Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].


Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

This is a probing amendment to call into question the type and scale of research that the MMO can undertake. As the Bill stands, the MMO can undertake research itself when that research is concerned with any of its functions or general objectives, or it can choose to commission research in these areas. Some research is carried out by almost every organisation to facilitate achieving its objectives. We fully support Amendment 70A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because to perform its remit effectively the MMO will and should have to carry out proper research. Science must be at the heart of its decision-making. This should therefore be a duty. Will the Minister say what specific sorts of research he expects the MMO to carry out? Subsection (1)(b) specifies that research can be commissioned or supported, "““by financial means or otherwise””." What is likely to be the ““otherwise””? Will he explain that? Will he also tell us whether there are any estimates of how much of the MMO’s budget might be taken up by this research? Who will be in charge of deciding which research gets greater priority if, for example, time or cost factors come into play? Amendment 70A flags up the question of who the main funder and promoter of research will be. Will it be Defra, the MMO or the NERC? How much will commercial interests be encouraged to participate in co-funding research? Will Defra’s research budget be increased to cope with this demand? In addition, the NERC does not have a history of prioritising funding for the directly applied research that this would entail. There is also the question of security of information. The Freedom of Information Act means that a lot of the research carried out may end up in the public domain. While that is a positive development in many ways, it could pose problems for sensitive information such as that on licensing. It could also make partnership funding with commercial interests more difficult. How do the Government intend to sort out that situation? There is a risk of duplicating the research by other bodies. There are many different bodies in charge of various aspects of the marine area. For example, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities may all have a vested interest in commissioning similar research. Finally, then, what plan will be put in place to avoid wasteful and expensive duplication of research? Would the MMO be considered the primary research body? I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c252-3 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Devolved matters Costs Conservation Coastal areas Climate change Devolution Civil servants Finance Fisheries Licensing EU law Energy Grants Inland waterways Exclusive economic zone Northern Ireland Oil Pensions Planning Public bodies Nuclear power Nature conservation Location Loans Public service Staff Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Treaties Security Sustainable development Wales Renewable energy Shipping Research Seas and oceans Wildlife Wind power Territorial waters Severn estuary Natural England Greenhouse gas emissions Marine and Fisheries Agency Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Marine conservation zones Tides
Legislation
Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk