---

Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 132: 132: Schedule 1, page 32, line 36, at end insert ““and each term of office must be at least six years”” The noble Earl said: The amendment proposes to have a statutory minimum on the term limit of at least six years for members of the committee. There are a number of reasons for having a statutory minimum. I do understand that, as said in the debates so far, there is support in the House for making the committee independent, scientific and apolitical. Yet I hope the Minister will appreciate my scepticism when there are so many commissions and quangos stuffed with party members appointed by the Government. A six-year commitment would mean not only that the members would outlast a Government but that they would be locked in for the long haul such that they could not be replaced in a year or two by a Government who wanted to defend their own interests. It would prevent too much government interference in the committee. A longer term would help to ensure impartiality and, indeed, continuity. There are also a number of practical reasons for a long minimum term. For a start, the nature of climate change is such that monitoring it as well as our progress is a long process. Long-serving members will be better equipped to serve the committee. The amendment would mean that committee members would sit for longer than a budgetary period, guaranteeing that they would be on the committee when it made at least one of the reports for the five-year budget period. Indeed, because of the number of different reports that the committee will be responsible for preparing, continuity is certainly advantageous. Will the Minister explain what mechanisms are in place in the Bill to ensure the continuity of the committee? Does he think that a committee member can serve for more than one term? I beg to move.