Marine Protected Areas (Bottom Trawling) (England)

1st reading
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

14:18

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the practice of bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas in England, and for connected purposes.

It is a privilege to speak on a topic that has cross-party support and builds on the excellent work led by my right hon. and hon. Friends the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers to put nature on the road to recovery and address the climate crisis. This Government and this Parliament are the greenest of my lifetime, and I am proud to be a Member for a party with such a distinguished history of leading on environmental protection. This Bill offers an opportunity for a fairer, greener future, and I am grateful for support for the Bill from colleagues across the House.

It is important to remember that protecting our oceans and marine protected areas is not only a Labour legacy, but a Yorkshire one. In 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), the then Environment Secretary, spearheaded the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, a landmark Act that established a network of marine protected areas to safeguard vital marine habitats, species and ecosystems. Fifteen years later, with a new Labour Government in place, we have the opportunity to strengthen protections for these areas even further.

Before I lay out my case to the House, I must address the obvious question: why is the MP for Leeds North West, a landlocked constituency in the heart of west Yorkshire, bringing forward a ten-minute rule Bill to ban bottom trawling in our marine protected areas? It is a fair question; after all, up in Leeds our closest encounters with marine life might be spotting a trout in the River Wharfe or enjoying fish and chips on the drive back from Whitby. Yet the health of our seas is not just an issue for coastal constituencies; it is a national responsibility.

The ecosystems in our waters play a crucial role in regulating the planet’s climate, absorbing carbon dioxide, and supporting biodiversity that impacts life far beyond our shores. From sheltered sea lochs to wild open waters, from seaweed beds to deepwater coral, the UK’s coasts and seas are extraordinary. They are home to an astonishing variety of wildlife, including dolphins, whales, sharks, seals, puffins and deep-sea coral reefs. They are also vital to our economy and communities, particularly our essential fishing industry, as well as our tourism, shipping and the growing renewable energy sectors.

We are an island nation and we are never more than 70 miles from the sea here in the UK. Whether it is pollution, habitat destruction or the impact of climate change, we Brits are deeply connected to our coastal heritage. But while our seas work hard for us, they face growing pressures, and bottom trawling is one of the most destructive practices of all.

For Members unfamiliar with destructive bottom trawling, it involves dragging heavy nets and metalwork across our seabed, destroying fragile ecosystems and habitats that take decades or even centuries to recover. As a fellow Member so aptly put it to me, it is like ripping up an orchard to pick an apple. Just one or two trawls over an area can decimate the seabed for up to five years. Alarmingly, this is happening right now across our marine protected areas—zones specifically designated to safeguard and recover biodiversity.

My Bill builds on previous work to ban this destructive practice. Currently, only 5% of the UK’s marine protected areas have a ban on it. My argument in support of the Bill is threefold: first, the British public overwhelmingly expects a ban; secondly, our small fishing businesses are suffering without a ban; and thirdly, it is crucial for the ongoing health of ecosystems in marine protected areas and the broader protection of the environment, and the natural world in which we, in Britain, take great pride.

On public support, research from Oceana shows that the measure has significant backing, with eight in 10 UK adults in favour of banning destructive bottom trawling in marine protected areas. What is particularly striking is the level of misunderstanding around the issue. When surveyed, the vast majority of people-—around 64%—mistakenly believe such a ban is already in place. Many of the individuals I have spoken to in recent weeks share this misconception and, frankly, it is no surprise: the term “protected” in marine protected areas naturally leads people to assume that harmful activities such as destructive bottom trawling are prohibited. The reality, however, is quite the opposite: these fragile ecosystems remain exposed to one of the most destructive forms of industrial fishing, which devastates habitats and wildlife.

