My Lords, I do not think that we will agree on this. It is not what I think that counts, but what the scientists in all the countries in the world who did the work—particularly in New Zealand—came out with. It is universally recognised that there are places where you need a level of protection against, for example, trawling, but where many other activities could take place. In a normal conservation zone you could admit human activity such as sailing, canoeing and so on, and the species and what you are trying to protect in that area of sea will be fine. Other areas will merit a higher level of protection.
I can see that I will not win the argument with the Government. We have failed to get Conservative support. However, all those people who lobbied so hard for the Bill—for example, members of the Wildlife Trust or the Marine Conservation Society, and others who simply want to see marine areas deliver what science has proved that they can—will need to lobby their MPs and see if this can be changed in the other place.
I can see some of the Minister’s argument, but behind it are other worries. I have no idea whether they concern the Crown Estate or other lobbies, but there is no reason why the Government could not designate a special category for very special places, just as we do in the terrestrial area.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c997-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:34:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_556906
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_556906
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_556906