Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].


Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

We on these Benches also look forward with interest to clarification from the Minister. On the issue of staffing generally, I hope that the Minister will agree that anything that causes unnecessary disruption, with the effect of reducing the expertise and commitment of existing staff, is to be avoided if it possibly can be. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is therefore making a serious point about the body of information and skill in the existing institutions and the need to avoid any unnecessary disruption. There are two issues with location. We are obviously looking forward to hearing whether the Minister can confirm the rumour—or was it a leak?—that Newcastle has been chosen. That shows a disrespect for the skills and experience of the existing staff, who may find this a disturbing and unsettling period for then. If the announcement that appeared in my regional paper, the Western Morning News, was in any way authenticated, that is to be deprecated. However, I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said about Lincolnshire for obvious reasons. The availability of these skills in the south-west, where expert information is available in a number of institutions and given its proximity not just to the Western Approaches but to the Irish Sea, makes it a far more appropriate location than the far north-east. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is no longer present, as I think he would argue the case for Plymouth as against the location proposed by other Members of the Conservative Front Bench. The problem with the far north-east is that it is almost in Scotland, for goodness’ sake, where, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness would agree, a quite different regime applies. Having the MMO on its doorstep is obviously much less advantageous than locating it in the south-west. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a specific double assurance that, first and foremost, that decision has not been leaked and, secondly, that discussions are still taking place to find a more appropriate location than Newcastle.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c283 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Devolved matters Costs Conservation Coastal areas Climate change Devolution Civil servants Finance Fisheries Licensing EU law Energy Grants Inland waterways Exclusive economic zone Northern Ireland Oil Pensions Planning Public bodies Nuclear power Nature conservation Location Loans Public service Staff Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Treaties Security Sustainable development Wales Renewable energy Shipping Research Seas and oceans Wildlife Wind power Territorial waters Severn estuary Natural England Greenhouse gas emissions Marine and Fisheries Agency Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Marine conservation zones Tides
Legislation
Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk