I am trying to find what part of the amendment the Minister finds objectionable or would cut off the right of appeal. Is he saying that the Scottish Government have assented to a body, perhaps an oil company, wishing to challenge a provision relating to the marine plan for the Scottish offshore region doing so in the High Court in London as opposed to the Court of Session in Edinburgh? Does he not think that it is logical that if a matter relates to an area in Scottish jurisdiction for other purposes, it should fall to a court of the Scottish jurisdiction, not the High Court, and vice versa?
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 c37 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:53:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530668
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530668
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530668