Climate Change Bill [HL]

I stand with those who favour a larger committee. The Monetary Policy Committee has nine members and deals with one branch of one science. Given the breadth of scientific, social and economic issues that this committee will have to deal with, if the MPC requires nine members, it is almost certain that the climate change committee needs more. I am puzzled that the original text of the Bill uses the word ““appoint”” while the amendment we are discussing uses ““nominate””. That word usually means that someone puts forward a name and someone else decides it. I do not think that ““nominate”” is the right word if it is intended that someone else should have the right of choice. Either we should go back to the word ““appoint”” or not at all. A further argument that has been put forward is that we are in such a hurry that if we believe in the principle of parliamentary approval of appointments—I am not sure that I necessarily do—at least the chair of the committee should be covered by it. We are engaging here in a 50-year endeavour and I do not believe that it can honestly be said that the few weeks which will be taken up by the approval process is material relative to the gain we believe that we will get from it. Lastly, we have to remember that this is not all the work of these eight or 12 people. The committee will have a staff with a chief executive and will require experts in many disciplines—indeed, broken down into the subsidiary parts of those disciplines. The actual expertise of the body will not reside solely in its members, commissioners or whatever we like to call them.