Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Offord Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
5. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to tackle electoral fraud.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission has worked with the College of Policing to publish detailed guidance for police forces on preventing and detecting electoral fraud. Additional measures are also being put in place by returning officers and police forces in areas where there have been allegations of electoral fraud at previous elections. The Electoral Commission has worked with political parties to agree a code of conduct for campaigners and is developing a simple guide for voters on how to protect their vote and report electoral fraud.
Mr Streeter
That is not, directly speaking, a matter for the Electoral Commission, although I certainly agree that transparency in all politics is very important. It might be something that my hon. Friend can raise during the course of the coming campaign.
Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and reflects one of the main concerns in the e-petition, about the labelling of meat products. Whatever their views on stun versus non-stun, or on halal, kosher or other methods of slaughter, I hope that most hon. Members agree that the important thing is to label meat products as helpfully as possible, so that consumers can make an informed choice.
I can well understand the concerns of my constituents who realise that they may have eaten halal or kosher meat, when that goes against all their beliefs about what sort of meat they should consume. Whatever the views on either side of the debate about how animals should be slaughtered, I hope there is more of a consensus in the House about the need to improve the labelling of meat products.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The point about labelling is fine; but does my hon. Friend agree that it should extend also to other means of causing death to an animal, which could include clubbing, electrocution and gassing? Should meat be labelled in that way?
Mr Hollobone
There is of course a danger that if meat products are labelled in such detail, people will be put off buying them altogether. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) said in the debate on 4 November, there is no nice way to kill an animal. It is unpleasant whether halal or kosher, and whether the animal is stunned or not. It is a pretty unpleasant business. My hon. Friend has made a good point. At some point the process of improving the amount of information given to consumers in labelling meat products would have to stop, or there would be information overload. I understand the concerns of the Jewish and Muslim communities that to label meat as stunned or non-stunned is not informative enough. I might personally go for a four-bar system stating that the slaughter was stun or non-stun and halal or kosher. I think that is a sensible amount of information that consumers would read and take account of. I accept that we should provide as much information as possible, but realistically there comes a point where not everything can be put on a label.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard, and to follow the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who succinctly set out the positions of the Jewish and Muslim faiths on the stunning and non-stunning of meat. It is always useful to debate a range of subjects, but this debate seems to involve a sense of déjà vu. We discussed the issue on 4 November, and I see present Members who contributed to that debate, along with others. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) chaired that debate. I am surprised that the issue has come around for discussion again so quickly. If former and current Ministers did not already know the range of views on this matter, we have made them very clear over the years.
I want to say a few words about why I certainly do not support the e-petition. I have several thousand Muslim and Jewish constituents, and I am representing their point of view. I am also against stunning because of my own view about animal welfare. I have been a vegetarian for the past 32 years. I can assure Members that I am not squeamish about killing animals: on occasion, animal welfare necessitates the death of animals. I have, in the recent past, put animals—particularly rabbits —out of their misery when I felt that their poor quality of life required action, so I feel that I speak on animal welfare with some authority. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) suggested in an intervention that perhaps more people should go vegan or vegetarian. Sometimes, when the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) suggests that we should have a day in Parliament each year when people do not eat meat, she is ridiculed. That is wrong.
In preparing for this speech, I looked at the amount of meat that is consumed in this country. We have already heard about the glut of meat in the market. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has consulted on the consumption habits of the British public for the past 20 years. In the last year for which the figures are known, people consumed around 190 grams of chicken each week. If we multiply that figure by 52, we get around 9.8 kg—almost 10 kg of chicken every year. If broilers are slaughtered at eight weeks and the average carcase weight is around 1.8 kg, that means that some people, at least, are eating at least six chickens a year. If we extrapolate those figures, we come to the view that every year in the UK approximately 2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption. I have to ask: why are we consuming so much meat?
I will contradict some of my colleagues in saying that shechita accounts for only 1% of the totals that I just read out, and it is incorrect to say that it enters the food chain: it does not. There are approximately 300,000 Jewish people in this country, and the meat produced for them goes to the community itself. The Beth Din already label kosher meat.
Sir James Paice
If all shechita slaughtered meat is eaten by Jews, is my hon. Friend saying that they are eating the hind quarters? That is forbidden. What happens to the hind quarters?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
George Eustice
I have discussed this issue with Shechita UK, and everyone acknowledges that the hind quarters are normally sold on the open market. It would be conceded that most of it goes to Smithfield, possibly to be sold to caterers, but Shechita UK will also maintain that some of it goes to halal markets.
Dr Offord
I apologise to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), because I have been corrected. I can only say that some of it may indeed go into the food chain, but not in the way that was anticipated—that is, the whole carcase of an animal. I think we are dancing on the head of a pin if we are saying that only some might go into the food chain.
What is humane slaughter? Some people say that slaughter is humane if an animal is protected from unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering, and that that requires the animal to be restrained and stunned, rendering it insensitive to pain before it is allowed to bleed to death. I do not accept that. I too have been to an abattoir, and I have also been around cattle when they have been killed in other places. When cattle enter any kind of contraption, including the back of a lorry, their stress levels increase.
In preparation for this debate, I read Jon Henley’s January 2009 article in The Guardian about the European pig industry. Some animals experience a lifetime of distress and suffering. The article documented pigs being kept on slatted concrete floors; pregnant sows being kept in cages so small that they could not move; piglets being castrated without pain relief; and tails routinely being docked to prevent animals from attacking each other. The food that enters the UK food chain from the EU is never discussed, which is peculiar. Muslim and Jewish people do not eat pork, but no one ever discusses such issues—we seem to be focusing on the same issues time and again. We should certainly spend time on other issues, such as the trimming of hens’ beaks; the mechanical mis-stunning of animals; the fly-grazing of horses; puppy farming; the culling of chicks on the basis of sex; and the cultivation of endangered turtle meat in places such as the Cayman Islands. None of that is ever covered.
It is worth highlighting that the petition has come about with great haste, in contrast with the British Veterinary Association petition, which has taken almost a year to come to fruition. I would like the new BVA chairman to stop fanning the hysteria around this issue and look at what veterinarians are doing to ensure animal welfare in slaughter houses.
