Climate Change Bill [HL]

I am delighted to respond to this short debate and to give the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, some reassurances. However, before I do that, I should also say how delighted I am that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has been on his feet and has had his dictionary out. Last Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me about the definition of the word ““expedient”” and I responded by choosing the third of his three options. I have never been good at multiple-choice. Therefore, at the time I qualified that by saying I would take advice, have a little read of the debate and would come back to him if there was a problem. I am using this opportunity to clarify that, in Clause 19, the definition of the word ““expedient”” we are opting for is: "““Conducive to advantage in general, or to a definite purpose; fit, proper or suitable to the purposes of the case””," which I believe was option 2. I hope that the Committee will understand my desire to clarify that point now. Rather than writing to everyone, I thought that this would be more helpful, especially as we have had a mention of dictionaries again. In resisting the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I hope that I can offer him the clarification he is looking for and pick up on a couple of other points that were made in the debate. As we have heard, paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 sets out the circumstances in which the national authorities may remove a member from the Committee on Climate Change. I should like to point out that this is a power which we would expect to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, but it is important to make sure that the Committee on Climate Change is able to carry out its functions properly. Amendment No. 133 adds little to sub-paragraph (a). I cannot see how ““6 months”” could be interpreted as anything other than a consecutive period. In the absence of any other definition, ““6 months”” should be interpreted through its natural and ordinary meaning, unless defined otherwise. Members of the Committee will be aware that it is not declined otherwise, so I resist Amendment No. 133. Amendment No. 134 proposes an addition to the list of circumstances in paragraph 5. This amendment also would add little, because consideration of a relevant criminal offence—I emphasise the word ““relevant””—already would be covered by the existing wording in paragraph 5(d); that is, the use of the phrase ““unable or unfit””. We are emphasising there the use of the word ““relevant”” criminal offfence. Paragraph 5(d) states that members may be removed if, in the opinion of the national authorities, they are otherwise unable or unfit to carry out their duties. We believe that this wording already covers the situations outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, but it picks up on the sensitivities highlighted by my noble friends with regard to time served and so on. I shall also resist Amendment No. 135, which proposes that when forming an opinion that a member is unfit or unable to carry out his or her duties under paragraph 5(d), the national authorities must reach an opinion which is ““reasonable. This kind of discussion comes up quite often in your Lordships’ House. This amendment is unnecessary. It is a well established principle of public law that national authorities have a clear duty to act reasonably and, in this case, to form a reasonable opinion. It is therefore already implicit in this clause. Amendment No. 136 relates to specific circumstances in which national authorities may remove a member and proposes to define the meaning of the words ““unable”” and ““unfit”” in the context of mental and physical obstruction. That is clearly an important clause which allows for a member to be removed in a number of very limited circumstances. It is important that we do not restrict these circumstances too much. This is a very standard clause. As I have already said, it is important for the proper functioning of the committee that any member who cannot fulfil his duties for whatever reason can be removed. But it will be exercised only where there is an inability to carry out the job. It is not a power to sack members on a whim. As we have already heard, it has to be used reasonably. The words ““unable”” or ““unfit”” may cover certain circumstances which inhibit the member’s performance, such as serious health issues. However, it could mean others; for example, a conflict of interest that the member did not have when he was originally appointed. There may be other unforeseen circumstances. I therefore propose that this amendment should be withdrawn. I hope that I have given the Committee the reassurances that it seeks. These provisions must be used reasonably. These standard clauses are designed to ensure that the committee can function properly.