I just add a very short contribution. Of the two amendments, Amendment No. 128 and Amendment No. 130, I greatly prefer Amendment No. 128, because it is a catch-all. I must agree that not having environmental science expertise is inconceivable, as I said in debate on an earlier amendment. At one stage, I wondered whether one should try to include expertise in land management on the committee. I recognise that that would sound too much like special pleading—as a land manager myself, I would have to declare all sorts of interests. I would be quite content, providing that there is expertise in environmental science, that that would include all such expertise and include under its umbrella land management.
This is an important area. We will come back in the adaptation measures to how we manage our carbon sinks and our forest cover in this country, let alone overseas, and how we manage our soils. Expertise in environmental science clearly needs a mention.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Selborne
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 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 c1098 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:45:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433794
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433794
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433794