Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, my response will probably be briefer than in Committee, but it must be read out for the purposes of people outside your Lordships' House as well as the other place. On Amendment No. 194A, I reassure the House once again, as I hope I did in Committee, that the Government develop their policies and deliver their services within the overarching concept of sustainable development. As your Lordships know, we define ““sustainable development”” as living within environmental limits and achieving a just society by means of a sustainable economy, good governance and sound science. This is why Clause 49(2) already requires the adaptation programme to contribute to sustainable development. Amendment No. 194A would insert a reference to the environment in relation to the risk report under Clause 48. As I have said, the report will be thorough and comprehensive. It will look at the risks from climate change, and the associated vulnerabilities to these risks for the United Kingdom, including risks to the environment, the economy and society. Amendment No. 194A focuses exclusively on the environment and does not give due consideration to social or economic impacts in the risk assessment. We recognise that the natural environment provides economic and welfare benefits for human beings, as well as having an intrinsic value in itself. The natural environment will change as a result of climate change, and your Lordships can be reassured that adequate protection for the natural environment will underpin our efforts on both adaptation and mitigation. In developing the risk report in particular, we will draw on the environmental experts from the Environment Agency and Natural England, among others. We think that it is better that the Secretary of State has a duty to assess all the risks for the United Kingdom, rather than having specific risks listed. As it stands, Clause 48(1) already requires an assessment of, "““the risks for the United Kingdom””," arising from climate change. That covers all potential risks, including those factors proposed in the amendments, and therefore the provision is already as wide as it could possibly be. For example, where would the risks to the built environment fit within Amendment No. 194A, and what about the wider important issues, such as the opportunities from climate change and the roles and responsibilities of organisations? If we list some factors, we leave ourselves open to having to list everything, which is not possible given the wide-ranging effects. Under Amendment No. 194A, we might end up focusing too much on some things at the expense of others. I do not know what the amendment adds to existing powers. I shall jump to Amendment No. 200. The amendment would not have any notable effect as it asks that the objectives of the Government’s adaptation programme take into account the risks identified under Clause 48. But the last line of Clause 49(1) already requires that the programme, as a whole, addresses, "““the risks identified in the most recent report under section 48””." So that amendment does not stand the test to be added to the Bill. I was asked specifically about biodiversity. The Government have already established an adaptation workstream, as part of the England biodiversity strategy, to promote adaptation of relevant policies and programmes in all relevant sectors, including agriculture, forestry, water management and land use planning. The workstream is developing a set of adaptation principles, which will be adopted across all sectors where those implementing conservation management will use them to plan what actions they wish to take to help the natural world adapt to climate change. We seek win-win situations that deliver benefits for biodiversity as well as allowing for mitigation and enabling adaptation in other sectors. Where those solutions are not possible we need to minimise negative impacts on biodiversity, so we are aware of that where we cannot get the win-win solutions. On behalf of the UK Biodiversity Partnership, Defra published practical guidance on adaptation for nature conservation in a changing climate in May last year, entitled Conserving Biodiversity in a Changing Climate. That sets out six guiding principles for those who plan and deliver conservation of terrestrial biodiversity. We are aware of the issue and, we hope, are on the case. Amendment No. 201 suggests including a more detailed definition of ““adaptation”” in the Bill. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently uses the definition suggested. As I said in Committee, we have not defined ““adaptation”” within the Bill because we do not think it necessary to do so. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ““adaptation”” as, "““the process of modifying a thing so as to suit new conditions””." That seems to us to be perfectly adequate. The Government also believe that the ordinary meaning of ““adaptation”” is clear and simple and see no need to introduce new definitions within a legislative context. Although the IPCC—I hate saying that—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition is a recognisable definition, and we are not disputing its validity, the danger of having more than one definition of an ordinary word is that it can change the focus in ways which are not necessarily helpful. Taking into account both the threats and opportunities presented by climate change is already covered by the ordinary meaning of ““adaptation””. If we include this extra definition in the Bill, how do we know that the intergovernmental panel will not update its definition of ““adaptation”” between now and 2050, although it beggars belief that we will not come to amend this Bill before 2050 for other reasons? I say that but I do not place great weight on that point. We are, however, prepared to offer as a political commitment that we will refer to the IPCC’s definition of adaptation within the statutory guidance under Clause 51. We intend to consult on the guidance when the UK Climate Impacts Programme scenarios are released later this year, and following that process we will have a better idea of what organisations will be using the guidance that we will be seeking and what would be most useful for them. So it would be used in the context of the guidance, but it does not make sense to transpose it into the Bill.