Climate Change Bill [HL]

Sometimes one starts to say ““it goes without saying”” and it is then best to say it, just to get the thing clear. Noble Lords are right about the work of Kew. From my limited knowledge, it would be inconceivable that the climate change committee and its secretariat were not aware of the international work that goes on and is led from Kew. I honestly do not think that there is a great deal of difference between us on this. I will briefly set out comments on the amendment by explaining Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1. It gives a useful context, because there are further amendments to the paragraph in the next group. Then I can avoid having to make the same speech. Paragraph 1(3) gives a list, in alphabetical order, of the areas of expertise and knowledge that are desirable in the overall composition of the committee. As will be seen, the areas of expertise broadly mirror the matters set out in Clause 10, which the committee is required to take into account in its advice on the level of the carbon budget. The list of expertise is not meant to be exhaustive. It is the make-up of the committee ““as a whole””, as it says in the Bill. It is the expertise and experience that are provided collectively that are important. The list of expertise is drafted broadly to provide scope for the national authorities and the chair to appoint members with specific expertise as the committee’s work demands. The list does not prevent national authorities appointing members with expertise in areas that are not on the list, if they and the chair believe that that will help the committee’s work. Specifically, Amendment No. 130A seeks to add international development to the list of expertise. I and my ministerial colleagues are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. I am conscious that while Clause 10, to which I have referred, requires the committee to take European and international circumstances into account, expertise of an international nature is not currently present in the list of desirable expertise for the committee, as set out in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. It is worth reminding the Committee that Clause 10(2)(h) makes it clear that the climate change committee can look at any issue it wants to. It is absolutely clear. It is there in the Bill. It is not left as us taking it as read that that is what it will do. It is written down. I humbly say to the Committee that it is not strictly necessary to be detailed on that. It is vital that our approach to tackling climate change is considered in the context of the wider international effort and impacts. It must take the widest possible perspective. For instance, the committee will need to consider international developments in climate science and technology, as well as emission reduction commitments made by other countries and the European Union. All those issues will be relevant to the committee's work. Therefore, we are not convinced that there is a compelling case for a specific reference to international development, as proposed in the amendment, although we understand what that means. We would like to consider the amendment further to see whether we can make it explicit that the committee must have expertise in the international context. As I said, there is a reference to it in Clause 10, which does not carry over to Schedule 1. I am not saying that that should be the exact wording, but the reference is not there. I say that not in the context of international development, but it is quite important to get the message into Schedule 1. That is the message from this debate.