I accept that point. In referring to the naming and shaming procedure, I should have referred to the noble Lord’s amendment. I have a hesitation about it, which he will appreciate. Some information may not be appropriate to publish. After all, those who use the sea and are public authorities might have very significant interests which could not be put into the public domain. I am thinking of our defence institutions as well as Customs and Excise. If there is an exercise on a role being carried out which relates to smuggling, putting into the public domain a demand for an explanation of what is going on and the reasons why it is being carried out might not be in the public interest in those rather more specific circumstances. In general terms, I accept the concept of the amendment. Generally, as Clause 124 provides, the public authority can be held to account if it is negligent and that alone, in terms of naming and shaming, will be an important sanction.
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 c1226-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:12:44 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537169
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537169
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537169