Kew Gardens

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. We have 90 minutes, but I will keep my remarks relatively short because there is an appetite for further speeches, although I admit that I would have preferred it if there were more MPs here for this debate on an important issue. I am here to defend a jewel in my constituency, but I am not here because Kew gardens is in my constituency. Kew gardens is a national, even an international, treasure, and I will briefly explain why.

Kew gardens has been a world-class centre for botanic research for nearly a quarter of a millennium—250 years. William Hooker, who was a director of Kew gardens in the mid-19th century, was Darwin’s principal sounding board for his theory of evolution, and it is said that “On the Origin of Species” would not exist without Hooker and Kew, certainly not as we know it today. Kew gardens goes back a long way, and today Kew has the world’s largest collection of living plants. It has one of the world’s largest botanical library collections, and it has more than 7 million specimens in a herbarium, including 350,000 “type specimens,” the original specimens on which new species descriptions are based.

Kew gardens is a UNESCO world heritage site. It attracts 2 million visitors a year and is one of the UK’s leading tourist destinations. Each year, 100,000-plus schoolchildren go to Kew to learn about plants. The extraordinary millennium seed bank, which I will address in a few moments, is the largest plant conservation programme in the world and I am told that by 2020 it will hold seeds from 25% of the world’s plant species. People will know what I mean when I say that Kew gardens is not just a constituency concern.

It is easy to see all that as nice to have, as of academic interest only, but at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, plants are central to our life. Without plants we would not exist, so I will briefly focus on the world-leading science at Kew. Before this debate I received many letters from Kew’s members, staff and scientists, as well as from general lovers of Kew gardens. I had one letter from a member of Kew’s staff that cited one key area of Kew’s scientific work. She said:

“Taxonomy is something Kew excels in, in fact we are the world leaders. Taxonomy is a science that will rarely hit the news headlines or draw in funding. However; taxonomy underpins all biological scientific research. If we didn’t know one species from another, or how many species there are; or where they exist in the world, how would any other biological, conservation, climate change, ecological restoration, food security, or medicinal research take place? Taxonomy underpins science the world over, and Kew is currently the world authority. It would be a terrible mistake and an irreversible loss to science to jeopardise this.”

She is right, and that is just the start of Kew’s science. Kew has been involved in cutting-edge plant chemistry research to identify anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory and anti-diabetic properties in British plants. Kew is building a one-stop-shop register of medicinal plant names and researching medicinal uses of our own British plants. Our flora consists of some 1,600 species, of which 400 are believed to have medicinal properties. A quarter of all prescription drugs come directly from plants, and right now, as if just to prove the point, Kew is looking for potential Ebola drugs based on the tobacco plant.

Kew’s work on climate adaptation is also world-leading. It is using the natural characteristics of wild relatives of mainstream commodity crops such as coffee, which is among the most important economically, to breed climate resilience into commercial varieties. If we consider that, as a species, 80% of our calorie intake comes from just 12 dominant crops and that 50% of our calories come from just three big grasses—wheat, maize and rice—the in-built vulnerability of the global food economy is self-evident. Imagine what would happen if we were to lose any one of those crops. Kew is leading work on building resilience into the essential commodities on which we all depend.

Kew is leading studies on wild bees, which are hugely important given our dependence on pollinators and the fact that pollinators are declining rapidly in this country. Kew provides the Government with top-level advice on climate change, biodiversity and the illegal trade in wood from endangered species—the list goes on and on. We face countless challenges across the world, but the challenge that dwarfs all others is the environment. As the world’s population continues to grow, and as our appetite for resources continues to escalate, we are ravaging the very ecosystems on which we all depend. It is a mathematical certainty—this is not my opinion but a fact—that, unless we change dramatically, we will find ourselves scrambling to compete for ever-dwindling resources, and Kew is part of the solution. Kew is more important than ever, yet we have chosen this moment in our history to jeopardise its future.

I will put that in context. In 1983, 31 years ago, 90% of Kew’s funding came from Government. That has dropped below 40% this year. In April 2014, it was announced that there would be further cuts of £1.5 million and that up to 125 jobs, mostly in scientific research, would have to go, and Kew faced a £5 million hole in its budget. As of 1 December 2014, there had already been a 22% reduction in core science staff. The very small silver lining is that that appalling threat to Kew’s future has caused people from all over the world to rally to its defence. Here in the UK, 100,000 people signed a petition in a matter of weeks, and I was pleased and honoured to deliver the petition directly to No. 10 with my friend, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Outside of that process, ecologists, conservationists and scientists from across the world have expressed real anger about the decision. The brilliant biologist Jane Goodall described the cuts simply as “unbelievably stupid”. I am thrilled to hear that, starting tomorrow, the influential Science and Technology Committee will be holding an inquiry into those cuts.

In the face of that storm, the Government felt compelled to offer some kind of reprieve. In September 2014, the Deputy Prime Minister was wheeled out to announce that funding would be maintained until April 2015. I think that he and other members of the Government had hoped that that would be the end of it, but it was only a pause. People could see that it was a delay, a temporary reprieve, so the campaign persisted. On the back of today’s debate, the Government have felt compelled to move yet again. This morning, just a few hours ago, they announced that a further £2.3 million will be awarded during the 2015-16 financial year, which is clearly good news. It gives Kew time to prepare and adjust, but it is only a reprieve.

It is worth noting that Kew has already lost a considerable number of its scientific staff, so the reprieve is not good news for them or, frankly, for their work. What it shows, however, is that the Government know that they massively miscalculated and misunderstood the level of anger that their decision would provoke and the value that we all attach to Kew and its work. The petition demonstrates that public campaigning can work, and I pay tribute to all the members of the public who signed it, as well as to all the celebrated ecologists, conservationists and scientists who succeeded in shifting the Government’s position.

Where now for Kew? I do not doubt that structural improvements can be made and that savings can be found. Kew has been run by scientists for many years, and it has suffered decades of underinvestment. From our conversations I know that Kew’s management and staff are up for the challenge, but the Government have to provide a realistic trajectory, over years not months. Kew is not looking for the odd reprieve. Kew cannot look to the long term if its funding arrangements are so short-term and so uncertain. Yes, Kew scientists know that they will have to look for other sources of revenue, but there is also a risk in that. There is value in, and a desperate need for, public-interest science, which does not always lend itself to commercial considerations. An obvious example of that is genetically modified food. Governments and businesses fall over themselves to invest in GM, but so far all the promises of cheap pest control, and crops that tolerate floods, salt and extreme weather, simply have not materialised. A different type of biotechnology, traditional hybridisation, has delivered those products, and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Using new technologies such as gene marker mapping and genome sequencing, conventional breeding has quietly delivered—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Zac Goldsmith]

Before we were interrupted by the Division, I was making the point about the importance of pure public-interest science and saying that such science does not always lend itself to commercial considerations. The example that I was giving was GM food. As Members will know, GM food has attracted an enormous amount of Government time and commercial investment, despite the fact that it has not lived up to its hype. GM food has not delivered on the promises that have been made over the years, of cheap pest control and crops that tolerate salt, extreme weather, floods and all the rest of it. By contrast, more traditional biotechnology—traditional hybridisation—has delivered those products. For example, in recent years it has delivered drought-tolerant and flood-tolerant varieties of rice, with high yields and so on, using techniques such as gene marker mapping and genome sequencing. However, it has not received anything like the level of investment from industry or the level of energy from Government that GM food has.

The cost of bringing a single GM crop to market is roughly $136 million, but the cost of bringing a non-GM variety, through these more traditional means, costs one fiftieth of that sum. Businesses and Governments are not falling over themselves to back traditional biotech because there is very little money in it for them. Improving crop varieties that farmers can use year after year is clearly not as profitable to industry as a GM model that requires farmers to purchase patented seeds year after year, locking them into dependence on the giant companies, just three of which control a staggering 70% of global seed sales. I give this example, and there are many other such examples, simply to show why we need pure public- interest science. It is important and if we push Kew purely to the commercial, which is where I think it will head if these cuts continue, we risk losing something inherently important and valuable.

I will end by quoting Richmond’s greatest living resident, Sir David Attenborough, who, as people can imagine, has taken a keen interest in this issue. He said:

“The important thing to remember is that Kew is the premiere botanical gardens in the world scientifically. People who think it is just a place to go to look at pretty flowers and flower beds are mistaking the importance of Kew Gardens. The Seed Bank is of world importance and it should be supported by the Government like a proper institution or university. And the continuing idea that Kew Gardens is merely a playground and that it should just put up the prices to look after itself is a misguided assessment of the value of Kew. The Government and the scientific departments should recognise that and support it properly.”

Like Sir David Attenborough and so many other people, I urge the Government to rethink their plans—even further than they have this morning—and to provide a genuine, long-term plan for Kew gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and all hon. Members on their contributions made both today and at other times when the future of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has been discussed. I also congratulate Kew on its approach to refreshing how it delivers its science in the 21st century.

As lead Government sponsor for Kew, the funding that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides helps to support the institution as an international, collections-based, centre of expertise in plant and fungal identification, taxonomy, conservation, sustainable use and related research. It helps to support Kew in its role as a UNESCO world heritage site and supports Wakehurst Place, which is managed by Kew and is home to the millennium seed bank. The funding also supports Kew in its roles as the world’s most famous botanic garden, an important visitor attraction, which has been highlighted by hon. Members from London, and a provider of science-based education to the public.

Kew was founded over 255 years ago. The Government and Kew’s shared challenge is to ensure that its structure is resilient and fit for purpose to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Its new science strategy is vital. Kew is recognised throughout the world for its unrivalled assets and expertise, and we want further to enhance that reputation. Kew is not simply another academic institution; it maintains a world-renowned collection, which enables it to be unique in the science that it can provide. This debate and the Science and Technology Committee’s hearing tomorrow on the future of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew will help to inform the final details of a new science strategy for Kew.

We have been able to offer relative protection to Kew in terms of total Government funding. Average funding has been more than £27.4 million a year over the past five years. Between 2007 and 2010—the last comprehensive spending review period—the average was less than £27 million. Others have already mentioned it, but I am pleased to confirm an extra £2.3 million unrestricted resource funding for 2015-16, which the Government secured through the recent autumn statement and which was announced today by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I want to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the need for a full, open stakeholder meeting. The grant that the Minister alludes to is a one-off, a reprieve, a delay and nothing more than that, so there is a need for such a discussion. I ask him to address that point directly. If he could facilitate that meeting, I am sure that we would all appreciate it.

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will return to that point and some of the long-term issues later.

The funding announced by the Deputy Prime Minister today maintains Kew’s resource funding at 2013-14 levels right through to April 2016, which is in recognition of the need to embed the restructuring in order to deliver a sustainable future for Kew and the globally recognised science work that it provides. The funding is in addition to the announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in September that unrestricted resource funding for RBG Kew will be maintained until April 2015 at 2013-14 levels. Kew was provided with an additional £1.5 million to honour that.

We fully support Kew’s efforts not only to balance the budget, but to increase commercial and other sources of funding. That approach not only reduces reliance on Government funding, but potentially opens up additional and new opportunities. In support of that, I can confirm that we have extended to Kew more of the freedoms that are available to certain museums and galleries, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) referred. In particular, that will mean that Kew can bid for preferential Government loans to pursue projects that will enhance its ability to grow self-generated income. Kew has been asking for that and I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that today.

