Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I will speak also to Amendments A208, A209, A224 and A225. Under Clause 125, the MMO is allowed to make by-laws, ""for the purposes of furthering the conservation objectives stated for an MCZ in England"." There are a number of by-laws prohibiting certain activities. Clause 125(3)(b) prohibits or restricts, ""entry into, or any movement or other activity within, the MCZ by recreational vessels or (where appropriate) vehicles"." Recreational vessels are singled out only in this paragraph. Elsewhere, "any vessel" is the term used. I looked up the interpretation and saw that "vehicles" refers to hovercraft or bicycles. In more than 50 years of maritime meanderings all over the world, I have on occasion come across a hovercraft, but I admit to never having come across a bicycle. I do recall an occasion when, after a particularly good lunch in a French port, two of my fellow crew members decided that it would be a good idea to hire a tandem, and proceeded to ride straight off the edge of the quay into the sea. Happily, they both resurfaced, one still with a cigar in his mouth. The tandem, unfortunately, did not, and only some nifty work with a grappling hook placated a rather enraged Frenchman. There is also a saying that the three most useless things on a yacht are a bicycle, a stepladder and a naval officer. Looking quickly around the Chamber, I hope that we have none of the latter present. Does this prohibition refer to an MCZ that comes up to the high water mark? At low water, the beach would be exposed, but presumably there would still be an area of sea at the end. I understand the need to exclude bicycles and recreational craft such as canoes or things that you can haul up the beach; but surely, if it goes into the sea as well, why should the prohibition apply only to recreational vessels? I would like an explanation. Amendments A224 and A225 are subsequential. However, on reflection, the drafting of A225 leaves something to be desired. Amendments A208 and A209 refer to something quite different and come under Clause 137, where exceptions are mentioned to offences committed under Sections 135 and 136. One exception stipulates that someone is not guilty of an offence when the action taken, ""was necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of any vessel, or of preventing damage to any vessel or cargo, from any danger which could not have been foreseen or anticipated"." My amendments would alter that to read, ""was necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of any vessel or cargo, or of preventing damage to or by any vessel or cargo, from any danger"." The reason for the first amendment is that the safety of the vessel will invariably be at one with the safety of the cargo, but occasions may occur where action is needed only in relation to the cargo. This may arise where part of the cargo has to be destroyed or rendered innocuous if it represents a danger to other goods, for example by drifting, leakage or contamination. The first amendment is designed to cover this eventuality. The second amendment relates to damage by a vessel and would cover a situation where it was necessary, for example to enter an otherwise prohibited area to preserve the safety of the vessel. I beg to move.