I might say that I think that the Minister has given a well judged response to the questions that the second part of Clause 2 has raised. When looking at it, perhaps the Minister will bear in mind three possible angles. The first is the broad question of national interest. We may find that an interest from abroad, for reasons which might not be wholly bona fide, may make a demand that would be strongly supported by the clause as it stands. The second point is the one so well made by my noble friend Lady Byford, that the resource cost related to a large, if not infinite, number of demands could be massive, not only in absolute terms, but in being highly distracting from other work of a higher priority which the MMO will also be undertaking. The third point is that if you have, for example, a conflict between one organisation and another that may or may not have reached the stage of litigation, we might find one or other of the parties using this clause to bolster its own partisan cause. The Bill needs to provide some protection against all three of these eventualities.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 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
707 c261-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 21:20:45 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523863
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523863
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523863