Crustacean Mortality in North-east England: Independent Expert Assessment

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the independent expert assessment of crustacean mortality in the north-east of England in 2021 and 2022.

Last Friday, the Environment Secretary published the independent expert assessment of unusual crustacean mortality in the north-east of England in 2021 and 2022 on gov.uk. The report documents the findings of the independent crustacean mortality expert panel convened by the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Professor Gideon Henderson, working with the Government chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance. The expert panel was convened to provide an independent scientific assessment of all the possible causes of the mass mortality incident using all relevant available data. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the panel for their work.

The independent panel concluded that pyridine or another toxic pollutant was very unlikely to be the cause, as was any link to dredging in the Teesside freeport; capital dredging was exceptionally unlikely. The panel considered a novel pathogen to be the most likely cause of mortality because it could explain four key observations: mortality over a sustained period, mortalities spread along about 40 miles of coastline, the unusual twitching of dying crabs, and deaths predominantly of crabs rather than other species. The panel’s assessment followed a multi-agency investigation, co-ordinated by DEFRA, into the cause of dead crabs and lobsters that washed up on the north-east coast between October and December 2021.

Similarly to the independent expert panel, the DEFRA investigation identified no single, consistent causative factor. It could find no evidence of known pathogens and concluded that a harmful algal bloom present in the area coincident with the event was identified as of significance. I am considering carefully whether further analysis by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science can ascertain conclusively the cause of this unusual mortality. I commend this statement to the House.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for their work on this issue on behalf of fishers and communities in their region—my word, they have needed it. Mass crustacean die-offs are now a regular occurrence on the shorelines of Teesside and North Yorkshire, and have been since October 2021, hitting businesses along the coastline. Fishers have reported a drop of up to 95% in their catches and continue to report high levels of dead shellfish in their catches. Let us not forget that our northern coastlines bask in beauty and history, so not only are they hubs for the fishing industry, but tourism plays an important role in their local economies.

We are 15 months into this issue, and all DEFRA Ministers can tell us is that they do not know what has caused it, that they do not know what has not caused it, and that an unidentified pathogen may or may not be causing it. Why, 15 months on, do they still not know? Is it because we have a Conservative Government and a Conservative Tees Valley Mayor who have been missing in action? Is it because they are not interested in uncovering the reasons behind it, and are more concerned with trying to brush the issue under the carpet? Is it because their priority is protecting a narrow political agenda rather than the interests of the people of Teesside and North Yorkshire? Or is it all the above? What message does that send out to fishers in the region? Dither and delay while hard-working people pay. Why have the Government been stalling on committing to or allowing further investigation? What is stopping them? What are they worried about?

Today, we need answers from the Minister. Does he plan to put in place a support plan for businesses affected by the mass die-offs and the delay in determining the cause? Will he ensure that existing samples are preserved and secured so that further investigation and testing can be carried out? Can he assure the House that his Department will allow independent sampling and testing to take place? Why have all dredging areas not been sampled and tested, as revealed by annex D.4?

The latest investigation poses far more questions than it answers. The Minister has the opportunity to commit at the Dispatch Box to getting to the bottom of this, drawing on independent and expert advice. Will he do so? The problem needs to be identified and rectified, because falling back on probable causes or a possible mystery pathogen is not good enough. All that does is cause further alarm and more uncertainty about the future of the region’s waters, and the jobs and livelihoods of local people.

[Mark Spencer]

I can honestly say that, sometimes, I find the response from the Opposition staggering. The hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a complete and utter misunderstanding of how science works, and from the Member who represents Cambridge, that is absolutely outrageous—he is trying to play politics with this disaster. It is a disaster. There is a shared desire across the House to find out what caused the die-off. It has been catastrophic to the industry.

We have had the best scientists in the world looking at it. We are blessed with some of the best expertise in the world in aqua science. Unfortunately, because of how science works, it is sometimes difficult to identify exactly what is the cause. It is possible to rule out what it is not, and that is what the expert panel has done. The independent panel concluded that pyridine or another toxic pollutant was “very unlikely” as a cause, as was any link to dredging in the freeport. Labour Members may want to play politics with that, but that does not do fishermen in the north-east any good. Rather than trying to score cheap political points, they should support those scientists and the work that they are doing to establish the facts.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The Labour party is perfectly entitled to its own opinions, but it is not entitled to its own facts, particularly scientific facts. Will the Minister thank the expert panel, who have pretty much ruled out dredging, and particularly capital dredging, which had not taken place for nine months before the mortality event occurred? Will he assure me that CEFAS will be the first agency to be mobilised should we see recurrences and that, if it can find crabs—perhaps there are some in the freezer from when it happened—more can be done to try to identify the pathogen, which obviously needs to be tracked down?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his question but for the work that his Select Committee has done in trying to get to the bottom of the matter and establish the facts. CEFAS remains on guard and, should the worst happen and there is another event, it will step in. As he identified, there are crabs in freezers in the north-east that are available to be tested. However, we must be clear that it is entirely possible that we still will not be able to identify what that pathogen was or if it existed.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a sad day for democracy that it took Mr Speaker to grant my urgent question to get a Minister to the Dispatch Box—albeit with a statement—on a tragedy that may be one of the worst ever to hit our sea and coastal communities. Just as the Government’s original theory was inconclusive, so is their latest theory. Scientists still do not know what has caused this environmental disaster off the north-east coast; a disaster that is ongoing, with more die-offs and no sign of our sea recovering. What will the Minister do now to find out what the mystery pathogen is—if indeed that is what it is—and whether it could spread further? How will our sea be restored to health? Will he accept that as there is still no definitive cause, nothing can be ruled out, and that only a further in-depth, transparent scientific study will give our communities the answers they deserve?

[Mark Spencer]

First, the Secretary of State published the report in full as soon as she received it last Friday. She put it into the public domain, so it was available for anyone to read and make conclusions. She put out a written ministerial statement along with that for the world to look at.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman deliberately tries not to understand how science works or just wants to make his political point. That appears to me to be Tinkerbell politics, where we close our eyes and hope that we can find the answer. That is not how it works. We need to have the best scientists in the world investigating the issue, and that is what we have done. We have asked an independent panel to look at it and we have had the best scientists look at it. We have to accept the scientific results: that they cannot identify what it is. Those scientists remain on standby to investigate again if there is another event. Sadly, we must conclude that they have looked at the facts and ruled out many things, but that they cannot identify the pathogen at this stage.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Crustacean die-off is deeply concerning to our north-east communities, and particularly to our fishermen. Will he outline what support the Government are delivering to the fishermen affected?

We have now had two reports that have failed to categorically identify one single cause. Will my right hon. Friend outline what more he considers it reasonable to do before we conclude that we simply do not know what single cause was responsible? Does he agree that conspiracy theories and political mudslinging from the Labour party are not helpful to Teesside?

[Mark Spencer]

May I say to my hon. Friend and to Opposition Members that that is how to hold the Government to account? We help the situation by trying to get to the facts in a calm way. He will be aware of the £100-million seafood fund that is available to help fishing communities up and down the country. I know that many businesses in the north-east have been bidding into that pot, and I hope that they will be successful.

It is worth saying that the independent expert panel took a thorough, evidence-based approach, assessing all the evidence on this matter. That included correspondence with the University of Newcastle on a number of occasions. The independent panel concluded its assessment of the incident using all the evidence available at the time. DEFRA and its partner agencies will continue to work with researchers and the scientific community to monitor the situation.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

In every other area of fisheries science and management, when facing something for which we do not know the cause, we proceed according to the precautionary principle. The Minister clearly does not know the cause of this incident. Last year and in the year 2020-21, English water companies discharged sewage into waters containing shellfish on no fewer than 59,079 occasions, lasting more than 432,695 hours. According to the precautionary principle, should we not be stopping that, instead of giving it the green light for another 15 years?

[Mark Spencer]

That is a slightly different topic. Of course, our scientists consistently monitor water quality throughout the rivers of the UK, and the good news is that water quality is going up in a number of areas. The Food Standards Agency—the most robust standards agency in the world—ensures that food produced in the UK is safe to consume and safe to eat, and it will continue to ensure that that is the case.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

The coastline that we are talking about is where I, my family and my constituents all go for holidays and recreation. We play golf, visit the coast and take all the pleasures from it—it really is a fantastic part of the world. On the one hand, we have got the big worry about crustaceans. My understanding is that, although Opposition politicians are suggesting that die-offs have been continuing since October 2021, the Environment Agency has said that no further die-offs have occurred. I do not want people being put off visiting the coastline and enjoying the businesses there if the die-off is no longer going on. Can the Minister give any clarity about what is actually happening in the sea now?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Redcar (Jacob Young), taking a keen interest in this topic over a number of months. He is right to identify that the scientists concluded that there was a single, large die-off and the number of crabs now washing up on beaches is consistent with smaller events such as storms. There is no evidence that there is another large die-off taking place.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister said that the report concluded that

“a harmful algal bloom present in the area coincident with the event was identified as of significance.”

We were in the area at the time, but we did not cause it, and neither did the harmful algal bloom. The report says it is “unlikely” that it caused it. So we want to know why DEFRA made such a fundamental mistake.

The panel tells us that while they do not know what the cause is, the most probable is an unknown, unidentified pathogen, but the likelihood of that being the cause is rated as somewhere between 33% and 66%. That level of uncertainty would not satisfy any tribunal, so clearly further investigation is needed. I hope the Minister can give us an assurance that all the resources of the agencies will be deployed if there is a further occurrence.

In terms of assistance for the fishers, they need help with the loss of their livelihoods. The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) will tell the Minister clearly that the seafood fund will not help them. They need help with the loss of their income. Can the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say what package he will put together for those fishers?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Member is right in identifying that the panel came to the conclusion that it was unlikely that an algal bloom, or a loss of oxygen in the water associated with an algal bloom, caused those crab deaths. Its conclusion was clear that the most likely event was a pathogen. The panel also concluded that it cannot be absolutely certain in a scientific form that that is the case. [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member listened to what I said, and I did answer the question he just asked me. CEFAS is on stand-by. If, God forbid, there is another event of this nature, it will step in. We have those crabs in freezers that are worthy of investigation, but the scientists and I are doubtful that pursuing those will find us any more information. If there is another event, those scientists will jump to it and try to establish the facts as they see them.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to rebuke Opposition Members for suggesting that there has been any complacency over this issue on the Government Benches. I was the Secretary of State who commissioned the first joint agency investigation into this matter over a year ago in December 2021. It reported in May 2022. The Environment Agency analysed samples for around 1,000 different possible toxins. CEFAS explored crab tissue in multiple different parts of the country, including comparisons with Cornwall and Norfolk, to rule out that possibility. Can he say whether the independent expert panel has looked at the possible impact of electromagnetic forces from cables, which the original investigation was going to explore but did not really report on?

[Mark Spencer]

I am not aware of any investigation into magnetic fields by the independent panel. It is certainly something I can feed back to our friends at CEFAS, who are the experts in this. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who started this work as Secretary of State. With the progress we have made so far, frustrating as it is, we are more informed than we were.

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

The Minister will be aware of the devastating effect this issue has had on fishing communities in the north-east. As the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said, it is also potentially having an effect on tourism, after many years of cleaning up that coast to be an attractive tourist destination. Algal bloom was the first argument as to why this might have occurred. In his statement, the Minister said:

“I am considering carefully whether…the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science can ascertain conclusively the cause of this unusual mortality.”

To echo the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), what next, Minister?

[Mark Spencer]

It is about taking advice from those scientists and working with them so that they can establish the facts behind what caused this disease. As much as the House and I want to find the actual cause of this die-off, we have to face the scientific fact that if that event does not repeat itself—I sincerely hope it does not—we may never find its cause. If it is repeated, those scientists are ready to jump into action at great speed to try to establish the facts.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

This is a classic case of environmental research that is contested. The independent panel’s report has clearly come up with no theoretical explanation of why this has happened. The British Ports Association says that there are not sufficient quantities of pyridine to have caused mass die-off. That is also contested by academics, particularly Dr Gary Caldwell at Newcastle University, who says that there are. As Lord Benyon has said to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that there should be more testing, can we allow Dr Caldwell to undertake deep sediment samples? We can then rule it out if there is not enough of the pathogen to kill the crabs in these quantities, or determine that he is correct.

[Mark Spencer]

It should be clear to my hon. Friend that Dr Caldwell was in correspondence with the expert panel, and they exchanged a number of pieces of correspondence. The evidence that was put forward by that individual scientist was considered by the expert panel in coming to its conclusions.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am on my feet because I have a crustacean industry in my constituency, and I also represent a constituent, Charles Clover, who is director of the Blue Marine Foundation. I have also read Jenni Russell’s commentary about this in The Times, which I find to be compelling. I am disappointed by many of the exchanges that have taken place, and there has clearly been a huge breakdown of trust. May I just counsel my right hon. Friend that he has to recognise that DEFRA has lost that trust—certainly of local fishermen and local people—and he just has to go back to the beginning and start again? He has to get everybody into a quiet room and see whether there can be agreement about finding a way forward. I know that he has been provoked, but this kind of argy-bargy will inspire no public confidence at all, and that is what is lacking at the moment.

[Mark Spencer]

I take at face value the advice of my hon. Friend. I think that DEFRA was and is seeking to have that trust. The way we establish the facts is to ask world-leading experts to look at those facts and come to a conclusion, independent of any interference or guidance from anyone else. That is what the independent panel did. It came to its conclusions and we put them into the public domain. We are as keen as anybody else is to establish what may have caused this disaster. We do not want to see a repeat of it, and we will do all we can to ensure that does not happen and to establish the facts as we can.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

The Opposition have accused the panel of not seeking evidence from outside sources. The terms of reference suggest the panel looked at all the available evidence. Can the Minister please clarify?

[Mark Spencer]

The expert panel acted entirely independently. It took evidence and advice from all sources to try to establish the facts. That was all considered and is repeated in the report.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

This issue is important, and not just in the north-east but across the country as we look at environmental impacts. I do not disagree about challenging and questioning the science where we need to and forging that debate; what I take issue with is when individuals’ integrity is questioned, whether that is the independent expert panel, who were referred to in quotation marks by an Opposition Member as “experts”, or even Sir Patrick Vallance. This is absolutely outrageous. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of this ongoing work, he will ensure that the science is tested but the integrity of those involved is not questioned? When it is, it gives rise to anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and everything else, and Opposition Members who have done that should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is right to identify that. We are blessed in the United Kingdom with some of the best universities in the world. We have the world’s leading experts in a number of fields, and their independence and professionalism should not be questioned. I should be clear at the Dispatch Box that I did not know who the members of that panel were until the report was published. That is the right way to have proceeded, and I thank those experts for their work and their efforts to try to get to the bottom of this terrible case.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, in addition to the written ministerial statement tabled today, I would like to make a statement updating the House on the next steps that we are taking to shake off the damaging legacy of the bureaucratic EU common agricultural policy for good.

We will learn from the past, and help farmers to build and maintain profitable and resilient businesses by spending public money in a way that helps us to secure the public good, so that they can continue to produce the food we need and help to improve the state of nature. That is the right and smart thing to do with public money, as we also develop the markets that will draw on finance from all sources. Today we are publishing detailed information about what we will pay for in our environmental land management schemes, and how farmers can get involved this year and beyond.

Having kicked off our sustainable farming incentive last summer starting with soil health, today we are adding six more ways that farmers can be paid to take action in 2023, from protecting and enhancing the hedgerows that make up a vital network of habitats across our farmed landscapes, to making sure that we tackle pests, protect crops and support wildlife, so that more farms of all shapes and sizes can make doing their bit for the environment part of their business plan. Each year, we will add offers to the SFI, with the full set in place by 2025, so that farmers can choose more options for their businesses. That is vital for producing food, tackling the causes and impacts of climate change, and helping nature to recover.

We are making it straightforward and simple to get involved. We know that farmers need to plan for the months and years ahead as early as possible, so today we are publishing information on the work we will be rewarding by 2025 through the sustainable farming incentive and countryside stewardship, and sharing information on the next round of landscape recovery projects. We remain as ambitious as ever, as we move ahead through our transition and work with farmers to design a much better way of doing things.

All that will help us to build the resilience of our communities and to meet our environmental targets on air, water and waste, as well as nature, land and sea, guided by our commitments to reach net zero by 2050 and halt the loss of species in our country by 2030. We are also tackling the polluters who stubbornly refuse to help and threaten to undermine everyone else’s hard work. Our aim is to back the frontrunners who can have the greatest impact and inspire others, as well as helping everyone to bring up their baseline and improve it year on year, harnessing the power of innovation and technology to help our farmers give nature a helping hand so that we focus on bringing their businesses into the future.

All the evidence we have, as well as plain common sense, tells us that making the shift towards a more sustainable, resilient food system is critical to feeding our growing population and meeting our commitments to halt the decline of nature by 2030 and reach net zero. That will fundamentally improve the lives of people across our country and around the world, and make sure that every generation has a better future. The UK will continue to lead the way. I am sure that the whole House will join me in recognising the vital importance of the solutions our fantastic farmers bring to the table. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, Daniel Zeichner.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It provides detail following announcements made not to this House, Mr Deputy Speaker, but to the Oxford farming conference some weeks ago. It will be scrutinised closely as farmers rightly try to work out what it will mean for them. With intense cost pressures on fertiliser, fuel and labour supply, many people are hurting and worrying. At the same time, the reduction in basic payments moves inexorably onwards. For people on the margins, especially in the uplands, the withdrawal of that essential support will make life harder and harder. Next year, half of it will be gone and the value of the other half will be eroded substantially by inflation.

So what is on offer today? Not nearly enough, I am afraid. There are more than 100 pages of complexity. There are lots of schemes, which are worthy in themselves, but in far too many cases, I fear they will be insufficiently attractive. There is a risk that take-up will be very low, as we have seen with the SFI so far, with just 224 paid out last year, compared with the over 80,000 receiving basic payments. I hope take-up improves—we want these schemes to work—but we have real doubts. Will the Minister tell us how much of the £1 billion already cut from farmers will go back to them this year through environmental land management schemes? How many people does he expect to take up the SFI in this calendar year? I welcome the reference to tenant farmers, but can he guarantee access to those schemes, because he will be aware of the issues highlighted in the Rock review?

There are also real questions about the environmental benefit. In the absence of a whole-farm approach, there is real risk, particularly on countryside stewardship, that the Government will pour money out to people to do pretty much what they already do and then intensify alongside that. Will the Minister tell us today what measures of environmental improvement are in place to ensure that public goods are really being secured in return for public money? Crucially, what impact does this all have on our food security? Will he tell us today whether we produce more or less food in this country this year as a consequence of these changes?

It is fully three years since we discussed the Agriculture Bill in Committee. I asked many of the same questions then and got vague answers. We will soon be halfway through the so-called transition. The Government have been good at cutting the funding to hard-pressed farmers, but frankly woeful at guaranteeing our food production here in the UK and enabling the switch to the more sustainable nature-friendly food production system we all want to see.

[Mark Spencer]

I honestly entered the Chamber with optimism. I thought today was the day we would get a positive Opposition able to join the people up and down the country who are being positive about this. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is disappointed we have had positive comments from non-governmental organisations and farming organisations, which seem to be welcoming the plans.

Let us get to the points the hon. Gentleman made. He said we made announcements at Oxford, but what we announced at Oxford was the lifted payments for countryside stewardship. Today we are announcing the SFI, which is the other scheme. That is on the website now. There are six extra schemes in there, some of which—the low-input grassland and improved grassland schemes, for instance—are designed to help and support exactly those upland farmers he mentioned. There is also support through countryside stewardship to assist with the maintenance of stone walls, so there are lots of things for farmers to embrace.

The hon. Gentleman asks: can we do both? Can we keep the nation fed and improve the environment? We have full confidence that we can. Looking at the data and at history, this country gets about 1% more efficient year on year in the way we produce food. That means that in 10 years’ time we can produce the same amount of food on 10% less land. I think we can do better than that. With investment in new technology, we can be more productive on the most productive land, and on the margins around those fields we can add true biodiversity and environmental output.

Let me give a practical example. If we convince farmers not to cut their hedgerows in August or September, as was traditional, but encourage them to cut them in February, that would provide a huge pantry of berries for small birds to feed on throughout the winter. Combining that with support for wildflower strips next to the hedgerows would encourage the development of lacewings and ladybirds, which eat aphids, which are the pests farmers use pesticides on to stop the damage to their crops. That would be a win-win by working with, not against, nature. That is what we want to encourage farmers to do, and that is how we will deliver food security, environmental benefits and better biodiversity.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the inclusion of a new hedgerow standard under the sustainable farming incentive, and particularly the inclusion and recognition of Cornish stone hedges within it. Hedges are probably the single most important ecological building block in our farmed environment, and it is right that that is recognised.

However, to get the movement we need toward our 2030 species abundance target, we need widespread participation in the schemes, as the document published today outlines. It is very welcome that the Government have increased the payment rates already, but can he confirm that if we need to increase them further in the years ahead to get the participation rates we need, he will not be banned by antiquated EU laws around income forgone—those are still sitting in retained EU law—and that we will pay whatever it takes in the market to get the participation we need?

[Mark Spencer]

First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was the forerunner of many of these thoughts and schemes. The work he did in the Department has led us to this point, and I pay tribute to it. He is right to identify hedgerows as the corridors of wildlife. They are a huge source of biodiversity and a place where wildlife can thrive. We will, of course, do all we can to not only support individual farmers, but build that network of hedgerows and those corridors for wildlife.

All these schemes remain under review. One of the reasons we are here today and were not able to do this last year is because we were running pilot schemes with farmers and listening to the feedback they were giving us. The scheme we have today is in a much stronger place than it would have been if we had acted earlier. We will continue to have dialogue with NGOs and farmers to ensure we get the outputs we require.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

We obviously welcome the aims and objectives of today’s statement, but it has been a tough year for farmers, with cuts to their basic payment alongside the increasing cost of doing business. My farmers tell me that the SFI schemes are too complex and cost too much up front to engage with. That is why we have seen such poor take-up rates so far. Will the Minister consider halting the cut to the basic payment scheme until our farmers have had time to get to grips with the complexities of this new scheme and participation rates have increased to an acceptable level?

[Mark Spencer]

We should be clear that we set out our plan to reduce basic payments over a seven-year period and we are trying to ensure that, as those basic payments come down, we increase the environmental payments at the same rate, so that we maintain the same budget. The hon. Lady is fair in her criticism that some of the schemes appeared to be too complex. We have listened to that, and the schemes we are announcing today are much more simplistic in their approach and much more flexible in their delivery. I encourage farmers in her constituency in Shropshire to take a new look. This is a new approach, which builds in flexibility, particularly for tenant farmers, to step in and out of the SFI, and I sincerely hope that her farmers will be able to benefit from the new schemes announced today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

As a farmer myself, I thank the Minister, following the taster that we had at the Oxford farming conference, for his further clarification of the way that agricultural transition will be delivered. We are now able to capitalise fully on the freedoms we have outside the European Union to tailor our agricultural policy not only to the needs and objectives of farmers, but to the objectives of taxpayers.

English agriculture is very diverse in land type, topography, altitude and size, with many smaller farms relying on the support they get from the taxpayer. Can the Minister reassure me that this support system will not only help those farmers who need to change the way they farm to make it more sustainable and ecologically diverse, but support those upland farmers in places such as the North Yorkshire moors who have been delivering for generations exactly the public good that we want them to deliver?

[Mark Spencer]

I join my right hon. Friend in declaring my interest, and I pay tribute to him for his work as Chair of the Select Committee and the scrutiny that he brings to this area of government. He is right to highlight the uplands. In these schemes, we have something for everyone. Whether someone is a small livestock farmer in the uplands or a huge arable farmer in the lowlands, there is something that they can engage with to improve their business and improve the biodiversity and environmental output of their farm. Of course, some of the SFI criteria we have put in place—particularly those regarding improved grassland and low-input grassland—are aimed specifically at sheep farmers to ensure that there is something they can participate in. I do not underestimate the economic value of the food they produce, or the impact they have on the tourism industry and on the mental health of people visiting that part of Yorkshire to unwind and enjoy the great landscapes that those farmers have created.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the intentions of this policy. He said that the scheme would be open to all farms of all shapes and sizes. In County Durham we have a lot of tenanted smaller farms. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) just said, a lot of them are struggling at the moment with diesel and fertiliser costs, and other things. Some of these decisions will need investment up front. Will there be any incentives or help for smaller farmers to make that investment? They will also need guidance; big agriculture businesses will have that already, but smaller farmers will need specific help.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have taken a number of things into account. Under the SFI, we have introduced a management payment of an extra £20 per hectare on the first 50 hectares, which will help smaller farmers who do not have the capacity in their business to employ a land agent, so that they have time to go into the agreement and are rewarded for doing so. That is very important.

The flexibility in the SFI scheme also helps tenant farmers. If they enter a scheme and, for some reason, they lose control of their land—if they are removed by their landlord or want to give it up, for example—they will not be penalised for leaving the scheme; they will have the flexibility to come in and out. I hope that helps tenants. We have engaged extensively with the Tenant Farmers Association, and the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the Kate Rock review, which looked specifically at the needs and desires of tenants. We have taken on board lots of those recommendations and built them into the scheme.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—what a blessing it is to have someone who knows so much about farming at the Dispatch Box—and in particular for his emphasis on food security, which, as we can now see, has been too neglected for too long. It is clear from the current food price inflation and shortages in the shops that we need better food security. Perhaps he would like to visit the area of outstanding natural beauty around Dedham Vale, where we see good landowner co-operation and work by combined forces. Perhaps he would also like to contact Mr John Geldard, who is leading a highly innovative co-operative scheme in Cumbria. Agri-environmental schemes can work at scale across many estates, and can be far more effective and far better value for the taxpayer than other schemes.

[Mark Spencer]

I would be delighted to visit both locations—I have known John Geldard and his son Richard for a number of years. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to co-operation between farmers. The third scheme that we are announcing is landscape recovery, which will involve huge projects over many hectares, with farmers and landowners coming together to contribute a positive environmental output. For example, if we want to reduce phosphate levels in the river Wye—this is an existing scheme—landowners can co-operate to reduce the input of nutrients. We will extend that to a further 25 schemes, subject to the quality of the bids. I am quite excited about it, and I think that non-governmental organisations, landowners and farmers will want to get together and deliver on the landscape recovery scheme.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not know what is going on in Sherwood and Sherwood Forest these days, but my local farmers in Huddersfield and I have been involved with the nature recovery network, and I am also a trustee involved in a scheme relating to John Clare’s house in Lincolnshire. We know what it means to deliver public good: it means participation, involving the local community, parish and other councils, and charities. Is not the current problem the fact that no one really knows whether there will be serious money and resources for this plan, or whether people will still be required to co-operate to achieve it?

[Mark Spencer]

That is what today is about. It is about the announcement of that money and those schemes that can allow the farmers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to gain the reward for the public good that they deliver. This is not only good for the environment, but good for farming businesses. The soil standards, for example, help the farming operation and ensure that we have good-quality soils not only for this generation, but for generations to come.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Farmers in my constituency are passionate about supporting their environment and raising their livestock in a sustainable way, and will welcome the clarity of today’s announcement. Many of them took part in pilots for these schemes. However, they report being unable to apply for the slurry infrastructure grant. Given the importance of water quality in North Devon’s rivers and on its beaches, will my right hon. Friend please ensure that this vital support is accessible to all its farmers?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend has already lobbied me on this in private, and I pay tribute to her. It is important for us to help farmers on the journey towards improving their environmental impact, and that will include grants for new slurry systems and other infrastructure. There will be several rounds so that farmers can apply on several occasions. Today we are announcing a number of future grant schemes in order to give farmers time to think about them and plan for their businesses into the medium future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I think that all of us in the farming sector can take some encouragement from it. I should also declare an interest, as a farmer and a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union.

The farming industry plays a key role throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, notably in my constituency, where, as a landowner and a farmer, I understand the importance of retention. In England farmers will receive sustainable farming resources to maintain incentives for a production agriculture sector, but in Northern Ireland, through the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, agriculture is devolved, at a time when there is no working Assembly. Can the Minister assure us that the devolved nations will not be left behind when it comes to farming incentives, given that their contribution in Northern Ireland is every bit as important as the contribution in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mark Spencer]

As the hon. Gentleman identifies, these are devolved matters. I am sorry that the scheme does not apply to his constituents, but we have a lot of engagement with the devolved Administrations, some of which are going in a slightly different direction. In those conversations we all recognise that we have to go in a direction that improves our biodiversity and environment. We will continue that dialogue to help support our friends and colleagues in the devolved Administrations and their constituents.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I declare my interest, as my parents are farmers and I previously worked as a rural practice surveyor. I welcome the statement and congratulate DEFRA on listening and making changes. It is worth noting that Janet Hughes, who is working behind the scenes, has been getting huge credit for her work to interact with farmers. Landscape recovery projects are a great mechanism for fostering collaboration between different landowners in creating that public good that we need to see. Will the Minister expand on today’s announcement on the landscape recovery schemes, which will enable farmers to work together as bigger units to drive and deliver the public good that we all want to see?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the landscape recovery scheme, which will deliver huge benefits to various parts of the country. It is a competitive process, and 25 schemes are available to be awarded. It will enable landowners, farmers and non-governmental organisations to come together to increase the amount of land in one package and to deliver a public good by building networks of improvement, with a single person having an overarching view of a whole landscape to make sure that we have, say, buffer zones next to rivers. That is a new concept, and the pilots prove that it works. I look forward to many more schemes coming forward.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Local, affordable and sustainable food production delivers real health and food security benefits to my constituents in Newcastle. We also benefit from the glorious north-east countryside and landscape, which is shaped by small-scale farmers. We have had six years of confusion and downright chaos on grants, subsidies, imports, food standards, etc. Will the Minister answer two simple questions? Will the small-scale farmers of the north-east benefit and be better off as a consequence of these changes, and will our landscape be more biodiverse?

[Mark Spencer]

I am tempted just to say yes, but it is clear that this opportunity requires farmers to engage in the schemes and to put forward their own plans, so it is subject to farmers looking at the website and working out deliverable plans. I suppose it depends on how the hon. Lady defines “better off.” If she defines it as attracting more Government subsidy, that is entirely possible under the scheme if farmers bid for and deliver the right environmental outcomes. Farmers have a choice whether to engage with the programme. We think it is very attractive and will help farmers not only to produce great food but to deliver great environmental outcomes.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome its intention. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made an important point about the specific needs of smaller, tenanted farms, which are the lifeblood of our rural communities. I am reassured that the Minister understands the need for flexibility, but will he make sure that small tenant farmers are not unduly disadvantaged as a consequence of these proposals?

[Mark Spencer]

It is very much our intention to try to help and support farmers, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants. There is something in the scheme for farms of all shapes and sizes, but we have an eye on the farmers that the hon. Gentleman describes. As he will be aware, the TFA is a powerful lobby group. The Kate Rock review is specifically looking at the plight of those farmers, and it is having an influence on Government policy.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

As environmental and climate change goals become ever more urgent, how will updates to the plan specifically increase the use of peatland for carbon capture and storage?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, because our peatlands are under huge pressure, particularly in the lowlands, where they are disappearing. We need to try to embrace and support the farmers who are farming that land, because they are very productive in growing vegetables, particularly in the Lincolnshire wolds. We must make sure that we continue to sequester carbon in the peatlands in her constituency, as they are a huge carbon sequestration asset. That is a huge priority that this Government will continue to monitor and support.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s excitement about the potential of the landscape recovery schemes, but we also need to leverage private sector finance if we are to reach net zero and halt biodiversity loss. What conversations has he had with colleagues in the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and across Government about ensuring that nature-based carbon credits actually have credibility? At the moment, it is difficult to quantify their value and to get people to be confident in investing in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

As ever, the hon. Lady is very informed. This is a challenge that we have to get right, and we are putting a lot of work into making sure that we can measure these things in a right and fair way—this has to be applied in a global sense—and into engaging with the private sector to make sure it can help to support farmers and landowners to do the right thing to add to our environmental benefit, and so it is not just the taxpayer picking up the tab.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

We are undertaking the most significant reform of agricultural policy and spending in England in decades as we take England out of the EU’s bureaucratic and damaging common agricultural policy. Today I am setting out detailed plans for the nation’s farming sector, supporting farmers to be profitable and resilient as they produce food sustainably while protecting nature and enhancing the environment.

These plans build on the announcements made at the Oxford farming conference earlier this month. They provide clarity and certainty to farmers, allowing them to make business decisions and cover costs as direct payments are phased out while getting involved in environmental land management schemes.

The roll out of the sustainable farming incentive will be accelerated, with six additional standards added this year, meaning farmers can receive payment for actions on hedgerows, grassland, arable and horticultural land, integrated pest management and nutrient management. They build on the three existing standards to improve soil health and moorlands introduced in 2022—which nearly 1,900 farmers already have in agreements.

Farmers will also be paid to deliver more through an enhanced version of the countryside stewardship scheme, which will see around 30 additional actions available to farmers by the end of 2024. The expansion builds on the more than 250 actions farmers can take at present. The scheme has seen a 94% increase in uptake since 2020 and is now part of thousands of farm businesses. The next round of the countryside stewardship higher tier will open in February, with mid-tier following in March.

Countryside stewardship-plus will reward farmers for taking co-ordinated action, working with neighbouring farms and landowners to support climate and nature aims. The countryside stewardship scheme will also be improved so farmers benefit from greater flexibility over when they can apply and how they manage their agreements, with improved access for tenant farmers and increased access to higher tier options and agreements.

Applications for the second round of the landscape recovery scheme will open in the spring to support ambitious large-scale nature recovery projects, focusing on net zero, protected sites and habitat creation. We will take on up to 25 projects which could include projects creating and enhancing woodlands, peatland, nature reserves and protected sites such as ancient woodlands, wetlands and salt marshes.

Taken together, the environmental land management schemes will offer something for every type of farmer. This includes tenant farmers, with a range of actions relevant to their holding, especially through the sustainable farming incentive which has been designed with them in mind. The schemes will make food production more resilient and efficient over the longer term while contributing towards the UK’s environmental goals on climate adaptation, biodiversity, water quality and net zero. Together this will safeguard the long-term prosperity of the farming industry and protect the environment for future generations.

[HCWS527]

Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1367).

Ms Cummins, we often use these words, but it is a true pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Protecting our biosecurity is of paramount importance, and we are correcting some deficiencies that have arisen from our EU exit. This instrument ensures the effective operation of the biosecurity regime in Great Britain by making amendments to the plant health legislation.

It is urgent that we move this legislation now. A recent outbreak of plant disease near the Welsh-English border has highlighted a gap in the legislation, which prevents an authority in one territory of Great Britain from establishing a demarcated area based on the findings of a pest disease in another territory. Additionally, the withdrawal Act powers required to make changes in this instrument were due to sunset on 31 December, so we needed to address the identified deficiency before that date.

I turn to the details of the instrument. First, it ensures that all relevant pests are included in the legislation for the application of demarcated areas. It also allows authorities in Great Britain to co-operate with one another. Authorities are then permitted to take measures in their own territory. Amendments are additionally made to domestic legislation in England, Scotland and Wales to allow notices to be served to establish demarcated areas in those instances. Given the urgency of the instrument, the Scottish and Welsh Government Ministers have formally consented for the amendments to be made on their behalf. The animal health instrument is also corrected to ensure the transfer of functions from the EU Commission to the appropriate authority in Great Britain. I am pleased to say that the devolved Administrations have also given their consent for those regulations to extend across the whole of Great Britain.

To conclude, I emphasise that the regulations ensure that effective biosecurity controls are in operation within Great Britain. They also enable co-ordinated action between the territories within Great Britain to manage any outbreaks of certain pests. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

That sounded like a challenge to speak quickly, Ms Cummins. I thank colleagues for their interest in this SI, and for taking the trouble to read it and engage. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire raised the question about how those decisions are made. We are blessed in the UK with some of the best scientists in the world, who are able to make an analysis of what the risks are and what the response should be. Of course, Ministers will ultimately decide on the response, but on the back of the advice they receive from those experts.

Action would be something along the lines of stopping the trade in the material that was at risk of spreading the disease. For example, the Opposition asked about the actual disease that has highlighted this challenge; it is actually called phytophthora pluvialis. In English—I think that might be Welsh—it is a fungus that affects trees, mostly pines and Douglas firs. What we would do in those circumstances, and what we have done, is prevent the movement of timber of that nature. We would put restrictions on nurseries and wholesale plant areas, but also on physical timber that was being moved from woodland in a certain area to another. We would prevent the movement of that to stop the disease spreading, so that fungus spores were not allowed to be transported anywhere else.

The hon. Member for Cambridge also made reference to the challenges of ensuring that our borders are safe in the future. That is something that the Government are very much alive to. I spend a lot of time, for example, worrying about the possibility of African swine fever spreading across Europe and reaching our borders. We have protocols in place to try to stop that from happening, which is actually one of the benefits of Brexit. It allows us to put more controls at our borders to try to prevent that from happening and to ensure that Border Force is aware of the challenges that we face. But, of course, we try to balance that with ensuring that trade is as free as possible. Working with our colleagues in Europe, we are able to strike that balance, but it is one that we take seriously.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I take his point. Obviously, there has been a phytosanitary boundary around the whole of the island of Ireland for some time now, which has protected it from diseases coming from the continent of Europe, the wider world and indeed the rest of the UK. However, my constituency, for example, is being devastated by ash dieback. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ash trees that are struggling and will be gone from the landscape quite soon.

While I understand the scientific advice that will be given, that is the same scientific advice, presumably, that resulted in the awful foot and mouth disaster that hit farming a couple of decades ago, which people remember well. Mounds of carcases were burnt on farms. Whether that was the right approach has been debated, even to this day.

Is the Minister able to give an example of a plant or animal disease being controlled by the imposition of one of these zones in the past, and therefore being eradicated from the UK? It strikes me that what we are learning—whether from Dutch elm disease, ash dieback, avian flu, or even tuberculosis, which we are obviously trying to control—is that these techniques are actually not that effective from a disease control point of view. As the Minister said, our most effective defence is at the border, by stopping the stuff coming in in the first place.

[Mark Spencer]

The best example that I can think of within two or three generations would be anthrax. We were able to eradicate that completely from the United Kingdom. However, of course, it is about not just eradication but mitigation, in terms of stopping that spread.

My right hon. Friend mentioned avian influenza. Of course, had we taken no measures and just allowed the disease to run its course, that would have led to the total devastation of the UK poultry sector and enormous damage to the wild bird population. While it sometimes appears that we are not having the positive effect that we would like to deliver, taking no action would lead to catastrophe. I think there are examples of where stepping in, and intervening at that moment does assist and does lead to better outcomes, although it may not feel like that at the time.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire made a point about the importance of Border Force in preventing diseases coming in over the border, and how that was an important element. Does the Minister share my concern that Border Force itself is under such pressure, in terms of staff shortages and morale, that it has said that those factors are impacting its efficacy in doing the job required?

[Mark Spencer]

There is no evidence that that is the case and that Border Force’s impact is negatively affected, but I recognise the huge challenges in keeping our borders safe. The Government are enormously grateful for the efforts that many people make on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, to keep us safe—not only from animal and plant disease, but from other things that might have far worse consequences.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the mention of successful demarcations, I point to the success—albeit limited, and we always have to be vigilant—of the prevention of Dutch elm disease in the city of Brighton and Hove.

We still have the world’s largest elm tree population in Brighton, in the national elm collection, and that is because we have continued to be vigilant on the borders of Brighton and Hove, with the assistance of the Secretary of State, signage and the prevention of the importation of wood products. That is not perfect, but goes along with having to be vigilant about what happens with plant life in the city. However, demarcation of zones helps to provide an additional tool to the armoury for preventing disease. Dutch elm disease has spread across the rest of the UK, but for the past 25 or 30 years we have prevented it from destroying the last remaining national collection of elm trees.

[Mark Spencer]

That is a fantastic, positive story, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In conclusion—

[Kit Malthouse]

Lebanese potatoes?

[Mark Spencer]

Lebanese potatoes, of course. We take such things case by case, and will continue to take that approach. There are some challenges in the seed potato market, not least to the ability of Scottish growers to export to the EU. We will continue to push that agenda as well, to ensure that the Scots can export seed potatoes. Decisions on whether we allow the import of seed potatoes will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis and with a risk analysis of the risk to UK growers. Decisions will be taken by those with the expertise, but we recognise the importance of trade links with Lebanon.

In conclusion, this is an important piece of legislation and it is important that we agree the draft regulations today. They will help to fight disease and to prevent disasters in future. I am grateful for the Committee’s support.

[The Chair]

Before I put the Question, to address the issue raised by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire I should say that it is not usual practice to have the parent regulation in the room. The copy of the relevant legislation is in the room. However, the Clerk will pick that up with him directly afterwards.

Question put and agreed to.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Farm Animals

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Member for her positive intervention. I am sure the Minister will note it, and I will also be raising that issue later in my speech.

One of the root causes of AMR is the overuse of antibiotics on cruel factory farms. Factory farming inflicts unspeakable cruelty on billions of animals in the UK every year. It confines them to horrendous conditions often with barely enough room to turn around or lie down. This highly stressful and often barren environment can lead to injuries and severe behavioural issues, including aggression, tail biting in pigs, feather pecking and even cannibalism. The cruelty does not end there. Factory farming subjects animals to painful mutilations, such as tail docking and teeth clipping, without effective pain relief. This is not farming; it is industrialised animal cruelty. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that these stressful, cramped and unsanitary conditions create the perfect breeding ground for disease. That brings me to my next point: the overuse of antibiotics.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, because I will obviously get my say in a moment. I am sure that he does not want to slander a whole industry of farmers who take animal welfare very seriously. These are people who get out of bed very early in the morning to look after and care for their animals on a daily basis. People cannot do that unless they love and respect animals. I know that he does not mean to slander a whole industry, but I thought he might want to take a moment to reflect on some of his language and acknowledge that there are farmers up and down this country who care deeply for the welfare of their animals and who look after them in a special way.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I would like to point out that you can have a go back at the Minister when it is his turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and congratulate him on calling the debate.

The Government recognise antimicrobial resistance or AMR as a policy issue of huge importance and public interest. It is right and proper that there is scrutiny of the matters we have discussed today. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health threats that we face. A landmark study published last year, the Global Research of Antimicrobial Resistance report, reported that more than 1 million human deaths worldwide could be directly attributed to antibiotic resistance in 2019. That was the lower estimate. The report indicated that the figure could be as high as 5 million deaths globally, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall indicated in his speech.

Antibiotics are the cornerstone of human medicine. Without them, things we take for granted, such as routine surgery, would become life-threatening. Bacteria cause disease in animals, too, and veterinary medicine, like human medicine, needs to be able to rely on access to antibiotics that work. Not only do animal health and welfare depend on it, so in turn do the food systems that we depend on. It is vital that we protect those medicines for future generations.

To start, I would like to talk about how the Government are tackling antimicrobial resistance and what the UK strategy is. We know that AMR will not be an easy problem to overcome. In 2019, we put in place long-term plans to address AMR and published our UK 20-year vision to contain and control AMR by 2040. That strategic vision is supported by our current five-year national action plan for AMR, which runs from 2019 to 2024. That plan is progressing well, and I will come shortly to some of its highlights.

Meanwhile, we are already developing the next five-year national action plan. Both the vision and the national action plan were developed across Government Departments and their agencies along with the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, supported by a range of stakeholders. Our 20-year vision lays out the UK’s ambitions to create a world where AMR is contained, controlled and mitigated. In it, we have outlined our ambitions for lowering the burden of infections, our plans to optimise the use of antimicrobials across all sectors, and our aims to support the development of new therapies, diagnostics, vaccines and interventions.

We are taking a local, national and global approach. We are tackling AMR in people, animals, food and the environment, which is the One Health approach. The UK’s five-year national action plan takes those ambitions and breaks them down into actions for the UK over the short term. One key ambition of the national action plan is to reduce the use of antibiotics in the UK farming sector.

Let us talk about reducing use in animals. In the UK, the livestock industry is responsible for the health and welfare of more than 1 billion farmed animals in its care each year and for the production of safe, high-quality food. Across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have been working collaboratively for many years with the veterinary and livestock sectors to promote responsible antibiotic use. UK agriculture has undergone a transformation over the last few years, as livestock sectors have embedded the principles of responsible antimicrobial use in their farming practices. That transformation has led to a clear understanding from all stakeholders of the importance of preserving antimicrobial efficiency and the responsibility that we all have to protect those essential medicines.

Due to the strong working relationship that we have with our vets and farmers, the UK has taken a different approach to other countries in reducing the use of antibiotics in animals, one that has been praised globally. We have engaged with the different sectors and collectively driven a culture change of responsible antibiotic use within food-producing animals. That has led to a 55% decrease in use since 2014, making the UK one of the lowest users of veterinary antibiotics across Europe. In particular, RUMA is establishing and chairing a targets taskforce for vets and farmers. It was pivotal in the industry taking ownership and driving forward that change.

Those industries have worked to protect antibiotics that are important for human use, reducing the use of those critical medicines in animals by 83% since 2014. Of course, the purpose of reducing antibiotic use is to reduce bacterial resistance to antibiotics. At the same time as reducing use, we have been monitoring antibiotic-resistant trends in bacteria in healthy livestock since 2015.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

This is an issue that I have followed for quite some time, and I would like to pin the Minister down on it. Does he think that there is a problem with the routine overuse of antibiotics in farming? Does he think that current levels need to come down significantly, and does he think that it is in any way connected with industrialised factory farming?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

We should be absolutely clear that the reduction in antibiotic use has been demonstrated. There has been huge engagement with the sector.

[Kerry McCarthy]

But is it still too high?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, we could always reduce it further. But at the same time, we have to balance that with animal welfare and ensuring that no animal is affected detrimentally. No farmer in this country can administer antibiotics to an animal without a veterinary prescription. It requires a professional vet to prescribe that medicine for an animal. I have huge confidence in our veterinary service, and their professionalism and ability to make those decisions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think the Minister will agree that I have been uncharacteristically generous to him this afternoon. Let me press him on the point of group usage. Is that something that he thinks we should continue, or are there plans to change that?

[Mark Spencer]

I do not like blanket, overarching rules. There may well be a circumstance where a flock of birds or a group of animals are suffering from an infection and need to be treated. To rule out the use of group therapy when there is a group of animals that need veterinary intervention would be very silly. Of course, we want to ensure we target medicines at poorly animals, and that we use antibiotics to treat those animals. But to have a block rule where we rule out the use of a medicine to a group of animals that are suffering from an infection would be silly.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister seems to be saying that vets issue prescriptions only when there is a proven need to deal with an infection or disease outbreak. However, we know prescriptions have been issued to prevent disease outbreaks. Does he not think that is a problem? It goes back to the issue of routine use as a preventative measure rather than to treat disease. The Minister seems to be saying that prescriptions are not issued for that purpose, but I am pretty sure that they are.

[Mark Spencer]

I did not say that. To be clear, what I said was that I trust the professional reputation and professionalism of our veterinary services, and that where a veterinary officer is concerned that an animal may well become infected in the near future, it seems reasonable that they could come to a professional decision that that animal is better off receiving preventative medicine to stop it becoming infected and to keep it healthy. We rely on the professionalism of our veterinary service, which is one of the best in the world.

The UK’s success to date has been achieved without specific legislation. However, we are in the process of updating our laws regulating veterinary medicines and that gives us an opportunity to embed into law some of the excellent core principles of antimicrobial stewardship, which vets and famers are already promoting through a culture of responsible use.

To support the progress made in recent years and to lay the foundation for ongoing reductions in the unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals, we are seeking to strengthen our national law in this area. We will soon be publishing a consultation on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s proposed changes to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. The consultation will include proposals to stop the use of antibiotics to prevent disease in animals in all but exceptional cases, where the risks to animal health are high and the consequences likely to be severe, which was the point I made to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

Our proposals bear similarities to recently updated EU legislation on veterinary medicines. However, our proposals also take into consideration the fact that we use significantly lower levels of antibiotics than most other European countries. We have already developed a culture of responsible use across the veterinary and livestock sectors. We will keep working with the farming sector to prevent animal diseases through vaccination, biosecurity and good husbandry, and through that we will further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and underpin the availability of safe and sustainable food.

It is worth putting on record that when we compare ourselves with our European colleagues, we have a much lower use of antibiotics. We have lower use than France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Romania, Croatia, Greece, Malta, Bulgaria, Portugal—I can keep going with a whole list of countries where we are performing better than our European colleagues—but that does not mean that we cannot continue to push in the right direction.

AMR is not just a UK issue, but a global problem. The UK is a strong voice on the international stage as an engaged global partner on AMR. We have led the way for many years. In 2016, the global-facing independent AMR review, chaired by Lord O’Neill, catalysed a wave of political and public momentum to address the issue.

Recently, in 2021, under the UK’s G7 presidency, we made commitments to better understand supply chains and improve resilience, investigate market incentives and novel valuation strategies for antimicrobials, and adopt standards for manufacturing of antimicrobials to reduce environmental pollution. The UK played a significant role in updating the international guidance to the Codex standards on AMR. Those standards ensure that food is safely traded across the world. We must tackle the threat head-on and galvanise countries across the globe to do the same. AMR is not only has a monumental health impact, but harms our economies and global security.

To conclude, the human population is predicted to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 and livestock products play an important role in feeding the world’s population. The goal must be to produce food in the most sustainable way, minimising environmental impacts while respecting animal welfare. Food systems will need to adapt and take account of the need to reduce disease pressures and the need for antibiotics. Preventing animal disease through vaccination, improved biosecurity and good husbandry will increase the availability of safe and sustainable food.

The UK’s sectoral approach successfully harnessed the power of the livestock industry to set its own targets and address the challenge of the food system as a whole. Producers’ deeper understanding of their own sectors will enable them to plan more effectively for the future and consider how they can produce food in the most sustainable way.

In the UK, we have shown that by having shared Government and industry goals we reduce the use of antibiotics. Real, sustainable change can be delivered and I am confident that our new legislation will further empower farmers and vets to continue to work together.

[Mr Sharma]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I was looking at the time and thought that he was going to sum up. Before he does, I just wondered whether he could confirm, in clear words, that the Government will follow through on a ban on the overuse of antibiotics and ensure that there is no future for factory farming? Will he give the Government’s exact position?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I set out, we are about to consult on these matters. We have made huge progress in the right direction.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman deliberately tried to trigger me with his use of the term “factory farming”, so I hesitate to push back too robustly. However, I will say to him that farmers up and down this country genuinely love the animals that they care for. The level of animal welfare in this country is equal to that in any country in the world. I think UK farmers will take offence at some of the phrases that he has used today. Maybe that highlights that as an industry and as a sector we have not been as good at connecting with our consumers as we should have been, so there are many consumers out there who are not aware of the work that takes place on UK farms and the high welfare standards that exist on them.

As a DEFRA Minister, I am enormously proud of the work that the sector does up and down this country in looking after the welfare of its animals and making sure they are cared for, well fed and the healthiest they can be. The UK Government will be there with them and working with them on this journey, alongside vets, farmers and consumers, to make sure that we tackle the challenges that we face.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Virendra Sharma to wind up the debate.

Total Allowable Catches: Fisheries Negotiations

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am glad to see you in the Chair, rather than in the Chamber intervening and asking me awkward questions.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for securing the debate. I recognise his huge contribution to the future of fisheries from his work at DEFRA with fisheries; I hope that future is rosy and bright. It is worth putting on record the efforts he went to and the improvements he made to that industry, which I know is grateful for all his past work.

I recognise that there is a huge amount of experience and knowledge within the Chamber, but there will be people at home who do not have the same depth of knowledge. I hope those present will forgive me if they recognise and understand some of the things I say, but it is important to set out where DEFRA is coming from and what we are trying to achieve.

It is tempting to simply say yes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, as many of the things he said are accurate, but I can assure him that we are not slipping back into those old ways, which he may be nervous about. It is just a coincidence that the 20% figure, particularly on pollock, has been arrived at, but I will get to that later in the debate.

We recognise that the fishing sector is under huge pressure. It faces challenges over increased fuel prices and getting access to labour. We recognise the hard work that the fishing sector is putting in and we look forward to working with the sector to try to assist it on its journey.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide some further explanation on one important element of how we arrive at TACs—the total allowable catch. The definition of a data-limited stock comes from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said. ICES undertake the stock assessments that the UK and its neighbouring states rely on to set TACs for the shared stocks. ICES categorises its advice on a scale of 1 to 6, based on the available data and type of assessment used to generate the advice. For stocks where there is insufficient data, it can use analytic stock assessments. Data-rich stocks are categorised as ICES category 1 and 2. Stocks where the available data and assessment techniques fall short of these standards are classified by ICES as categories 3 to 6 and are truly data-limited stocks.

How does ICES provide advice on data-limited stocks? Historically, ICES has provided advice on data-limited stocks by adopting a precautionary approach. That was implemented by applying a 20% decrease, as my right hon. Friend said, in advised catches where stocks are considered either at risk or their status is unknown. ICES continues to improve its advice on data-limited stocks, and those efforts have increased since 2011, when ICES recognised the need to standardise and refine the data-limited methods.

That means that the precautionary 20% buffer is still used by ICES but only in increasingly rare situations, as new approaches to stock assessments and advice have been developed. ICES also continues to consider if it can justify moving stock assessments out of the data-limited category. As data and methods are slowly improving, this has resulted in a steady increase in the number classified as categories 1 and 2.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Does the Minister share my frustration that after so many years monkfish is still regarded as a data-deficient species, given its very high value to the Scottish fleet?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

It is easy to be critical of the data and science that are available to us. The right hon. Gentleman will know that fish move in the sea. It is not like counting sheep in a field; it is much more complicated than that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth identifies, fish predate each other, and a boom in one species can result in a diminishing number of another. We are trying to measure and get data on a constantly moving feast.

How do we approach data-limited stocks in international negotiations? From a fisheries management perspective, data-limited stocks can present challenges when it comes to deciding how to use the scientific advice produced by ICES in setting TACs. Since becoming an independent coastal state, the UK’s approach to developing TAC positions has evolved. We do not use any of the EU’s historical approaches, such as “use it or lose it”, as my right hon. Friend identified. Our approach is led entirely by our domestic policy framework, and the Fisheries Act 2020 objectives are our guiding light.

In the case of data-limited stocks, there are two Fisheries Act objectives that are particularly important: the scientific evidence objective and the precautionary objective. The combined objectives lead us to the position that our starting point for every stock is the ICES scientific advice, even when the data is limited. However, we of course consider each stock on a case-by-case basis, taking into account wider socioeconomic factors and the potential impact on the fishing industry of the decisions. That means that, for most data-limited stocks, we will advocate the application of the ICES-advised tonnage, but in particular cases we may depart from ICES advice because of those wider considerations.

One data-limited stock in particular—namely western pollack—has raised some questions, as my right hon. Friend identified, so I want to provide further information on that important stock. ICES produces a stock assessment for western pollack, but it is classified as category 4, and therefore the advice uses the ICES precautionary advice framework. The advised catch for 2023 was 3,360 tonnes, and that figure has been the same since 2019. Over that period, the total allowable catch has consistently been set much higher than that. However, a long-term downward trend in landings, which more than halved from 2016 to 2021, is a cause for concern about the state of the stock; it suggests the need for a lower TAC to prevent the stock from becoming over-exploited. The UK’s aim is therefore to bring the total allowable catch more in line with ICES’s advice. This year, a 20% cut was agreed with the EU for 2023, which follows on from the 15% cut negotiated with the EU last year. The size of the cut is a product of the negotiation process, but is not based on any particular rule or approach.

We have acted in several ways to support the improvement of the data on fish stocks. Through the fisheries industry science partnerships scheme, DEFRA has been directly encouraging applicants to tender for data collection activities. That has proved very successful: there are 12 large projects directly investigating and collecting data on data-limited stocks. That will mean that over 70% of FISP funding, which equates to over £5 million, will have been awarded to projects of that type. They include a 24-month project on data collection and research on pollack in the south-west. We are also working with the EU, through our Specialised Committee on Fisheries, to improve the management and support of the recovery of certain data-limited deep-sea stocks, namely roundnose grenadier and western red seabream.

Let me reflect on the UK’s overarching approach in setting advice in line with scientific advice, and conclude with some reflections on our broader progress in using science to set total allowable catches. As I explained earlier, our starting position in setting a TAC is that the best available scientific advice should be followed. That helps to ensure that key fish stocks are protected and supports the long-term viability of the UK fishing industry. We strongly champion that approach in our international negotiations, and this year we have made significant progress on the UK-EU bilateral negotiations. Overall in the UK-EU bilateral, we have achieved an estimated 13% increase in catch levels aligning with ICES advice, compared with last year. That is a huge improvement in the sustainability of what we fish. I am pleased to report that positive progress, but I recognise that further improvements are needed. We will therefore continue to work proactively with our industry, our scientific colleagues in CEFAS and ICES, and colleagues in the devolved Administrations, the EU, Norway and coastal states, to ensure that positive momentum is continued.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister explain why EU fishers can catch spurdog and UK fishers still cannot? Why is there a delay in the UK allowing UK fishers to do so? How is it that we are now slower in allowing our fishers to catch that stock than we were when we were in the EU?

[Mark Spencer]

In the UK, we have a respectful democratic process by which we have to bring forward a statutory instrument. That statutory instrument is drafted and we are ready to roll with it, but we are waiting for business managers to find us a slot. We want to do that as quickly as possible to allow people to get out there and start catching spurdog. We have a great democratic process in the United Kingdom that holds people to account and allows people to object if they have a different view.

[Peter Aldous]

Can I come back on spurdog? I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for raising the matter. Off the East Anglian coast, the inshore fishermen who fish sustainably with long lines and nets cannot catch spurdog at the moment, but EU trawlers can. Does the Minister share my vision that we should have a fisheries management plan that embraces the ICES recommendation on limited-catch fishery for spurdog and enables local East Anglian fishermen, fishing responsibly, to catch it?

[Mark Spencer]

Our motivation is very much to allow this total allowable catch to be used, and we want to get on with that as quickly as possible. It is a new stock with a new quota. We want it to be done sustainably, and we want to get on with it. We will hurry up the democratic process to ensure that people who want to catch that species are allowed to do so.

[Luke Pollard]

There is a concern among fishers that this is the Government’s new modus operandi, and that UK fish policy will continue to be set a pace behind EU fish policy. Will the Minister set out an ambition to ensure that this Brexit delay in allocating spurdog catch will apply only to this species, and only this once? From now on, will Ministers ensure that any change in quota is pegged as much as possible to changes in EU quota so that our fishers do not suffer a disadvantage due to our new status as an independent coastal state?

[Mark Spencer]

I am conscious that this is turning into a spurdog debate, rather than the original debate. It would be worth somebody applying for a debate of that nature. Let me be absolutely clear: we have not been able to catch that species in the past. It is a new species and it requires a democratic motion to be passed through the House of Commons, and as soon as we have done that, we can get on with it. That is the right approach. We want to make sure we fish sustainably, and that requires that democracy takes its course so that people can scrutinise our decisions. I am very much aware of the desire to get on with this and allow our fishing industry to get on and catch this species. We will expedite that process as soon as possible. I will conclude there, and I thank colleagues for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of the introduction of environmental land management schemes on farmers’ incomes.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are committed to backing British farmers. Last week I announced that farmers will receive more money for protecting and enhancing nature, and delivering sustainable food production under the environmental land management schemes.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response. He will be aware that some farmers are concerned about moving away from the basic payment scheme to ELMs. Can he assure farmers that it will be in their financial interests to do so, given the complexity and uncertainties of the schemes, and given the high production costs that farmers are facing to produce food, which is of course their basic job?

[Mark Spencer]

I hope my hon. Friend will have recognised the increase in the payments we are making. Only last week we announced that some of the prices we will pay in countryside stewardship will rise by more than 40%. I encourage his constituents, and farmers up and down the country, to take another look at these schemes, which are a great opportunity for them not only to produce great food, but to enhance the environment and improve our biodiversity.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We want ELMs to work, but as it stands, the scheme risks going the way of those magnificent elm trees that have so suffered across the English countryside over the past 40 years. The Minister has admitted that the uptake of sustainable farming incentives is low—indeed, the National Farmers Union rightly described last week’s announcement as “too little, too late”. Will the Minister come clean and tell the House how many farm businesses he will allow to go to the wall because of this failing agricultural transition process? Will he sit down with us and work out a simpler way forward that keep farmers farming and secures the environmental goals we all share?

[Mark Spencer]

I am genuinely disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s response, and his negativity is in danger of spreading across the Front Bench. We ran a pilot—that is why the uptake was low; it was because the pilot was small—and we listened to individuals who took part in that pilot. We tweaked those schemes in response to the pilot that we ran. That is good government. The way to organise and run such schemes is to listen to those who are taking part. We have listened, we have improved the payments, and there is now a great opportunity for our farmers across the country to engage in those schemes, improve our environment, improve biodiversity, produce great food, and make a profit.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

6. What recent steps her Department has taken to help support farmers with increases in the cost of (a) fertiliser, (b) feed and (c) energy.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

We have taken a number of steps to help mitigate global factors that are increasing farming import costs, in fertiliser, feed, fuel and energy in particular. Those include working with industry and looking to ease restrictions on feed imports, and providing regulatory flexibility where possible. We have increased payment rates on our environmental land management schemes, supporting farmers to lower their import costs.

[Alicia Kearns]

Opaque fertiliser markets are damaging farmers’ confidence and their ability to plan and invest. To put forward a meaningful solution, what steps are the Government taking to establish a trusted gas fertiliser index, as exists with grain and other industries, to improve transparency in fertiliser, including new sources of fertiliser such as that provided by our friends in Jordan?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and pay tribute to her work in this area. DEFRA established the ministerially chaired fertiliser taskforce with key stakeholders, in response to global fertiliser supply pressures. The taskforce identified improving market transparency as an important action to increase farmer confidence. Industry members are currently leading that work, with DEFRA playing a convening role.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to help support farmers’ mental health.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

DEFRA’s farmer welfare forum brings together England’s largest farming and welfare organisations that provide mental health support, such as Farming Community Network, which I was pleased to join recently at an online meeting. We also recently opened the third phase of the future farming resilience fund, which provides free business advice to farmers, and supports mental health and wellbeing where appropriate.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend knows that my constituents Andy and Lynda Eadon lost their son as a young farmer to suicide. Will he join me in thanking the Eadons for all the work they have done to raise awareness of mental health challenges, particularly for younger members of the farming community? Does he share my view that we should do much more to ensure that mental health awareness and an understanding of where to go for help when it is needed is built into the education and training received by those going into farming?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, I join my right hon. and learned Friend not only in paying tribute to Andy and Lynda Eadon, who have done fantastic work following the tragedy they experienced, but in recognising the importance of this issue and how we should all be able to talk to someone to assist us at moments of great challenge. I met Andy and Lynda at the recent National Farmers Union community farming heroes awards, where they were honoured and paid tribute to for their work. I encourage them to continue that great work.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The wellbeing of farmers in my constituency is a priority, and I work closely with the NFU and other organisations. Last week, I was fortunate enough to go to Swansea Museum, where there is an exhibition called, “Stories of a Changing Landscape”. It is hoped that the exhibition will create a point of connection for agricultural workers who are struggling with their mental health and with the issues with which years and generations have suffered. They are the people who feed our country. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Councillor Andrew Stevens, and the DPJ Foundation and Kate Miles, and in supporting them in the future? We need to prioritise our farmers’ wellbeing to keep them feeding the nation.

[Mark Spencer]

I of course join the hon. Lady in congratulating Andrew Stevens, and all the charities doing work in the sector. Farmers work long hours and are often isolated and do not have opportunities to speak to other people. Those charities working with the sector are doing great work, but we all have a responsibility to try to help and support colleagues across our society.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

9. What plans she has to implement the recommendations of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy review on tackling the junk food cycle.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

The Government food strategy responded to Henry Dimbleby’s independent review of the food system, taking on several of the review’s recommendations. DEFRA also worked closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to develop effective policies to deliver healthy, sustainable diets. “The Eatwell Guide” sets out the Government’s recommendations on eating healthily and achieving a balanced diet.

[Mrs Hodgson]

How can the Government be trusted to protect the health of our young people from the cycle of junk food when they are six months late in responding fully to their own national food strategy? I know that the Minister says that he has responded, but the recommendations of the independent body set up under Henry Dimbleby have been subject time and again to hollow promises. The Minister must also recognise the serious risk to our farming communities and to national food security, so when will the Government begin to implement the policies of their own review that they commissioned?

[Mark Spencer]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have responded to that report. The Department of Health and Social Care leads in this area in tackling obesity. The good news is that British farmers are producing great quality food that is healthy as part of a balanced diet, and I encourage them to continue to do so.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

10. What recent support her Department has provided to zoos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

12. Whether she is taking steps to help ensure the availability of affordable locally produced food in Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

DEFRA continues to monitor and work closely with industry to keep abreast of supply, prices and trends. While the Government do not set retail food prices or comment on commercial decisions by companies, we are providing £26 billion in cost of living support in 2023.

[Chi Onwurah]

Food security is national security, and local food production is an essential part of that. In the north-east we have a fine farming tradition, but our food banks are overwhelmed with demand. West End food bank in Newcastle Central is handing out more than 2,000 food parcels a week, yet donations have halved because of the cost of living crisis. People in the north-east are poorer under this Conservative Government. What we need is a plan to address rising farming costs, to improve and integrate our supply chains and to target public procurement and decent wages for working people, not this absolute lack of any action.

[Mark Spencer]

The latest national statistics from a survey published in March show that 93% of all households were food-secure in 2020-21—an increase of one percentage point from 92% in 2019-20. I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the great farmers of the north-east, who are doing great work to produce food.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

13. If her Department will take steps to support trials of digital deposit return scheme technologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

14. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on temporarily reducing VAT on pet food in the context of increases in the cost of living.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Treasury leads on VAT policy, and that includes VAT policy on pet food. The Government are actively considering the impact of the increased cost of living on all aspects of people’s lives.

[David Linden]

I know that you, Mr Speaker, are a particular fan of pets, and we all know that they are very important to people’s mental health. I recently visited the Dogs Trust rehoming centre in the Broomhouse area of my constituency, where staff told me of their significant concerns about the cost of living crisis. They said that many pet owners were going without meals themselves in order to feed their pets, and that one couple from Belvedere, also in my constituency, had said that the price of dog food had risen by 12% month on month. Would the Minister be willing to meet me, along with representatives of the Dogs Trust, to discuss this further and see what support we can provide for pet owners?

[Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that important case. The Government recognise the challenge people are facing with their household bills, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a huge package providing billions of pounds of support for household incomes. I also pay tribute to Dogs Trust, which is dealing with its own challenges when pets are presented at its centres when families cannot continue to feed them. I will pass the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Treasury and will encourage Treasury Ministers to meet him, but if he has no success in that regard, I shall be happy to continue to work with him to secure the meetings that he requires.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to protect communities at risk of flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

17. What progress she has made on establishing an independent panel of experts to investigate the crustacean deaths on the north-east coast in 2021.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

The independent panel of experts has already been established to look at the available data, and I expect a report from the panel later this month.

[Ian Byrne]

Following the environmental catastrophe of the mass die-off of marine life in the North sea off Teesside, will the Minister confirm whether capital dredging for the Teesside freeport project, and at other freeports including the planned freeport in Liverpool, will be paused while the Government await the hopefully independent panel’s findings about the causes of the disaster that has devastated the ecosystem and ruined livelihoods?

[Mark Spencer]

It is important that we get the facts as soon as possible, but I want to give the independent panel time to assess the facts. The hon. Gentleman and I have a shared ambition. We want to know the facts of what is causing the die-off in the north-east. We want the panel to look at that independently, without pressure. As soon as we have those facts, we can respond appropriately.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I raised this matter from the Dispatch Box back on 21 June 2022, when the official Government explanation was that the die-off was caused by algal bloom. The Government’s position has since shifted due to overwhelming evidence, but even yesterday the Prime Minister said that DEFRA

“concluded that natural causes were most likely responsible for some of the things that we saw.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 558.]

He also reiterated that

“an independent panel will be set up to report quickly.”

Will the Minister confirm that the independent panel has now been set up? His initial answer was very quick, so can he confirm that the panel will be reporting this month? The fishing industry in the Tees is dying off, and to continue it needs the certainty of that report.

[Mark Spencer]

The report will be given to the Secretary of State, and I expect it to come this month, in January. We want to get the facts as soon as possible, and to respond to them as they are presented.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T4. Some people particularly want to buy halal and kosher meat, and some people particularly want to avoid doing so. Is it not time to properly label all these products appropriately, so that consumers, whether they want to buy this or do not want to buy it, can make an informed decision?

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

The Government have committed to consult on mandatory labelling reforms this year. We want to make it easier for consumers to purchase products aligned with their values. As part of the consultation, we will seek views on labelling products that conform with religious requirements, such as those that are halal and kosher.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T5. Earlier this week, I met the Agricultural Industries Confederation Scotland and it echoed what I am hearing in North East Fife about the impact of gas prices on the cost of fertiliser. What assessment has the Minister undertaken of the impact of fertiliser costs on farming and what is he doing to prevent farmers from being forced to roll back agricultural production as a result of it?

[Mark Spencer]

I am chairing the fertiliser taskforce within DEFRA that is looking at these challenges. We recognise the huge pressure that fertiliser prices are putting on farmers up and down the country. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to assist in dealing with the challenge we are facing. The good news is that the wholesale price of gas is coming down and some fertiliser prices are reflecting that drop in wholesale gas prices.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T6. The Government require local authorities to assess local air quality, but they only expect and request air quality action plans to be reviewed every five years. Many of those plans are seriously out of date, so will the Government please get a bit tougher with local authorities to make sure that those plans are up to date and are doing what they are supposed to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Sadly, the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of avian influenza has been confirmed this week on a poultry premises in Eden in my constituency. My thoughts and prayers are with those affected there and across the country as well. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking everyone on the frontline, including vets and Animal and Plant Health Agency officials, involved in tackling this crisis? Will the Government reassure farmers and producers that they are keeping the avian influenza support and compensation measures constantly under review as we navigate this crisis?

[Mark Spencer]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those people who are working on avian flu, including the chief vet, who was recognised in the new year’s honours list. I can assure my hon. Friend that we continue to talk to, and work with, industry to make sure that farmers can be profitable and confident that their business will succeed next year.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

There have been reports this week that the UK might be about to adopt ludicrous proposals that were, quite rightly, rejected by the EU to ban producers of plant-based products from using terms that are traditionally associated with meat and dairy. I do not think that anyone buying a hot dog actually thinks that it has canine content. Does the Minister think that the British public is so stupid to think that a product called “oat milk” comes from a cow?

Farming Payments Policy

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

We are undertaking the most significant reform of agricultural policy and spending in England in decades as we take England out of the common agricultural policy. We are phasing out unfair and environmentally damaging farm subsidies, radically improving our services to farmers, providing one-off grants to support farm productivity, innovation, research and development, and developing and expanding our schemes to pay farmers to provide environmental goods and services alongside food production.

The reform is enabled by our manifesto commitment to guarantee an average of £2.4 billion to farmers and landowners in each year of this Parliament, with all funding released from direct payments reductions to be made available through our new grants and schemes.

The changes we are making are essential to help us grow and maintain a resilient, productive agriculture sector over the long term and at the same time achieve our ambitious targets for the environment and climate, playing our role in tackling these huge, global challenges. These reforms are about food and nature going hand in hand for all farmers, with environmental goods and services playing a key role in all farm businesses.

We have reviewed our plans for the agricultural transition, considered feedback from the sector, and lessons learned from the early stages of the agricultural transition. We are moving ahead with the transition, on the same timescale, and pressing ahead with our environmental land management schemes, fine-tuning them to make sure they help to deliver our ambitious outcomes on the environment and support a thriving farming sector.

As I confirmed at the Oxford farming conference last week, farmers will receive increased payments for protecting and enhancing nature and delivering sustainable food production.

Farmers could receive up to a further £1,000 per year for taking nature-friendly action through the sustainable farming incentive (SFI). This new management payment will be made for the first 50 hectares of farm (£20/ha) in an SFI agreement, to cover the administrative costs of participation and to attract smaller businesses—many of whom are tenant farmers—who are currently under-represented in the scheme.

Farmers with a countryside stewardship (CS) agreement will see an average increase of 10% to their revenue payment rates—covering ongoing activity such as habitat management. DEFRA is also updating capital payment rates, which cover one-off projects such as hedgerow creation, with an average increase of 48%. We expect there to be 32,000 countryside stewardship agreements live at the start of this year, a 94% increase from 2020.

Meanwhile, capital and annual maintenance payments for the England woodland creation offer (EWCO) will also see an increase this year.

We will evolve the existing countryside stewardship scheme instead of inventing a new “local nature recovery” scheme, to get to the same destination of supporting farmers to contribute towards net zero and biodiversity among other outcomes. This will include expanding the scope of the scheme to pay for a wider range of actions at a greater ambition, further improving the service so that it is easy for farmers to apply and get paid and targeting our funding through the scheme to where it will have the biggest impact.

Taken together, these changes will mean we will support farmers and landowners for making space for nature alongside sustainable food production, contributing towards meeting the UK’s legally binding environment targets such as halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, agreed at COP15 in December last year.

Later this month we will be publishing detailed information about what we will pay for in our schemes, both this year and in future, and how farmers will be able to get involved.

[HCWS483]

Annual Negotiations for 2023 Fishing Opportunities

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

Each year, the UK negotiates with the EU, Norway and other coastal states in the north-east Atlantic, and via regional fisheries management organisations, to agree catch opportunities and sustainable management measures for shared stocks, including in international waters.

Successful annual negotiations for2023 fishing opportunities

The UK has now concluded these negotiations and reached agreement with the EU, Norway and other coastal states in the north-east Atlantic on catch opportunities for 2023. Across these negotiations, the UK has secured agreement on 86 TACs—total allowable catches—providing £750 million of potential fishing opportunities.

The UK has also concluded an agreement with Norway for continued access to each other’s waters for 2023, as well an exchange of fishing quota.

The UK Government have worked closely with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the outcomes secured will enable us to improve the sustainable management of our fish stocks and support the whole of the UK fishing industry.

UK-EU agreement

As a result of quota share uplifts agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK has around 30,000 tonnes more quota from these negotiations than it would have received with its previous shares as an EU member state. The UK has agreed 69 TACs and arrangements for non-quota stocks with the EU for 2023, providing fishing opportunities of more than 140,000 tonnes. In total, this is worth around £282 million, based on historical landing prices.

An initial estimate suggests that the number of TACs that align with scientific advice from ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—has increased by 13% compared with last year. This is the largest increase since 2020, when the UK first started using this metric. The Government will publish shortly a full assessment of the number of TACs set consistent with ICES advice across all annual negotiations.

For 2023, we have also agreed access arrangements on albacore tuna and spurdog in the North sea for the first time through the UK-EU written record.

For NQS—non-quota stocks—we agreed a roll-over of access arrangements for 2023 to ensure continued access for the UK fleet to fish NQS worth around £25 million per year in EU waters. This is alongside further flexibility for seabass management measures within the ICES advice.

UK-EU-Norway trilateral negotiations

The UK has also reached agreement with Norway and the EU on catch limits for 2023 for six stocks, worth over £202 million to the UK fishing industry in the North sea and a further £11 million in other waters around the UK, based on historical landing prices.

The parties have agreed increases in TACs for five of the six stocks, including North sea cod. They have agreed to a cut in North sea herring. All TACs are at or below the level advised by ICES. For two stocks—haddock and whiting—the parties have agreed to take a more precautionary approach than the scientific advice to avoid risks to the recovery of North sea cod, given the close interactions between the stocks, and set a 30% increase on each.

The parties renewed their commitment to deliver long-term management plans for their shared stocks, and have agreed to develop new and more effective management measures for the North sea herring fishery, focusing on stability for industry and sustainability.

The parties have also agreed to continue building on the work undertaken this year on monitoring, control and surveillance of their shared stocks.

UK-Norway bilateral negotiations

The UK has agreed with Norway on continuing to allow vessels to access our respective waters for demersal fisheries, as well as exchanges of quota worth around £5 million to the UK fleet. UK vessels will be able to fish their North sea whitefish quotas, such as hake and cod, in Norwegian waters, up to a total of 30,000 tonnes. We have also agreed to reciprocal access for herring, up to 20,000 tonnes. On exchanges, we secured around £3 million worth of North sea quota from Norway—including valuable stocks such as monkfish—together with around £2 million-worth of stocks in Arctic waters. This complements over 5,200 tonnes of cod in waters around Svalbard, worth an estimated £10 million, that Norway has allocated to the UK under a separate arrangement.

The mutual access will also allow respective fleets more flexibility to target the stocks in the best condition throughout the fishing year, supporting a more sustainable and economically viable fishing industry.

Multilateral “coastal state” negotiations

The UK has agreed TACs at the level advised by ICES on the three stocks we share with other coastal states in the north-east Atlantic: mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring—ASH. The opportunities will be worth over £250 million to the UK fleet in 2023.

The UK has also chaired negotiations throughout 2022 on a new quota-sharing arrangement for mackerel. These negotiations are making steady progress, and the UK remains committed to securing a fair, sustainable and comprehensive sharing arrangement. Negotiations will resume in early 2023, with an aim of concluding them by 31 March, alongside parallel discussions to agree new quota-sharing arrangements for blue whiting and ASH.

[HCWS474]

Annual Fisheries Negotiations with EU and North Atlantic States

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)(Urgent Question]

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the annual fisheries negotiations with the European Union and other North Atlantic states. Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

As an independent coastal state, we have taken back control of our waters and have the freedom to negotiate on our own terms and push for deals that will deliver for the UK fishing industry, for the marine environment, and for all parts of the United Kingdom. I am delighted to say that this autumn the UK has secured vital deals for 2023 with our coastal state neighbours, including the European Union and Norway. Taken together, these deals have secured more than £750 million-worth of fishing opportunities for the UK fleet in 2023, £34 million more than last year.

The UK has put sustainability at the heart of these negotiations, and an initial estimate suggests that nine more catch levels align with the scientific advice than did so last year. This is an important step forward and will allow our most important stocks to be fished sustainably. That is essential for a thriving fishing industry for the future. The UK will continue to champion sustainability throughout all negotiation forums and push for other coastal states to do so too.

Through the trade and co-operation agreement we will also have the specialised committee on fisheries with our EU counterparts. We use this forum to consider a range of issues, including how to increase the sustainability of certain stocks, which we hope will improve the outcomes of the negotiation in the longer term.

The UK’s fishing opportunities are negotiated in three main forums. First, the UK-EU bilateral. Today the UK reached an agreement with the EU on total allowable catches in 2023 for 69 stocks, as well as arrangements for non-quota stocks. This deal provides fishing opportunities for more than 140,000 tonnes for the UK fleet and is worth around £282 million based on historical landing prices. As part of this deal, we have agreed access arrangements on albacore tuna and spurdog in the North sea for the first time through the UK-EU written record. For non-quota stocks, we have agreed a roll-over of access arrangements for 2023 to ensure continued access to fish non-quota stocks in EU waters, worth around £25 million a year to the UK fleet. The House will also want to note that, as a result of the quota share uplifts agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK has around 30,000 tonnes more quota from these negotiations than it would have received with its previous shares as a member of the EU.

The second main forum where we negotiate our fishing quotas is the trilateral arrangement that focuses on stocks that we share with the EU and Norway in the North sea. In that negotiation, there were significant increases for North sea whitefish quotas, all set at levels either in line with or below those recommended by scientists. This deal is worth over £202 million to the UK fishing industry in the North sea and a further £11 million in waters around the UK based on historical landing prices. The UK also reached a deal with Norway that ensures stability for the UK whitefish fishing industry through continued access to each other’s waters for 2023. Our arrangements with Norway also mean that our crucially important long-distance fleet has access to fishing opportunities worth over £12 million in the Arctic region at a time when the main quota in that area fell by 20%.

Many Members will know that the UK has a significant interest in pelagic stocks, and these form the third main negotiation each year. This autumn we have agreed quotas with the other coastal states in the north-east Atlantic for mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. These quotas were all set at the level advised by scientists and will be worth over £250 million to the UK fleet in 2023.

These deals are crucial to the long-term health of our vital fishing industry, but it is not just about securing financial value for the year ahead, important though that is. These negotiations are a crucial route for the UK to protect our fish stocks, to safeguard the marine environment and, in turn, to ensure that the fishing industry can profit and thrive for future generations. As we head into 2023, I am excited to carry on working with the industry to maximise fishing opportunities and put sustainability at the forefront, and, in short, to continue to support a fantastic sector to profit, modernise and succeed.

[Peter Aldous]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I should point out that I chair a community interest company, REAF—Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries—which has the objective of regenerating the East Anglian fishing industry. Much of our fleet is inshore in nature, pursuing non-quota species, and thus the outcome of these negotiations is only of some relevance with regard to stocks such as sole. That said, the matter is of vital importance to the whole industry, as it provides the foundation stone on which it can be rebuilt all around the four nations of the UK.

It used to be an annual tradition that the Minister would come to this Chamber to make a statement at the conclusion of the negotiations, and thus it is to be regretted that it has been necessary to submit this urgent question, particularly taking into account the enormous interest in fishing generated by Brexit and the role that the industry can play in levelling up coastal communities such as Lowestoft, which I represent.

My right hon. Friend highlighted the fact that the total UK fishing opportunity secured across the three main negotiating forums totals £750 million, an increase of £34 million on the previous year. This 4.7% increase is considerably below the level of inflation, which is currently hitting fishing businesses particularly hard.

I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend could add to his statement by answering the following questions. Will he advise the House as to the preparatory work that is carried out to ensure that the UK achieves better outcomes from negotiations now that we participate as an independent coastal state and are not part of the EU? What monitoring work is carried out after each annual negotiation?

The negotiations were due to complete by 10 December; I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend could advise the House as to the reason why they did not. Have the issues that caused the delay been concluded satisfactorily from the UK’s perspective?

To revive the fishing industry post Brexit, it is necessary to enhance trust and for the Government to work in partnership with the devolved nations, industry and conservation organisations. This is best achieved by increased transparency, so will my right hon. Friend publish the positions that the UK took in respect of the total allowable catch levels for each stock? Progress towards sustainable fishing requires accountability, and the Government would contribute to that by making that information available.

Finally, as mentioned, East Anglian fishermen will accrue limited immediate benefit from the outcome of the negotiations, but from that outcome should flow the improved management of fisheries and increased access to fishing opportunities for local fishermen. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend provide a progress report on the Government’s plans in that regard?

[Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not only for tabling the urgent question but for the work he does to represent his constituency. It is a little disingenuous of him to say that he dragged me to the Chamber for the urgent question; the ink went on the agreement when it was signed this morning, just after 10.30 am—around quarter to 11—which was after the statement deadline, meaning that it was not possible for me to bring a statement to the House.

Nevertheless, I am delighted to be here to celebrate what is a great deal. As my hon. Friend has identified, we are 30,000 tonnes better off now that we are outside the EU than we would have been had we remained a member state.

My hon. Friend made reference to the 10 December deadline, which I think was a false deadline. We were of course always ambitious to try to conclude the negotiations, but as the Minister I was always clear that it is more important to get the right deal than to get a quick deal and that setting false deadlines does not always bring us to the right deal.

My hon. Friend mentioned our negotiating position and asked whether we would lay it out in public. I am afraid to say to him directly that no is the answer. I am not prepared to share our negotiating position. I do not think that is how we get a good deal for the UK, which is what we have secured. If we set out in public where our red lines are before we enter the room, we tend to move quickly towards those red lines and fall back from that position.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the urgent question. I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration that it took an urgent question to hear about the negotiations. I hear what the Minister said about the timeframes, but there was a convention under which each year the House had a proper discussion about the outcome of the negotiations. I hope the Minister will promise today to return to that convention so that we can have proper and full discussions.

I pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities, as well as the fishers, who last week intervened so effectively to save human life in the channel. I remind the Minister of the continuing anguish that is being caused to many in the inland fleet at the hands of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; the Minister really needs to work with colleagues to get a grip on that.

On the recent negotiations, it is clear that many industry players have welcomed the outcomes of the various sets of talks, and that is positive, but may I ask the Minister about the status of the Faroe talks? What efforts were made to ensure that the deals made with the EU and other coastal states included a commitment to keep Russia’s fleet out of their waters? Although we welcome the promise to stop the fishing of sand eels in our waters, will the Minister tell us when that will take effect and whether we have secured commitments from others during the negotiations?

In general, we will, of course, want to see the detail of the outcome and understand the potential environmental impact, but not everyone in the industry is quite as happy as the Minister says. Therein lies a fundamental problem that we have identified in the new architecture, including in the latest version of the joint fisheries statement, something also recently published and not discussed in this House. Although the Minister speaks for the UK Government, the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also play an important role in fisheries management, so we ask again: who speaks for England?

Labour has consistently pointed out that no one fights the corner for English fishing in these negotiations. The statement has been welcomed by the Scottish Government and fishing sector, but can the Minister explain how much of the increase in catch will be available to the hard-hit English fishing sector? What will be the overall impact on jobs and economic opportunities in our English North sea fishing ports and surrounding communities?

The Minister mentioned the distant fleet. Jane Sandell, the chief executive officer of UK Fisheries Ltd, which is based in Humberside and operates in distant Arctic waters, did not react with any positivity about this outcome. She called it

“yet another body blow for fishers in the North East of England. While the government is gloating over its ‘success’ in the Norway talks, we are having to make skilled people redundant in the Humber region. It’s an absolute travesty of fairness and common sense.”

She also said:

“The few extra tonnes of whitefish in the Norwegian zone won't come close to offsetting the loss in Svalbard due to the reduced TAC. Defra knows this, and yet it simply doesn’t seem to care about the English fleet.”

That was borne out at the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State appeared to be unaware of the problems facing the English distant fleet. So perhaps the Minister can explain today why the English distant fleet has fared so badly, and what he plans to do about it.

[Mark Spencer]

We have of course tabled a written statement; we did that as soon as we were able, give that we signed the deal this morning. Once again, it is a little disingenuous to say that we were not prepared to make a statement, as the deal was not signed until after the statement deadline.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Faroe Islands has just concluded its general election and is in the process of forming a Government, so it is difficult to negotiate with its Fisheries Minister when that Minister has not been appointed. As soon as that Minister is appointed, we will be back around the table talking to them to try to sort out the challenges we face, particularly on the Russian fleet, which the Faroes has allowed access to its waters.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details on sand eels. He talked about the devolved Administrations, the north-east fleet and who represents England. We tried very hard on this. We work with our devolved Administration colleagues constantly and we worked very hard to get a fair deal for all parts of the UK. We get the best deal for the UK and we try to divvy that deal up as best as we can among the devolved Administrations and around the coastline. I think we have struck the right balance. It is entirely possible to increase quota for any part of the UK that we want to, but we have to take that off somebody else. If he wants to write to me to tell me from whom he wants to remove quota, we will give due consideration to that representation and consider his thoughts.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am surprised to hear the Minister say that he could not make a statement on this before today, because there was a statement on the Government website on 9 December.

I welcome the fact that we have got an agreement for the North sea that relies heavily on scientific advice. However, although an increase in catch quotas is welcome, certainly for the Scottish fishing industry, we also need seamless access to export markets. So will the Minister listen to calls from the industry for an improved deal for market access to the EU for Scotland’s fishing industry? The all-party group on fisheries recently reported that the fishing industry now takes a “principally negative” view of Brexit. In Scotland, that industry was almost the only voice for Brexit before the referendum. Does the Minister agree with the Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd that

“Brexit failed to deliver any benefits of being a coastal state”?

Given that Brexit red tape and paperwork alone cost the UK fishing industry £60 million in just the first 12 months, not including the cost of lost trade, when will the Government recognise the damage that Brexit has done to our fishing communities? When will they compensate them adequately for that loss?

Finally, I note that one big increase in quota is for blue whiting, which has increased by 80%, against the strong wishes of the UK and Scottish Governments, who wanted a more cautious approach on that species. How much of the increased value of this deal for the UK fishing industry relies on that increased quota for blue whiting, which the UK Government fought against?

[Mark Spencer]

Clearly, this deal is better than what we would have negotiated had we been within the EU. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about market access, and we continue to work with our colleagues in Europe to secure better access to those markets. That is all part of a long-term strategy to negotiate with our friends on the other side of the channel. Clearly, the 30,000 tonnes we were able to negotiate is a significant amount of fish, and better than we would have done as an EU member state.

I also say gently to the hon. Gentleman that this time we have seen increases in cod; in whiting and in saithe in the North sea; in megrims and in anglerfish in the Irish sea; in nephrops in the Irish sea and the Celtic sea; in nephrops in the west of Scotland; and in hake and in spurdog in the western area. I could keep going down the list, but we secured a good deal for the UK. Scotland gets its fair share of that deal, and I would have hoped that he would be more positive, on behalf of his Scottish fishermen, than he has been.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of how much of this increased quota will be landed in English ports, in order to bring jobs and economic opportunities to coastal communities such as Fleetwood?

[Mark Spencer]

That is a good question. We need to do all we can to support the processing industry in the UK, because it is vital that we can process UK fish caught in UK waters in UK ports, to create UK jobs. We continue to work with our friends in the Home Office to make sure that the industry has access to good staff and to plentiful employment. We will do all we can to support ports such as Fleetwood, and others up and down the country.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I place on record my thanks to the crew of the Arcturus, a Plymouth-based fishing vessel that was first on the scene to rescue the capsized people in the channel last week? Their brave actions saved lives.

The majority of the employment in fishing lies in small boats, but they have only a fraction of the overall quota. Super-trawlers, especially foreign-owned ones, are hoovering up huge amounts of our fish from our marine protected areas. Is it not now time to ban foreign-owned super-trawlers from fishing in marine protected areas and to make sure that where they do fish in UK waters they land all their catch in UK ports?

[Mark Spencer]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who were first on the scene; it emphasises what a dangerous occupation fishing can be at times.

Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman sort of contradicted his Front Bencher to a certain extent, in that the huge north-east shipping fleet that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was talking about could be a victim to the sort of policy that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting on hoovering up large amounts of white fish in the Arctic. However, I recognise the importance of small boats, particularly on the south coast. We continue to support that sector of the fishing industry, and I look forward to visiting it soon to hear from it directly.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in the House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the urgent question. We know that following the trilateral deal, what was critical in the UK-EU deal was mitigating the 30% decrease in monkfish stocks. Part of that has come about because of precautionary advice on monkfish stocks, but we know that the data on monkfish is not as robust as it could be. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we have the right data so that we can take the right actions?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, I have had discussions with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Marine Management Organisation to make sure that we have the best data available on monkfish. There were a few issues in obtaining the right sort of data during the covid period. We are satisfied that the data we have is accurate, but she is right to identify that during negotiations with the Norwegians we were able to secure more anglerfish and monkfish quota to try to help out and mitigate the impact of the drop in the total allowable catch overall.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

A merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all the House.

Many of my constituents in Newcastle enjoy fresh fish landed locally from the North sea—they know that it is fresh because it is landed locally. There have been a number of questions on this, but I am still not sure whether I have an answer. Can the Minister say that, as a consequence of this deal, more fish will be landed in English ports? Moreover, can he confirm that, in the North sea ports, we will have more local fish landed locally as a consequence?

[Mark Spencer]

Many of those are individual decisions for skippers of boats. They choose where to land their fish, and I do not want to start dictating to skippers where they can and cannot land. In securing more quota, a greater share and more tonnage, it is very much hoped that those boats will land within our ports. We will do all we can to support the processing industry and those markets to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Speaker]

I now move on to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Panic was setting in there, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions. He understands the issues for fisheries and, in particular, for fisheries in my constituency of Strangford and also in Portavogie. I spoke to the Anglo North Irish Fish Producers Organisation this morning. Will the Minister provide an assurance that the necessary parliamentary time will be provided to ensure the urgent passage of the statutory instrument to remove spurdog from the list of prohibited species? That will allow British fishermen to take advantage of the fact that there could be a fishery for this species in 2023, which is good news. My understanding is that the EU could fish for spurdog right now, but it has deferred the decision for two months. Time is therefore urgent. I know that the Minister will not want the British fishing sector to be disadvantaged in any way, so the two months must be used for the necessary SI to be introduced in this House.

[Mark Spencer]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is very well-informed. There is a requirement for a statutory instrument to allow the spurdog quota to be accessed. This is a new quota. He is right in saying that we will have to process that SI as rapidly as possible. However, I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and make commitments on behalf of the Leader of the House or business managers, but he can rest assured that the Department is working very hard to make sure that that SI is in a place to be deployed, and we will be pressing business managers to get it through the House as rapidly as possible.