Climate Change Bill [HL]

I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Academy of Engineering. I have two minor points and one more substantive one. The first minor one relates to the size of this committee. I would give some support to the idea of having a slightly larger committee. This committee is going to have to have quite a lot of close, tight argument and discussion. On the other hand, it is going to have to cover a fairly wide area. I would have thought that both of those objectives could be met with the committee going up to about 12 members. I do not feel very strongly about this, but I think that there is scope for such a solution. The second minor point is that I am slightly alarmed at the thought of a Commons committee scrutinising the composition of this committee. It is awfully reminiscent of confirmatory hearings, of which there is experience in the North American context, and there would be scope for some politicisation. Although it probably would not happen, the possibility is there. My main point relates to the proposal, which has already been raised, for nomination by the Royal Society or other bodies. As soon as you have multiple bodies making nominations, you no longer have a team. This committee has to work as a team. If you have different bodies nominating different members, they will come to represent constituencies. That is not the way to establish a coherent body that covers the bases. It is extremely important that nominations are made as part of one coherent operation, with all the advice suggested by my noble friends and others Members of the Committee, but it will have to be a coherent whole to create a working team.