Climate Change Bill [HL]

As the noble Lord said, all these amendments were discussed in Committee and I emphasised that the factors in Clause 10 are broad and comprehensive. The Government agree that climate change will have wide-reaching effects on both the environment and on populations, as proposed in Amendment No. 42. However, we still consider that it would already be adequately covered by the words in the Bill, "““scientific knowledge about climate change””." I am happy to put it on record that it is the Government’s firm view, and intention, that the duty to have regard to, "““scientific knowledge about climate change””" in advising and setting budgets requires the Committee on Climate Change and the Government to consider both the causes of climate change and its likely impacts. I hope that offers all the reassurance your Lordships’ House is looking for on this issue. We do not believe that Amendment No. 42 will add anything to what is already in Clause 10(2)(a). Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 would require the Secretary of State and the committee to have regard to the impact of climate change on various factors rather than the effects of budgets on various factors. I know that the intention is, as the noble Duke put it in Committee, "““that the changing climate should be the primary factor in our decision-making””.—[Official Report, 8/1/08; col. 757.]" But these amendments seem to show a slight misunderstanding of the budget-setting process and how the Bill will work. The whole idea of Clause 10 is to set out the factors that are relevant in setting carbon budgets. Of course, the Secretary of State and the climate change committee will have to think about the causes and effects of climate change. I have discussed that in the context of Amendment No. 42. I remind your Lordships that Clause 8(2) requires budgets to be set with a view to meeting the 2050 target, so the core aim of the Bill is already embedded in the process. It is also vital that the Secretary of State and the committee think about the effect of the budgets on economic, fiscal and social circumstances and on our energy supplies and businesses. Before taking a decision, you need to think what the impacts of that decision are going to be. It seems extraordinary to me that anyone could disagree with that proposition. I was asked to give an example of how this might work. I give an example on biodiversity, which is covered in my question and answer briefing. As regards how the Government are considering biodiversity in policy-making, I refer to the Severn barrage, as this was raised during the Committee debate on Clause 10. This is an example of a government policy decision where it is appropriate that we fully consider the impact on biodiversity to ensure that we can accommodate both of our aims: to tackle climate change and to protect our wildlife. That is why we have launched a feasibility study looking at the potential costs and benefits of the barrage that will look at all relevant issues. The Severn barrage is an example of a government policy designed to help meet the carbon budgets where it is right that we look at biodiversity. I fear that trying to assess the impact of the budget, with little knowledge of what policies are going to be implemented to meet it, could be meaningless and could distract the committee from its core tasks. I have picked out one example, but if I were pushed I could find others. That is an example where I am linking the two together so that you do not lose sight of your main goal, but I am trying to convince your Lordships that the broad scope of the phrase in the Bill that I have relied on, "““scientific knowledge about climate change””," covers and encompasses these areas.