I will not talk about shechita in particular, because it has already been covered, but I want to make a point about why some of the methods we have discussed have come about. The whole motivation in the large-scale factory abattoirs is to speed up the process and prevent the animal from thrashing around at the point of slaughter. That is why stunning occurs. Animal welfare organisations claim to have adopted the idea of stunning in an effort to raise levels of animal welfare, but the evidence in support of the animal welfare benefits is inconclusive. Mechanical methods frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in great, prolonged distress.
The last time we debated this issue, I mentioned the Food Standards Agency statistics on mis-stuns, which showed—and the Minister agreed—that an unrealistically low number of mis-stuns had been reported in the UK. In 2011, only six cattle were officially reported as having been mis-stunned. Following my questions, the Minister conceded that the statistics are not complete and may represent only a fraction of the actual number, and that the FSA will have to endeavour to improve its reporting methods.
I oppose stunning on the basis that mis-stuns cause animals more pain and distress and that it does not improve animal welfare. I am uneasy about the idea of ending non-stun slaughter coming forward so soon after the previous debate. I defend people’s right to eat meat and I defend my right not to eat meat; I also defend my constituents’ right to eat meat slaughtered in the way that they want it to be. Some people have said that these methods of slaughter are alien practices that are not part of British culture and not something we do in Britain. That starts to produce a divide between some groups and the so-called British public, and I am greatly concerned about that.
On the back of the Copenhagen and Paris attacks, many of my Jewish constituents worry that they are not wanted in this country. They, however, are more British than some of the people who have signed the e-petition; they, at the end of their synagogue services, always play “God Save the Queen” and sing along. We do not see that in other parts of society, more’s the pity. Similarly, when I visit my Muslim constituents at the mosque, they do not talk about the issues that some of the far right claim that they do; they are more concerned about parking outside the mosque on a Friday, so that they can get not only to the mosque but back to work afterwards.
Ms Abbott
My local Muslim community is concerned about this debate. Many do not feel that it is really about animal welfare; they worry that it is some sort of covert attack on them and their way of life. I am glad that so many of the speeches today have confirmed the importance—for some of us, at least—of not only animal welfare, obviously, but the right of communities to slaughter meat in the way they wish to under the law.
Dr Offord
The hon. Lady’s intervention illustrates that some of the concerns of people in different communities are not as portrayed by far-right organisations, but are very much about more normal things, including not only how they feed their children, but how they look after their children and live their daily lives.
In preparing my speech, I wondered which of the British values we are talking about are those to which slaughter practices are alien. I looked at the Department for Education’s advice on promoting fundamental British values in UK schools, which is clear:
“Schools should promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
Surely the e-petition goes against that. Moreover, schools should
“further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling students to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures…encourage respect for other people...and…an understanding that the freedom to choose and hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law”.
The e-petition and today’s motion go against that. We are going down the route of asking people to choose the food that they eat on the basis of religion. Labelling already exists to indicate whether food is kosher, and the Muslim community may introduce similar arrangements as well. I feel aggrieved on behalf of my constituents that we are returning to the same issue. Many of them feel under attack as a result.
Avian Influenza
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
We are working closely with the Department of Health, which is represented in the Chamber this afternoon, as well as with the Food Standards Agency and Public Health England, to get the message across to consumers that there is no food safety risk to British poultry. My right hon. Friend is right to say that this industry is important. That is why it is important to be open about the disease and the way we are dealing with it, and to take swift, effective action.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Given the proximity of the wild bird sanctuary to the area of contamination, does the Secretary of State feel that the exclusion zone of six miles is enough?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for the question about the exclusion zone. Earlier this year our Department set out a biosecurity strategy on notifiable diseases, and the 10 km exclusion zone was deemed to be a reasonable level to deliver the right amount of protection. The chief veterinary officer will be carrying out further work and investigating how the disease emerged, and following that work he will continue to work on our policy.
Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only on the report, but on the way he has conducted this debate, as others have as well, because it is an emotive subject and it is very important that we tackle it in a calm, collected way.
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I do not agree with everything that he said, but the truth of the matter is that my constituents and I—I only eat kosher meat, as he knows—believe passionately that the welfare of the animal is vital. To that end and after earlier debates, I thought, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), that it was necessary to visit an abattoir and see the process at first hand. We did that—I visited kosher and non-kosher abattoirs—and I am going to be very honest: as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, anyone who says that there is a pleasant way of killing an animal is kidding themselves. There is not a pleasant way of killing an animal.
We must also consider the wider aspects of the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said, what happened before the animal was killed is also important. Was the animal living in terrible circumstances? It could be killed in the most humane way possible, but if it lived its whole life in terrible circumstances, that is also not a pleasant thing to think about.
What is shechita? Shechita is the Jewish religious humane method of animal slaughter for food. It is the only method of preparing meat and poultry in accordance with Jewish tradition—meat and poultry that an observant Jew can eat. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—I call her my hon. Friend even though I should say “the hon. Member”—shechita is carried out by a trained person called a shochet, who has been trained for many years before taking up the profession.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the shochet holds two licences? One is issued by the Food Standards Agency and the other by the Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim. That rabbinical commission is a statutory body established by Parliament under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to hear so many great speeches. In my constituency, I have two significant groups to which the issue of food labelling causes great concern: the Muslim community and the Jewish community. I speak mainly from the Jewish perspective, as I know more about shechita than halal meat production, but I also speak as someone who passionately believes in animal welfare and, having been a vegetarian for the last 35 years, I think that my actions demonstrate that more than my words.
As I said, I am more informed about the production of kosher meat through the shechita method. That is the only method of preparing meat and poultry in accordance with Jewish tradition. Both the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) went through the technical aspects of shechita, but one point that I want to clarify is that under the shechita method, the blood supply to the animal’s brain ceases immediately. Consciousness is irreversibly lost and, with it, the ability of the animal to feel pain. I believe that it is quick, effective and safe, and it ensures that the animal is not subjected to any avoidable pain.
That is in contrast to conventional mechanised slaughter, which uses industrial methods that I do not believe members of the public would be very enthusiastic about if they witnessed how an animal was incapacitated before its death. In conventional mechanised slaughter, a high throughput of animals must be maintained for commercial reasons. That creates many animal welfare issues, such as workers using cattle prods or kicking or pushing animals to usher them quickly along the production line.
However, the main difference between shechita and conventional mechanised slaughter is in the way in which the animals are stunned. I believe, as do other hon. Members, that shechita conforms to the EU definition of stunning:
“any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death”
by causing immediate cerebral perfusion. Mechanical methods, on the other hand, may include captive bolt shooting, gassing, electrocution, drowning, trapping and clubbing. This is where I have a problem with the premise that mechanised slaughter is preferable to other methods, such as those termed as religious slaughter. Mechanised methods frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in great and prolonged distress.
Many people are unaware that mechanised methods were originally conceived by large-scale factory abattoirs to speed up the process and stop the animal thrashing around at the point of slaughter, so that the production line could move more quickly. Acceptance of the use of such methods has been adopted by those who express animal welfare concerns in order to allay their own conscience. The use of evidence on mechanised methods in support of the animal welfare benefits is inconclusive and—this is the crux of my concern—I consider the failure rates to be unacceptably high.
By contrast, the shechita process has to be slow and methodical. Any animal or bird that is even slightly harmed before slaughter is not considered suitable for kosher consumption. Special care is taken to ensure that animals are well treated and calm ahead of slaughter, not only because that is mandated but because any other approach would make kosher meat production near impossible.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, mentioned the European Food Safety Authority’s 2004 report on the “Welfare Aspects of Animal Stunning and Killing Methods”. That identified a failure rate of up to 2 million cows for penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter and, with non-penetrating captive bolt stunning and electric stunning, it can rise as high as 10 million cows, so we are looking at 12 million to 14 million cows being mis-stunned each year.
In the Jewish community, the number of cows consumed through the shechita method is just 20,000, so I have to ask why there is this great concern about the 20,000 cows that pass through the shechita and kosher process when 12 million cows are possibly mis-stunned each year. No one seems to like to answer that question. Recently, the FSA was asked that very question.
Neil Parish
I think that my hon. Friend is mixing his figures. I think that he is taking the 20,000 cattle in the UK that are slaughtered under the shechita system and probably taking a European-wide figure for mis-stunning. I would not think the figure was anywhere near that for mis-stunning in this country, so that ought to be corrected. It is nowhere near 14 million; I hope to God it is not.
Dr Offord
That helpfully illustrates my next point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Statistics produced by the Food Standards Agency on the number of mis-stuns are a requirement under legislation and—recent parliamentary questions have asked about this—they show that an unrealistically low number of mis-stuns have been reported in the UK. For example, in 2011, just six cattle were officially reported as having been mis-stunned. My hon. Friend will accept that that is an unrealistic number, too. Following a series of follow-up questions to the Department, the previous Minister conceded that those statistics may not be complete and may represent only a fraction of the actual numbers. I look forward to the Food Standards Agency reviewing its reporting methods.
Many researchers believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said, that shechita is at least as humane as other methods, if not preferable in light of the animal welfare benefits, although others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), believe that conventional animal slaughter is preferable. However, there is agreement that making any assessment of the pain felt by an animal is incredibly difficult. As a result, the Government’s position has always been that the scientific evidence in this area is inconclusive. No study has ever replicated shechita in a laboratory environment, and therefore no accurate scientific assessment of shechita has ever been carried out. It seems incongruous to me to presuppose that consumers do not have a right to know that an animal has been slaughtered by mechanical methods, or mechanically stunned prior to slaughter by one of the legal methods that I have mentioned. All of those, including the mis-stunnings, as I have said, are supposed to be recorded in slaughterhouses but are not. Labelling a meat product as not stunned before slaughter suggests that no stun takes place at all, when shechita in fact incorporates an effective stun at slaughter.
Some Muslims accept stunning as being consistent with halal, provided that the stun only renders the animal unconscious but does not kill it. That means that the animal will be alive but unconscious at the point of throat cutting. It will die from loss of blood, not from the stun. It is crucial for Muslims that the stun does not kill the animal, so they want to be assured that the stun is recoverable—that if the stun was not followed by throat cutting, the animal would recover consciousness.
I believe that labelling meat as not stunned before slaughter is pejorative and discriminatory, because it effectively places religious slaughter methods in a second-class category. I call on the Government to end the constant criticism of religious practices by introducing comprehensive food labelling, or rather by producing religious food labelling. The EU strategy on animal welfare from 2012 to 2015 states that the Commission plans to study the issue of labelling meat that comes from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter. The study is likely to be published shortly. I urge the Government to seek the introduction of a fully comprehensive food labelling scheme, and not simply to use the half-truth about “meat from slaughter without stunning”.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record appropriately. I am not aware that clubbing is a legitimate method sanctioned within UK slaughterhouses, so I am not sure where it came from. The methods that I listed are legitimate, sanctioned and overseen by veterinarians, the Food Standards Agency and others.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that on record.
To return to the issue of labelling, how it could be done and the difficulties involved, should labelling focus on the issue of stunning or the absence thereof? That seems to be the crux of the consumer argument as well as the animal welfare argument. If that or any alternative labelling proposals are to be taken forward, Labour believes that any implementation of proposals affecting meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites must involve full engagement with the faith groups affected, as well as with other interested parties. But—this is a significant “but”—surely that is best done at European level. I ask the Minister for an update on progress in European discussions on the issue. I will be raising it in my discussions with European colleagues this evening and tomorrow in Brussels, and it would be helpful to know what progress, if any, has been made.
The Minister will want to respond in detail to the points raised and to the recommendations in the report. I draw his attention to a couple of specific points. Recommendation 5 relates to concerns about the accuracy of recording of mis-stunning and mis-slaughtering in slaughter practices unrelated to religious slaughter. A written answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton on 24 March 2014 revealed that under the FSA recording procedures, in the whole nation only nine cases of cattle mis-stunning were recorded for 2013-14, as well as one duck, three pigs, three sheep and one turkey. The Minister told the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on 1 April this year that a study into the accuracy of the data was unnecessary, but when pursued by me and others in written questions, he responded to me on 26 September:
“The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is due to complete a review into its monitoring and reporting of breaches of welfare legislation by the end of October. Previously”—
this may explain things—
“only major and critical breaches were recorded, along with the actions taken to correct these. The FSA review is now also looking to strengthen recording of minor breaches.”
