Investigating the Oceans

I had not noticed that, but it takes me on to another point: the need for co-operation between Governments. As the hon. Gentleman said, part of the rationale in the Government's response was that recent developments in the devolved Administrations—I believe that is how it was gently put—were a barrier to setting up a UK-wide body. I do not doubt that that may well be the case, but it is exceptionally unfortunate if it is true, because this is an issue on which there clearly would be a benefit from UK-wide co-ordination. The scientists working at the North Atlantic Fisheries college at Scalloway in Shetland, the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, the Dunstaffnage facility near Oban, and in Liverpool, Southampton, Portsmouth and Newcastle are all dealing with the same fish in the same sea. It makes no sense whatever to try to draw lines on a map in respect of this issue. I do not know what the constitutional barrier is, but I do know that, in the interests of good science and good marine management, the problem should be capable of resolution. I cannot believe that there should be a tremendous ideological divide on the issue. Surely, it should be one of the least contentious questions in inter-governmental relations. If there is a problem, I hope that cool heads might bring some influence to bear on it. There are many precedents for that. I remember the role of the Scottish Government on the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. That was a UK-wide body, for obvious reasons, to which the previous Scottish Executive made a vigorous and valuable contribution. I suspect that what is lacking is political will, because, as is always the case with the oceans or anything to do with the marine environment, everything happens out of sight and very much out of mind. Only when there is some crisis is attention suddenly focused on the oceans, but it tends largely to dissipate thereafter. The final point that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made, which vigorously attracted my attention, was about the role of Crown Estate data sharing. I suspect that, representing Bolton, South-East, the hon. Gentleman has not had much to do with the Crown Estate's marine division. If one represents Orkney and Shetland, one has rather more to do with it. Anyone who is bored might care to reflect on the contents of my maiden speech to the House, on this very subject. The marine division is a tiny part of the Crown Estate; the real money comes from renting property on Regent street and elsewhere. However, the estate regards the marine division exactly as it regards Regent street—as a cash cow. It does not particularly care about science, certainly does not care much about the communities that depend on the seabed around them and does not much care about the industries, such as aquaculture and renewable energy, that also require the use of the seabed—other than as a potential source of income for the estate. If it does not share data, I suspect that that is because it has not been offered enough money. I am afraid that I have a bleak view of the Crown Estate and its wider interests, because I do not think that it has any understanding of these issues. It is answerable, but through the Treasury. Perhaps therein lies the problem. If the estate's marine division, at least, were accountable more sensibly through DEFRA, or through the Department for Energy and Climate Change, which makes more sense than going through the Treasury, or even through the devolved Administrations, the estate would take a different approach. In the meantime, it remains answerable through the Treasury—in the loosest possible sense. Accountability is not something it prizes very highly; the estate regards accountability as important to other people. This is an exceptionally important topic, not just for people who live in island and coastal communities, although it is especially important to us. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to take part in today's debate and very much look forward to the Minister's reply.