Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the fisheries Minister for rapidly acceding to the Committee’s request to set up an independent panel to investigate the cause of the mass shellfish mortality off the north-east coast last autumn. When does he expect that panel to be established and when might he expect it to report its findings?

[Mark Spencer]

Obviously we want to set it up as soon as possible and we want it to assess all the available evidence. All interested parties want to make sure that we identify the challenge. A number of—if I can use the term—red herrings have been thrown into the mix, so establishing the true facts as rapidly as possible will be the ambition of this rapid inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

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

I do not think the situation could be any more serious for farmers in this country, both grain farmers and grass farmers. The UK requires around 2.2 million tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser, and about 1 million tonnes of that came from the Ince plant and the Billingham plant. The Ince plant is shut and the Billingham plant is paused while waiting for deliveries of ammonia in order to switch from North sea gas. In welcoming the Minister to his place on behalf of the Committee, may I ask him to say when the first load of ammonia will arrive at Billingham and when production will commence? There is a real fear that the plant might not start, and then we will really be in serious trouble.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. That is something that we take seriously. We recognise the huge challenge to not only UK agriculture, but other sectors around the country. He will be aware that AdBlue, which many diesel cars up and down the country use, is also dependent on products of a similar nature. We will have to work together as an industry to look at other alternatives. We may have to look back at our ancestors and how agriculture operated in the ’30s and ’40s, with nitrogen-fixing crops and other agriculture methods, to solve some of the challenges that we face.

Sewage Pollution

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

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

Before privatisation, every single gallon of Scarborough sewage was pumped into the sea untreated. Since privatisation, we have seen investment in the Burniston water treatment works, which has been upgraded with ultraviolet treatment to increase its capacity, and in a 4 million litre stormwater tank at the end of Marine Drive that captures the majority of heavy storms. Would the Secretary of State agree that the bathing water off the Yorkshire coast has never been cleaner, and that while there is more work to be done, particularly on some of our inland waterways, private sector investment is the way to deliver that?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have prioritised investments through the new strategic policy statement for Ofwat, which means that this issue is being prioritised for the first time ever. He is also right that private capital has helped to raise the money to lead to infrastructure improvements. Things were not perfect in the days of nationalisation. Indeed, we did not even understand the scale of the problem because there was not the monitoring in place, which we have now required, to recognise it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

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

Following last year’s mass shellfish mortality off the Yorkshire coast, the problem has still not gone away: catches of lobster are 50% down despite vessels venturing further out to sea. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has attributed this to algal bloom, but other theories are circulating. Will the Minister publish all the toxicology data available for sediment, sea water and dead crustaceans to independent scrutiny? Is it true that the recent extensive dredging of the River Tees is based on just one silt sample taken in February last year?

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

My right hon. Friend and the neighbouring MP are very concerned, as am I, about what happened last year, and I have been to see some of the crabs affected. As he said, we are not entirely sure of the cause of the mortality but algal bloom seems the most likely explanation. I have made it clear that we should publish every single piece of information available, and academics must work together on this.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Deidre Brock]

I am going to make progress.

As previously, where the EU offers new scientific advice and moves to change legislative frameworks, the Scottish Government consider the implications for Scotland and seek to stay closely aligned with that approach where practicable. Holyrood passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 before Brexit, committing the Scottish Government to alignment with EU standards and regulations. In keeping with that, we are closely monitoring the EU, including its public consultation which I believe is continuing at the moment, as it reviews its policy on certain new genomic techniques.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I thought I had made myself fairly clear. We are waiting for the EU review of this technology to take place, then we will weigh it up carefully and decide whether to continue down that route ourselves. The trouble with farmers and the NFUS at the moment is that they are so desperate to find something in place of the trade they have lost as a result of Brexit that they have seized on this. I think that the precautionary principle should always apply with new technologies of this sort.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

rose—

[Deidre Brock]

I will keep going for a bit.

Let me give the view of some of the organisations that have listed their concerns. The view of the umbrella group of individuals and organisations, GM Freeze, is that the proposed new approach would take away scrutiny and transparency, and as these are patented technologies, it is concerned that big business will be handed greater leverage and control over what we eat. The Soil Association warns that in the absence of a proper governance framework, gene editing is likely to be driven by industry interests. The question has to be asked: without rigorous democratic forms of governance in this area, how can we stop monopolies forming and companies acting in the service of profit rather the public interest? I hope very much that we will hear that question answered as the Bill progresses and, as the Minister is nodding, perhaps even this afternoon.

Deregulating GE products also loosens the strict controls that allow modified plants and animals to be traced with ease, making the impact on the general animal and plant population harder to track and assess. There are also fears that deregulated gene editing risks displacing high-welfare agro-ecological farming systems such as organic farming. If there is no tracing or labelling, the future of organic and other non-GM farming is threatened. Citizens deserve to know how their food has been produced; that goes to the very heart of food sovereignty.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she aware that the last generation of new varieties were often produced using induced mutation, gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine, which was equivalent to smashing up DNA with a sledgehammer rather than this keyhole surgery? Varieties such as Golden Promise, which can be grown organically in Scotland and go into the majority of Scotch whisky, have been produced in that way and she has not raised any concerns about them.

[Deidre Brock]

As I say, we are prepared to consider the technology as things progress but we are waiting on the EU, because the EU has the strictest standards in the world—[Interruption.] The EU has some of the strictest standards in the world, and if it is content after it has examined this process and had its consultation, that is certainly something we are prepared to consider.

Ministers insist that no changes should be made to the regulation of animals under the GMO regime until a regulatory system is developed to safeguard animal welfare. However, as has been mentioned, a coalition of 21 of the UK’s leading animal protection organisations has called those safeguards

“poorly defined and largely inadequate”.

Among multiple other concerns, the group cites increased risk of regarding animals as things that can just be modified for human convenience. That, of course, contradicts the central premise of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.

DEFRA cites the potential for gene editing to address concerns over food security. I held a debate recently on the subject and talked about the need to prioritise sustainable domestic food production and build long-term resilience into our farming system. There is a danger, as the Soil Association points out, that gene editing is used as a sticking plaster for industrial farming systems, targeting symptoms and not root causes. The Secretary of State mentioned porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, which, as I understand it, is caused largely by poor living conditions. Why not try to address that rather than using the new technology as, as the Soil Association points out, a sticking plaster? The UK Government appear to be rushing to adopt untested technologies to distract from the real issues in our food system, such as poor soils, lack of crop diversity, intensive industrial farming and falling domestic production.

I will come to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think you are looking at me sternly. It might be easier to take the Government at their word if they were not abandoning other plans that would have a positive impact on food security and inequality. The food strategy for England, which was published on Monday, has been remarkably watered down by rejecting many of the recommendations in the food system review and dropping the commitment to introduce a food Bill.

In Scotland, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is making progress, will produce plans that will be scrutinised according to various metrics, including social and economic wellbeing, health and the environment. A draft plan has been published on ending the need for food banks. The Scottish Government’s new vision for agriculture outlines how we aim to support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

If the UK Government are serious in their intention that the Bill will affect the market in England only, they must amend it to ensure that products covered by it are not included in the mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and that the devolved Parliaments can reject those products outright if they are not content. The Scottish Government think that the principle of devolution should be respected by the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament should be asked for its consent before actions are taken hastily that could undermine our trade with Europe and compromise the safety of our food.

This is our food system. We must surely ensure that every possible safeguard is in place before we adopt this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As has been said, she clearly has expertise, but I am looking at the scientific evidence that has been put before me, and it is being suggested that the mistakes that can be made in this area, especially when it comes to nature, appear very different from those that are seen in nature.

I move on to the principle of properly defined criteria. Using a term that lacks any proper definition looks like an attempt to obscure the full scope of the proposed deregulation. The terms “precision breeding” and gene editing help promote a particular narrative—that the process is just a simple “cut” or “tweak”. The Government are also at pains to stress that any changes might have occurred “naturally” and do not involve the insertion of transgenes—so-called “foreign” DNA.

I have read that this is to some extent smoke and mirrors. The Bill seeks to deregulate all manner of genetic manipulations, and genome editing can sometimes involve the insertion of foreign DNA. As I understand it, the argument is that in such cases the inserted DNA gets removed before the product goes to market. That may well be the intention; but by using poorly defined criteria in the title and wording of the Bill, the Government are asking us to pass bad legislation.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Is it the case that, if the EU were to allow this technology to go ahead, the hon. Lady would, like the SNP, embrace it?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am not making a blanket statement in that way. I am saying that if a whole load more safeguards were built into the Bill and if it were not based on a set of definitions that are being criticised by the scientific community, I would have rather more confidence in it than I do right now.

