UK Parliament / Open data

Climate Change Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend for his comprehensive response. I am sure that it will be pored over by those in the other place who will want to consider this issue further on the back of amendments moved there. I recognise what my noble friend said about looking forward as against looking back, but the Monetary Policy Committee looks forward. Indeed, there are circumstances in which we accept the decisions of an independent committee whose function is to look forward. My noble friend said that Parliament’s influence would be reduced. I dispute that, because in the event that Parliament did not approve the decisions of the Government or their recommendations to Parliament, Parliament would have the right to vote on the climate change committee’s recommendation or decision. That is a substantial additional power. My noble friend referred to the procedural limitations, but the reality is that it is wrong, and if officials in the department thought that, they would look more closely at my amendment, which would give substantially more power to Parliament to decide. My noble friend raised the very interesting issue of the debate behind closed doors, which I had not thought about and which needs further consideration. My preliminary view of that is that there is a suggestion that people on the climate change committee would compromise on what they really believed in behind closed doors with government in the knowledge that their acceptance of a consensus view might not stand the test of time and might turn out to be an error. They might as a committee be completely convinced by a position, but my noble friend is suggesting that they might be inclined to compromise with government behind closed doors. The credibility and integrity of people on that committee are such that it is far more likely that they will stand their ground on issues on which they believe that their personal credibility as scientists evaluating the science in this area is involved. I have listened to my noble friend and heard what he has to say. I know that others will pursue this debate further, I am indebted to my noble friend and to the House for putting up with me referring to this issue repeatedly throughout the stages of the Bill, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c1461-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top