Climate Change Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is absolutely right in saying that this debate focuses on the very important question of the need for the committee to develop public confidence and trust. The example of the Food Standards Agency is a good one. The work that the agency has done in developing public engagement could provide some very interesting lessons for the secretariat. We have also been engaged in very important debates about the independence of the Committee on Climate Change; with that in mind, I will make a few points. I stress that we want to consider Amendment No. 140, which calls for the committee to ensure effective public participation in exercising its functions. I agree that the committee is likely to benefit, as noble Lords have stressed, from engaging with the public, including those in business, industry and academia. I am confident that the committee will follow best practice in its dealings with these sections of society. It should be for the committee to decide when it might be appropriate to engage with the public. This is true for any independent organisation. However, as I have just said, I see the merits of the suggested amendment and agree that the committee should take reasonable steps to engage the public effectively. Therefore, we will consider this amendment further and bring forward some new thinking at the next stage. Before I move on to the next amendment, I would pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I have some experience of working with the scientific community. I understand the anxiety over the trend to suggest that communication is somehow more important than expertise. It is absolutely right that a balance should be struck between all the necessary skills that my noble friend Lord Rooker has discussed in some detail with the House of Lords Committee. There should be a real balance between expertise and the need for executive skills, as the noble Lord suggested, to ensure that the work of the committee is communicated effectively. We are not unaware that scientific expertise does not necessarily embody communication skills, so a balance is required. Whether we are talking about triangular or quadrilateral relationships or a pyramid, emphasis has been placed today very much on the independence of the Committee on Climate Change. Therefore, it would be wrong to be prescriptive about how public engagement should be undertaken and the skills necessary to achieve that. Amendment No. 141 would introduce a new clause which would give the committee a duty to make timely recommendations to the Secretary of State in relation to Part 1, and require it to consult the public on what recommendations should be made. This amendment seems to repeat a lot of the issues we have already discussed and I am therefore not sure what it would add. As we have just discussed in relation to Amendment No. 140, the Committee on Climate Change should engage the public in its work. In our discussions before Christmas the Government agreed to consider further the transparency of the work of the Committee on Climate Change, which is also covered by this amendment. The proposed new Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 141 would place a new duty on the Committee on Climate Change to make timely recommendations. However, noble Lords are probably well aware that Clause 30, which we shall come to shortly, already places a duty on the committee to provide advice, analysis, information or other assistance when requested by a national authority in connection with the authority’s functions under the Act or climate change generally. Therefore, with the reassurances that I have given as regards looking further into public engagement and transparency, which we have already committed to look at, and taking into account the comments made by my noble friend and the importance that your Lordships' House’s Committee attaches to public engagement, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will consider withdrawing the amendment.