---

Climate Change Bill [HL]

At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord further—not that he should be embarrassed—I support what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said about the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. At that time he persuaded the then Cabinet to put that leaflet—some 20 million of them—through every door in the country. I do not think that a Labour Cabinet would have done it at the time. His powers of persuasion over the need for change were vital. This translates across; this is also a powerful argument that works in more than one policy area. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly demanded a timetable for the reports. I draw his attention to Clause 48, because the timetable is there. It says that the first report must be laid within three years of Royal Assent, with subsequent reports at least every five years after that. I know that most of the noble Lord’s remarks were on Clause 49, but it is linked to Clause 48; both are about adaptation. The timetable is in Clause 48 because the Clause 49 report responds to the risks identified in Clause 48. In other words, something is set out in the Bill in respect of a timetable. The comments we have heard recognise that the Government’s work on adaptation needs independent scrutiny, and we agree. We do not think that any of the amendments meet this need. However, I am more than happy to take away this issue and this package and consider them before the next stage. This comprises a separate issue in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made the point that the range of expertise required here is slightly different from that required in the rest of the Bill. This matter requires further work. We shall certainly consider independent scrutiny of the Government’s work on adaptation.