Wild Animals (Circuses)

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I pay my respects to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), whom I cannot see in the Chamber, and congratulate him on securing this important debate.

I should like to put it on the record that I am grateful that we will now have a free vote. Applying a three-line Whip to an issue such as this would have made a mockery of the relationship between Parliament and the Government. That is a welcome move in the past couple of hours.

I shall not pretend that this is the biggest animal welfare issue, because it clearly is not. There are 30 or 40 wild animals in circuses in this country. That does not compare with the millions of animals that have to experience daily the brutality and horrors of factory farming. This is none the less an important issue. There is no justifiable reason for keeping animals such as elephants, tigers, lions and so on in small, travelling cages, away from any semblance of what for them would be a normal life. That is just not civilised.

My understanding is that until recently the Government took the same view, but that that changed somewhere along the line. It is hard for me—and, I believe, many others—to understand why that happened. For one thing, the vast majority of people support a ban. All the polls suggest that. The public appetite for such entertainment is, at best, fading. It is certainly not a growth sector.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

With overwhelming public opinion against the use of animals, might such a ban help circuses, because it could attract customers who, like me, are appalled by the use of wild animals, back to them?

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is an extremely valuable point. I have been to circuses in this country, but I have made a point of choosing to go only to those that I know use no wild animals. It would be nice not to have to do that research. I am sure that many people are repelled for that reason.

[Mr Watts]

The general public, MPs and even Ministers are opposed to live animals in circuses. Is it not clear that the only person blocking a ban is the Prime Minister?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I have no idea. I do not know the politics and I do not know the Prime Minister’s position. I accept that the vast majority of the public are opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, as—I believe—are the vast majority of Members of the House.

It is particular confusing that whereas the Government have a stated ambition over the course of this Parliament to reduce red tape and bureaucracy, their alternative to a straightforward ban affecting 30 or perhaps 40 animals is to construct a new regulatory regime, with licensing and inspections and the various associated costs. That goes against the Government’s general thrust and direction—and all for 30 or 40 animals. That makes no sense at all.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the strength of public opinion. Why were his Government and his Prime Minister prepared to have a three-line Whip for Conservatives until the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) stood up?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I began my speech by welcoming the change of heart over the past couple of hours. I have not been part of that process, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am very pleased that we will have a free vote—it is the kind of issue that should have a free vote. I am very much on the record before the debate as saying that I would have defied a three-line Whip and voted for the motion, as a very large number of Government Members would have done. That is perhaps one of the reasons why we will now have a free vote.

The most disturbing aspect of the Government’s change of position is that it is not based on a change of heart. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the only reason we have been given is that the Government fear a possible EU legal challenge some time in future. The Minister was quoted in The Independent today, I believe, as saying that

“a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act”.

If that is true, it is hard to imagine anything more embarrassing for the House. The Government are effectively saying that even though they want to do this minor thing, and even though the public would support such a move, they cannot do it because they no longer have the authority. What does that say about Parliament, democracy or this country?

Let me put it another way. What is the point of making promises up and down the country in the run-up to an election on the campaign trail if we no longer have the authority to fulfil even the most basic promise? That makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy in this country.

[Mr Offord]

I am sure my hon. Friend will recall the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, when the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights told us we were not allowed to deny them those rights. I was pleased that hon. Members, particularly Government Members, had the opportunity to show the will of Parliament. This is an opportunity for us to show our will again.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely accept that point, and there are other examples too. We had a debate a month ago on fish discards, and the House unanimously agreed a resolution requiring that the Government veto any reforms to the common fisheries policy unless they included our reasserting control over the 12 miles around our coast. It remains to be seen whether we have the strength to show our will again, although I very much hope that we do, just as we did over prisoner votes. In this case, the legal advice is, at best, ambiguous, and I am convinced by the arguments used by a number of speakers that there is, in fact, no genuine threat at all, and that this is something that the Government should and must do. I am going to back the motion, and I hope that colleagues will do the same, if not for the wild animals themselves then simply to send a message to the public that Parliament exists, and exists for a purpose.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I was not expecting to be called so quickly, Mr Betts. I was also not planning to speak, as I believe the debate finishes at 11 o’clock and I cannot stay. I hope that you will forgive me for leaving before the debate finishes. I will make a few brief remarks.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I accept that Members have other, pressing engagements, but the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about coming in halfway through a debate and leaving before the end. It means that he is not really engaging in the debate, but simply coming to make a speech by himself. I am giving him a bit of advice for the future on that point.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will take that on board and will stay as long as I can. I think that the debate finishes at 11 o’clock, and there is a chance that I can stay until then; I will do my best.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have had a huge number of letters from constituents, and the issue clearly resonates with the public at large. I do not believe that there are any circuses in my constituency that use wild animals, but nevertheless the issue has caught people’s imagination. Like previous speakers, I put on record my support for a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.

I am confused by the Government’s position. I do not see any real arguments against the ban, other than abstract ones. It seems to come down to an argument about the vague threat of a possible challenge by the European Union at some point in the future. That seems to be what the arguments boil down to. Alternatively—I do not want to paraphrase or caricature the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart))—it boils down to an in-principle opposition to the very notion of prohibition. I share my hon. Friend’s antipathy to the use of bans—we have had far too many bans over the past 13 years that could rightly and usefully be repealed—but there are situations in which a ban is the most clear-cut and straightforward solution, and I cannot offer a better example than this one.

I will not rehearse the arguments for a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, partly because they have already been laid out clearly but also because they are blindingly obvious. The public have an overwhelming appetite for the clear-cut solution of a ban, and the law should reflect the general wishes of the public. If the opinion polls are accurate or even half accurate—92% or 93% of people say that they favour a ban—surely the law should adapt to reflect the interests of that vast majority of people.

I also suspect that if the issue were put to a vote in the House, irrespective of the various positions taken by different parties, Members of Parliament would overwhelmingly support a ban. It would be interesting to see what would happen. I understand that moves are afoot to negotiate a votable motion with the Backbench Business Committee, and it would be interesting to see the result. I suspect that if the Government were to maintain their position, they would lose that vote, although they would probably realise that in time and reverse their position. I wish the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South all the luck in the world in achieving that opportunity, because the debate would be fascinating.

I encourage the Government to rethink their position, which does not make any sense to Members of Parliament, our constituents or those involved in the campaign for a ban. It seems totally illogical. I will do my utmost to remain here for the rest of the debate in order to hear the Minister’s substantive points in favour of the current position, which seems extraordinary.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. It is evident that he speaks for thousands of people up and down the country. We have heard from Members from various parties in support of a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. I thank them for showing interest, attending this debate and making such a strong case, which is valuable.

Members’ support reflects the views of the country at large. As we have heard, Labour’s public consultation last year found that close to 95% of the public want a ban. More than 25,000 people have signed The Independent petition calling for one, and every one of us will have had constituents write to us to support taking that strong, simple, pragmatic, clear and logical action.

The Minister’s answer to those concerned individuals—I am sure that he will regret it—was:

“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 499.]

How disappointing.

From the moment when this Government took office, their record on the issue has been weak and ineffective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has said, proposals were in the red box of the previous Government’s animal welfare Minister, ready to go after the election, so the work and heavy lifting have been done, but for more than a year after the end of the consultation, the Government have dithered and delayed in the trademark fashion of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They suggested in answers to Members that they were carefully deliberating, but a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) confirmed that they had not held a single meeting with animal welfare groups or circus representatives since July last year.

The process went on. Finally, in April, the Secretary of State leaked to the Sunday Express that she would be introducing a ban. It appeared that the Government had at last listened to the public and to common sense, and Members from all parties welcomed the news. Unfortunately, as the public are beginning to realise, we made the mistake of thinking that this Government do what they say they will do.

A month later, in another answer, repeated in oral questions and in a written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government could not implement a ban due to an ongoing case in which the Austrian Government had been taken to court over a breach of the EU services directive. Wrong again; there is no ongoing case against the Austrian Government’s ban on wild animals in circuses. That has been confirmed by the Austrian constitutional court, the European Court of Justice and the European Circus Association.

Will the Minister apologise for misleading the House? I hope that he will take this opportunity to do so, but I doubt it. The hasty statement rushed out by the Secretary of State said that she

“would like to avoid any misunderstanding”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 27WS.]

and pointed out that the Government had got their information from a European Circus Association press release. That Government policy should be determined by a circus press office is unbelievable.

The Minister will now claim that although the Austrian Government might not have been taken to court, they are about to be, which is why the Government cannot introduce a ban, much as they would like to. The issue, however, has already been decided at European level. The European Circus Association submitted a complaint against the Austrian protection law to the European Commission, but the Commission closed the case in 2006, categorically stating that

“animal welfare questions are better left to Member States”.

The circuses looked to the European ombudsman to overturn the decision, but instead, just last year, the ombudsman upheld the Commission’s decision. The Commission, responding to the Government’s announcement against a ban last month, again stated:

“The EU rules ensure services can be easily provided across borders. But there are of course valid reasons for exceptions to the rules and restrictions are allowed”.

