The reason for including a debate on whether Clause 20 should stand part is because if the amendment was accepted, the other clause would become irrelevant and thus not needed in the Bill. It is not because we are against it, but it is not relevant because greenhouse gases are included in all the provisions of the Bill. That is how I see it, so that is why I have included it here.
There is a lot of good news here from the Minister, and indeed some of what he has said is new to me. I have learnt that this is being pursued actively. However, given the correct arguments the Government have put in so many other areas on being compliant with international standards, I do not understand why they do not take a decision on that basis and simply go with the rest of Europe and the Kyoto process. Why is that so difficult when the Government would be seen as being more successful in their record so far if they took that route? I would not want to persuade the Minister on that basis, but I am sure that this is an area we shall come back to. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Teverson
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c842 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:00:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432395
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432395
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432395