Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Duke of Montrose (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 March 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]

In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, it seemed to me that these amendments were, perhaps, probing as one amendment in some ways duplicates the other’s effect. We on these Benches agree with the noble Lord; we should comply with EU and international law and meet the target given by the EU directive of "good environmental status" by 2020—we come back to that point. Nevertheless, as we have said, we should achieve that not simply because of the target from the EU directive but as a matter of course from the provisions in the Bill. Furthermore, while it seems sensible that any further steps necessary to achieve compliance with our EU or international obligations are laid out in the report, we would argue that those obligations should be met from the beginning, because they are not objectives or aims but legal requirements. The obligations that would be required for the report proposed by the noble Lord’s second amendment are really covered by the first in the group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c1215 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conservation Coastal areas Byelaws Fisheries Environment protection EU law Fishing vessels Fines Public bodies Nature conservation Marine animals National parks Shipping Seas and oceans Wildlife Territorial waters Sites of special scientific interest Marine Management Organisation Marine conservation zones Jet skis
Legislation
Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk