| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eden, that, although the MMO will be called to make judgments, part of its work will be receiving representations from different interests, because inevitably
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1062
Lord Kingsland: I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this stage and breaking up the flow of his eloquence, but he has kindly given way. The reason why I believe it crucial to have this expression in the duties in Clause 2 is that the scientific obligations on the MMO are of a different order of magnitude from the obligations that it has in relation to all the human activities that may or may not take place in a particular sector. If the Minister glances at our obligations under OSPAR and under the new European Community directives, he will see that this is also the case under those. I know that the draftsmen will be taking into account those obligations as our debate continues.
In my submission, the starting point is the scientific position. Until the MMO has established the best available scientific evidence, it cannot go on to make an assessment about the damage or otherwise that particular human activities would do. That is the reason why it is not just a question of having regard to the scientific evidence; the scientific evidence plays a fundamental role in a way that no other evidence pertaining to any particular column of water does.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course, the Marine Management Organisation must take objective decisions on the basis of the best available evidence in the context of the guidance given to it by the Secretary of State and the marine planning statement. However, I still think that there are always risks in establishing a list of factors that have to be taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, knows the risk of lists. He says that in the case of his amendment there is, in a sense, no higher duty and that it warrants greater consideration than any other matter. No one would disagree that scientific evidence is critical to the decisions, but I am wary of going down the route that he suggests in terms of the drafting of the Bill. I hope that he will accept that the Government wish to see scientific research and evidence developed on the marine area. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made an important point about our current knowledge. Of course, we want to see the Marine Management Organisation
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1063
I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the MMO needs to employ people who have the appropriate skills and expertise to carry out its functions. I sympathise with the intention behind his amendment. I undertake to ensure that recruitment of staff will be undertaken professionally. Work is already under way to identify the skills and expertise that the organisation will need to carry out the new functions, as well as to prepare for the robustness of the skills base as the existing functions of the current Marine and Fisheries Agency transition to the Marine Management Organisation. Of course scientific staff will be necessary, but so will other professions and abilities, ranging from engineering, fisheries management, statistical interpretation, planning and economics, to social science as well as marine science and conservation.
In addition to the skills of the staff directly employed, the Marine Management Organisation needs to be able to call on expertise from elsewhere. For example, the current marine licensing operations are informed by science and evidence input from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science within my department. We intend that that key input should continue to be available to the MMO.
It may be thought unnecessary or not cost-effective for the MMO to set up similar expertise when existing expertise will be available to it. That will be a matter for the MMO in discussion with my department. What is not in doubt is that the MMO will have the expertise available either on staff or within the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Nor should there be any doubt that the Marine Management Organisation will understand the need to ensure that it has the high-level scientific advice appropriate to it.
We have already discussed our intention for the MMO to have a scientific advisory board. I have already said that we intend to ensure that the MMO has that. There is no disagreement between us about the importance of scientific evidence and of having the right expertise, whether it is employed by the MMO board or made available to it through other agencies. I accept the point raised by the noble Baroness about access to data. I am sure that we will debate that under future amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wanted reassurance on the question of consistency in Clause 2. She seeks a commonsense interpretation; she is right. I refer her to Clause 45, “Amendment of statement”, and Clause 52, “Duty to keep relevant matters under review”. I think that we get the balance right. Obviously, she would not disagree with consistency of approach but, equally, I am sure that she would recognise that
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1064
6.45 pm
This is a very important matter. I understand the wish of noble Lords to ensure that the Marine Management Organisation makes its decisions on the basis of the best evidence. The construct of the MMO as provided for in the Bill will allow for that. I also understand that it is important to ensure that the MMO has the right expertise and scientific advice that can be brought to bear. We will certainly ensure that that happens.
Lord Oxburgh: Will the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science receive extra resources to support the needs of the MMO, or will that be on a contractual, consultancy basis, as it might be with any other external organisation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: These matters are still under discussion. As I was saying, one would not want to waste resources by duplicating expertise but it is important—no doubt we will come to talk about the funding of the MMO in due course—to ensure that it has sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities. Equally, we must ensure value for money.
