I am sorry to push the noble Baroness—she knows that I do not do this very often—but I have to concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I listened very carefully to what she said, but to go back to the example of maximum sustainable yield, Defra wrote to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee saying that the commitment was omitted because it was going to be dealt with in the Fisheries Bill. Maximum sustainable yield could have been put into this SI even though it was going to be corrected, updated, or however the noble Baroness wants to reword it, in a future fisheries Bill. I give that as just one example: we could say the same thing about the advisory councils. There could have been an interim arrangement for advisory councils in this SI, understanding that in the future we might want to restructure them. Those are just a couple of examples. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is very convincing on this. We all want to have a wider discussion on the Fisheries Bill, but that is not what these pieces of secondary legislation are about.
Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 March 2019.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
796 c1774 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-12-20 16:54:53 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-26/190326103000034
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-26/190326103000034
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-26/190326103000034