I thank all Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate. Having had a long debate earlier on the broad duties of the IFCAs, we are now looking at some of the more practical stuff. There is still a worry, because subsection (6) states: ""In this Chapter ‘sea fisheries resources’ means any animals or plants, other than fish falling within subsection (7)"."
It sounds slightly as though that could be read to mean that IFCAs did not have responsibility for migratory and freshwater fish, but we will look at what the noble Lord said in some detail before we decide what to do further on the amendment. We recognise the Government’s desire to draw the distinction between the two groups, but actions that take place within the six-mile limits will obviously have an effect on the migratory fish. Part of the value of the debate is the way in which it has brought out the practical and historical knowledge of people round the Chamber, which is important for us to consider as we look further at the practical implications. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment A233 withdrawn.
Amendments A233A to A233C not moved.
Clause 149 agreed to.
Clauses 150 and 151 agreed to.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Duke of Montrose
(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 c51 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:12:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538737
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538737
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538737