Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) 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]

The noble Lord accepts that there is a distinction between subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b). Subsection (4)(b) clearly relates to a case-by-case issue and subsection (4)(a) is rather more about the general approach. I think that that is a fair distinction. He says that because of the word ““may””, the licensing authority will not use it. I beg to disagree. The discretion contained and implied by the word ““may”” as opposed to ““must”” is perfectly appropriate. It is entirely right to expect the licensing authority, where appropriate, to undertake the consultation contained in subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b) and ““may”” fits the circumstance.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c92-3 
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