Climate Change Bill [HL]

It is our view that the climate change committee will intelligently make decisions on how it goes about its business, so we do not see why we should stipulate which functions it can and cannot delegate. It will be appropriate for the committee to delegate functions to a sub-committee, member or employee, when it undertakes a special task or to facilitate the organisation’s governance arrangements. An example would be an audit committee arrangement. That is a perfectly standard model for non-departmental public bodies and there is nothing new about it. It would be surprising if the committee were to delegate a principal function or a sensitive issue and we think that that is most unlikely to happen. The committee as a whole is responsible for how it discharges its functions. If, for example, it decided to delegate a core function set out in Parts 1 or 2, such as its annual report on progress, to a junior member of staff or a single member, it would risk the report not being very good. This relates to the nature of the committee. We have to believe that we will appoint quality people who run a quality organisation. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, it should be perfectly possible for the committee to have a sub-committee that deals with the interests he mentioned and to take advice on them in the way he elucidated. As I said at Second Reading, all that will be within the ambit of the climate change committee. However, I do not think that we should set down rigid rules for how it operates and manages its governance procedures. Again, there is nothing new about this. It is perfectly normal for a non-departmental public body to operate in this way.