Since Austria’s ban in 2005, other countries, including Luxembourg, Hungary and Greece, have introduced similar arrangements without challenge. The answer is therefore clear: Europe is no reason not to introduce a ban. What other excuses will the Minister provide for the Government’s failure? Will he repeat his assertion that a ban requires primary legislation? That is not true. DEFRA’s own impact assessment states:

“Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act allows the Minister/Secretary of State to make such provisions as he thinks fit for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible. Under this legislation a complete ban on wild animals in travelling circuses could be introduced.”

That is pretty conclusive. It is no wonder that that assessment is no longer available on the DEFRA website. Instead, it has been hidden away in the National Archives.

The very same impact assessment dispels the other myth suggested by the Minister, namely that a ban would somehow contravene our obligations under the Human Rights Acts, an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has already put to bed. Without hesitation or ambiguity, the assessment states:

“There are no human rights issues raised by these proposals.”

That is a black and white rebuttal of the Minister’s ludicrous suggestion from his own Department.

What are the Government proposing instead of a ban? A strict licensing regime that is so strict that the Minister claims it will be as strict as if a ban were in place. If that is going to lead to the same outcome, why not have a full ban? This is absolutely baffling. This is the world of DEFRA today. The Minister must explain why he did not follow his own Department’s advice from its own impact assessment, and why DEFRA will not publish the legal advice.

The Minister claims that a licensing regime can be introduced quickly, so that animal welfare can be improved as quickly as possible. However, in the Secretary of State’s statement to the House outlining the policy, she proposed further consultation on the nature of the licence. More consultation means more delay. It is hardly a speedy resolution or a prudent use of taxpayers’ money.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulatory approach would not only fail to solve the problem to which the public are demanding a solution, but be far more bureaucratically cumbersome and expensive than a ban? Given that there is no real public demand for wild animals in circuses, does he agree that a ban is the cheapest, cleanest and simplest solution?

[Mr Reed]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He makes the case succinctly, logically and clearly. The situation is precisely as he has described it, and I agree entirely.

Animal welfare organisations, which we must listen to, are absolutely clear that it does not matter what strict rules would be established under a licensing regime. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association agree that a licensing regime is unworkable. They are joined by Animal Defenders International, the Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals’ Protection Society in supporting a ban. Not a single animal welfare organisation supports a licensing approach; the only ones that do are the circuses themselves.

A licensing regime would be practically unenforceable. Even if inspectors were appointed by the Department, the regime would still be overseen by local authorities, if the system continues to be based on that used for assessing welfare standards in zoos. Circuses, unlike zoos, move around, making it impossible for councils to enforce the strict welfare standards that the Minister says that he wants to see introduced.

Even if local authorities wanted to take action, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has just closed a consultation on burdens on local authorities, where he proposes to remove their powers to prosecute for animal cruelty. Not only has DEFRA been forced to implement the biggest cuts of any Department, but it is now being sidelined and ignored by other Ministers. DEFRA has become a laughing stock, an embarrassment and a figure of fun. For every stakeholder and everybody who cares about the DEFRA agenda and environmental politics in this country, it is a disaster.

It is no wonder that DEFRA has been sidelined. We have already seen the humiliating debacle over the sale of our forests, delays to the water White Paper, cuts to the flood defences and confusion on waste, and now we have this excuse for a policy. DEFRA is a Department in special measures and I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has intervened. However, he needs to get a grip and stop treating this Department as the political equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. Intervening to prevent a ban is a mistake. Animal welfare organisations want it; Members in all parts of the House want it; and the public want it in overwhelming numbers. It has been implemented successfully in Europe. There is no need for new legislation, and the Human Rights Act certainly does not have anything to do with it.

The Minister knows this, so I urge him to stop digging and to print the legal advice, or risk accusations of there being none. If he will not print and publish it, why not? Would it be, as has been suggested, because of the hidden hand and influence of No. 10? Is this not more about saving face than animal welfare? This is an opportunity for the Department to do the right thing, to begin the climb out of special measures and to implement the ban. It is what the House wants; it is what the country wants; and I suggest that the Government get on with it.

Fisheries

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.

The motion has been tabled my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for St Ives (Andrew George), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and myself. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us an opportunity to have this very important debate.

The motion is about the scandal of fish discards. Up to half the fish caught in the North sea are thrown back into the water either dead or dying, as a direct consequence of perverse EU common fisheries policy rules. Members will know that there was an overwhelming public reaction following Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign. More than 600,000 people signed petitions calling for an end to discards, and many of them wrote to their Member of Parliament calling for immediate action. Their concerns are clearly mirrored here in Parliament, where the second most supported early-day motion since the general election calls for a discard ban. In addition, we have a Minister responsible for fisheries and a Prime Minister who have both recognised the absurdity of the current rules.

The time is right for a debate of this type because CFP negotiations are at a crucial stage. The European Commission is to make formal proposals in June or July, and decisions are to be taken some time in October, so now is our chance to give the Government a mandate to take the strongest possible line in those negotiations.

It is difficult to know exactly how many fish are being thrown away, because records are not kept and discards are not monitored. However, the EU estimates that in the North sea, between 40% and 60% of the total catch is discarded. The research of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more or less backs up that figure. In other UK fisheries, the total is probably even higher. For instance, in the west of Scotland area, the Scottish Government believe that as much as 90% of the total cod catch is discarded. Partly because of that horrendous and mind-boggling waste, the European Commission’s own scientific advisers estimate that 72% of assessed EU species are now overfished.

It is grossly unfair that so often the fishermen get the blame for that madness, because most of the discards are the inevitable and unavoidable consequence of decisions imposed on them by politicians. To add insult to injury, those laws are supposed to be about conservation.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about fishermen, because Scottish fishermen in particular have spent a great deal of time and effort to try to have measures introduced to minimise discards. However, the current CFP works against them in many ways.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Fishermen all around our coast are trying very hard to avoid this appalling waste, and I have yet to meet a fisherman who supports the current rules, so I echo what he says.

As all Members will know, reform of the CFP is complicated and hugely contentious, but whatever reforms are agreed, they must include a discard ban. We know that there are alternatives. For example, we could replace landing quotas with catch quotas so that by-catch that would otherwise be discarded had to be landed. The UK has already been piloting a scheme for cod involving six vessels in England and 17 in Scotland, and results so far suggest that it is working. Discards of cod are down to, I believe, between 1% and 7%. In addition, fishermen are using more selective gear and managing to catch more valuable fish.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I entirely support the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not wish to sound pedantic, but I hope he agrees that when we talk about fish discards, we are primarily talking about the discard of dead fish. There are many fisheries in which the poor fish, although they are no doubt traumatised, can be slipped back into the sea. Many of them are juveniles and capable of further growth.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and in fact the motion suggests a

“derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding”,

so that would include the type of catch that he mentions.

In addition to the pilots in our own waters, a discard ban has been operating since 1987 in Norway, where over-quota or unwanted species are landed for a guaranteed minimum value and sold to the fishmeal industry, with the proceeds used to reinvest in and support the fishing industry. To make a discard ban easier, we will have to do everything we can to help fishermen access and use more selective gear so that they can avoid the unwanted fish in the first place.

Consumers also have a clear role. A significant percentage of fish are discarded because there is no market for them, and the Government can boost that market through their vast procurement programme. We spend £2 billion each year on food for the wider public sector, and that is an obvious tool that the Government can use. However, there are obviously limits to what a Government can do to shape a fashion, and it is worth mentioning non-Government initiatives such as “Hugh’s Mackerel Mission”, which is intended to help stimulate new markets for less popular species. It is a valuable campaign, and I urge Members to support it.

Discards are the most visible flaw in the CFP regime, but they are only part of the problem. In addition, the motion calls for radical decentralisation, and I wish briefly to focus on that. One of the key demands from our fishing communities, and in particular from the under-10 metre fleet, is that we assert our control over what are wrongly described as our sovereign waters—the 12 nautical miles surrounding our coastline. I say “wrongly” because whereas the British Government can legally impose whatever rules and regulations they want within those waters, from six to 12 miles out those rules will apply only to British vessels. It is clear that higher standards are a good thing, but only if they are fair and we have an even playing field. That is categorically not the case in our waters.

For example, in 2004 the UK banned pair-trawling for bass within 12 miles of the south-west coast of England, to protect dolphins and porpoises. Although our own fishermen adhered to the law, the ban did absolutely nothing to prevent French and Spanish trawlers from continuing to catch bass in those waters, which was both wrong and unfair. If those rights for foreign vessels are to be retained, it seems to me that they should come with an absolute and non-negotiable obligation to adhere to our own rules. That is why the motion demands, among other things, that any reforms of the CFP must

“enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters”.

That is an absolutely fundamental issue. If we reassert our control over those waters we will not only provide welcome relief for our smaller boats against the onslaught of the factory fishing vessels, but we will be able to establish an intelligent, ecosystem-based management system and ensure the health of our fisheries indefinitely.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it was a mistake almost 40 years ago when the fishing grounds were used as a bargaining chip for entering the European Economic Community, as it then was? What will he do to ensure that his Government reverse that and give us 200-mile control rather than 12-mile control?

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my concluding remarks, so I will ask him to hold on for a few moments.

