Proceeding contribution from Lord Greenway (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 February 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 will also speak to Amendments 97 and 98. Clause 59 deals with the validity of marine policy statements and marine plans. Under subsection (4), "““A person aggrieved by a relevant document may make an application to the appropriate court on any of the following grounds—""(a) that the document is not within the appropriate powers;""(b) that a procedural requirement has not been complied with””." My Amendment 96 seeks to add another ground: "““that the provisions are not in accordance with any international agreement to which the United Kingdom or the European Union is for the time being a party””." The reason for this is that the provisions in a marine policy statement or marine plan should not be in conflict with the UK’s treaty law obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, covering, for example, rights of innocent passage and freedom of navigation, or other conventions, such as MARPOL, dealing with marine pollution. Issues of conflict are matters of substance and should give rise to an automatic right of referral to, and determination by, the courts. This amendment would provide such a course of action. Amendment 97 refers to subsection (5), which says: "““Any such application must be made not later than 6 weeks after the publication of the relevant document””." My amendment seeks to lengthen that period to no later than 12 weeks, as the issues for a referral to a court are likely to be complex, especially where matters of international treaty law need to be considered. A period of six weeks would be insufficient; 12 weeks is much more realistic. Amendment 98 seeks to add a small new subsection to Clause 60, which deals with the powers of a court over an application under Section 59. My amendment would insert a new paragraph (c) into subsection (3), using the same wording as my Amendment 96, which would require a court to use its powers under subsection (4) to quash or remit a proposal when satisfied that there has been a breach of treaty law obligations. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 708 c67-8
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Applications Conservation Coal Coastal areas Archaeology Devolution Cultural heritage Biodiversity Fisheries Licensing Electricity generation Infrastructure Legislative competence English Heritage Local government Northern Ireland Oil Planning Natural gas Public consultation National Assembly for Wales Property Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Sustainable development Wales Scottish Parliament Renewable energy Shipping Wave power Seas and oceans Wrecks Testing Non-governmental organisations Department for Culture, Media and Sport High Court Natural England Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission Marine conservation zones
- Legislation
- Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-15 13:28:12 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530720
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530720
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530720