The right way to approach Clause 149 is to have a text which, as far as possible, mirrors Clause 2, which outlines the general objective of the MMO. We are faced with a difficulty because the current draft of Clause 2 is unsatisfactory. The Minister knows that the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and certain distinguished figures from the Cross Benches have been seeking a version of Clause 2 which reflects what we feel it ought to reflect. So we have to measure Clause 149 against not the current draft of Clause 2 but against Clause 2 as we would wish it to be.
Subsection (2) is the key ingredient in the clause and paragraph (a) is an excellent first consideration. Indeed, it must be one of the rare moments in the Bill where matters are viewed from the point of view of the fish. Clause 149(2)(b), however, is wholly unsatisfactory because it gives equal weight to the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea as against, ""the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation"."
The whole purpose of the Bill is to put the protection of biodiversity in the forefront of the decision makers’ minds; and this will almost certainly produce the opposite effect.
It would be highly dangerous to include paragraph (c) in the final draft of the Bill. It would be an invitation to internecine warfare within the decision-making body. How do you identify the different interests that will be engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries’ resources in the district? One may make a reasonable fist of it today; but what will the picture look like in five or 10 years’ time? Before any decision is taken, Clause 149(2)(c) requires the decision-making body to take all these factors into account. Plainly there will be many factors in decision making, but to place on the body a statutory requirement equal to the other two statutory requirements to take these matters into account would be counterproductive to speedy decision-making.
As for the guidance, I should like to see a reference to the importance of the guidance conforming to an ecosystem approach, just as we hope that the guidance will be under Clause 2.
I would wish to have been more specific, but, since I am not clear about the ultimate content of Clause 2, I will rest my case.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 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
709 c39-40 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:12:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538716
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538716
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538716