details of the amendments. Frankly, while there are important issues to be raised, we believe they are fully encompassed within both the terms of the Bill and the spirit in which the Bill will be interpreted.