Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Biodiversity Loss
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered biodiversity loss.
It is a real pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees, and to open today’s debate on biodiversity loss.
It is now less than six months until COP16 takes place in Colombia—the first summit since the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework was agreed in 2022, when countries committed to
“halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”
The meeting will be a crucial opportunity for global leaders to demonstrate how they are delivering on the commitment to restore our depleted natural world, and it is a moment for our own Government to step up as well.
When the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), gave her statement to Parliament following the Kunming meeting, she promised to
“make this a decade of action”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 47.]
But what have we seen since then? Raw sewage continues to pour into our waterways, including for more than 4 million hours last year, according to the Environment Agency statistics. There have been repeated so-called emergency approvals of neonicotinoids, a poison so powerful that a single teaspoon is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. And just this weekend, it was reported that the Government are poised to row back on their commitment to ban the sale of horticultural peat this year, and are seemingly content to see precious peatlands further degraded. It is hardly a reassuring picture.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. She mentions COP16. Later this year, the world will meet in Colombia for the biodiversity conference, which is of critical importance. She will be aware that Colombia has joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, yet the Government of the UK—a similar-sized oil and gas producer—have not. Does she believe that one of things we should be doing before the biodiversity COP is to join Colombia in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance?
Caroline Lucas
I agree wholeheartedly. I will come to that issue in a moment, but joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance does not mean that we will end oil and gas tomorrow. It is a commitment over time, and it sends out a massively important signal to the rest of the world. Frankly, the fact that we have not signed up tells its own story, unfortunately.
The “State of Nature” report, published last year, shone a spotlight once more on the horrifying decline—let us call it what it is: the wanton destruction—of biodiversity across our four nations. It showed that, in that well-worn formulation, the UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. In the course of my lifetime alone, the abundance of species studied across the UK has fallen by almost 20% on average, meaning that just half of the animals, insects and plants with which we are privileged to share our home now remain—from the mosses and the lichens in our woodlands to the internationally important seabird populations that breed on the cliffs and rocky islands of the coastline.
This is a disaster so extreme that, frankly, it is hard to contemplate. Imagine if we lost half our population, or if half the country was swallowed by the sea, or if half the country’s financial wealth was squandered; and yet we have sacrificed, seemingly with few regrets, half our natural inheritance. Scientists are now warning of what they term “acoustic fossils”, as the natural world falls silent and once familiar sounds, such as the dawn chorus, grow quiet or are lost altogether. It could not be clearer that nature is in freefall. Without urgent action to not just halt but reverse its decline, species risk being lost forever from our skies, land and waters. That is a disaster for the individual species concerned, including my favourite bird, the swift, which can fly an extraordinary 1 million miles in the course of its lifetime.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the situation of migratory birds. There is one tiny glimmer of hope: in Ynys Enlli on Bardsey Island, which is in my constituency, we have had Europe’s first and only dark sky sanctuary since last year. One of the key actions was to replace the bright white light of the lighthouse with a red light, thereby saving thousands of birds’ lives—previously, in one night 2,000 birds had died. We must acknowledge those little glimmers of hope, while also recognising the larger picture and its seriousness.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the right hon. Lady for her inspiring intervention, which shows that incredibly simple things can make a world of difference.
Caroline Lucas
Indeed, I anticipate an intervention in just a moment on one of my favourite subjects: swift bricks.
Duncan Baker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about losing 50% of some species. One of her favourite birds is the swift. For just £30, a swift brick can be installed in new build properties. The swift population has declined by 60% over the past 30 years, so I ask the Minister: why are we not legislating for such a simple way to protect the swift population?
Caroline Lucas
As the hon. Member knows, I could not agree more. I remember being in this room for that debate in Westminster Hall last year, as he was, talking about the importance of something as simple as a swift brick and hearing the Minister basically going through gymnastics in trying to explain why it would not be possible to legislate for swift brick use. This is not even £30 that the Government would have to spend; if the buildings were properly built and swift bricks put into them in the first place, the developers would only have to spend a tiny amount of money. In essence, we are saying to the Minister that a whole raft of actions need to be taken, but some are incredibly simple. Will she please start to take on some of those actions?
The loss of biodiversity is not only a tragedy for the species involved, but a disaster for us, too. The world is a lonelier place for human beings when the number of species that we have been privileged to share it with are declining on a daily basis. If people want to measure it in economic terms, a recent report found that biodiversity loss could cause a larger hit to the UK’s economy in the years ahead than either the 2008 financial crisis or, indeed, the covid-19 pandemic. Well, of course it could, because the bottom line is that our wellbeing is intimately and inextricably bound up with the wellbeing of nature. We are nature, and it is the false perception of a division between human beings and the rest of the world—that mechanistic assumption that the natural world is something for us to use, rather than to live alongside—that is at the root of so much of the ecological crisis around us.
To give one small example, Lawyers for Nature has started an inspiring campaign to change the definition of “nature” in the “Oxford English Dictionary” so that it includes humans. Currently, all dictionaries exclude humans from their definition. Words matter. Highlighting our connection and interdependence with nature matters, and that needs to lead to action.
The Government have made welcome commitments at a global level, including to manage 30% of the land and sea for nature by 2030, and at home, with the Environment Act 2021 setting legally binding targets, notably to end the decline in species populations by 2030. But we all know that what matters is not just the setting of targets, but the delivery of them. The latest assessment from the Office for Environmental Protection has been damning on that front, warning that the prospect of meeting key targets and commitments is “largely off track”. Dame Glenys Stacey, the OEP chair, went on to say that it is “deeply, deeply concerning” that “adverse environmental trends continue”. That statement is underlined by the evidence that our rivers and our seas are being polluted with a cocktail of chemicals and effluent, while ancient woodlands are being bulldozed to make way for roads and railways, and our fields are being doused in pesticides and fungicides. Our only home is on fire and being bulldozed before our eyes.
As State of Nature reports, two primary factors drive that decline on land: climate change and our intensive agriculture system. It is on those that I will focus the rest of my remarks. On our climate, rising temperatures are causing major changes in the natural world, leading to rain shifts, population changes and the disruption of precious food webs. Species that are well adapted to the warmth are likely to keep expanding across the UK, but montane species that are already on the edge of their ranges will tragically be squeezed out.
More broadly, nesting birds will be increasingly mismatched with peaks in invertebrate food sources. For example, more blue tit chicks will starve, because the caterpillars on which they depend are no longer available. At sea, primary and secondary plankton production is likely to be shifted northwards. There was widespread alarm at the extreme marine heatwave last year, during which seas off the coast of the UK reached up to a horrifying 5°C above normal.
Species that have adapted over thousands of years simply cannot keep up with this perilous, high-speed experiment that we are conducting. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment from Working Group II showed that climate change is already
“causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature”,
so at the very least we need to stop pouring fuel on the fire: no new oil and gas licences, and certainly no new coal mines.
I am deeply concerned that the Government have not only issued licences for oil and gas projects inside our marine protected areas, making a mockery of that designation, but have been ignoring objections from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to new licences on environmental grounds. Ministers need to rapidly speed up the transition to net zero, rather than delaying action in a desperate attempt to stoke a climate culture war. We need to work with nature to tackle this crisis by creating woodland, planting seagrass meadows and rewetting peatlands. That would not only restore vital habitats but lock away carbon.
According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, those vital carbon sinks contain 2 gigatonnes of carbon—equivalent to four years of the UK’s annual emissions—and yet not only is two thirds of the store unprotected, but much of it is already damaged and degraded. Unforgivably, it continues to be destroyed. The Government have abjectly failed to deliver a complete ban on peat burning. Peat continues to be set alight each year simply so that a wealthy minority can engage in grouse shooting. If we needed a definition of absurdity, that would be one. We need to end that devastating practice, and we need real investment in nature-based solutions, which remain chronically underfunded. That should include a significant uplift to the nature for climate fund, and I hope the Opposition will urgently commit to renew it if they form the next Government.
When it comes to food production, our modern agricultural system, with its industrial processes, use of chemicals and monoculture fields stretching as far as the eye can see, is one of the main causes of biodiversity loss. It is driven by economic pressures and misguided views of so-called progress, which put a huge toll on farming communities and ecosystems alike. Author and farmer James Rebanks described it as like being “sucked into a whirlpool” and “slowly becoming exhausted” in an effort to keep up with so-called modern practices, while supermarkets squeeze profits to an extent that often makes it nigh-on impossible to make profit.
Farmers manage 70% of the land in England and have a vital role to play in addressing the climate and capture crises. The OEP observes that the
“Government will not achieve its ambitions without effective management of the farmed landscape”.
As it stands, the Government’s environmental land management scheme is failing both nature and farmers. First, the current structure of the sustainable farming incentive is leading to a pick-’n’-mix approach that risks directing funding into a very narrow range of low-impact actions.
Secondly, farmers are not being supported to enter the higher-tier schemes. One in five of those who applied for the countryside stewardship higher tier last year was turned away, including because of a lack of resourcing and an absence of a transition pathway for the thousands of farmers in previous agri-environment schemes, who now risk missing out. Thirdly, there is a gaping hole in minimum environmental protections, including for watercourses, soil and hedgerows, now that the cross-compliance regulations have come to an end and it is not clear what will replace them.
ELMs must be urgently reformed with a clear plan for how each scheme will deliver on the UK’s environmental targets and a proper regulatory baseline. The Government must deliver a pay rise for nature by doubling the annual budget for nature-friendly farming and land management. Going beyond that, we need a transformational shift to agroecological ways of farming so that food is produced in harmony with nature. That should include properly incentivising the transition away from harmful pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. I hope Labour will look again at its proposals for how we grow our food, because simply committing to make ELMs work falls short of setting out how the farming budget must be allocated if we are to restore the natural world and produce healthy and nutritious food in the context of the climate and nature emergency.
At sea, we urgently need a ban on industrial fishing in all marine protected areas. The current approach is far too slow and piecemeal to adequately respond to nature’s decline.
Finally, we must not only protect our most important sites but create new habitats and ensure that planning policy on land and sea properly takes nature into account. Despite sites of special scientific interest apparently being the crown jewels of the UK’s nature network, many are in poor or declining condition. According to a recent health check, just 6% of the total land area of our national parks is managed effectively for nature. Throughout the country, that figure reduces to as little as 3% of land and 8% of English seas being well protected for nature. That highlights the enormous gulf in delivering on the 30 by 30 target, regardless of the warm words we hear from Ministers.
If we are to have any chance of restoring nature and achieving our targets, protected landscapes can no longer just be paper parks; they must be thriving ecosystems bursting with life. The designated sites network should be strengthened and expanded, with funding increased and, crucially, targeted towards biodiversity regeneration. There should be a new statutory purpose for national parks and landscapes—formerly areas of outstanding natural beauty—to support nature’s recovery.
I welcome the proposal from the Wildlife and Countryside Link for a 30 by 30 rapid delivery project to ensure that the goal is delivered in less than six years’ time. We need to see better-resourced arm’s length bodies such as Natural England, as has been called for just this week by the chief executive officers of leading nature charities, to ensure that they can do their job for our critical assets and effectively advise the Government.
Lastly, we need to see more connectivity across landscapes, as nature’s decline is also being driven by the fact that those places that do exist for wildlife are too small and fragmented. A brilliant model for how that can be done has been shown by the hugely exciting Weald to Waves project, which aims to create a 100-mile nature-recovery corridor going from the Sussex kelp recovery project near Brighton to the Ashdown forest, with the Knepp estate at its heart. Many of us will have visited the Knepp rewilding project and heard the gentle purr of the turtle dove and the nightingale’s song.
The Green party believes we need to go further. We would introduce a new rights of nature Bill, to recognise that ecosystems have their own rights and to give a voice to nature in law. That would be enforced by a new independent commission for nature, so that the regeneration of nature was at the heart of all policy considerations. We need to look again at an economic model that has ever-increasing extractive GDP growth as its overriding goal rather than the promotion of a thriving natural world and increased wellbeing for us all. As the Dasgupta review urged, we need a change in
“how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. It is extremely frustrating that the economic pack for today’s debate indicates that public expenditure and non-Government spending on UK biodiversity has increased in the past few years, yet many of the problems persist and some are getting worse. Does she agree with me that, in spite of increasing expenditure on the problem, it seems to be getting worse?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member’s intervention demonstrates that more resourcing is a necessary but not sufficient component of what we need to see. We need a far more joined-up approach to the natural world. As I have argued, our farming and food system is absolutely integral to making things properly connected.
I am aware of the time, so I will draw my comments to a close by returning briefly to our international commitments. As the Minister knows, countries must publish national biodiversity strategy and action plans ahead of the next UN biodiversity summit in Colombia. The UK’s plan is expected to contain four individual country strategies for each of the four nations, as well as strategies for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It is understood that the plan could be published and adopted very soon, but, concerningly, there are rumours that the country strategy for England could simply be a repetition of the environmental improvement plan. Such a move would be totally unacceptable given the widespread criticism that the EIP has received, including from the Office for Environmental Protection.
I have asked the Minister many things, but I want to summarise three in particular that I hope she will address in her response to the debate. First, will she confirm today that the Government will publish a bold, co-ordinated and well-resourced plan, with concrete steps to deliver on our international commitments ahead of that key meeting in Colombia? Can she rule out the idea that for England it will simply be a reiteration of the environmental improvement plan? Secondly, I hope the Government will bring the global commitment to reverse nature loss by 2030 into UK law—a move that would be delivered by a new climate and nature Bill. Thirdly, will the Minister outline what will replace the cross-compliance rules? Can she indicate how the gap will be filled?
It is easy to feel overwhelmed by nature’s horrifying decline, yet it is entirely possible to reverse this picture and ensure that our children inherit an earth that is just as rich and vibrant as the one that we once knew, where habitats are restored and biodiversity blooms. But to do so, we need to take urgent steps now, not only to protect what remains but to work to create new wild spaces, and finally to recognise that we are nature, and that what we do to the natural world we ultimately do to ourselves.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate? I intend to start the wind-ups at 10.25 am to allow Ms Lucas a couple of minutes at the end to sum up. If Members stick to around three minutes as an informal guide, we should get everyone in.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing a debate on this important issue. I absolutely agree with her that the protection of nature and wildlife is not some nice-to-have optional extra. From the pollinators that enable us grow crops and the marine life that provides our most popular national dish, to the trees that help us to breathe easily in towns and cities, biodiversity is vital for our survival and prosperity. As we have heard this morning, it is also vital for reaching net zero. If we are to have any chance of becoming carbon neutral, we need to plant millions of trees, re-wet peatlands and allow habitats to thrive in many more places.
Natural spaces play a hugely important part in our happiness, wellbeing and health. They are in many ways what makes life worth living. That is why I have always fought to conserve green spaces in my Chipping Barnet constituency. A huge amount of effort is under way to reverse the decline in the natural environment, as we have heard this morning. Much of that work is done under the Environment Act 2021, which I was proud to introduce to Parliament. The 2030 target of halting species loss is hugely important. The Environment Act also includes the toughest rules ever to bear down on the pollution of our rivers and waterways; measures to rid supply chains of illegal deforestation; measures to transform our waste and recycling system; and measures to crack down on litter and fly-tipping, which can so often defile our green and natural spaces and habitats.
While I was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I also introduced to Parliament the Agriculture Act 2020, which ended the common agricultural policy and replaced it with ELMs schemes to support farmers to protect and enhance habitats. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion but, despite the drawbacks, that is one of the most important and far-reaching nature-protection measures that has ever been adopted by this country, not least because it opens up a long, ongoing source of significant funding for the protection of nature.
Our exit from the European Union has enabled us to introduce additional protections for the marine environment, most recently to ban the fishing of sand eels in the North sea, which is a significant boost to our puffin population. Our overseas territories make us custodians of one of the largest marine estates in the world. We are taking truly world-leading action, protecting an area of ocean larger than India. Just in January we protected a further 166,000 square kilometres around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Despite that action there is, of course, still a huge amount to do if we are to meet that 2030 target on nature and the 2050 target on carbon. We need every part of Government to play its part in delivering on those two crucial environmental challenges. I urge Ministers to consider supporting my Bill to ban the sale of horticultural peat in the amateur gardening sector. I also urge the dramatic scaling up of tree-planting rates. We must do all we can to prevent litter and fly-tipping from choking our natural spaces. We also need to protect the green belt from Labour plans to bulldoze it.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing such an important debate.
I am proud to represent a particularly beautiful part of our country in Mid Bedfordshire with, I think, some of the best countryside that Britain has to offer. We take great pride in that countryside across our communities. There are fantastic local conservation groups and charities, and some brilliant work is being done by local parish councils to cherish and really look after the very best of the British countryside.
Our farmers play their part too. Whether they are nurturing the world-famous shallot fields of Clifton Bury farm, pioneering regenerative farming techniques at Southill estate, or rearing fantastic livestock at Browns of Stagsden, our farmers are the real unsung heroes of so much of what makes Bedfordshire special. However, the sad reality is that, in so many ways, these groups are being let down and our countryside is being let down too.
The last 14 years have seen a devastating decline in our biodiversity and local environments. Our rivers alone have seen 778 sewage spills in the past year, and our farmers have been let down by a broken economic policy settlement. The failure to deliver schemes such as ELMs and wider support measures at scale means that, all too often, farmers cannot access the support and funding they need to take care of the countryside that they so desperately want to look after.
It should fall to all of us here today and across Parliament to take ownership of addressing the issue and ensure that we finally act with the urgency that the nature crisis our country is facing demands. Under this Government’s watch, we risk becoming one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and that should be a scandal to us all. The situation has wide-ranging consequences, too. Communities have seen cherished nature, which has been the backdrop to their lives for generations, diminished. Farmers worry about what the decline of their fragile ecosystems will mean for the future of their business and their much-loved countryside. Even hard-nosed financial institutions across the City are waking up to the real risk now posed to our economy by nature risk, as our great natural assets are eroded.
The shocking report from the Office for Environmental Protection, which has already been mentioned, should be an urgent call to action for us all to redouble our efforts and make sure that our commitments are lived up to and exceeded. That is why I am proud that Labour has underlined our commitment to meeting our targets, to redoubling efforts to make sure that we can halt the decline of nature and species in Britain by 2030, and to ensuring that we meet and live up to our international commitments and protect 30% of the UK’s land and seas for nature by 2030.
A lot of levers will need to be pulled to make all that happen. We will make sure that we finally get a land use framework into effect, allowing us to promote sustainable regenerative farming, reach our climate goals and strengthen ecosystems. We will also take robust action to hold water companies to account, by introducing tough action to stop bonus payments for pollution and ensuring that bosses who continue to oversee law-breaking will face criminal action. The last 14 years have shown a sickening decline in the quality of our waterways right across the country, with not a single river in England rated as being in good health. How on earth can we expect natural life to thrive in such a toxic environment?
While this Government and Parliament continue to stagger on, I urge Ministers to put this time to use. I know that the Parliamentary schedule can get crowded with multiple reset moments, but this really matters, so I urge the Minister to commit today to finally bringing forward the land use framework in this Parliament; to making sure that we finally bring forward legislation and action on water executives’ bonuses; and to make sure that we finally deliver every penny available, from ELMs to wider nature and climate funding, to farmers who desperately need the funds to look after our countryside.
If this Government are not up to that, it will fall to the next Government to act. I am proud to be part of a party that has a proud history of conservation. From setting up our natural parks to opening up our coastal paths and passing the world’s first legislation to tackle climate change, Labour has a lot to be proud of. Should we be asked by the British people at the next election, Labour stands ready to serve our countryside once again.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on introducing this important debate.
Across the globe, nature is collapsing. The UK has lost nearly half its biodiversity since the industrial revolution. We are ranked in the bottom 10% for nature loss and the worst among G7 nations. One in six UK species is at risk of extinction. The Government should be leading the way for nature, for planet and for people, but far too little is done. How can we tell others at COP16 what to do if we are falling so far behind?
This Conservative Government have missed their 2020 targets for sites of special scientific interest; they missed their targets for UK seas to meet “good” environmental status; and they missed their target for 75% of rivers and streams to be in good condition by 2027—just 14% of surface waters in England are in good ecological condition, and 0% are in good overall condition.
We Liberal Democrats would do a lot more. One of our priorities is to introduce a nature Act to restore the natural environment through setting legally binding near and long-term targets for improving air, water, soil and biodiversity, supported by funding of at least £18 billion over the next five years. We will reverse the decline of nature by 2030 and double nature by 2050 by increasing the protected area network from 8% of land to at least 16%. This will double the area of the most important wildlife habitats across England and double the abundance of species in the UK from the current bassline. We will also fund local government to increase the network of local nature reserves to move to a more nature-friendly management policy for council land. Local government has a huge rule to play but can be effective only if resourced properly. I am proud that my council in Bath was the first in the west of England to adopt a policy of biodiversity net gain.
Another of our Liberal Democrat policies is to introduce a right to nature, which would include a new environment rights Act that would recognise everyone’s human right to a healthy environment and guarantee access to environmental justice. Crucially, it would also introduce a duty of care for businesses to protect the environment. Particularly in our urban environments, such as Bath, there is so much opportunity to unlock the potential for nature growth. Bath Organic Group’s gardens exemplify the benefit of community farming for wellbeing and biodiversity.
Liberal Democrat councils have been leading the way on reducing pesticides. In July 2021, my local council in Bath approved a ban on the use of glyphosate, and in the same year Guildford Borough Council passed a motion to become a pesticide-free town, with cross-party support. The overuse of pesticides is destroying many areas used for food by wildlife. We need national standards for limiting pesticides, rather than relying on the work of local authorities.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the St Luke’s church community fair in Bath, and I met many community nature groups such as Friends of the Bloomfield Tumps and Friends of Sandpits Park. They both undertake conservation work to help to improve nature in their local areas. Everyone should also be behind No Mow May. In the UK, since the 1930s we have lost 97% of British wild flower meadows, which are a vital source of food for pollinators such as bees and butterflies. May is the perfect time of the year to leave certain green areas to develop their natural wild flowers and wildlife. It is not too late to reverse the decline in nature, but we must act now.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this important debate. While I think opinion is shifting, it is often forgotten that we face a twin climate and nature emergency. This debate is an important reminder that we cannot tackle one without tackling the other.
I pay tribute to the Rivelin Valley Conservation Group, which I had the privilege of visiting last Friday to see its work to establish a baseline in that river. The Rivelin valley is a beautiful part of Sheffield, and those volunteers are playing a vital role in monitoring the health and biodiversity of the river, which is unfortunately blighted by a number of storm sewage overflows, although it is the healthiest river in Sheffield, which shows how far we have to go to protect our incredibly important rivers.
Citizen science like that is a testament to the value that my community and communities across the country place on the preservation and conservation of the environment and the restoration of nature, but these efforts are not being matched by the Government. As other Members have said, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with one in six species at risk of extinction. When they are gone, they are truly gone—yet the Office for Environmental Protection tells us that the Government are not on track to deliver the nature recovery that we so desperately need.
One of the key issues on which the Government are failing is land management. My constituency opens out into the Peak district and several peatland habitats. Peatlands have been called Britain’s rainforests, with landscapes covering 15% of the UK. Healthy peatlands are rare, fragile ecosystems that are home to an abundance of wildlife. As a species champion for the hen harrier, I could talk about raptor persecution for my whole speech, but I want to focus on the importance of landscapes. They are also carbon sinks, storing more carbon than all the forests in the UK, France and Germany put together. Damaged peatlands release carbon into the atmosphere and water, emitting the same amount annually as the UK’s entire aviation industry and deepening the climate emergencies.
Colleagues may know that I have been campaigning to prevent heather burning on peatlands, as the fires damage the peat and burn the moss that grows on top. The moss is really important not only for nature, but in preventing floods and helping with natural flood mitigation. Rather than burning, we need to re-wet and restore our peatland ecologies so that they can thrive.
It is important to recognise that more needs to be done to produce Britain’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan. I hope that that will happen and put on track the Government’s commitment to 30 by 30, but we need more than pledges; we need concrete plans and action. That is why I am a firm supporter of the Climate and Nature Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), which builds on the Climate and Ecology Bill that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and I tabled. I hope the Government will take it seriously. If I had more time I would continue, but I will stop there.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this important debate. England was once a country brimming with wildlife, from bees and butterflies to birds and beavers, but within a few generations everything has changed. Now, time spent in the countryside is often a different experience. The landscape may be green, but it is all but empty. Biodiversity is decreasing: the World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet” report in 2022 found that wildlife populations had decreased by an average of 69% in the past 50 years.
I am proud to come from Somerset. The county is well known for its stunning nature and diverse range of landscapes, from the Mendip hills to the Somerset levels and moors. Somerset is also proud to be home to many farming communities, but we are really susceptible to the effects of climate change because of the county’s low-lying moorland. We have witnessed heavy flooding over recent years. It is all having a devastating impact on our communities and our wildlife.
Farming and biodiversity are intertwined. It is of the utmost importance that hard-working farmers are supported in their efforts to protect and increase biodiversity. Intensive agriculture has been a key driver of biodiversity loss, but that must change. Part of tackling those problems begins by making sure that British farmers get a fair deal and are adequately supported in their efforts to increase biodiversity, because if British farms are financially secure, they can do more to protect nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats would add £1 billion to the ELMS budget to help farms and nature thrive.
Communities are taking action. I am looking forward to the inaugural LandAlive sustainable food and farming conference at the Bath and West showground in November. I have met many farmers across my constituency who have demonstrated to me the benefits that biodiversity brings to their farms, such as the protection of the shrill carder bee, which was once widespread in the south of England but is now limited to just five areas in my constituency around Somerton and Castle Cary. Recorded numbers highlight their decline: just seven were recorded in 2022. Bee numbers are affected by climate change, flooding, loss of genetic diversity and pesticide usage.
Despite this fall in numbers, the Government have authorised the emergency use of damaging neonic pesticides for the fourth year in a row. The national pollinator strategy is due for renewal this year. I hope the Government listen to the criticism of the current strategy and implement a more comprehensive approach that considers the impact on all pollinator species.
I echo the calls for a national invertebrate strategy. Habitat destruction is one of the greatest threats that insects face—for instance, 97% of all flower-rich grassland has been lost in the past 50 years—but local action can be taken to restore diverse habitats. One such measure is the creation of a new 460-acre nature reserve near Bruton called Heal Somerset, which aims to tackle the nature and climate crises while creating new jobs for local people and businesses, alongside designing and delivering projects with the local community. This rewilding project will increase insect numbers and encourage the growth of more plants, including new saplings, while bringing a greater abundance and diversity of species.
The Liberal Democrats want to support such initiatives by introducing a nature Act that would restore the land’s natural environment by setting legally binding near and long-term targets for improving water, air and soil biodiversity. Protecting biodiversity requires action that protects and proliferates best practice among all who use the land. A rapid transition that supports British farmers, builds strong, long-term food security, restores biodiversity and ensures we all reach our net zero targets is crucial.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, Ms Rees, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate. I am sure both of us could spend hours in this Chamber going through all the various aspects of biodiversity loss, but I will not repeat what she has said. I agree with almost all of it.
As the parliamentary species champion for the swift, I am very pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned swifts— I know she shares my enthusiasm. All around the country, local swift groups are welcoming their return. The hon. Lady will know that my sister runs the Save Wolverton Swifts group, which had a party in the streets to welcome the swifts back last week. It really is an iconic species, and we must do all we can to restore its habitat.
We are pressed for time, so I want to focus on a few specific questions for the Minister. The Office for Environmental Protection has warned in its annual report that the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental ambitions: they are on track for a dismal four out of 40 of their environmental targets. Simply put, the conclusion was that it is not clear whether the Government’s plans stack up.
The position is very similar for the Government’s climate plans: they were taken to court just a couple of weeks ago, and once again they lost because their plans are inadequate. There is absolutely no point in waxing lyrical about their ambitions and targets unless there are plans to match it. What I am not quite clear about is what happens when the OEP issues such warnings on the inadequacy of the Government’s plans. Does that mean that DEFRA now has to do better? Who is holding its feet to the fire? Will it require court cases from organisations such as ClientEarth to do so?
I also want to focus on nature-based solutions to climate change. There is huge benefit in restoring biodiversity and helping with carbon sequestration. I echo what others have said about the huge importance of peatlands. Rather than sequestering carbon, as they could be doing, they are currently releasing it into the atmosphere, because they are not being treated properly.
There is also the issue of nutrient neutrality. The natural environment can play a huge role in climate adaptation, with things like rewilding rivers and planting more trees in strategic places. What I am not clear on is where the lead from the Government is. Biodiversity net gain will be crucial, but so will developing credible carbon markets. All these things are co-benefits. I will end on this point: can the Minister tell us whether there is cross-departmental working so that we can ensure investment into nature-based solutions? That will protect those natural environments in perpetuity, I hope.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate. I have said it before and I will say it again: she is the environmental conscience of us all in this House. She brings forward issues that we all support. I should qualify that, by the way: I do not always agree with everything, but there are many things that she brings forward that I support. I thank her for that.
It is good news that the Government are committed to halting the decline in species abundance and protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. As with our net zero targets, we must ensure the correct strategies are in place to achieve that. I am here to discuss how Northern Ireland can play its part. I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates. I am ever mindful that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I believe in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland working together to achieve many goals that are helpful for us all.
At the end of 2023, it was revealed that Northern Ireland is one of the most nature-depleted areas in the world, according to the 2023 “State of Nature” report. I was shocked to learn that 12% of species assessed across Northern Ireland are at threat of extinction, which is what the debate is about, and the hon. Lady set the scene well. The report revealed that the abundance of farmland bird species has on average fallen by 43% since 1996. It also found a 14% decrease in the number of flowering plants in Northern Ireland since 1973, so there is lots for us to do in Northern Ireland, and we have some targets that the Department back home—the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—can try to achieve. Among the species that have been identified as at risk of extinction are the basking shark, the Atlantic salmon and the Irish damselfly —the first two being native to Northern Irish and Republic waters. We have been hearing recently about blue-green algae appearing in Northern Ireland waters. Lough Neagh, the biggest freshwater lake in the UK, has been severely affected in particular.
Having healthy seas will help to regulate the climate and reduce the negative impacts. I represent the fairly coastal and agricultural constituency of Strangford, which is full of biodiversity, and that is why I am a great supporter of preserving nature and taking those small but necessary steps to protect it. There needs to be a joint approach and effort throughout the United Kingdom and further afield to do so. I declare an interest as a landowner and member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. We have planted on our land and farm some 3,500 trees and created two ponds for habitats. We have retained the hedgerows to ensure that the young birds, butterflies and insects can thrive. We have also been told to, and we have to, control the magpies, crows and foxes. We try to keep that balance in the countryside, and we are doing that—hopefully—fairly well.
I have also been involved in a project for black bees. Irish black bees are almost extinct, but they are coming back. Chris and Valentine Hodges have been instrumental in that. There are three estates close to us that have them, and we have them at our farm as well. Irish black bees are coming back because people are making an effort.
Having sustainable habitats protects species, as they have the environmental conditions and resources needed to survive. It is understood that DEFRA has a target to create and restore some 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats. We have seen this year especially a drastic increase in the amount of rainfall. Of course, the rainfall has been enormous these past three months, but there has not been a lot in other years. Changing weather patterns alter the seasonal timing of certain species’ life-cycles and can lead to ecological mismatches. On habitat loss, level rise will affect coastal habitats through saltwater intrusion and erosion.
There are recommendations for improvement, which include setting targets we can meet, ensuring robust monitoring, and co-ordinating a joint approach across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that as a collective we can tackle biodiversity loss. I praise the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion for the work she has done on the matter. I am keen to learn more about what steps we can take to preserve nature, and so I look to the Minister for answers on how we can do it much better.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Before I call Alex Sobel, I would like to thank all Back-Bench speakers for sticking within the informal time limit—I appreciate it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing the debate and for mentioning and supporting my Climate and Nature Bill, which gets its Second Reading on Friday. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for bringing forward the Climate and Ecology (No. 2) Bill, of which the Climate and Nature Bill is an iteration. If I am not successful on Friday, I am sure that we will see future iterations of the Bill as the matter has so much support across the House.
The covid-19 pandemic laid bare the interdependence of people and nature. It is no longer possible to deny the fact that human health is linked to our use and abuse of the environment. The biodiversity crisis is a cultural, social and economic one. As humans, we are not simply observers of nature but an integral part of it. We need an approach that collaborates across Departments, sectors and nations to even begin to save our natural environment.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people understand a lot more about the concept of net zero, and therefore combining net zero with nature loss is so important for bringing people emotionally on side?
Alex Sobel
I thank the hon. Lady, who serves alongside me on the net zero all-party parliamentary group. She has foreshadowed what I was going to say next: nature is essential to the future of all, and yet environmental degradation occurs disproportionately in, or around, low-income areas where a high percentage of people of colour live. Our approach must ensure a thriving natural environment for all.
The House probably knows that I have a long history of raising the subject of insects. In fact, I introduced the first insect population loss debate in 2019, in this Chamber. I think it was the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) who provided the ministerial response to that debate, and she will be responding to this one as well. I wanted to call it insectageddon; unfortunately, the House authorities would not allow such a title. Sadly, we remain in the same position on insect loss. The decline in insect populations is one of the lesser-known tragedies of the human effect on the environment. Where insects go, all other species follow.
Let’s not mince our words: the rise in the human population and the loss of pollinating insects sets us on a road of cyclical starvation. We will lose the production of some crops, particularly those best for health and wellbeing. The role that insects play in food security is pivotal. Dung beetles, for example, save the cattle industry an estimated £367 million a year. The national pollinator strategy is set to be updated this year. There has been a successful educational piece on the role of bees in food security, but we need to go further and highlight the impact that invertebrates have, too. I hope the Minister can address that point.
Education will also be central to mending the heartbreaking lack of care that humans have for the natural environment. There are countless young people in particular who have shown outstanding leadership in this area, and I thank them for their bravery. Lots of organisations, as well as the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I used to sit, have noted that changes could be made to the school curriculum. For example, a new GCSE in natural history would teach children and young people skills in observing, naming and recording nature. There is a significant skills gap in ecology, which means that devolved and local authorities are simply unable to prevent further losses, let alone increase biodiversity. Adding this GCSE to the curriculum, which is to be done by 2025, will create a skilled workforce that can go into jobs in the natural world.
The practical skills that curriculum and skills initiatives provide are just one side of nature education. The second is encouraging people, not just young people but the whole population, to experience, celebrate and learn about nature in a holistic way. People are spending less and less time outdoors, and we know that this lack of connection results in a lack of appreciation of, and value placed on, nature. We can change that by improving access to nature in both urban and rural areas through, for example, expanding initiatives such as forest education schools—particularly to areas of high deprivation, where we know that children virtually never visit the environment. To build on that, we could create a national nature service so that young people can experience nature jobs and think about working in ecology in the broadest sense.
I spoke briefly about tackling green skills shortages through nature education, but the UK must set out how it will fund these skills. No matter how many well-intentioned speeches we hear about the need to create green jobs, if there are no proper financial incentives, then devolved and local authorities will simply be unable to help us to reach the 2030 goals that we signed up to at Kunming-Montreal.
We cannot decouple the crisis that the natural world faces from the economic crisis and the climate crisis. Economies are embedded in, rather than external to, nature. When we recognise that, it becomes blatantly obvious that depleting nature risks the health and wellbeing of everyone. What this demands, then, is a fundamental and transformational change of how we measure economic success. GDP does not take into account the depreciation of natural assets, despite the natural environment being the key decider of our future success. If we do not move into inclusive wealth measurement, we will continue running ourselves into the ground, destroying more and more of the natural environment. At their core, economies do not value the natural world and therefore cannot address biodiversity loss.
People should have the right to experience the benefits of nature and a healthy environment, and the right to play a meaningful role in restoring and protecting that environment. The crises we face—of poor mental health, food shortages, conflicts and socioeconomic inequality—are all connected, and nature is the key intersection. We must tackle the nature crisis.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this important debate on biodiversity loss.
We can be in no doubt that biodiversity loss and the biodiversity emergency are intrinsically linked to the climate crisis. Scotland’s outstanding natural environment is one of our country’s greatest assets and it is something that every Scot is rightly proud of. We must do everything we possibly can to protect it.
Our nature attracts millions of visitors each and every year, and supports our exports of high-quality produce, as well as protecting those who produce it for us. Maintaining this resource is vital to Scotland’s continued success and it is critical that we manage the water environment to ensure that the needs of our society, economy and environment can be met for future generations to come. Restoring this natural environment is a key way to address the twin challenges of nature loss and climate change. That includes many of the interventions championed by the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, which is doing some fantastic work up the road.
The SNP’s £65 million nature restoration fund has committed nearly £40 million since 2021 to unlock the full potential that nature restoration projects can bring to local communities. The fund has supported local businesses to boost nature tourism, helped landowners with pollinator projects to boost local food production, and supports river and woodland restoration.
In the last five years alone, Scotland has contributed to around 75% of new woodlands across the United Kingdom. Scotland’s stunning national parks also bring significant benefits to the local communities they serve through collaborative working to support thriving local economies, maximising the benefits of the environment, the climate, the economy and the local people. In 2022, nearly £450 million was generated in local economies through visitor and tourism businesses. Our parks also play a key role in supporting our farmers and crofters, working with them to develop and deliver collaborative, nature-friendly, carbon-neutral projects and practices.
The SNP Scottish Government’s recently published Scottish biodiversity strategy sets out how key sectors will deliver work to combat biodiversity loss, including in planning, agriculture, forestry and water management. The delivery plan sets out the actions needed to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and to reverse biodiversity declines by 2045, with action needed across the whole range of Government, business and of course local society. The plan presents a nature-positive vision for Scotland, one in which biodiversity is regenerating and underpinning a healthy and thriving economy and society, playing the key role that is so important in addressing climate change. The SBS will be implemented through a series of delivery plans, covering a five-year period.
Scotland’s rivers define our iconic landscapes. From mountain tributaries to estuaries flowing into the oceans, they provide vital water and rich habitats, helping us to adapt to global threats, including climate change and water scarcity. The SNP has many innovative initiatives under way in Scotland to nurture, improve and protect our rivers. Since 2021, the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund has awarded in excess of £2.3 million for projects to restore and revive river habitats, and to improve their resilience to climate change. We are working closely with partners to develop integrated catchment management techniques to restore rivers and to improve natural flood management measures.
Over the past decade, Scottish Water has reduced environmental pollution incidents by 60%—they are down from 800 in recent years to 300 this year—despite increasingly challenging weather patterns. It has also invested £880 million in targeted improvements to environmental quality.
We are clear that Scotland remains fully committed to achieving our net zero targets by 2045. We are already around halfway there and continue to decarbonise faster than the UK average. The SNP is utterly focused on and committed to tackling the climate emergency.
Of course, the Climate Change Committee has advised that the 2030 target set by the UK Parliament is beyond what it considers to be achievable. That is disappointing news. However, its latest report also contains much to be proud of. Scotland has made strong progress to date, with emissions cut in half and, as I have said, it is decarbonising faster than the UK average.
Between 1990 and 2021, Scotland’s emissions halved, while the economy grew by 57%. That clearly demonstrates that a thriving economy and falling emissions are not just compatible but can actually support each other. We will continue to help businesses and investors through the development of a new green industrial strategy, so that the people of Scotland can share in the enormous economic opportunities of the global transition to net zero.
By contrast, the UK Government are falling behind in the global race to reap the economic benefits of the race to net zero, and have failed to rise to the challenges set by the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and those set by our European partners. Collectively, we need to seize the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment and implement the robust measures that are required. It is time to lead by example in the fight to preserve our planet’s biodiversity.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this much-needed debate, and on the recent publication of her book on this issue. I am not sure whether this will be the last time I get an opportunity to respond to her, so I congratulate her on the contribution that she has made over the 14 years that she has been in Parliament and wish her well for all that she does in the future.
It has been an incredibly important and valuable debate, and I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed to it. The fact that we have had to limit people’s speaking time shows that this subject enjoys a great deal of interest in this place. Indeed, we could have had a debate that was twice as long and still had much more to say. It has been incredibly valuable.
I will reflect on a few of the contributions to the debate, both at the start of my speech and as I go through my remarks. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made the crucial point that we are inextricably linked to nature, and that the success of the human race and the success of our natural environment go absolutely hand in hand: we should not see them as being in conflict. The approach that the Labour party will take, and that we must all take as a society, is to recognise the need for us to work together. She also talked about the reintroduction of species such as beavers, which I feel very strongly about. We need to see a greater focus on that. We had a very interesting debate yesterday on species decline, and that is just one area.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was undaunted by making the only substantive Conservative Back-Bench contribution, made a number of important points, one of which was to reflect on the importance of the Environment Act. One point that has come across strongly in this debate is that it is all very well to have targets, but if we have legally binding targets that we do not achieve, they simply become a fig leaf to cover the Government’s lack of performance and activity. She also highlighted the importance of the British overseas territories. I do not think that other Members made that point, but it was certainly made strongly yesterday and needs to be taken seriously.
Wera Hobhouse
I have just been at an infrastructure committee meeting, where the point was made that the Government can break the law. Would the Prime Minister go to court? No, he would not, so we need a Government who are seriously committed to the targets that we set ourselves and put into law, and who are not just paying lip service to that commitment.
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. I will say more on COP shortly, but it is incredibly important. It would be hugely damaging if, as a result of the Prime Minister’s endless delaying of the general election, Britain’s contribution to COP16 became lost amidst the election, which could take place at a similar time. I will press the Minister on what the Government’s approach to that will be.
As many colleagues have rightly noted, our country is now one of the most nature-depleted in the world, which has devastating consequences for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) reflected on the fact that not a single river in Britain is in good condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke about the positive work that is being done in the Rivelin valley in her area, as well as about the challenges faced by those who are passionate about maintaining the high quality of that river.
I am sure that when the Minister responds she will point, as she did yesterday, to the binding targets of the Environment Act. We are constantly told how ground- breaking they are—but setting legally binding targets that the Government then fail to meet is not cause for a lap of honour. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked some important questions on that. We have legally binding targets. What is the response of the Government and what are the opportunities for people to hold the Government to account if they fail to make those targets by 2030 and if, as currently, they are not on track to achieve those targets? What is the purpose of a legally binding target that a Government then go on to miss?
One in six species in the United Kingdom are at risk of extinction. Other people have referred to the Office for Environmental Protection’s report. The Government are off-track to meet all of their commitments on nature and the environment, including their goals to halt biodiversity loss. The biodiversity targets agreed at COP10 were missed by a country mile, and we are yet to see the Government’s plan for meeting the Montreal framework targets agreed at COP15. Just 3% of our land and 8% of our seas is currently protected for nature. It is crucial that the Government’s plans live up to the size of this moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) has set out Labour’s commitment to the targets in the Environment Act. We will look to deliver where the Conservatives have failed, including halting the decline of British species by 2030, and will be committed to honouring the international agreement to protect 30% of the UK’s land and seas for nature by 2030. We must be clear that our country cannot achieve the targets that have been set by continuing on the course that it is currently charting. Labour will review the environmental improvement plan and take steps to get Britain back on track.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the importance of habitats, such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests, both for families to explore and for wildlife to thrive. Keeping those nature-rich environments at the forefront of our mind is very much within Labour’s approach.
The Government have a target to bring 70,000 hectares of ancient woodland in timber plantations into restoration by 2030. That is an ambitious target. We support it. Last year, they brought just one hectare of these irreplaceable habitats into restoration. It is simply not good enough. As a country, we are not on target for what we have already committed to.
Farmers are the custodians of habitats in all four corners of the United Kingdom. They know and cherish the land they work like nobody else, and in many cases they plough the same furrow for generations. The Labour party respects the crucial role played by farmers and farming communities. Government must do much more to support farmers moving to different practices that carve out a role for nature alongside their crucial role in food production.
Several Members mentioned the failure of the environmental land management scheme. Some suggested more money is needed. The truth is that the Government are not even spending the money that they have currently allocated. As for going to the Treasury and demanding more money for ELMs, the first response will be, “Spend the money that you have currently got.” That will be the No. 1 priority for a future Labour Government.
The number of farmland birds has reduced by 50% since 1970, while more than a third of nutrient pollution in rivers is caused by agricultural run-off, making it all the more insane that we have all this unspent money in the ELMs budget. Farmers want to make these changes. They value the natural environments in which they live and work, but they often face impossible choices. This year, we have seen crops washed away and farmhouses become islands in torrential downpours. A staggering 82% of respondents to the National Farmers Union survey said that their farm business had suffered negatively owing to the weather, and yet the Government’s response has been far too pedestrian, given the size of the crisis facing farmers.