I look forward to the results of that review, as many people look at the figures with disbelief.
I say to the Minister that if the principle is animal welfare, that principle must extend across all forms of slaughter, not simply slaughter done in accordance with religious rites. We look forward to hearing the results of the FSA review and what actions might follow.
Finally, what work has the Minister carried out to assess consumer awareness of the issues raised in this debate, such as meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites or stunned and non-stunned meat production? It cannot be left to the tabloids or rabble-rousers to set the agenda. We must have, as we have had today, a well informed and calm public and policy debate that proposes appropriate solutions that apply the highest animal welfare standards, provide clear and appropriate information for consumers and recognise and respect the cultural and religious practices of our diverse communities.
National Pollinator Strategy
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am very pleased to have a chance to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing it. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). As Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, she has been a pivotal figure on the issue of pollinators and pesticides and a driving force in enabling the Committee to consider these matters.
I welcome the national pollinator strategy, and I am very pleased that the Government have set forward their vision and ambition, but they need to take some of their existing measures further.
The strategy is important for several reasons. It is a tacit acknowledgement that over 20 species of bee have died in the past 100 years or so, and since 1985 the number of honey bees in this country has declined by almost half. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) was the Minister, I asked about the cost of replacing bees with hand pollination. I was grateful that the Government came back with an answer: the university of Reading undertook some research and concluded it would be £1.8 billion—a cost that would fall on consumers.
In addition, the Government have acknowledged that 84% of plant reproduction and 76% of food crop production in Europe depends on pollination by bees. It is clearly, therefore, a very important issue for this country.
I am pleased the Government are concerned about the bee decline. Bees are not only important for food production; they are also important for biodiversity and for their intrinsic value to many of our constituents. A point was made about Friends of the Earth and people having their picture taken next to a bee, and many people in my constituency—in a suburban seat in London—have e-mailed me to tell me how concerned they are about the decline in the bee population.
The NPS also acknowledges that this is not just about bees but about all pollinators—hoverflies, butterflies, moths, beetles—and carrion and flesh flies, which play an important role on many of our country roads in respect of animals that are knocked down. Even mammals such as bats, which are specialised pollinators in their own right, play a role.
The Government also acknowledge that many of us have a role to play. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned local authorities. When I was a cabinet member in and deputy leader of Barnet council, I introduced the policy of bringing the countryside into the city. There were parts of Sunny Hill park that I told contractors not to cut. We took that approach for the simple reason that it would attract hoverflies, butterflies and all the other pollinators that would encourage pollination within Hendon and other parts of my constituency.
The NPS also acknowledges the role of research and review, and commits to more studies to understand the economic and social value of pollinators. I am keen for the Government to continue to do that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) mentioned the review of the NPS in 2019, but I wish to draw the House’s attention to the 2013 decision to ban neonicotinoids in Europe. The Government were not keen on that at the time. They said that they would continue to interpret that principle on the basis of both economic and environmental considerations. I hope that they do that and do not override some decisions on the basis of a reliance on commercial rather than scientific research. I do not want the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to abrogate its capacity to deliver on its environmental protection obligations, so I hope that that part of the strategy will continue to be followed.
I wish to mention four areas I would like the Government and the Minister to consider. As has been said, various changes have led to a reduction in pollinators, including the presence of invasive species, climate change, and biodiversity and habitat loss. We can, however, have an immediate effect in one area—planning. I would like the Department for Communities and Local Government to put greater emphasis on taking pollinators into account in its planning guidance. One of the main causes of the decline in pollinators relates to their ability to find food and shelter. There is a lot of poorly planned development in different parts of the country by local authorities and developers that causes further decline, and I want the situation turned around. I am aware that the plan includes some measures to deliver a step change in land management, but I want the Government to give us further clarity on that to illustrate how planning and development can affect habitats that pollinators need and how the current system can better plan for them.
I would also like the Government to consider agriculture itself. I would like to see them assisting farmers to cultivate pollinators. More than 70% of the land in this country is devoted to farming, and what happens on farm land is pivotal to whether bees and pollinators survive and revive. Farmers do what they can—I acknowledge that they do great things to provide pollinators—but I would like to hear what the Government intend to do to provide assistance. The draft NPS is too reliant on voluntary farming measures. Given the historically low take-up of these voluntary measures and low level of adoption of pollinator-specific actions in agri-environment schemes, the Government could go a lot further. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned making CAP reform work for nature, and it would also lay the foundation for the pest management regime.
The Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the integrated pest management scheme. The draft NPS does include measures to promote the pest management scheme to reduce the risks to bees of pesticide use, but it needs to be clearer about what is additional to the existing action and how that will be targeted to help bees. The definition of the IPM in the draft NPS does not refer to reducing pesticide use, yet the EU rules require that priority is to be given to non-chemical methods of pest control. We need a clear ambition to minimise over-dependence on pesticides. If we do not undertake that, the conditions for pollinators are unlikely to change. The IPM can help the UK to move to pesticides being used less, in a smarter, more targeted way, and as a last resort and not as a matter of course. So, again, farmers need more assistance in their approaches to pesticides, particularly in respect of crop pest resistance to insecticides and the NPS overall.
I wish to finish by discussing community partnerships. We all know that many groups and civil organisations are keen to work with the NPS, but I do not want the Government to rely too heavily on voluntary initiatives or outside bodies that have limited accountability lines and then not be able to put across their vision and deliver the aspirational intentions of the NPS. I believe that we can protect our bees and we have an opportunity to do so, but we need to do it in a way that transforms how our communities respond and react to their local environments.
Sale of Puppies and Kittens
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the rise of the internet has led us to people buying puppies and kittens online, which are certainly being transported around the country? That is where the problem lies, and we need greater regulation.
Robert Flello
I do not think that is the only problem. As I will go on to say, that is one of the problems, but not one I am seeking to address today.
Overseas Territories (Sustainability)
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I thank all the passionate people who have assisted us with our inquiry, including Alistair Gammell, Heather Bradner, Josh Kaile, Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Tim Austin, Croy McCoy, Stuart Mailer, Wayne Panton, Fred Burton, Patricia Bradley, Ian Orr, Jay Esterman and Nick Beech. We are also indebted to many other people.