As we have heard, several learned organisations have challenged the Government’s creation of this hypothetical class of GMOs that could have “occurred naturally” or could have been created using traditional breeding. The Institute of Food Science & Technology has called the approach “overly simplistic”, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics was

“not convinced that this is either the most proper or most popular framing”.

The Roslin Institute found it “exceptionally challenging”, while the Royal Society of Biology said:

“No clarity can be achieved using this principle—we would not recommend using it as the basis for regulation.”

In response to last year’s public consultation, there was a clear view that this is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific basis for regulation.

Turning to transparency, there are no provisions in the Bill for the labelling of genetically engineered or so-called precision-bred food, despite this being what a majority of the public want, as the Government consultation made clear. In that consultation, 85% wanted genetic technologies used in farming to continue to be regulated in the same way as other GMOs. There are significant concerns over the commercial drivers of genome editing in farmed animals, for example. This makes labelling really important, not least if Ministers want citizen and market trust, and buy-in to any new regulatory regime. The public register idea is welcome, but it needs to be accessible as well as comprehensive, and it should include all genetic engineering events and organisms used in UK agriculture. Reduced data collection is worrying. Data that is not collected cannot be analysed. Ministers are simply assuming that risks are non-existent or vanishingly slight, but there is nothing scientific about such wishful thinking.

In conclusion, we need a national conversation. Regulation and innovation need not be at odds, but products of agricultural genetic engineering, including newer techniques, should be subject to a robust and transparent regulatory and governance framework. This must include a strong traceability and labelling scheme that protects the interests of organic farms and allows consumers to make a choice in the supermarket. This legislation lets down consumers, farmers, the environment and animals. Rushing ahead with a badly conceived and designed Bill because the Government are simply desperate to claim some kind of success on post-Brexit deregulation is unacceptable, and I urge them to bring back something better.

Government Food Strategy

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before we proceed any further, let me say that I am aware that nine Members in the Chamber did not hear what I said just before the proceedings on this statement commenced. I reiterated what Mr Speaker said at the beginning of the earlier piece of business, the urgent question, when he made it very clear that Members who are not in the Chamber at the beginning of an answer to a UQ or a statement by a Minister will not be called to ask a question during the proceedings on that UQ or statement. Sometimes it appears that people hear what Mr Speaker says but just ignore it, as though it did not apply to everyone or there might be extenuating circumstances—there are none.

So at the beginning of this statement, I reiterated what Mr Speaker said and I said that anyone not in the Chamber at that moment, 4.45 pm precisely, would not be called to take part in this statement. I have a list of the people who came in after 4.45 pm. So if you were not here at the beginning, please do not stand, because it is discourteous to do so when I have already said, or Mr Speaker has already said, that you will not be called. Let us proceed, with everybody who was here at the beginning of the statement. I call the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

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

I welcome the direction in which the strategy takes us, but will the Secretary of State comment on what I might suggest are a couple of omissions? First, he rightly says that, in terms of the food that we can produce, we produce about three quarters of what we consume. However, in recent years, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the amount of vegetable oil we produce, making us more reliant on sunflower oil and rapeseed oil from Ukraine and on unsustainable palm oil from the far east. What can we do to address that? Secondly, on the location of photovoltaic installations, more regard seems to be given to the proximity of an electricity substation than to the quality of the land on which they are installed. Could the Secretary of State perhaps look at that issue again?

[George Eustice]

First, may I take this opportunity —my first at the Dispatch Box—to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. He was a predecessor of mine as a Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I know that he will bring considerable expertise to his new job.

On the two points that my right hon. Friend raised, planning guidance already sets out a clear presumption against building solar farms on the best and most versatile agricultural land, which is classed as grade 3b and above. I am aware that there have recently been instances where BMV land has been built on, and we are discussing that with Government colleagues.

On the second issue that my right hon. Friend raised, around our dependence on imported sunflower and rapeseed oil, the rapeseed crop has declined in recent years due to the withdrawal of the use of neonicotinoids. It has recovered in the last year, and prices are strong, but the ultimate solution probably lies in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which will be introduced in the House later this week and bring forward our ability to tackle some of these agronomic challenges.

