Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 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 am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he broadly supports the Government’s approach on that. I chose Bristol with care because it is a fairly clear case. He is right to say that sluices are not the same as locks, and they raise interesting issues. If he will allow me, I will reflect on that and give him an answer in due course. I am not equipped to debate the issue of sluices with him now—it may well be not at any stage, but certainly not now. Concerns were raised in an earlier debate in Committee about the different extents of the Bill. The noble Baroness was prominent at our last meeting in what she said in that respect. I assure the Committee that each extent has been carefully chosen best to reflect the activity in question. For the reasons I have just outlined, licensing and planning, for example, are very important issues. Clause 10 restricts the MMO's functions to seaward of low water mark clearly to delineate functions between the MMO and Natural England. Licensing and planning overlaps with terrestrial regimes are beneficial. They will ensure that we have the necessity for co-operation in which the boundary, if it were just set for one authority, would be excessively arbitrary. For licences, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, they are not. Natural England, as a nature conservation body, is the appropriate authority to manage wildlife on land, whether or not it is sometimes covered by the sea. Only once its jurisdiction ends should the MMO take over and that is at the low watermark. We have already had that debate, and, no doubt, we will return to it on Report. I recognise that we have the problem of different delineations with different authorities. These issues are not easily resolvable. However what I am seeking to maintain in response to the amendments—and I know they have been put forward constructively—is that one size does not fit all functions equally. The Bill has to dovetail with a myriad other legislation and the boundaries set in each and every case are designed to do this to the best effect. I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have helped to clarify some of the issues sufficiently to withdraw their amendments and I ask the noble Baroness to do so.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c297-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Devolved matters Costs Conservation Coastal areas Climate change Devolution Civil servants Finance Fisheries Licensing EU law Energy Grants Inland waterways Exclusive economic zone Northern Ireland Oil Pensions Planning Public bodies Nuclear power Nature conservation Location Loans Public service Staff Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Treaties Security Sustainable development Wales Renewable energy Shipping Research Seas and oceans Wildlife Wind power Territorial waters Severn estuary Natural England Greenhouse gas emissions Marine and Fisheries Agency Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Marine conservation zones Tides
Legislation
Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk