UK Parliament / Open data

Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am very sorry that I purported to incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I had no intention whatever of upsetting him. If I have done, I apologise profusely. The noble Lord explained that it was imperative that he should put an amendment down—however irrelevant—if he had the opportunity, to explain his disappointment in certain respects. Frankly, I do not think that he should have apologised at all. He could, of course, have referred to the situation at Third Reading. It was unnecessary to table an amendment. However, he has done so. I believe that the amendment is otiose, because the situation described in the amendment is already happening. I am sure that the Government recognise that the position will change in the future as we benefit from experiences that will occur that cannot be envisaged at the moment. In other words, the Bill introduced by the Government should not represent the last word. We should be prepared—as I am sure they are—to learn from situations that emerge in the future. As I said before, in no way do I want to upset the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I am sure that the whole House will endorse the view that the Government are showing the way. The international order can be properly represented on the world stage as far as this aspect of policy is concerned. I am sure that that is the view of the noble Lord and of the Government.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

674 c577 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top