| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I turn to the amendments, which this debate hangs on. They involve simply changing the committee’s name. So far as the name is concerned—this is the advice I have received—there is absolutely no legal significance within the machinery of government in which it will operate or in the context of the Bill itself. I am almost saying that it does not matter; the argument might therefore be, “If it does not matter, do it”. However, noble Lords have hung on the proposed change of name things other than a change of name. There has been an attempt to hang changes of functions, of authority and of power—those involve going beyond the advisory role on the change of name. On that basis, of course, it is not an argument that the Government can accept. We believe that referring to the organisation—it is a non-departmental public body—as a committee is perfectly fine and we do not consider the amendment would add anything of value. I say that in the context of what we want the committee to do. If those who want to change the name are happy to accept the parameters of the vision of what we want it to do, that is one message. But that is not the message of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor: they are hung with changing the functions and the nature of the committee. We want to keep it as it currently is,
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1072
Lord Campbell-Savours: What, in principle, is wrong with the requirement that the committee agrees a report on facts, findings and recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change?
Lord Rooker: With respect, I have not really addressed my noble friend’s point; it went somewhat beyond the amendment, so I am not briefed on it. In principle, I suspect that there is nothing wrong with that. The argument is that the facts and transparency of the Committee on Climate Change are inevitably going to have to lead to an agreement. It is not reporting as the NAO reports; it is reporting on a specific department’s activities, looking at value for money, and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In order to get the debate right, there must be some agreement on either the budget and how the money is being spent—or mis-spent. When the NAO report is published, we do not want, as my noble friend says, the accounting officer of the department saying, “Well, these conclusions and recommendations are all very well, but the facts in the report are wrong”. Well, no Permanent Secretary is ever in a position to say that, because the reports are only published after getting the department’s agreement.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for his reply and noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, whose contribution went some way to recognising the argument from the Opposition Benches. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—in all innocence, I think—revealed the weakness of what the Government are seeking to achieve when he suggested putting the word “advisory” in the title. As the Minister rightly said, all the Government want is an advisory committee; they do not want it to have any executive power.
There is a real argument between the Opposition and the Government on this issue. I suspect that when the Bill was first proposed the climate change committee was probably seen as being much more executive and powerful than has subsequently been presented in the Bill and the words of the Minister. The Bill creates great difficulties for future Governments if it has a purely advisory body with no executive function. I suspect that driving climate change initiatives across all government departments will be a momentous task which will need authority and direction. That is why a climate change committee—or, as we prefer, “the commission on climate change”—is central to this purpose.
Lord Clinton-Davis: What would be the role of Parliament in that event?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: All matters must come before Parliament for approval, as they do under regulations and statutory instruments to this day. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested that an ad hoc committee would constantly monitor the whole process of climate change and how the balance between the Government and the commission
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1073
The Government have, for reasons of their own, somewhat funked the issue. Although I accept that my representations on the name are symbolic rather than substantial, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
3.50 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 171.
Ampthill, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Baker of Dorking, L.
Bowness, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Caithness, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cathcart, E.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crickhowell, L.
De Mauley, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Fookes, B.
Freeman, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Garel-Jones, L.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodlad, L.
Hanham, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howell of Guildford, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Krebs, L.
Laird, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lindsay, E.
Luce, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell of Markyate, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mar, C.
Marlesford, L.
Mawhinney, L.
May of Oxford, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Murphy, B.
Neville-Jones, B.
Noakes, B.
O'Cathain, B.
Oxburgh, L.
Palmer, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Plumb, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Rawlings, B.
Rees of Ludlow, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selborne, E.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stern, B.
Strathclyde, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Trimble, L.
Tugendhat, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Warnock, B.
Warsi, B.
Wilcox, B.
Windlesham, L.
Addington, L.
Adonis, L.
Alli, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. [Lord President.]
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1074
Billingham, B.
Bilston, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Chorley, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corston, B.
Crawley, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dixon, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Dykes, L.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Falkland, V.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fearn, L.
