---

Climate Change Bill [HL]

In that case, I will move on. This has become almost a matter of linguistics again in the sense that we know that we are investing in the science of the case. The science is heavy. It can be dense and needs time, because there will be a huge amount of material to be considered. Even with new technology, I understand the limitations on getting models to work properly and reliably. I have great respect for Hadley and what it is doing. It is vital to the success that we will have with the Bill that we have the scientific back-up to implement it. I have been trying to think how business would approach such a situation. All businesses have continual risk assessments and all businesses have annual reports. They do not rewrite the risk assessments every year, but they review them every year. I wonder whether the word ““review”” has a bit more mileage; it is another hook on which the Minister might be able to hang something. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell made the point about different departments. I am particularly keen to ensure that Defra has a vehicle for getting everyone active in this area. Five years is enough time for people to go to sleep and to stop caring about things. That applies just as much to great departments of state as it does to the public, whom we are also trying to keep on side. The public will expect an annual review if not an annual report. They will hope that the Secretary of State can give an update. The two things go together. The risk assessment is more profound and perhaps more difficult to predict, but the adaptation programme needs almost constant updating. You soon know whether you are making progress in implementing the programme, and an annual report on that is possible.