Ensuring that ELMs delivers for farmers is a crucial priority, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) said, so will the Minister explain why so much money allocated for farming transition is being sent back to the Treasury unspent? Will she confirm whether the Government will publish the land use framework before the general election?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, I am proud to represent the party that created national parks 75 years ago. That achievement shows the progressive changes that only a Labour Government can deliver. However, a recent report by the Campaign for National Parks found that just 6% of land in national parks is being managed effectively for nature. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, only a third of sites of special scientific interest are currently in good condition. Those sites are actually in worse condition than national parks. That is utterly perverse, and reflects a failure of policy and a betrayal of the intentions set out by the post-war Labour Administration. Protected sites ought to be where nature particularly thrives, and must be the cornerstone of any strategy to restore biodiversity in the UK.
The nature crisis is global, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so we must be clear about the need to collaborate with international partners. The UK played a positive role in ensuring that the crucial commitment to nature recovery enshrined in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework becomes reality. The UK should be a leader on the global stage when it comes to the environment and nature. I have to say that under the current Prime Minister, there has been far less of a commitment than there was under Boris Johnson. Since Montreal, the Government have shown very little interest in making good on that momentum. They have failed to deliver their targets domestically or on the international stage. A Labour Government will take on that mantle and drive international agreement and collaboration.
Will the Government treat the forthcoming COP16 with the urgency and seriousness it warrants? Does the Minister agree that it would be a tragedy if one of the impacts of the delayed general election was that Britain failed to focus on its contribution to Colombia because COP16 coincided with a general election campaign?
The need to tackle this crisis is urgent. Under Labour, we will have a Government who recommit to the environmental improvement plan targets, tackle the failure in our water industry and support farmers to play their crucial role in a way that boosts, rather than depletes nature. We will grow nature-rich habitats, get the environmental land management scheme working and end the failure that has resulted in too much being unspent. Finally, we will bring forward the land use framework and support farmers and communities by creating a flood resilience taskforce. Change is coming, Ms Rees. It cannot come a moment too soon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. You are keeping everyone to time—excellent.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate. I expect no less of her: this is the kind of subject that we have heard her speaking about, certainly throughout the time that I have been in Parliament. Although we have our differences, we have certainly had a great deal in common over all these years, so I thank her for her work as she leaves this place.
We had an impassioned debate on biodiversity in Westminster Hall yesterday, in which a great many Conservative colleagues spoke. Like this debate, it was very full. Although we have our differences, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet of loving nature and knowing that it is intrinsically part of how we live. We know we cannot deal with the climate crisis and climate adaptation without tackling biodiversity and nature. That is a given, and it is something I have worked on since I have been in Parliament.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) held the first debate on insects, because I held the first debate on soil, of which I am very proud. That is firmly on the agenda now: we are paying farmers to look after their soil. We have made so much progress.
We know that half the global economy depends on nature and biodiversity. There are many reasons for looking after it, but that one is important. We have heard some stark stats about the disaster—we know that—which is why we must do something about it. It is not a question of shall we do something about biodiversity; it is an absolute must.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion called for a decade of action. She was suggesting that nothing had happened and that everything was terribly negative, but has she been listening? We have made enormous progress on that agenda in the past decade, at home and on the international stage—one cannot do one without the other. The critical thing is that the Government have done more than any other Government, which is to set the framework that we must have. We cannot tackle this with individual, itsy-bitsy pots; we need a framework. That is why it was so important to introduce the Environment Act—many of us present were involved in that. It is a globally changing Act, and no other Government have produced such an Act. That sets the framework.
We have passed legislation to protect our environment. We legislated and set a target for restoring nature by 2030. One can criticise that all one likes, but the target is challenging and legally binding. We have four legally binding biodiversity targets. We also have legally binding tree targets and we have targets in a number of other areas, such as water and air. The structure is there, as is the framework for how we will get there.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for her kind comments, but a number of us have made the point again and again that targets on their own are not sufficient, if we do not meet them. It is not just us saying that; her own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that we are only on target with four out of 40, and that the prospect of meeting targets and commitments is “largely off track”. I put it to the Minister that yes, some progress has been made, but overall we are massively off track. Her tone, frankly, strikes me as rather complacent.
Rebecca Pow
I have to take issue with that, because I am trying to say that we have the framework and targets in place. The OEP came out with a somewhat critical report, but it will have better evidence next time. We will produce the next environment improvement plan in the summer, and it will only be the second one. As the hon. Lady knows, this is tricky and complicated. We have teams of people working in DEFRA, such as biodiversity experts, and scientists feeding in on whether these are the right targets and how we will hit them, as well as advising us on how to set policy to get to the targets. A huge amount of work feeds into that. We are working closely with the OEP to ensure that it has the right data and evidence so that it can see the trajectory to the targets. I am not saying it is easy, but we have the plan.
I want to talk about some of the things that we are doing to make progress. We have to tackle this from every angle: for example, we have to create and restore habitats, and connect wildlife-rich habitats. We have to tackle the pressures on biodiversity and pollution and we have to take action for species. We have an overall nature recovery plan for large-scale habitat creation. That includes a number of schemes, and Natural England is working on building on that.
Nature-based solutions are a big part of that—they have been mentioned and are important. Only last year, we launched a new £25 million fund for nature-based solution projects. We are using nature-based solutions in a whole range of ways, such as flood control, biodiversity and sequestration. A huge amount of work is going on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) recognised the complexities and the need to look at this from every single angle, which is why—as many have said today—our farmers are so important.
Farmers and landowners farm 70% of our land. We had a really successful Farm to Fork event yesterday in No. 10, with some positive outcomes. The farmers understand their role in producing sustainable, secure food supplies, but that must be linked to environmental recovery and protection. That is what all our new schemes are completely focused on, and they are world leading.
Theresa Villiers
One of the most alarming aspects of the nature crisis is the collapse in insect populations. It would be good to understand from the Minister what key things the Government are doing on that, including through the ELM scheme.
Rebecca Pow
That has been raised by many. We have a bee unit in DEFRA working on that, with our bee pollinator strategy, and on invasives such as the Asian hornet. We have to tackle all those issues. That is why integrated pest management is one of the planks of the new sustainable farming initiative. That pays farmers to do other things so that they do not have to use pesticides, such as use bio-controls, which I do in my own garden because I garden organically. That initiative is on a big scale and also harnesses technology and innovation. For example, if it is necessary to spray, just spot spray.
All of that technology is moving forward. Farmers are moving with us and being paid to do it. We have guaranteed the funds that they got from the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet was there when we announced all the new schemes at DEFRA. Leaving the CAP gave us a huge opportunity to do something completely different. That is under way and we have had 22,000 farmers sign up to our sustainable farming initiative already. It is the most successful scheme DEFRA has ever run, and it will increase.
Countrywide stewardship is still running and we have increased the payments. We are looking all the time at how the actions will operate and what we need to deliver those targets. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that we are looking at this all the time, and feeding it in to work out how we can hit the targets and deliver the food. That is very much what we are doing.
Peatland was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and peat areas are hugely degraded. We know we have to focus on this area, so we have a special fund for that from our nature for climate fund. We have a target to restore 35,000 hectares by 2030 and we have already done 27,000 hectares. Great projects are going on all over the country, including in Somerset. Somerset, including the Somerset Wildlife Trust, has huge benefit from millions of pounds from these funds. They are doing good work, with the farmers and the Government, to restore these precious environments, though we need to do more.
We also have the species survival fund. Some individual species need special habitats, so we have a fund for them. We are restoring habitat in an area equivalent to the size of York to deal with certain species—on chalk rivers, coasts, coastal marshes and plains, including in Dorset. I went to Bucklebury Common and saw heathland being restored, where adders and nightjars are returning. With the right management, we are getting those creatures to come back.
National nature reserves were mentioned. Yes, they are a cornerstone; they are critical to delivering our target of 30% of protected land. We have 219 national nature reserves, and in 2023 and 2024 we created another three, with another three on the cards. Those are cornerstones, with farmers working in them as well, helping us to deliver nature. I say to our Scottish friends, who tell us how good they are on biodiversity, that they could look at why they have cut their tree-planting grants enormously. That is going to have a huge effect in Scotland.
There are other measures, such as local nature recovery strategies, that are being worked on. They will help to inform us where we want the nature—what should go where—and they are already under way. Biodiversity net gain is a game changer and, again, globally leading. To legislate so that every development has to put back 10% more nature than was there when they started is a game changer.
I must mention swift bricks because I am a huge swift lover. Yellowhammers are one of my favourite birds and we are getting them back through the hedgerow protections we have just introduced. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a good point about swifts. We have been talking to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about that. Many developers are already doing swift bricks. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned it, and her planning authority could specify that it wants developments to have swift bricks. These things can already be done and I urge people to do them. There is a biodiversity metric on swift bricks. That is how developers work out the biodiversity net gain they must add. For example, they are looking at swift bricks and how many points they would get in the metric to see if they can get that into the net gain tool, so that piece of work is definitely under way.
Mr Perkins
I will be quick. I do not want the Minister to miss the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She keeps referring to legally binding targets. What happens in the event that the Government do not meet those targets?
Rebecca Pow
The point is that we have legally binding targets and a remit to report on them, so everything that we are doing is so that we can drive towards our targets. We have targets and carbon budgets, and we report all the time. That is how we work; we will aim to hit our targets, and the OEP will hold us to account on that. Do not forget that it was this Government who set up the Office for Environmental Protection to have a body to hold us to account. Again, that is a game changer.
We have something called a species abundance indicator, which is the official statistic telling us how we are doing on our species. We need that so we can work out how we are getting to our targets. We published the official statistic last Friday, and I urge people to have a look at that. It is a complicated tool, covering 670 species used as indicators of how we are doing on our targets and informed by an expert committee. Although there are real problems, it said that the indicators show promising progress towards levelling off. That was announced last week, and I urge hon. Members and hon. Friends to look at that.
I will move on to the international stage, which everybody has mentioned and is absolutely critical. We are considered world leaders working on the international stage. Many hon. Members here have taken part in the various COPs, and we have COP16 coming up. The UK was at the forefront of the international efforts to agree the landmark Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. We have also legislated to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in this country and we are putting our money where our mouth is. Nobody is saying that it is easy.
We are working on our UK biodiversity strategy right now, and it should be published in the summer. The overseas territories are a really important part of that and of our nature, which was mentioned. They contain 94% of our nature. I chaired a meeting just yesterday with all the OTs, even those as far as the Pitcairn Islands and St Helena. They all joined that meeting, because they are all working on their biodiversity strategies; we will put those together and they will be published. The UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan was mentioned by many hon. Members, and it will be published imminently. It is UK-wide, and I will just put it out there that the devolved Administrations must play their part and agree their bit. It is important and we want to get it out.
Before I finish, I must touch on finance. Climate finance and international nature finance are critical: we cannot do any of this without getting that right. We have a green finance strategy across Government. A question was asked about if we worked across Government, and we are working on how we get the nature funding flowing around the world. We have already committed £11 billion in our climate finance commitment. I will wind up there, apart from saying that oil and gas were raised in the debate. Some 47% of our energy last year came from renewables, and an enormous shift has happened under this Government. I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. We understand that this is a crisis, but this Government have set us on the pathway to addressing it.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Caroline Lucas, you have just under one minute.
Caroline Lucas
Which is not enough time to be able to respond to what I have heard, Ms Rees. I thank all hon. Members for sharing their concerns. Some key themes have come up again and again, one of which is around peatlands and why on earth we are still setting fire to peat, which makes no sense at all. Can we please take that away?
We have talked a lot about targets, but not about delivery plans to actually meet those targets, and as far as I could hear we still have no answer on what happens when legally binding targets are not met. I do not know if that means that we would have to take the Government to court again—that is becoming a bit of a routine, but if necessary I am sure that it will be done. I want to ensure that we do not have fossil fuel extraction in marine protected areas, and again, that just seems to be madness. At the end of the day, I want the Minister to take back to her Department and others across Government that this issue is so urgent, and while I know she cares about it, there is complacency. That needs to be addressed. We need urgent action, and we need it now.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
No Recourse to Public Funds
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of no recourse to public funds
Diolch yn fawr, Ms Rees. It really is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for this short debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the no recourse to public funds conditions, which I am aware have been discussed previously in Parliament. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, made a number of requests of the Government a year ago, most of which have not been addressed, hence the fundamental need to continue pressing the Government to recognise and react to the hardships caused by no recourse to public funds. It is inhumane, it is cruel, and it is forcing some of the most vulnerable people into poverty and hardship.
I sought this debate because I was inspired, as we so often are in this place, by a meeting with a local constituent who is in need of support and whom I believe has been failed by the current system. My constituent accompanied her husband to Wales as a student, also bringing their children, several years ago. An unfortunate and unexpected diagnosis of a serious health issue compromised their ability to work and be self-sufficient, so the constituent has no recourse to public funds and has been reliant on a local charity for support with housing and other costs, but that too has now ended due to a lack of funds. We are living in a cost of living crisis, and the family is struggling on a daily basis, unable to pay rent, utilities and bills. We as an office have supported the family as much as possible with food bank vouchers and by co-ordinating with local churches. We should not have to do that. They should not have to come to us for help and support; it should be provided as a basic need and right wherever and however people come to our country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). Does she agree that we must ensure that anyone who has a right to be in this country has access to food and medical care, no matter what form that right to be here takes, and that there is a basic level of moral obligation that anyone in this nation should expect to be fulfilled?
Beth Winter
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree. It is a moral duty for us as human beings to provide the basics for anybody to survive. I am very aware of the detrimental impact that no recourse to public funds has on the health and wellbeing of far too many people. The exclusion of people with a no recourse to public funds restriction from the benefits system increases their risk of living in destitution and puts significant pressure on local authority services. Millions of people—an estimated 2.6 million at the end of 2022—resident in the UK with temporary leave to remain are subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, which prevent them from accessing most welfare benefits and social housing. The cost of living crisis has affected people across the country, but increases in energy bills and food prices have a greater impact on low-income households.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Two years ago, the Government committed to a consultation of permanently extending the Healthy Start scheme to households with no recourse to public funds. However, the consultation has still not happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that that delay from the Government is shameful, and that the Healthy Start scheme that provides families with support to get food and milk for young children should be permanently extended to those subject to no recourse to public funds as a matter of urgency, as called for by organisations such as Feeding Liverpool, the Food Foundation and Sustain?
Beth Winter
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that that initiative should be provided to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. It is shameful that that is not happening at the present time.
Low-income households that would be eligible for social housing and universal credit but for the no recourse to public funds conditions are more susceptible to the effects of the cost of living crisis and are excluded from much of the financial support that can help with increased costs. It is therefore even more vital that access to devolved schemes of assistance that are not classed as public funds is facilitated for people subject to no recourse to public funds. It is for that reason that I truly believe we must end the no recourse to public funds condition. It is cruel, it increases child poverty and destitution, it burdens local authorities just as this Conservative Government cut their grants, and all of that has a knock-on effect for social justice and public health, which themselves are costly to the public purse and have long-term societal effects.
I want to take a moment to thank those organisations that have been in contact with me and raised some of the concerns about no recourse to public funds. The Bevan Foundation in Wales in particular has conducted a piece of research that has produced a document of great significance, with a series of recommendations for local authorities and Welsh Government, from which I believe the UK Government would benefit. I will send the Minister a copy of that report following the debate. I thank the Welsh Refugee Coalition, Migrant Voice and the Food Foundation for their suggestions and their tireless campaigning work. I also want to highlight the recent joint report from the all-party groups on poverty and on migration, of which I am a member. Again, I can send a copy of that report to the Minister.
I will pull out some of the recommendations that those practitioners have said would improve conditions for people subject to no recourse to public funds. The first looks at the support needed by local authorities. The cost of providing accommodation and financial support to no recourse to public funds households continues to rise, with a 22% increase from £64 million to £78 million at the end of 2021-22, which is far above inflation. Those costs should be met by the UK Government. That is why the Bevan Foundation has argued that the UK Government should end visa restrictions on accessing public funds. That is the fairest way to support people without settled status and their children, and safeguard them from deep poverty and destitution. Welfare benefits should be a safety net for all, regardless of their immigration status.
Secondly, we need to extend the scope of legal aid. People are being prevented from exercising their legal rights to apply for leave to remain, to change and renew their status and to lift no recourse to public funds conditions, which results in an inability to move on from destitution. Wales has been described, and rightly so, as an “advice desert”, with no immigration and asylum legal aid provision outside Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, apart from a single solicitor—yes, one—based in north Wales, in Wrexham. Even in those areas, firms are closing and provision is in sharp decline. Practically all immigration legal providers in Wales are currently closed to referrals, meaning people are being denied justice.
Elsewhere, there is a need to reduce immigration application fees. Costs are prohibitive, preventing people from exercising their legal right to remain and settle, and driving them into poverty, hardship and destitution. Additionally, there is a need to shorten long settlement routes to a maximum of five years, as the recent report by the all-party parliamentary groups has argued. Long periods with no recourse to public funds inevitably increase the likelihood of entrenched poverty and destitution. Breaks in leave to remain mean that children can spend almost all their childhood in poverty. Those are our future generations and we should be investing in our children and young people.
There is also a need to exempt key benefits and schemes from public funds. The Government should enable councils to provide discretionary cost of living and emergency support to all residents in need by removing discretionary welfare payments from the list of public funds, as has been done in my country of Wales. They should also remove child benefit from public funds and give access to childcare, as is also happening in Wales; as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) has said, they should open access to the Healthy Start scheme to all low-income pregnant women and families with no recourse to public funds. Finally, all victims of domestic abuse should be eligible to gain access to public funds under the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, regardless of immigration status.
The policy of no recourse to public funds is a key part of this Government’s cruel, inhumane and discriminatory migration policy, which seeks to punish and scapegoat some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We should welcome people to our shores, as encapsulated by the Welsh Government’s commitment to being a nation of sanctuary, and enable people to thrive, integrate and contribute to our communities. People have so much to contribute, and a humane approach would include allowing asylum seekers the right to work. We are in a perverse situation, where people awaiting the processing of their asylum applications cannot claim basic human rights in the form of benefits, but are prevented from working. People have lots to contribute—we should allow them to work and contribute to our economy, which in the long term will result in both financial and social benefits for our whole society.
We need to focus on clearing the backlog of applicants through fair decisions. I have been involved in interviews with the all-party group on poverty with people who have been waiting years to hear whether they will be allowed leave to remain. That is inhumane. There is no need for that to happen. Finally, we need secure and safe legal routes, as Care4Calais and PCS have advocated through their safe passage visa scheme. Again, I will supply the Minister with a copy of the brilliant report that they produced advocating that.
The UK Government should work in partnership with devolved, regional and local governments to develop a comprehensive refugee integration strategy, which should implement the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, including the creation of a migrants commissioner to ensure that those affected by immigration policy have their voices heard. If the Government are going to take seriously the dual tasks of reducing poverty and making migration policy work, they will need to better connect policy making across Government Departments and between national, devolved, regional and local governments, as well as working in partnership with civil society, which wants a fair and humane migration policy.
There is much more that can be said, but I am conscious that we have only half an hour this morning; I have referred to several pieces of research and evidence, with which I will supply the Minister and which give far more detail. What is clear is that the beneficiaries of a more joined-up, evidence-based and humane policy would be beneficial not just to migrant communities, but to each and every one of us, by ensuring that nobody in the UK, wherever they are from and whatever their situation, faces poverty and destitution.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on securing this debate on the important issue of no recourse to public funds, and I thank colleagues for their interventions during the course of her remarks. A lot of points were made, which I will respond to on behalf of the Government, but first I will set the policy in context. I am sure that Members across the House are aware of the details of the policy of no recourse to public funds, but it is important to set out the context, and our rationale and approach.
A well-established principle is that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families, including children, without imposing an unreasonable burden on the welfare system. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to benefits and other publicly funded services should reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, become available to migrants only when they have become settled here with indefinite leave to remain. In practice, that has been done through granting permission to enter or stay with a no recourse to public funds condition attached.
Only the benefits listed in immigration legislation are classed as public funds for immigration purposes. Some benefits based on national insurance contributions, may still be accessed by migrants, such as contribution-based employment and support allowance. The Government’s position remains that those seeking to establish a life in the UK must do so on a basis that prevents a burden on the taxpayer and promotes integration.
I respectfully disagree with the central premise of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. Were we simply to scrap the no recourse to public funds policy, I would argue that, given the national support in place through Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the local support provided by local authorities, far greater costs would be associated with such support were there to be broad eligibility for anyone coming to the UK. I do not think that that is proportionate or fair to the taxpayer generally. Later in my remarks, I will set out the safeguards in place to ensure that where people’s circumstances require it, there are routes in for people to get support.
Beth Winter
I referred to several reports, which I will provide copies of to the Minister. When we look at the cost-benefit balance, supporting people who come here, often from vulnerable and difficult situations, may bring an initial cost up front—although providing people with the basics of food, heating and so on is a moral and humane duty anyway, so I disagree fundamentally with his position—but in the long term it benefits our country financially, if that is the concern of the Government, as well as socially. To back that up, I will supply the evidence, which is overwhelming.
Tom Pursglove
Our approach is a balanced one. For example, many people come to the United Kingdom through the established visa routes, family routes and skilled work routes. The hon. Lady touched on the issue of safe and legal routes, and I am a strong advocate of the work that the Government have done to give sanctuary to more than half a million people since 2015.
One of the commitments we made during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was to consult local authorities and to set a figure, an annual cap, for properly supported places that can be provided across the country so that people are able come here. In particular, we work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to support the most vulnerable people from around the world, with all the help and support around that. That is entirely right and proper, and I am very grateful to the local authorities who have offered places. We will help with the wraparound support that comes with it. In the next few weeks, I hope to be able to say more not only about the figure, but about laying the statutory instrument that will help to bring that cap into force in 2025, delivering on the commitment we made to ensure that those places are durable and sustainable, and provide people with the sanctuary that they need.
As a general principle, I go back to my earlier remark that we think it is right that people who come to the United Kingdom through most of the routes are able to sustain themselves without relying on the taxpayer. As I said, there are safeguards in to provide support. [Interruption.] I recognise that the Labour Members here are perhaps not in line with the position of previous Labour Governments on this issue, but that policy has been a consistent one under Conservative Governments, under the coalition Government and under Labour Governments.
