Neither Clause 11 in its present form nor the amendment quite captures the fact that you can have much more detailed plans for carbon budgets or whatever for the next five years than can be planned 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ahead. I am therefore not entirely happy with the proposal that these budgets should be detailed. I suggest that when this clause comes back it should recognise the difference in detail that can be offered for different stages. This goes back to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, withdrew. I think that he was trying to provide for a relatively quick response for the immediate future, for the first five years. What will happen in 10 or 15 years can be a matter for much more deliberation. I hope that it will be possible to incorporate some of these ideas in a revised clause.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Oxburgh
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 January 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c774 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:01:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432259
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432259
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432259