Climate Change Bill [HL]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I should like to make one other point. The amendment, supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, implies that the Government can never reflect carefully and reasonably disagree with a recommendation of the committee after publishing their views and putting them to both Houses; but that either House could, without any explanation at all, reject the committee's recommendation. In other words, the supremacy of Parliament would rightly be permitted—there would be no reasoned amendments or need for reasons to be given. However, as we all know, people vote for or against Motions for myriad reasons. You would be hard put to write down on a single piece of paper why people voted in a particular way. As I said earlier, it is not at all clear who would discuss this matter with the climate change committee if either House rejected a recommendation. We would have to try to explain the almost inexplicable: what could be done to overcome this? I urge my noble friend—we are becoming good friends across the Chamber on this occasion—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to reflect on this. This is not a triangular relationship at all, nor is it a relationship of government in relation to the legislature in relation to advice, however expert. I make the point again: either House, even under this amendment, could reject the committee’s recommendation. It would be quite extraordinary if they were able to do so without any explanation, whereas the Government would not be allowed to reflect and just occasionally disagree in detail or otherwise with the committee after publishing their reasons before a vote of both Houses. The latter seems a much better way to do it.