Climate Change Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has put his finger on the point that I wanted to make, that we cannot settle on numbers until we know what the functions of the committee will be. He mentioned adaptation, and Amendment No. 129 will require the inclusion of another member of the committee. However, my feelings are more in line with those of the noble Lord, Lord May—the smaller the better. If you have two lawyers in a room you will get three arguments. I have no doubt that if you have nine scientists in a room you will have many fewer arguments than you would if you had 12 in a room together. I come back, however, to the practicalities of some of the amendments before us. My question relates to what happens if the national authorities do not agree. At the moment they are due to appoint the chair. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, advises the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that the ideal man to chair the committee happens to be very pro-nuclear power, what is Mr Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, going to say to that? Will there be endless arguments? Given that, I support my noble friend Lord Taylor in saying that the chair must be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, where my noble friend may have missed a point is that if the national authorities are going to appoint the deputy chair, surely the Secretary of State ought to appoint that person as well. I go back to my main point. Can the Minister tell us what is to happen in the case of a disagreement between the national authorities? Further, on Amendment No. 126, tabled by my noble friend, why should it be a Select Committee of the House of Commons? If it is necessary at all for there to be any parliamentary scrutiny, it should be undertaken by both Houses. However, I would prefer for there to be none.