My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I still think our amendment has the best of both worlds in that it allows for organisations to be specifically targeted by the Secretary of State but demands, in terms of long-term national security, that certain organisations have a duty to bring plans. From that point of view this amendment is far superior to the Government’s amendment. I recognise that the Government have a timescale for the process. I should be delighted if the Minister could withdraw his amendment and think about it again but I am sure that will not happen. I find it very difficult to know where to go from here.
In terms of the devolution of power, even as a Liberal Democrat I think there are certain areas where the Government have responsibilities. The drawing up of adaptation plans will be naturally devolved. They will be local plans or plans by individual national bodies under categories 1 and 2. I am sorry I cannot convince the Minister. There is a real issue here which I would certainly wish to think about further. I say to the Minister that the solution he has at the moment is genuinely not the best one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 208 not moved.]
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Teverson
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 18 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c189 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:24:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_456112
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_456112
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_456112