Climate Change Bill [HL]

I have counted some 14 speakers who have contributed to this debate, many of whom have made very valuable points. I should declare an interest in that while I am not a scientist, I am probably the most out of date engineer in the House. I still pay my subs, but it is a long while since I last practised. However, I still have that attachment. Some of the points that have been made jump ahead of where we are. In particular, the comments of my noble friend Lord Puttnam apply to Amendment No. 158. However, by and large we are talking about the numbers to make up the committee. I am not going to go to the stake on the size of the committee, but I shall stick to the line today. It is a fair point. We want a smallish committee rather than a grand forum, and that is probably the thinking here. The thrust of the amendments, as has been said, is to increase the size of the committee. We are dealing with a couple of things here. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out that this group of amendments takes away the input of the devolved Administrations into the appointment of the committee’s chair. The amendments also have an aim that relates to the nominations from the Royal Society. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours pointed out that the relevant Select Committee at the other end is not clearly available to everybody, whatever subject you look at, simply because the committee structure down there has changed over the years. The practical effect of the amendments is to create a larger committee of between seven and 12—or eight and 13, as the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, pointed out—who have been approved or appointed. The intention of the amendments is to create a larger body with a focus on climate change, to reduce the discretion of national authorities and the role of the devolved Administrations, and to bring further transparency and rigour to the process by giving Parliament a role in approving the appointments. I am not in a position to discuss hearings for confirmation of roles. There is a role for that and I have my own views on it. They are not matters covered by the present arrangements in another place, although from time to time I hear ministerial colleagues complaining that people have been appointed to roles but are completely incapable of answering both to the media and concerned experts. Going before a committee of MPs might sometimes sort out whether someone can explain what they are doing. Half the battle is not the doing but the explaining and being accountable. That is an issue. The Committee on Climate Change will be the first body of its kind to bring together different areas of expertise among its members, from the fields of climate science and policy, economics and, of course, business competitiveness and financial management. As I mentioned in a previous debate, we are talking about effects that run into tens of billions of pounds. The areas of expertise broadly mirror the matters that the committee is required to take into account in its advice on the level of the carbon budget, listed in Clause 10 of the Bill. The committee will have a chairperson and between five and eight members appointed jointly by the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department. It will be a UK-wide body. There are plenty of examples I could give of UK-wide bodies like this that are now appointed with the devolved Administrations, where we have discussions and find perfectly acceptable solutions. I am unaware of major clashes. I have not come armed with a list, but the system of collective appointments has worked extremely well since devolution came onto the scene. By definition, the approach in the Bill has been agreed with the devolved Administrations. I put this on the record. We certainly cannot accept Amendment No. 125, which would remove the devolved Administrations’ input from the process of appointing the chair. On Amendments Nos. 121 and 131, on the size of the committee, we think five to eight, plus the chair, strikes a balance between ensuring that the committee retains a good mix of relevant expertise and creating a committee that is focused and dynamic. Should the committee, once established, consider it necessary to increase its size, we have made provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend the number of committee members, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, recognising that the volume and type of work given to the committee is bound to vary over time. This is a long-term process and we do not see why the number of members needs to be changed now before the committee has even been appointed—I shall come on to that in a moment—or begun its work. Nor do we see why the flexibility to vary the size of the committee as its workload fluctuates over time needs to be removed from the Bill. I believe that Amendment No. 131 would take away the flexibility to change the size of the committee, so it must be a probing amendment by definition. The relevant subsection is in the Bill for that very reason—to take account of the committee’s workload over time. As regards Amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127, the committee’s chair and members are being appointed in a fair and open recruitment process which is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This is fully in line with the Nolan principles. I regret that I have nothing further to report today. For what it is worth, I have advised that I will be in an extremely difficult position if there is no designated shadow chair by Report. Clearly, that is the first appointment because the chair would appoint the members. That is the normal process which works extremely well in a range of other bodies in Whitehall. I do not know when Report will be but we are keen to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible so that there is no undue delay. However, the appointment is being overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Advertisements were placed and an executive search agency was also used. However, I do not know when the appointment will be made. I suppose that it will be made shortly. I hope that it occurs as soon as possible and before Report but I cannot guarantee that. I am not saying that it will occur then because I have no evidence that that will be the case. However, as I say, I will be in an extremely difficult position if it does not occur by Report. The appointments are being conducted in an independent and transparent manner. That is the main message. They are not being decided by Ministers behind closed doors. As the Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, highlights, public appointments that are subject to oversight by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should not usually be subject to additional scrutiny by a Select Committee. As an expert independent body, the committee will play a vital role in advising government on how to manage carbon over time and across the economy but it is not just a question of science, as I think everyone accepts. The science is fundamental and clearly this aspect of expertise must be reflected on the committee but that does not mean to say that the committee should be composed predominantly of scientists. As I said, it will look at a broad range of issues and get the right balance of scientific, economic, business and, indeed cultural issues. So we are not convinced that asking a scientific body—and one as esteemed as the Royal Society would be an obvious one if that were the route to be taken—to nominate half the members would be the best approach. When the Committee on Climate Change is up and working, its members and secretariat will be bound to consult all kinds of outside bodies with the necessary expertise, including, I imagine, both corporate and individual members of the Royal Society, engineering institutions, and business and finance. It is not a case of the committee, whatever the number of its members—which may be small, as we suggest—doing everything itself. It will have to touch base with a range of expertise across society. I am absolutely certain that the bodies that have been mentioned with regard to nominating members will be involved in this work. However, we cannot accept the amendments on nominating members. As I set out on the previous occasion, Clause 27 already requires the committee to set out reasons for its advice on carbon budgets so it will be clear how it has balanced climate science with the other issues which it has to take into account. I repeat that the process of appointment is being regulated and monitored by the commissioner. There are some parliamentary Questions that I understand will be answered on Wednesday. That is the advice I have been given. I have not seen them or the draft Answers yet but I understand that I will be in a position to answer them on behalf of my ministerial colleagues on Wednesday. As for the devolved Administrations, in some ways—I am thinking aloud here—the noble Lord gives an example about how the chairman might be pro or anti something. The fact is that this is an advisory committee, not an executive one. The example I gave in my previous speech was on the nuclear power issue. The Government have set out their position clearly. The climate change committee is an advisory committee, not an executive one. What the First Minister in Scotland has a view on should not figure. It will be the merit of the science and the quality of the individual because the Government are taking the overall decision, as was clearly indicated by the White Paper last week. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no issues where we have not been able to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations over the appointment of people to bodies. That was set down in the protocols at the time of devolution and it is working quite satisfactorily.