Ian Byrne
The Minister has mentioned the burden on the taxpayer several times now. Why do the Government not give people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can contribute to the tax system and society? His framing of this debate and the implementation of policy makes no sense to me.
Tom Pursglove
I suspect that we will disagree quite strongly in principle on this. I would argue that the policy on asylum seekers’ right to work achieves the right balance. People who come to the United Kingdom in small boats, via a route organised by evil criminals who put them to sea in unseaworthy vessels, are exploited them in the process. They hand over their money to evil criminal gangs, who have no regard to whether they get here safely. We have a moral responsibility to put that criminality out of business. Any additional pull factors give the evil criminal gangs responsible for that trade an additional marketing tool to sell a vision of what coming to the UK looks like. That cannot be right. Nor is it right when we consider the many people who come to this country by applying and going through the proper process and following the rules, entirely appropriately. We should not undermine that process. It is an important part of our borders and migration system, and has for many years been how we manage migratory flows.
If somebody’s asylum claim is not dealt with and concluded within a 12-month period, they are able to take roles on what is now the immigration salary list, previously the shortage occupation list. I think that provides an appropriate level of balance.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that there are still a lot of points still to get through, but I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady on this occasion.
Beth Winter
Again, I strongly disagree with the Minister on this issue. People who are forced to try to reach these shores on small boats are not getting on boats because of pull factors; they are doing it because of push factors. They are extremely, extremely desperate. Anybody who tries to reach this country on a dinghy, bringing their children with them, must be extremely desperate. If we had a humane migration policy that provided legal and safe routes to come here, people would not be losing their lives. People are dying because they are being forced to use these routes. Should we not be welcoming people here? We have shortages of nurses and of workers in other sectors and industries. Wales advocates being a nation of sanctuary. What is wrong with people coming here to contribute to our society, which would benefit us economically?
Tom Pursglove
I definitely do want people to come here, but through legal routes and in a managed and proper way, rather than in small boats making perilous crossings of the channel. We have a responsibility—a moral duty—to put that criminality out of business. Yet again, in the last fortnight, we have seen a young girl lose her life in the channel in the most tragic of circumstances. We have to put a stop to that, and we are determined to do precisely that.
It is recognised that some migrants may be at greater risk of poverty and destitution, and that is why there are rightly safeguards in place. It is important to protect vulnerable migrants, and appropriate safeguards flow from that responsibility and our recognition that people can find themselves in the most challenging circumstances. In practice, that means that migrants with permission under the family or private life routes, or the Hong Kong British national overseas route, can apply for free to have their NRPF condition lifted by making a change of conditions application. An individual on those routes can apply to have their condition lifted if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child, or if they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure.
For all immigration routes other than family or private life and the Hong Kong BNO route, the general expectation is that the person will return to their home country should they become unable to meet their essential living needs in the UK. If there are particularly compelling circumstances that make leaving the UK impossible, discretion can be used to consider whether they justify access to public funds. The latest data published in March 2024 for quarter 4 of 2023 shows that 71% of the decisions taken on change of conditions applications were granted. That demonstrates that the system works and is practical.
It is worth adding that the Government are providing additional support for those with NRPF. For example, subject to the relevant income thresholds, those with NRPF can access free school meals and early years education for two-year-olds. Statutory benefits, including statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and contribution- based jobseeker’s allowance, are accessible to all those who have made significant tax contributions, including those with NRPF.
The Department of Health and Social Care leads on the Healthy Start scheme, but I will gladly ask the relevant Minister to provide a written update to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). We continue to have ministerial and official engagement with colleagues from across Government about NRPF, specific benefits, inclusion or otherwise and eligibility. I would very much welcome receiving the reports that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned. I am not convinced that we will agree on everything, but we will most definitely look at them. We keep the policy under review, so I would welcome the opportunity to reflect on those reports.
Local authorities may also provide a basic safety net of support, regardless of immigration status, if it is established either that there is a risk to the wellbeing of a child or a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution—for example, where a person has community care needs or serious health problems. If it is helpful and the hon. Lady would like to share the details of the case she raised—I am not sure from her remarks whether a change of conditions application has been made—I will be very happy to ask my officials to look at the particular circumstances and get back to her.
I have dealt with the asylum seeker right to work and the situation with regard to safe and legal routes. There will be opportunities to debate those matters separately in the coming weeks and months. I definitely expect to make progress on the cap in the coming weeks and months, as I said in the debate in this Chamber on Monday.
Beth Winter
Will the Minister comment on the suggestion about better joined-up working, including with the regional and devolved Administrations? Is that something he will look at?
Tom Pursglove
I am very happy to take that point away. The Government’s general principle is that it is important that we have a system that provides balance. I set out the safeguards, but I am definitely very happy to engage not only with colleagues across the UK Government but with counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The immigration system generally is a reserved matter, but there are undoubtedly aspects that relate to their work, and I am always willing to engage on those matters. Our approach is that we and they can suggest agenda items, and then we debate them and talk constructively.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
China
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on China.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am here to look at Government policy on China, but also to argue for a more coherent version of that policy, notwithstanding the very considerable progress that, to be fair to them, the Government have been making.
I will start by outlining a few ideas. For me, the 21st century will mark a struggle between two visions for humanity: between open and closed societies; between states that are the servants of their people and states that are the masters of their people; and whether the great scientific discoveries of this century—artificial intelligence, big data—will be used to help humanity or to enslave it.
Opposing the policies of the Chinese Communist party and the direction that it has sadly embarked on for the past 10 to 15 years does not mean being anti-Chinese. Many Chinese oppose the Chinese Communist party, as indeed do many tens of thousands of brave Hong Kong activists in our own country.
I am delighted that the Deputy Foreign Secretary is present to respond to this debate on behalf of Government. I fully accept that the relationship we have with China is significantly more complex than the relationship we had with the USSR; we have a much deeper trading relationship with communist China, and we need to work together on climate and the environment, although that should not be used as an excuse for the status quo. China presents the need for a more complex set of alliances and more complex containment, but there is a greater urgency because, in many ways, China is more powerful than the Soviet Union was. We need to change the dynamic. It is quite clear that shutting off the global economy, which the west still heavily influences, but no longer controls, is not an option.
For me, the direction of travel is clear. Just this week, what have we had? Chinese vessels encroach daily on Taiwanese territorial waters, with conventional military tensions increasing. In the UK, the head of GCHQ warns that China represents a growing and genuine threat, not only to the UK but to the internet as a whole. Three men, including a Border Force officer, are arrested on spying charges. The US announces that it will raise the tariff on Chinese electric vehicles to 100%, citing “unfair practices”.
We are in the middle of what the Government have called an “epoch-defining challenge”; some Members on the Government Benches, and perhaps indeed those on other Benches, see it as a more significantly adversarial relationship. I accept that there are elements of both, and that just focusing on the words to define this issue—be they “adversarial”, “enemy” or “challenge”—is not necessarily the most helpful thing. What is important is that our policies become less piecemeal.
As I say, I do not want to underestimate the journey that the Government have been on. Much has changed since the failed golden era. It is clear that the hope held by the UK, the US and other partners—that normalising trade relations with China would lead to greater security on all sides—has not materialised. Indeed, quite the opposite is true: what China and arguably Russia have done is trash the system from the inside. However, with respect, I think that our policies are still a little too piecemeal. Although we have had sensible decisions on Huawei, spurred by myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others, and the passing of the National Security Act 2023 and a significant number of measures, I still think we need to go further.
I am looking at trying to develop a coherent set of ideas, not only in this speech but with the think-tank Civitas, with whom I hope to publish stuff next month. I pay tribute to and thank people such as Charlie Parton, the former diplomat who has done a lot of great work advising Members of Parliament on both sides of the House on China strategy, highlighting what the Chinese Communist party has been saying to itself about the west; Ben Rogers and others at Hong Kong Watch; and Luke de Pulford at the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for the work that they have all done.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given the arrests this week and the issues that he has outlined, does he agree that the issue here is the pace at which we are assessing the situation, and the need for a cross-Government audit of the Chinese Communist party’s attempts to influence UK politicians and Government, and also individuals, which we saw this week with the arrests of individuals attempting to intimidate and harass Hong Kong democracy activists in the UK?
Bob Seely
I agree very much with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We need to increase our pace, which is one of things that I would like to argue today. What the Chinese Communist party wants is no secret. It does not want to live in harmony with the west; it wants to dominate it. Western nations are viewed in CCP literature as hostile foreign forces intent on damaging Beijing. In Document No. 9, for example, the CCP describes democracy as one of nine false ideological trends. The full list includes: promoting western constitutional democracy; promoting universal values, which would be an attempt to weaken the theoretical foundations of the party’s leadership; promoting civil society, to dismantle the ruling party’s social foundations; promoting neoliberalism, which would challenge China’s basic economic system; promoting the western ideal of free journalism, which would challenge the communist party’s grip on power; promoting historical nihilism, or rather a different interpretation of the communist party’s history; and questioning the socialist nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. All those things are seen as false historical trends, and there are many other documents, which I will not go into.
The challenges—I use the Government word, “challenges”—from this potentially adversarial state are arising on many fronts. On cyber, just this week GCHQ has said that there is an increased threat; indeed, I was one of the unfortunate servicemen and women whose details were found potentially not to be as secure as we would have liked. I think it was last week when we were told that our details had been stolen or were potentially vulnerable to theft. Trade dumping is an absolutely critical element of this. China’s developing country status at the World Trade Organisation means that the rules on dumping do not apply to it. As we are slow off the mark here, and because the Americans have put a 100% tariff on electric vehicles, on which the European Union may follow suit, I worry that we will become a dumping ground for Chinese goods. That is not an accident. The destruction of our own industries is not happening because the Chinese are necessarily good at them—although some are and, in a free state, arguably more would be. It is a deliberate state policy of intellectual property theft that is happening now, but which was also happening 10 to 20 years ago.
Then there is the long-term planning to buy up resources, the super-cheap communist state loans, the over-production as a matter of policy, and the dumping of goods on international markets to bankrupt western firms. Huawei was an instructional lesson on that. It originally partnered with Nortel, a Canadian company that suddenly found its intellectual property in Beijing. Nortel then collapsed and its place was taken by Huawei, whose state agenda was to undercut western firms and dominate the 5G market. That creation of dependence is one of the things that is most dangerous—I will explain why in a couple of minutes.
There is also the transitional repression—the spying on and intimidation of not only China’s own people abroad, but Hong Kong activists, which is a growing problem that we seem reluctant to tackle robustly. Then there is the question of covid and its origins. If covid had come out of a laboratory in France or the United Kingdom, or the United States especially, we would never have heard the end of it from political parties in this country or the media; and yet I am staggered by the lack of interest shown in the likelihood that covid came out of the Wuhan virus laboratory. I am also staggered at the lack of interest in whether it had been genetically altered before it was, presumably, accidentally leaked. As Lord Ridley said:
“The UK security and scientific establishment refused to look at the evidence for a lab leak.”
That is an extraordinary claim from somebody who is a considerable expert on that. If nothing else, it is astonishing that we seem to be so uninterested in biosecurity standards in other countries, given the potential hazard not only to ourselves but to humanity.
The united front, the malign influence of which we have potentially seen in Parliament, is a long-term, whole-of-state strategy used by the Chinese Communist Party to further its interests within and outside China through multiple organs of the Chinese state and a range of activities—overt and covert; legal and illegal. It encompasses not only espionage but forms of malign influence that are sometimes overt, but sometimes covert. We know from our Intelligence and Security Committee that the united front has “achieved low-level penetration” across “most sectors of UK business and civil society”. What does the Deputy Foreign Secretary have to say about that? Is he concerned about that penetration across most sectors of UK business and civil society by the united front?
I will spend a couple of minutes on the domination of DNA research and on cellular modules, which are so little known, but potentially so important. China believes that its own biomedical data is a
“foundational strategic state resource.”
Yet, at the same time, it is hoovering up DNA data and genomic data from around the world. Western security officials, including those identified in the ISC report, see DNA biotech as another major concern. The Pentagon in the United States listed the BGI group, otherwise known as the Beijing Genomics Institute, as a Chinese military company, and the US Government have twice blacklisted the group’s subsidiaries for their role in the collection and analysis of DNA that has enabled China’s repression of its own ethnic minorities.
That is a really creepy and unpleasant policy that the CCP and the BGI group have been accused of: collecting DNA research for the repression of their own minorities. Needless to say, not only have we not done the same thing as the US, but BGI Tech Solutions was awarded a £10.8 million contract in this country for genomic testing of covid samples. Not only that, but in 2021, Reuters revealed that the company was selling prenatal tests to millions of women globally in order to collect their DNA data, using biotech methods developed with the Chinese military.
A top counter-intelligence official from the US Government has said that BGI is
“no different than Huawei…It’s this legitimate business that’s also masking intelligence gathering for nefarious purposes.”
I wonder if we are again sleepwalking dangerously and somewhat naively into another ethical crisis—the kind that we had with Huawei, and which we could now be seeing with BGI.
I have not had time to show the Minister my speech, because I only finished it about half an hour before the debate, so I will happily write to him on these questions, and perhaps he could give me a written answer. What are the Government planning to do on genomic research and protecting the United Kingdom, which does not only mean our DNA data—unless he thinks we can share it with the rest of the world; maybe we should or could be—and what do we think BGI and China are trying to do with our DNA?
I will talk a little bit about cellular modules because, again, it is an obscure, but important, topic. The internet of things refers to internet devices that talk to each other, from alarm systems, video recorders and fridges, to aeroplanes, boats and, maybe one day, nuclear weapon system launching programmes—and even the lights in our living room. Those gadgets rely on modules—groups of chips—that connect the equipment to the internet and talk to each other. China supplies the west with more than 60% of those modules. But because they are updated remotely by the manufacturer, it is practically impossible to ensure that they are not spying on us and sending back data flows to their source. If that sounds a bit paranoid, let us remember that TikTok is currently under investigation by the FBI after its parent company used the app to monitor journalists in the United States. Let us also remember that a Government car was allegedly compounded—I cannot remember if that was last year or a few months ago—because a cellular module in it might have been pinging back eavesdropped conversations. China aims to dominate the market, as it has with Huawei and BGI, for cellular modules. Do the Government have an opinion on whether that is a threat to our economy, to our people and to our national security?
I am not even going to bother touching on the military threat, because it is complex and detailed, though my fear is not only the slow domination. Sun Tzu, a great man and a philosopher of conflict, said:
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
That seems to be President Xi’s aim. Arguably, it should also be our aim. That idea should inspire us that we need to defend ourselves now, and that we need to take the short-to-medium and the long-term decisions to defend ourselves, not to aggressively wave fingers at people, but to be able to defend ourselves. The reason I say that is that the most dangerous outcome is that we become so dependent on China in the next five years, for everything from vehicles to fridges to cellular modules to our DNA, that when Taiwan is attacked, if we took out sanctions on China we would effectively collapse the global economy. It would cause chaos and collapse in Europe and our own country that would make the energy crisis for the Ukraine war look like a picnic, with rioting on the streets and destabilised western societies—or we can stand by and say, “Fair enough.”
The other, potentially even greater, threat is that we break the alliance between the United States and ourselves and the United States and Europe, which is undoubtedly China’s strategic aim. That will be a catastrophe for western civilisation. We need to deepen our alliances with the US and Oz and many other states in that part of the world, including South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia.
Finally, I have two more points. On TikTok, for young people in China the algorithm is different from that in the UK. In China, it is used to promote science, education and history, including the history of China. In our countries, it makes citizens watch
“stupid dance videos with the main goal of making us imbeciles”.
That quotation is from the former chief software officer of the US Air Force and Space Force. In China, TikTok is about entertaining education; here it is just about entertainment. It is not only cyber-addiction, but real addiction, that is an issue. Do the Government have a position on the large-scale illicit supply of fentanyl by China to the United States, which I understand is now also becoming a problem in this country? I will wind up in two to three minutes; I said I would stick to 20 minutes, which I am trying to do.
What are we going to do about this issue? The real aim of the immediate policy is to insulate ourselves. In no particular order, here are some ideas. Let us add science to human rights. We can DNA test where cotton comes from. Should we not be mandating that, in supply chains that go anywhere near China, we DNA test cotton so that we can see whether it comes from Xinjiang and is made by slave labour, so that we can outlaw it? That is an important thing to do for fair trade, and to help jobs not only in this country, but in Bangladesh, India and places where they do not use slave labour. It is also important for human rights: taking a consistent approach to the human rights agenda and giving it the respect it needs.
We need to diversify as a matter of urgency. As a national priority, we need to diversify our supply chains, so that if there is war in the Pacific or around Taiwan, we are not going to destroy our standard of living, economy or people’s jobs in order to put sanctions on China, or to support the United States or Taiwan.
We need longer-term planning over rare earth minerals—something I have not even brought up due to time considerations. We are beginning to act but we are two or three decades behind China.
We should tell Confucius Institute centres to stop spying on their citizens, or shut them down and kick out the people in them. The same should apply to Hong Kong economic offices, which are now also being used to intimidate Chinese people in this country.
As for the military, we need a permanent western presence in disputed waters and more money spent.
On WTO and dumping, we need to work together; we need to treat China as a developed economy, even if in WTO terms it is not.
I also suggest that we need to have faith in ourselves. There is no inevitability about China’s future victory. It is a very powerful country, but like Russia, it lacks few actual friends. Its one formal alliance is with the basket case of North Korea, although the basket case of Russia is also a pretty close ally. We have many friends and allies, as do the United States and France, and we need to be working with those allies and with our partners in the Pacific for a new, subtle but thoughtful, determined and robust containment programme. That means spending on hard power, but it also means a much more assertive defence of our interests, as well as understanding how decades of subversive conflict across culture, business, sport and science can damage our national interest and threaten our people. Whether it is the use of artificial intelligence, big data, DNA sequencing, advanced propaganda techniques or cellular modules, we need to do more to understand the modern world that we inhabit.
We are in a battle for the future of humanity, between democracies and authoritarian states. At the moment, that conflict is being lost by us. It is also being conducted in myriad subtle ways. We need to grasp the extent of it and do more to react robustly to defend ourselves.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate? I would be grateful if Members do not refer to cases where charges have been brought, because they are sub judice.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate and on his excellent, wide-ranging opening remarks. He set out the challenges we face as a country, and presented a pretty dystopian vision of the future, if we allow it to happen. I hope that we are able to collectively rise to the challenges he laid out.
The hon. Member raised a number of matters that I will touch on. I start with the refreshed integrated review, published by the Government last year, which stated:
“China…poses an epoch-defining and systemic challenge with implications for almost every area of government policy and the everyday lives of British people.”
I consider that a welcome revision to our approach. It is a pretty serious, broad statement of where we are and what we need to do. We need to recognise China’s size and influence, alongside the risks that it brings. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made the point very eloquently that our reliance is one of those risks, alongside China’s greater aggression, its human rights record and the strengthening of its partnership with Russia; they are all potential existential threats.
In many respects, the news emerging this week on both sides of the Atlantic is a stark reminder that these challenges are here and now, and that care needs to be taken. I will take one very clear example from my own constituency, which feeds into the wider picture that has been painted today. There is a Stellantis plant in my constituency. It announced yesterday that it will be selling Chinese-made electric vehicles in Europe from the autumn, and in the UK from next year. We have a very proud history of manufacturing in this country, and indeed in Ellesmere Port, at what is commonly known as the Vauxhall motor plant, which is now owned by Stellantis. A lot of work was put in to secure the investment needed to move to electric vehicle production, which is very important for the plant, for the constituency and for the whole UK automotive sector.
I had hoped that we could lead the way in the sale of new electric vehicles, as the plan was always to expand from where we are now—from the production of vans into the domestic car market—so it is a concern that the owners are already turning to cheaper Chinese electric vehicles. It is too soon to understand the impact of that on domestic production, but surely it is not going to help. That is not to say that I want to insulate the UK from competition, but there has to be fair competition, and there has to be one eye on the future.
There is no doubt that the move to an all-electric vehicle country is going to be expensive and we should be looking at how we keep costs down, but if major manufacturers are already concluding that the best way for them to meet that challenge is to turn to Chinese imports, we are never going to have the domestic manufacturing capacity to meet domestic demand, never mind being able to continue to be the proud exporter to the rest of the world that we have always been.
As we have heard, yesterday President Biden announced he was introducing a 100% tariff on electric vehicles made in China, as well as tariffs on lithium batteries, critical minerals and semiconductors. That is a move designed to prevent cheap, subsidised Chinese goods from entering the US market. The decision was taken after a four-year review, and there are similar moves across the EU to assess the impact of Chinese imports. Since October, the EU has been investigating whether local subsidies have been helping Chinese car manufacturers undercut European-made vehicles. The investigation is due to report shortly.
I am not aware of a similar review being undertaken here. It was reported in February that the Government were contemplating commissioning the Trade Remedies Authority to undertake an investigation into subsidies, but three months on we have silence. Is the Minister able to confirm whether the Government are still looking into that and whether they will look at what the EU says if conclusive evidence of subsidies is found? We risk putting ourselves in a very exposed position. Our manufacturing capacity would be reduced, probably permanently, and we would be kidding ourselves about the race to net zero if we were reliant on Chinese imports.
Cars are just one example of our potential exposure; steel, energy, fibre optics, semiconductors, rare elements or any number of parts of our infrastructure are part of this discussion. We cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of one country, especially not one like China, which has what I would consider to be a ruthless focus on economic dominance. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that could lead us into a very dark place indeed.
Clearly, we benefit from Chinese investment in this country. Life sciences is a sector that it is investing in heavily. After what the hon. Member has said, that needs to be looked at very carefully as well. The fact is that I could go down any street in this country and see things that have Chinese ownership: pubs, shops, restaurants, cinemas. That is probably fair enough in a global economy, but what about water companies, energy companies and nuclear power plants? I wonder how we have managed to get to the point at which our critical infrastructure is so open to influence by Chinese investors. How have we got to the point where China is a part owner in Thames Water and has significant debts to at least two Chinese state-owned banks? I think we can all see where that might lead us if international tensions rise.
Away from manufacturing, as the hon. Member mentioned, issues in cyber-security have been well documented. Indeed, there was a debate here yesterday on the dangers of social media. I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member said about the differences between TikTok and its Chinese equivalent, Douyin. From a child’s perspective, in China it certainly has a lot more educational content. In 2021 the Chinese Government enacted a law that called for the
“creation and broadcast of online content conducive to the healthy growth of minors”.
