Schedule 1
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)
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.