I would have liked to mention a number of matters —transparency, resources, biodiversity conservation, sustainability and many others—but time will prevent me from doing so. This afternoon, therefore, I will focus on one area, which is good governance, or rather the lack of it.
Many issues covered in the report are not simply to do with environmental policies, but involve standards of governance on the part of the UK Government and Governments in the overseas territories. The remit of the Committee in the report is to hold the UK Government to account for their overall responsibility for the good environmental practices of the overseas territories. When, for example, there is evidence that planning systems in many territories are not open, and that procedures for carrying out objective environmental impact assessments are either ignored or subverted, there is a role for the UK Government, through governors and ministerial engagement with the overseas territories, to encourage and provide support to improve standards of governance.
The result of failure to take early action and to address matters adequately was seen most recently in 2009 in the Turks and Caicos Islands, when the Government had to introduce direct rule. Given that action, it is a great pity that in the initial paragraph of the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, the Government make it clear that they do not regard the report, nor the wealth of evidence presented to them, as in any way worth addressing.
The Government talk of powers being devolved to the Governments of the UK overseas territories, whether the territory has locally elected politicians or Government-appointed officials, including governors and administrators. Through the UK Parliament, certain policy areas have been designated the responsibility of devolved administrations, such as locally elected governments and assemblies. Devolution means that the UK Government no longer have the legal authority to determine policy on some matters in the devolved administrations, except through subsequent parliamentary votes at Westminster. We can see this most notably in local government in the UK. The devolved administrations, which are the councils, are provided with financial resources to carry out work in the devolved areas. There is, however, no such parliamentary devolution to the overseas territories, whether of legal authority or budgetary resources.
The crucial concept for the UK overseas territories is not devolution. Indeed, that term does not appear in the index to Hendry and Dickson’s authoritative “British Overseas Territories Law” of 2011. The key constitutional concept is that of reserved powers, which are, uniformly, defence, foreign affairs and public order. As the same index reveals, however, a key non-parliamentary constitutional concept is that of the Government’s reserved general power to legislate by Order in Council.
Even if the constitutions of individual overseas territories have been modernised in certain respects during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, they still rely on colonial legal structures developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and on the ability to govern by exercising the royal prerogative through Orders in Council. Constitutionally, the good governance of the territories is the responsibility of the UK Government.
The Government decide how to secure such good governance through departmental, ministerial and bureaucratic decisions. Generally, for territories with locally elected Governments, it is desirable for that to be achieved through local legislation, which takes account of local conditions, but respects standards that are often formulated to be observed in all territories over which the UK exercises effective sovereignty. Where Ministers deem it necessary, however, Orders in Council, without parliamentary debate in either the territory or the Westminster legislatures, can be used to impose new laws, including the suspension of a territory’s constitution.
Let me be clear: I am in no way opposed to proper delegation to the UK overseas territories, but as I said a few minutes ago, the Government’s arrangements do not achieve that, and they certainly do not justify the Government’s repeated attempts to claim that they have no responsibility for environmental issues in the overseas territories.
The Government assert in their response that it would be inappropriate to take greater ownership of environmental issues, as that approach would be in stark contrast to the objective, set out in the 2012 White Paper, of working in partnership with the territories to help them meet their environmental obligations. The idea of working in partnership, however, was set out in the 2001 environment charters, in which both sides made commitments that reflected their differentiated responsibilities for environmental good governance. The Government’s comment is in conflict with the Environmental Audit Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee reports of 2008, as well as our present report.
It needs to be clearly stated that there is no suggestion that the Government should take over managing environmental issues in the overseas territories, but the Government should introduce support for proper management. It is all very well for them to assert that they encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements, but the Government undermine their own assertion by making the erroneous comment that
“we have no intention of imposing on the Territories obligations that they are ill-equipped to fulfil.”
That is an attempt to set up an informal fallacy. The role of the UK, as recognised in the standard environment charters, is not to impose obligations, but to
“Facilitate the extension of the UK’s ratification of Multilateral Environmental Agreements of benefit to [the territory] and which [the territory] has the capacity to implement”,
and to
“Keep [the territory] informed regarding new developments in relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements and invite [the territory] to participate where appropriate in the UK’s delegation to international environmental negotiations and conferences.”
The Government response to the Committee’s report also ignores international responsibility to help equip parts of sovereign UK territory to fulfil such commitments. Imposing treaties on unwilling UK overseas territories is not something that the Government have shied away from—we need only consider the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands in 2009, and the fiscal and financial framework in the Cayman Islands a couple of years ago. There is, however, a middle course between imposition and a purely reactive response to requests from UK overseas territories, as the Government have developed mechanisms to seek the changes needed in overseas territories—that is, to encourage and to assist.
In general, treaties that the UK ratifies reflect values and priorities that apply to all sovereign UK territory. If that is not the case, will the Minister provide examples of environmental treaties that it would be wrong in principle to extend to all or some UK overseas territories, although they are appropriate to the UK mainland? The core obligations under the convention on biological diversity are not onerous. Having legislation to create protected areas is fundamental, but effective implementation is also important.
In all countries and territories where the convention on biological diversity has been ratified, or to which a mainland country’s ratification has been extended, a great deal has been left to be put in place after that ratification or extension. Judged by some standards—when it comes, for example, to the creation of marine protected areas—the UK has not been a leader in meeting its CBD commitments. It therefore seems perverse to demand higher standards before extension to many of our overseas territories when they are specifically excluded from policy discussions and treaty negotiations. It would not have impressed the other states with whom the CBD was being negotiated had the UK announced, on ratification in 1992, that it was likely that 22 years later it would still be unable to extend the CBD’s principles to most of the UK overseas territories, including those with no residents.
The Government state that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face resource and capacity constraints affecting their ability to consider or implement treaties. Although I can accept that view, will the Minister explain why the UK Government have not provided more resources to address those constraints—for example, staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, assistance in an environmental drafting capacity, or any other form of help? If the Minister believes that multilateral environmental agreements have no value when applied to areas of high biodiversity, will he argue his case in public for not extending such treaties to those areas, and for devoting large sums of UK taxpayers’ money to biodiversity on the UK mainland?
