I am sorry to come back to the Minister, whom I thank for giving way. We should not plan for failure. Indeed, the whole process must be based on a sense of common and shared objectives, with the devolved authorities participating as equal partners in the development of a policy for the whole United Kingdom. On the other hand, a vacuous compromise would not serve the marine environment at all.
I was seeking to probe the Minister on what happens if there is dissent. Is it possible, for example, for a wording to be framed within a policy statement taking a slightly different attitude in response to a devolved authority’s position, point of view and even interests, rather than seeking universal application of principles that would be ultimately vacuous and without the drive behind them that the legislation will need? After all, the marine policy statement is a statement of principle; it is in many ways a core document. I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot. I understand his position. However, I think that he can understand that the statement should be bold and courageous. I would not want it to sound vacuous simply because it was founded on compromise.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 February 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
707 c1038-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:49:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527869
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527869
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527869