Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) 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]
I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing us to discuss Clause 30 and the funding of the MMO. Clearly, the resource made available to the Marine Management Organisation by the Secretary of State has been given consideration in the course of the development of this legislation. The impact assessment that was laid before this House includes costings of the Bill’s measures, set out as costs to government and industry. The costs to government are related to the new functions that the MMO will be carrying out. The marine planning function is estimated to cost government £8.1 million per annum. Enforcement costs will be modernised, so enforcement and civil sanctions regimes will cost £90,000, and enforcement of marine conservation zones around £1 million. The new GS and data systems needed to underpin the new planning and other functions will cost around £3.3 million. There are of course additional one-off costs in setting up a new organisation, and some increase in funding costs for a large organisation in the form of the existing Marine and Fisheries Agency. Of course, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would wish that the resources were necessary to deliver the Bill. Indeed, in our previous two days, a number of Members of the Committee have emphasised to the Government the need to expend extra resources in a number of areas—not least research, which we have just debated. Equally, I understand the point of the noble Lord about ensuring that efficiency also goes to the heart of the matter, and that we should ensure that where there is a reduction of function in, say, my own department, there should be a consequent reduction in headquarter costs. That will be our intention. I do not want to go into the pain of the efficiency targets that my department is currently under, but they are considerably challenging. Clearly, we want to ensure that the transition happens as efficiently as possible. Inevitably, as I have indicated, there will be transition costs that must be met. The transition from the current Marine and Fisheries Agency to the MMO has been and will be gradual. The aim is to spread the cost and build up expertise within what was purely a fisheries organisation. For example, the environmental licensing and dredging responsibilities of the Department for Communities and Local Government have already been transferred to the agency, with full resource transfers. I understand that responsibility for harbours orders will transfer across, with expertise and resource, from the Department for Transport to the Marine Management Organisation. The current running costs for the Marine and Fisheries Agency will be maintained and enhanced from the core departments’ budgets. Running costs are currently around £25 million a year. Budgetary provision of around £4 million has been made for one-off costs of setting up the MMO. About £3 million has been allocated for the capital expenditure related to the new GIS and data systems needed. We have taken account of the planned need to upgrade the existing systems with a new function stemming from the MMO. The Marine and Fisheries Agency operates a full-cost recovery for its licensing of marine developments, and the Marine Management Organisation will do likewise. We will ensure that industry does not incur unnecessary costs by exempting activities which, by their nature, do not damage the marine environment, or which operate at a de minimis level. The licensing regime will deliver a more joined-up system than currently operates with an estimated saving of some 20 per cent of licences currently issued. On the research budget, I should have mentioned that—although this does not take anything away from Clause 23(2), which states: "““The MMO is to make the results of any such research available to any person on request””—" under Clause 26 there is power to charge for services. I think that meets one of the concerns about the cost falling back on the MMO. Clearly, one cannot take on new functions. One has to recognise that this new marine planning system is one of the huge advantages of what we are doing. However, that cannot be instigated without incurring costs.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 707 c263-5
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-15 13:27:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523869
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523869
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523869