Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 42: 42: Clause 10, page 5, line 41, at end insert— ““( ) the actual and expected effects of climate change on the environment and populations;”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42 I will also speak to the other amendments in this group, which I see as being important. Although our primary focus of the day has been on budgets and targets, there is still a risk that the very thing we are trying to save is being ignored; namely, the environment. This list of considerations that need to be taken into account in connection with carbon budgets seems to omit that concern. I understand that, when this was previously debated, the Minister gave assurances that the list of things mentioned in this clause is not exhaustive. We appreciate that; however, why is there any reticence about explicitly including the environment? The other amendments in this group shift the language slightly in Clause 10, such that what is considered regarding taxation, fiscal circumstances, energy policy and the other factors is done with regard to climate change and not just a budget decision. This would ensure that what is important—climate change—is driving the decision-making process and not any other concern. The Minister responded to this amendment in Committee by saying that the committee was already under an obligation to take scientific knowledge about climate change into account when considering the decision, so these amendments would be unnecessary and perhaps even muddy the decision-making process. This seems to me to be the wrong way round. The Government need to consider the impacts of the budget decisions with respect to the real-world things that they affect. However, it seems that in this wording there is a chance that these concerns might somehow take precedence. Can the Minister assure us that he did not intend to make that case? Surely the consideration of all the associated fiscal and social issues of a decision to set a budgetary period should be tempered by the necessities of climate change; that is, the decision should not be rooted in these concomitant issues but in the necessities of meeting the ultimate targets. The budget should be set according to what is absolutely necessary to mitigate climate change and the other concerns should follow. Can the Minister assure us that this is the case under the current wording? Can he explain the process by which considerations would affect the budget setting? Would there be scope to temper the budgets and decrease the necessity to reduce emissions to fit in with economic concerns? I beg to move.