As I said, there was much more that we could do. It is only stating the reality that, while the trade is allowed to continue, it is ultimately for the exporting country to take the measures to regulate those activities. That is what I hope I said earlier. That does not, of course, take away from our obligations to make it easier for the exporting country to export humanely and sensibly. But in the end it is for the exporting country to regulate if the trade continues. I remind the noble Baroness what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in our earlier debate about the meeting that the UK is arranging with key stakeholders in Europe to try to gauge the likely impact of such a ban.
There are a number of detailed points on which we think the amendment, as drafted, is defective. I shall not go into them now as it would not be a valuable use of our precious time. I rely heavily on what I said on the earlier amendment.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c46 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:14:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302874
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302874
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302874