I thank the Minister for his response and for the way in which he has dealt with these amendments. As he rightly says, they are a matter for resolution by common sense. However, there are interesting issues of principle on the whole business of population protection when numbers come in. Many things that are quite plentiful may still need to be preserved to maintain the ecology of a particular climate. I speak as a land-based individual with an interest in horticulture and botany. The noble Lord knows my business interests. In analogies with land-based natural environments, plenteousness does not necessarily mean that such populations are not valuable and not in need of protection. This is a much more complex matter than can possibly be legislated for. By seeking to put science into the Bill I wanted to try to make sure that decisions were as objective as possible. I sought to emphasise the great complexity of arguments that have to be considered in terms of individual species. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment A135 withdrawn.
Amendments A135A to A140B not moved.
Clause 114 agreed.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 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 c1047 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:58:13 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_535953
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_535953
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_535953