UK Parliament / Open data

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the opposition Front Bench for its support and to the Minister for his response and his general assurance that sufficient powers already exist. Ecosystems have been discussed on a number of occasions. No doubt when we reach the next stage of the Bill they will be discussed again once we have had a chance to see how all this fits together. The Minister referred to the powers and orders that the Government brought forward to try to ensure that safeguards are in place, and he mentioned at least two very recent orders that have banned, prohibited or restricted dredging. In this amendment and in the earlier amendment on by-laws with respect to the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities I was trying to address the issue of whether, rather than banning something, there can be a positive requirement to require that specific material or gear be used. I think that there is a distinction between positively requiring that something be used and using an order to prohibit a particular activity. I want to clarify whether making an order to require the use of particular gear is permitted. I am not necessarily persuaded that simply saying that because the order is there to stop things happening it can equally require things to happen. We may wish to consider that issue between now and Report. I very much hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider it as well. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment A245A withdrawn. Amendment A245B not moved. Clause 186 agreed. Clauses 187 and 188 agreed.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c99-100 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top