Clause 59
Climate Change Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 59, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) ensuring that proposals and policies for adaptation to climate change in the exercise of their functions contribute to sustainable development.’.
The amendment is on a similar theme to some of the other amendments that we have discussed, so I will not trouble the Committee for long. The amendment would make a correction in relation to a pretty clear requirement for the reporting authorities, as well as the Government, to pay attention to the concept of sustainable development. Clause 56(2), which is part of the Secretary of State’s programme for adaptation to climate change, contains a clear and admirable subsection that the Government have not tried to delete:
“The objectives, proposals and policies must be such as to contribute to sustainable development.”
That is admirable, but there is no equivalent obligation on the reporting authorities.
Under the instructions given in clause 59, the Secretary of State will simply ask the reporting authorities to prepare proposals and policies. That may seem somewhat like dancing on the head of a pin, but there are important parallels. As I mentioned before, a good example is flooding. An authority—for instance, one with responsibility for water, such as the Environment Agency with its flood risk analysis role, or water companies—could create a plan that adapted to climate change but not in a sustainable way.
I shall quote the RSPB, which, for example, said in response to droughts and floods:
“To be truly sustainable, responses to droughts and floods must work with, and benefit from, healthy wetland ecosystems and the services they provide, such as flood storage and water purification. Responses focussed wholly on new hard flood defences and increased ‘end of pipe’ treatment will damage the environment further, reduce its ability to support human needs in the future, and cost society more.”
I know from conversations that we have had only this week that the Minister accepts many of the arguments made by the RSPB and the Blueprint for Water coalition that we must take a holistic approach to issues such as flood defence, flood response and drought. Given that the Minister is not unsympathetic to that point of view and that we have an anomaly in the Bill—the Minister points to his hon. Friend—I hope that both Ministers are therefore equally sympathetic to the point of view advocated by the Blueprint for Water coalition and the RSPB and that they will embrace the amendment with open arms. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to refuse every reasonable amendment that the Opposition move in Committee.