All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group Is a Cross-Party ...

Climate Change Forum. An interesting first step, suggested in several of the written
submissions, would be to convene a seminar or joint meeting of the Houses, where the
importance of the issue and the current scientific assessments could be presented to MPs and
Peers and debated in a non-partisan fashion. Throughout, many of the submissions stressed
the need for policy and debates to be fully informed by the available science-base.
74. We should note, however, that when questioned none of the witnesses drawn from the three
major parties was enthusiastic at the prospect of a referendum on climate change, and no other
written submission made a detailed case for this unprompted. Joan Walley MP, a member of
the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), stated in evidence that “I
think sometimes referendums can be very divisive because referendums are always incredibly
likely to end up either being for or against something.”
75. It seems clear to us, as assessors, that only so much can be done by the opposition parties or
by backbench MPs working alone. They can begin to set a new agenda, and indeed can take
great credit for having done just that with the present consensus proposals. However, they
cannot easily influence the direction of current policy. Accordingly, to be effective, a crossparty
approach must have the involvement of the government of the day, and this means that
the Prime Minister has to take a leading role in adopting the process, with endorsement also
from the other party leaders. Responsibility for co-ordination might then be given to a senior
government figure, in the same way that the current Leader of the House of Commons, Jack
Straw MP, is exploring the possibility of a consensus on the issues of House of Lords reform
and party funding. Such a process might also draw upon the existing cross-party expertise
residing in the APPCCG and EAC.
76. Accordingly we recommend that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular,
take joint ownership of the cross-party consensus process. This could involve convening
a cross-party climate policy group of MPs and Peers, informed by the best scientific
assessments, to agree areas of consensus and seek input from a wide range of
stakeholders. The Prime Minister should also join with the leaders of the other parties
in identifying a senior MP (preferably with both ministerial and consensus experience)
to take responsibility for following through on the necessary negotiations.
3.4 A Climate Change Cabinet?
77. We have noted above the way a number of contributors referred to World War II, when there
was a coalition government. Comments in this area, some of which are reproduced in Box 5
below, extended to the immediate post-war period. The country “pulled together” and people
accepted rationing “for the public good”. The seriousness of the threat posed by climate
change would, many argued, justify a wartime-like approach to tackling it, although not
everyone felt that people would easily accept the austerity associated with rationing.
78. One need not necessarily invoke a wartime metaphor to appreciate the advantages of a joinedup
approach to climate change policy across government. Climate change touches almost all
areas of current policy and departmental responsibilities. There has been much criticism,
outwith the present inquiry, that government departments do not work closely enough
together on climate change policy. 28 There exists a cross-departmental ministerial Cabinet
Committee on Energy and the Environment (EE/ referred to in evidence as ENV) which is
supposed to ensure that climate change is considered in all areas of policymaking. However,
28 Bowyer et al (2006)
22