Investigating the Oceans

The hon. Gentleman speculates in that way. To be fair and to answer his question bluntly, I think that there is a lack of co-ordination of marine science activities across Government. The parcel is being passed among various Departments rather than being grasped. I will come to some of those issues. We have seen the same thing in a number of cases where it is not easy to compartmentalise the activity in question. Although we would have preferred a marine agency—I maintain that point, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East would also support it—we nevertheless looked forward to having a new committee. It had fewer letters than the previous one and was therefore easier to pronounce, and we thought that it would offer a more inclusive approach to co-ordinating the marine community. It is not just about Departments and the research community; the broader community that uses the oceans also needs to be included. That is what the House of Lords recommended 20 years ago. Alas, the membership of the MSCC is a disappointing rehash of IACMST. Key bodies such as the Department for Transport, which clearly has an interest in the seas, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council are missing from the new body. The independent members who were such an important part of the original organisation—they always attended, and often kept it going—have been disbanded altogether. Indeed, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies seem to have been excluded too. Their seas and coastlines must have disappeared during the development of the new organisation. There is no university or industry representation, and significant players such as the petrochemical giants, which have a massive interest in exploring the seas, have simply been excluded from the new committee. In other words, from a membership point of view, the MSCC is a watered-down rather than beefed-up IACMST. Although there may be sub-committees of other interested parties—I am sure the Minister will say that the Government consult those people in other ways—the fact is that they have absolutely no voice when decisions and recommendations are made. However, given that the committee has met only twice in 18 months, perhaps they are not missing a great deal. How was the membership of MSCC decided? Was the broader marine community consulted? Was it the intention to reduce external and independent influence and give the Government more say in marine science strategy? If not, what was the rationale for removing independent advisers before making strategic decisions? How are the nations of the UK involved, particularly Northern Ireland and Wales? Why do the Government consider the views of universities and industry so unimportant to marine science, given that they are at the cutting edge of research and exploitation? Such deficiencies suggest that the Government have missed the point of marine research. Not only is it very important for global challenges such as climate change, it brings together a range of critical economic factors such as fisheries, transport, energy, leisure and exploration. Surely a marine science strategy must consider all those things and more. It is not just a matter of seeing what Departments and research councils are doing. Can the membership realistically provide sufficient expertise across all these areas to develop a strategy that will stand the test of time? We would like to know the Government's thinking on the collection and storage of long-term data sets, as we returned to that issue constantly, not only during this inquiry but during our inquiry into space, on which a huge amount of data is collected and stored. The Committee understands—we certainly understood it as the Science and Technology Committee—research councils' reluctance to fund data collection and storage, as their role deals with basic blue-skies research. However, a huge amount of work goes into collecting data from a variety of sources, sometimes over decades. Marine science at Plymouth has collected data records that go back 60 years or more. Such data are of massive scientific interest, and are priceless. If we cannot continue to collect them and the data sets are not retained in an order that allows them to be interrogated, we will miss a huge opportunity. However, there is a constant battle among various organisations to fund that vital activity. We recommended in our report that it should be co-ordinated by our proposed marine agency, which would have a separate budget to do so. However, the Government argued that that responsibility should remain with UKMMAS, the UK marine monitoring and assessment strategy. All these acronyms remind me of an episode of "Soap", if hon. Members remember that wonderful television series. The UKMMAS, which the Minister believes is the right organisation to deal with the co-ordination and collection of hugely important data sets, has no powers, no budget and no authority to engage in international programmes such as Argo floats or deep marine piling. It is an organisation with absolutely no influence in this hugely important issue. What steps has the Minister taken to plug the £22 million funding gap identified to our Committee in 2007 by UKMMAS and cover the costs of basic monitoring and data collection? What steps has he taken for long-term storage, sharing and access to data sets? What assurances can he give us that UKMMAS is now engaging with the royal and commercial navies on data collection? It