Let me make my point and then I will give way. Inherent in amendment 44 and new clause 8 is the concept that conservation and preservation of marine stocks—marine fauna and marine animals are mentioned in the Bill—is counterpoised to the interests of the fishing industry. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and others, "Be careful in what you wish for because you might get it". If marine conservation zones improved fish stocks and thus improved the circumstances for the fishing industry, passing new clause 8 and amendment 44 tonight would mean that the Government would have to take statutory measures to mitigate the consequences of that improvement. That is inherent in the wording of new clause 8 and amendment 44, which shows that those who framed them and support them see conservation and preservation of marine fauna and the interests of the commercial fishing industry as counterpoised, but they are not. I firmly believe that, handled sensitively, marine conservation zones could help increase fish stocks and, therefore, in the medium and longer term, help the commercial fishing industry.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Rob Marris
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 October 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c104-5 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:21:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_588273
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_588273
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_588273