Investigating the Oceans

I shall give a shorthand answer, although I give a full answer in what we placed in the Library. The full, independently led analysis, worked through every county council area and region in the UK, started from "anywhere" and then broke that down to focus on coastal areas and areas that had a mixture of expertise—not just marine science, but a marine base, stakeholder engagement and so on. It came up with six places and it concluded at that point that any one of the six, including Carrick, could be an ideal home for the MMO. When those involved in the analysis made visits subsequently, alongside KPMG, to investigate whether their desk-based research findings were correct, they found that they were, but the position of two places—Carrick and Tyneside—improved, for various reasons. One reason had to do with understanding the nature of the MMO—that it was a strategic, planning, multifaceted organisation involving enforcement, implementation of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and so on, as well as marine science and very good stakeholder engagement, plus the other facets of access to Brussels and Strasbourg and around the rest of the UK, including to Scotland. The decision did not have to do with an empty building. There were empty buildings elsewhere. There were other parts of the estate that we could have looked at. The fundamental question was, where would the MMO thrive? It could have worked in any of those places. People were disappointed in Lowestoft when the body did not go next to CEFAS. People were disappointed in Liverpool, where there is an excellent base of academic expertise. People were disappointed in Plymouth. However, all that expertise will continue to be critical to the base that we need to build in this country of good marine science. My intention, which I know is shared by those people, is that we should lead the way in the UK. We need to lead the way in what we do on conservation and sustainability of the seas. We need to lead the way in marine science in terms of what we do on fisheries reform. Some of the best science on fisheries reform is coming out of Scotland as well as England. Deciding where to locate an organisation such as the MMO is always difficult. In some ways, it is like judging, at a larger level, a bonny baby contest. One parent will be very happy and many others completely disenchanted. We take that on the chin and now we need to move on. The fact that we have made the decision has been welcomed, and on we go. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain the rationale behind the decision. There has been comment about whether the composition of the MSCC is adequate. Let me provide clarification. On the MSCC are senior representatives of DEFRA, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the MOD, the DFT, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department for International Development, the devolved Administrations—I shall come to why this format is better than another format, such as an agency, involving those Ministers—the Met Office, CEFAS, the UK Hydrographic Office, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Environment Agency, Fisheries Research Services, NERC, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. There is no problem with devolution. The MSCC is co-chaired by the marine directors from DEFRA and the Scottish Administration by agreement. It will also have in the near future three non-executive members with experience of marine science from the perspective of industry, academia and non-governmental organisations. We recognise the issues that have been raised; we are filling those gaps.