It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and I am certain that his tributes to Sir Martin Doughty were well deserved.
This is a phenomenally important piece of legislation. In this brief contribution, I simply wish to convey this: I hope, after all the work in both Houses, that the Bill will prove in years to come to be fit for purpose, particularly regarding its original, central purpose, the future of the marine environment. It is a rich resource that deserves the protection that it will be given as a result of the legislation.
I am also grateful to the Secretary of State, and I concur with him and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). As a sponsor of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in 2001, I have likewise been following this debate for many years.
I pay tribute to the Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—for the manner in which they have managed and conducted the Bill through its various stages in the House. The Bill has a wet side and a dry side—port and starboard—meaning a part that deals with marine conservation and a part that deals with coastal access. Piloting such a large ship has been a very challenging task for both Ministers. It is also an issue that provokes enormous interest on both sides of the House, not only in those hon. Members with coastal constituencies, but in many who, while they have no doubt been lobbied, also have a deep interest because we are a maritime nation. It is not possible to talk about the sea and the coast without everyone in this country taking an interest.
This is a monumental and important Bill. It is not precisely as I would have designed it—I hope that that will not be a severe handicap to it—but I think that it will prove to be fit for purpose. I hope that two watchwords will be applied to the Bill. The first is balance, which runs like a common—or even a golden—thread through it. I proposed amendments to achieve balance in the designation of the marine conservation zones and in the operation of the conservation policies and byelaws, and I hope that in the implementation of the Bill and the operation of the MMO we will achieve the balance that we all wish to achieve.
The second watchword is consensus. Throughout the debate, there has been an assumption that conflict in the marine zone is inevitable—that fishermen are always in conflict with marine conservationists. Over the last decade, the fishing sector has increasingly worked with marine conservationists and other scientists and found common ground—
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew George
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 October 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c208-9 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:25:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_588655
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_588655
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_588655