Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 123: 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. 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.