I add my support to the amendment. Whether the wording is right or not remains to be seen, but the important element is that this organisation will need a substantial science base, partly because the consequences of most of the activities that it seeks to regulate are not seen on the surface. Indirect geophysical and surveying techniques are needed to see what is going on. There has to be a substantial science base within the organisation, which the amendment would ensure. The other general point is that in the exploitation of the marine environment there are some commercial interests and lobbies. I hope that it is not thought in any sense that I am against that, but the consequences of commercial activity have to be understood. If there are good arguments against them, or indeed for them, they have to be properly marshalled from a technical point of view. For that reason it is extremely important that the scientific expertise that is available to the organisation matches the commercial pressures to which it will undoubtedly be subjected.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Oxburgh
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 January 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c1060 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:48:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517554
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517554
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517554