Filkin, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goodhart, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Kerr of Kinlochard, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Kirkhill, L.
Laming, L.
Leitch, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Listowel, E.
Liverpool, Bp.
London, Bp.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
McNally, L.
Malloch-Brown, L.
Marsh, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Moonie, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Moser, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newcastle, Bp.
Northover, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Prosser, B.
Prys-Davies, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Ramsbotham, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rix, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Rooker, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Russell-Johnston, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Soley, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tonge, B.
Tordoff, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turnbull, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Walmsley, B.
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1075
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
West of Spithead, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.01 pm
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Committee on Climate Change]:
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 123:
Schedule 1, page 32, line 5, at end insert “not fewer than seven and not more than 12 members of which”
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments changes the nominations procedure for and the composition of the Committee on Climate Change. The adjustments to the structure of the committee are designed to make it more able to deal with the added duties we have placed on it and to make sure that it is more independent and scientific.
Amendment No. 123 increases the size of the committee. We feel that eight people are not quite adequate to cover the extra responsibilities that our other amendments confer on the committee. In addition, we have some concerns about the nature of the issues that the Bill obliges the committee to consider and investigate. We believe that the scope should be slightly widened to include environmental science, the actual impact of climate change on people and wildlife and a host of other matters. We have tabled amendments to that effect that will be discussed later. I mention them now because we feel that it is important to ensure that the committee is able to give its due attention to those issues as well as to nominate people with the relevant expertise. We therefore feel it is important to increase the size of the committee to not fewer than seven or more than 12 members.
The next amendment in this group relates to the nomination procedure. To ensure the independence of the committee, we believe that about half the appointments should come from the Royal Society. That would depoliticise the committee so that it would not be formed of people potentially beholden to Ministers, political parties or special interest groups. I expect there will be criticism and that it will be said that the Royal Society has its own internal politics. In previous debates, it has been said that the world of science is not monolithic in terms of agreement and unified opinion. We take the view that a body such as the Royal Society will not wish to do other than seek the nomination of the best individuals available if it wishes to retain its reputation. I hope that noble Lords will agree with the intention of this amendment to provide a mechanism, which is lacking in the Bill, to ensure that appropriate experts and scientists are appointed to the committee through an apolitical, independent and credible process. The body has work to do, and it needs the best.
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1076
What assurances can the Minister give that people appointed to the climate change committee will be the best available to serve the body? Even if he can explain that nominations and appointments will be made with the utmost care and conscientiousness—and we do not doubt the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the committee members are of the appropriate sort—there needs to be a provision in the Bill regarding these authorities. However, the responsibility for appointing the chair should rest with the Secretary of State. Can the Minister give any indication of when the appointment of the chairman of the shadow climate change committee will be announced?
The Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. The final decision in these matters, notwithstanding the role of national authorities, should rest here in Westminster. In addition to the material advantage to the workings of the committee and its increased independence—indeed, perhaps because of these things—our amendments would go a long way to increasing public confidence in the committee and its independence. That factor will allow the recommendations to carry more weight and have more impact. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support what I believe are probing amendments at this stage, but I very much support the feeling behind the previous amendments. I understand the Minister’s difficulty: this is a new committee that will be meeting an objective that has not been set in political terms before, and there will be a range of vastly different views about how it should be set up. The Secretary of State will say that they picked the numbers and that any further changes will be almost as random as the original numbers.
There is a case for increasing the number of committee members. I have a slight issue with the selection of committee members from the Royal Society. It is an eminent body that has done an enormous amount of work in the area—I know that many noble Lords have been to its debates on climate change—but the world of science is multifaceted and there are areas that might not be represented by the membership of the Royal Society.
The role of political interference needs to be looked at. The membership of the committee, even though it is advisory, will affect vastly different areas within the business and social community. We need only look at the debate on the role of Heathrow at our previous sitting to realise that that will be the case. There might be a call for a member of the CBI to be one of the committee members; that would have its own consequences—maybe positive, maybe negative.
