We agree with the noble Baroness that relevant authorities should naturally be informed of applications for licences relevant to their areas, and should be able to feed any views of that application back to the licensing authority. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure her that the Bill allows for that, and that it is the Government’s intention that interested and expert representations will be given the attention that they deserve.
Again, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s concern that licences should be awarded only after considering the effect on biodiversity, but I am less supportive of the amendment to remove the provision allowing other matters to be considered. As our discussions on Clause 2 made clear, the list of matters that should be considered relevant for a marine body to have regard to when exercising functions is extensive, as well as being a challenge to define. It would be more appropriate to retain some flexibility in the area. Our own amendment in the group—Amendment 101BZBBA—makes it clear that appropriate public authorities, local authorities and IFCAs should be consulted before any application is determined. I hope that the Government will agree that that should be part of the process.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
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 c86 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:54:15 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530739
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530739
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530739