My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this suite of amendments dealing with climate change and environmental issues. I particularly support Amendments 9, 10, 12 and 29, which have just been so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and are in the name of my noble friend Lady Boycott, who I know is deeply disappointed not to be able to be here. I did not manage to get my name on the amendments but I am here, so perhaps I can say a few words about the general tenor of this group.
7 pm
I know that, at Second Reading, the Minister was clear that he wanted to articulate the Government’s commitment on the issues of net zero and climate change. He spoke to those issues, saying that the Government were confident that the arrangements in the Bill supported their commitment to net zero and would help to achieve their priorities on environmental targets and issues. However, I know that the Minister will not be surprised if I argue that we should explicitly embed the good intentions that I am certain the Government have in the Bill and integrate considerations on climate change and environmental targets in appropriate places in the legislation, which is the purpose of the amendments.
As the COP president, Alok Sharma, said in his major speech last week, we need to
“match the powerful rhetoric we heard, with concrete action”.
I was almost going to say that that concrete action is there not just for the purpose of saving the planet, which sounds rather flippant. However, we talked earlier
about long-term environmental priorities and short-term economic priorities. I am not sure whether that is a real dichotomy because if we, as a country, are to grow —and do so in a sustainable way—we have to have that green transition to which the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, spoke. It is in the interests of our strategic, economic growth policies to ensure that, at all levels of this subsidy process, we take those issues into account.
As the Minister knows from exchanges we have had in the Chamber, I think that part of the problem of why we have before us policies and legislation that do not properly integrate and articulate these issues is because the Government have not accepted the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation of a net-zero test for all policies and legislation. We need action in every sphere of our society, in every element of the economy and in every department by having an approach that recognises the overwhelming importance of this issue, as well as the possibilities and implications across the widest span of areas.
It is interesting that this is recognised outside government. Last year, the CBI, the TUC and other major national organisations wrote to the Prime Minister asking for just this sort of net-zero test so that there was consistency and strategic direction. As we all know, for those outside who are making investment decisions and everything else, clarity and certainty are very important. Looking at how these amendments could be integrated into the subsidy regime going forward would assist everyone involved with it—not just the public authorities that put forward the subsidy regime and the subsidies, but those who are applying for them.
Lastly, I refer to those Bills mentioned earlier. We have not yet achieved the objective of having our climate change obligations running like a golden thread through policy and legislation. But when we have argued the case on individual Bills—I have been involved with three: the Pension Schemes Bill, the Financial Services Bill and the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill—the Government have recognised the advantage of explicitly spelling out how our net-zero and environmental obligations can be integrated in the legislation. In the end, that has been done not by defeating the Government but by persuading them. I am not sure whether I want to join the tête-à-tête of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, with the Minister or to ask for a separate meeting, but I hope that he will be willing to speak between this stage and Report about how we can make progress on those issues.