UK Parliament / Open data

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall start off the Report stage of this Bill by moving Amendment 1 and speaking to Amendment 2, which is in the same group. As we begin that new stage I should, in doing so, remind the House of my relevant interests: my membership of the British Mountaineering Council—and my involvement with its access, conservation and environment group—and of the Open Spaces Society. Both of those memberships will come into play a long way down the road, in Part 9. Nevertheless, I declare them now. Amendments 1 and 2 refer to Schedule 1, which is about the membership of the Marine Management Organisation. We had a long debate on a wide range of amendments on these matters in Committee, in which we questioned qualifications for membership of the MMO and probed the size of its board. On most of those amendments, we had very satisfactory answers from the Government and, while we may have done some details differently, we are not quibbling about the way in which they are going. The amendments crystallise two points that were, perhaps, not finally resolved completely satisfactorily. Amendment 1 proposes that, in the schedule, so far, ""as is reasonably practicable these skills and expertise"—" that is, the skills and expertise of members of the MMO, should— ""cover the range of functions of the MMO"." From what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said in Committee, it is fairly clear that that is the intention of the Government. He said: ""To assist the MMO in fulfilling its objective, that relevant expertise and experience should as far as possible be drawn from one or more of the pillars of sustainable development; in other words, board members should have experience of environmental, economic and/or social issues"." That was all set out in the helpful briefing note that has been provided and, I think, published on the department’s website. The Minister then said, ""The second consideration is the need to ensure a proper balance of skills and experience so the board functions effectively and adds value to the organisation as a whole"." Finally, he talked about the need for people of the highest calibre to be appointed, and said: ""That must be a prime consideration"," although, ""we need to ensure that those high calibre members come from a variety of specified backgrounds to ensure that the board works as effectively as possible".—[Official Report, 12/1/09; col. 1051.]" I think that the Minister was, in saying those things, speaking in favour of this amendment, which would simply put the principle of everything that he said into the Bill. That ought to be done, and I do not understand any reasons why it should not be. Amendment 2 refers to the number. The Minister stated clearly in Committee that, while the Bill states that the number of members should be no fewer than five and no more than eight, plus the chair—that is, six to nine including the chair—the Government intended, nevertheless, that there would be, at least in the first instance, the full complement allowed by that range. Some of us argued that if that was the case it would be sensible to raise the number to the middle of the range, but that was not a major issue of principle. It is clear that the Government intend to appoint a chair and eight other members. I do not quibble with that and I am content that that is a sensible way forward. This amendment says that, under the further powers of the Secretary of State to change the range of the number of members from five to eight to other figures, the number of members should not fall below five. That is the minimum number necessary to make sense of not just what the Government will do during the inauguration of the MMO but also to make sense of what future Governments and Secretaries of State might wish to do. I therefore suggest that, whatever the Secretary of State might propose, he cannot go below five members plus the chair. That is the absolute minimum that would be appropriate if the MMO is to succeed in its work. Therefore, that should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c443-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top