I do not think that any of us disagrees with what the Minister has said about the procedure which would happen if the MMO wishes, for whatever reason, to make arrangements for someone else, or another body or committee, to carry out a particular function. There is no problem about that. It says that the MMO can carry out the function, which is fine because that would simply be the MMO taking the function back and doing it itself. If an employee is off sick, resigns or whatever, another employee is allocated to do that job. There is no problem about that. Nor is there a problem if someone is over-worked and wants to allocate the function to one of the people who works for them.
The problem arises when allocating to committees, to sub-committees or to members of the MMO who have been given a particular job to do, and someone else is given a job under sub-paragraph (3) to do the same thing. It does not say that, under sub-paragraph (1), the original authorisation would be revoked. Sub-paragraph (2), referred to by the Minister, which states that a record must be kept, applies only to sub-paragraph (1) and not to sub-paragraph (3). We agree entirely with the Minister about how things should work.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Greaves
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1068-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 18:48:25 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517586
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517586
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517586