Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her tremendous work for the fishing industry in general and the shellfish industry in particular. I also pay tribute to her knowledge of the area. I know of only one monarch who died of a surfeit, so perhaps afterwards she will tell me who else it was besides Henry and whether the cause was something other than lampreys. On that basis, I also have to declare an interest, as there is nothing that I like better than an oyster. The Minister said that this issue is subject to the various court processes going through, and I agree. He then said that this solution was too blunt an instrument. However, I would have to reply bluntly to him that the Crown Estate says: ""In essence, a simple and practical way forward is for an amendment to be made to the 1967 Act so that The Crown Estate’s consent is no longer required for an Order to be valid and in this respect, we agree with the proposed amendment that has been tabled"." Therefore, I say bluntly to the Minister that the Crown Estate is happy to give up that right and I am surprised at him for being quite so definite in dismissing our amendment. In fairness, the Crown Estate goes on to state that it would require a saving provision to be inserted in the enabling legislation to protect its rights, and would expect to be a statutory consultee, which seems entirely fair. The Minister has been much too dismissive of that as a solution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, pointed out, appeal after appeal could drag on for years, which we want to avoid. Surely, if the industry itself and the Crown Estate are so near to agreement about the amendment, the Government could bring themselves to be a little more positive about it. I hope that we can reach that stage before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 247 withdrawn. Clause 193 agreed. Clauses 194 to 199 agreed.