Kew is already a valued partner in delivering DEFRA’s strategic evidence priorities. It has unique assets and globally respected expertise and is a top performing scientific institute that helps to deliver DEFRA’s science objectives. I welcome Kew’s approach to refresh how it delivers that science in the 21st century. In turn, that will help to deliver what people want of Kew and what the Government need. I support Kew’s restructuring as it will enable the right skills to be in place to secure long-term success, to maintain a world-class facility and to be able to respond to future challenges. Kew’s scientists directly support DEFRA’s work in several ways. For example, they contribute to international biodiversity, to tackling climate change globally and to a resilient, sustainable and growing food and farming industry. They help with the bio-security system and our ability to respond to plant, pest or disease outbreaks and contribute towards halting the loss of biodiversity in England by 2020.

Kew has a dedicated, committed and professional work force, but it needs the right skills to deliver a new scientific vision and to respond to future global challenges. It cannot afford not to change. It may be easy to think that it is all about reducing costs, but the restructuring is about securing long-term stability for the institution and creating and maintaining a world-class facility for future generations. That will enable it to make a unique contribution to meeting the 21st century’s great social and environmental challenges, to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred in his opening remarks.

Restructuring will also ensure succession planning by introducing new career and development opportunities for staff, so that future generations have the capability to continue its science legacy. Kew cannot afford not to change if it is to continue to be the world-class organisation that we all want it to be. The restructuring clearly impacts on individuals in different ways. It is too early to tell what that means for every person working at Kew, but Richard Deverell and his team are offering every support to the people affected by the transition.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I worry that the Minister is approaching the end of his speech, so I want to make a point before he finishes. Some of Kew’s key work, as the Minister and other Members have identified, clearly crosses over into the realms of the Department for International Development. Has the Minister’s Department approached DFID at any point to ask whether what would represent an almost immeasurably small pinprick in its budget could be diverted to support specific work at Kew that relates to poverty alleviation, building resilience into the global food economy and dealing with climate change?

[Dan Rogerson]

Part of Kew’s restructuring involves making it better able to look at other opportunities, some of which may come from other sources of public funding. We want to make it ready to take advantage of that.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

May I make a little progress? I want to refer to the points made by other hon. Members and, indeed, those made by the hon. Gentleman.

Turning to heritage, it is an important Government priority to meet our obligations as a state party to the world heritage convention. We are working with Kew to ensure that it is using resources effectively and looking for innovative ways to maintain and secure a long-term effective use of the assets that it manages. We will continue to involve our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in those discussions. We have invested considerable capital funding in recent years to help Kew reduce operational costs and increase self-generating income, including support to the temperate house restoration project, where we underwrote £10 million, which is a UNESCO management priority.

On the issues raised by hon. and right hon. Members the debate, I have sought to set out that the coalition Government have had to deal with public spending challenges to reduce the deficit. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was at pains to point out his ideological leanings. Mine might be slightly different, but we can agree that we need to tackle the problem facing the country in order to deliver growth and guarantee future investment in public services. Although DEFRA has faced a budget reduction, as have all Departments, Kew has done slightly better than DEFRA more generally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was concerned that non-departmental public bodies are at the end of the queue. That is a bad pun, but it is not the situation with Kew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I appreciate the unexpected perk, having spoken when I initiated the debate.

I do not know whether it is appropriate to ask the Minister to intervene, but I would welcome a clearer answer to my question on DFID funding, which is crucial. A lot of work that Kew does falls within the remit of DFID. If his Department has not yet approached DFID, will it now commit to doing so? DFID does some wonderful things, but no one would argue against the fact that huge chunks of money presided over by DFID are not as well spent as they might be. Kew would present a great opportunity to spend that money well.

I acknowledge the answer given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the stakeholder meeting. When are we likely to hear back from the Minister about that meeting? There is not a lot of time between now and the election, and the meeting should happen before it. Although I am grateful for today’s bung, my concern is that it is a political device to kick the issue beyond the general election. As Members and campaigners, we are aware that if we are to have long-term stability for Kew, it will need to be secured this side of the election, because negotiating afterwards will be much harder.

[Dan Rogerson]

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, I will have to confirm with my noble Friend Lord de Mauley whether any such approach to or discussions with other Departments such as DFID have happened. The institution is going through a process and has been exploring with our officials in DEFRA the best path for getting to its future, but if we can help it to have conversations with other Departments, I am sure that that is possible and very much part of the bottom-up process of Kew deciding what would be appropriate. We would facilitate a conversation, rather than seek to push another Department to make a budget available unless it fits its core priorities. I will take the suggestion of a meeting back to my noble Friend.

On the hon. Gentleman’s political points, all the political parties are setting out our stalls for future funding. There are challenges. He and other hon. Members will look at what all the parties are saying about future funding of public services and will make up their own mind. With regard to the funding for Kew, however, the money is in place for 2015-16.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, in particular, for campaigning so hard, which is appreciated by my constituents and by the staff and friends of Kew. It has not gone unnoticed. Personally, I am grateful to him for having pushed the issue so high up the agenda. We would not be having the debate or have seen the press release about the extra funding this morning had it not been for his leadership. I am also grateful for all the speeches.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Before my hon. Friend finishes, may I say how strongly I support his message to the Minister that he should be talking to DFID? The Department for International Development is simply awash with cash. It has had a bung of an extra £5 billion in the past four years. So much of the work that Kew does is overseas, helping developing countries, so I am sure that my hon. Friend and I can make a compelling case to the Minister to go and nick some of that cash off DFID.

[Zac Goldsmith]

With that, let us commit here and now as hon. Members and Back Benchers to visit the Secretary of State for International Development to make that case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I thank you, Sir Alan, for presiding over the important debate. I hope that it is the beginning, not the end, of something positive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

We are taking action locally, nationally and at the European level on the regulation of vehicle emissions, which is crucial to tackling this pollution. The Government are making progress on the issue, and we welcome what local authorities across the country are doing to engage with us on improving air quality locally and meeting our obligations.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State welcome the Mayor of London’s game-changing proposals for an ultra-low emissions zone by 2020, which would go a long way towards enabling London to meet existing agreed emissions standards? Will she ensure that London gets the support it needs from central Government to bridge the remaining compliance gap by 2020?

[Dan Rogerson]

I welcome the fact that the Mayor of London has begun consultation on further proposals to improve air quality in London. I look forward to hearing more on the details of what he is proposing and of course remain very willing to discuss with him how we can support that action.

National Pollinator Strategy

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. People need some guidance, because different types of bees need different types of plants in the garden and at different times of the year. One of the roles that DEFRA will have to play in implementing the strategy is to give clear advice on the sorts of flowers and plants that gardeners all over the country could plant to help their native pollinators.

As in so many policy areas, it is very important that good guidance is put in place for local authorities so that local solutions can be found, especially in the planning process so that planners can build in good habitats for pollinator well-being. Environmental impact statements are required for other species, so why not pollinators too?

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is also a strong role to be played by local authorities in committing themselves to not mowing council-owned land before August and encouraging flower banks? Likewise, the Ministry of Defence owns vast amounts of land across the country that is very poorly managed in relation to biodiversity. An enormous amount could be done right now—not, perhaps, in understanding the collapse of these colonies and the decline of pollinators, but in helping existing pollinators to flourish.

[Sarah Newton]

I completely agree. Again, DEFRA guidance could really help councils and landowners, right now, to manage their grassland, in particular, but also to plan their planting, recognising that different native bees need different foraging areas and different plants around the country. At a time when many local councils are looking to make cost savings, reducing the amount of money they spend on grass-cutting and leaving some land available to go wild for foragers would not only save the taxpayer money but save a vital habitat for our pollinators.

Raising public awareness of the bee is very important. I thank people such as Jacqueline Davey of the International Bee Research Association, who goes into Cornish schools raising awareness of the importance of our pollinators. The National Federation of Women’s Institutes and Friends of the Earth have shown through their campaigns how much support there is for honey bees and pollinators, and we need to harness that energy and support.

I recognise that the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry delayed the publication of the national pollinator strategy. I urge the Government to reflect on the points raised in this debate and the contributions made by people all around the UK on the draft strategy, and to publish the final strategy so that we can all join together and make a determined effort to protect and enhance the well-being of our national treasure, the pollinator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree that the research commissioned by companies that have an interest in the outcome, particularly in field trials, can cause considerable mistrust. The research does not need to be done entirely independently, but the process does need to be clear and transparent. The companies should put their hands on the table and follow standards and protocols that can be supervised by external bodies. There is also a question mark in my mind as to whether the Department itself is awaiting a perfect piece of research, as it were, to inform its future findings. The Committee has concluded that there is no such thing as a perfect piece of research in “natural conditions,” because they have already been compromised. We should apply a probability principle to work that has already been done and then add properly peer-reviewed and supervised additional research to it. That might be much better than adopting the tentative but alarming position—which I think still pervades this debate—of simply considering how the research might inform us for the future.

[Zac Goldsmith]

On the point about over-reliance on industry data, which we might call contaminated data, a piece was recently written in The Times by Lord Ridley. He claimed that the neonicotinoid ban means that 50% of oil seed rape crops have been devastated, because they have not been protected. However, figures released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only a few days ago show that the loss of yield is about 1.35%, which is well within the bounds of ordinary seasonal and annual fluctuations. That very clearly illustrates the danger of relying too much on industry data. Lord Ridley takes the industry or big business line on almost every issue, but I think we should be very cautious about attaching too much importance—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has got the message.

Food Fraud

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We made it clear that testing was the retailers’ responsibility. Retailers had not only a legal responsibility but a moral responsibility to their consumers to ensure that the material they put on their shelves was what they said it was. They were put in no doubt whatever that they had to up their game, and they did, and all credit to them. I have no criticism of the actions that the retailers took to meet the demands that we placed on them for this very comprehensive testing regime, which took place not just once but time after time to ensure that the incidents that had been identified had been eliminated and remained eliminated. I have one caveat, which the Minister may wish to address: I did not feel that I had the same level of commitment from the catering industry. I am worried that as a lot of food arrives unlabelled on tables across the country through the catering industry, that might perhaps still be a weak spot. I would like to think that continuing pressure will be placed on the catering industry to be as assiduous as I hope the retailers now are about composition, testing and ensuring the integrity of their systems.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I enjoyed my hon. Friend’s tribute to British food earlier, to which I completely subscribe. Does he share my hope that we will do everything we can to maintain the high standards of British food as progress is made in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership? As negotiations continue, there is tremendous pressure from US agribusiness to try to weaken our resolve to avoid unlabelled GM food, beef treated with hormones and poultry meat that has been contaminated with chlorine, and we should do everything we can to resist that pressure and to maintain the standards that he has just praised, which I totally support.

[Mr Heath]

I see no reason to compromise on high standards of quality. There are areas that I think we can quite properly discuss with the United States in which the answer is labelling and letting consumers make the choice rather than simply having bans. Some of the areas the hon. Gentleman mentions fall into that category; others do not. I have no interest in hormone treatments being used in this country and think that it would be a very great shame if that were standard practice in our dairy herds. We have been down that road before; I remember having exactly that conversation 30 years ago when I was leader of the county council and American Pharmaceuticals proposed to bring in bovine somatotropin to increase yield in our dairy herds. As a Somerset representative, I would say that we simply do not want that. It will be bad for our cattle and for their welfare and it will also be bad for the industry as regards consumer acceptance of a very wholesome product. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the opening few remarks in this important debate, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on securing it. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath).

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests. As a proud Yorkshire farmer who supplies genuine Maris Piper potatoes to a well-known Canadian French fry producer with a factory in Scarborough, based in Yorkshire, I could not pass up the opportunity to say a few words in this important debate.

It is reassuring that Professor Elliott has commended the British food industry so highly for providing one of the safest food supply markets in the world. The report acknowledges the importance of developing shorter supply chains and securing domestically produced food for a more resilient food network. Indeed, I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in recognising the hard work of British farmers, who have invested to provide us with such high-quality produce. We must do all we can to strengthen our nation’s food security, increase investment and maintain our international reputation for producing the finest quality produce anywhere in the world.

As has been made abundantly clear, however, the problem is increasingly complex retail supply chains, which can make accurate tracing of food all but impossible. According to the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the factory that supplied a British supermarket with burgers made up with 30% horsemeat sourced the ingredients from 40 different suppliers. In such a long, complicated and unaccountable supply chain, the opportunity for fraud is sadly all too clear. Having familiarised myself with Professor Elliott’s excellent report, I agree entirely with the emphasis he places on the eight identified pillars of food integrity. It is, however, essential that we do not overlook the most effective way of ensuring the integrity and assuring the quality of our food: buying British produce.

[Zac Goldsmith]

On supporting British food and farming, does my hon. Friend celebrate as I do recent moves by DEFRA to encourage much greater use of the £2 billion or so we spend each year on food for schools, hospitals, military barracks and the like on domestic produce, so that a far greater volume of funds will be used to source and access good-quality local food for our children, patients and so on than was the case before?

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point well. It is important that the Government, of which DEFRA is one Department, lead by example, and I feel that they are doing that.

In the wake of the horsemeat scandal, it was clear that consumers want to see more British food on the shelves of supermarkets. They want to buy more British food and eat more British food, whether they get it through schools and hospitals, or by buying it in their local supermarket and from local producers. Buying British food is important, because animal welfare in our country is second to none. Our farmers are rightly proud of their world-beating record, which sets us apart from other global producers. We must celebrate that. For me, that is a gold standard, which we have to maintain.

I draw the House’s attention to the fantastic but often overlooked red tractor assurance scheme, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). The logo, with the Union flag, shows not only that the food was produced in the UK, but that the highest standards of animal welfare, food safety, traceability and environmental management have been rigorously enforced. Almost 90,000 farmers now take part in the scheme, and the retail value of food carrying the logo is now estimated to be more than £12 billion a year. Next week is red tractor week, and I urge everyone to support the scheme where possible. Young people are being asked to become red tractor recruits, to spread the word of high-quality British produce on social media. Sadly, I can no longer claim to be a young person, nor have I ever been an avid tweeter, unlike some other Members, but I hope my contribution will convince some consumers to put British produce into their shopping basket—or to buy local, which we have not touched on yet—

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

Going to a reputable person is actually part of the solution. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), a responsible, decent breeder who wants to ensure that the right person gets the dog will have invested a lot of time and money into raising those puppies, and they are being undercut by unscrupulous breeders who care nothing for the animals.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the House. It matters greatly to the huge number of my constituents who have written in about it. As mentioned, local authorities have powers that they are often reluctant to use and which perhaps they do not even know they have, but this is not just about extending the licensing regime. The regime itself must be flawed, given that there are plenty of breeders whose standards do not meet even the first rung of the ladder, but who nevertheless have licences. The quality of the standard itself also needs to be addressed.

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well.

Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I will be quick. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on her opening remarks and her brilliant chairmanship of the Committee, of which I am proud to be a member. I will focus briefly on marine protected areas, which were a significant part of the report that we put together.

As Members will know, the oceans are under unprecedented pressure. It is estimated that 90% of all large fish are gone and that 15 of the world’s 17 large fisheries either have collapsed or are on the brink of collapse. A recent study published in Science magazine predicted that all the world’s fisheries will collapse by 2048 if current trends are allowed to continue. That matters for many different reasons—for biodiversity reasons, clearly, but also from a human point of view. One billion people depend on fish as their primary source of protein and 200 million depend indirectly on fishing as a source of livelihood, yet we continue to ravage the systems that provide fish, including one third of all mangroves, which we must not forget are the breeding ground for 85% of commercial fish. Only 5%—the true figure is probably less—of coral reefs are considered pristine nowadays. There is a lot that we need to do.

I will skip through the issues, such as the lawlessness of the high seas, the fact that 1% of the world’s fleets are responsible for catching 50% of the world’s fish, and the fact that there are fishing lines that would stretch all the way from Westminster to Brighton and 10 billion hooks floating around the oceans. I will assume that Members agree that it is impossible to reconcile those tools of destruction with any hope of a sustainable future for our oceans.

I will focus on marine protected areas, because notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), they are the easiest, quickest and least controversial way of protecting the oceans. We know that marine protected areas work. During world war two, when fishing was prevented in the Atlantic, fish populations soared incredibly quickly. Spain has a terrible record on fishing around the world, but catches close to the famous Tabarca marine reserve, the country’s first, are 85% higher than elsewhere after just six years of protection. There are many other examples, which I am afraid I will not be able to mention.

Governments have agreed, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned, an international target of protecting 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020, but progress has been incredibly slow, with less than 3% being given any protection at all and only 1% any real protection. That is depressing, but the good news is that we do not have to wait for international action or international agreement. The UK is in a position to show leadership, with or without our international partners. We have the fifth largest and the most diverse marine zone in the world—6.8 million sq km, comprising nearly 2% of the world’s oceans—and the vast majority of it is in the UK overseas territories, which between them harbour 90% of UK biodiversity.

Our report makes it clear that UK overseas territories are calling on the UK Government to help them to establish marine protected areas, and of course we must. Notwithstanding some of the comments that we just heard, we have made some progress, including the designation in 2010 of the British Indian Ocean Territory as the world’s largest fully protected marine reserve. However, we must consider three more hugely important territories: Pitcairn, Ascension and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

The Pitcairn Islands are, as many hon. Members will know, remote and neither polluted nor overfished. Their fish populations, including of top predators such as sharks, are healthy, and they have some of the best coral reefs in the world. They have intact deep-sea habitats and many species new to science. At present, they are totally unprotected and unpoliced, and it is only a matter of time before the area is devastated. A marine sanctuary there would be celebrated globally as one of the most significant conservation measures ever taken by any Government. The Pitcairns submitted a proposal to the Foreign Office last year for a highly protected marine reserve, which was supported unanimously by their population.

The second obvious opportunity is South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which are uninhabited, so we would struggle to get the lottery machines there, although we could probably put a symbolic one there, just to get through the ridiculous legalistic response by the Government to that proposal. The islands have a vast marine area that is recognised worldwide for the importance of its wildlife. Home to more than 100 million seabirds and half the world’s population of southern elephant seals, it is one of the world’s most diverse and scientifically significant regions on the planet. The islands have already been identified as a priority for protection by the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. A large-scale, fully protected marine reserve could be implemented with only a minor impact on current fishing or fishery income.

The third opportunity—I would go so far as to say that it is a golden opportunity—is Ascension Island, which lies in the middle of the rich equatorial waters of the south Atlantic. It is the peak of a gigantic undersea volcano. It holds the second largest green turtle nesting site in the Atlantic and is one of the most important tropical seabird breeding stations in the world. Its waters are full of significant populations of big ocean predators, including tuna, dolphins, sharks and marlin. A review of management options for Ascension’s maritime area is already under way, so the UK Government have an opportunity right now to declare a large and highly protected marine conservation area.

Politically, those steps are relatively easy and can happen incredibly quickly. The difficulty is, of course, in policing and enforcement, which inevitably come with some cost, but it is not clear how much. I believe that Pew told the Select Committee that the cost of policing Pitcairn would be around £600,000 per annum. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands already have enforcement capability provided through a dedicated patrol ship, periodic visits from the Royal Navy, and occasional overflights by the Royal Air Force, while UK Government vessels regularly visit Ascension. Clearly we need a step change to improve monitoring, with proper vessel monitoring systems as mentioned earlier, and advances in remote sensing and satellite technology. That can come in time. To use a cliché, we cannot allow the best to become the enemy of the good.

Given their importance to nature and human livelihoods, the proven and unarguable benefits of MPAs, the fact that we have it in our power today to create the world’s largest fully protected marine reserves, and that even the more extravagant costs associated with protecting those sites represent only the tiniest fraction of the annual funding of the Department for International Development, that surely represents good value for money. Here is a golden opportunity for the Government; they just have to stop dragging their feet and take the opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We have a number of work streams looking at this issue, including one by the Food and Environment Research Agency, but I repeat that this Government take very seriously protecting habitats for bees and promoting pollinators. That is why it is a key part of our common agricultural policy aims.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Deep-sea bottom trawling is one of the most destructive practices affecting our marine ecosystem and its value to the fishing sector is negligible. The EU is in the process of rewriting the rules in relation to deep-sea fishing in the north-east Atlantic. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will support the phase-out of the most destructive gears?

Natural Capital (England and Wales)

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for a debate on this very important issue, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on having secured these valuable couple of hours. It is a real pleasure to follow the speakers who have already contributed, and I agreed with so much of what was said that I have been radically cutting back on the points I wish to make in order to avoid boring the House to death. I will, however, make a few general remarks.

The conservationist John Aspinall died a few years ago. Before he died, he wrote a letter in which he said:

“Nature is the bank upon which all cheques are drawn.”

It is a simple and utterly unarguable observation. Everything we have is ultimately provided by the natural world— by ecosystems—but in modern society, with all its extraordinary cleverness and genius, we have never bothered developing the tools for valuing the very thing on which we all depend.

We are nothing without the natural world, yet concern for nature is seen, at a stretch, as a luxury add-on. That thinking permeates across the board. How many times have we heard our Chancellors caution that the economy must always be prioritised above the environment, as if somehow the two can be separated—as if we can flourish economically without that annoying thing called the environment? It is an extraordinary flaw in modern thinking.

That flaw is, perhaps, understandable for our recent ancestors. They may have seen the world as simply too big to pollute—they may have thought the oceans were so deep that it did not matter how much we threw in them, and that there was so much forest that it did not matter how much of it we cut down. There is an explanation for the madness of previous generations, therefore, but not of today’s. With 15 of the world’s biggest fisheries collapsed or on the brink of collapse, with the world forest map visibly shrinking every year, with fresh water shortages affecting well over 100 countries, and with human trash clogging up our oceans—visible now even from satellite—it is obvious even to a child that we are going to hit a wall.

Reconciling the market with the environment is a prerequisite for our survival as a species. It is our defining challenge. This slightly nerdy debate we are having about valuing natural capital is a central part of that.

In practical terms, valuing natural capital is about putting a value on the free services provided by the environment, and not just valuing nature after it has been cashed in. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) gave an excellent speech on the value of pollinators to British agriculture, in which she said that the cost would be £400 million a year were they to stop doing their valuable work. The benefits that wetlands provide to water quality are estimated at about £1.5 billion per year. Other examples of natural capital include the value of natural flood plains in terms of flood defences. The UK national ecosystem assessment in 2011 calculated that if the UK’s ecosystems were properly protected and enhanced, they could add an extra £30 billion to the UK economy. The assessment also warned that:

“Neglect and the loss of ecosystem services may cost as much as £20 billion to the economy per year”.

Even now, at this early stage, we can see practical examples of what happens when natural systems are valued. We have heard about some examples, but I wish to give a couple more. Old flood defences on the Humber estuary have been re-engineered to allow controlled flooding in order to prevent further flooding of towns and land downstream. The scheme has created 440 hectares of valuable new wetland habitat and provides about £400,000 each year in flood protection benefits. That is a straightforward example of what valuing natural capital means. In Cornwall, South West Water has found that paying farmers to reduce the amount of pollutants from their land entering rivers provides benefits that, I am told, are 65 times more than the initial cost. So the farmers benefit, the environment benefits and the water companies benefit—this really is win, win, win.

I wish to mention one other example from slightly further afield—since we are talking about the world and not just this country, I am sure that I will be allowed to do so. Vietnam has had a policy on payment for forest services since 2008, through which hydro plants, water companies and tourism companies must pay for the use of forest services. So, for example, more than $2 million is paid each year for the protection of the 276,000 hectares of forest in the Quang Nam province, of which 85% goes directly to local residents. The hydro companies protect their capital investments, because the trees prevent siltation and erosion, which ultimately shortens the life of their investment; the water companies have steady supplies of clean water; tourism flourishes; and local people have jobs and security. Again, everyone wins; the policy is a beautiful example of what this slightly abstract thing we are discussing means on the ground.

I want to acknowledge the work of Dieter Helm and the independent natural capital committee, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, who showed real, direct commitment in her time in office and has, without doubt, moved this issue on profoundly. However, this thinking needs to become much more mainstream in government and much more embedded in the decision-making process. We can all agree that we have a long way to go on that. To see that, we need only consider the Government’s impact assessment for the first 31 marine conservation zones, which calculated the costs to industry—about £1,000 per year—but failed to quantify the wider benefits of improving the health of the ecosystems. It did not look at how the zones added to the value of tourism and the fact that a healthy marine environment creates seafood. Those things were left out of the calculations.

Unless the work of the NCC begins to have a real impact on decisions made across government, it can only ever be an abstract or academic exercise. I am not yet convinced that the key Departments have properly bought in to this. Only a few weeks ago, a number of senior civil servants from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee. I asked them at the end of our session, while things were still being collected and recorded, whether any of them had met up with anyone from the NCC. Not only had they not done so, but I think we can safely assume from the response we got that they did not even know what the NCC was. Would it not be wonderful if next time we debated this issue—I mean this as no disrespect to the great Minister we have on the Front Bench today—the Benches were packed and we were talking directly to the Chancellor? That would be a whole new ball game.

On paper, I think that the UK is providing real leadership —that is not in doubt—and I know that other countries are watching our progress. My one request to the Minister is to persuade us, and anyone watching this debate, that the Government as a whole really are ready for the challenge and really have incorporated this thinking across all the Departments.

Wildlife Crime

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on initiating this important debate, and on making an excellent and impassioned speech, as ever. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), on his appointment, and I sincerely thank his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for his brilliant work on reforming the disastrous common fisheries policy, his work on natural capital and his personal commitment to tackling the illegal trade in ivory.

I recognise that the debate covers an enormous range of subjects, but I would like to focus my remarks on the illegal trade in ivory. Hon. Members probably know that up to 40,000 elephants, on average, are killed every year. That equates to one every 15 minutes. If that rate were to apply continuously, it would render the species extinct in the wild within 10 years. It is a tragedy, by any standard, that Africa has already lost some 90% of its elephants in the past half-century. What makes it an even greater tragedy is that the world so nearly put an end to that madness a few decades ago. In 1989, a worldwide ban on the international trade in ivory was approved by CITES, levels of poaching fell dramatically—not completely, but dramatically—and the black market prices of ivory slumped.

However, only 10 years later, malignant interests were able to have their way, as ever, and so-called “one-off” sales were allowed. For example, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe were allowed an experimental one-off sale of more than 49,000 kg of ivory to Japan. In 2002, a further one off-sale was approved, which resulted in 105,000 kg of ivory being shipped to China and Japan. With so much legitimate ivory, if there is such a thing, on the market, illegal ivory was easy to pass off, and demand simply rocketed. More elephant tusks were seized in 2011 than in any year since 1989, when the trade was banned. Sierra Leone lost its last wild elephant in 2009, and Senegal has only a handful or two—between five and 10—elephants left. Congo has lost 90% of them. I could go on through all the African elephant range states.

This intelligent, thoughtful creature is being wiped from the earth, and not for noble reasons. By and large, they are being butchered so that mindless people—mostly, I am afraid to say, the middle classes in China—can buy trinkets, chopsticks, toothpicks, combs and the like. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has pointed out, they are being hunted down for purposes that are even more sinister, if that is possible, with ivory tusks and rhino horns being hoarded as investment opportunities that rise in value as the species are depleted. It is hard to imagine anything more revolting, but it is happening.

Blood ivory is big business, and it is increasingly sophisticated. In May, 26 elephants were massacred by 17 poachers carrying Kalashnikov rifles in the Dzanga-Ndoki national park, a world heritage site in the Central African Republic that until then had been considered a safe haven for elephants.

All this matters in itself, but anyone tempted to imagine that it is a remote or secondary concern to people in this country should think again, because, as we have heard, this dark industry fuels terrorism and the worst forms of violence around the world. The Foreign Secretary recognised that in his recent comments at the UN in New York, when he said that

“the illegal trade in these animals is not just an environmental tragedy; it strikes at the heart of local communities by feeding corruption and undermining stability in what are already fragile states. And the profits from the trade pose an increasing threat to security by funding criminal gangs and terrorism.”

Only last month, the Foreign Office stated that it was aware of reports that al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-backed Somali terror group, is being funded by ivory. As if to vindicate that, only two weeks later, there were the appalling attacks at the Westgate mall in Nairobi. Some 40% of al-Shabaab’s funding is thought to come from ivory. The issue therefore affects everyone. Blood ivory has helped to finance al-Qaeda. It has funded Joseph Kony’s abhorrent Lord’s Resistance Army, and Sudan’s murderous Janjaweed organisation, and so on. It has to stop.

Although our country is not populated by wild elephants, this Government have a very strong role to play. I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary included a reference to the illegal wildlife trade in the leaders’ communiqué at the G8 summit, and I know that he takes a personal interest in this subject. I am also pleased that the Government will host a high-level London conference on the illegal wildlife trade next February. I hope that the Minister has had time to familiarise himself with, and will tell us more about, the early priorities for the conference.

I know that the Government are considering what support, if any, to provide for the African elephant action plan, which was adopted in 2010 by all 38 African elephant range states, and which represents an agreement on a series of ambitious objectives. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s thoughts about that.

The Environmental Audit Committee report that has triggered this debate said many things, but I want to quote one of its recommendations. I am being repetitive, but this is crucial. In our report, which was unanimously signed off, we said that

“the Government should focus attention on the damaging effect of ‘one-off’ sales of impounded ivory, which undermine the international CITES regime and fuel demand for ivory products, and seek an unequivocal international ban on all forms of ivory trade.”

Given the effects of the partial legitimisation of the trade, this is really a black-and-white issue, and I hope that the Minister will provide the clearest possible endorsement of that.

Finally, the good news is that opposition to the illegal wildlife trade in China is growing. That is clear from the fact that China’s largest online marketplace, Taobao, has banned a range of wildlife products: tiger bone, rhino horn, elephant ivory, bear bile, turtle shell, pangolins—I do not even know what they are—and shark fin are on that long list. That big step would not have happened were it not for a changing tide among Chinese consumers. However, progress clearly is not fast enough. I imagine that the Chinese premier, by one stroke of his pen, could shut down the ivory carving factories. I urge the Government to use every diplomatic lever available to accelerate such a process and to prevent the annihilation of a magnificent animal.

Fishing Quotas

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is wrong of me to tar all producer organisations with the same brush. Back in 1994 and 1996, it was probably wrong that the under-10s were not keeping such records, and they have learned a lesson from that.

Based on the response from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign, such a reform would in my view have public backing, as well as the support of fishing communities from all around the UK, and it would now have legal justification. Common fisheries policy reform, as well as setting out the courses for the elimination of discards and the introduction of a decentralised management system, also has the requirement for member states to allocate fishing quota taking into account environmental, social and economic considerations. This provides the framework for root and branch reform. I urge the Minister to pursue such a course and, as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended in its 2011 report, to base these reform proposals on the needs of the inshore fleet, rather than on the existing patterns of work of the offshore fleet. DEFRA should identify those stocks and areas where a re-alignment of quota allocation would be of real benefit to the inshore fleet.

To prevent the problems of the past recurring, there is a vital and urgent need for transparency. As a high priority, it is important that a publicly accessible register of quota allocations and transactions is published as soon as practicably possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister as to the progress being made in providing that by the end of the year, as has previously been stated. Without a clear register, it is incredibly difficult to see who is benefiting from the nation’s fish resource and to work out whether it is being properly shared out so as to get maximum social benefit. Such a register should establish what proportion of quota is currently held by non-fishermen. It would, I hope, at least dispel the urban myth that has grown up that football clubs hold quota. I urge that consideration be given to introducing a requirement that in future quota should be held only by active fishermen. A further proposal to consider is that in future DEFRA should make greater use of its powers to re-allocate unused quota in-year.

For whatever reason, we have allowed an inexplicable system to develop, with a barely comprehensible trading method inside producer organisations which is both complex and opaque. We need to consign this to the dustbin of history and move forward to a more professionally managed system with direct licensing from the Crown to fishermen, with more clarity over who has what. This way the public can get the best out of what is, after all, their fishery. There is a need for a proper formal mechanism to grant fishermen new fishing rights. A new fisheries Act may be necessary to achieve that

It would be helpful to know the timetable that the Minister has in mind for coming forward with proposals on which the industry can be consulted and which this House can debate. It is important that the right decisions are made and a management system put in place that provides fishing communities all around the coast with a sustainable future and ensures that the inshore fleet is able not only to survive, but to flourish.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, but on delivering a very powerful speech. I agree with everything he has said. It is undoubtedly crucial that we shift the balance in favour of the smaller fishermen, as he has described. Another opportunity for levelling the playing field, which has gone under-reported but which results from the Minister’s negotiations in the CFP reform discussions, means effectively that laws applied by our Government in our waters, which previously have only ever applied to our fishermen, now must apply to everyone, so foreign vessels operating in our waters must for the first time adhere to British law. That surely is another string in the bow of the smaller fishermen.

[Peter Aldous]

I acknowledge that point, well made by my hon. Friend. The decision is helpful. Also, we now have a sensible framework in the common fisheries policy. I pay tribute to Maria Damanaki, the Commissioner, for taking a lead on that, and again to the Minister for fighting hard when the negotiations got tough on that issue. As a result, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

In conclusion, we need to get on with this, because time is very much of the essence. In years gone by it was possible to cross from one side of Lowestoft’s Hamilton dock to the other by walking from boat to boat. Today the dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. However, if we now put the right system of management in place, fishing will be able to play a continuing role in the future economy not only of Lowestoft, but of many other communities across the four nations.