| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Before I move on to the next amendment, I would pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I have some experience of working with the scientific community. I understand the anxiety over the trend to suggest that communication is somehow more important than expertise. It is absolutely right that a balance should be struck between all the necessary skills that my noble friend Lord Rooker has discussed in some detail with the House of Lords Committee. There should be a real balance between expertise and the need for executive skills, as the noble Lord suggested, to ensure that the work of the committee is communicated effectively. We are not unaware that scientific expertise does not necessarily embody communication skills, so a balance is required. Whether we are talking about triangular or quadrilateral relationships or a pyramid, emphasis has been placed today very much on the independence of the Committee on Climate Change. Therefore, it would be wrong to be prescriptive about how public engagement should be undertaken and the skills necessary to achieve that.
Amendment No. 141 would introduce a new clause which would give the committee a duty to make timely recommendations to the Secretary of State in relation to Part 1, and require it to consult the public on what recommendations should be made. This amendment seems to repeat a lot of the issues we have already discussed and I am therefore not sure what it would add. As we have just discussed in relation to Amendment No. 140, the Committee on Climate Change should engage the public in its work. In our discussions before Christmas the Government agreed to consider further the transparency of the work of the Committee on Climate Change, which is also covered by this amendment. The proposed new Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 141 would place a new duty on the Committee on Climate Change to make timely recommendations. However, noble Lords are probably well aware that Clause 30, which we shall come to shortly, already places a duty on the committee to provide advice, analysis, information or other assistance when requested by a national authority in connection with the authority’s functions under the Act or climate change generally.
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1114
Therefore, with the reassurances that I have given as regards looking further into public engagement and transparency, which we have already committed to look at, and taking into account the comments made by my noble friend and the importance that your Lordships' House’s Committee attaches to public engagement, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the noble Baroness saying that the Government are not necessarily averse to having something in the spirit of Amendment No. 140 in the Bill? I rather hope that she is saying that. I suggest that the Government think fairly hard about the rather new situation we are in now where public consultation and relations with different parts of the United Kingdom sometimes involve people in different parts of the country holding different opinions, and the fact that some of these issues will become somewhat politicised. This is new. Living, as I do, north of the border, I see this possibility increasing. I am sorry about it but I think that it is increasing. If the Government are thinking of designing an amendment, they should remember that there may be problems when the committee engages in public consultation or information dissemination. I am sorry if I go on about this but I feel that the Government must pay attention to this increasing trend.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention and for giving me the opportunity to stress that we need to be clear about the kind of public engagement that we are talking about, and as regards whether we are talking about public engagement undertaken by the Committee on Climate Change or government consultation on new policies in the light of that committee’s advice. That is why we are taking this away to think about it. We do not want to muddle the various roles. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for clarity, particularly with the devolved Administrations.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the noble Baroness for her response. This has been a useful debate on an important area of the committee’s activity. Therefore, I was very pleased to hear that it may well be possible to incorporate elements of Amendment No. 140 at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 pm
Earl Cathcart moved Amendment No. 140A:
“Disqualification through membership of the Scottish ParliamentThe noble Earl said: This is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who cannot be here. My name is also added to it. It originates from the Scottish Law Society and raises an important issue. Does the Minister agree that it is important to create a committee that not only appears to be, but is, genuinely apolitical? Does he feel that it is acceptable to have politicians from whatever Administration sitting on the committee? I beg to move.
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1115
The Earl of Caithness: I was intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment but surely it ought to include Members of the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and this Parliament.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I find this amendment rather curious. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, keeps drawing the long straw in moving all the amendments to which I object while his noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach moves the amendments that I support. I do not understand what is going on. However, if the expertise is there, we should not presume that politicians are not capable of taking off their political hats when they walk into a room. Some people are perfectly capable of doing that. If we get into the business of ruling out individual national Parliaments or Assemblies, what happens if someone in the House of Lords turns out to be precisely the person who we need to be on the committee? We will go down a very dangerous route if we start accepting amendments of this nature. I beg the forgiveness of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, but I have to oppose vigorously this amendment—not that I would want to be a member of the committee; no one would vote me on to it with my modest skills.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: We are at an interesting point in Committee. I am afraid that I have to inform my noble friend that the Bill is designed to ensure that Members of the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly are not allowed to be members of the Committee on Climate Change. Therefore, this probing amendment is very helpful because it gives me the opportunity to clarify that point.
Lord Campbell-Savours: What about a Cross-Bencher in the House of Lords?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Even though we in this House are somewhat independent of our political masters, if it is deemed inappropriate that Members should have a political affiliation, how far down the democratic chain is it proposed to take that because regional authorities still exist? There are county councils, unitary authorities, district councils and parish councils. Are we going all the way down that chain as well or are we making a distinction and having a form of segregation, which is not very PC but which I have to agree is probably sensible?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: We are not going all the way down the chain. It is set out in the Bill. We are making use of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, which does not apply to the House of Lords. This means that Members of the House of Lords would be able to become members of the Committee on Climate Change. Paragraph 28 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 applies in this case and therefore does not disqualify Members of the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are therefore eligible to apply to become members of the Committee on Climate Change. However, all applicants to the committee will have to declare whether they have any political affiliation or are members of stakeholder groups. As we have already debated today and on previous Committee days, we see independence as
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1116
Paragraphs 28 and 29 of Schedule 1 make the necessary provisions to disqualify Members of the House of Commons, even though I agree with my noble friend that Members are capable of putting political allegiances aside. We are talking not just about the actuality of what is done but about the perception as well. Therefore, paragraphs 28 and 29 of Schedule 1 also apply to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose—I am very sorry to see he is not well and we look forward to seeing him back here when he is fully recovered—seeks to ensure that Members of the Scottish Parliament are also disqualified from becoming members of the Committee on Climate Change. I can confirm that Members of the Scottish Parliament will be disqualified from appointment to the committee. There is an established procedure for ensuring such disqualification. It is to be effected by means of an order under the Scotland Act 1998 and does not require to be stated in the Bill.
For completeness, I should also confirm—which I may have already done—that Members of the National Assembly for Wales will also be disqualified from becoming members of the Committee on Climate Change. That disqualification will be given effect by making an amendment order to the National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2006. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. With the assurance that action is being taken, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I think I heard my noble friend say that, while Members of the House of Lords could be members of the committee, they would have to drop their political affiliation. They would not be able to remain members of a political party. Is that what my noble friend said?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I said that they would have to declare it.
Earl Cathcart: I am very pleased that the probing was to such good effect. I did have doubts when the debate started, but I thank the Minister for her explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Advice in connection with carbon budgets]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Lord Teverson moved Amendment No. 143:
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1117
The noble Lord said: The Minister has saved me from having to declare an interest as a potential member of the climate change committee. I shall be interested to see all those Cross Benchers who turn up with particularly eloquent speeches for the first round of interviews. We should remember that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is the only person who definitely cannot stand because he is also an MSP.
In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 and 151. It comes back to the heart of the matter of what the climate change committee is about and to some of the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about earlier. It is certainly the view from these Benches that the committee’s role has to be strengthened. One of the things that we were surprised about when the Bill was published after the work of the Joint Committee was that the role of climate change committee seemed to go backwards. In my view, what this committee does, with great diligence and expertise, is assess all those areas we have talked about, set the five-year budgets for three terms ahead and look to see whether they are being met—and not a lot more.
We do not believe that the climate change committee should not become politicised. Therefore, we do not believe that it should be the instrument for delivering policy. That is the area where we perhaps disagree with some of the other amendments. What we believe fundamentally is that it is a vital role of the climate change committee not just to measure and set targets with Government, but to judge and audit. In these amendments we are saying that it must be a role and a duty—perhaps one of its most important functions—of the committee to look at the targets that have been set through its own work and judge whether government policies are likely to meet those targets.
From that point of view, going back to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, at the beginning of the debate today, it is a little like the Audit Commission looking at the work and the policies of the Government and asking whether the current trajectory is going to be met by them. It does not then suggest what those policies should be instead. That is the political judgment made by a Government accountable to Parliament. We strongly believe that that must be the major role of the climate change committee and that it will hugely increase its importance and relevance if it is able to judge whether the Government are likely to meet those targets and to be full in its reporting. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will no doubt remember that we considered that point in the Joint Committee. I was just reminding myself of the evidence we received at the time from Mr Jonathan Brearely of Defra, who suggested that,
- “the Committee needed to ‘make recommendations to the Government that are sensible and cost-effective’. This in itself would require a thorough examination of a policy mix. Nor can the Committee make sectoral recommendations, or carry out modelling work, without also evaluating the policies necessary to achieve the carbon reductions. It will need to analyse the effectiveness of existing policy and potential policy instruments and ways these might be improved”.