I know that the Minister will set out the reasoning on why some of these amendments will not meet his favour, but I hope that he can give one assurance. Most of the amendments are to sub-paragraph (1). However, paragraph 1(6) of the schedule states:
It is very tempting to table an amendment stating that there should be an affirmative procedure. I hope that, if the Government are to reject the amendments, this is an ongoing process that is to be looked at regularly. Although I would not table an amendment saying that there should be an affirmative resolution, I very much hope that, because of the unique nature of the
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1077
Lord Rees of Ludlow: I declare an interest as the current president of the Royal Society, and I would like to comment on the two amendments in which the society is explicitly mentioned. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has emphasised, the authority and standing of the climate change committee is crucial. That will depend on the perceived quality and independence of its members. In particular, it must contain some members with real clout in the sciences of climate, environment and energy, along with the associated technologies—the technologies for adaptation and for mitigation.
The Royal Society is the UK’s main academy of sciences and it is routinely consulted by the Government on appointments to research councils and the like over the whole range of science and technology. Its involvement in proposing members of the committee would send a signal that the Government value independent input and expertise.
I have two provisos. First, it would not be reasonable to expect that a body such as the Royal Society could actually appoint members; its role could solely be to make nominations, to be consulted and to advise. That is the current situation with respect to appointments to research councils and similar bodies where the Royal Society is consulted. Secondly, if just one scientific body were singled out as an interface with government in this context, I think that the Royal Society would be regarded as the most appropriate one. It spans the whole range of science and technology. However, its expertise is spread thin in some areas. Were the society to be entrusted with any special role, it should consult not only among its own fellowship but also with the Royal Academy of Engineering, relevant professional institutions and specialised societies.
The motivation behind the amendment—that the Government should be obliged to draw on the best independent advice—would surely have the wide support of all of the scientific community, because the standing of the climate change committee is a pre requisite for achieving the Bill’s aims. But when the Bill comes back, the wording might perhaps spell out more explicitly that the national authorities should be obliged to seek and note the best independent advice, even if the society cannot be expected actually to make nominations itself.
Baroness Northover: As we have heard, the strength, expertise and independence of the climate change committee is critical. In many ways, this is the heart of the Bill. How we move forward depends a great deal on the effectiveness and power of the committee. I am very concerned about its composition. I simply do not see here a body that will take through what we are all asking of it. I hope that the Government will look
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1078
4.15 pm
The committee is balanced between parts of the United Kingdom. It addresses business, the economic impact of changes that might be recommended, and so on. However, is there sufficient depth for original analysis of the problem and what ought to be done? I really doubt that there is proper balance on that. Is there deep knowledge of the problem and its worldwide impact? Again, I doubt it. I am especially worried about its potential analytical abilities. It therefore seems to me that the composition of this committee needs serious further work. We will be addressing other important aspects of the committee’s composition, on international development, in the next group of amendments. I will return to the subject then, but we need to look again, thoroughly, at improving the committee’s effectiveness and analytical power.
Lord Crickhowell: I strongly support my noble friend’s proposal that the size of the committee should be increased; that, indeed, was the recommendation of the Joint Committee, which, while accepting that there must be an upper limit, felt that the numbers proposed by the Government were inadequate.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s remarks. These issues were carefully considered by the Joint Committee, and I do not share her view that the committee will be inadequate. Various suggestions have been made during our proceedings on how it might be strengthened. I see no reason why, given the right resources, its analytical powers should have shortcomings. My own experience of chairing such a public body is, I am glad to say, that as soon as it is in position, its members become strongly independent, wherever the nominations came from, and come together to act as an effective body. I hope that the noble Baroness will be surprised at how quickly it will start to be an effective team, wherever the representations come from.
It is a great privilege, in a short debate, to follow the president of the Royal Society—and the master of my old college. We need to listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said about exactly how the Royal Society might perform its task. He made it clear that he does not think its role is simply to nominate, but that it can play an even more effective role by putting forward and consulting on the names in the manner that he suggested. We shall have to look carefully at his proposals before we come back on Report.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |