---

Climate Change Bill [HL]

I think that we are all suffering from the same problem; namely, that we know the Government’s conclusions but we do not know what their thinking was or how they arrived at or derived their conclusions. None the less, the discussion is extremely interesting. Like the noble Lord, Lord May, I think that, on the whole, small committees are good when they are executive committees. When they are advisory committees, you want the widest possible circle of advice that it is reasonable to obtain. On balance, I am very much in favour of my noble friend Lord Taylor’s suggestion that the committee might be slightly larger, but, as I say, we do not know with any certainty what the Government’s thinking was. The important bit will come when the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has to justify what is written in the Bill. It is, as I say, difficult to know how the Government arrived at their conclusions. We do not know their thinking. I agree that to nominate just one body to have the right to nomination, however erudite and widely spread its membership might be, would probably be wrong. I like the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, if I understood him correctly, that he felt that the appropriate role for the Royal Society is to advise the Government in this field. But, again, we do not know whether that was the Government’s thinking. Until we get those answers, we are all going to be wandering round with our own opinions. On that happy thought I am going to sit down.