That can of course be seen as part of the wider attitude to free speech in China, but it is of interest that they obviously see that some of the content on these channels might have a detrimental effect on a child’s development, but they are more than happy for that stuff to be pumped on to our own children’s screens.
Neil Coyle
When my hon. Friend says “they”, he is talking about the Chinese Government. Does he welcome the distinction that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made at the start of the debate between the Government of China and the people? As someone who lived in China for two years, may I make a personal statement?
(The Member continued in Mandarin.)
For those who do not know any Mandarin—I appreciate that mine is rusty—that translates as: “I like the country and I like the people. It is the Government who have caused the concerns that are the focus of the debate today. It is the politicians and the political leadership of China that is the challenge.”
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a very important point—the bits of it that I actually understood. He must have seen my speech because I am about to make the very important distinction—
Justin Madders
Not in Mandarin, no—in English. There is a very important distinction that we would all make between the Chinese people and the CCP. There is no doubt that the CCP is the malign influence in all this.
On the question of social media, there is a concern that there may be an imbalance between what we see in this country and what is seen in China, and there may be deliberate reasons for that. We should certainly look at that and at the dangerous anti-western, conspiracy theory, democracy-undermining stuff that comes out from all around the world, and in particular from China.
I echo the comments made by the director general of MI5 in 2022. He said that it would be wrong for us to cut ourselves off from one fifth of the world’s population, and that we should continue to engage and work with China in a way that is consistent with our national security. But I do not think we have the balance right. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that balance will be consistently and constantly reviewed. We need greater international resilience to international incidents. The analogy with what happened in Russia is very important, because that is a real threat that we could face in the next few years, and we do not want to leave ourselves overexposed.
As has been said, many western countries have begun to understand the risks that we face, have taken action against firms such as Huawei, and have limited the use of such technologies in sensitive and critical infrastructure. In that context, questions must now be raised about our reliance on supply chains that are controlled by China and have such a huge impact on our infrastructure.
It is clear that China holds a dominant position over global supply chains that are critical to the net zero transition. It controls a significant proportion of the rare metals necessary for lithium-ion batteries, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic modules. On the lithium-ion battery chains, China is responsible for 80% of the supply of spherical graphite, refined manganese, anodes and electrolytes, so we clearly need a co-ordinated response to that.
It feels as though we are at a very important point in global politics. We must work across the globe to deal with the many challenges that the planet faces, while at the same time protecting our national security and long-term economic interests. Taking a cautious and proactive approach to risks is central to protecting our country and its citizens. I believe that the way we approach China will be a central feature of our lives for many years to come. On every occasion that we deal with it, the question of security, economic or otherwise, must be the very first thing we ask.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can speak for eight or nine minutes, we will get everyone in.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), I have not prepared a very thorough speech, but I am glad that he has brought this important topic to Westminster Hall.
(The Member continued in Mandarin.)
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle)—I am not sure how to say that in Chinese—speaks fantastic Mandarin Chinese and is a living manifestation of what our aspirations should be for the country. More people should study Mandarin Chinese. That was in the integrated review, and we have talked about it for years on end, but we need more diplomats in the Foreign Office and people across the whole of Whitehall who can not only speak Mandarin Chinese, but engage with China. Many experts have in the past talked about the plus one: no matter what field someone is working in these days—they may be a biological scientist of some sort, an accountant or a Government official—that should be the substantive part that they own, and then the Chinese understanding is the icing on the cake.
I do not want to step on the toes of the Deputy Foreign Secretary, but I will give some of my own thoughts in response to the points that colleagues made. I was based in the People’s Republic of China for about 13 years —I worked in the Foreign Office and was based in Shanghai. I have studied China for about 20 years, and I know less about it today than I did 20 years ago, but I will try my best.
I worry sometimes about the overall tone or mood of a lot of these debates about China over the past four and half years—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will be very perceptive of this—because whether we are sat in the United Kingdom, the United States or elsewhere in the west, it feels completely driven by fear and by that sense of threat. That makes me a little worried, in that that strikes as us being reticent and not having confidence in what we have to offer ideologically or in our system. Implicitly, in the 1980s, we did not really care about China, because it was not competition for us, but today we care about it and talk about it every day, in every single debate, which unfortunately might give a signal to others in the world and, indeed, to China that it perhaps does have the upper hand in many different forms of engagement, whether that is business, commercial, political or diplomatic, among other things.
That soul searching part is incredibly important for us, because this should not just be about asking what our China policy or strategy is. Rather, this is about the UK: what is our identity? What is our place in the world? What are our priorities? And then, it is about having everything else flow from that, because at the end of the day, China is just one country out of 200. It is a very important country: it is a United Nations Security Council member and the second biggest economy in the world, it has a population of 1.4 billion and it had great GDP growth rates, in the double figures for many numbers of years. When the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and I were there, it was experiencing 13% or 14% GDP growth rates every year, but that has ended. China is in a very different economic climate now, especially over the past couple of years.
The question I often ask myself is not what our China policy is, but what do the Chinese think of us? What is China’s UK strategy? What is China’s UK policy? I am never really sure of the answer. Again, I am conscious of different friends in our audience who have been long-time China watchers, but I have always felt, in the years of being based there—even working in diplomacy and coming into contact with party secretaries, mayors and those from the politburo from time to time—and to this day, that it has felt like an invisible hand. So I am always perplexed when people speak with great authority about the Communist party of China, because it is just so invisible. I often wonder where that intel and knowledge about the CPC come from.
There is another thing about some of the points that were raised, and this can be really difficult. Obviously, we do not want to play into China’s political rhetoric, but we often talk about the disaggregation between the people of China and the Communist party of China, and although I know that this stat has been overused over the past number of years, there is a certain amount of truth in it: in 2020, when the Ash Centre in Harvard researched levels of approval for the Communist party of China or the central Government in China, their approval ratings were sitting at about 95%. I know that everyone will come back to say, “That cannot be true,” but my feeling—my sense from being there for more than a decade—was that very rarely did people complain about the national leadership. Usually, complaints were about local government at the village level, or the municipal or provincial level, but rarely were there complaints against the national Government. It would be interesting to see an updated poll, because that research was from 2020, just before covid struck, and China has had a lot more difficulties politically and economically since, especially in the past couple of years. I would be very interested to see polling on that.
On Monday, when we were at Policy Exchange, the Prime Minister made an incredibly interesting speech. I was struck by these ideas of securitisation and of entering into a world over the next five to 10 years that is potentially more dangerous than the one that we have lived in in recent decades. Another slight concern from my end—not necessarily vis-à-vis the Prime Minister—was something I wrote about in the South China Morning Post about three years ago, and that is this idea of liberalisation, or ideas of liberalism, in the international system. We have often talked about how, with economic engagement, China would become more like the west, but it seems that we have given up on that for the most part in recent years. My contention, however—this is very provocative, but I ask it every single time in this kind of debate—is this: is it China becoming more like the west, or is the west starting to copy things from China’s handbook when it comes to banning things?
Those linked to the Policy Exchange think-tank are very clear and intent on banning TikTok in the United Kingdom, but my worry is that that is driven by fear, by this idea of threat. What is more important than politics and regulation, however, is being innovative. It is about saying to ourselves in the UK, “Can we come up with a company that can outstrip the American tech companies and do better than TikTok has done? Or will we become like the European Union and just think we can regulate our way into a successful future?” I do not think that is possible. The Chancellor recently stated that he is keen for us to have “a British Microsoft”, and I absolutely agree with that sentiment and that positivity.
Bob Seely
I am sorry, but I take issue with the point about fear. I think it is about understanding and not about fear. On the TikTok issue alone, my hon. Friend is talking about a fear of TikTok. Does he think that, actually, it is about TikTok having one set of values for Chinese kids and another for everything else? In other words, it has nothing to do with fear but it has something to do with protecting children.
Mark Logan
I am not here to defend TikTok. I do use TikTok, as do many of our colleagues, including some high-profile Ministers in the Cabinet. That is not what this is about. Some of this has to do with education as well, and I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. Again, I was based in China. I have a daughter in the education system and, going into primary school level in China, there is a lot in the education system that is focused on the harder aspects of education: learning the sciences, mathematics and physics. I think that that can be reflected in the social media that is used there, by the case of Douyin.
Neil Coyle
I intervene not to discuss mutual family that we have still living in the People’s Republic of China, but on the hon. Gentleman’s point about polling, can he focus a little on what the punishment might be for someone suggesting that they are dissatisfied with where the Chinese Government are at? I also mention the corruption and local-level issues. But fundamentally, a much more important issue for us here, where we still have responsibility, is polling within Hong Kong specifically and the Government’s responsibility to Hong Kong nationals and those seeking British national overseas status. Might we see further measures to support those people in the face of article 23 extensions of the diminution of rights in Hong Kong?
Mark Logan
The hon. Member raises a fantastic point explicitly on Hong Kong. What has happened in Hong Kong in recent years is unfortunate. I think it is a strategic mistake in terms of the governance of Hong Kong, so I hope the Deputy Foreign Secretary comes to that.
I will finish by saying that for us, it is about the whole idea of soul searching and asking what the UK’s role in the world is and how we can slightly push back against the tone. We do not want to push China into the arms of the axis of authoritarian regimes, as we talked about, because there are many things the Chinese people care about that show their values are very similar to ours. It is not just the paranoia of 200,000 Chinese students in the UK who are all doing these bad things; actually, it shows a society that is striving to do better, and those are values that we share and hold dearly in this country as well.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I really enjoyed the Mandarin, but we are supposed to use English in debates. If I lapse into Welsh, please forgive me now.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am grateful for that guidance, Ms Rees. You will find no attempt at Mandarin, Welsh or anything else in my remarks this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate. He is a good friend with whom I was privileged to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The only thing wrong is that we do not have longer or, indeed, more hon. Members taking part. We would not know from the acres of empty green seats that surround us that this is the defining challenge of our time, which is too often thought of as a complicated and faraway foreign policy issue, when in actual fact the challenge of China is where domestic and foreign policy are so intertwined.
This is an issue of foreign policy and of domestic policy that manifests itself in many different policy areas and it is of concern to people up and down the UK, whether in Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Edinburgh, Cardiff, London, the Isle of Wight or wherever. It is indeed a domestic issue as much as a foreign policy issue. The nature of the challenge that China presents manifests itself right across a whole sphere of policy areas, many of which have been mentioned. It is an economic challenge, a security challenge and a technology challenge. It is a challenge to our democratic values, our open society and way of life, our energy security and our national resilience.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight described too much of the Government’s approach as “piecemeal”, and I believe we would be wrong to try to compartmentalise any response to that challenge into individual policy areas. The challenge that China presents us with is so complex that I do not believe it can ever really be won or lost; it needs to be constantly revisited.
Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), could anyone imagine our having this debate 12 to 15 years ago, at the height of the so-called golden era of relations? I rather think not. China will constantly evolve and produce new challenges. There will also be new opportunities and a whole tonne—a whole series—of contradictions in between. The pace of change we have seen since the golden era speaks to that.
I want to do something that Members will expect me to do: the Scotland bit of the debate, or indeed the devolution bit. It is good to have a Welsh Member of Parliament in the Chair, Ms Rees, and you will, I am sure, well understand some of these remarks. Devolution is well understood in Beijing, probably better understood than it is by most Members of this House. My goodness, do they have a strategy to deal with the fact that huge swathes of financial and legislative power sit not here in London but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Do the UK Government or any of the devolved Governments have a strategy to deal with that? No, none of them do.
I want to focus on three Es: exports, education and energy. If we do the good bit first, as far as Scotland is concerned that is exports. Scotland’s exports to China stand at about £800 million, the exact same as our exports to Norway and Singapore. It is a relatively healthy position for Scotland to be in. That figure is from 2023, the year of the integrated review refresh in which China is written up as an “epoch-defining challenge” and the year of the major speech from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling on countries to de-risk their exports to China. I would argue that Scotland is already in that place and has a healthy level of exports.
When it comes to education and energy, there is a massive risk surface that no Government of any stripe should be content with. The risk of universities being dependent on Chinese funding is far higher in Scottish universities than in universities anywhere else in the UK. Bear in mind, education is entirely devolved. No Minister across the road can do a single thing about education policy in Scotland. The University of Glasgow gets 42% of its fee income from students from China. It would be a problem if 42% of the fee income came from students from France, but we are dealing with a very different issue with China. That is not to say that Chinese students are not welcome in the University of Glasgow or in universities anywhere else across the UK, because they absolutely are, but why have we allowed these fine institutions of higher education to create massive surfaces of risk that would not stand the test of any kind of geopolitical shock—a shock in the strait of Taiwan, for example?
In February of this year, the Scottish Government produced their international education strategy, which says that they wish to diversify the “international student population”. There is at least an understanding that there is an issue and a problem. What there is not, I am sorry to say, is a strategy to turn that around. There is no strategy of working with higher education institutes, industry and others to globalise the international student population that exists in Scotland.
If we look at research funding, £12 million has flown into UK universities from bodies with links to, for example, the repression of Uyghurs, espionage, cyber-hacking and much else. The Government know about that problem, but they dare not speak about it, never mind have a strategy to deal with it.
Then there is energy. I am sure that the Deputy Foreign Secretary will know about my recent problems, for example, with Minyang Smart Energy building the largest European turbine manufacturing project in Scotland. How on earth is it in the UK or Scotland’s interests to put such a critical part of our national energy infrastructure into the hands of an entity from a hostile foreign power just weeks after the Norwegian Government declined the same entity, and in the same month that the European Commission started its anti-trust investigation into unfair competition practices by Chinese turbine manufacturers?
To summarise, the point I make to the Deputy Foreign Secretary this afternoon is that devolution is a back door for hostile foreign states. That is well understood in the Chinese consulates in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. I am not looking for Ministers in London to override anybody in the other capitals of the UK. I want a joined-up strategy between devolved Government and state-level Government to help us de-risk key parts of our economy and infrastructure and ensure that we are not overly dependent on a foreign power that is hostile to our values and way of life, and certainly does not have our national interests in mind as far as energy security, education or much else are concerned. My appeal to the Deputy Foreign Secretary is to understand that and work with Ministers in Edinburgh and elsewhere to start to unpick those dependencies, diversify our institutions and ensure that the risk is being driven down.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will call the Opposition spokespersons at 3.28 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing it. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) referred to how it would be great if China became more westernised—I must say it, but my goodness. I will explain why it is not more westernised, and why China does not fit into that category and never will. Its human rights abuses and persecution of those with religious views are enormous, and in the short time that I have I will categorise them.
Countless human rights violations have been committed by China. Religious freedom for Tibetan Buddhists is a special concern of mine, and I continue to raise my voice on those issues. My efforts to call out China for its deplorable actions, which threaten the basic rights of those within its borders and across the world, have led the Chinese Communist party to sanction me as it has sanctioned others. As the hon. Member for Bolton North East said, China could become more westernised. Well, I will tell them what: start thinking like we do in the western world, where we understand human rights and the right to religious belief. We understand the right to be friends of others and not to suppress people. That is what British values are, and the Deputy Foreign Secretary will respond to that. No threats will deter me or others from speaking up about human rights in China and elsewhere.
The relationship between China and the UK is in a precarious state. Our Government seek to mend relations with China to increase trade and investment between the two countries. I know that the Deputy Foreign Secretary will summarise some of those things, but we need to collaborate on common goals, be it economic prosperity, global security or environmental protection. However, China must accept the issue of the right for us and other people to have human rights, and we must not allow our economic interests to overrule our moral obligation to protect the rule of law and human rights. It is widely recognised that China’s aggressive actions violate the human rights of Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Christians and Falun Gong and threaten the status of Hong Kong and Taiwan. A western country! My goodness. It has a long way to go to catch up.
I must note that those of us in the UK are not removed from the threat of Chinese influence. The Prime Minister remarked that China poses a
“particular threat to our open and democratic way of life”.
Let us start listening to the evidential base. China’s influence warrants our engagement with this growing power, but our security and that of our allies, along with the protection of human rights, must be cornerstones of our foreign policy on China.
Recent threats to Taiwan’s status from China have significantly escalated tensions in the Taiwan strait and the South China sea. Taiwan’s democracy and freedom are in danger, as well as the stability of the wider region. The UK and Taiwan share a thriving £8 billion trade and investment relationship. Taiwan’s economy is vital for the success of the technology supply chain that drives our global digital economy. Protecting Taiwan and our relationship with them is in the UK’s and the world’s economic interests. Hong Kong has experienced a severe escalation of restrictions on people’s freedoms imposed by China within the last decade. Earlier this year, a new security law took effect in Hong Kong—a law that severely restricts freedom of expression and other human rights of those in Hong Kong.
We know that freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief are inextricably intertwined. While religious communities supposedly have the right to conduct religious activities in Hong Kong, we know that it will not be too long before freedom of religion or belief will fall alongside the rest of human rights in Hong Kong, as China has shown that it is not interested in being a western power or even in being influenced by western moral standards. Benedict Rogers, the CEO of Hong Kong Watch, is in the Gallery today, and his work in promoting freedom in the country is quite commendable. He remarked that
“repression in Hong Kong would be dangerous to us all”
—and so it would.
China’s activities extend far beyond the borders of south-east Asia; China has recently increased its influence in Africa and other parts of the world. I want to be very clear on this point: China suppresses human rights to such an extent that, should its influence continue to expand, the freedom and security of billions of people across the world would be in peril, and their human rights and right to religious belief would be severely affected. Why is that? China has an insatiable appetite for anything else that anybody has. When it is going across Africa, it is marking down where it can get minerals, have influence and take and use whatever that country has.
Appeasing or ignoring actions by authoritarian states for the sake of trade and investment will only lead to the escalation of these actions. It is indisputable that China regularly violates article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which it has signed. We must stand firm in our values and our morals that guide our actions in creating a world where international law is upheld and human rights are protected. The hostility and aggression of Chinese actions call for us to stand together with greater courage, strength and determination to protect human rights and religious freedom.
I ask the Minister and the Government. along with the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), to pay particular heed to China’s violations of human rights and religious persecution not only within its borders, but across the world as they consider their foreign policy on China.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, for this important and extremely timely debate on the UK Government’s approach to China.
As everyone has, I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing the debate, and thank all those who have taken part in a wide-ranging, well-informed and bilingual debate. It has highlighted many of the concerns we must consider, including China’s belt and road initiative; the well-documented mistreatment of religious and ethnic minorities; the use of the national security laws in Hong Kong; the future of Taiwan; Chinese multilateralism, particularly given the emergence of BRICs; the inherent dangers in the development of the internet of things; and the challenges that we face with the CCP activities in monitoring both their own people and pro-democracy Hong Kong activists here in the UK. There are many and varied concerns, and I hope the Minister can address as many of them as possible, but it is not possible to address the problems and challenges posed by China in one Westminster Hall debate.
We all recognise that in a relatively short time China has become one of the most politically and economically powerful countries in the world. There is now barely a country that is not either in hock to China financially or desperately trying to defend its economic interests from China. When the UK Government consider the future of their economic and political relationship with China, it is essential that securing trade and business links with Beijing does not come at the cost of our obligation to defend international human rights. Furthermore, we must not compromise national security in pursuit of the yen.
The political and economic reach of China is astonishing. Beijing’s phenomenally successful global infrastructure project, the belt and road initiative, has seen China invest in almost 150 countries. Those countries account for around two thirds of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. Massive investment in links by road, rail, sea and digital infrastructure have transformed the relationship that those participating nations have with Beijing, making them increasingly dependent on the Chinese economy and, as a result, building in both economic and political influence for China.
Indebtedness, mainly among developing nations in the global south that have accepted such investment through the belt and road initiative, now stands at an eye-watering $1 trillion. Lord Alton of Liverpool said:
“This has made them extraordinarily subservient and often into vassal states that do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 675.]
That is particularly problematic not just because of the massive level of indebtedness these countries are accruing, but because they are becoming indebted to a country that has shown itself so often not to care for the rules-based order on which we all depend or for the fundamental human rights of their religious or cultural minorities.
But let us be very careful before we condemn others for turning a blind eye to Chinese human rights abuses in pursuit of investment. The UK’s hands are far from spotless on this matter. Time and again we pay lip service to criticising Chinese human rights abuses without doing anything that may incur any economic cost for ourselves.
Nury Turkel, the Uyghur-American lawyer and the commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, has directly challenged countries such as the UK, asking, “How do you propose to get China to change without going after the most important thing to the Chinese Government, which is their economic interest?” Whether the Minister likes it or not, it is an inescapable fact that, as long as we pay little more than lip service to condemning China’s human rights abuses and continue to trade in goods that we know are, at the very least, highly suspected of being made by Uyghur slave labour, we really do not have a moral high ground from which to lecture others.
For example, last month the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), secured an Adjournment debate on solar supply chains, in which she made it clear that, by lagging behind the US and the European Union in ensuring that Chinese solar panels that come to the UK are not produced by Uyghur slave labour, the UK was in real danger of becoming a dumping ground for what she described as “dirty solar”.
This is not a new issue for the Government. Just over two years ago I introduced a Bill that would have prohibited any goods made by forced labour in the Xinjiang region. It would have required all companies that import products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that they were not manufactured by forced or enslaved labour. The Bill would have brought the UK into line with the United States, which passed a similar law in 2021. So there have been opportunities to act, but thus far the UK Government have chosen not to. That is why, Minister, there is a growing perception that this Government are just paying lip service on Chinese human rights abuses without doing anything practical or tangible.
I recall a similar debate in 2020. The UK Government Minister’s reply then was that the Government would
“continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang and respect international human rights,”
but four years on there is no evidence whatever that that approach has worked, and it is clear that China has not paid the slightest heed to what the UK Government or anyone else have to say about its human rights record.
It is not just the Uyghurs whose human rights have been trampled over. Last week, at a surgery on the Isle of Bute, I met my constituent Mary Clark, who is a Falun Gong practitioner. She reminded me that it is five years since the China tribunal led by Sir Geoffrey Nice found that the Falun Gong practitioners in China were being subjected to the most awful crimes, including the unspeakably horrific practice of organ harvesting. That is truly a crime against humanity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and unambiguous verdict of the tribunal, the response that was demanded of Governments and other international actors simply did not follow.
Not even after the 2021 report from the UN on freedom of religion or belief, which provided clear evidence of such abhorrent practices, did the international community take any action against China. Thankfully, we are reminded at every opportunity by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right, and as part of the international community we have a responsibility to protect it.
