I feel really hurt about this. I went way beyond my brief. I actually explained, almost, how the noble Lord could go away and draft an amendment to get the objective he wanted because his amendment does not require any parliamentary action or scrutiny—or maybe only one of the silent votes they have in the other place when they tick a box on a Wednesday afternoon. That would be approval, but it is not a debate. If the requirement is to get the thing on the Floor to have an annual debate, that is another issue altogether. That is not what this amendment does. I was giving an answer to a problem that arose—as my noble friend spotted straight away—and I am chastised for giving the most negative response so far.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 January 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c792 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:01:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432302
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432302
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432302