Climate Change Bill [HL]

I wish to intervene briefly, not about Amendment No. 183 but about Amendment No. 183BA. It is clear that the mood of the Committee is that the amendment proposed by the Liberals ought to be supported. I have expressed my concern about its lack of focus. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the need for a unified approach. In a sense, we also ought to have a unified approach in discussing these amendments. Two agencies in particular are mentioned, the Environment Agency and Natural England. I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that, where amendments have been accepted that affect the statutory responsibility of other departments, the Minister will give those other departments the same attention and bring forward the same or similar amendments as he did with regard to Natural England and the Environment Agency. The Forestry Commission is a government department, not an NDPB. We have statutory responsibilities, laid down by Parliament, and we are very much connected with fighting climate change. Indeed, we are international leaders in many aspects of tackling climate change and recognised as such by the United Nations. There are very few people in the Committee who would not accept that forestry has a major role to play in combating climate change. Our key approach is based on sound science. I argue that sound science is critical if we are to be effective in tackling this problem. We have a next-steps agency, Forestry Research, which, again, is an international leader in forestry. We have statutory responsibilities regarding diseases of plants and trees. My advice relates to the fact that, if Amendment No. 183BA is agreed to, there will be another body undertaking some of our statutory responsibilities. In other words, there will be two public bodies trying to achieve the same ends. That coloured my earlier thinking, when I felt that it was necessary to be focused and clear on this. I have no real problem over who does what, but it must be made clear in the Bill or we will have more confusion. The result will be that we do not get the action that we all desperately want this Bill to deliver. I ask the Minister for an assurance that he will go back and check all these amendments. There may be many other bodies in a queue. Any one of the 25,000 other public bodies could be affected by these two amendments, which have, perhaps, been suggested to the Minister without the full implications having been completely thought through.