Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (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]

The amendment carries on the debate from where we were last time, because it is another interface-type debate, where powers need to be defined to effect good management of the marine environment. The amendment probes the role of Natural England and seeks clarification of what marine functions the Government think it appropriate for that body to handle as opposed to the MMO. We heard about the MMO’s relationship with the Environment Agency in the previous debate. Yet again, there are areas of overlap. We have spoken a little already about the potential overlap between marine and coastal authorities. Examples of this abound when you consider the Environment Agency. Duties relating to freshwater fish stocks are, as the Explanatory Notes highlight, the responsibility of the Environment Agency. These are considerable areas of responsibility and authority, and there are many reasons why they should continue to be administered by that body. But the case is not so clear with Natural England, which is predominantly involved with conservation on the land. The Explanatory Notes can muster only the example of, "““a few applications each year relating to seals in freshwater””—" indeed, the Minister talked about seals—as an area that might properly be passed over. Is the Minister really of the opinion that consistency and co-ordination are best served by having the huge majority of licences relating to seals handled by the MMO and a few handled by Natural England? It would surely be much more efficient for the MMO to take on responsibility for those few freshwater licenses. The Bill appears to be structured in a way that rigorously defines and limits the MMO’s responsibilities while remaining deliberately vague, although ““flexible”” is the word preferred by the Benches opposite, when it comes to other organisations. As a result, Natural England seems to be taking the opportunity to engage in mission creep, extending its own remit into areas much better suited for the MMO. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c1749-50 
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