As a consequence of the inquiry, some overseas territories have introduced conservation measures and legislation; that is an achievement of the Committee, but I must ask why the UK Government are prepared to exercise hard and soft power in the UK overseas territories on financial matters, but not protect biodiversity and promote environmental sustainability.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot abnegate its constitutional responsibility to ensure that good governance arrangements are introduced in the UK overseas territories. Sustainable development in the territories is contingent on their Governments’ implementing effective development controls, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic infrastructure plans.
I urge the Government to consider investing to prevent biodiversity loss in the overseas territories, as it would make a direct and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK’s international commitments under the CBD. The UK could make a significant contribution to achieving Aichi biodiversity target 11 by declaring new marine protected areas around the Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government have missed a significant opportunity in their response to the Committee’s report, but there is still time to take the action we have set out.
George Eustice
There is, and I will come back to that point, because I want to talk about some of the international aspects.
The second issue that I want to touch on is that of staff, because several hon. Members have suggested that DEFRA has no one dedicated to this subject. In fact, there are four DEFRA staff working on overseas territories issues, and they include the head of our international biodiversity policy unit. The report suggested that there should be more visits by DEFRA staff to the overseas territories. I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers to undertake those visits to see the wonderful specimens of wildlife that we have there, but I question the value of spending money on air fares when we could be spending money on projects that will deliver and will enhance the biodiversity of these areas. Also, not carrying out physical visits to these areas does not mean that they are not in regular contact with their counterparts in the territories. They certainly are. For instance, earlier this week we were speaking to officials from Tristan da Cunha about the islands’ biosecurity needs and the exciting news that a new bird species may have been identified on one of the islands. I am told that it is a prion and similar to a kiwi. We await peer review of that new discovery.
We also organise workshops and training for the territories. For example, in March, officials organised a practical workshop on how to implement the convention on international trade in endangered species. It brought territory officials together with representatives from DEFRA, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the JNCC, Kew gardens, Border Force and the Government Legal Service. We also offer access to expertise and a range of services, including a plant pest identification service provided through the Food and Environment Research Agency which helps to protect both biodiversity and agriculture in the territories. That service has helped the territories to put in place measures to combat invasive invertebrate pests, and has to date identified 16 species new to science.
There is also, of course, regular discussion at ministerial level. We have the Joint Ministerial Council, which brings together UK Ministers and territory leaders and representatives and is organised collaboratively. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that we should prioritise greater involvement of the territories in setting the agenda for those meetings, but I assure hon. Members that we already do that. We already have regular meetings with the UK-based representatives of the territory Governments in the run-up to Joint Ministerial Council meetings and, following discussions with them, we held Minister-led plenary sessions on the environment in 2012 and on renewable energy in 2013. Responding to specific territory requests, we also held in 2013 a technical discussion in which territory representatives were able to speak to UK experts on a range of environmental issues.
International agreements were mentioned by a number of speakers. As the Select Committee rightly pointed out, protection of the environments of the territories is relevant to the goals and targets set out in the convention on biological diversity’s strategic plan, which 193 countries around the world, including the UK, have already committed to implementing. As the Committee also pointed out, the convention has so far been extended only to four of the UK’s 14 overseas territories.
The Government recognise that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face capacity constraints, which may affect their ability to consider or implement treaties. In such circumstances, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the territories, the UK or the wider environment to impose on the territories obligations that they are ill equipped to fulfil. We do, however, encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements. That includes working with them to ensure that they have the necessary measures in place to fulfil their obligations, providing technical advice and building capacity before extension of ratification takes place. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made clear, the Select Committee recommended that the CBD be extended to other overseas territories. Although we believe that that is a matter for the territories themselves, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members today that my officials are currently working with a further three territories on just such an extension of the CBD.
Funding is important. The Committee’s own report acknowledged that DEFRA spending on the UK overseas territories has increased since 2007-08, and increased sixfold between 2010-11 and 2012-13. We do that mainly through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus. That cross-Government grant scheme, co-funded by DEFRA, the FCO and the Department for International Development, funds environmental projects in many of the territories. In the past two years, Darwin Plus has committed nearly £3.7 million to 29 projects in the territories. Returning to the issue of international agreements, it is important to note that in many cases the grants that are offered help to deliver and advance the objectives that were set out by the territories in the environmental charters, when those were put together and agreed on in 2001.
Dr Offord
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at such short notice. In the Cayman Islands, there is a conservation fund, which comes from a tax levied on people when they leave the islands. That has allowed a pot of money—£40 million—to accumulate, but the authorities are not able to spend it, because there are not governance arrangements in effect. Does the Minister think it wise to be spending UK taxpayers’ money overseas when they already have their own resources but they do not have the governance measures to allow them to spend it?
George Eustice
I was going to come on to the issue of the Cayman Islands. I am not familiar with the particular point that my hon. Friend has raised, but, consistent with the charters, I am able to say that, with UK Government support, the Cayman Islands’ long-awaited National Conservation Bill was passed on 13 December 2013. The law will, for the first time, give legal protection to Cayman’s unique and diverse land and marine-based natural resources. Although this is a delegated area of responsibility, the UK Government provided political support for the passing of the law, including through visits by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke about marine protected areas. The Government have been enthusiastic supporters of MPAs, having established the largest no-take MPA in the world in the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010. We have also established a 1 million sq km sustainable use MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 20,000 sq km of which is a no-take zone. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that in 2009 the UK provided the science that underpinned the declaration of the first Antarctic marine protected area.
I want to mention a couple of other points that were raised. One was about EU funding and LIFE+. I can confirm that the Government worked with NGOs to allow that European fund to be used on these projects, and we continue to work with them on that. An issue relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was raised. On that, one of the obstacles is that, in some of these countries, gambling is illegal. Nevertheless, certain organisations can already claim money.
We are running out of time, but let me say in conclusion that I think we have had a very good debate. I hope that I have managed to persuade hon. Members about our commitment to these issues, and we will be publishing on Monday—
Bovine TB
Matthew Offord Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paterson
That rather depends on what the protesters do. If the countryside were inhabited only by responsible country people, who are very concerned about TB, the policing costs would be very low. I totally respect democracy. We all have different views, and I totally respect people’s right to protest, but if we have an invasion of protesters who try to stop the democratic Government’s disease control policy by using measures that cross the border from legitimate democratic protest into active disruption, the policing costs will become significant.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
When did the Secretary of State last discuss the timetable for establishing a legal, validated cattle vaccine with the European Commission?
Mr Paterson
I saw the commissioner on the Monday a fortnight ago—the first day I came back.
Flooding
Matthew Offord Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paterson
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong. We are going to spend £2.3 billion over the course of this Parliament. The scheme he mentions may be a good candidate for partnership funding, which has helped get a whole number of schemes that were stuck beforehand over the barrier because they depended entirely on Environment Agency funding.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and congratulate him on his energetic performance over the Christmas period, when I saw him here and on our television screens informing the public. Does he agree that he saw a lot of surface water on his travels, and will he assure me and the House that he will have conversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities are playing their part in clearing culverts to ensure that standing water on roads does not contribute to the worsening floods?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. DCLG Ministers obviously played a key part in our Cobra meetings, and liaison with relevant local councils was discussed almost on a daily basis. That is a key local government responsibility that has been pursued with vigour by Ministers at the centre.
Fisheries
Matthew Offord Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sheryll Murray
I completely share my hon. Friend’s concerns.
On the CFP review of regional management, although a sea basin approach is welcome, we must all remember that it will be for a limited period, because article 6(1) of the new regulation states that Union vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters. In his bid to secure legitimate sea basin management, has the Minister explored the deletion of that article from the proposal?
On the 12-mile limit, I am delighted that the European Parliament and the Council have adopted a regulation to extend the arrangements for a further two years, thus avoiding a repetition of the situation that arose in January 1983 and the subsequent case of Regina v. Kirk in the European Court of Justice. The Labour party claimed in 2002 that it had secured a roll-over of the 12-mile limit, but that was untrue. According to article 100 of our act of accession, the original agreement referred to the position as on 31 January 1971. That position, which was set out in the London convention of 1964, remained until the present 2002 regulation, in which it was changed. Fishermen from specific member states are now allowed access to specific areas for specific stocks, as is set out in an annexe to the regulation. I hope that the Opposition will apologise to UK fishermen for that error.
The restriction of access to member states within a certain band could help our fishermen using small—under 10 metre—vessels, who are struggling with their quota share. Action on that matter was yet another failure by the Labour party. Please will the Minister take soundings over the next two years to secure a better deal on access to our 12-mile limit? Newer member states do not have such shared access.
I understand the industry’s concern about how a discard ban would affect it, but I believe that the discarding of marketable fish is a wicked waste of healthy protein. I have often raised the matter of small gurnards, which are fished off my constituency, and I am delighted to inform hon. Members that one of my fish merchants is now using them as an ingredient in the Lipsmacking Liskeard pies range. The fish version is the Shipwreck pie, which is quite delicious. I certainly recommend that hon. Members try it should they ever happen to be passing through Liskeard.
Some of my fishermen are very worried about the implications of marine protected areas. Although I acknowledge that Natura 2000 sites cannot take account of socio-economics, the MPAs that the Minister will designate under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 can do so. Will the Minister reassure me that any consultation on the selected sites, which he is due to announce, will allow leisure and commercial fishermen to put their case should they feel disadvantaged?
I want to mention an MPA that has been the subject of a case in the European Court of Justice relating to Spain and the southern Gibraltar waters. Having declared an MPA in the southern Gibraltar territorial waters, the UK registered it with the European Commission, but Spain has contested those waters. Indeed, Spain included them in its own, much larger MPA, which it has registered with the Commission.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
My hon. Friend obviously speaks about this subject with a great deal of experience. She mentioned socio-economic considerations of marine conservation areas and marine protected areas. Does she agree that such areas also provide an opportunity for additional benefits, such as tourism? I am particularly thinking of the sinking of the Scylla near her constituency, and the economic benefits that that has brought.
Sheryll Murray
One of our problems with the proposed MPA there is that a lot of dredged silt is being dumped in a disposal ground close to the Scylla. I know that the Minister has visited my constituency and seen that for himself.
The European Court of Justice has confirmed that the Spanish action was legal, but it should be noted that one of the judges on the appeal panel was a Spanish national. Although I do not expect the Minster to respond on that subject today, will he write to me to say what his Department or the Foreign Office now intends to do? I admire his work for our fishermen at this important time, but I fear the outcome will not be as positive as they want, or as they—let alone the fish stocks—deserve.
We are constrained by the principle of equal access to a common resource, but I want to remind the Minister of the words of some of his predecessors when they held shadow posts. In November 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) told the House:
“We should follow the example of those countries that have had the courage to take control of their own fisheries policies.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 825.]
On 2 December 2004, the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who then held the shadow fisheries post, said:
“The CFP is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster. It is our clearly stated policy to leave the CFP and establish national and local control.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 836.]
He even published a Green Paper on how fisheries would be managed within the UK 200- mile limit or the median line. Finally, on 7 December 2005, he told the House that
“my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that he ‘would reverse EU control of fisheries policy and withdraw from employment and social policies.’ On numerous occasions during the campaign, my hon. Friend stressed employment and social policies—and my word, fishing certainly comes into that category.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 888.]
If the Minister cannot secure real, permanent change to fisheries policy during the review of the CFP, will he takes steps to persuade my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to take back national control over our 200-mile limit? Indeed, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) could show him the way, through the Bill he presented some years ago, which British fishermen still applaud today.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate.
Many Members here today wish to speak about the fishing industry because of constituency interests, so it could be asked: what am I, as a London MP, doing also asking questions? The answer is simple. Many of my constituents eat fish, just like the father of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)—I, too, wish him a happy birthday. Also, as I grew up in Cornwall and around the coast, I am particularly interested in the sea. I challenge anyone here who has not done so to read Rachel Carson’s “The Sea Around Us”, and to marvel at the majesty of the oceans, as described there. I also challenge anyone who disputes the environmental degradation of the sea to read one of Callum Roberts’s books, and to learn for themselves about the problems that the sea, the wider ecosystem and the environmental community face. I make no apology for drawing heavily on both those conservationists. I believe that my plagiarism is just a testament to their ideas—ideas that we, as decision makers, should consider.
I would like the Minister to consider several things as part of the UK’s fishing policy. I have some ideas that might increase the sustainability of fish stocks and the biodiversity of species, their habitats and changes in the food web structure on our coasts. I believe that we should reduce the amount of fishing. We cannot say that we were not warned about this issue many times, many years ago. As long ago as 1948, in his “Rational fishing of the cod of the North Sea”, Michael Graham noted that
“the properties of an over-fished stock are such that all attempts at improvement will be unsuccessful so long as there is not some limitation of the total fishing power expended per annum, involving fishing by all nations.”
Where there is no restriction on access, people will pile into the industry all the while there are profits to be made.
Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend not agree that coastal communities disproportionately rely on fishing jobs, and that we should not only be considering the conservation of fish stocks but taking into account the conservation of fishermen?
Dr Offord
Having grown up in Cornwall and having conducted my PhD research on economic development in the county, I certainly agree. The local authority in Cornwall has a great role to play in that, but it is not currently doing so. Agriculture and fisheries are concerns in Cornwall, and those concerns are not being addressed, so I do agree with my hon. Friend.
Under the common fisheries policy, countries have had their access limited, but fishing capacity can still increase to excessive levels because of technological innovation. A decade ago it was estimated that the fishing fleet in the North sea was already 40% larger than was sustainable, so it is understandable that one of the CFP’s main thrusts is to decommission vessels. In October, I asked the Minister about the Government’s policy on the decommissioning of fishing vessels and he advised me that decommissioning was not a policy of this Government. It was, however, Government policy back in the 1930s, particularly regarding the herring fishing fleet.
I accept that decommissioning is not a panacea for the fishing industry’s problems. The first to sell up are usually those who have the worst fishing records and those with the oldest boats. In practical terms, the owners of the large fishing fleets will often sell their oldest vessels and put the money into buying new ships and fleets, and they will also put the money into fishing gear and electronics. That is, therefore, only one step that we should take, but I ask the Minister to consider it.
I also ask the Minister to consider the elimination of what I call risk-prone decision making. What I mean by that is that we should take elected politicians out of the decision-making process.
Dr Offord
The Minister nods in approval, but I hope he understands my rationale.
The time scales of politics and fishery management are as distinct as beef and mackerel. The two things exist in completely different time frames. Ministers and politicians usually exist in very short time frames, and the decisions taken by fisheries Ministers are often not felt for at least five or 10 years, which is usually one or even two parliamentary terms and fisheries Ministers later. We have, therefore, Ministers who end up picking up the pieces of previous poor decisions.
I would also like to consider the elimination of catch quotas, and instead to implement controls on the amount of fishing. The intention would be to replace catch quotas with limits on fishing efforts that would help the fishing industry. Landing quotas do not stop fish being killed, legally at least. By limiting fishing effort, the Government can prevent fish stocks from being killed, and allow them to live longer and produce more offspring.
Andrew George
I do not want this to become a Cornish debate between Cornish Members, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to present a polarisation between fishermen and environmentalists he has perhaps misunderstood the issue. Increasingly these days fishermen are working with scientists, and the way forward is to encourage them to work together towards a sustainable fishing industry. It is not that fishermen want to fish the seas out; they are interested in a sustainable fishing industry for the future.
Dr Offord
I am obviously giving that impression, but I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not my intention. I do not believe that that is what fishermen in this country do. Hopefully, I will provide that reassurance as I make several more points.
A fourth reform that I would like to see, and which has been mentioned already, is to require fishermen to keep what they catch, as occurs in countries such as Norway. We all agree that discarding fish is a tragic waste. Most of the fish that are caught are dead when they are returned to the sea, so even when we comply with quotas nothing is achieved, because all we do is throw back dead fish. For years, EU regulators insisted that vessels should throw back over-quotas because otherwise over-catching would be rewarded.
I believe, and I hope that this point provides some reassurance, that such a reform could be a powerful conservation measure. If we provide and enforce limits on fishing effort, the proposal will work, because different catches are worth different amounts, depending on size and on the species caught. Crews become more selective, choosing the target species that make them more money, and they also supply low-value catch species for other uses such as fishmeal or, as we have heard, stargazy pie. Methods that allow greater selectivity include modifying fishing gear and choosing fishing grounds more selectively, and the reform would become an economic incentive, achieved through best practice.
I would also like the Minister to consider requiring fishermen to use gear modified to reduce by-catch. For years, Government laboratories have shown that they have designed such gear, but experience shows that the industry is reluctant to change its gear because of the financial implications, and possibly because the new gear could reduce the total catch. The only way to enforce such a change would be through legislation.
I would also like the Minister to comment on banning or restricting the most damaging catching methods. Some fishing gear causes untold environmental damage. Bottom trawl nets crush and sever bottom-living species. Gear used to trawl in deep water is heavier than that used in shallower water. The heavy steel rollers on the ground rope and the 5-tonne plates that hold the net open cause irreparable damage but the practice does not have to be universally banned. Large expanses of shallow-water continental shelf are dominated by gravel, sand and mud, which is perfect for trawling, and repeated trawling actually favours some communities of animals and plants that are resilient to its effect. Farmers plough their fields, but not every single year, and the same could occur in parts of the ocean. I have no problem with trawling, but I believe that we should establish how often it can occur.
Finally, I would like the Minister to consider implementing extensive networks of marine reserves that are off limits to fishing. We have already heard one Member’s concerns about the economic conditions. Earlier today, I heard the Minister speak about the number of conservation areas that are being considered. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said that she would like to see those that are rejected replaced by others. I would like to see the number increased. The total number of 127 represents only 27% of the UK’s coastline. This could be an economic opportunity, rather than a problem for fishermen.
I am a great supporter of the fishing industry, and I want it to continue to be profitable, vibrant and safe. Many Members have mentioned the terrible health and safety record in the industry, which is due to the very dangerous nature of fishing. I would also like to see the opportunity to improve the fish stocks in this country, and we can do that unilaterally, away from the European Union and not as part of the CFP. I believe that it is possible to achieve those ends.