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]
This group includes a couple of amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler. I tabled this amendment because we feel it is vital that, if the MMO is allowed to authorise an eligible body to perform one of its functions, there is some assurance that this task is being carried out by a body with the appropriate knowledge and expertise. I am happy to note that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised the same issue with his excellent Amendments 68 and 69, which agree wholly with ours. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to the Chamber after his duties in Grand Committee. Clause 15 allows the MMO to delegate any of its functions to an eligible body, "““with the approval of the Secretary of State””." As we are well aware, the power of delegation is very significant and it is very important that any delegated task is not compromised. This amendment would ensure that the ““eligible bodies”” are required not only to have connection to marine functions but also, as the Wildlife and Countryside Link argues, to have adequate marine representation, sufficient knowledge and understanding of marine areas, and the appropriate knowledge to deal with the tasks that they have been given. Does the Minister agree that these are sensible provisos? Furthermore, Clause 16(2) allows the Secretary of State to amend the list of eligible bodies, allowing delegation to a potentially wide range of institutions. Bearing this in mind, does the Minister also agree that it is even more important that there are some limits on who could be added to this list? Such limits will only help improve the exercise of marine functions. Does the Minister acknowledge that this amendment better ensures that delegated functions and duties are carried out to a high standard? Does he also agree that it would be more beneficial to know that ““eligible bodies”” were eligible because of their appropriate knowledge and skills, not just a vague connection to a marine function? Does he agree that the MMO should have a duty to ensure that any delegated functions are carried out by an appropriate authority, a duty which we would like to see in the Bill? I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1753-4
- 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 21:55:40 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521290
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521290
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_521290