Lord Oxburgh: Perhaps I may elaborate slightly. There is a big difference between having your scientists in-house and on the team and going to an external organisation for which you pay for your science on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It is very important in setting up this organisation that that distinction be recognised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand that. These matters will have to be worked through by the MMO in discussion with my department and the centre, but I suspect that, in the end, we will see a number of approaches. One would expect the organisation to have scientific advisers on its staff; one would also expect it to have available the resource of the centre; and it may also need to contract out to other organisations. We should leave that as flexible as it can be. The key question is: will the best evidence possible be available to the MMO? The answer to that is in the affirmative.
Lord Tyler: My question follows from the exchanges that have just taken place. I am the complete naive lay man. I am a total non-scientist and regard scientists in rather the same way as I regard lawyers: with a degree of admiration, but not believing everything that they tell me.
The Minister has several times during this very interesting debate used the words “the best available evidence”. “The best available evidence” is a matter of judgment. The Chamber will agree that scientists do not think the same things at the same time. We have to think only of the science of climatology, which has changed dramatically in recent years. Some scientists have led it; some scientists have held back. The idea that there is a body of science available to the MMO that is unchallenged from all sources is a naive assumption.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1065
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate and to the Minister for his full reply. For clarification, is he saying that although he is not inclined to include my Amendment 28 in Clause 2, nevertheless we can read it as if the amendment were included?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a leading question from a very clever lawyer, if I may say so.
Lord Kingsland: It is a point of substance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Indeed, it is. The advice that I have received is that Clause 2 on the general objective, particularly subsection (1)(b), which says,
is wholly consistent with the MMO taking decisions on the basis of the best evidence available.
Lord Kingsland: Has the Minister received the best evidence available from his advisers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course.
Lord Kingsland: I would have expected nothing less from him. It follows from what he says that I shall return to this matter on Report, because, with great respect to him, he has not met my fundamental argument, which is that in each case where the MMO exercises its judgment, its starting point must be the best available scientific evidence. I accept that there may be different views about what is the best available scientific evidence. Indeed, I am quite sure that people who apply for operational developments at sea will argue that there are different scientific views; but it is vital that the MMO is informed as to what the best available scientific evidence is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The MMO must take its decisions on the basis of the objectives laid down in the Act in the context of the marine policy statement, which we will debate in due course, and the guidance mentioned in Clause 2(3). Clearly, the guidance that the Government will give to the Marine Management Organisation and the marine policy statement will be informed by the best available evidence. The MMO must operate within those parameters. It will be called on to make some very difficult judgments, and will work to the guidance and the marine policy statement. Again, one wants and expects it to take those decisions on the basis of the best available evidence. That evidence
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1066
Lord Kingsland: That is a different argument from the one that the Minister deployed previously. I understood him to say that the expression “the best available scientific evidence” is insufficiently precise.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, I was simply trying to describe the context in which the MMO takes its decisions. I would always be wary of accepting the kind of amendment that the noble Lord proposes, because it seeks to put one consideration above all others.
Lord Kingsland: That is precisely its intention. Its whole intention is to say that this consideration is above all other considerations; because the fundamental question is what impact certain human activities will have on the biodiversity of a particular slice of the ocean. The starting point for the MMO must be to decide what the scientific situation and the state of biodiversity are. How endangered are they? Until the MMO has answered those questions, you cannot say to the fishing interests, the energy interests or even to the renewable energy interests that they can do this or that. The MMO cannot move to that decision. That is why the scientific evidence is qualitatively different from all other forms of evidence. However, the Minister has shaken his head a sufficient number of times in the past 10 seconds to convince me that it is not worth my while pursuing this matter. Once again, I am very grateful to noble Lords, all of whom have informed this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves: Amendment 13 stands all alone and lonely in a little group on its own. It may be that no one wants to be associated with the number 13; I do not know, but there we are. It is on slightly more down-to-earth and practical matters, and refers to paragraph 20 on page 216, which is about the delegation of functions by the MMO. I am using that abbreviation now, so there we go.
“The MMO may authorise a committee, sub-committee, member or employee ... to exercise any of the MMO’s functions”.
