I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his advice in this area. I certainly undertake to look at this matter in the light of what has been discussed in this debate. The basis on which the enforcement provisions are put before the Committee is that we want a preventive approach. The noble Lord was not in his place when I drew parallels with the Health and Safety Executive. It is always rather foolhardy of me to draw such parallels, but I believe that most of its work is at the preventive end; enforcement comes only where it is absolutely necessary. If we are going to be successful, we will need early intervention to ensure that the marine environment is protected as effectively as possible.
I hear what the noble Lord says about subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (8) describes what "remedial steps" means. I take the meaning to be restoration as far as possible and that it has to take place within the context of the purposes mentioned in subsection (9). The reason for that can be found in Clause 66(1), which sets the overriding context. The noble Lord, with all his experience, said that he thinks that there may be a risk that we have not got this as tight as possible, so I shall take it back and have a further look at it.
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 c657 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:52:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533703
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533703
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533703