Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 520 - 539)

WEDNESDAY 23 MAY 2007

RT HON DAVID MILIBAND MP AND MR ROBIN MORTIMER

  Q520  Patrick Hall: I think Mr Mortimer is bursting to say something.

  Mr Mortimer: There was a judgment about the number of different areas of expertise that you would want to have covered, and the risk of creating a huge list that covers everything. I think that climate change policy, which is the last point here, can cover all sorts of things. We have picked out in particular social impacts, obviously thinking of fuel poverty in particular, but that is not the only one. I think that can cover all manner of things.

  Q521  Chairman: A good defensive line, Mr Mortimer. You are supporting your Secretary of State well there.

  Mr Mortimer: That was the view of the advice really. On the point about the trajectory, surely the question is not merely a scientific one in relation to what is the optimal pathway to a long-term budget or towards a long-term target. The target itself might be primarily decided through looking at the science but actually the optimum trajectory towards that is an economic question, it is a question about social impacts. I think that is the rationale for dealing with all those factors.

  Q522  Patrick Hall: Indeed, which suggests that the Committee is also going to be dealing with the stuff of policy, is it not? Is the advice from the Committee going to suggest policy change in order to achieve the targets?

  David Miliband: Maybe we have not made this clear enough, Patrick, but it is pretty clear that this is not a policy committee. There is provision for the Government to ask the Committee for policy advice, but the remit of the Committee is to recommend budgets, that is the fundamental thing, and secondly to monitor progress. It does not say to the Committee: "Tell us what you think our policy on cavity wall insulation should be vis-a"-vis solar panels?" We can ask them for that sort of advice, but that is not the starting point. Its role is to recommend budgets and to monitor progress.

  Q523  Patrick Hall: And look at sectoral achievement?

  David Miliband: Yes.

  Q524  Patrick Hall: Which all has policy implications, does it not?

  David Miliband: It may have implications, because you may find that one sector is lagging far behind another sector in the progress that it is making and it would point that out to government, but, unless requested, the Committee would not come forward and say, "Therefore we think that in respect of buildings you should do X, Y and Z." It might say, "We note that office buildings of a certain size or public sector buildings or private sector buildings or small businesses are not making as much of a contribution as other parts of the economy", but, unless asked, they would not then say, "We think you should change the Energy Efficiency Commitment in the following way."

  Q525  Patrick Hall: No, in order to do its job properly, the members of the Committee are going to have to be aware of the policy context and there is a range of expertise, apart from biodiversity, which you might give consideration to, I hope I detected?

  David Miliband: Yes.

  Q526  Patrick Hall: These people may well not be able to help thinking in terms of policy, and it may be very useful for all of us, including government, that they do so. Could I just ask how you are going to make these appointments?

  David Miliband: I am not sure I can make them. I think they are done, first of all, through the usual Nolan procedures and then nominations will come to me. I suppose—I am not going to interview them—they would then come to be signed off by me.

  Q527  Patrick Hall: When they are in place, I am sure this Committee and may be others would be delighted to meet them?

  David Miliband: I am sure they will not be shy, retiring violets.

  Q528  Chairman: It says here you do appoint them. Schedule one: "In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to"—

  David Miliband: I misunderstood Patrick's point. I will not be interviewing them, as I said, but the recommendations of the independent panel which does public appointments would come to me to be signed off.

  Q529  Chairman: How long are they going to be there for?

  David Miliband: We said five years, I think.

  Q530  Chairman: Where does it say that?

  David Miliband: We did not specify.

  Q531  Chairman: So it might be five years, but you have not specified it?

  Mr Mortimer: The clause at the moment simply says that the term of appointment will be in the letter of appointment. So, the Government has not yet decided how long each term of appointment should be.

  Q532  Chairman: The reason we asked that question is that, if you like, one of the strengths of the Monetary Policy Committee, which is often being quoted as a parallel type of body, has been that nobody regards it as their personal fiefdom because they are only there for three years, there is a rotating cast list, and obviously there has been a fair amount of importance attached to the "independence" of this body. Is that something which is still malleable?

  David Miliband: I think I am right in saying, correct me if I am wrong, that there are two bodies that are parallel to this, one is the Monetary Policy Committee which, as you say, has three earlier appointments, there is the Low Pay Commission, I do not think there is a term limit for the Chairman, maybe a bit like a select committee, I do not know.

  Q533  Chairman: I am time-limited.

  David Miliband: Are you?

  Q534  Chairman: Yes, two parliaments and out—brutal—a bit like being a secretary of state.

  David Miliband: We certainly do not have time limits, but our problem is the opposite of being here too long. I can see some arguments for fixed term appointments for ministers; it might give us a bit of job security! We have left some flexibility, but I take your point that the three-year model has worked well on the Committee.

  Q535  Chairman: Just to come back to this question of the nature of the advice and the transparency of the information that reaches you, if we look at the terms in which the Bill discusses the report to Parliament, it talks about a report—

  David Miliband: Which page are you looking at?

  Q536  Chairman: I am looking in the Bill now on page ten, I am looking in clause 21(1) where it says: "It is the duty of the Committee to lay before Parliament each year, beginning with year 2009, a report setting out the Committee's views on the progress made towards meeting the carbon budgets." If you are going to have a word like "views", it has got to just be more than a series of numbers. It will express an opinion. I suppose inevitably, will it not be the case, that the Chair of this Committee is going to get drawn when he gets on to the Today Programme for his first report and Mr Humphreys says, "Well, you said so and so. Why do you think that the Government have done so well or so badly compared with the target?", and he goes, "Oh, well, I cannot really tell you that actually." He is bound to have an opinion.

  David Miliband: No. I think from what I have said it would be obvious what he would say. He would say in the transport sector they have done particularly well. However, in the area of home heating there is a real problem because the gas price has gone up and there has been increased coal burn. This poses difficult questions and they are going to have to think about it.

  Q537  Chairman: I think what we are getting at is we can imagine the reverse situation being true when the information comes to you in terms of the advice on carbon. You are a man with a strongly inquiring mind. You might say: "Why have they come to this conclusion?" I cannot believe that the document would not contain some form of reasoning as to why they had come to that conclusion?

  David Miliband: Do you not think, if I can ask you—because this is a prelegislative scrutiny—that there is a dividing line between a group of people coming to a view about those parts of the economy that are playing their full part in this carbon reduction bill and those parts that are not. There is a division between that and then getting into detailed policy questions about, for the sake of argument, to go back to the example I gave, within the question of home/office heating the particular policy instrument that is required then to make a difference?

  Q538  Chairman: If they came to you and said, "You ought to change your policy and go for more of this type of boiler and this is the policy", I would not expect to get into that, but what I would say is that if, as people who have an expertise, they were watching the trends and they said to you, "Look, this sector is causing some problems. The Secretary of State should consider taking action in this area", that is the kind of advice—

  David Miliband: That is fine though. I think that is helpful.

  Q539  Chairman: In paragraph 5.4(5) on page 35 of your document, under question nine, it says that you want to have a transparent reporting framework. Does that mean that any kind of advice that comes along with the targets will be put into the public domain?

  David Miliband: You use the word "advice". The report, which is what we talked about, I presume it would be public.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 5 July 2007