If we were able to reassert control over our waters, we would also be able to set the rules on science. With the active involvement of those who depend more than anyone else on the viability and health of our marine environment—the fishermen themselves—we would be able to get the policy right. That would also allow us to do something even more important—to recognise in law and in our regulatory regime, finally, the difference between smaller, traditional fishing vessels and their giant industrial competitors. It is an absolute mystery to me why successive Governments have always chosen to view the latter, the so-called fishing lobby, as the true voice of fishermen.

More than three quarters of the UK fleet is made up of vessels of 10 metres and under, which represent about 65% of full-time employment. Under the previous Administration, the 5,000 or so 10-metre and under vessels were given just 4% of the national quota, compared with the staggering 96% that was given to bigger boats, which number fewer than 1,500. It is staggeringly unfair, and if we were able to organise ourselves in the way that we chose within those 12 miles, we would be able to recognise the madness of that system in law.

It is an obvious observation that the smaller vessels are restricted in where they can go and what damage they can do, simply because of their size. The tools that they use do not compare with those available to the industrial factory fishing vessels, some of which have lines that would stretch from Parliament to Brighton, and purse seine nets that are big enough to swallow two millennium domes—which is a nice thought in some respects.

Whereas the interests of the smaller fishing communities are necessarily aligned with conservationists and consumers, the tools of destruction used by the mega-trawlers are fundamentally incompatible with any kind of sustainable future. That has finally been recognised at EU level, in word if not in deed. The new EU Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, has said:

“We…believe, based on scientific information, that small-scale fisheries are more sustainable and have a lower environmental footprint…Small-scale fisheries are also…more friendly to employment, and this is a key issue. We also recognise that small-scale fisheries are very important for the survival of coastal communities, for their identity, culture, history and way of life.”

Hear, hear to that, but let us see that finally translated into law. It is time for a clear and forceful policy distinction between the interests of the small-scale, more traditional fisherman, and large-scale operations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it possible for us to have small-scale fishing out to 12 miles, and to ban factory fishing within, or am I being slightly naive in this modern age?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I can only tell my hon. Friend that I would like to see a system biased in favour of the small-scale, traditional fisherman, but that is an academic discussion until we reassert our control over those 12 miles. When we have done that, we can raise standards. Lobby groups that represent the fishermen who use smaller vessels are very much in support of his message.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the current restrictions on the 6 and 12-mile limits? The 0 to 6-mile limit is restricted to UK fishermen only, but in the 6 to 12-mile zone, we share access with vessels from member states that have historical fishing rights.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation. That was exactly my point in my opening remarks. The zone between 6 and 12 miles is described as sovereign or territorial waters, but we are unable to apply our rules to foreign vessels, which is deeply unfair. I know that she will speak on that issue with much greater experience than I could ever hope for.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this measure before the House. Like his constituency, my constituency can hardly be described as coastal, but we have both had a large amount of correspondence on this subject. I believe that that is informed not only by concern for the environment and our fishing industry but by an instinctive dislike of wasting food, which is very deep in the national psyche.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In normal circumstances reform of the CFP would be regarded as a nerdy issue, of interest to very few, but fish discards have caught the public’s imagination, for all the reasons that he identifies. No one likes the idea of waste, and no one welcomes the obliteration of our marine environment. People also instinctively recognise that this is also about fairness.

I shall conclude shortly, because I know that there is great demand among hon. Members to speak. For all Ted Heath’s “pure brilliance”—his words, not mine, as no one will be surprised to hear—he was wrong to surrender our fishing rights as a price worth paying for our entry into the European Economic Community. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) about that. However, we have an opportunity to empower our brilliant fisheries Minister to right some of those historical wrongs. We can end discards, restore control over that key 12-mile zone, and set rules that allow both our fishing communities and our marine environment to survive and flourish. I strongly urge all hon. Members to support the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. Any ecosystem-based fishing policy has to relate to precisely the question of no-fishing areas. I appreciate the difficulties of enforcement and the problems that that represents, but under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2010 we have developed the potential of no-fishing areas and have already seen results in limited fishing areas, which create a haven where species can start to rebuild breeding stocks and then repopulate other areas. That is an important part of an eco-fishing analysis.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I want to echo that point. The most successful marine protected areas around the world are protected with the co-operation of fishing communities, and the biggest beneficiaries, beyond the fish, are fishermen themselves. In Costa Rica, Japan, Spain and so on, there are lots of successful stories of marine protected areas, which have boosted fishermen’s income and increased biodiversity, which is crucial.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman underlines a point that I wish to emphasise. The tragedy of the commons is a good example of regulated assistance for rational activity that benefits people who are trying to make a living and acting rationally in so doing. With the assistance of those no-fishing zones, there are substantial consequences beyond those zones, as there are benefits for all concerned.

Yes, it is true that we should end discards, but if we do so that will not by any means solve the problems. The motion goes much further and proposes that an ecosystem-based fishing regime should be part of a new common fisheries policy. The question of discards is a world issue for fishing. The average estimate of discards from catches across the world is about 8%, but it is certainly far worse in Europe, and that is a result, as we have heard, of aspects of the CFP as it stands. Let us consider the prawns and shrimps that we eat on our table. For every tonne of shrimp that is landed, probably 10 to 15 tonnes of fish have been discarded. That is across the world—it is not just in Europe. It is unlikely that many people would accept a non-sustainably sourced prawn on their plate if they were aware of the overwhelming numbers that died to bring that prawn to their plate.

Discards are an important issue not only in the EU but across the world, not just because the fish could be used but because we are damaging species by changing breeding populations and ecosystems.

The motion asks the UK Government to develop a package of measures beyond which it would be impossible to go in considering whether to endorse a new EU fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I do not accept that. I tried to make the point that discards are not the problem, but the symptom of the problem. There is no simple solution to discards and no one reason for them.

Perhaps the best way to explain that is with concrete examples. Fishermen who fish for prawn, megrim or monkfish off the west coast of Scotland are very likely to pick up by-catch of cod, haddock or whiting, which is a protected stock. As the fish mix freely and do not understand the EU CFP, they do not present themselves in the quantities and combinations required by the catch composition rules. That is the nub of the argument.

That is only one reason for discarding, but it is by no means the only reason. There are a range of reasons. The most obvious one, perhaps, is lack of quota and the quota problems that hon. Members have highlighted. Another common problem is that vessels can catch fish below the minimum landing size. There is a real danger in landing juvenile fish that have not yet reproduced. Creating a market for those fish would be detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the stock. That is why a blanket ban on discards is too simplistic a solution, although I do not wish to undermine or diminish the need to end or reduce discards. High grading—when fish of no or low market value are discarded when caught—is another good example of a damaging side effect of the current regulations. I shall not repeat the points that other hon. Members have made on that.

Just as there is no single reason for discards, there is no single solution. Rather, a variety of measures are necessary. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) pointed out, Scotland has been at the forefront of bringing to an end practices that encourage discards. The Scottish Government, industry and other stakeholders have worked together to make the Scottish fishing industry the most conservation conscious in the world. Currently, more than 50% of Scottish fisheries by value are now certified, or are in the process of being certified, by the Marine Stewardship Council, including 90% of the pelagic sector.

The hon. Member for St Ives addressed the issue of smaller versus larger boats. There is no doubt that the pelagic vessels in the Scottish fleet are huge, but they catch some of the most sustainable fish stocks in the EU. In addition, those boats are tied up in port for many weeks at a time and fish sustainably. They find a market for their fish and have a viable business, which is at the heart of a sustainable industry. This cannot be about artisanal fishing only, because communities and thousands of jobs in small businesses in local economies depend on commercially and economically viable fishing.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I merely wanted to take the opportunity, before the hon. Lady’s speech comes to an end, of acknowledging her amendments and recognising why she wants to include those words in the motion. I hope she agrees that the inclusion in the motion of the derogation, which was a last-minute inclusion, goes some way to assuring her that we are calling not for a blanket ban on discards, but for a qualified ban.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. I appreciate the efforts that he has made to accommodate the practical issues that face our fishermen, who are currently in difficult economic times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I start by again thanking the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. We have heard some superb contributions from Members across the House, and every speech added something unique, which was very important. I also want to thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their supportive comments and for staying throughout the entire debate, taking notes furiously and responding to the various points that were made. That is not always the case in such debates, so I appreciate it.

I wish to offer particular thanks to the Fish Fight campaign, which was mentioned again and again throughout the debate. There is a direct link between its campaign outside Parliament and this motion in Parliament. It is a perfect example of hundreds of thousands of people mobilising their representatives in Parliament and moving an issue that not many people find interesting to the top of the political agenda, for now at least. I pay tribute to those campaigners, who have done a superb job. The debate probably would not be happening, and certainly not with such a motion, without their involvement.

The motion is ambitious. I will not repeat all the arguments used at the beginning of the debate because I will run out of time, and kill the motion myself in doing so. If it is passed with the support of the House, which I think it will be, we will see an absolute commitment to ending discards and a new regulatory regime that recognises the difference between small, traditional fishermen and their industrial competitors. Crucially, we will see the beginning of a process in which we will regain control over those crucial 12 sovereign miles. In my view, nothing is possible without that. It is a central part of the motion. I once again thank the House and the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Does the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) wish to move her amendments? No? We shall therefore decide on the motion before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.

