When we read the noble Lord’s amendment we thought that he was trying to restrict the exemptions, but it is clear that he is trying to clarify the issue, particularly for the groups that he mentioned. Perhaps he would be prepared to provide more information about the problems he identified, and I could look at that between Committee and Report stages. I would certainly like to see whether we could provide some reassurance.
We clearly need some discretion, which is why Clause 71 is drafted as it is. In dealing with the exemptions which have to be specified by order, we cannot compromise the overriding principle in Clause 66(1), which is that, ""the appropriate licensing authority must have regard to … the need to protect the environment … the need to protect human health … the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea"."
Overall, it is a discretionary approach. There is the safeguard of the order-making power and, as I said, it cannot compromise what is set out in Clause 66. It is very difficult to be more specific. However, as I said, if the noble Lord would like to give me more information, I would be very happy to look at the matter.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 March 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 c631-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:10:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533636
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533636
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533636