Climate Change Bill [HL]

I apologise to the Committee for not having been present at the beginning of the debate on Amendment No. 123. I therefore do not know whether what I am about to say has already been covered, although from what I heard of that debate later it probably was not. I apologise also for not putting down a probing amendment on the subject that I am going to raise, and I hope that I am not covering old ground. I am raising effectively the issue from that Sherlock Holmes episode, in the Silver Blaze case, of the dog that barked in the night. The significance of the dog was of course that it did not bark. The various listed paragraphs being debated, to which these amendments seek to add, cover different elements of experience, whether in industry, science or activity. They are comprehensive, and I have listened to the efforts to add to them. Nearly 50 years ago, I was the first head-hunter in the United Kingdom, and in effect I can be held responsible, or guilty, for creating that profession in this land. When talking to our clients, one thing that preoccupied us from the beginning was the specifications that would underlie the purpose that the organisation sought to achieve by an appointment. The Minister may well tell me that it is not relevant to this list—although I would welcome knowing where else it might appear in the Bill, if it is not—but there is also the issue of being a change agent. Great organisations may require change from time to time: I cite as random examples the BBC or the National Health Service. On the whole, you would be making a mistake to embark on achieving those changes without having somebody who had previously been responsible for managing change involved in the process. I realise the difference between the advisory role here and that of the Government, and it may well be that the Government feel that they have within their ranks that sort of person. I am not asking the Minister to repeat all that he said on the previous amendments about the rationale of the list. I also recognise that nothing prevents this particular quality from being added without it being mentioned in the Bill. However, does the Minister consider that experience, in human terms, to be desirable or even necessary? I would welcome knowing that. Secondly, how does the Minister think that it will work its way into the fabric of the process if we have nothing specific about it in the Bill?