I agree with the Minister in that I do not think that Amendment A176 will do, for the reasons that he gave. However, he said that the Government have made it clear exactly what is being said in Clauses 121 and 122. It strikes me that everything hangs on what counts as significant. The Bill talks of a function, ""the exercise of which is capable of affecting (other than insignificantly)"."
We very much want this Bill to work and we want the bodies that may be involved in any dispute to be very clear about what they are talking about, but are the Government happy that there will not be endless argument about whether the damage has been or might be "significant"? What is significant? Everything hangs on it, I think. I do not know whether there is precedent for this in legislation and whether that argument has to be included in that way but, on the face of it, it seems to me to be slightly vague. Can the Minister reassure me, or am I asking too much at this point?
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Carnegy of Lour
(Conservative)
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
2024-04-21 10:12:45 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537162
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537162
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537162