That is the point about Clause 15: it involves a limited number of authorities and the Bill is clear about where the obligations lie. I am trying to reduce the effect of the argument that says, "The trouble with the marine conservation zones is that they will run into some of the difficulties that we have with terrestrial definition". Well, terrestrial definition can give rise to conflicting responsibilities with regard to land—there are landlords and there is ownership of the land, which in itself creates an important dimension of the designation of such sites. That is not the case with the sea. The MMO does not delegate its authority in quite the same way. It will be delegating to other public bodies responsibilities that are clear and limited in number and which do not raise these issues in the same way. Under Clause 15, it is answerable for its responsibility as a public body; it cannot devolve that to another authority and not be held responsible. The challenge to the MMO will not be a fine; the challenge to the MMO, a body of that significance and salience, is bound to be judicial review, as it would be in all cases of a public body of that stature.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 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 c1224 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:47:33 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537161
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537161
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537161