Nick
Ainger: In light of the Minister’s assurances that
something will be brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
141 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
142 to 144 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
10 agreed
to. Clauses
145 and 146 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedules
11 and 12 agreed
to. Clauses
147 and 148 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
13 agreed
to.
Clause
1The
Marine Management
Organisation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): May I seek your guidance,
Mr. Gale? I have a clause stand part query. We had a very
good debate on Tuesday about the planning side of the legislation. The
Committee came to a decision that needs to be reflected in this part of
the Bill. I very much hope that that will happen so that the Bill is
kept
balanced.
The
Chairman: I will take that as a point of order. I will
allow the Minister to make an observation in a moment. However, if I
understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I have to say that we must
consider the clause as it is, not as we would like it to be, because
there are no amendments tabled.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you for giving me some latitude,
Mr. Gale. I will try to be helpful and to bring some
clarity. Following
our debate and subsequent vote on Tuesday morning, I have had some time
to reflect on the strong views of the Committee on some of the
proposals, including those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for
Southampton, Test. In response to our discussion about furthering
sustainable development, which is material to the clauses we are coming
to, he
said: “My
hon. Friend makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of
wording in the Bill, with other pieces of legislation that have or may
not have a bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the
Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that
schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of
this amendment. If he tabled such
an amendment on Report he might secure a great degree of cross-party
support.”——[ Official Report, Marine and
Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c.
18.] I
can report to the Committee what has happened in the very short period
since that debate. An amendment of such scale and potential impact
would read across to Whitehall Departments and devolved
colleagues—of course this is a UK Bill. On reflection, I am
minded to take constructively my hon. Friend’s comments and to
work with other Departments, devolved colleagues and members of the
Committee in the weeks ahead to try to introduce something on
Report that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
We need to
make sure that the Bill maintains the right balance. The question
surrounding a reporting function on the furthering of sustainable
development is important, but placing such a duty on the Marine
Management Organisation or making it part of a marine policy statement
would risk causing an imbalance among the various interests under the
Bill.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I shall give way to the hon.
Gentleman.
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister cannot give way on a point
of order—and I take it that he is making a point of order. If
the Minister has finished, I will be quite prepared to call the hon.
Member for Newbury, but the Minister cannot give
way.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: My apologies, Mr.
Gale. As
I have said, I am willing to work with members of the Committee, and
across Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations, to
consider how to address genuine concerns about furthering sustainable
development, but we are looking for an appropriate place to put it in
the Bill. Given the constructive comments that were made on Tuesday
morning, I urge hon. Members not to imbalance the Bill by imposing such
a duty on the MMO or in the MPS. I might have to address those issues
at a later stage, but I urge hon. Members to explore the constructive
approach, as I am willing to do, of introducing a measure at a later
stage, rather than imposing something elsewhere in the
Bill.
The
Chairman: Further to that point of
order.
Mr.
Benyon: Yes, Mr.
Gale. I
am interested by the Minister’s development of the suggestion
made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but we have the
opportunity of balancing the Bill later and accepting the
Committee’s earlier decision. My worry about this part of the
Bill is that the MMO will not be as strong as many of us would like. If
we do not balance the Bill—I am choosing my words extremely
carefully, as I do not want to re-enter a debate that we concluded on
Tuesday—we will further weaken it. I want a strong MMO, so I
believe that we have to reflect the decision that the Committee made on
Tuesday.
The
Chairman: All that might be true, but none of it is
a matter for the Chair. When I say that it might be true, I mean that
it might not be as well—I do not wish to take sides in this
argument. It is for the usual channels to sort this out and to table
such amendments as may be necessary. I repeat that it is not a matter
for the Chair. The only question for the Committee at the moment is
whether clause 1 should stand part of the
Bill. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1The
Marine Management
Organisation
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 4, in
schedule 1, page 227, line 11, at
end
insert— ‘Chief
engineering adviser 15A (1) The MMO
must appoint a person to be its chief engineering
adviser. (2) The chief
engineering adviser is an employee of the
MMO. (3) The MMO may only make
an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) with the approval of the
Secretary of State as to any terms and conditions of employment not
falling within paragraph 17 or
18.’. Science
and engineering are very different disciplines. This will address the
needs of an engineering discipline, such as marine renewable energy.
Therefore the MMO will be allowed to appoint a Chief Engineering
Adviser. The
amendment would provide that a chief engineering adviser would be
appointed to work alongside the chief scientific adviser in the MMO.
With renewable energy technology changing at such a rapid pace, and
given the importance of climate change mitigation within the marine
environment—I have tabled other amendments related to that
area—it is important that the MMO is equipped with the
appropriate expertise to deal with this very important area of marine
management.
Science and
engineering are very different disciplines, although there is a common
misconception that they are synonymous. The appointment of a chief
scientific adviser to the MMO is important for marine conservation, but
it will not necessarily cover the needs of climate change mitigation
and marine renewable energy. The appointment of a chief engineering
advisor would be beneficial to a range of other marine users and
industrial user groups, including those related to ports, cables and
dredging. I re-emphasise that there is a rapid movement in green energy
technologies, particularly in the marine environment, and the MMO needs
to be equipped to deal with them. It needs to be able to give the
Secretary of State good engineering advice. In addition, in its
capacity as the champion of our seas, if it is properly to consider the
sustainable green development of areas of our ocean, it needs to have
the correct engineering
advice. Mr.
Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): I rise to support the
amendment. I would have thought that the proposal was fairly
uncontentious; indeed, I am rather surprised that such a measure is not
in the Bill. If the MMO is to function properly, it must take into
account all competing demands and certainly the development of green
energy. I wonder whether I am losing the Minister’s attention,
Mr. Gale— [Interruption.] Ah, the
Under-Secretary of
State for Scotland will respond to the debate, which just shows the
importance of having two people. That is why we need a chief
engineering advisor and a chief scientific advisor—in case one
or the other is off.
Offshore
technology of one sort of another will be in demand in a lot of the
areas we are talking about. We have already touched on offshore wind
farms and wave projects, and a good wave project down in Plymouth is
being funded by the South West of England Regional Development Agency,
as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton will know. Such projects will
require infrastructure and cabling—the energy must be brought
onshore—but a chief scientific advisor is not necessarily the
correct person to make judgments on those things. He would be well
backed up by a chief engineering advisor, and the two people working
together would cover almost every conceivable eventuality. The
disciplines are different, and an engineering adviser would add to the
MMO. I hope the Government will accept the
amendment.
Andrew
George: I support the amendment. Given the strategic
importance of the UK’s marine energy resource, the timely
delivery of renewable energy targets should surely be part of the
MMO’s remit and objectives. The fact is that some in the
renewable energy sector are concerned that the MMO will be answerable
solely to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and
not to other Departments, and therefore that the organisation might
have too much of an environmental base and might not be sufficiently
considerate of the Government’s climate change objectives. Those
wider, global conservation considerations must surely be part of the
MMO’s activities.
The hon.
Member for East Devon mentioned the South West of England RDA’s
wave hub project. In fact, it is not in Plymouth; it has been proposed
and recently licensed for the north coast of my constituency. The cable
will be set out from Hayle and anchored about 10 km off the north coast
of my constituency. It is an exciting and experimental project, and it
is vital that the UK takes the opportunity to lead the world in that
aspect of scientific and engineering development. Such a window of
opportunity has been provided by the licensing and preparatory work
that is in place. I would be significantly reassured, not only on
offshore wind facilities, which hon. Members have mentioned, but on
tidal and wave renewables facilities, if the MMO had the capacity to
consider not only the science, but the vital and complex engineering
challenges that many stakeholders must consider. I hope that the
Minister will take the amendment on board. Extending the appointments
from science to engineering and ensuring that the organisation has such
capacity is something that the Government should
support. 1.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): Thank you, Mr Gale, good afternoon. Everyone
will have welcomed the announcement early this morning that Christopher
Parry will be chair designate of the Marine Management Organisation.
That shows that we are making progress on the necessary
preparations.
I do not
accept the contention in the explanatory statement to the
amendment: “Science
and engineering are very different disciplines.”
My late father spent
many years lecturing thousands of engineering undergraduates in
physics, and I am sure that he would say that science underpins an
understanding of and is the basis of engineering. Engineering today
requires knowledge of mathematics, physics, geology and biochemistry,
particularly in the field of renewable energy, which, I fully accept is
key to our economic growth and potential. Our chief scientific adviser,
Professor Sir John Beddington, is not only the head of science in
Government but of engineering, and represents the interests of both.
The understanding has always been that chief scientific officers in
Government encompass both disciplines, including engineering skills and
the practical application of the sciences.
I do not know
whether the shadow Chancellor, who keeps saying that the Government
need to consider cutting bureaucracy and costs, would consider the
appointment of yet another highly paid and pensioned civil servant a
positive step. I shall leave that to one side.
Serious and
genuine points about offshore renewable energy licensing have been made
today. To be seen as a credible marine regulator, the MMO must be able
to draw on its expertise to inform decision making, and we recognise
that energy expertise must be part of that skill
set. Clause
2 requires the MMO to take account of all relevant facts and matters
when making decisions and carrying out its functions. Where engineering
expertise is relevant, the MMO will, of course, draw upon it as and
when needed. It is not necessary to require the MMO to appoint a chief
engineering adviser specifically. We have amended schedule 1 to require
the MMO to appoint a chief science adviser in recognition of the
cross-cutting and truly fundamental role that science will play in the
new
MMO. I
am not disputing the fact that engineering is important, not only for
renewable energy, but for many other areas, such as oil and gas marine
structures and the move to carbon capture, which require specialist
engineering skills. It is important, not to justify and advise, but to
ensure that we have in the MMO the necessary expertise and can call
upon it. We are confident that the issue can be addressed as part of
the MMO’s wider recruitment and that the MMO will be able to
bring in expertise through other means, because, depending on the type
of application, special consultancy, rather than full-time staff, may
be more appropriate.
The MMO will
need to recruit new staff and develop them through training and
interchange to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available from
day one. Interchange is also a mechanism whereby the MMO can build its
knowledge base through exchanges and strengthened links with partner
organisations and industry. In addition, if the MMO decided that it
needed to bring in further engineering expertise, it has the
flexibility to do that without the specific power being included in
the
Bill. Paragraph
16 of schedule 1 allows the MMO to appoint other employees. That could
include specialist engineering staff, but that would be a decision for
the chair and board, based on an analysis of the requirements at the
time. To make prescriptions such as those in the amendment would be to
micro-manage and remove the MMO’S responsibility for regulating
its own staffing
and resource requirements. As an independent non-departmental public
body, those decisions should be left to the
MMO. I
hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the necessary plans are in
place to ensure that the MMO has access to engineering expertise. I do
not believe that that should be specified in the Bill, so I urge the
hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw his
amendment.
| 
