As the noble and learned Lord said, paragraph 22 states: "““The MMO may authorise a committee, sub-committee, member or employee of the MMO to exercise any of the MMO’s functions””."
I am sure that there could be certain circumstances when a number of employees would be so named. Circumstances also might arise where none of those employees could undertake that duty and another member of staff has to be so asked to do. In responding to the noble Baroness, I was saying that the MMO has to keep a record of any authorisations. In making any changes, whether it is an addition or a revocation, a record would be kept.
However, I am very happy to look at this if Members of the Committee think that it is confusing or that we need further clarification. We need to clear this up. My advice is that this wording is used on a frequent basis, but I would be happy to look further into this.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
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 c1068 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:48:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517584
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517584
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517584