In short, we talk a good game but we never deliver. Decades of harsh condemnation, despite urging and impassioned persuasion, have failed to shift China one iota. It seems that not even the tearing up of a legally binding international agreement and a slew of broken promises made to the people of Hong Kong can stir the UK into much more than finger wagging, tut-tutting and headshaking.
The speed at which Beijing has stripped away the basic freedoms of expression and peaceful protest, and has extinguished Hong Kong’s independent free press—turning it from being one of the most open cities in Asia to one of the most repressive—should alarm every one of us. The use of the draconian national security law to crack down on pro-democracy campaigners, including Jimmy Lai, who is still on trial, is an absolute disgrace and a shame on this country. If that does not motivate the UK to take a more robust attitude to Beijing, we have to conclude that perhaps nothing will.
We are not naive enough to believe that the UK could stand up to the economic might of China by itself. But sadly, all too often, when presented with the opportunity to act in concert with friends and allies, the UK Government have chosen not to.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I was going to begin by saying that I thought I was one of the few Members of this House who had lived in China and spoke Mandarin, but I see that others have turned out in great numbers, including the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). Many of us taught English to begin with, as I did in Nanjing in the 1990s. All of us agree that the Chinese people gave us enormous amounts of hospitality, and a warm and friendly experience, and showed so much pride in a 5,000-year-old civilisation, a passion to modernise China, and a desire to provide for more Chinese people to no longer live in poverty.
As the years have gone by, the tone coming from the Chinese Government has changed. Undoubtedly, 30 years of economic progress has catapulted China to become the world’s second largest economy by some measure, with a newly enriched middle class enjoying lives a world away from most Chinese people in the 1980s. However, the more authoritarian and even belligerent look and feel to foreign relations has increasingly caused us to be concerned about the risk to a rules-based international order.
In Hong Kong, the rule of law, under which its economy and society flourished for generations, has been worn down, and journalists such as Jimmy Lai—who has already been mentioned—continue to be detained on politically motivated charges. Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers have fled for a better life overseas, with less repression and more freedoms. I pay tribute to the cross-party group Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a founder; I declare an interest—and to the well-known campaigner Ben Rogers, who is a great stalwart for that campaign. I know that he enjoys the respect of all Members of the House.
In Xinjiang, which has been mentioned in the debate, the Uyghur minority are subjected to brutal repression and horrific human rights abuses, including wholesale attempts to eliminate their culture and religion. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is quite right to emphasise the importance of freedom of religion or belief in anything that we talk about in relation to foreign policy.
In the South China sea—I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has a background in defence—Chinese vessels and aircraft repeatedly test the boundaries of international law, destabilising regional security and threatening some of the world’s most important shipping lanes. Of course, the increasing military activity in the Taiwan strait, particularly in the last three years, is troubling many of us.
No foreign policy question is more fundamental than how the west manages its relationship with China in the years ahead, and it is obvious, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said at the start of the debate, that that starts with our multilateral approach and friends in the US and, of course, in Australia and down in that part of the world. It goes to the question of identity and closed and open societies. For the UK, as a UN Security Council permanent member and a G20 partner, that is particularly the case, and it is a question that we must address head-on, with seriousness, consistency and rigour. But it is a question that is rightly linked to our wider approach to the Indo-Pacific. We cannot have a sustained and serious approach to China without having a wider-ranging British approach to the Indo-Pacific. Without a doubt, the AUKUS relationship with the US and Australia is at the cornerstone of that regional approach.
Labour is of course committed to further strengthening our co-operation with the US and Australia in the Indo-Pacific through AUKUS and particularly through delivery of the second pillar of the agreement. We are equally committed to deepening our increasingly close relationships with ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—through our trade arrangements there, and with Japan and South Korea. We welcome the moves that have been made in that regard over the past few years, but that work must be encased within a wider and more sustained strategy towards the region as a whole, including China.
Sadly, for most of the past 14 years the UK Government’s approach has basically been the opposite to what we need, which is stability and predictability. We have lurched 180 degrees from embracing a “golden era” of bilateral relations and having a pint down the pub with Xi Jinping under the then Prime Minister, who is now Foreign Secretary; indeed, some of the questions as to his financial arrangements prior to his becoming Foreign Secretary also bring questions to this debate. This is simply not good enough. China thinks in generational terms, and we require a foreign policy that is capable of considering the bilateral relationship over a far longer timeframe and that aims above all for consistency.
Earlier this year, I travelled to Beijing as part of a cross-party delegation and met senior members of the Chinese leadership, having been approached to do by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I made it clear that Labour would pursue a more sustainable and coherent relationship. Such a relationship must begin with addressing our concerns about national security and standing up for our principles on human rights, but it must also set out avenues for co-operation, both bilaterally and within the multilateral system, and allow our country’s businesses to have the certainty and stability to make the long-term investment decisions that they deserve. The shadow Foreign Secretary has been clear that that relationship will be centred on a framework to “challenge, compete and co-operate” with China, which we will develop through a comprehensive and long-overdue audit of the bilateral relationship—an element mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
However, even in advance of the audit, some of the changes that we need to see are obvious, and I hope that the Minister will have some answers for us today. He will be aware that the issue of the threat posed to Hongkongers has been raised many times in the House. Indeed, just this week Amnesty International has brought out a report called “On my campus, I am afraid”. I wonder what recommendations on a cross-Government approach to that issue the Minister will take back to the Government.
In addition to that, we have an excellent question from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) about whether there has been a back door that gives access to various projects that could have national security implications, through devolved nations. Furthermore, what is the industrial strategy on which the Government are deciding on important projects such as the new electric vehicles being sold at Ellesmere Port, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke so eloquently? He knows his patch so well and stands up for not just his workforce but the businesses there, as well as for the importance of a vibrant operation in the north-west, with own vehicles, which of course involves international collaboration but it is not dominated by another party. Will the Minister speak to that important question of an industrial strategy?
There are so many challenges here, but it is in our national interest to have a cohesive and comprehensive approach to our relationship with China, addressing the most complex of countries and relationships in their entirety. The issues at stake go to the heart of our security and prosperity, and we cannot just muddle along as we have been. Labour will have a new approach. We will do our audit. We will be clear-eyed, consistent, and guided, above all, by the national interest.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Will the Minister leave a couple of minutes at the end of his speech so that Bob Seely can wind up?
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to appear under your skilled chairship this afternoon, Ms Rees. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his advocacy for the people of Hong Kong through the all-party group. He is an expert in the area that we are addressing this afternoon, and I particularly wanted to listen to him and respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. He speaks with both knowledge and understanding, and the House always listens to what he says with very great attention and respect. This afternoon, we have seen why, from his thoughtful and interesting contribution.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions but started by making it clear that the relationship with China is far more complex than the relationship with Russia. In anything one does with international development, one sees how very true that is. He also spoke about dumping, as indeed did the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I want to make a couple of comments about that. Having left the European Union, the UK has numerous trade remedy measures in place to protect against practices that have an adverse effect on the UK’s prosperity and security. We will always respond vigorously to unfair trading practices wherever they occur by working with the Trade Remedies Authority to protect the UK’s interests. We would encourage UK industry to apply to the independent Trade Remedies Authority if it has concerns, and we always stand ready to look at any recommendations that the TRA provides. More broadly, Britain has three active trade remedy investigations into Chinese products at the moment, and an additional 12 reviews of existing measures on Chinese exports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked me about genomic research, and if he will allow me, I would like to think about that and write to him in response to his question. He also raised the issue of fentanyl. We recognise the importance of the fentanyl issue to the United States, and we welcome the US-China dialogue on that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston warned of the need for vigilance, and he made a number of extremely important comments in that respect. He also, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), underlined the difference between the CCP and the Chinese people. He also made some very important points about supply chains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) spoke with profound and detailed knowledge. I was not sure whether he is a gamekeeper turned poacher, or a poacher turned gamekeeper, but his comments were both informed and extremely interesting. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) spoke about exports, education and energy, and he expressed a number of interesting thoughts on devolution and dependency on which I will reflect, if I may. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke up, as he always does, for the importance of human rights, and he urged that we should not allow economic interests to override our moral obligations. He spoke about freedom of religious belief. I will come on to that, but we are very grateful for what he said. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) discussed a number of different aspects of the wide issues we are discussing. As I hope to show, his suggestion that we are merely paying lip service to these vital issues is simply not correct.
I turn finally to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), whose expertise in this area, as another China expert, I discovered to my humility. I thank her for her remarks on Ben Rogers, with which I think the House will widely agree. The hon. Lady chides us for the changes in our stance over the last 14 years in government, but I put it to her that as the circumstances and facts on the grounds have changed, so too have our policies and our approach.
China is a major global actor with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It has an impact on almost every global issue of importance to the UK, and therefore no significant global problem can be solved without China. We must engage with Beijing on issues affecting us all. The Government recognise the epoch-defining challenge presented by China under the CCP, and our response and approach are based on three key pillars. This House will be familiar with these pillars, but I hope Members will allow me very briefly to set them out to frame my response on the issues that have been raised.
The first is about protecting our national security through key measures. I refer specifically to the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and enhanced export controls. Secondly, we have deepened co-operation with our allies and partners, including where China undermines regional peace and stability in the South China sea, and sanctioning Chinese companies providing dual-use goods to Russia. We join our allies and partners to call out China’s human rights violations. Thirdly, we engage with China where it is in our interest to do so: on global challenges such as climate and artificial intelligence, through, for instance, the AI safety summit.
If Members will allow me, I will reflect on some of the specific issues that have been raised in a little more detail, beginning with national security, which is our top priority in engagement with China. I am sure they will understand that I cannot comment on cases that are before the courts. However, we make our concerns clear. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador to the Foreign Office, and we were unequivocal in setting out that the recent pattern of behaviour directed by China against Britain, including cyber-attacks, reports of espionage links and the issue of bounties, is simply unacceptable.
Turning to cyber-security, the House will be aware that we have attributed cyber-attacks to Chinese actors and imposed sanctions against those who are responsible. The Foreign Secretary has raised this directly with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and the Government have ordered the removal of Huawei from the 5G networks. Our wider work to bolster our national security includes establishing the defending democracy taskforce in 2022 and passing the National Security Act in 2023.
On human rights, it is, of course, a matter of great concern that the Chinese people are facing growing restrictions on fundamental freedoms and that the Chinese authorities continue to commit widespread human rights violations. Those include severe constraints on media freedom and freedom of religion or belief, repression of culture and language in Tibet and systematic violations in Xinjiang. The UK continues to lead international efforts to address China’s human rights record.
Catherine West
I know the Minister is trying to fit a lot in. Just before discussing human rights, he talked about the difficult decisions regarding industry that affect our national security. Could he respond to something mentioned in the debate, which was the financial involvement in Thames Water and nuclear power plants? If not, would he write to the Members present to go into more detail, if that is more appropriate?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the option; I will either come on to those issues, or I will write.
By imposing the national security law in 2020, China has stifled opposition in Hong Kong and criminalised dissent. Mr Jimmy Lai and others are being deliberately targeted to silence criticism under the guise of national security. The new Safeguarding National Security Ordinance will further damage the rights and freedoms enjoyed in the city. We took swift and decisive action, including suspending our extradition treaty indefinitely and extending the arms embargo applied to mainland China since 1989 to include Hong Kong. We also introduced a British National (Overseas) immigration path, granting over 191,000 visas to date.
During her recent visit to mainland China and Hong Kong, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), met Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Deng Li in Beijing and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Christopher Hui in Hong Kong. She made clear the Government’s deep concerns about the situation in Hong Kong.
I would say more about Xinjiang if I had more time, but the point was made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We consistently raise human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities at the highest level.
I will turn briefly to the engagement aspect of our approach, since no global issue can be solved without China. As I have mentioned, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific visited China and Hong Kong last month. She encouraged China to use its influence to avert further escalation in the middle east and urged Russia to end its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ministers discussed areas of mutual co-operation, including AI safety and trade. My right hon. Friend underscored our concerns about China’s human rights record and interference in our democratic institutions. She also urged China to lift sanctions on UK parliamentarians and British nationals—something about which the House has been rightly outraged.
In February, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Chinese counterpart at the Munich security conference. He urged China to use its influence on Iran to pressure the Houthis over their actions in the Red sea. He further stressed that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine threatens the rules-based international system, which is designed to keep us all safe.
The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s position on human rights and particularly mentioned Xinjiang and Hong Kong. He also raised the case of British parliamentarians sanctioned by China and reiterated his call for the release of the British national, Jimmy Lai.
I am glad of the opportunity to outline our position today. I thank my hon. Friends for their thoughtful contributions and all those who have contributed to the debate in what has been an engaging, wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion. It is clear that the challenges posed by China are complex and evolving. We will continue to respond with an approach that protects our national security, aligns with our allies and partners and engages with China where it is in the UK’s interests to do so.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who speaks for the Opposition, asked me specifically about Thames Water and other Chinese investment. As time is short, I will, if I may, write to her in detail on that as soon as I can.
Bob Seely
I thank everyone for attending and I thank you, Ms Rees, for chairing the debate. As the Deputy Foreign Secretary is writing to us on Thames Water, I would be grateful if he mentioned and looked into the Isle of Wight ferries. We were discussing how much China’s investment is, and bizarrely, one of the offshore companies was paying out to the Chinese central bank, so unfortunately it became a partial owner.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on China.
Gypsy and Traveller Sites
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Philip Hollobone to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites.
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I also thank him for visiting Kettering to discuss this issue on 8 February.
The purpose of the debate is to make it clear to the Minister that we need changes to the legislative framework for Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision, unauthorised development, and licensing and management of Gypsy and Traveller sites. It will be frustrating for residents in my constituency that I will not be able to go into detail in this debate about specific local sites, because various forms of planning enforcement and legal action are under way. I will highlight in passing Oakley Park and Peasdale Hill in Middleton in the neighbouring Corby constituency, and sites in my own constituency at Loddington, Broughton, Braybrooke, Stoke Albany and Desborough.
I will also highlight controversy locally over a proposed Traveller stopping site at Rothwell, which is to deal with the slightly separate issue of unauthorised encampments under Home Office provisions. I appreciate that is not the direct responsibility of the Local Government Minister in front of us today. To deal with that one first, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, section 62A allows a senior police officer to direct those in an unauthorised encampment, consisting of at least one vehicle and caravan, to leave land upon which it does not have permission to be, if the local authority can provide a suitable pitch elsewhere in the area. My view is that a senior officer should be able to direct them to leave the local authority area, without the local authority having to provide alternative provision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Over the past number of years as my constituency’s elected representative, I have had to deal with this issue on some occasions, as has the council. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential that local community planning and provision goes hand in hand with the right for Travellers and Gypsies to have the freedom to live as they culturally and historically have done, and that perhaps sensitivity is the best way forward?
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. The Government’s planning policy for Traveller sites sets out national planning policies for Gypsies and Travellers. It states:
“The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community.”
My contention is that fair and equal treatment goes both ways. In my assessment, the current planning policy enables Gypsies and Travellers to develop sites in the countryside that members of the settled community would simply not be able to develop under the same planning regulations. Although the aim of the policy is fair and equal treatment, it actually amounts to preferential treatment for Gypsies and Travellers.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Another unfairness in the planning system is that it penalises those local authority areas that have traditionally provided a large number of pitches. They are having to provide so many more because the duty to co-operate with other local authorities means that those with literally zero pitches do not have to take them on. That needs to be addressed, because the same local authorities are being asked to make all the provision and that is not sustainable.
Mr Hollobone
As always, my right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. There is an unfairness in the system that penalises authorities that stick to the rules. They then find that they have to make even greater provision for more and more Gypsy and Traveller sites.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
First, I should declare an interest as a serving Somerset councillor. Somerset Council, like all local authorities, has the power to take enforcement action where appropriate. However, decisions that were made by the previous, Conservative administration in Somerset have left the county without any appropriate transit sites. Regardless of the intent of the council, the costs involved in developing those transit sites, like any other planning development and homebuilding, are now that much greater. Does the hon. Member agree that local authorities need more provision to take action when necessary?
Mr Hollobone
If the hon. Lady is talking about temporary Traveller stopping sites, I highlighted those in my opening remarks. Under the present law, local authorities are encouraged to provide temporary stopping sites so that Gypsies and Travellers who have temporary unauthorised encampments can be moved out of a local authority area only if such transit provision has been made. I would argue that that should be unnecessary, and that they should be required to move out of the area in any case, just like anyone in the settled community if they were parked up temporarily on somebody else’s land.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded person, so may I suggest to him that the balance actually goes the other way? He might be aware of the case of Smith v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, which was handed down yesterday and granted a declaration of incompatibility under the European convention on human rights. It said that there is a lack of lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers, and unless the Government increase provision, the law as currently drafted will amount to unjustified race discrimination. For example, only eight out of 68 local authorities in the south-east of England have identified the land needed for Gypsies and Travellers in their area. It is the lack of sites that is at the root of the problem, not unfair treatment that benefits Gypsies and Travellers.
Mr Hollobone
As always, the hon. Gentleman and I totally differ on these issues. I would argue that we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights and amend the Human Rights Act 1998, because it is simply absurd that public authorities should be spending millions of pounds to develop stopping sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The pressure on the public purse is already enormous without adding to it.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I am also in complete opposition to the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing views. The reality is that there is disgracefully unjust discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers in planning processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) just touched on yesterday’s High Court ruling about the ECHR. I ask the hon. Member to read the excellent research from Friends, Families and Travellers, which clearly evidences the reluctance and failure of local authorities to ensure that socially rented sites are created, and rightly calls on the Government to reintroduce a statutory duty to ensure that the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers are met.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I totally disagree.
I thank the House of Commons Library for the excellent briefing it published today, ahead of this debate. To put this into context, in July 2023, local authorities counted over 25,000 caravans on Gypsy and Traveller sites in England. That is a 21% increase in the last 10 years. Of those caravans, 26% were on public sites, 60% were on authorised private sites, and 14% were on unauthorised sites. Of the unauthorised sites, most—83%—were on land owned by Gypsies and Travellers, and 17% were unauthorised encampments on land belonging to private landowners or public authorities. The focus of this debate, with particular reference to Kettering and north Northamptonshire, is the 14% of unauthorised sites as well as the abuse of the conditions laid down in the grant of planning permission for authorised, private sites.
Locally in Kettering, North Northamptonshire Council is committed to meeting the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community and addressing the challenges that it faces. A Gypsy and Traveller local plan is in preparation and quarterly meetings occur with interested local parish councils. I praise Councillor David Howes, who is the North Northamptonshire Council portfolio holder for Gypsies and Travellers, and George Candler, who is the deputy chief executive on North Northamptonshire Council, for facilitating those extremely useful meetings, which were positive and focused on providing suitable Gypsy and Traveller provision as well as addressing unauthorised encampments and the unlawful development of sites.
The suggestions I will outline in the next five to 10 minutes have emerged from the meeting that the Minister kindly attended in Kettering on 8 February, which was attended by council officers and representatives from local parish councils. Those suggestions are about how the current law encumbers local planning authorities in effectively enforcing the system.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has touched on a key point. Does he agree that one of the problems is that planning guidance differs so much from local authority to local authority and in how it is applied? For example, City of York Council, which covers my constituency’s planning guidance, has been all over the place recently on the issue. It has looked at expanding existing sites, and when that has not worked it has moved to look at forcing local developers to add one to two pitches for every new development that comes forward. That is opposed by the local Traveller community and local communities, so the policy is just not working. We must find a better way of taking it forward.
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful for that useful intervention, because it is clear that the planning system around Gypsy and Traveller provision has so many holes in it and simply is not working. It is certainly not working for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and it is not working for mine, either.
A commonly seen pattern of behaviour is for Travellers to buy a plot of land, move in over a bank holiday weekend, strip off the topsoil and have a queue of tipper lorries arrive at the site to drop off hardcore. By the end of the weekend, hardstanding is down and caravans occupy the site, with no immediate action to stop them. Legal wrangles then follow through the planning process for perhaps the next three to four years or even longer, with enforcement, planning applications, appeals and so on. Most of the unauthorised developments in my local area deal with Gypsies and Travellers who have purchased the land, so they are not trespassers, and it can be difficult for the local authority to evidence at what point development actually occurred that is sufficient to serve a stop notice. That is particularly problematic in the early stages, when no residential occupation of the land has actually started.
The Minister will be aware that local councils cannot serve a stop notice on the basis of something that may occur but need to be able to confirm a permanent breach of the planning regulations—in other words, when residential occupation has occurred. Of course, once residential occupation has occurred, it is then more difficult to address. As the council is then involved in removing occupants from their home, they claim that they have nowhere else to go. It is not suitable to camp them at the roadside with young children, and it becomes difficult for the local council to dispute. A local authority, quite rightly under the current law—although I think that needs to be amended—must take note of human rights issues, protected characteristics and so on, especially if Travellers are recognised as an ethnic group in law.
In addition, the submission by Travellers of information, planning applications and other procedures are often made only shortly before critical deadlines, thereby further extending the period it takes to progress through the stages of the planning process and creating an extended period for issues to escalate. As a result, progress to a position where an application or enforcement notice can be considered, or an appeal registered, can often take 18 to 24 months or more. It is also well publicised that there is a significant backlog of cases at the Planning Inspectorate. The procedure for taking action against unlawful development is made harder and extended by the current requirements of the law, which bring about sometimes really considerable delays, risks and costs for local authorities.
Changes recently came into effect under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but I am afraid they will not have a dramatic impact on planning enforcement against unauthorised Traveller sites. The Act does not, for example, address the difficulties in establishing the ownership of a site following a land transfer, the identities of the responsible persons on site, or whether the threshold has been met for a planning breach in law. My requests to the Minister include that there be a more simplified approach to discourage and manage the unauthorised development of land for the creation of Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
The process of issuing stop notices and taking enforcement action should be accelerated, as well as the process for requiring information to validate and consider planning applications. There needs to be provision for serving temporary stop notices immediately, before residential occupation has started.
The identification of landowners could be made easier where individuals operate outside the normal exchange of deeds and land registration. For example, why not have a legal requirement to publicly post information about the purchaser of the land at the site until the Land Registry is updated? That would facilitate faster identification of the landowner, and there would be sanctions for failing to display details of ownership.
For those who fail to take seriously compliance with temporary stop notices—this applies to almost all the Gypsy and Traveller sites in my local area—why not make it a criminal offence to fail to comply with a temporary stop notice? The potential for arrest and detention would make the punishment far more of a deterrent and would encourage greater compliance.
