Proceeding contribution from Keith Simpson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Broads Authority Bill (By Order).
Broads Authority Bill (By Order)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the interest that he took in the broads when he was a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that he went on holiday there as a child, and I remember that he also negotiated extra moneys for the Broads Authority. He is right to say that the broads are special and that they are directly associated with the national parks. We should emphasise that, in order to highlight the special nature of the area. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, the impetus after 2001 was for greater co-operation between navigators and conservationists. This was reflected in what was originally the draft Bill entitled the Broads National Park Authority Bill that existed in 2006. That Bill ran into opposition for a number of reasons, not least because of the difficulty involved in using the term ““national park?. As we have seen, it subsequently became much more narrowly defined as the Broads Authority Bill that we are debating today. I am not being pedantic, but I am grateful that it is called the Broads Authority Bill. At one stage there was a consultation, in which focus groups said that people did not understand where the broads were, and that it would therefore be best to describe them as the Norfolk broads. At that suggestion, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) quite rightly threw his toys out of his cot on behalf of his constituents, pointing out that the broads are in Norfolk and Suffolk. That is right and proper. They overlap the constituencies of many of us who are sitting here today. At the heart of the Bill is the importance of establishing a balance between work and life on the broads, and the environment. Many interested parties, including those who live and work on or near the broads, environmentalists and wildlife organisations, the local authority, the Broads Authority, the Environment Agency, the East of England Development Agency, other Government Departments and even the European Union have an interest in and an input into the area. I want to highlight a number of important issues to see whether the hon. Member for Norwich, North will be able to respond to them when he makes his concluding remarks, and also to put them on the table for further debate. The Bill gives considerable powers to the Broads Authority in relation to navigation, the licensing of boats and the maintenance of vegetation, as well as improved regulation of water skiing and wave boarding. I showed the draft Bill to a colleague who said that while the powers might be necessary, they appeared quite draconian. There might be good arguments for having the powers, but it is right and proper that we should question and tease out the reasoning behind them, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk did in an earlier intervention. I have to say that I was not convinced by the answer that the hon. Member for Norwich, North gave to the hon. Gentleman at that point. I am sure that when we have regime change in the Labour party and the hon. Member for Norwich, North is called to the colours and takes his place officially on the Front Bench, he will be able to call on the ministerial box for help. I see that the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) is leaving at this point; he cannot bear the thought of that. The original draft caused considerable worry to local boating and sailing interests. The hon. Member for Norwich, North was absolutely correct to say that a good, long dialogue had taken place between the Broads Authority, the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yacht Association, which culminated on 21 January with a written agreement—a concordat. I suspect that neither side is fully satisfied, but the agreement was welcome. There have been amendments to the Bill and further measures specified in a side agreement to protect the interests of recreational boaters. However, there remain individuals who still have concerns about the powers that the Bill gives the Broads Authority. Those four individuals have petitioned Parliament. I do not want to over-egg this, but I expect that there are others who share their concerns but have not gone through the motions of petitioning Parliament. Can the hon. Member for Norwich, North tell the House at this stage whether the Broads Authority is taking into account the concerns of the four petitioners—Alan Richard Williams, Paul Derrick Howes, Mollie Yensie Howes and Peter Sanders? I know that there is a continuing debate, but I mention the matter on the Floor of the House because those four people have petitioned Parliament and their concerns need to be addressed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 459 c977-9
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Boats Boating Finance Land Insurance Inland waterways Floods Navigation Nature conservation Parish and town councils Norfolk National parks Safety Rivers Suffolk Dredging Broads Authority Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
- Legislation
- Broads Authority Bill 2006-07 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:36:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392574
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392574
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_392574