This is a fairly normal procedure for any organisation that says to a group of its members, to another group of people or to someone whom it employs that they can have a delegated power to exercise its functions. So far, so good. However, I said earlier that I had an idealistic view that legislation should write down what will happen. I also have a perhaps naive view that I should be able to understand legislation before I am
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1067
“No authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)”—
that is, a delegation to these various bodies—
- “prevents ... (a) the MMO from exercising the function itself; (b) a member or employee of the MMO from exercising the function; (c) the MMO from authorising a different committee, sub-committee, member or employee to carry out the function”.
At a very simple level, it may simply be saying that it can revoke the previous delegation and delegate to someone else. However, it does not say that. It says that you can delegate the function to a committee, but a member can then exercise it. It is not clear at all what it means in practice. I think it means that having delegated the function to a committee, to a member of the board or whomever, the MMO can decide to delegate it to someone else who can then carry it out. That is obviously sensible; it is the normal world and how things work. One assumes that sub-paragraph (1) would include that anyhow.
The real danger with sub-paragraph (3) is that, if it means what it appears to mean on paper, two or perhaps five different lots of people could be delegated the same function and there could be total chaos. What does it mean? Does it mean revocation or that there could be massive duplication and confusion? The Minister will say, “Of course it will not mean that in the real world. That is not what we will do”. I say that what we are going to do is what it says we are going to do. I beg to move.
7 pm
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This matter is reasonably straightforward. Since the MMO board members alone cannot carry out all the functions of the organisation, it is incumbent on them to delegate the day-to-day management to the chief executive and staff, as is the case for any organisation, whether it is public or private. While the need for the board to delegate responsibility to others is clear, from time to time circumstances may change and responsibilities need to change with them. In such cases, the MMO board needs to have the flexibility to take back responsibility for certain matters or to give it to someone else. That includes asking other employees or members to carry out certain functions even if a different committee or employee has been authorised to do it. The allocation of functions is a matter entirely for the board whose responsibility it is to ensure that the organisation operates effectively. I do not think that this should cause the noble Lord undue concern. It is a perfectly normal process. I hope that this is set out in a way which clarifies that.
Baroness Hamwee: I too had trouble with this paragraph. I waited to hear the Minister, who has not answered my noble friend’s point about revocation. It seems to me that it would be possible to have multiple delegations of the same matter. It may be quite straightforward, but it eludes at least two Members of your Lordships' House at the moment.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1068
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The reassurance for the noble Baroness is paragraph 20(2), which states:
“The MMO must keep a record of any authorisations under sub-paragraph (1)”.
It therefore follows that it will be the responsibility of the MMO to make sure that that record is kept up to date, which would avoid the problem that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The paragraph allows the MMO to delegate to more than one person. It does not follow that because it delegates to someone new it has taken back the first, as the Minister seemed to suggest. The noble Lord asked whether that is what is intended. If it is as has been put by the Minister that should be said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As the noble and learned Lord said, paragraph 22 states:
“The MMO may authorise a committee, sub-committee, member or employee of the MMO to exercise any of the MMO’s functions”.
I am sure that there could be certain circumstances when a number of employees would be so named. Circumstances also might arise where none of those employees could undertake that duty and another member of staff has to be so asked to do. In responding to the noble Baroness, I was saying that the MMO has to keep a record of any authorisations. In making any changes, whether it is an addition or a revocation, a record would be kept.
However, I am very happy to look at this if Members of the Committee think that it is confusing or that we need further clarification. We need to clear this up. My advice is that this wording is used on a frequent basis, but I would be happy to look further into this.
Baroness Hamwee: That is precisely the point I want to make. Earlier, I referred to government arguments in the previous Session about the desirability of consistency in the schedules setting out the powers of various agencies across legislation. I entirely understand that. Here, it seems that someone has tried to reinvent the wheel on an occasion where it might have been better to follow a precedent.
Lord Greaves: I do not think that any of us disagrees with what the Minister has said about the procedure which would happen if the MMO wishes, for whatever reason, to make arrangements for someone else, or another body or committee, to carry out a particular function. There is no problem about that. It says that the MMO can carry out the function, which is fine because that would simply be the MMO taking the function back and doing it itself. If an employee is off sick, resigns or whatever, another employee is allocated to do that job. There is no problem about that. Nor is there a problem if someone is overworked and wants to allocate the function to one of the people who works for them.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |