Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (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]
We have joined the noble Baroness on a large number of the amendments in this grouping. She is understandably concerned about the limited circumstances in which the more stringent offences in Clause 136 become liable. I am not sure that I agree with the removal of subsection (1)(b) completely for fear that enforcement authorities will not take the appropriate steps to inform the public about MCZs, but certainly subsection (1)(c) is a stringent burden to be overcome. The way this is drafted makes successful prosecutions unlikely. I hope the Minister will take account of what was said by the noble Baroness in reviewing this subsection. Why has the Minister decided that it is only an offence if significant hindrance is caused? It is the accumulative effect of many damaging acts, often small in themselves, which has harmed the marine environment up until now. This clause would seem to allow this to continue. How significant would an act have to be for Clause 136 to apply? I know the Minister is reluctant to detail this but I hope he can see the importance of the point the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness makes. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we are joint signatories to the majority of the amendments in this group. They also extend the definition of "injure" to include "disturb". As the noble Baroness set out, disturbing many species is akin to injuring them. This is in line with other marine protection legislation. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on "recklessly", particularly as he used that word, as the noble Baroness pointed out and I noted down. The word "recklessly" can be an indictable offence and I would like to see it included in the Bill. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask about the possibility of somebody being caught with clear intent of committing a prohibited act. Why have the Government decided that a serious intent to commit a prohibited act, perhaps only prevented by the timely arrival of the enforcement authority, is not subject to a similar penalty?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 708 c1241
- 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 10:11:59 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537205
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537205
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537205