is an important issue, and I hope that he can give us some satisfaction on it later. We recognise that the marine environment is hugely complex and international by nature. That is one reason why we called in our report for a ministerial champion for marine issues. This goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) made earlier. Judging by the slow progress following our report, and despite the ongoing, lengthy passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, there is not much ministerial enthusiasm in this area. In our report we said:""It is unacceptable that responsibility for the greatest geographical area in the UK (its seas) should be a minor part of a junior ministerial portfolio."" But that is exactly what it appears to be. I hope that the Minister will make me eat my words, and will demonstrate that he is going to be a champion of marine science. If he does, I will be the first to congratulate him as we leave the Chamber. It would be useful to know from the Minister who is driving forward the marine agenda in Government, and when the marine strategy has been raised at Cabinet level or even at departmental level. Can he tell us a time when it was raised? Also, how many champions have there been in the past two years? I think that the Minister is the third one in his post. I contrast marine science with the rest of science, which has Lord Drayson as its champion, and a Cabinet Committee right at the heart of Government. Would it be better if marine science were part of Lord Drayson's responsibilities? Could he take up the cudgels for us within the Cabinet? Moving to the promised UK marine science strategy, my Committee is pleased that the long-awaited Marine and Coastal Access Bill is passing through the House. We wholeheartedly share its objective to""ensure clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas, by putting in place better systems for delivering sustainable development of marine and coastal environment."" How could one not agree with that statement of fairly obvious things? However, the Bill's passage through Parliament is running parallel to the work of the new MSCC, which is designing a UK marine science strategy. Will the Minister explain how he intends to design a UK marine science strategy while the marine landscape, from a regulation point of view, is still in flux? Or does he know the outcome of those deliberations? Will he give an assurance that the marine science strategy will be completed by the end of 2009, and that parliamentary time will be allocated for its discussion? Will the Minister also explain his thinking about the formation and location of the Maritime Management Organisation? The Government brochure on the MMO states that it will""deliver marine functions in the waters around England and in the UK offshore area (for matters that are not devolved)."" It will, in effect, be a maritime planning authority, and will therefore rely heavily on scientific input from specialist universities, laboratories and key private sector marine organisations. The Government have committed, during and following other Committee inquiries, including our present inquiry into science and engineering policy, to grow centres of excellence to meet national strategic science needs. We are discussing this issue in our current inquiry. The Government say that they are committed to a concept of excellence, and that they will focus their investment according to excellence, not geography, which is why the diamond particle accelerator was built at Rutherford Appleton, rather than, say, Daresbury in the north-west. We fully expected that policy to apply to marine science, and that Plymouth or Southampton would be the favourite location for the new MMO. Plymouth houses a marine laboratory, the National Marine Aquarium and its university's marine institute, and would have provided a good base on which to build the new organisation. Equally, Southampton, in the same geographical region, boasts the National Oceanography Centre, and was an equally strong contender. Crucially, between Southampton and Plymouth, there is the critical mass of science needed to support a national centre of excellence. That is one of the key Government tests for national centres. The MMO will want access to the best evidence and the best people if it is to be effective, and it would make sense to put it in a location that boasts the largest concentration of marine expertise in the UK. However, Newcastle had an empty building ready to be used, so that is where the MMO will go. That fishy decision raises a number of questions. What benefits, other than cost, does Newcastle have over Plymouth? What political factors came into play? Was the Minister's arm bent up his back as he made this decision? We, and the scientists at Plymouth and Southampton, would like to know why an empty shed in Newcastle won over their huge expertise. The legitimate interests of the marine science community appear, once again, to have been thwarted by political expediency. I hope the Minster will convince me that I am wrong. There is much more in our report that could be discussed today, and I trust that other hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise other issues during the debate. Marine science continues to have strategic significance for the UK. We have world class scientists and a world-class reputation, and I trust that the Minister will convince hon. Members today that he is a world-class champion and is worthy of their cause.