First, I declare an interest in that I was responsible for shipping from 1974 to 1979—a long time ago. If the amendments that we are considering are aimed simply at elucidating government policy, that is perfectly all right. However, I warn the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that there is absolutely no obligation on anyone to speak in this Committee. In my view what the amendments seek to do is simply wrong, subject only to the point that I have already made. I believe that the amendments are misconceived in that they fail to accord with the international legislation regarding compensation for oil damage by ships which we have an obligation to support. I am afraid that all the amendments fall foul of that point. Subject to that, there is some point in asking the Government to elucidate upon the Bill, particularly on the points raised. I do not think that my noble friend should take these amendments too seriously.
Merchant Shipping Pollution Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clinton-Davis
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 July 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Merchant Shipping Pollution Bill [HL] .
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c122GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:33:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257456
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257456
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_257456