I thank the Minister for his reply, as indeed I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and my noble friend Lord Livsey for their contributions. I note that the Minister used the word ““complex”” about some of these arrangements; his reply underlined that. My concern, which the Minister has addressed to a considerable extent—although, given the complexity, it is something that we would want to go away and consider—is that, for the offshore region, the Scottish Parliament has no say in determining what the powers might be in relation to Scottish Ministers, albeit that it can call them to account.
Some of the paperwork that the Minister’s department has sent us, to which he referred, is genuinely helpful and some of the maps are particularly useful. The one on who will issue marine licences, which I happen to be looking at, has a map relating to construction work. The areas in which Scottish Ministers will issue a marine licence are striped and the areas where Scottish Ministers will issue a FEPA licence—the inshore waters—is blue. The document says that the Scottish Executive intend to replace the FEPA regime with a new licensing system under the Scottish Marine Bill. It seems to me that we could, almost certainly, end up with two separate regimes: one to be determined for inshore waters, under the Scottish Marine Bill, and one to be determined elsewhere, under FEPA, one assumes, or under what this Bill puts in place.
If one object is to try to get some consistency between inshore and offshore, it does not necessarily follow that you will get that, even with the best will in the world, if two separate Parliaments are legislating for it. I use that as an example because, while it is now clear that Marine Scotland can be an arm of the Scottish Government and therefore will not necessarily require separate legislation to be established, its functions will be determined in some respects by this Parliament and in others by the Scottish Parliament. I am not sure that that is necessarily the best way to progress. Regarding the duty to promote biodiversity, I certainly want to examine carefully what the Minister has said. I note his reference to Clause 121, which extends only to marine conservation zones, although he also referred to Clauses 42 and 49, which might have a more general application in the offshore area.
I know that there has been cross-party support to extend the biodiversity duty and a recognition in Scotland that that is not possible under the present powers of the Scottish Parliament. Given that large measure of support, even were these powers not to be granted, perhaps Westminster might look sympathetically on this. I will want to go away and consider what the Minister has said on whether the bits that are in place in this legislation fully address this issue. In that spirit, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 89BZA withdrawn.
Schedule 6 : Marine plans: preparation and adoption
Amendment 89BZAA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Amendment 89BZAB not moved.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 February 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
708 c16-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:53:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530622
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530622
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530622