Skip to main content

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 bill on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.


Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c46 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Animal welfare Codes of practice Birds Agriculture Badgers Countryside Biodiversity Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Deer Land Environment protection Environment Infectious diseases Land use Imports Powers of entry Protection Nature conservation Pesticides National parks Trade Rights of way Right of search Wildlife Road signs and markings Rural areas Seals Sites of special scientific interest Avian influenza Parrots Natural England Bracken
Legislation
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk