David
Maclean: In rising to support the amendments, I want to
press the Minister to confirm that, among the membership under
paragraph (3)(b) to schedule 1, those with expertise in climate change
policy at national and international level and, in particular, the
social aspects of such policy, will have a detailed knowledge of the
impact on indigenous peoples in rain forest areas of the world. I also
seek his assurance that any other experts in
“climate science,
and other branches of environmental science”
will have expertise in
biodiversity in particular, and also the rain
forests.
Mr.
Woolas: I want to make a number of points about amendments
Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62. First, my answer to the right hon. Member
for Penrith and The Border, is yes. That point has been raised
throughout the proceedings and on Second Reading by a number of hon.
Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)
has also raised the point and written to me about it, and I was able to
give her the reassurances that she sought. Expertise is also included
in the adaptation
sub-committee. The
five amendments would increase the size of the Committee on Climate
Change and remove the devolved Administrations’ input. To be
fair to the hon. Gentleman, he said that they were probing amendments,
so I will not tease him about forgetting the Scots—I will leave
that for another occasion. They also aim to ensure that all nominations
are considered and approved by a relevant Commons Select Committee. The
practical effect of the amendments would be to create a larger
committee than currently envisaged of between seven and 12 who have
been approved or appointed by a Commons Select Committee. Half the
committee would be nominated by national authorities, and half would be
nominated by the President of the Royal Society. Amendment
No. 60 specifically requires the chair to be appointed only
by the Secretary of State, as opposed to national authorities
collectively. I
recognise that the intention of the amendments is to create a larger
and more scientific body and to bring further transparency and rigour
to the process by giving Parliament a role. Let me reassure the hon.
Gentleman about the method of appointment of the committee. The
committee will be first of its kind. It will be a UK-wide body
reflecting the nature of the devolution settlements. Identical
amendments were discussed in the other place, and the
Government’s view has not
changed. We
think that between five and eight members plus the chair is a good
size. The shadow chair agrees with that point of view, as he stated in
his evidence to the EFRA Committee in March. It strikes the right
balance between ensuring that the committee contains a good mix of
relevant experience and making sure that the committee is focused and
dynamic. Amendment No. 58 would increase the number of committee
members to between seven and 12, which would be a mistake because the
committee would be too large to be
focused.
Gregory
Barker: Is the Minister saying that the Cabinet is not
focused? The Cabinet is twice that size. Maybe that accounts for recent
developments.
Mr.
Woolas: God so loved the world that he sent his only son
and not a committee. I believe that there is a balance, given the remit
of work to be done. The Committee on Climate Change needs to have a
focused agenda, particularly running through to the period of 1
December, which we have discussed. I am mindful of the size and shape
of the committee. My noble Friend Lord Rooker gave a commitment in the
other place that the Secretary of State and the chair would review the
committee’s size during its first year of
operation and increase it using the powers already in the Bill, if
necessary. It would be a bit hasty if we were to increase the size
significantly now.
I have
mentioned the obvious about the devolved Administrations and the impact
of amendment No. 60. To reassure the Committee that the
committee’s appointments will be independent, the appointment
processes will, of course, be conducted in accordance with the Nolan
principles and monitored by the Office of the Commissioner for Public
Appointments. That is to make sure that the committee is not formed of
people who are beholden to Ministers, political parties or special
interest groups. I hope that gives
reassurance. Amendments
Nos. 59 and 62 change the operation of the appointments process so that
the Royal Society is responsible for appointing half of the committee
members. We are concerned that that would make the appointments process
less transparent. Indeed, Lord Rees of Ludlow, a former president of
the Royal Society, made his views clear when discussing the amendment.
He said that it would not be reasonable to expect a body such as the
Royal Society to appoint members. I assure the Committee that we
consult the Royal Society on appointments related to scientific
matters, which I have recently done with regard to the
committee on radioactive
processing.
David
Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. My point,
which has just occurred to me, relates to a slightly different aspect
of what he is discussing. The committee will consist of a chairman and
a maximum of eight other people, yet paragraph 1(3) lists nine distinct
disciplines on which an expert is needed—that is only one of
each. When the Bill says “climate change” and
“other branches of...science”, it can only be at
most one person. Unless there are more than nine people on the
committee, not all the disciplines and skills will be covered. Or am I
utterly
wrong?
Mr.
Woolas: No, the right hon. Gentleman is not utterly wrong.
I remember asking that very question myself six months ago. I took
advice and said that we should review the matter during the course of
the year—I have already committed to
that. Let
me reassure the right hon. Gentleman further. One of the first
appointments to the committee, in its shadow form, was Lord Robert May,
who is an expert ecologist. I believe that, through his appointment, we
have demonstrated our commitment to ensure that the committee considers
the impact of its recommendations on the natural environment. However,
Lord May has other expertise. We have really got the best and
brightest, as is evident through the chair, who has taken on board a
number of skills, experience and expertise. I am confident that we have
the stature and status of committee that we
require. However,
the first job of the committee is to advise on the setting of budgets,
so we will review its composition during the course of the year. I give
the reassurance that all the appointments are within the correct
procedures of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments,
which, I can assure you, Mr. Cook, are robust and prevent
Ministers from interfering unduly while maintaining accountability to
Parliament.
Gregory
Barker: As I said at the outset, the amendments are
probing. To a certain extent, I was reassured by the Minister’s
comments about possible future flexibility on the size of the
committee, because it seems to us, despite the evident expertise of the
existing members, that the committee is nevertheless taking on a huge
task. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has
pointed out, extraordinary expertise will be called upon if the
committee is to do its job properly. Likewise, in an ideal world, we
would prefer a more independent appointment process, but at this stage
we take the assurances of the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
schedule 1, page 44, line 36, at
end insert ‘and each
term of office must be at least six
years’. The
amendment proposes a statutory minimum on the term limit of members of
the committee. There are a number of reasons for having a statutory
minimum. As evidenced by the debate so far, there is support in the
House for making the committee independent, scientific and apolitical.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate my scepticism when this
Government have stuffed so many commissions and quangos with members of
their own party. A six-year commitment would mean not only that members
outlast a Government, but that they are locked in for the long haul. It
would be a shame to see a Government replacing members after a year or
two because they did not like the advice that they were
receiving.
Martin
Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of
the term “locked in”? If a member of the committee wanted
to resign, as Lord Turner intends to do, would they be prevented from
doing
so?
Gregory
Barker: No, a member would not be prevented from
resigning, but they would be prevented from reappointing themselves if
the term of their appointment were less than that which I propose. The
impartiality of the experts is arguably the committee’s greatest
source of authority, and a longer term would help to ensure that that
is protected. Under the amendment, committee members would sit for
longer than a budgetary period, guaranteeing that they would be on the
committee when it makes at least one of the reports on the five-year
budget periods. Given the number of reports that the committee will be
responsible for preparing, continuity is certainly
advantageous. Although
six years seems like a reasonable term limit, hon. Members will
appreciate that the amendment was motivated by impartiality and
continuity. Will the Minister explain what mechanisms are in place in
the Bill to ensure that those two vital aspects of the Committee are
respected?
David
Maclean: I, too, support the amendment. Had I studied it
more carefully, I would have suggested the slight refinement of making
the limit between four and six years. It is important that members are
on the committee for an average of about five years, not so that they
can be locked in, but so that there is continuity. We do not want to
lose all members after five or six years.
In the case of national park appointments, if there
are 14 people in a national park, their appointments do not all come up
for renewal at once. Some are on a cycle of four years; some are on a
cycle of five years; and some only three years, which is far too short.
It would be best if we had assurances from the Minister that there will
be a minimum term appointment of say four years with some being
appointed for five and some for six with a rolling
spread.
Mr.
Woolas: The amendment was discussed in the other place, so
I am in danger of repetition. I will start by explaining for the record
that the Government’s intention is that the first committee
members should be appointed for a term of five years. For current
committee members, the five years will include the time that they have
spent working on the shadow body, which will meet the proposals in some
respects. That is not stated in the Bill, because it is not normal
practice to specify a term of office in primary
legislation. The
amendment suggests a term of appointment of six years. I think that
that is bit too long, and I will explain why. Public appointments are
usually for terms of three years each. Whatever their duration, they
are restricted under the Nolan principles and the Office of the
Commissioner for Public Appointments rules to two terms. In total, that
cannot exceed 10 years. While a five-year term allows the Government of
the day to extend an appointment, assuming that the OCPA rules are met,
a six-year appointment may not be doubled because of the duration
limit. As
my noble Friend Lord Rooker said in the other place, the arrangements
satisfy the points made by the amendment. The practical impact of a
six-year limit would be to stop somebody from being reappointed for a
second term, whatever the merits of their expertise and so
on.
Gregory
Barker: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I
appreciate the points that he has made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in
schedule 1, page 45, line 10, after
‘the’, insert
‘reasonable’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 65, in schedule 1, page 45, line 10, leave out
‘otherwise’ and insert ‘physically or
mentally’. Gregory
Barker: The amendments outline various instances that
should prevent somebody from being a member of the Committee on Climate
Change. Our intention is to clarify a few of the reasons why a member
can be excluded. The amendments would add a few points that we hope
will not find too much discord in the Committee. The purpose of the
amendments is simply to make the Committee on Climate Change more
robust by adding a few more situations that we feel should result in
removal or
exclusion. 9.15
pm The
amendments are designed to clarify what is meant in the Bill by
“otherwise unable or unfit” to serve on the committee. We
suggest, first, the phrase “reasonable opinion” and,
secondly, the phrase “physically or mentally unfit”. We
hope that our intention of increasing the
clarity of the provision is welcomed by hon.
Members. The proposal would not only provide clarity, but tighten the
scope of the removal process so that only those who were truly
physically or mentally unfit were excluded, not those whom the national
authorities merely deemed unfit to serve. We hope that the Minister
will welcome this
clarification. Martin
Horwood: I understand the spirit in which amendments Nos.
64 and 65 have been tabled. Perhaps the Conservative party is imagining
nefarious goings on in which appointments are made for political
reasons and there are then attempts to remove members from the
committee for political reasons, so that if control of the national
Government in Scotland changed from Scottish National party to Labour
or even Liberal Democrat, political affiliations might be sought out
and people might be removed at sudden
notice. I
suspect that amendment No. 64 would be a sensible tightening of the
wording, but I am puzzled by amendment No. 65 because there are other
bases on which people might be unfit to serve on a committee of this
stature other than being physically or mentally unfit. I appreciate
that the amendment is perhaps designed to prevent people from being
removed because their opinions are controversial. That would be an
unfortunate move, but what if their scientific credibility had been
compromised? What if they had been caught out indulging in plagiarism
or their professional reputation had been compromised by particular
revelations? Those might be unfortunate developments that we would not
like to happen, but the wording in amendment No. 65 is much too
prescriptive.
Mr.
Woolas: Again, these amendments were discussed in the
other place and consideration was given to them by their lordships. The
circumstances in which the national authorities may remove a member are
set out in the four sub-paragraphs of paragraph 5 of schedule 1. I want
to highlight the fact that this is a standard power in relation to many
non-departmental public bodies, which this committee is. We expect that
it would be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, but it is
important to make certain that the committee can carry out its duties
appropriately. Under
amendment No. 64, the national authorities, when forming an opinion of
whether a member of the committee was unfit or unable to carry out
their duties, would have to reach an opinion that was
“reasonable”. The amendment is unnecessary, as their
lordships accepted, because the duty for national authorities to act
reasonably and, in this case, to form a reasonable opinion is already
in place under the well-established general principles of public law,
including within the procedures identified in the Nolan report for
public appointments. That is therefore already implicit in the
schedule, so I see no reason to add
it.
| 
