This amendment should prove a little simpler because we shall not be looking at devolution issues. It attempts to address the complex matters that we have spoken of, particularly those arising in estuaries, whether big estuaries such as the Thames estuary or small ones such as the Camel estuary, which goes past Padstow. I tabled the amendment because there is no obvious provision in the Bill for a sub-regional approach to be adopted. Estuary forums have carried out valuable work in bringing together all the interest groups within an estuary, including local authorities—many more than three or four may be involved in the Thames estuary—and in creating a joint approach to the planning of their region. Therefore, I hope that a sub-regional approach will be permitted in the Bill. I shall not outline again all the complex issues that arise with regard to estuaries because everything that I said on the previous amendment applies to this one. I beg to move.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1065 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:44:47 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527934
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527934
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527934