Intensive Dairy Farming

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for obtaining this important debate. He could not have picked a more important time to do so, as we have heard. We are all aware that we are at a crucial stage with a plan for a new factory dairy farm. It will either be approved by Lincolnshire county council or, if the decision is deferred, considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I hope to contribute to persuading the Minister to use his influence to encourage the Secretary of State to delay that application when it is submitted. I shall briefly explain why.

We have heard arguments on animal welfare and broader environmental concerns. A broad range of organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign Against Factory Farming Operations and many others, have made their views known. I want to return to another major concern.

The Minister told hon. Members in the House that he welcomes the fact that people are looking to invest in our dairy sector. But is that the kind of investment that we want? No one can deny that if the mega-dairy model is a success, it will impact heavily on traditional dairy farming in this country. If the new model works, the old model will have to give way at some point. Farmers will go out of business, and for those who survive, there will be little prospect of their children taking over. We will see a profound transformation of our countryside with acceleration of the depressing trends described in the brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart).

Today, just over 16,000 dairy farms produce 12 billion litres of milk. If the CPRE research is correct, the same quantity could be produced with just 232 Nocton-style mega-dairies. We have seen in the United States how quickly intensive agriculture can take hold. In 10 years, the number of cows reared in intensive conditions nearly doubled from 2.5 million to 4.9 million between 1997 and 2007.

If we are to move to a situation in which farmers are replaced by a handful of technicians, cattle food is imported, fields are left empty, and cows are denied grazing, at the very least we should consider the implications because that shift is not inevitable, as we have been led to believe. It will not result from some kind of overwhelming evolutionary market force. It has nothing to do with the market. I have yet to meet a single consumer who wants to buy such stuff. Even some of the mega-supermarkets that have rightly taken a bashing this morning—I will give them another bashing later—and household-name supermarkets have said that they will not sell milk from mega-dairies. There is no shortage of milk. We export more than we import. The market is not what will take us towards the mega-dairy—or, indeed, towards cloned meat or genetically modified food, both of which seem to be back on the agenda. However, politicians might take us in that direction.

We have a new farming Minister who is almost unique in that he is respected by both small and large farmers. He belongs to a Government whose leaders spent a great deal of time before the election, crucially, supporting slow food, organic food, sustainable food, local food, farmers’ markets and the works—the antithesis of factory production. I do not believe that the Minister wants to preside over a process in which our countryside is effectively handed over to US-style intensive agribusiness.

I recognise that the National Farmers Union has, more or less, endorsed the Nocton plans, but the NFU stands almost alone among farmers’ groups with that support. It would be wrong to mistake the NFU for an authentic voice for farmers, given that its president casually recommended recently:

“We need to experiment…We should give it a try.”

He was not speaking for farmers but for agribusiness. That is why, outside Parliament a few years ago, representatives from countless small farming organisations lined up with posters saying, “NFU: No F…ing Use”—I was there at the time.

Nocton is opposed by a wide range of farming bodies, from FARM, the Small Farms Association and the Family Farmers Association to the Soil Association, and including the Farmers Union of Wales, which said recently:

“Given that a single super-dairy could take the place of scores of average sized family dairy farms, we would prefer to see traditional family farms staying in business and receiving a fair price for their milk, rather than single massive units pushing others out of business”.

I know that the Minister shares that concern for the future of farming in this country. I urge him to step in now, before it is too late. We do not always have to yield to the lowest possible standards. We could, for example, invest the £2 billion or so spent on food in schools and hospitals on the best quality, local, British sustainable food, cutting food miles, giving patients and children the food that they want and immediately boosting the rural economy.

As we have just heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), we can insist that whatever food is imported should meet the same standards that we apply to our own farmers, so that our farmers are not unfairly outcompeted. Yes, that requires us to take on the trade rules but, if the rules make no sense, the Government’s job is to challenge them. We must do that if we are serious about protecting the British farming sector.

In addition, we could negotiate a better deal from the supermarkets. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already heard, but they are absolutely valid and I echo them. There is an imbalance of power—again, I cannot imagine any other body in this country, other than the Government, that is able or equipped to challenge and address that imbalance. That is a prerequisite for ensuring the survival of the farming sector.

We have heard that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have the power to stop Nocton or such a dairy model. However, if the Minister is persuaded that the risks are too great, he can raise standards without legislation, to prevent such developments from happening. I do not expect him to be persuaded in this forum, in a brief series of speeches, but I ask him to acknowledge the concerns and to use his influence to put the project on hold until he has commissioned a broad and thorough analysis of the likely impacts, not just on welfare, which is key, but on the whole farming sector. Without that information, we cannot take a proper, responsible or reasonable decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I will try to pick it up, although I will obviously not be able to respond to all the important points that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) have made.

There has been a bit of a battle for credibility between some of my hon. Friends as to who first milked cows. If I might join in, it is about 44 years since I first milked cows. In those days—we can all say “in those days”—most dairy herds were in the 20-to-30 cow bracket, and 100 was a massive herd. If we had had a debate about mega-dairies in those days, we would have been talking about 100 cows.

The average herd in England is now 113 cows. There are lots of herds with more than 500 cows; one has 2,000 cows and several have more than 1,000 cows. The world has moved on, and no Government of any colour—we have obviously had all shades over the past 44 years—have blown the whistle and said, “This is too big.”

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Minister is right to have identified, as others have, the perverse European rules that force us into a situation where our farmers are out-competed by farmers importing substandard products from elsewhere in Europe. Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged to challenge those rules, and my question is simply whether the Government still have any appetite to do so on behalf of our farmers and food security groups. It would be welcomed by farmers across the board if that pledge was fulfilled.

[Mr Paice]

Without wishing to duck that question, I should say that trade issues are, as my hon. Friend is well aware, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Obviously, however, we would wish to pursue as best we can commitments made by the Prime Minister before the election.

Let me move on to the point about competition in the domestic market and about supermarkets, which all my hon. Friends have raised in various ways. First, let me reaffirm that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to bring in the supermarket code adjudicator. We will call it an adjudicator because, compared with existing ombudsmen, it is not strictly an ombudsman.

I urge those of my hon. Friends who share my view that the sooner we introduce the adjudicator the better, to press the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills because this is his legislation. We will proceed as quickly as possible, but we need to be absolutely honest with ourselves and with farmers that this proposal will not in itself lead to a price rise; it is about ensuring that we have fair and transparent terms of trade and about enforcing the code, which has been in operation since February. We must not be accused of misleading people into thinking that the adjudicator will somehow make everything all right.

My hon. Friends said a lot about supermarkets, so I will not go further into that issue. However, we also need to look at processors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, certain processors have massively bid for contracts to process and bottle for supermarkets. They then pass on to the producers the results of what is, in many ways, over-bidding. We are now in the absurd situation where the farm-gate price paid for milk that goes into liquid products or relatively high-value cheese products is lower than that which people could afford to pay if they were going to convert that milk into skimmed milk powder, which is the lowest-priced global commodity—although, even then, the global price for the raw milk is about 27p or 28p a litre.

The Government are, of course, committed to the concept of free trade and open markets, and the Opposition probably largely share that fundamental belief. We do not believe in interfering in how business operates, but it behoves business to operate a fair market arrangement.

I cannot stand here and say that the Government will never intervene if we clearly see unfair practices going on. We hope that the adjudicator will resolve all that, but let me make it clear to the dairy processing and retail sectors that it behoves them to operate a fair market. They must recognise that if they do not, we will, as hon. Members have frequently said, lose the British dairy industry, whatever the type of housing, to overseas competitors. The result will be ever-more volatile prices.

Fisheries

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my honourable colleague for that intervention. It emphasises the point, although I do not think that the negotiations at the December Council will be an opportunity to reopen the issue of relative stability. I do not wish to cause earthquakes in Scotland as a result of suggesting that we do that now.

The issue goes back to the ‘70s and the basis on which, and how, we entered the European Union. That and the basis of our involvement in the common fisheries policy left us with a legacy that has created a complete absurdity. We are not saving any cod. Cod, due to their nature, are bottom fish. They suffer from the bends, so when they are thrown back they are dead. There is no question about that, and not a single life is saved as a result.

The Minister will have received representations from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. This is repeating the point that I have made to Ministers in the past on spurdog and porbeagle: zero quotas on both of those do not save a single porbeagle or spurdog. What we need is recognition that it is good for science, as well as for the industry, at least to record what is being caught, even if we do not realise the market value of the fish. I will not go into the detail of what is proposed by the CFPO on spurdog and porbeagle, but I think that it certainly has a good case on landing and recording every porbeagle over 2 metres, and that equally applies to every spurdog over 1 metre.