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1118
The committee went on to comment in paragraph 144 on page 48 of the report:
“There is no question that this sort of work will lead the Committee into areas which are more political than the current framework for the Bill provides for. When we put the prospect of the Committee having a policy role in this way to Jonathan Brearely, he replied: ‘I think the Committee on Climate Change are going to have to take into account existing policy, and what they are going to have to ask themselves is how much we think the existing policy is going to deliver’. Greater clarity in the statutory duty of the Committee on Climate Change would assist both the Government and the Committee itself. It is essential for the legislation to give the Committee a wider policy evaluation role, and therefore we recommend that the draft Bill include a power for the Committee to carry out an evaluation of current and potential policy when advising the Secretary of State”.
In a sense, the amendments—although they are specific and address particular areas—attempt to take us down this road. In light of the clarity of the Joint Committee’s recommendation on this point, this is perhaps an opportunity for the Minister to respond and to make clear how the Government react to that recommendation. I am not clear whether they have included anything in the Bill that covers that point. I, for one, would be grateful to know the Government’s attitude.
7 pm
Earl Cathcart: First, on Amendment No. 143, it is important in the process of consultation and advice on the carbon budgets not to lose sight of the overall goal of the budgets and of the Bill on meeting the ultimate targets. That the advice on the budgets should include some indication of whether the budgets will meet targets might be implied in the Bill. However, we support the amendment to give the Bill greater clarity on this point.
We also support Amendment No. 145. In our conception, the committee should not just set the budget and then watch from afar, perhaps altering the next budget to be in line with the success or failure of the Government’s policies; it should also give advice on the effectiveness of the Government’s actions. Once again, although this is perhaps implied in the Bill’s provisions on the committee’s role, we welcome the more explicit language.
Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment. My point has been perfectly well put by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but I will go even further. The entire thrust of the Joint Committee’s recommendations was to ensure that the Government had at their elbow a committee that was sufficiently respected and sufficiently empowered to recommend things that may well not be electorally popular. It was a constant refrain in our committee’s discussions that it was important that the Government had support for, and sometimes could even hide behind, unpopular recommendations from the climate change committee. As I have listened to the progress of this Committee stage, I have genuinely come to believe that the Government may well be climbing on to the horns of a dilemma.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been extremely reasonable in consistently attempting to enhance the powers in respect of the committee’s responsibilities. I increasingly sense that the Government are resisting that, as they are entitled to. If that is the case, one would have to look again at what goes into the Bill. If
14 Jan 2008 : Column 1119
The Earl of Onslow: First, I apologise to noble Lords for not being here earlier. I really wanted to be here but I was on a Select Committee that went on for a long time.
I support the principle behind what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. If we lay a statutory duty on the Secretary of State in the long distant future, Governments will be tempted in the near future to say, “Oh well, actually we do not have to do this. Someone else can do it later and they can catch up”. This provision would help to stop backsliding. People are always tempted to backslide; it is the most comfortable thing to do as opposed to taking difficult decisions. This process will take a lot of difficult decisions. A duty is being laid on a Government in the quite distant future to do something, and this provision will help intermediate Governments to continue the process towards fulfilment.
Lord Rooker: I say at the outset that I am more than happy—as I have said on previous clauses and this is no different—to go back and look at the way in which the reporting mechanism is set out in the Bill. I cannot accept particular amendments, but we want to get this as clear and precise as possible. We are happy to look at aspects of the amendments, particularly regarding the way in which the reporting mechanism works.
Clause 27 in some ways gets to why we are setting up the Committee on Climate Change in the first place. We are asking the committee to provide the Government with independent advice on the level of the carbon budget to strengthen transparency and accountability on how to reduce emissions in the UK. The committee’s advice on the level of the carbon budget will be a key element in assisting the Secretary of State in making decisions on the level of each carbon budget. The committee will have to give advice that is fit for purpose to the Government, so the committee will have to make an assessment on the best trajectory to meet the 2020 and 2050 targets and give advice on budget levels that are consistent with that trajectory.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |