Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) 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]
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. Amendment A176, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would mean that a public authority that, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with one of the duties would be guilty of an offence. I note that the duties relate mainly to the requirement to inform the statutory conservation body of something that may significantly hinder the conservation objectives of a marine conservation zone. The duties also relate to the requirement not to authorise acts where there is a significant risk to a site, unless certain conditions are met. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that we have taken great care to ensure that these duties are clear and unambiguous. Clauses 121 and 122, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke about favourably, refer to actions that public authorities must undertake. When Parliament, if this Bill becomes an Act, places this statutory duty on a public authority, it expects that body to comply with the legal obligation created. It is unusual for a breach of a statutory duty by a public authority to be made an offence, which is the objective of the amendment. The usual remedy against any public authority that fails to meet its commitments, obligations and duties is judicial review. We have constructed these clauses on that premise. The noble Baroness raised the issue of SSSIs and her concern about enforcement. She will appreciate, however, that SSSIs are fairly different from marine conservation zones. She is shaking her head, but she has not given me the chance to deploy the difference, so I shall try to persuade her to revise her opinion. The big difference is obvious. With SSSIs, there can be a number of overlapping authorities with different competences and those authorities may, therefore, undertake actions that impact on SSSIs. The relationship between the authorities and their responsibilities may become the subject of real concern. That is a bit different from the situation at sea. We are not talking about a range of different authorities that will be involved; the number of authorities with statutory duties at sea is, by definition, very limited. That means that saying who has the obligation or duty and against whom it must be enforced is that much clearer than with SSSIs. I respect the noble Baroness’s knowledge of SSSIs and attendant issues and I understand that she has anxiety in certain areas, but this is a different configuration of public responsibility and the degree of confusion that she is worried about will not occur.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 708 c1223
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:12:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537159
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537159
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537159