We need to have a further debate in future; I hope in Government time in the new year. The common fisheries policy has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and it clearly underpins everything that we are discussing today. Given that we need to look at the future of the CFP post-2012, I hope that the Minister will agree to a debate. Members who have been able to get here today and those who could not get here to engage in this debate would like, as early as possible in the new year, to debate this on a cross-party basis. These debates are often consensual, as we have found today, and we could establish a British view on the future of the CFP: a view that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned earlier, would be heavily based on a decentralised model—much more decentralised than now—with genuine management powers available to regional management committees.

The absurdity of using the blunt instrument of the quota regime has been highlighted by many Members. Quotas may be needed because it is not possible to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch, and I am sure any regime would need an indicative quota of some sort, but it is vital that we look at other measures. [Interruption.] I am just about to finish but I am happy to give way.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and absolutely endorse what he has just said. Does he think that in addition to a more decentralised approach within the CFP, we should also have a much more forceful distinction in our policy response between the interests of smaller-scale, more traditional fishing communities and operations and the large factory fishing units? The interests of such units are not always aligned with those of conservationists and general mainland consumers, whereas the interests of the smaller fishing communities, as we have heard, are absolutely necessarily aligned with the interests of everyone else in the country. A clear and much more forceful policy distinction would reap great rewards.

[Andrew George]

I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. We have not debated, and do not have time to debate today, industrial fishing and fishing for animal feed, or the comparison between industrial scale fishing and the more artisanal approach, which I have also highlighted. I wish that we had an opportunity to debate the future of the CFP.

It was a pleasure for me to go along to support the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on the Backbench Business Committee on 15 November in arguing that we should have at least this opportunity for debate. I am sorry that having said that I would be brief, I have taken a number of interventions and spoken for longer than I intended. I strongly endorse all the comments that other Members have made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Owen. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for securing this debate. She spoke for everyone here when she said that this debate should take place on the Floor of the House in future so that we can give this subject the forum it deserves.

This is an important time for the industry, and I want to put the fishermen themselves at the heart of our considerations. I pay tribute to those who have lost their life or been injured in this dangerous profession. Fishermen work off a dangerous platform in a dangerous place, and too many pay the price for that. Bereaved families and many other parts of the fishing industry are wonderfully supported by organisations such as the Seamen’s Mission and the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. I echo other hon. Members in paying tribute to them and to organisations such as the RNLI and the coastguard for their bravery and courage and for serving our marine environment so well.

We tend to approach this debate with a sense of groundhog day, as we trawl through the same old arguments. There is a general ennui or depression about the way in which we manage the system, but there are glimmers of hope here and there. What I have detected in my time, both as spokesman for my party when in opposition and as Minister, is that there are some reasons to be cheerful, I intend to put all my effort behind those chinks of light to make them wider and clearer as we progress in the months ahead.

We face a very difficult time; let us not pretend otherwise. If I am asked to present in a sentence my vision for this industry and for the marine environment, I would say that we take an ecosystems-based approach, which was referred to in the GLOBE document. Such an approach has sustainability at its heart—sustainability of the marine environment and the ecosystems that we need and value and from which we get so many services, and sustainability for the industry, and the communities that it supports. Members from all parts of the House have spoken movingly about communities in their constituencies which are dependent not just on the, sadly, too few jobs, but the families, the processing industry and all its supporting infrastructure.

When I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray)—it was the first place that I visited when I was appointed as shadow spokesman—I saw an industry that was surviving. It has had its moments and difficulties, but it has the support of a fish market, merchants, chandlers and many others. If one of them were to go, how viable would be the remainder? That is something that I frequently find as I go round the coast of Britain.

As we embark on the next few weeks, with the December Council and CFP reform, I have to say that I am supported well in this difficult job by some very able officials, who have so much more experience than I of this sometimes Kafkaesque process. There is a great sense of unity across the devolved Governments. If people want an example of cross-party co-operation, they need look no further. We have a Minister from a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government working with a Minister from the Scottish National party in Scotland, a Sinn Fein Minister in Northern Ireland, and a Labour Minister in Wales. I am determined that we should approach this round with a sense of unity, because it is only by working together and being on the same page that we can achieve what we need to achieve. I am grateful to all of them and to their respective officials for their support.

I will rattle through some of points that were made and try to respond to them in the time remaining. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan led the way in calling for regionalisation and an end to the top-down management of our fisheries and the common fisheries policy. She finds a ready and supportive audience in me. Earlier this week, I was at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. In a discussion between all the Ministers and the commissioner, everyone who spoke mentioned the need for regionalisation and an end to the current centralised system. In the same way, people often talk positively about long-term management plans, but the proof of what is said lies in what is done, particularly with the current reform process. I sense that among some of our European partners there is, to quote Hilaire Belloc, a desperate desire to

“always keep a-hold of Nurse

For fear of finding something worse.”

I do not think that anything can be worse than what we have now. We must have a decentralised system, and that is what I will be leading on in the reform process.

The hon. Lady represents the two important ports of Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and my two visits to her constituency have proved to me the importance of the fishing industry there. I value the clear way in which I was briefed about her fishing interests, and she was right—as were other hon. Members—to point out the affront of discards. Discards are first and foremost an affront to fishermen, and they are increasingly an affront to the public and the consumer. I was recently interviewed at Billingsgate market by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, whom I congratulate on leading an important campaign to raise awareness of this issue. His questions surprised me, as he seemed to think that I would somehow be a Minister in a suit who would try to defend the status quo. He was surprised that I out-outraged him with my hyperbole and my opposition to discards.

We must look at where we can succeed. Some schemes have been mentioned today; the hon. Lady mentioned catch quotas, and others have spoken about Project 50%. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised that issue, and on three occasions, I have heard the commissioner quote it as a shining example of what can be achieved. I intend to build on those important points.

[Zac Goldsmith]

How realistic is it to say that we will move to a system of catch quotas? I have no doubt that the Government are committed to dealing with that problem, but realistically, how likely is it that we will see a change in policy?

[Richard Benyon]

I forget the figures for the English fleet, but in Scotland, there are 17 vessels in a catch quota system. That represents about 20% of that fleet—perhaps not; I cannot remember the exact figure. At the moment, that system is a trial. We tried to persuade the Commission—and we will continue to try—that we must move beyond a trial. We want to get every vessel possible into a catch quota system because, for reasons that I will mention, that is the solution. Fishermen are incentivised to do something that gives them more fish, ends discards and is a bottom-up approach. It makes fishermen part of the solution, and instead of being the battered person at the end of the line being hit by a stick, they are given a carrot to find a solution. I will go on to talk about mackerel, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) echoed the point about decentralisation and I know the importance of nephrops to his constituency and the difficulties that are faced there. He rightly mentioned the difficulties of displacement. When we create a management regime that results in less activity in one area, there is a displacement effect. Too often, we have seen the malign effect of displacement round our coastline, and he is right to raise that issue. However, he sensibly discussed the world in which we live. I would love to debate how we got to this point, but that would be a waste both of my time and of the House’s. We should put all our energy into working with a system that we think we might be able to change. For the first time in my adult life and in the experience of people who have been in the House for many fisheries debates, we find the door open to a level of reform that we must try to achieve. I recognise that that is important.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) is an able chairman of the all-party group, which benefits from his knowledge of, and passion for, the subject. He rightly pointed out the importance of the processing industry. We must remember the jobs at stake and the importance to our food security of keeping the infrastructure that we require on land to support the jobs that we are discussing and get the product to market that our fishermen bring ashore. I think that he is rather depressed about the prospects for CFP reform. That probably comes from years of experience, but I hope that we can work with him.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I shall raise shortly, because the Bill is silent on that.

The list of bodies that support the Bill also includes the National Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Campaign for Real Farming, Compassion in World Farming, War on Want, the World Wildlife Fund, the Grasslands Trust, and even the Guild of Food Writers, to name but a few.

One may well ask why the Bill attracts such wide support. The reason, I submit, is that they all intend to use it to achieve their own particular campaigning ends. The Bill might, on the face of it, appear to be simply about sustaining livestock, but all those diverse organisations see it as a means of forcing Government to carry out the policies that they would wish to see implemented. The House will have noted that unusually for a Bill, it does not contain any specific policies. It does, I accept, set out what might be called a policy aspiration, but there are no specifics as to what Government are expected to do. We can only speculate on what such policies might entail. Indeed, some may venture that the reason specific policies are not contained in the Bill is that they would be so unpopular that they would engender yet more opposition to it.

One clue is contained in the postcard campaign organised by Friends of the Earth which is headed “Join the Moovement”, with the strapline,

“Put your hoof down for planet-friendly farming”.

The covering letter sent to Members with the postcard states:

“The Bill calls on Government to produce a strategy that assesses the impacts the livestock sector has on the environment, sets out the policy changes needed to reduce them, ensures problems are not simply moved overseas, and supports a sustainable and thriving UK farming industry.”

Having read the Bill, I cannot see where the word “strategy” appears at all, and nowhere are any policy changes set out. I am not sure whether the promoter and sponsors of the Bill had considered the coalition Government’s “Programme for Government” document, but if they had, they would have found a series of policies—real policies—that seem to cover many of the areas of concern mentioned in the Bill. For example, on page 17 there is a commitment to introduce measures to protect wildlife, halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity. There is a commitment to working towards a “zero waste economy”, and on page 18 there is a commitment to promote high standards of farm animal welfare.

I submit that the reason none of these policies is sufficient is that the promoter and many of the supporters of the Bill would like to see the United Kingdom go much further. I entirely accept that these interest groups represent areas of concern for many people, but I wonder whether it is appropriate for what is, by any assessment, a minority of people to use this Bill as a Trojan horse eventually to force others to accept the diet that they themselves have chosen to adopt.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Given what has been said about the Bill by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend, does he acknowledge that it has, in fact, had support from a very wide range of farming organisations that have not been named? They include Farm, the Family Farmers Association, the Small Farms Association, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, the Soil Association and the National Trust—which, I accept, is not a farming organisation, but it has an interest.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be short and contain a question.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I would like an acknowledgement that not only environmental groups but very many farmers organisations are enthusiastically backing this Bill and supporting it all the way.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend reads out that list, and I accept that those organisations no doubt support the Bill. However, I wonder what they have been told the Bill seeks to do, because I suspect that if they had actually looked at it they might have been somewhat surprised by its content. It is probably easier to get people to say that they support a Bill if one tells them that it is going to do something that perhaps it is not going to do.

Of course, the one group who will be more directly affected by the Bill than any other is our nation’s farmers. It is worth noting what the president of the National Farmers Union has said about it. In a press release issued the day after it had been published, he said:

“First and foremost, this Bill represents policy aspiration, not law.

I believe the UK government, present or future, should be free to develop its policy on the sustainability of the food and farming sector, working in partnership with industry and other interested organisations, as it sees fit. While the aspirations of this Bill are admirable, they are unsuited to legislation.

I remain convinced there are better ways of improving farming’s environmental impact, primarily by seeing through the voluntary and industry-led initiatives that are already underway rather than by adding further burdensome regulation.”

As far as I can see, and as we have heard this morning, one of the primary reasons why the Bill has been introduced is the belief of some that farmers in this country are too reliant on feeding their livestock with animal feed based on soya imported from abroad. I appreciate that there is concern about the destruction of the south American rain forest for the purpose of growing soya crops, but that problem is already being dealt with. Farmers have taken steps to encourage the sustainable production of soya in Brazil through the feed materials assurance scheme, or FEMAS. The UK imported 2.2 million tonnes of soya in 2009, mostly from south America, although it should be noted that not all of it was used in animal feed. Some was used in consumer foods such as vegetable oil. Already, about 1 million tonnes of UK imports from Brazil are certified under the FEMAS production module, which not only covers deforestation but ensures compliance with social legislation.

Soya is an important source of protein for livestock production in the UK, although its exact share of the livestock diet varies from as low as 3% for ruminants, through to 10% for pigs and up to 30% for broilers. Those involved in the farming industry have already agreed that the supply of responsibly sourced soya should be expanded by supporting schemes that can properly certify it as having been grown in compliance with sustainable principles, including environmental responsibility, responsible labour conditions and good agricultural practice.

Just in case clause 1 would not generate enough red tape, clause 2 would impose yet another duty on the Secretary of State—a duty to publish targets and report regularly on what progress had been made in achieving them. Subsection (1) would force the Secretary of State to publish the steps that were to be taken to show compliance with clause 1, including a set of indicators showing how progress would be measured. I would not like to venture a view as to whether an indicator is the same as a milestone, or even an horizon, but whatever they are, subsection (2) would require the Secretary of State, having published them, also to publish and update information about what progress has actually been made in meeting those targets. Those progress reports must include an explanation of the actual measures taken to achieve progress, and a comparison against the indicators. It sounds like a civil servant’s dream—new plans, new targets, more indicators, more progress reports.

If all that were not enough to keep the Secretary of State on track, there is a specific requirement in clause 2(4) for an “overall review of progress” to be published every two years. Fortunately, for the sake of all those rain forests that the Bill is intended to protect, subsection (5) specifically allows that the plethora of indicators, progress reports, updates, explanations, comparisons and reviews may be in electronic or hard-copy form. I sincerely hope that they would appear only in electronic form.

It seems reasonable to assume that having gone to such great lengths to spell out the duties and obligations on the Secretary of State, the Bill should contain some pretty blood-curdling consequences for failure to comply with its provisions. In fact, it is completely silent in that regard. Not a single sanction. There are no sanctions, no remedies, nothing. I could suggest that that is because the Bill contains so many vague terms and contentious definitions that any sanction would be effectively unenforceable.

I believe that the view of those who support the Bill is that remedy would be by way of judicial review. I can see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee already. Day upon day would be spent in the High Court determining what actually constituted research into sustainable livestock practices, or perhaps whether the explanation provided under clause 2(3) was comprehensive enough. The list of potential areas of litigation would, I submit, be virtually endless. I argue that the Bill, which fails to include any remedy or sanction, is bad law. Surely it is the task of this House, and of their lordships in the other place, to determine the appropriate remedy for failure to comply with a law that we put on the statute book. We should not simply leave it up to the courts.

As was mentioned, perhaps one of the most worrying aspects of the Bill is the effect that it would have on public expenditure. As the House will note, it places onerous duties on the Secretary of State to consider numerous matters covering not only every aspect of farming but other matters. They include the provision of public information, food labelling, research, the reduction and disposal of food waste, and extending the nature of the negotiations that we carry on with other countries. It also includes a duty to consult a very wide range of expert individuals and organisations, not just on those matters but on others such as food retailing, the production of animal foodstuffs, climate change, biodiversity, the effects on human health of eating produce from livestock and animal health and welfare. Then, as we have just heard, there are all the progress reports that the Secretary of State must prepare and publish.

There can be no doubt at all that those tasks will be very time-consuming, and time costs money. The need to engage expert consultants in at least seven different areas will not be cheap, and it is fair and reasonable to assume that those experts will charge for the benefit of providing their expert opinion. Even if they all provided a lot of free advice, a raft of new civil servants would be required to meet the new obligations.

Nowhere in the explanatory notes is there any assessment of what all that will cost. Exactly what is the assessment of how many new staff will be needed? What will be the start-up costs to establish the new regulatory framework? What will be the cost of providing new offices and equipment? All that at a time when the Government are trying to reduce the level of bureaucracy and administration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will use any means possible to resolve the issue, which has wider implications. Iceland is going through a process of accession to the Europe Union, and it seems a strange way to behave to tear up the rule book before joining the club. We are using a variety of mechanisms to try to put pressure on Iceland to operate in a sustainable way and protect a sustainable stock.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the Minister share the concerns of a number of farming organisations—in particular smaller farming organisations, such as the Small Farms Association and the Family Farmers Association—that plans to build a mega-dairy in Nocton will fatally undermine the viability of a great number of small and family farms?

[Mr Paice]

Obviously I understand those concerns, and as my hon. Friend knows, I have been in the industry for most of my working life. Two points need to be made. First, it is good news that somebody thinks that the dairy industry is worth investing in, given that so many dairy farmers have given up over the past few years. Secondly, I genuinely believe that there is huge scope for reclaiming much of our domestic market, which has been lost to imported dairy products. If through expansion and greater efficiencies we can do that, there will be room in the industry for both large and small producers.

Biodiversity

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

First, I want to echo the formidable words of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I do not think that there is anything in his speech that I disagree with. On the contrary, I wholeheartedly support everything that he said. Without wanting to repeat it, I want to add my support.

It is more or less a given that we all recognise that nature provides very valuable—some would say non-negotiable—benefits, but we have not yet developed the tools to measure those benefits. We have heard today and in previous debates about the value of wetlands, mangroves and forests, and no one could even begin to argue about their benefits. Despite that, we attach a formal or recognised value to those things only as we cash them in, so a forest is worth virtually nothing to us until we have converted it into toilet paper. We are destroying unavoidably and unarguably priceless, non-negotiable, valuable natural assets, simply because we have not yet designed tools sophisticated enough to value them. That is the ultimate example—the most defining example—of market failure.

The situation is beginning to change. Just as we all recognise—a child would recognise—that without healthy fisheries we would have no fish, people are beginning to realise now that as we lose our bee colonies, our agriculture will be affected. We are beginning to realise that as we continue to pave over and destroy our flood plains, we shall have to invest more and more in defences, as the speed of surface water continues to increase. In fact, as a result, water companies are beginning to pay farmers to manage their farms in such a way that they take into account the value of slowing down the speed of water. In other examples, water companies are paying farmers to avoid contaminating the water near their farms. As a result of farming in a different way, they are seeing returns of up to 65 times the cost of capital investment. That train of thought is beginning to become more mainstream, but not yet in Government.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has signalled its intention of beginning the process of embedding the value of the natural world in the decision-making process. That is hugely welcome. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on taking that agenda so much further than it has been taken before, certainly in my political experience—and although I have been an MP for only four months, I was involved in politics for many years before that. It is the best possible news. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Brent North and encourage the Minister to use whatever influence he has to take the message to the Treasury, because without cross-departmental acceptance of the need to value natural capital, we will not see anything more than a synthetic change in the way decisions are made. I shall finish on that point, and by again congratulating the Minister on taking the agenda so much further forward in a very short time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. In terms of bang for our buck—or whatever the sterling equivalent is—we cannot do much better than the Darwin initiative. I applaud the Minister for not going through the political rote that we sometimes hear at the moment of “Times are terrible.” I know that he faces challenges, but I agree with my hon. Friend; the Darwin initiative is a singular example of an initiative in which a little investment goes a long, long way. That investment sits alongside an investment of expertise from people from the natural history museum and Kew gardens, and the use of committed people in the overseas territories, volunteers and so on. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that announcements will be made about the next round of funding under the scheme. We look forward to that. I ask him please to keep that momentum going.

