Climate Change Bill [HL]

This has been a useful debate. I cannot really say that I will be taking away and thinking about these proposals that I have brought to the Committee. There is a disadvantage when the Government come forward with a tranche of amendments in Committee. While we have indeed done this with some spare space, it is not like having such provisions in the Bill so that amendments can be put down in more detailed fashion. I am not saying these amendments are the last word; I could not, after bringing them into the Bill at a stage where they have not been subject to the degree of scrutiny that we wish for the rest. We do, at least, still have time on our hands. I will try to do justice to the questions but I may not have the full detail on some, so I will deal with them in reverse order. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked whether the public authorities are obliged to implement their report. They are required by subsection (8) of Amendment No. 182E and subsection (7) of Amendment No. 182J to have regard to their own reports in the exercise of their functions. That will mean having to think about their programmes whenever they take action. With that kind of duty and requirement to have regard, their own lawyers will spell out the consequences. They simply cannot ignore that. The noble Lord also asked about the list of authorities. I, too, was a bit surprised by that 25,000. I will be getting further information on that. I can give examples shortly of some other authorities as opposed to those covered by the Civil Contingencies Act. I was asked, for example, about the water authorities acting in their role as public bodies although they are private companies, but I need more information on those 25,000. I am not saying, ““List them””, but I may need categorisation or sub-categorisation as that is such a large figure to get our heads around. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other Members of the Committee raised local government as an issue. I understand that the Local Government Association’s own commission on climate change has recommended that local authorities should be given the flexibility to act and demonstrate what they can do before consideration of a duty. We are seeking to work in co-operation with local government, which made this request. I know that climate change is catching up on us but, in the scale of things, working in partnership and co-operation with local government is very important. Going back to the figure of 25,000, at one point I thought that perhaps all the schools are mentioned, but England has 24,000 schools, so it cannot be schools. There must be another match of figures. We will work with local government, which has requested a chance to do it its way. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked whether ““Welsh Ministers”” means Ministers in Cardiff. If the term was used here, I would specifically use the term ““Minister in the Wales Office””, as I would do in the Northern Ireland Office, to distinguish them from those in the devolved Administration. It means the Ministers in Cardiff. He also asked what would happen if the National Assembly gained more power. I am not here to discuss devolution, but I am told that that is involved in the clauses I have moved that relate to Wales—I do not have the clause numbers. I am told that the government amendments are future-proofed to take account of the possibility of increased powers being available to the National Assembly for Wales. That can be read both ways. As I have only just had the note I have not had a chance to ask whether ““future-proofed”” means future-proofed in the sense that if the National Assembly for Wales gets powers over water it cannot deal with it so that it stays at the centre or future-proofed in the sense that the National Assembly for Wales gets the responsibility, bearing in mind that there must be a cross-border operation. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made that point. My noble friend mentioned that Manchester and Birmingham get most of their water from Wales, and the Severn Trent authority crosses the border. That has always been one of the issues. The government amendments are future-proofed with regard to the Welsh Assembly getting more powers, but I am not certain what that means because it does not say that the amendments take account of the Welsh Assembly getting more powers. ““Future-proofed”” implies something else. It may be that I need better particulars on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked me about delays in the risk assessment. We do not need to wait until the national risk assessment is complete to use the power, although it would be a significant step forward in terms of our evidence base. It is not a question of waiting. There is a wide range of circumstances where the power could be used, not just in the light of an event such as the floods this summer, but in the light of the national risk assessment in Clause 48 and the adaptation programme in Clause 49, or on the basis of new scientific evidence. The power is designed to mesh with, not duplicate, other activities to mainstream adaptation into ongoing work. For example, I think I may have mentioned the new local government performance framework and the making space for water strategy, which is due early this year. We do not need to wait until the national risk assessment is complete to use the power. I regret that I cannot remember which noble Lord asked me about the difference between the two amendments. The term, "““a person or body with functions of a public nature””," which is used in the amendment, is intentionally broad and is intended to catch a wide range of bodies across the public sector—it has certainly done that if the figure is 25,000. The impact of climate change will be felt by everyone. The term covers more persons and bodies than are contained in the list in Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act. We think it is important that the power to issue guidance and directions should cover more bodies than are caught by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. For example, drainage boards and the Countryside Council for Wales are not covered by the list in the 2004 Act, but they should be thinking about the need to adapt to climate change. That is not to say that they are not thinking about it already. The point is that they are not on the list. In terms of statutory undertakers, the term is found in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) 1997 and the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. It is used extensively. I have come across it several times in primary legislation for all kinds of purposes. For example, in relation to biodiversity, Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 extends to statutory undertakers. New subsection (1) (b) and (c) of Amendment No. 182L set out the definition. It is worth putting this on the record as we will need it for Report Stage. It includes persons covered by any enactment to carry on any of the following undertakings: railway, light rail, tramway, road transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse or any undertaking for the supply of hydraulic power. It also covers relevant airport operators and any of the following: gas transporters, water or sewage undertakers, the Environment Agency, universal postal service providers in connection with the provision of the universal service, the Civil Aviation Authority, any person holding a licence under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Transport Act 2000—that is for air traffic services—and any holder of a licence under Section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989. I return to the issue of future-proofing. I am sorry if I have laboured that. This is a positive answer, so it is quite good really. If the National Assembly gets increased legislative competence, the powers of the Welsh Ministers—of the devolved government—to issue guidance and directions will also increase. In other words, it is more preparation than future-proofing. That phrase looks rather defensive. I am sorry about that—I have done a disservice to the drafters of the note. I was asked why we are not proposing a duty as well. That has been a theme in several speeches. I shall explain why the Government are proposing a risk-based power and not a general duty on all public authorities. Our approach should ensure a similar outcome as a duty but without what we think would be disproportionate burdens and costs. The reporting element will increase transparency over progress in adapting to climate change and provide an incentive for authorities to act. The duty would be supported by the information to be produced by the Government following commitments in the Bill. The statutory guidance will set out the processes that are useful in establishing both the risks from the impact of climate change and how to draw up adaptation strategies. That guidance would help make the public sector’s approach to risk assessment more consistent and so help us build a more accurate picture of the risks and the action needed to be taken. That covers many if not all of the questions. I am not sure whether I have answered the question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He honed in on a particular example of a specific circumstance as to whether or not the balance of powers would change from what occurred in 2005. I am well aware of that. I saw the results of the flooding in Carlisle and the photographic evidence of the flooding at Keswick—as people did talk to me about it when I was at the Keswick show in 2006. It was incredibly frightening for the town. I am probably not in a position to do it tonight but I owe a specific answer to that. My noble friend will need one before Report. If I was him, I would be back on it. Therefore I can obviate the need for another debate and will try to get him an answer in the meantime.