Proceeding contribution from Baroness Byford (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 support my noble friend’s two amendments. Although the Minister shook his head when he said that he fears there will be lists of specific requirements, I hope that he will think about what the amendments seek to do if he cannot accept them as they are. It was clear when we took evidence—other noble Lords have received papers from interested groups—that the responsibilities are quite woolly. That was the expression I used and I still think it is true. Clause 2(1)(b) states that the objective is, "““making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development””," and the Bill requires greater definition than it has at this stage. Any list would raise difficulties because it would be either too long or not include matters that people would like included. However, it is extremely important. The Committee has reflected the importance of getting the general objectives right—clearly that is the hub of the Bill—and if the Marine Management Organisation objectives are not achieved through our discussions on the Bill, we will have failed to produce the kind of Bill that the Government and the Committee wish to see. It will involve a difficult balance between commercial activities and protecting the marine environment and, as other noble Lords have said, archaeological remnants. However, Amendment 33, to which I incline slightly more than the Liberal Democrat Amendment 32, specifies certain aspects that we believe need considering in the overall thrust of responsibilities. If the Minister cannot accept the amendments as they are—I suspect he probably will not be able to—I hope that he will at least think about coming back with something on Report which will strengthen what is currently in the Bill. I think the Minister is aware that there are gaps and that it is a question of how we fill those gaps. I apologise to the Minister: I was at a conference and could not be with him yesterday. I would therefore be extremely grateful if his department could supply me with the papers that were made available to those who attended. It would be enormously helpful. I am sure that our desire to get the Bill right has been reflected around the Committee today, as it was earlier. It is the only opportunity that we will have for a Bill of this calibre, and the general objectives have to be right. There are gaps in it and we need to fill those gaps. I support the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1691-2
- 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 22:00:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521185
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521185
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521185