Secondly, on our hard-working British fishermen and women, especially the small-scale fisheries that have been at the heart of our coastal communities for generations, let us be clear: they are not the ones dragging heavy nets across the seabed, destroying delicate ecosystems. The culprits are industrial-scale operations and supertrawlers that prioritise profit over sustainability, leaving our own small-scale fishers to bear the brunt of their actions. This is David versus Goliath—a fight to protect the lifeblood of our coastal communities from the destructive might of industrial fishing giants.

In 2023 just 10 fishing vessels over 20 metres in length were responsible for more than a quarter of the destructive bottom trawling. None of the 10 vessels were from the UK. I will not pretend to be an expert on the fishing industry, but Bally Philp, a fisherman with decades of experience, puts it best: he describes how

“small-scale fishers are under a lot of pressure everywhere, mostly from industrial fisheries”.

He says that one of the things that impacts quite heavily on small-scale fishers is a highly degraded ecosystem, because many small fishers are only viable in a healthy, productive ecosystem. Bally Philp speaks for many in our fisheries who want stronger protections that ensure their livelihoods are not sacrificed for the short-term gains of large industrial operators. Protecting our 178 English marine protected areas from destructive bottom trawling is not only about safeguarding marine life; it is about securing a sustainable future for the communities who depend on our seas for their way of life.

Lastly, and most importantly, we need to protect and restore our marine protected areas for both climate and nature. Bottom trawling is not just destructive and emissions-heavy; it reduces carbon sequestration. Our oceans are unsung climate heroes. A series of recent reports from the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Wildlife Trusts has found that the UK’s seabeds play a quiet yet crucial role in carbon sequestration, storing up to 13 million tonnes, nearly three times the amount captured by UK forests.

This is not inevitable in England, and we do not need to imagine the positive impact of the Bill. We have already seen the benefits of banning bottom trawling in some of our marine protected areas, such as Lyme bay on England’s south coast. In 2008, a partial ban on destructive fishing practices was introduced. This was later expanded to 312 sq km—about 120 square miles—through overlapping conservation efforts. The results have been extraordinary. The seabed has begun to recover, with coral reefs like pink sea fans regrowing, scallop numbers increasing, and species such as black bream returning to the area. Within just a decade, the number of species in the protected zone increased by almost 40%, compared with a 5% decline outside it. Local fishermen, such as Matt Toms, have witnessed these changes at first hand. Since destructive bottom trawling was banned, he has observed a lot more fish in the area, including black bream breeding in the bay once again. This is proof that protecting our marine ecosystems benefits not only the environment but also the communities who rely on it. Lyme bay is living evidence that with the right action, recovery is possible, and this and every other measure should be guided by the science.

Sometimes people fail to act because they cannot see what is going on beneath the ocean. That cannot be said of our national hero Sir David Attenborough and I thank him for his years of service documenting our planet. I am excited to hear that he is premiering a new film that draws attention to the damage we have caused and the opportunities to humanity, in particular fishing communities, of well managed and protected oceans. I also thank the Blue Marine Foundation, Oceana, WWF and many other activists across the country for their work.

To close, as I have said previously, I came into politics from a background in climate and nature. I proudly campaigned for the Climate Change Act in 2008, a landmark Act brought in by the last Labour Government. It taught me from the outset of my career what could be achieved through a sustained, steadfast commitment to a cause. That Act has succeeded because of its pragmatism and cross-party consensus. For that reason, I am proud of the cross-party nature of this Bill and its co-signatories.

The implementation of this Bill is a matter of common sense: for the small fisheries of this country; for the wildlife in our marine protected areas; and for all of us who depend on a healthy planet. This Bill is about real action on climate and nature, and I hope colleagues will join me in seizing this opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Katie White, Anna Gelderd, Mr Toby Perkins, Ms Polly Billington, Alistair Strathern, Luke Murphy, Sarah Champion, Aphra Brandreth, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Wera Hobhouse and Carla Denyer present the Bill.

Katie White accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 165).

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standin Order No. 59(2)),

That the Arbitration Bill [Lords] shall no longer stand referred to a Second Reading Committee.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to.