Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, unless I have completely misunderstood the background note to this amendment and the speeches from my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who say that they are not asking a lot—actually they are asking quite a lot and they probably do not quite appreciate it. My noble friend raised an issue about what they are doing in Germany, which has figured a lot tonight. If Germany is doing what I am about to say, and it is the reason why we could not accept this, further and better particulars need to wing their way down the Corridor. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue. Looking at the broader impact, what the UK is funding through taxpayers’ money and the activities of UK companies is very important. It is a complex area and there are some difficulties with the approach taken in the proposed amendment. It would place a new statutory purpose—as well as a significant burden of work—on the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The ECGD’s role is to benefit the UK economy by helping exporters of UK goods and services to win business, and UK firms to invest overseas, by providing guarantees, insurance and reinsurance against loss. Where appropriate, the department undertakes rigorous environmental and social impact assessments, as required in its business principles. These cover the environmental impact of projects on their surroundings, the effects upon local populations, and the sustainability of the development. Like all government departments, the Export Credits Guarantee Department monitors its own sustainability through its Sustainable Development Action Plan. In 2007, the Sustainable Development Commission declared the department the most improved government department across a range of sustainability indicators. However, the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is not to measure the emissions of all the projects it supports and we do not believe that it should do that. The controlling owners or managers should report those projects’ emissions. But the Export Credits Guarantee Department neither owns nor manages projects: it provides insurance to UK enterprises. No international rules call for export credit agencies to report emissions. I also suggest that an amendment to the Climate Change Bill is not the right place for this. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is subject to an Act which can be amended with proper scrutiny by Parliament. Dropping it in the Bill at this stage does not allow for that, with all due respect. Care and attention must be exercised before we rush into a new primary purpose for a government department, which is what we would be doing, and the costs and benefits must be assessed in advance. The amendment would in any case not achieve the purpose intended by the noble Baroness. As worded, it would make the Export Credits Guarantee Department responsible for all emissions of its customers and their customers. So if it reported one Airbus, it would be responsible for reporting all the emissions for Airbus and all the emissions for all the airlines that bought Airbus aircraft. Leaving aside the work involved in gathering such information from organisations that would have no obligation to provide it to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, any such figures would be meaningless in the context of showing what emissions the Export Credits Guarantee Department is supporting. I hope that is nice and clear in Hansard, so that when they come to look at amendments in the other place, they know what they need to do and not do.