|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am in the curious position of again having little to add to what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, except to make one point. If this amendment were accepted, it would have the perverse effect of making life more difficult for objectors rather than making it easier. That is because if more rigid rules of procedure are adopted, then that might well have the effect of invalidating what might otherwise be perfectly appropriate objections. I cannot believe that that is the aim lying behind the amendment.
I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would feel that the offer just made by the Minister to hold discussions with the industry over the question of harbour rules goes all the way to meeting the requests he made in moving the amendment. For
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I again thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for their responses. I appreciate and welcome the constructive suggestion made by the Minister in the context of any problems that may exist.
The RSPB's advice that it had experienced problems with recent orders at Dibden Bay in Hampshire and at Shellhaven in Essex implies that there are at least pieces of grit in the shoe which need addressing. The RSPB will have had the opportunity of hearing the Minister and will be able to read what he said in the debate. The opportunity will be available to take up the Minister's offer, if that would be helpful and desirable in the light of previous experience.
In other regards, I accept what the Minister has said and the quite clearly genuinely intended to be helpful advice of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. As on previous occasions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|