Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Amendment 12 12: Schedule 1, page 215, line 5, at end insert— ““( ) In appointing other employees, the MMO must ensure the employment of sufficient persons with scientific capability or expertise for the exercise of its functions.”” This group of amendments takes us back to our earlier debate about the relationship of science to the organisation. I should start by declaring an interest: for the past seven years, I have been chairman of the board of trustees of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. Until 2002, it was a Government-owned institution. I hasten to add that I am not a marine scientist, so I do not need to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, about whether I would have, if I were a marine scientist, a right to exist or not. Indeed, the fact that I am not a marine scientist is the main, perhaps the only, reason why I was appointed to the post in the first place. Although this group of amendments starts with Amendment 12, I want to begin with Amendment 28, which relates to the general objectives clause, Clause 2. To put the amendment in perspective, it is worth reading the clause to the Committee. I am concerned only with subsection (1), which states: "““It is the duty of the MMO to secure that the MMO functions are so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled—""(a) in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated … and""(b) with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development ...""Any reference in this Act to the MMO’s ‘general objective’ is a reference to the duty imposed on the MMO by this subsection””." Amendment 28 seeks to add a further paragraph—paragraph (c)—which reads: "““with regard to the best available scientific evidence””." In other words, it would lay a duty on the shoulders of the MMO, "““to secure that the MMO functions are so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled … with regard to the best available scientific evidence””." I believe that this amendment flows ineluctably from the fundamental activity in which the MMO is to be engaged—that is, assessing the impact of human activities on a particular sector of the waters around our country. Therefore, the starting point in any decision of the MMO is: what is the state of the biodiversity of that particular section of water? It must ask: what is going on on the surface, what is going on in the water column and what is going on on the seabed? Until it knows the answers to those questions, it cannot go on to make an assessment about the desirability or otherwise of particular economic or other activities taking place there. Therefore, any decision by the MMO will be based on science, and if it does not establish with the best science available at the time the most likely situation, it will be incapable of fulfilling any of its other tasks. The other two amendments in this group flow from that. Both concern the way in which the MMO would acquire the appropriate scientific information. Amendment 12 deals with the desirability of the MMO having a sufficient number of skilled scientists with the capability or expertise to exercise the judgments to which I have just referred. The word used in the amendment is ““must””, not ““may””. A related obligation is set out in Amendment 41, which concerns the other means by which the MMO might acquire the appropriate scientific information. It reads: "““In seeking to secure the duty mentioned in subsection (1)(c), the MMO must consult with any relevant government or independent scientific bodies””." Both those amendments address what I consider to be the weaknesses of Clause 23, which is entitled ““Research””. I apologise for again testing the Committee’s patience by quoting the Bill. Subsection (1) states: "““The MMO may (whether alone or with other bodies or persons)—""(a) undertake research into any matter relating to its functions or its general objective, or""(b) commission or support (by financial means or otherwise) research into any such matter””." I do not need to read out subsection (2) because it is not germane to the point that I am trying to make. How can the MMO undertake research into any matter relating to its functions if it does not have the appropriate expertise among its employees? Equally, if it has certain expertise but not the particular expertise relevant to the decision that it has to take, surely it must—not may—go outside to get the appropriate scientific information. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, expressed doubts about the existence of marine science and I can understand why he did so. Only a tiny proportion of the oceans around our country have been subject to traditional marine scientific analysis. Most people have to rely on predictions rather general scientific knowledge. We now have the capacity, through satellites, to examine quite intimately and very quickly what is happening on surface waters. We also have the ability, through geophysical information, to draw from the contours of the base of the continental shelf certain conclusions about the kind of biodiversity that exists there. As many noble Lords know, there are also experts called marine modellers who are tasked with making these predictions. This is as much a form of forecasting as it is traditional scientific analysis; and for the first 10 years of the MMO’s life decisions about the impact of human activities on biodiversity in a particular area will depend heavily on assembling what we know and then forecasting in the way that I have described. That leads me to my final point, which is not directly affected by these amendments. If the MMO is to be increasingly effective, a very powerful priority will have to be to assemble and spread as widely as possible data on what is going on in the sea, together with marine monitoring. That is dealt with in later clauses and I do not intend to go into it now but it is a related issue. I beg to move.