Martin
Horwood: If there was a change of Administration at
national level, would the removal of a member of the committee for
political reasons be considered reasonable under the legal terms that
the Minister is talking
about?
Mr.
Woolas: I have just given the reason why we think that it
is unnecessary to add the provision. We think that it would be
detrimental to add it precisely because of the hon. Gentleman’s
point. Let me give a brief explanation. Amendment No. 65 would reduce
the scope
of the words “unable or unfit” by specifying that members
may be removed by national authorities only if they are
“physically or mentally” unable or unfit to carry out
their duties. Paragraph 5(d) is an important provision that allows the
national authorities to remove or exclude a member in a number of very
limited circumstances. It is important not to tighten the scope for the
removal processes, for obvious reasons. The words “unable or
unfit” may cover certain circumstances that impact on a
member’s ability to do the job, such as serious illness that
prevents attendance at meetings, or it could cover other situations,
such as a conflict of interest that was not a problem when the member
was originally appointed to the committee. There might be other
unforeseen circumstances. It is a standard provision that ensures that
the committee can function properly, and that members who cannot fulfil
their duties appropriately for whatever reason can be removed. However,
I stress that the power is to be exercised only in limited
circumstances. It is not a power for the national authorities to use to
remove a member without just cause or reasonable consideration. That is
outlined in well-established public laws on such matters. We believe
that following the well-established procedures and laws will achieve
the right balance between what the amendment seeks and what there is a
desire to protect against.
Gregory
Barker: I listened to the Minister with interest and have
I taken on board what was said by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. In
light of our discussions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in
schedule 1, page 45, line 34, leave
out from ‘executive’ to end of line
35. As
the Bill stands, the appointment of the chief executive by the
committee is subject to the approval of the national authorities. We
consider that intervention by the national authorities in the make-up
of the committee is undesirable. The role of the chief executive is
important. The committee should be left to decide the appointment, but
although it can choose the chief executive, the appointment must be
approved by the national authorities. Will the Minister explain the
necessity for political approval regarding a scientific committee from
Whitehall or the devolved Administrations? We have said that the
committee should be genuinely independent. Having such an approval
process will diminish that independence.
Our
motivation for having an independent committee is two-fold. Not only
will it ensure that the committee can make its decisions without regard
to political expediency, but it will ensure that the committee does not
appear to be making decisions that could be interpreted—or
misinterpreted—as political manoeuvres. That second reason alone
should be enough to remove the provision
for national authority approval. It should not appear that the choice
was made in such a way that it could be considered to be a political
appointment. The choice should be made resoundingly on the merits of
the person’s ability to fulfil that important
job. Mr.
Woolas: Again, I have some sympathy with the amendment.
However, I shall explain how far we have moved, and I hope to persuade
the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a Division.
To ensure the
committee’s independence, we have from the outset given it the
power to appoint its own staff. It is a non-departmental public body.
The committee must appoint a chief executive, and it may also appoint
other employees. I have some sympathy with the intentions behind the
amendment, which would further strengthen the independence of the
committee.
Indeed,
having listened to the recommendations made during pre-legislative
scrutiny, we amended the draft Bill to confirm that the committee will
appoint all chief executives. Previously, provisions allowed the
national authorities to appoint the first chief executive. However,
having listened to the views of others, we do not consider it
appropriate to remove completely the requirement for the
committee’s chosen candidate to be approved by the national
authorities, as proposed in the amendment.
That was the
view also of the Joint Committee. When it considered the draft Bill
last summer, it decided that the committee should appoint the chief
executive, but that the national authorities should approve the
appointment. The Secretary of State is ultimately accountable to
Parliament. It is taxpayers’ money, and Parliament has the right
to hold the Secretary of State to account. The chief executive will
also be the accounting officer of the Committee on Climate Change. That
is a crucial part of the role, just as it is for a permanent secretary
in a Department. It is important that the Secretary of State should be
confident that the person selected by the committee is
suitable. We
have considered the matter, moved towards the point of view proposed in
the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, and gained the Joint
Committee’s support for the position that we have arrived at. We
think that it strikes the right balance between independence and
accountability while allowing the committee to appoint its own chief
executive.
Gregory
Barker: I thank the Minister. I appreciate that he has
moved some degree towards our position. We think that independence of
appointment is of the utmost importance, but in light of the fact that
he is coming towards our position and of the importance that we place
on consensus where possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Siobhain
McDonagh.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Nine o’clock till
Thursday 3 July at Nine
o’clock.
| 
