That is precisely its intention. Its whole intention is to say that this consideration is above all other considerations; because the fundamental question is what impact certain human activities will have on the biodiversity of a particular slice of the ocean. The starting point for the MMO must be to decide what the scientific situation and the state of biodiversity are. How endangered are they? Until the MMO has answered those questions, you cannot say to the fishing interests, the energy interests or even to the renewable energy interests that they can do this or that. The MMO cannot move to that decision. That is why the scientific evidence is qualitatively different from all other forms of evidence. However, the Minister has shaken his head a sufficient number of times in the past 10 seconds to convince me that it is not worth my while pursuing this matter. Once again, I am very grateful to noble Lords, all of whom have informed this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 12 withdrawn.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
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 c1066 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:48:42 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517577
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517577
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517577