Why not make it a criminal offence to create residential accommodation or change the use of property to residential without planning permission? That would encourage the correct use of the planning system in seeking approval before development takes place.
I am afraid that fines are no real deterrent to get Travellers to desist from pursuing unauthorised developments. There needs to be a better process to allow local councils to remove development and consider the seizure of assets where a conviction has been secured and an order of the court obtained.
Why not change the planning regulations to amend permitted development regulations, which currently make the removal of topsoil acceptable? That creates significant local concern and has the potential to destroy the ecological qualities of land, and it undermines the principle of biodiversity net gain, as the biodiversity is removed ahead of an application going in.
Then we have the lack of alignment between the planning system and the caravan licensing regime. A caravan site licence can be issued only if there is planning permission in place. A person does not need to be the landowner to obtain planning permission, but to obtain a caravan licence they need to demonstrate that they own the land. That makes it difficult for licences to be issued to the correct responsible person. We need changes to the law whereby planning permission cannot be granted for a caravan site unless submitted by the owner of the land, or the caravan licence can be issued only to owners who have the required planning consent.
In addition, specific protection should be afforded to landowners, such as farmers, who do not wish for their land to be occupied, and do not wish to sell it but do so due to fear of reprisals. Such landowners may also find themselves subject to licensing enforcement for a site they do not actually manage.
Can we have changes to the fit and proper person test under the Mobile Homes Act 2013 so that site owners, directors and managers must meet the test? Can we have more detailed guidance about how local authorities can enforce those measures?
I thank the Minister for his attention and his officials for liaising with officials at North Northants Council about how such constructive changes to the law could be made. I welcome the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing the debate and for giving us the opportunity, even for just a few short minutes, to talk about these important issues. Most importantly, I thank him and his colleagues for the kindness they showed me when I visited Northamptonshire a couple of months ago to talk about this issue at his invitation. He works closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and I was grateful for the attention, support and explanation given by many of the parish councils in my hon. Friends’ area. They came to the meeting, giving us the opportunity to go through this in the detail it deserves. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for the debate and for that opportunity a couple of months ago to talk about the issue in detail.
As with all issues of planning, I have to put a caveat on the front of my remarks: I am not able to talk about specific local plans, specific local planning applications or, indeed, enforcement action against those planning applications. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, and must therefore reserve comments on any individual application, in case that needs to be exercised. I know that my hon. Friend is not asking me for information, or for my thoughts, on individual applications, but seeking to articulate his concerns about the policy in general, which I will focus on.
This area of policy is obviously sensitive. It has been debated reasonably today, in the short time that we have had, but we can see the contours of a broader debate where people take, legitimately, different views. I will try to choose my words carefully, and it may be that I am not able to go as far as I might otherwise wish to in certain areas, but I hope that it demonstrates that I am engaging in the issue. I will say more when I am able to in future. I should put on the record that I have historical experience in my constituency of challenges in this part of planning policy, so I am aware of it from the perspective of North East Derbyshire.
In essence, we are debating three questions today: first, planning for suitable provision of sites for those in the travelling community; secondly, ensuring that the application process for agreeing those sites is done in a fair, transparent and open manner; and, thirdly, if that is not the case—as is the principle across every policy, intervention, change or action that is done by anyone out there, irrespective of the planning system—and enforcement is to be taken, what is proportionate and reasonable to do.
Andy Slaughter
On that issue of site availability, I recommend the Friends, Families and Travellers report to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), “Kicking the can down the road: The planning and provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites in England 1960-2023”. It explains the lack of site provision, which is at the root of the judgment in Smith yesterday that led to the declaration of incompatibility. The Minister has now had 24 hours to consider the judgment and I wonder about the Government response. They will have to deal with the issue—and the law at the moment—which stems from the fact of discrimination, with certain parts of the criminal law being impacted where there is not sufficient site provision in a particular area at the moment.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he tempts me to comment on a very recent legal case but, with the leave of the House, I will reserve comment on that judgment while my colleagues review it. I will not comment specifically on the outcome of the case, as I am sure he understands.
I will quickly set out the position and then give a few comments on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. The Government set the legislative and policy framework—we have talked about it today —within which this area of policy operates, including the NPPF, or national planning policy framework, and the PPTS, or planning policy for Traveller sites. Despite the variance between the two policies, as articulated by colleagues, local planning authorities are responsible for plan preparation and have a duty to make planning decisions in accordance with the development plans that they have adopted. The planning policy for Traveller sites should be read in conjunction with the NPPF, and there is the requirement to provide a “robust evidence base” for the actions that are taken by individual planning authorities when they are preparing for them.
We all recognise, because we spend a lot of time in debates like this, that whether it is about this area of planning policy or any others, no area of planning policy is perfect. The question is how we balance the many different competing interests in the most appropriate way. There are always challenges, even in areas that are not contested, and this is obviously a relatively contested area. The question is how we ensure fairness in that discussion.
To the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about fairness, it is about trying to work out how we balance that. I accept and agree that that is an open question, and it is perfectly legitimate and appropriate for us to come back and look at those issues on a very regular basis, which is something that we try to do across planning. I will continue to do that within this area of planning, which is why I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for having hosted me and officials a few months ago to articulate the challenges experienced in Northamptonshire.
I absolutely welcome the views and thoughts of Members across the House about both the planning policy elements, such as the local plans and whether they work, and whether the planning application process for Travellers works. My hon. Friend has put on record many of his comments today, which is very helpful, but I would welcome any further comments from other Members present.
It is the case, and I think it is important to reiterate, that the number of pitches provided in this country has substantially increased over my lifetime. In 1979, it was fewer than 10,000, and it is now 25,000 according to the latest count. There is a substantial increase in provision and it is important that discussions like this do not miss that point out. The question is, building on that increase in provision, where the logical extent is of where we need to go and what provision we need to require local authorities to provide for. That is why I would welcome comments from colleagues across the House, whether they are positive or negative, on the impact in their areas. When we are thinking about that, as when we are thinking about all elements of planning policy, we can consider that in the round when we bring ideas and proposals forward.
I recognise that I have just under three minutes left, but my hon. Friend talked about enforcement, and that is a hugely important area of policy, as he has highlighted. I do not lead on that part of the discussion, but I will certainly pass back the comments that he has made to my colleagues in the Home Office. As my hon. Friend indicated, some movement and some progress has been made—although I know he had comments about that—in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which became law last year. That removed the four-year time limit for taking action against some of the breaches in planning control, and it doubled the time when stop notices are effective from 28 to 56 days. We will return to the point that, when there is intentional unauthorised development generally along the lines of what my hon. Friend has articulated, that should be a material consideration when considering where the position has ended. We are committed to consulting on that and on how we implement it in the future within the broader policy framework.
I have less than two minutes left, but this is a very big area of policy. It is highly contested and it is one, from a Government perspective, where I think it is absolutely right that we tread carefully with our words and consider this in round. I absolutely acknowledge that there are strong views across the House on all these areas, and I also acknowledge that there are experiences in parts of the country that are really challenging at the moment. That is one of the reasons why I am keen to hear views from all colleagues over the course of the months ahead. It is why I am really keen to understand the suggestions of any colleagues about how we make progress, building on that significant increase of pitches that has occurred over my lifetime and recognising that we need to look at the issue in the round.
I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s comments on enforcement to the Home Office, and I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues from across the House on this in future. We need to look at how we get this policy right, how we understand it and how we respond to some of the rightful challenges that have been set, while recognising that there is a balance that always needs to be struck here. It is about learning from experiences and working out how policy can be iterated and amended over the long term to ensure that it makes progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Under-10-Metre Fishing Fleet: South-West
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the under 10-metre fishing fleet in the South West.
I am delighted to bring this debate to the House today and be joined by a number of my Cornish colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas), and my colleague from across the water, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I think it would be appropriate to begin by acknowledging that last Sunday was the first national fishing remembrance day. We should always remember that fishing continues to be one of the most dangerous occupations, and we should remember those down the years who have lost their lives while fishing.
We are blessed in Cornwall with a richness of natural resources, and our diverse and plentiful fishing waters are one such resource. There is no doubt about the importance of the role that the under-10-metre fishing fleet plays nationally and locally. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the under-10-metre fishing fleet represents around 80% of the UK’s total fishing vessels, while providing 50% of catch-related jobs, often in coastal communities such as those in my part of Cornwall, which tend to be less affluent and are often more vulnerable to socioeconomic challenges.
The under-10-metre fishermen land over £110 million-worth of fish and shellfish annually. They are one of the most important parts of the fishing industry, and we should be doing all we can to support them. Many of them are small family-run businesses that have been handed down from generation to generation over many years. It is fair to say that they are the backbone of our fishing industry in the south-west. They are at the heart of coastal communities in places like Mevagissey, Newquay and Fowey in my constituency and across Cornwall. They are vital for the economy of these coastal communities. Every fisherman on a boat supports up to 15 other jobs ashore in the seafood supply chain.
(Christina Rees in the Chair)
The under-10 fishing fleet also supports tourism. People love to come to places like Mevagissey to see a working fishing port. The fleet are also a key part of our local culture, shaping our local communities, not just through the food they provide but through music, with the many sea shanty choirs—the Fisherman’s Friends at Port Isaac being the most famous, of course. Of the 3,700 under-10 vessels registered across the UK, 75 are in my constituency, mainly in Mevagissey and Newquay, with over 400 across Cornwall as a whole. The under-10-metre fleet is sadly in decline. We have been losing more than 100 vessels a year. That is concerning. The hope or expectation was that as a result of leaving the EU and regaining control of our fishing waters, we would have the opportunity to grow our fishing industry.
The under-10-metre fleet is the most sustainable and has a lower environmental impact than larger vessels. First, that is because its vessels are self-limiting. They are unable to go out in heavy seas and high winds. They are also limited by range. They are very often referred to as the inshore fishing fleet because they mostly fish within the 6 nautical mile inshore zone. Unlike large vessels, under-10s cannot go hundreds of miles out and spend many days at sea. Many of them are handliners or use smaller nets, meaning that on average, the under-10-metre vessel spends less than 100 days at sea in any typical year. In that regard, they are more sustainable and their mode of operation helps prevent the overfishing of stocks. They tend to produce higher-quality fish and they focus on quality rather than volume. That also means there is usually minimal bycatch and almost no discards, limiting their environmental footprint. Despite their significance to the fishing industry by almost every statistic, they are only allocated a small part—around 2% or 3%—of the UK quota.
Our under-10-metre inshore fleet is resilient, flexible and able to adapt. Despite the many challenges they face, the fishermen will more often than not find ways to adjust to continue to make a living. Yet we should not take that for granted. One of those challenges is the impact of climate change and the warming of our seas, in the changes we are seeing in where fish are found and the availability of species that our fishermen can catch. Fish will move, and are moving, to cooler seas further north; the warmer waters around the Cornish coast are attracting different species of fish.
I hear from local fishermen that the Marine Management Organisation is seemingly overlooking the shift in fisheries, with our fishermen being allowed little lateral movement. That means that if someone has an entitlement to a particular species, they are pigeonholed to that species. If that species moves further north due to the warming of our waters, the fishermen are required to buy expensive species quotas or change their licences, and that generates significant additional costs. That is disproportionately affecting younger fishermen, of whom we have many in Mevagissey, who have mortgages to pay and families to feed but who have not been able to make that lateral movement across the fisheries to adapt to changes brought on by our changing climate.
Quite a few of the fishermen in Mevagissey are suffering the high costs of buying entitlement, for instance, to fishing bass. That lack of flexibility is hurting our under-10-metre fishermen harder than the larger vessels, which are generally part of larger businesses and are able to absorb the cost of moving to new fisheries. I will bring to the Minister’s attention three specific species where I think we could be doing better for our inshore fleet.
First, bass. The harbourmaster at Mevagissey, Andrew Trevarton, has made the case to me very clearly that scientific evidence shows an increase in bass stock in our seas. Yet there are still a number of boats in the south-west that have no entitlement to bass whatsoever. From 2012 onwards, those boats were effectively removed from the entitlement due to not being able to catch any within a 12-month period. The MMO and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should at least consider all boats to be active in that fishery. Most will be handliners, but even they are unable to access bass.
Commercial fishermen often feel they are being unfairly treated as compared with recreational or charter anglers. That applies to a number of species, but particularly to bass. A recreational angler can go out and fish for a couple of bass a day, every day, and keep their catch, whereas an under-10-metre boat may end up with dozens of bass as a bycatch but without the requisite entitlement to keep a single one. Fishermen tell me that they do not think there will be any danger to the bass stock, given that the French have stopped pair trawling for that species. We need to provide flexibility in our quota system, by allowing boats that have not yet built a track record to be given a quota for bass. Also, at the moment, a lot of bass is caught as bycatch and has to be discarded. That seems irrational and wasteful, given a lack of scientific evidence to suggest any significant risk to the stock.
Secondly, tuna. Tuna is the most important species to come into Cornish water in recent years as a result of our warming seas. We are seeing a lot of tuna turning up in our waters right now and I place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), for his work to develop the pilot scheme for tuna. It would seem that this important species will be a growing part of the fish available in Cornish waters in the years ahead. I ask the Minister to ensure that DEFRA and the MMO do all they can to further develop a sustainable commercial tuna quota in the coming years. That could be a real win for the Cornish under-10 fleet, and help it develop a new market. It is vital that we ensure that local fishermen can make the most of that new opportunity.
There is a danger that as a nation we conserve our tuna, but not for UK vessels. Instead, we are seeing the stock swim over into international waters, outside UK waters, for international vessels to hoover up. Tuna are a predatory species, which catch other species to feed on. They are growing fat on the fish in UK waters, to then swim outside UK waters to be caught by someone else. I would argue that we do not need to take too cautious an approach to tuna, and we should allow a greater quota in the years ahead.
Another factor, which I know that the Minister is aware of, is the limiting of vessels to either a commercial or a charter licence. That is affecting some of the fishermen in Mevagissey who up until now have operated both licences. We do not impose that restriction on any other species, and while I appreciate some of the thinking behind it, I urge the Government to look again and see what we can do, going forward.
Thirdly, I want to mention pollock. Having had the opportunity to raise the issue of pollock quota in an Adjournment debate just a few weeks ago, I will not go into great detail. However, I place on record again my thanks—and the thanks of many fishermen in my constituency who have relied on pollock—to the Minister and the Secretary of State for their great support in enabling us to establish a compensation scheme. It has been a lifeline to dozens of fishermen who were adversely affected by the removal of the quota. It shows that this Government are on the side of our fishing industry in Cornwall, and are willing to listen and act when needed.
We now need to work to re-establish a pollock quota in a sustainable way as soon as possible. It is widely recognised by most people that the best way to increase the stock of pollock and many other species would be to have a closed period during the spawning season. I ask the Minister to take note of that point and, as we look forward, to restore a total allowable catch for pollock in the hopefully not-too-distant future.
Before summing up I want to raise a recent issue that will have a huge impact on fishermen in Cornwall—the closure of the Plymouth fish market. Most of the fish landed in mid-Cornwall currently go to Plymouth, but the market is due to close in the coming days. That will mean fish from mid-Cornwall having to go to Newlyn, which is likely to mean that it will be a day late getting to market. That will have an impact on the price that the fisherman can secure. It is not a sustainable situation going forward, and we need to recognise the huge impact that it will have on the viability of both fishermen and the port of Mevagissey.
One issue is that the market has asked for the immediate return of all the fish boxes that the fishermen use to pack the fish for landing. The fishermen have applied to the MMO for a grant to help replace those boxes quickly, and I ask the Minister if he would look at what can be done to help them as a matter of urgency. Going forward, we need to see the Plymouth market continue; we need to find an answer to keep it open as soon as possible. I know that discussions are going on with various partners within the fishing industry, but I again ask the Minister for any help that he can give to ensure that that vital market remains open.
We will shortly be approaching the end of the current five-year trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, which will provide an opportunity to review and renegotiate our arrangements for the management of our fish stocks and quotas. As we look to renegotiate, the under-10-metre fishing fleet has made it clear to me that its priority in any renegotiations is that we take more control of our fishing waters, out to the 12-mile limit. The current arrangement means that foreign vessels are able to fish right up to our six-mile limit, including in waters that our under-10-metre fleet would be able to fish in. Fishermen tell me that they often feel that foreign vessels are literally taunting them by sitting on the six-mile limit and hoovering up the fish from our waters. Many would like to see us ban all foreign vessels from fishing within 12 miles of our coast. That may not be immediately achievable, but I hope it is something that we will set as a mid-term goal. In the meantime, we should seek to have much more control over which boats are allowed to fish in these waters.
Our under-10-metre fishing boats are the heart of many of our communities. They are the backbone of our Cornish fishing industry, and support hundreds of jobs in the supply chain. It is vital that we do all we can to ensure that they have a viable future and continue to provide high-quality seafood for the UK, and for export markets, in the most sustainable way. The Minister has demonstrated that he wants to do all he can to support this part of the sector. I look forward to listening to further contributions to the debate, and to the Minister’s response, but I trust that we can send a clear message from this House to the many dedicated fishermen who risk their lives to provide us with the highest-quality fish for the table, that we recognise the important job they do, that we are on their side and that they have our support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate. I intend to start the wind-ups at about 5.13 pm, and to allow Steve Double a couple of minutes at the end. If Members could speak for less than five minutes, I would be really grateful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing it.
I understand the title of the debate—it is very clear what it means—and I will pose some questions about how the south-west is treated in relation to this issue, and about the importance of under-10-metre boats. I absolutely appreciate the hon. Member’s desire to make his fleet the centre of debate, but under-10-metre boats need support right across the United Kingdom, not just in the south-west. In his introduction, the hon. Member referred to the 3,000-plus under-10-metre boats in the United Kingdom. I have some in my own constituency, and I will raise a couple of issues. Although the Minister is not directly responsible for fishing in Northern Ireland, he has some responsibility for the allocation of quotas, and I want to put that on the record.
Taking into account the fact that the visa process is costly for skilled workers who are not paid in the highest band, it is clear that we really need support in recruiting and training local crew. I am sure the hon. Member and many others present will agree that the same recruiting and training is important, no matter where we are in the UK. We need initiatives to bring new entrants into the industry, which is as applicable to my constituency in Northern Ireland as it is to the south-west. Fishing is not necessarily top of the careers choice agenda in urban schools, so how do we make it more attractive? The fact is that if we do not begin to attract younger people to fishing, we will not have a secure British fishing future, regardless of quotas.
I urge a note of caution on the under-10-metre quota allocation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know it is important, but there may be a variety of opinions on that. I point out the obvious: any review of quota allocation mechanisms to ensure that under- 10-metre boats get a bigger slice of the cake may be at the expense of existing quota holders. If a UK-wide approach is taken, that could be difficult for the fleet in Northern Ireland, which already struggles to make ends meet.
I did my advice centre in Portavogie last Saturday. Most of the issues from the people who came to see me were about fishing. If at the end of the quarter of the year there is some quota that has not been used, rather than lose that quota it would be appropriate to disperse that among the under-10-metre boats. I must flag this to the Minister: there must be cognisance of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet and the Scots fleet when discussing the allocations. I know the Minister always tries to be helpful in his responses to any questions that I ask in the Chamber. Any sweeping generalised changes might not prove popular with some of my fishermen back home.
I wish to briefly raise the issue of zero-catch advice on pollack, and possibly the recent scallop closures, and encourage the Government to engage early with fishermen. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay had an Adjournment debate on this. He spoke extremely well, as he always does, and he got a fairly good response from the Minister. I think he was pleased and certainly I was encouraged by that, but when it comes to engaging early enough with fishermen, the mitigation strategies and alternative management measures might be developed in a more timely fashion to ensure that information and engagement drives our approach in these areas.
I support what the hon. Gentleman says. I will support others who speak as well because they all want the best for their fishermen, as do I. With that, I support what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. This debate has come at a timely moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned, with last Sunday being the first national fisheries memorial day. I was honoured to lay a wreath in Looe with my daughter in memory of my late husband, Neil Murray. I pay tribute to all the rescue services and the seafarers charities that provide so much support for this important industry in so many ways.
I also want to thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), for returning my call so quickly last Friday to listen to the concerns about the difficulties faced by the local Looe fleet in transporting its catch, given the closure of Plymouth Trawler Agents, where the landings have traditionally been sold. I hope that a resolution can be found by everyone working together with Looe Harbour Commissioners.
Although the news about Plymouth Trawler Agents has come as a surprise, I want to put on record my personal thanks to David and Alison Pessell, long-standing friends whom I have known for the past 40 years, since David’s vessel, the Tardis of the Yealm, was pair-trawling with our vessel, the Golden Dawn. Some 40 years later, both boats lie on the seabed; sadly, Neil is no longer with us. I sincerely hope that David and Alison enjoy a restful retirement, which they deserve after serving the industry in the south-west selflessly, both locally and nationally, for such a long time.
Given the limited time, I will turn to one thing that I think will secure a future for the under-10-metre fleet. As the former owner of an under-10-metre trawler, the Cygnus 33 Our Boy Andrew, I can honestly say that I know how vessel owners struggle to make a living. I can also confirm that our boat was part of our family and gave us a comfortable living, although I admit it could be stressful at times.
I met the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations yesterday. It agreed with me that there was one thing that could help the small vessels continue to provide us with a healthy source of protein, so I ask the Minister to consider that today.
On 30 December 2020, during the debate on the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, I said:
“We must prepare ourselves for 2026. With the UK an independent coastal state, the Minister can take decisions to free us from a fisheries management regime that has been hampered by the constraints of the CFP. We can honour our obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but be flexible to ensure all UK fishermen can benefit from this partial freedom and take the necessary steps to ready ourselves when we—as we must—really take back complete control of our waters in 2026.”—[Official Report, 30 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 558.]
Access to our six to 12-mile limit was agreed and set out in the London convention of 1966, which predates our membership of the European Union. Article 3 sets out:
“Within the belt between six and twelve miles measured from the baseline of the territorial sea, the right to fish shall be exercised only by the coastal State and by such other Contracting Parties, the fishing vessels of which have habitually fished in that belt between 1st January, 1953 and 31st December 1962.”
That specifically named the vessels in question, and I put it to the Minister that it is unlikely that any of these vessels are at sea or fishing today. The 2002 common fisheries policy review made access to the six to 12 mile-limit permanent, which changed the London convention; instead of access for specific vessels, access was given to the number of vessels from other member states.
Now that we are no longer subject to CFP legislation, it is time to revert to the terms of the 1966 London convention. The time has come to ensure that access to our six to 12-mile limit is reserved solely for UK-registered fishing vessels. Specific conservation rules in each area can be set by inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. When I put that to the NFFO on Monday, it agreed that this was the single most important protection that the Minister could provide to ensure a future for our under-10-metre inshore fleet. These vessels are the way that new blood enters this vital industry, and we must do everything we can to support them. I finish with a message to all fisherfolk throughout our nation: fair winds and following seas.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Rees, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on the way in which he introduced this debate. I echo many of his sentiments—on the fact that the under-10-metre fleet is important, not only to Cornwall, but to Plymouth and across the south-west; and on the rough conditions in which many go to sea to try to earn a living and to put fish on our dinner tables.
The first National Remembrance Day for those who work in the fishing industry was a welcome addition to the calendar, and I am glad that there were remembrance events all around our country to remember those we have lost at sea. Having a vibrant fishing community is important to our coastal communities, and I appreciate the work of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay in supporting it in Cornwall. As we heard from him, what is good for Cornwall is often good for Plymouth and vice versa.
Most of my remarks concern the closure of Plymouth fish market, which will have a profound impact on the under-10-metre fleet—not only those vessels that land fish in Plymouth, but those that land fish in ports right across the south-west and then have that fish overlanded to be sold from Plymouth. The closure demonstrates a real fragility and uncertainty in the sector. Those who will be most affected by this are the small-scale local fishers who cannot relocate and who want to work out of a port where auctions are available. That includes fishers not only in Plymouth, but in ports right across south-east Cornwall and further into Cornwall.
It is clear that additional transport costs will be levied on those fishers, not only in the landing dues that they will have to pay to land in the port they normally land in, but also for the overlanding and the delays. It is really important that fish can be taken to market in a speedy and efficient manner to preserve quality, and therefore the value, of the fish. Any delay in that process risks loading further costs on a sector that has already struggled quite a bit.
I have spoken to Plymouth City Council about this. It has met Plymouth Trawler Agents and the Plymouth Fishing & Seafood Association, and has had discussions with Sutton Harbour Group, the landlords for the fish market site. We have received the news that PTA is closing, and I echo the thanks from my neighbour, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), to David and Alison Pessell. They have both been real stalwarts for our industry, and I wish them a happy retirement. However, the closure of PTA fundamentally undermines the viability of the Plymouth fish market, a building that needed to be updated anyway. There is a real concern that once it closes its doors on 17 May, an interim measure of transporting catch to other markets, whether Brixham, Newlyn or elsewhere, will soon be locked in as a permanent, additional cost to those fishers.
I think everyone wants to restore a market and an auction in Plymouth, which I would be grateful if the Minister could assist us to do. There is cross-party concern for this here, because we are all representing our fishers, who want to get a good deal. For instance, we need to ensure that the return of the fish boxes that is being asked for can be secured. That is a really strong investment that the PTA has made, but it is a big cost for fishers to replace them. Equally, grading machines need to be secure to ensure there is a possibility of a new operator coming forward without that heavy capital cost of reopening a market. We need to keep the options open for under-10 boats, particularly in being able to land their fish in Plymouth and other ports, and have it overlanded to Plymouth to keep the viability of that sector.
We need a new operator but, importantly, this must not be an opportunity for Sutton Harbour Group to bring forward plans for luxury flats on the site of the fish quay, which we know it has wanted to do for a great amount of time. Sutton Harbour offers incredible opportunities for high-density lateral living with beautiful views, but those flats should not be built on the fish quay. As soon as homes are built on the fish quay, the possibility of preserving a vibrant fishing industry in Plymouth disappears almost all together. We need to safeguard the fish quay land. The council has already made steps to do so in the local plan, but it must be viable for a new operator to take it over. That is why I hope the Minister will be able to convene support for Plymouth City Council, the Members of Parliament from the area, and the industry, to look at what measures, grants and support are available from Ministers and his Department to ensure that the barriers to reopening the fish quay and providing a new auction, are not set so high that it is impossible for anyone to take those steps. It is essential that a new operator is found in order to do that.
I did want to speak about the importance of ensuring that we continue the further roll-out of the Plymouth lifejacket scheme, with personal locator beacons. I realise that is a Department for Transport, rather than a DEFRA, responsibility, but it is important that we send the message that safety is valued. Given the importance of the Plymouth fish quay and the fish market there, I want to make sure that is heard. I hope the Minister understands the cross-party concern that exists for this in the far south-west, and I hope he will be able to support us in keeping the option open for a new operator to come in.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is a real privilege to be able to speak in this debate in support of our inshore fleet right across Cornwall and beyond, and to commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing the debate.
It was a genuine, moving moment on Sunday morning, when we in Newlyn remembered the more than 100 fishermen who had lost their lives around our waters. It was a really important thing to do, and I am glad we now have that annual service to commemorate those fishermen. I am also grateful to the Fishermen’s Mission for their work to support fishermen day and night, wherever they might be fishing from.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the extraordinary contribution that the inshore fishing fleet makes to UK plc and the UK as a country. We began to talk about national food security; it is really important that we get energy and food security in the right place. The report we launched earlier in the year, “The True Value of Seafood to Cornwall”, demonstrated that for every one fisherman, there are 15 jobs created. Whether it is enormous amounts of money or good, nutritious food, there is no real part of Cornwall that our fishing industry does not reach. Fishing provides a really important contribution to food security, and I hope the Minister can contribute to conversations across Departments about how fishing is a key part of national food security. I do not think they would, but I hope that the Government would never shy away from promoting UK fish on dinner tables around the UK.
The Fisheries Act 2020 was a fantastic thing that we delivered after leaving the European Union. It has taken time, but that has enabled us to deliver regional management plans. We now have a far better understanding and, hopefully, the ability to plan and control fish stocks, and harness and manage them around different parts of the coast. We all know that in Cornwall, for example, we have mixed fisheries, which are not typical elsewhere, so it is important that we have a regional management plan.
I commend the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation and others that have contributed to that work in a mature and intelligent way to help to shape the Act as well as those regional plans. However, the pace has been slow. Although the pollack ban is regrettable, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, the response from the Department, and the Minister in particular, to compensate and support fishermen who would rely on pollack—particularly in this early part of the year—has been really helpful. The use of regional plans could actually avoid those shocks in the future. I would therefore encourage and support the Minister’s efforts to use regional management plans to avoid these shocks, and to enhance and secure stocks in ways we have always wanted to see, but which have not necessarily been possible until recently. It would build confidence for the fishing fleet.
On infrastructure investment, we have had the £100 million seafood fund. Will the Minister be able to commit at all, or at least comment on the appetite to ensure that that fund is available again in the future? We need to continue the work to transition our fleet to meet our sustainability commitments and to invest in our harbour and port infrastructure so that it meets the requirements of not just the inshore fleet—the fishing fleet that lands, as we heard about in Plymouth—but other things that are delivered at sea, such as floating offshore wind infrastructure and so on. It is important that where fish is landed, the facilities are there to make the most of the value of that fish.
As we have heard already, a significant opportunity sits before us. The Minister is aware of our commitment. The opportunity to create the exclusive 12-mile limit with the Brexit fisheries deal renegotiation in 2026 cannot be understated; the opportunities for the initial fleet in particular are extraordinary. It offers a massive win for the UK sustainable fishing industry, offering a better way to manage, protect and enhance our fish stock. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay talked about the fact that the inshore fleet are limited in their days at sea and their efforts because of the weather. That offers a great way of managing fish stock. By protecting that 12-mile limit, we give the inshore fleet much greater access to fantastic, nutritious food for our tables, and provide the opportunity to revive and enhance our coastal communities.
There is no part of my constituency that does not have a history, and some presence still, of an inshore fishing fleet. The opportunities to continue to enhance the inshore fleet and to grow those communities and all those jobs we talked about are there to be had. Let us restore the fishing fleet and skills, and help to secure food security with a particularly nutritious offer for our UK consumers.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate, which is vital to not only my constituents but my family. As many Members will know, my husband is a commercial fisherman of an under-10 metre vessel. I spoke about this in my maiden speech four years ago, and I thought I would remind this Chamber what I said:
“When he rings to say that he is still an hour away from safety and the weather has taken a turn for the worse…I can tell you now that the dread is palpable”—
it is still the same feeling, because it happens from time to time. I said:
“We need to champion our small boats…Their job is precarious enough. We need to support our coastal communities to brave the elements and thrive in the 21st century. There are opportunities on the horizon, and we need to grab them with both hands and bring them home.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 364.]
That is as true today as it was then. We absolutely have the opportunities ahead of us that they and we can take advantage of. I do not think we value our under-10 fleet, or the fishermen themselves, in the way that we could just yet.
As we have heard already, such a vessel is generally crewed by a single hand. They cannot go that far, and cannot stay out for more than about a day. They often fish overnight. Yet they, especially the handliners, will bring home the most sustainable and best-quality catch that this country has to offer. They help each other at sea and on land, and they therefore promote and preserve our communities in a way that we would all welcome.
The Government have done lots on their safety and the grant schemes, and they all want to say thank you for that, but at the moment they are tying themselves in knots over Maritime and Coastguard Agency and MMO rules and regulations. They understand why those are there and that they are for their safety and for the safety of others, but these men work 15-hour days pretty much. I have heard from men—it is usually men, I am sorry to say—that although some of them are tech savvy, some do not even have mobile phones, some are dyslexic and others just did not get very good qualifications at school, so they find it really difficult to stay on top of all the admin. There are monthly safety records, catch returns and MCA checks to name but a few. They understand why they need to do it, but please can we continue to make it as simple as possible?
In addition, fishermen have had their quota removed for pollack, one of their main species. I put on record my genuine thanks to the Minister, who listened endlessly to us, and to the Secretary of State, for their persistence in ensuring a compensation scheme for boats. That is welcome, and I know that dozens have been helped by it, but—I am really sorry and it pains me to say this—that I still receive representations formally and informally from many small producers who just missed out and are still really struggling. That comes from the much smaller vessels, so I would be grateful to discuss with Ministers that there are still struggling boats and what we might be able to do to help keep them going until we come up with a longer-term plan.
More than that, fishermen just need the quota back, particularly for the handliners. We went over the arguments when we were trying to work out a compensation scheme. These vessels do not make a dent in stocks, so suggesting that they do compared with the enormous factory ships out at sea is frankly ludicrous. I would go even further: perhaps with the exception of bass, I would take away quota limits on any species for the under-10s, particularly the under-10 handliners, because they make such a little dent in those. We should let them catch what passes their way, as long as their licences allow them to; they simply cannot dent the stocks.
I am a great supporter of the angling businesses in my country—in fact, that is what my husband used to do—and have a great many friends in the industry. It is great for the Cornish economy and tourism, but at the moment it is not a level playing field. Most smart angling trips will promote catch and release, and take only what they want for the table, but I have seen other photos on social media—I have sent them to Ministers before—where the anglers are taking too many. They are filling up their boats with pollack, and it is a real slap in the face for the commercial fishermen who not only have lost out on the compensation scheme, but still cannot catch anything. To be clear, they are often having to throw the fish back dead. Fishermen would like to see the MMO level the playing field and check what is coming in on the angling boats.
If we do not take stock of where we are, I am worried that we will see our Cornish harbours filled with just yachts and no working boats, whereas if we have a healthy mix of both, it means a healthy economy and it is good for Cornwall. What do we need to do? Just as we are now starting to do with farming, we need to highlight, value and assist the smaller producers who bring home the most valuable produce to market to ensure that they receive a fair price for their insanely hard work and that the things they have to do outside of fishing are as easy as possible—that is not just the admin that I have already mentioned but, for example, more fuel barges. We would like to have one in the bay of Falmouth, but I cannot work out how to get one set up or where it could go, so some help to do that would be great.
Fishermen also need help to land the product. We have heard about Plymouth already and know that Newlyn is going great guns. It is not so much about where the fish get landed, but where they can get a fair price, which usually happens at the auction, so where will the auctions be to ensure that they can do that? We also need to bring new blood into the industry. We see that there are some good apprenticeship schemes on the larger boats down in Newlyn, but I would like to see some apprenticeships on the smaller boats too, where the skippers who have been at sea for a long time can bring on the young blood. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay on two out of three of his requests.
Cherilyn Mackrory
The bass licences are the one request on which I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend and which needs more thinking. That is important, because if we just give the bass licences out to everybody else, those who have them immediately see a devaluation of their vessels. Please can we think carefully before we accept that?
I want to put on the record my thanks to all the fishermen who risk their lives—and believe me, they do—when the fresh fish is delivered. If everybody in the UK ate fresh British fish, we would hopefully support them ourselves.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate, because the inshore small-scale fleets are vital not just to the fishermen and their families, who rely on them for household income, but, as we have heard, to the shore jobs that they sustain and the wider benefit that those iconic fleets deliver across their coastal communities. There is rightly a proud heritage of fishing at the heart of our coastal towns and villages, not just in the south-west but across the country. It is not unusual to meet fishermen who can trace their fishing families back many generations. I recently met one in Beer who can trace his family’s fishing roots back to the 1600s.
I should say at the outset that we are discussing under-10-metres, but I am mindful that that can seem an arbitrary definition that came into force long ago and perhaps does not properly recognise the differences between a 7-metre open-top boat that launches off a cobble beach and an under-10-metre twin-rig trawler or a 15-metre clinker-built wooden boat, with less power and catching efficiency than some under-10-metres. It is perhaps time to consider whether one size fits all.
These brave fishers who set sail in the smallest of our boats, risking their lives to bring us fish suppers, are in many cases having a really challenging time. The stress and anxiety around the coast are palpable, as we heard in many of today’s contributions. I, too, pay tribute to organisations such as the Seafarers’ Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission and the other charities that help to fund and support our small-scale fleets with mental health and financial support for households when families find themselves without a safety net and nowhere to turn. As we have heard, this debate is timely with the National Fishing Remembrance Day events held a few days ago.
It is indisputable that this sector has struggled in recent years, lurching from one crisis to the next, leaving these micro-businesses, often single-handed owner-operators, to try to piece together a living against a backdrop of, too often, knee-jerk fisheries management. Most recently, the pollock debacle has left so many of these vessels without fishing opportunities for part of the year and with a compensation scheme that, frankly, seems to many to have been rushed through without consultation, with many not receiving much-needed help. Although I understand that the 30% bar set for the scheme may sound reasonable, it does not take sufficient account of those small-scale fleets that earn modest incomes of £20,000 to £30,000 a year, and the hardship caused by losing 20% of their income, with no opportunities to replace it.
I hope the Minister will tell us who fed into that policy and why it was decided that these artisan fishermen would receive nothing. I and many others would be grateful if he could take another look at the scheme, to see what could be done to support those who so far have been forgotten. I will not say too much about the ministerial direction that was required to introduce this scheme, but it is, at best, unusual. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us, in his recollection, how often it has been needed.
I am also interested to hear the plan for managing the angling sector’s catch and retaining of pollock, as we have heard. Almost 12 months after the International Council for Exploration of the Seas published its advice on zero total allowable catch, why has there not been a consultation to consider whether legislation should be brought forward to track and limit recreational catches?
We know from the fascinating correspondence between the permanent secretary at DEFRA and the Secretary of State, to which I have already referred, that pollock has been in decline for many years. I ask the Minister: how many other stocks have been poorly managed and are at risk of big reductions and zero TACs? He may wish to say none but, if he does not, I suspect we can fear the worst. Pollock is just the latest problem demonstrating that the sector has been let down. The Brexit promise of protection to 12 miles was a pie-crust promise, easily made and broken, like so many others. We have had capping exercises that have had to be reversed, entitlement requirements that now seem challengeable, fisheries management plans being rolled out at eye-watering speed, with little understanding of why some stocks were chosen, and several failed starts of the inshore vessel monitoring system, with type approvals certifying items of kit—then suspending them, before subsequently being reinstated and removed—all after some fishers had followed Government guidance and rushed to install them. They have had to endure the CatchAPP, which they were told was fit for purpose when it was not. All of that comes against the backdrop of new codes issued by the Department for Transport, via the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not, I am afraid, given that I am very pressed for time.
It seems there was little consideration across Government as to the timing. On the issues raised about the Plymouth fish market, I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Is it any wonder that fishers feel persecuted and left behind? Good fisheries management and enforcement is vital to healthy seas, stocks and food security. Frankly, there can be no doubt that, while this Government have heaped new burdens of epic proportions on this sector in the past few years, they have not delivered their side of the bargain: coherent and considered fisheries management of opportunities, so that families can earn a living and businesses can plan their future.
Finally, I urge the Minister to consider the way in which fisheries management plans and other workstreams have been developed. If he really wants to see more engagement from the sector—if he genuinely wants those people’s views and input—he needs to direct those conducting meetings not to hold them in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, thereby forcing fishermen to choose between losing sea time and earnings, and to consider the cumulative impact of having separate organisations running multiple consultations simultaneously. These are in the Minister’s gift to fix, so I would be grateful if he could commit to that. The under-10 fleet is critical to coastal communities. They are struggling, and more needs to be done to secure their future.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Rees. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing this debate. I should be clear at the beginning that it will probably not be possible for me to respond to all the points raised in the debate in the seven and a half minutes that are now available to me, but I will do as rapid a response as I can, to get through as much as possible.
Last Sunday, I had the privilege of joining colleagues in this Chamber to attend a memorial service in Grimsby as part of National Fishing Remembrance Day. We are grateful to those who have given their lives at sea to secure fish for the tables of our nation, but we must work tirelessly to make sure that those numbers are not increased and that we keep people safe at sea in the future.
The fishing industry in the south-west has an extraordinarily rich heritage and wonderfully diverse fleets, as my hon. Friend eloquently set out. There is strong industry leadership in the region—I commend the work of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, for example, which has been innovative across a range of issues. Its report on the true value of seafood to Cornwall makes for powerful reading. It shows that there are 15 shore-based jobs for every fisherman, and that seafood jobs are four times more important to Cornwall than they are to the rest of Great Britain. That is something we need to bear in mind when making decisions in the future.
The innovative marketing of Cornish sole, otherwise known as megrim, has yielded benefits in terms of increased sales. I hope that the marketing of Cornish king crab will work wonders for spider crabs in due course. The industry has worked hard to ensure Marine Stewardship Council accreditation for Cornish sardines and Cornish gillnet-caught hake. I pay tribute to those involved in all the work going on. I acknowledge that there are also challenges, many of which have been raised my colleagues this afternoon.
Starting with pollock, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay recognised the action that we have taken to compensate those who have been impacted. We were challenged that we should have had a consultation—apparently, we should have consulted. I think that, at that moment in time, had the Government said, “Thanks for raising your concerns. We’ve heard you. We’re going to have a three-month consultation before we decide what to do,” we would have had a disaster. There was no time to navel-gaze at that moment. That is why the Government took strong action at the time and stepped in to try to assist those fishermen.
I am grateful to hon. Members here who came banging on my door with enthusiasm and tenacity in order to secure the future of those fishermen. We want to keep them fishing. We want to keep them in those ports and generating those jobs, which is why we went out and set up a scheme. Around 50 vessel owners will be directly compensated for half their reported pollock landings income in 2023. Almost £400,000 has been paid out so far, and a number of owners are still to submit their paperwork. I encourage them to do that.
Let me turn to bass, which is of course another significant fish species. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay and other colleagues rightly raised the importance of bass fishermen to the south-west. They are also important around the country. That is precisely why we worked with the fishing industry on a bass fisheries management plan. That FMP, published last December, sets out a road map for sustainable domestic stock management. That is crucial.
I should be clear that we always seek to strike the right balance between increasing fishing opportunities where we can and protecting stock for future generations. That is not always easy, because it can have an impact on people’s incomes and their ability to catch fish, but every fisherman I meet tells me that they want future generations to be able to carry on catching fish. They believe in that sustainability, but want to work with the Government to ensure that we see that.
Quota was mentioned briefly. For many years, we have heard about what seems to be an imbalance between the inshore fleet’s access to what it sees as its fair share of quota and that of larger vessels, those not under 10 metres. We will of course continue to listen to those representations, to ensure that we find a way through.
On tuna, I think I am on the record as being quite excited about the opportunities that tuna bring, which a number of colleagues mentioned. I regret to say that we only have a little more than 66 tonnes of bluefin tuna quota, but I am keen to increase that in future, to ensure that we seize the opportunities for the sporting sector and commercial fisheries, and make the most of them.
Before I finish, I will turn to the immediate challenge for the port of the loss of the Plymouth auction. We are keen to help, if we can, and I want to keep colleagues informed. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who raised the issue with me last week and highlighted the challenge being faced. I think the best outcome is for the private sector to step in, but there may well be a role for Government to assist in that process. What I do not want to see is fish moved in the short term to Brixham and other ports, maybe Newlyn, and for that to corrupt the model that exists at Plymouth in the longer term. We want to see that succeed, and I will of course work with colleagues across the parties to ensure that we find solutions. It might well be worth convening a cross-party roundtable to ensure that we in Government are informed and that Members are aware of what we are doing. I commit to that.
Leaving time for my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay to sum up his debate, I will end on an upbeat note. I think that the inshore fleet has a positive future, and I am always impressed by the passion of those in it and by their innovation in the industry. I am sure they will find a way to benefit from the opportunities and the challenges they face. The Government are here to help. We have a track record of helping, and we will continue to do so. Working together and continuing to have that dialogue, we will ensure that we have a bright, profitable and sustainable future for the fishing sector in the south-west.
Steve Double
I thank all colleagues across the House for an excellent debate and the broad agreement on support for our under-10-metre fishing fleet. The only disappointment was the lack of understanding shown by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), of what fishermen want.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for his ongoing work to support our inshore fleet, particularly in the south-west. I particularly welcome his commitment to hold a roundtable on the future of the Plymouth market, as we all agree how important that is. I very much welcome that and look forward, I hope, to being able to partake of it. Our fishermen will be pleased to see that we are working together, across the parties, to do what we can to maintain the market.
It is welcome that we are able to have this debate, to support our fishing industry, to show fishermen support and to continue to work together to ensure that they have the best opportunity to continue to thrive in future and, of course, to continue to promote fish as the most sustainable source of protein that we can provide. The more we can get British people eating fish that are caught in British waters, the better it is for everyone. I am sure that is something we all support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the under 10-metre fishing fleet in the south-west.