Proceeding contribution from Duke of Montrose (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
I shall speak to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. In doing so, perhaps I may echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the difficulties we have with business taking place in the Moses Room at the same time. We hope that we will hear before too long from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, because we always value his contribution. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend have tabled amendments that appear to seek to address much the same concerns. They are an effort to assign a little more meaning to the rather airy hope that the Marine Management Organisation will act in a way that is ““consistent and co-ordinated””, as it is put in the Bill. The MMO’s area of responsibility is not an isolated and hermetically sealed area of water where policies can be implemented in laboratory conditions. On our first day in Committee, my noble friend Lord Kingsland argued powerfully that the marine environment should be seen as an ecosystem and that decisions should be made with full awareness of the consequences not only for the environment in the immediate area but potentially for that in remoter areas as well. The MMO must therefore take note of the effect of its decisions not only in areas within its remit but in those outside its boundaries. Similarly, it will have to be aware of decisions taken in nearby areas by other organisations. Amendment 42 would therefore ensure proper consultation, rather along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was talking about, with bodies that have similar responsibilities in areas likely to affect the MMO’s area. Such bodies could be devolved Administrations, land-based organisations or international bodies. Amendment 65 goes a little further into the devolution of performing functions under the MMO and seeks to ensure that a formal arrangement is made with the relevant bodies to ensure that difficult decisions are handled appropriately and effectively. It is all too easy for an area to be overexploited by one organisation and for the cost of repair to fall on another. The amendments would prevent that. I have no doubt that various agreements could be drawn up without Amendment 65. The Bill contains several measures in Clause 15—for example, to ensure that the agreement is publicly available—that would be of benefit to any Memorandum of Understanding. I hope that the Minister will consider establishing to a much greater extent interactions between the MMO and the enormous variety of relevant bodies that will be critical to its work.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1675
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Common fisheries policy Coastal areas Devolution Cultural heritage Fisheries Energy Environment Agency Northern Ireland Pollution Planning Ports Nature conservation Scotland Republic of Ireland Sustainable development Wales Renewable energy Water power Tidal power Seas and oceans Wind power River Severn Natural England Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission Sea fisheries committees Harbour authorities
- Legislation
- Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-16 22:03:04 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521153
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521153
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521153