My hon. Friend moved on, in the latter part of his contribution, to some excellent ideas about embedding the values of natural capital in our policy making and decision making. That is one of the big ideas whose time has come. He talked about Departments having natural capital auditing and evaluation and every policy being assessed according to its contribution to increasing natural capital wealth or to denuding natural wealth. Another idea was the use of ecosystem services instead of hard technical solutions and weighing those up every time a hard technical solution is proposed. Sometimes we will need hard technical solutions; that is without a doubt, but they need to be weighed in the balance against whether there is a softer, longer-lasting, enduring, multifaceted-benefit approach that might be better.

That very interesting concept of departmental budgets of natural wealth should, after a trial, be incorporated into the Treasury. I would not give up on that. I know the Treasury is often portrayed as the ogre of Government, sitting there jealously guarding the keys to its bullion, or whatever it has, but it can be open to persuasion if a good case is put forward, particularly if the denuding of our domestic natural wealth affects us in a very anthropocentric way—a purely selfish way. When that is done, both globally—in terms of impact on global poverty, migration flows, our own shores and indigenous communities—and here, it is better to weigh these things in the balance. I genuinely offer the Minister and the Secretary of State my support. The Minister should advance that argument because it is time to do so. I will return to that.

The fascinating idea of an audit of the state of the nation based on natural wealth, with an annual report, and with the EFRA Committee playing a scrutiny role, was, the Minister will be intrigued to know, part of a conversation that took place in discussions with the former Secretary of State. We frequently asked, “What comes beyond Pavan Sukhdev and TEEB? What comes beyond the internal work that we have been doing? What is the next stage?” If it is to be embedded in Government, it cannot be in DEFRA alone; that point is well made.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly mentioned the importance of community engagement and education. It is very often the simple, immediately identifiable natural phenomenon that can do that. I recall visiting a school just outside Newcastle early in my tenure as a Minister, where we were looking at the reintroduction of the red kite. It was being reintroduced not to a completely rural environment, but to an urban-rural mix. I had not seen a single red kite and came out of the school thinking that it was going to be a classic ministerial visit; they had brought me all the way up there to see it and I was going to have to say how impressed I was, but I had not seen a darn thing. The school had branded itself round the red kite and the kids understood—they get it in a way that an earlier generation has not quite. As I walked out of that school door on the way back, five of the magnificent red kites were swirling around in the air outside. Whether it be the red Kite or the blue iguana in the Cayman Islands, such events bring it home to me that single species can transform people’s understanding of the importance of biodiversity in the natural environment. They can also lead to habitat recreation and so on. It is a virtuous circle. We need to start with young people and community engagement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made a good contribution. I had never heard of the Teesdale array but I am glad that I have now. She reminded us of the intrinsic value of species. That briefly takes me back to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) when he, as Secretary of State, announced the opening of the South Downs national park, the final bolt in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I spoke just before him and I was like the greased mechanic in the bonnet talking about the nuts and bolts and how it had happened and so on. While I had spoken in prose, he got up and spoke in poetry and reminded us what it was about: the joy, the experience, the benefits for many people who will never see some of the species we are talking about. The fact that they are there is important. That has to be balanced against finding a way for policy makers and decision makers to see tangibly what that value is. How does one express that in decision making, so that Ministers, civil servants and international organisations can make sense of it and base decisions on it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland also reminded us of the importance of volunteers and the great tradition of enthusiastic amateurs, in monitoring, recording and protecting our flora and fauna. She finished neatly by reminding us of that very good RSPB campaign, “Don’t Cut the Countryside”. I know that the Minister will be aware of it and will return in his closing remarks to how we can avoid that cut.

I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks to the effect that this does not have to be a matter of the economy or the environment. It is a matter of putting the triangle together: the economy, the environment and communities—national and international—and making sure that they are all delivered, at least in this international year of biodiversity.

The Minister noted the progress that has been made in some areas on SSSIs and on some of the UK species. He also rightly noted the accelerated loss of biodiversity as we run up to the countdown to 2010 and what will come after. He also rightly reminded us of the £42 billion cost per year in biodiversity loss. That is as real for us in developed nations as it is for poorer countries. We need to do something about the issue of access and benefit sharing, which is one of the pieces of unfinished business of Copenhagen, going into Nagoya. We need to find the right mechanism by which we can share the benefits that can accrue from sustainable exploitation of that natural wealth.

With regard to the CSR, I will go through some detailed and some big points, in as helpful a way as possible. I know that neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State intends to be the one who sacrifices natural wealth and environment on the altar of austerity. I welcome the Minister’s opening comments because I do not think he intends to be that person. The environment, the economy, society and communities go together. May he be the Minister who brings them together, domestically and internationally, within the UK Government and international institutions.

In a very good contribution, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) reinforced the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North and also rightly said that the tools we employ are not sophisticated enough; I will return to that. In a way that was slightly prickly and defensive, the hon. Gentleman perhaps glossed over, or was a little begrudging about, the contribution of the previous Government in moving this agenda forward. I think we moved it forward significantly, hence the nature and tone of this debate. It is now a matter of what the next steps are. Let me go back to the launch of the discussion document on the natural environment White Paper.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I want to clarify one thing. I accept fully that a great deal of thinking has been invested by Members of various parties over the past few years. My criticism of the previous Government is that the conclusions—the result of that thinking—were never properly woven into the process of government. In other words, decisions were being taken on a routine basis that utterly failed to take into account any of the real value of the natural world. That is what we have to change. We need to take the thinking that has happened across the board over the past few years and mainstream it into the heart of Government. That is what I hope our new Government will do, with the help of the Minister we have here using his influence within the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

As before, the hon. Gentleman has got it exactly right. Elsewhere in Parliament, Members are debating the strategic defence and security review. Part of that review involves how we will fund the type of operations being carried out in the seas off the horn of Africa. It is precisely because fisheries in those seas and agricultural systems in the region have been degraded, as well as the fact that the governance that supports a civilised society has been allowed to collapse in that region, that we now have to spend millions of pounds every year as part of an international campaign to counter that issue of piracy.

[Zac Goldsmith]

On that point, has the Minister been able to discuss the environmental causes of poverty with the Secretary of State for International Development? Given that the international development budget is one of the few that will be largely unaffected by the cuts—at least we think that is the case—it seems to me that there is huge potential to transform completely the way in which, historically, that money has been spent. We should start focusing it on tackling real environmental sources of poverty—for example, restoring forests to boost the water table and to stop women having to walk 5 miles to get water, or restoring fisheries to revitalise fishing communities, and so on. If the Secretary of State for International Development was to put much greater emphasis on the environmental causes of poverty, I believe that we might see some real progress in tackling these huge issues.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regularly meets the Secretary of State for International Development, but last week she met him and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. They were talking about sustainability and they are going to New York next week to talk about the millennium development goals. We cannot achieve those goals unless we have sustainability at the heart of our actions.

My hon. Friend points out, quite rightly, that one can achieve quick wins in international development: we can have a gift from the people of Britain of a pump that is put on some giant structure that perhaps pumps thousands of gallons of water every day into some irrigation system. However, we could have a much more sustainable solution, which provides a better deal for the British taxpayer as well as for that environment, by protecting the ecosystem that provides the water in the first place. I know that I am preaching to the choir here, but that point must be understood across Government and that is why sustainability must be at the heart of our actions.

The hon. Member for Brent North also touched on the issue of coastal erosion. He talked about coastal erosion in the gulf of Mexico, but I saw coastal erosion nearer to home last week, or the week before—the weeks are merging into one at the moment. I went to Norfolk and Suffolk and saw for myself what is a quite—I use my words carefully—frightening prospect for communities living in that area. During the last 50 years, the collective class of politicians has been party to a slight con of the people in certain coastal areas of Britain, in arguing that this concept of “holding the line” is achievable amid the modern pressures of our economy. The idea that we can ring large parts of our coast with constructions of steel and concrete for ever more—that is just not going to happen. Therefore, we must certainly develop innovative financial solutions to hold the line where we can, but we must also look at some of the sustainable solutions that the hon. Gentleman was discussing, such as salt flats, mudflats and other constructions that work. There is wonderful work going on and I am really impressed by the people that I meet in the Environment Agency and in the Department who completely get the necessity of taking that route.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about measuring cost, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Ogmore, who speaks from their party’s Front Bench, in relation to eco-tourism. To a brutally simplistic economist advising a Japanese whaling company, the value of a whale would be calculated in terms of the value of the product as against the cost of harvesting that animal in whatever part of the seas it is found, and the cost of the fuel for the ship. However, if we compare that with the value of that animal as a global eco-tourism resource, we see that there is no viability in whaling at all. Whaling can survive only with huge investments from Governments to support the few jobs that remain in the industry. That was brought home to me very clearly when I went to the International Whaling Commission in Agadir. The number of species, including whales, and the scale of the fish stocks that we manage to maintain in our oceans are also indicators of the general state of the seas. Therefore, the issues that the hon. Gentlemen covered are incredibly important.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) put a local perspective on the importance of engaging local people, which is vital. In our structural reform plan, our business plan for the Department, we said that we will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to protect green areas of particular importance to local communities. As we develop housing, we must understand that we can build an enormous number of benefits into new housing schemes—sustainable drainage systems, green open spaces or a conservation credit system—to replace the biodiversity lost due to the creation of those communities. Ultimately, though, it is the constituents and the people who live in our communities whose well-being it is in all our interests to maintain. Therefore, the right environment is vital, and he is right to raise the issue.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made a powerful plea in support of plants as an important part of biodiversity. Too often, we think of biodiversity in terms of fur and feather. She is absolutely right that plants are intrinsically important. I went to the natural history museum within days of my appointment, and was shown the mind map that is biodiversity. Mammals are a tiny part of it. Compared with fungi and plant life, we are a small part of that great picture. The hon. Lady is right: that is why the millennium seed bank is important. We should all feel proud that it is based here in Britain.

I can give the hon. Lady the comfort that one part of the conservation zeitgeist in Britain at the moment is landscape-scale conservation. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds cares about that, and it is the purpose of areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and wildlife trusts. It draws together key areas with farmland in between and does conservation work on that scale. That is how to succeed, and how the plants that she talks about will be protected.

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ongar mentioned peat, which is important to the Government. I recently visited the Peak District national park and saw the impressive peat restoration project there. I had not understood how degraded the peat had become due to the effects of a century or more of pollution, or what work, skills and technologies were involved in the vital job of protecting it.

At the other end of the argument, it is vital that we consider the market for peat and ensure that it is sustainable. The quick win is getting companies such as B&Q to use man-made products; it is the smaller companies, the local garage and other such outlets selling peat that must be worked on. We love having summits; I hope that they are summits with a purpose. We are having a peat summit at which we will get together with all the companies that sell peat to ensure that we drive forward that vital agenda.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I must admit that I am surprised to be here, not just today but generally. I cannot pretend that my campaign team and I were brimming with confidence in the run-up to the campaign. In fact the bookmakers shared that view, as I was still 2:1 with Ladbrokes until the last moment. I therefore thank the residents of Richmond Park and north Kingston for giving me the very real honour of representing them in Parliament. After three years of campaigning, I hope that they know that I will do my utmost.

I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Susan Kramer. Our campaigns clashed, sometimes very noisily, but on a personal level we developed a good relationship and I have great respect for her record as a constituency MP. She was diligent, hard-working, well liked and respected. I wish her well wherever she goes from here.

It is customary for MPs to praise their constituency in their maiden speech. While that is a duty, in my case it is also a pleasure; I am sure that everyone will say the same. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a former Labour Minister, just outside the Chamber, and he told me that had he been given an opportunity to stand in Richmond Park he would have crossed the Floor to do so. That was a hell of a compliment to the constituency, and I absolutely go along with that. It is where I grew up, I live there now, and it is the only constituency that I would ever seek to represent.

Richmond park is the heart of the constituency, and gives it its name. It is one of London’s greatest jewels, being raw, beautiful and not overly managed. I am told that it has more ancient trees than all of Germany and France combined. That may be an exaggeration—I am often told that it is—but I am happy to indulge in it. It is not the only jewel, as we also have Kew gardens. If they are not the world’s greatest botanical gardens they are certainly among them, and are rightly a world heritage site.

Like all constituencies, Richmond Park has its threats and pressures, to which—as its MP—I will have to stand up. We have now dealt with the third runway, thanks to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. That was one of the major threats overhanging the entire community, but we need to maintain the pressure and ensure that we protect runway alternation, which offers residents a much needed respite from the relentless noise of aircraft flying overhead.

Other threats include those from developers, which affect many of the constituencies in the area. In the last few years, huge pressure from developers has led to the rapid erosion of our green spaces. Residents will look to this Government to introduce measures to protect what remains of our playing fields and gardens. Those measures are on the cards: they were in the Conservative manifesto and also, I believe, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I look forward to seeing those proposals become reality in the coming years, and that will certainly be appreciated in my constituency.

We have a shortage of school places at every level, and I believe that the plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will resolve that problem rapidly.

Richmond also has pockets of real deprivation, and that is something that most people do not associate with the constituency, because it is generally an affluent area. But for that very reason, those pockets of deprivation tend to be overlooked. As an MP, my job is to address the threats to the community and ensure that they do not materialise, as well as to stand up for the entire community—something that I am absolutely committed to doing.

I hope that during my time in this House, however long that may be, I will be able to contribute to some of the wider concerns that have an impact on my constituency and every other constituency. One of the great challenges for this Parliament is rebuilding trust in the institution. Ronald Reagan used to tell the old joke, frequently repeated, that politics is the second oldest profession, but it can often look like the first. I do not believe that I am the only person who encountered people on the campaign trail who would buy into that line. People can regard politicians with something close to contempt, we have to address that. It is tempting to blame it all on the expenses scandal, but the reality is that people were disengaging from politics long before that, and the data on voter turnout and allegiance to political parties back that up. I do not think it has anything to do with the expenses scandal; it has something to do with how we deal with politics in this country.

Politics at every level has become far too remote. On the European Union level, how many people in this country genuinely believe that when they cast their vote in a European election it will have any impact on how Europe is structured, on what decisions will be made within the EU, or even on the quality of those decisions? I do not think that many people believe in voting in those elections, and one of the reasons is that increasingly decisions are being taken by people who are not elected, and are therefore insulated from any kind of democratic pressure.

Nationally, we have a choice—a limited choice—every 1,500 days or so, and in between there are very few authentic mechanisms for ordinary people to influence how decisions are taken. At the local level, I would say things are even worse. Local authorities have been stripped of powers over such a long time and to such an extent that even on genuinely local issues—local planning matters, local supermarkets, incinerators, for example—more often than not local authorities find themselves overruled by national quangos that are also unelected.

This Parliament needs to act decisively to shorten the distance between people and power. That should be one of our priorities. One of the best, cleanest and most effective ways to do that is to introduce much more direct democracy. It should be possible for people to earn the right to trigger a referendum on important local and national issues. It should be possible for people to recall and eventually possibly boot out councillors and MPs, not just for committing crimes but simply because they have lost the trust and respect of their constituents. If we introduce those mechanisms and turn increasingly to direct democracy, the quality of the national and local debates will improve, we will see much more engagement and we will have a much more politically literate country.

There is another challenge—there are endless challenges, but I thought I would focus on two—that has been the subject of the discussions today. The environment is the defining challenge of our era. It goes without saying—I hope—that without a healthy environment, we have no economy or future. It is the defining, underlying issue, and the basic maths tell us that we are heading in a dangerous direction: a growing population combined with an increasing hunger for resources means that the cost of living will at some point go up. If we take that to its logical conclusion, we will reach a point when conflict is almost inevitable.

We need only look at the facts. We can argue about climate change and our exact contribution to it, although I will not do that now, because other people have already done so today. The world’s bread baskets are being eroded. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. There is the destruction of the world’s forests, the loss of species and habitats and the collapse of the world’s great fisheries. These are real issues, and they are not subject to debate; they are matters of fact. They are not niche problems, but fundamental problems. I hope it also goes without saying that as we undermine the natural world and natural systems, we eventually undermine the basis of our own existence.

The cause of many of those problems is also, fortunately, the solution: the market. But if the market is blind to the value of valuable of things, if it is blind to the value of natural systems, and if it fails to put a cost on those things that should have a cost, economic growth can only be an engine of environmental destruction and a process that effectively means cashing in on the natural world until there is nothing left. Nevertheless, the market is the most powerful force for change that we know, other than nature itself. It is a tool, and if we allow the natural world to be plundered, it is simply because we have failed to understand how to use that tool. We need to put a price on pollution, waste and the use of scarce resources, and we need to invest the proceeds in alternatives. I do not think that green taxes should ever be retrospective—we have seen too much of that—and I do not think that the green agenda should ever become an excuse for raising stealth taxes. We have seen too much of that as well. However, whatever we introduce must be real, not synthetic. We need rapid change.

I want to read out something that Margaret Thatcher said 20 years ago—she was well ahead of her time on this issue—so I hope that hon. Members will indulge me:

“Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable energy sources; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.”

Margaret Thatcher was way ahead of her time, but she was also following a long but occasionally forgotten tradition in the Conservative party of paying tribute to and understanding the importance of the environment. It is a tradition that goes all the way back—as far back as anyone wants to go—to Edmund Burke, who said:

“Never…did Nature say one thing and Wisdom say another.”

Stewardship; looking out for future generations and recognising limits, particularly nature’s limits; providing security—these are core Conservative values. For as long as I am able to stay in this House, they are values that I will stand up for.