Investigating the Oceans

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I congratulate—belatedly—the Committee on its report and particularly its Chairman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), on the persuasive way in which he spoke to it today and has sought to draw the attention of the House to its conclusions. We face an unprecedented crisis in the marine life in our seas and oceans. Research predicts that the world will run out of seafood species that it can fish by 2048 and that the associated loss of marine biodiversity will destroy the ocean's natural ability to adapt and self-repair. A strong science base is therefore essential if we are to respond to the challenges to our marine ecosystems. It is possible to identify five key challenges to the marine environment. First, and perhaps the most significant, is climate change and its impact on sea levels. The world's oceans absorb more than one quarter of the carbon dioxide that the human race generates, and half of that is absorbed in the Southern ocean alone, so oceans and marine systems play a key role both in the debate that we must have about climate change, and in regulating climate systems. There is a danger that meltwater could interrupt the oceans' natural currents and a particular concern that the gulf stream could slow down or even shut down, meaning less heat for north-west Europe and, therefore, harsher winters. The second key challenge is fishing in our seas and oceans. Some 70 to 80 per cent. of the world's marine fish stocks are fully exploited, over-exploited, depleted or recovering from depletion, and 15 of the world's 17 largest fisheries are so heavily exploited that their reproductive cycles cannot guarantee continued captures. Demand for fish next year is expected to reach 110 million tonnes, which will outstrip supply. The global crisis is mirrored in our waters. We need to reconnect fisheries domestically, in the European Union and internationally with environmental interests, to ensure that fishing can be conducted in a sustainable way. The third challenge confronting the marine environment relates to its biodiversity. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said that 80 per cent. of the world's species are found in marine ecosystems, so in addition to the impact of fishing on other animal species, climate change has an impact on biodiversity. The warming of the oceans leads to increased acidity and severe damage to coral reefs. I was struck when I read the comments of Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, when he launched a new Google Earth service in February. Google's mapping has proved controversial in recent weeks, but one thing that Google Earth does do is allow users to explore the oceans as well as the land. Mr. Schmidt said:""In discussions about climate change, the world's oceans are often overlooked despite being an integral part of the issue. About one third of the carbon dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere ends up in the oceans. Furthermore, biodiversity loss in our oceans in the next 20-30 years will be roughly equivalent to losing an entire Amazon rainforest, but this goes unnoticed because we can't see it."" The fourth challenge that we must address is pollution. More than 80 per cent. of marine pollution comes from land-based activities; rivers and streams transport billions of tonnes of eroded sediment into coastal waters; ships discharge oil; there are chemical discharges; and waste, including littering, kills hundreds of thousands marine mammals, birds and countless fish. Finally, an overlooked form of pollution is noise pollution, which has a particular impact on cetaceans. The International Fund for Animal Welfare has expressed great concern about that and would like us to address in the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. That could be difficult, but these important and, in some cases, threatened species are greatly affected by sounds—man-made ocean noises—that shipping, military sonar and so on inject into the sea. It may prove extremely difficult to address those problems, but we must be aware of that other form of pollution. Those are, by my reckoning, five considerable challenges to the marine environment. Hon. Members may very easily produce more, but they all add to the force of this conclusion by the Committee:""Marine science should therefore be at the heart of a national strategy and effort to find answers to the most topical questions with which humankind is faced."" In our debates on climate change inside and outside the House in recent years, its impact on the marine environment and the need to reform marine environmental management have probably not played as great a part as has our consideration for changes affecting the land. Perhaps they should. The report, in part, aims to redress that balance. Clearly, the central message of the report is about the importance of ensuring a strong science base, which we cannot divorce from funding. In their response to the Committee's report, the Government have produced a table on funding that suggests that there was a £15 million real-terms increase in Natural Environment Research Council expenditure relating to marine science between 2001-02 and 2006-07. It would be helpful if, in due course, the Government updated those figures and clarified whether the figures in that table are set out in real prices, because I do not think that they are; I think that they are cash prices, making it difficult to measure the real increases. If blue skies funding, funding for exceptional items and capital funding are stripped out—this is on page 7 of the Government's response—there has not been a significant real-terms increase in marine science funding over the period, as the Government claim. I will happily stand corrected if they are real prices, but even if they are, if the items I have mentioned are stripped out, I do not think that there has been an increase. The UK marine monitoring and assessment strategy identified a significant gap in monitoring systems of £20 million to £25 million. The Government describe those figures in their response as coarse estimates and say that more work needs to be done. Will the Minister update the House on the progress that the Government have made in securing their own estimates of the funding gap? All hon. Members are acutely aware of the economic downturn and of the pressures that will be placed on public funding, but in determining future budgets, it would be short-sighted to permit any erosion of the science base when the global challenges confronting us are so great. We Conservatives take care to avoid calling for unfunded public spending commitments, not least in the present economic climate, but it is right to emphasise the long-term importance of a science base in this country and to prioritise research, even within pressured budgets. We should like clarification on what we believe are the funding requirements in relation to the science base, on the current position and on what the future requirements and gaps may be. Although the report is preoccupied with what the right arrangements should be—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was also preoccupied with that matter in his speech—I confess to being neither expert in, nor overly concerned about, the fairly arcane arguments about whether we have a Marine Science Coordination Committee or a marine agency. We want the Minister to say what the Government believe the right arrangements should be. I have no particular contribution to make on that, other than to ask what the relationship will be between the MSCC, which the Government would prefer to an agency, and the Marine Management Organisation to be set up under the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I understand that the MMO will have a place on the MSCC. To what extent should the science function be brought into the MMO and become integral to its operation? I should like to explore—perhaps the Minister will explore it, too—what the relationship between those two bodies should be, because a conservation duty, underpinned by strong science, should be central to the role of the MMO. Perhaps that will be so and the arrangement will work, but I should like to hear more from the Government about that. What progress is the Marine and Coastal Access Bill making? There is strong support from all parties for that Bill, for which the Conservatives have been calling for some time, and no doubt it will reach the statute book. However, the Minister will know that there is increasing anxiety on the part of many conservation organisations about its slow progress. The Bill is still in Committee in the other place and will not get to Report stage there until early May. All sorts of controversial measures have been introduced in the other place that may be holding things up, but it would be helpful if the Minister gave reassurance, publicly, that the Government remain committed to the legislation and will ensure that it is not held up and does not meet some sort of untimely fate because of lack of progress. I am sure that that will not be so, but his giving a public reassurance would be helpful. Will the Minister answer the fair question that has been raised about the decision on where to locate the MMO? We Conservatives have no objection to its location in Tyneside—no doubt there are good reason for that—but there is a great deal of concern about the basis of that decision and why Plymouth, with all its advantages, which have been set out by local people, was not chosen. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister explained that. Finally, I should like to raise two wider questions that were covered by the Committee in its report. The first relates to education and awareness. The challenges are so fundamental that it is important that marine systems should be included in the message put out by schools, for example, which are focusing on climate change and imparting such messages to children. They should be borne in mind in our consideration of public awareness, which the Committee also mentioned. I wonder to what extent marine systems are part of the message. Secondly, a related question, which was also asked by the Committee, is who leads on marine science in the Government? The Committee wanted there to be a Minister for Marine Science: is it the Minister here today?