My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the thinking behind the amendment. It appeared at an earlier stage that Natural England had an option not to produce maps but simply to provide a description. Many of us will have been briefed by the NFU of its worries about that arrangement. Since we failed earlier today to restrict "coastal margin" to the seaward side of the route, I am happy to accept the Minister’s amendment and once again thank him for attempting to resolve our concerns, even if he has not gone the whole way, as we were looking for.
Once we have included the Minister’s splendid amendment in the Bill, resulting in the showing of a landward boundary on a map, plus a description of the boundary, do the Government really think it necessary still to include new subsection (7), whereby Natural England is required to include access information in an additional report? Is that not rather going over the top? Also, can the Minister reassure me that the maps will be able to be amended if at some future date a change in land use or rollback takes place, as we cannot afford to set a coastal path in stone?
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Duke of Montrose
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 1 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c41-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:42:28 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562204
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562204
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562204