Hunting

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell, for being in the Chair for this important debate. I thank the Petitions Committee and its Chair for ensuring that this matter can be debated in the Chamber. I also thank the hundreds of my constituents in York Central who have signed the petitions before us. They are exceptional at demanding higher protections for animals, not least in respect of foxes savaged by hunts and hare coursing. I have long campaigned to uphold animal welfare standards, and today is no exception. I thank the League Against Cruel Sports and Keep The Ban for their tireless work in exposing this offensive pursuit.

The Hunting Act 2004 should have been the end. Back then, the Labour Government responded to the popular demand to end hunting with hounds. We acted to end this animal cruelty, but the bugles and beagles were not silenced for long. The hunts, of which there were nearly 300 in England and Wales, were not deterred by the penalty system, and it now appears that they were never intended to be. They were soon riding again, under the smokescreen of trail hunting, which was designed to put those investigating the hunts off their scent. The hunts never intended to stop; they said as much when the legislation passed.

The saboteurs and organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and Keep The Ban have exposed how terriermen were present at 78% of hunts. Those are the people who dig out foxes as they seek refuge. If the fox is not going to be killed, there is no need to dig it out. In 2020, evidence came to light from the leaked Hunting Office report and Masters of Foxhounds Association report of online Zoom webinars, exposing how hunts were making meticulous plans to use the 2004 Act to deflect from this bloodthirsty obsession.

I am glad that some landowners have responded, and I call on all landowners to institute a ban on their land. There has been only one prosecution for permitting a hunt on land that was known to be in breach of the law. While there are temporary suspensions, such as those by Forestry England and the National Trust, they must become bans. The Ministry of Defence has still issued licences. I call on the Minister to ensure that the Government come to one position on this issue. She must ensure that there is a consistent ban on any public land being used for hunts. I hope she will commit to that today in her response.

The 2004 Act has resulted in 448 prosecutions and 228 convictions for crimes involving hunting with dogs, and 47 prosecutions and 16 convictions for hare coursing. However, without a complete ban on hunting, foxes and hares will be targeted. Although Mr Hankinson, a director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, was convicted last October after being found guilty of encouraging and assisting people to evade the ban on foxhunting, the deterrents are insufficient and the law continues to be broken. I also understand that on 6 July Mr Hankinson will be appealing the decision against him.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is my co-conspirator on bringing Great British Railways to York for its headquarters. Does she agree that it is possible—perfectly possible—and reasonable to hunt within the law, using trail hunting, and that therefore, although we condemn a situation in which the law has been broken, it is possible to carry out this activity within the law and indeed the legislation allows for that?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that point forward. I would have said yes in 2004, but trust has been betrayed, which is an issue I will come on to later. Therefore, I would have to say today that the answer is no.

I was speaking about the judgment regarding Mr Hankinson. I appreciate that this matter could be sub judice, but I just want to draw Members’ attention today to what Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram said when he was outlining his conclusions in the initial court case last autumn:

“I am sure that the defendant through his words was giving advice on how to illegally hunt with dogs. In my judgement he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as cover for illegal hunting.”

For that, Mr Hankinson received a fine of £1,000, along with having to make a contribution of £2,500 in legal costs.

As we have seen in other areas of law, penalties for breaches are insufficient for those who are part of the elite. During the cub-hunting autumn season alone, there were 115 reported incidents and 2019-20 saw a total of 485 reports of incidents. These incidents are not rare; they are occurring on an industrial scale.

The Countryside Alliance blames bad law, but the reality is that whether we like the law or not and whether it is good or bad, we have to have to obey it. That message is resounding in the public square at present. Lawbreakers cannot hide behind excuses but must face a penalty, although it is evident that the penalty is too soft, as they continuously and deliberately break the law, for all the weaknesses that may be within it.

Hunts have betrayed the trust placed in them to stay within the spirit and letter of the law and stay away from foxes, so the law must change and a complete ban on trail hunting must ensue. There must be no exemptions, no loopholes and no excuses. The hunts have only themselves to blame for this, having tried to bend and stretch the law.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way again. Does she agree that if she had her way, then—given that foxhounds do not make good family pets—thousands of foxhounds up and down the country would have to be destroyed humanely, because the hunts could not afford to keep them if they did not have their participation in the trail hunting?

[Rachael Maskell]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying and, as I said previously, we are in this situation because trust has been betrayed. I do not accept that those hounds have to be put down. However, we have to move forward. We are now at the point where people have deliberately obfuscated the law and I think the time has come when we cannot tolerate people—quite frankly—laughing at this place, which has really tried to improve the situation and move forward by giving that scope and flexibility for trail hunting. However, as we see time and again, trail hunting turns into real hunting and therefore I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

With 85% of the population believing that all forms of hunting foxes should be illegal, Parliament cannot stand by when the loopholes in the legislation are being exploited to perpetrate wildlife crime. The Hunting Act 2004 needs amending and those who stand in its way must be brought to account. If Natural Resources Wales has introduced a ban on its land, there is no excuse for the Minister. She needs to ensure that she is leading, not waiting for the hunt lobby to craft more reasons for delay, dither and indecision.

However, this is about not just foxes, but hares. The League Against Cruel Sports found that in 2019-20, there were 102 reports of suspected illegal interference with badger setts, animal worrying—an issue that has been debated of late in Parliament—and even pet interference. The second petition before us today concerns Mini the cat, who was literally hounded to death—chased and killed in a quiet residential area. Poor Mini was mauled outside her home, but the penalty under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was just £1,600. After the kill, the hunt tried to hide their cruelty by slinging little Mini over a fence, but they were caught. This very day, John Sampson, the person responsible for the death of Mini, has had his guilty conviction upheld in the courts in Truro. The nation has taken Mini to their hearts, and are demanding Mini’s law—the public and animal safety Bill—as there has to be a simpler course to justice. Sadly, Mini was not a one-off: on average, another Mini is taken by hunts every fortnight.

People are also endangered. Banning hunts from residential and other public areas is necessary, which is why I believe a blanket ban by Government will increase the consistency of protection. Currently, the Dogs Act 1871 is relied on, but proof needs to come to light that the hounds were out of control, which is no easy thing to evidence. As we bring forward legislation, we need to ensure it is easy to apply, and to provide the necessary evidence. We are coming to the end of this parliamentary Session, after which a new one will begin. Banning trail hunting and hunting on public land and in residential areas would show a commitment to animal wellbeing and protect those most majestic of all animals, foxes. A simple and small amendment to the Hunting Act 2004 is all that is required. We stand ready to bring in this ban and end this barbarism once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I will just reiterate what I said: there are parameters for what trail hunting is; it is a legal recreational activity, and it must be carried out in the right way. The data that we have received suggests that it is being carried out in the right way; where it is not, it obviously needs to be cracked down on. That is not the Government’s job; it is the job of the police.

Issuing a licence or giving permission for trail hunting is an operational matter for the landowner; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not play a role. Although it is called licensing, it is really an arrangement with the landowner and the hunt; the landowner comes to their own arrangement as to whether they want the hunt to proceed over their land. Different public sector landowners take different approaches to managing their land. That said, of course, other DEFRA Ministers and I continue to engage with interested parties through meetings and correspondence, and we obviously listen to everybody’s views and discuss matters of concern.

The first petition mentioned today relates to the Forestry Commission in England. Trail hunting in the nation’s forests was suspended by Forestry England following a police investigation leading to the conviction of a former director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association. It remains suspended until the Forestry England board takes a decision on its future, which is for that board to do.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Does the Minister agree that it is rather ironic that the Labour party campaigned against the privatisation of the Forestry Commission because it wanted public access to its land, and now it is saying that people should not have access to that land to carry out a perfectly legal activity?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. As ever, he is on the ball with his comments, as he was on the point about the 18,000 hounds that might have to be put down if the activity of hunting did not proceed.

I also want to touch on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke as a true countryman with a great deal of experience and knowledge. I think he said that he does not himself hunt—nor do I—but the expertise he brings to the table and his knowledge of rural affairs are very important when we are talking about these issues. I just wanted to put that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Yes, today—we are allowed to speak about it now, Mr Mundell, are we not?—the appeal was refused. Judge Simon Carr said:

“It is a fact specific decision we are quite sure these dogs were dangerously out of control and in these circumstances the appeal against conviction is refused.”

That is very strong, as the hon. Lady said, and rightly so. I believe that the legislation has been used in the right way.

One other question was asked by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), which I think was about the potential review. In 2018, DEFRA was looking at the Hunting Act, but that was shelved. We now have a manifesto commitment not to amend the Act, which she is well aware of. We will not change our mind about that. A powerful statement about that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

No one has mentioned in the debate the important economic impact that legal hunting has in rural communities. The farriers, the horse breeders, the people who service the horse boxes—a whole variety of people—rely on legal hunting for their incomes and livelihoods. If we were to ban trail hunting more widely, people would be put out of work as a direct result.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We should not forget it. I used to be an environment correspondent down in the west country, and I was there during the full throes of all the debates about hunting. I did not know that much about the economic impacts when I started, but I certainly learned a great deal, particularly in places such as Exmoor, where there are not many other places to gain income. There is tourism, of course, but hunting has a big impact on tourism, with people having their horses in stabling, and all the catering, accommodation and everything else it brings. That is a valid point. It has to be operated. Legally, we have put in requirements for the safe operation of trail hunting and so forth. Carried out in the right way, hunting is still valuable to the rural economy. Similarly, a good point was made about the fact that the fallen stock from agriculture goes to the hounds. If that were not so, that would create a problem. There are so many possible knock-on effects.

I realise that there are strong views on every side— I thank all hon. Friends and hon. Members for their input, and I thank those who signed the petition—but there is a clear consensus that the ban on hunting with dogs must remain, and this Government have committed to not amending the Hunting Act. Forestry England has responded to breaches of its trail hunting permissions and, as I said, all trail hunting on its land is currently suspended. It is very much an operational matter for Forestry England to decide how it wants to proceed. It will do so shortly, at one of its meetings.

As I hope I have demonstrated, protection for members of the public and their companion animals is already covered by several appropriate pieces of legislation, including on dangerous dogs. Another interesting point was made: as I said, I have two cats and we have hounds exercising through our village, but one of my previous cats was killed by a car. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire raised the issue of the other awful incidents that can wipe out some of our pets.

I hope that I have made it clear that we have appropriate legislation to cover incidents in which dogs act dangerously. Those found guilty under such Acts are subject to the full force of the law, and rightly so.

Badger Culling

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will come back to that point. As has already been said, it is amazing what can be done quite quickly when scientists really get behind something. I suspect many would agree with the point made by the hon. Lady.

The argument is frequently polarised: those who believe that culling badgers is the answer and those who disagree both believe that they are following the science. The problem is that the science is not entirely clear; statistics that appear to back both sides of the argument can be found and quoted. It is worth putting on the record that the Godfray review, commissioned by the Government back in 2018, set out this issue in its opening statement:

“The deeply held beliefs of people who cannot countenance culling badgers deserve respect, as do the beliefs of people who argue that sacrificing badgers is justified to reduce the burden of this disease on livestock and farmers. The decision whether or not to cull badgers must be informed by evidence which provides important information on likely outcomes. However, final decisions have to take into account the irreconcilable views of different stakeholders and so inevitably require judgements to be made by ministers”—

and different Ministers will make different judgments.

Labour would stop the culling of badgers. Our bovine TB control strategy would be based on vaccination, testing and better biosecurity measures, and we believe we have public support for that position. However, no one should be in any doubt that we are absolutely determined to put an end to the spread of bovine TB.

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

If we had a vaccine that allowed us to differentiate between a vaccinated animal and an infected animal, that policy would stand up. However, until we have that vaccine, the only alternative is to continue culling, which has proven successful in getting on top of the disease in areas such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin).

[Daniel Zeichner]

I was very pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman walk in because I expected him to make exactly that intervention; we had a similar discussion during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. As I am sure he will appreciate, the DIVA test is well advanced. He is right to say that we need to make progress, exactly as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said. Science moves; I am, perhaps, more optimistic about the pace of that movement than others.

The petition has a significant number of signatures. It focuses on the killing of badgers rather than the bovine TB issue, which I shall return to. The view expressed is that the shooting of badgers is poorly monitored and inhumane. Anecdotally, one is certainly told of cases where badgers are not shot cleanly and are left with injuries. According to Natural England’s compliance monitoring report for 2020, badgers were shot at but not retrieved in 11.4% of cases, but only one case of a badger being shot at but wounded and lost was reported; presumably some of the rest may not have been found. As with all such figures, the situation is not clear. I suggest that there is some cause for concern.

Can the Minister say why the number of badgers culled through free shooting rather than cage-trapping has changed so dramatically? According to the figures in the very good briefing prepared by the House of Commons Library, those numbers have increased from rough parity in 2014 to around four in five in 2020, creating a greater risk of inhumane culling. What is the reason for that? It seems that that is directly relevant to the question raised by the petitioners.

The wider question is about the future of shooting badgers in general and the continuance of the cull. I remember when the Government finally responded to the Godfray review while we were sitting on the Agriculture Bill Committee. By complete chance, they responded on the very day that Labour happened to have tabled an amendment addressing this very question—it was one of a number of cases when Government statements appeared miraculously on certain days during the course of the Agriculture Bill’s passage through Parliament. What we took from the Government announcement, the headlines and the spin was that the cull was to end. However, what we have seen since has shown that that was not the whole story.

Despite the points made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, given that the cull has been going on for 10 years or so, it is worth asking what the Government’s policy on badger culling has done to get this horrible disease under control. One thing we know for sure is that it has killed a lot of badgers—more than 140,000. That is not in doubt. Every year since 2015, the number culled has grown, with more than 38,600 killed in 2020. Last year’s figures are due any time; they are expected to be larger still.

The Badger Trust tells me that in some areas of Gloucestershire and Somerset, badgers are now all but extinct. It also predicts that, by the end of the cull, the number of badgers in England will have been halved. As I reflected on earlier, the sad truth is that some of those badgers will have had unpleasant deaths. There are then the financial costs. Again, the Badger Trust estimates that, between 2013 and 2019, the cost of the cull was around £60 million—although I hear the points made by Government Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points, because I think that the crux of the question is, “Does the culling of badgers achieve the desired result?” That is one of the points at issue. I find it slightly surprising that there are no tests once badgers have been culled, so we do not really know the ratio of infected to healthy badgers being killed. Perhaps the Minister could explain why those are not done.

Staggeringly—to many of us—the current system is set up so that, in some instances, badgers that have been vaccinated will then go on to be culled. A couple of years ago, I visited the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and its volunteers to see just how badger vaccination works, and to meet a badger. I am grateful to Debbie Bailey and her colleagues for letting me join them—I must say, very early in the morning—to see how it is done. It is painstaking work, carried out by volunteers, and with financial support from the Government. However, as I say, incredibly, those very same badgers, vaccinated at taxpayer expense, are then sometimes shot as part of the cull. Can the Minister explain how that makes sense?

I warned earlier that the statistics can be read in many different ways, but I would also point out that, during the past decade, the number of cattle slaughtered due to TB has remained fairly consistent, at between 26,000 and 33,000 per year. In 2021, the number of cattle slaughtered decreased by only 1% on the previous 12 months to 27,581, with more cattle slaughtered in 2021 than in 2013, the year that the culls started. Herd incidence was at 8.8% in 2021—down only 0.6% on the previous year—and has also remained fairly static throughout the cull, at between 11% and 8.6%.

As I have been at pains to point out, different people will read those figures in different ways. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire will perhaps see them as a great success, while others will look at them and say that there are many other variables, and that there has not been sufficient progress to justify a Government policy costing millions of pounds and resulting in the deaths of close to 150,000 members of a protected species.

I would appreciate it if the Minister explained what she takes from those figures and whether she considers the cull to be a success so far. To mix my metaphors, I would say that the Government have placed too many of their eggs in one basket—each year, ramping up the killing, licensing more and more cull areas, but to insufficient avail. The science around this has long been contested. I think we have heard accounts of that. It has been looked at on a number of occasions.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, if one looks at New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, where culling the wildlife vector was so effective, we can see how the policy is based on clear science and clear examples, from other countries around the world, of how effective it can be?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I always bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s superior knowledge on this, but my recollection from reading the Godfray review is that other factors were involved as well.

Part of the problem with the whole debate is trying to separate out the different issues with the governance structures, the New Zealand example and so on, so I suspect we are not going to agree on this. But from the evidence I have seen and had explained to me, cow-to-cow infections are far more significant than those from badger to cow. Indeed, the Godfray report described the benefits of the cull to the farming industry as “circumscribed” and raised a range of other potential ways forward.

In 2020, Labour welcomed the Government’s announcement that they were finally planning to phase out culls, with the end date set for 2025. Despite saying that no new licences would be granted after 2022, in late 2021 seven new licensing zones were announced. In answer to a written question, the Minister said the culling of badgers will remain an option

“where epidemiological assessment indicates that it is needed.”

Can the Minister clarify that the Government do not intend to allow a perpetual culling of badgers by the back door and that the commitment to end the cull by 2025 remains in place?

Our Labour view is that we are more likely to beat bovine TB through better vaccination, better testing and better biosecurity, particularly when it comes to testing pre and post movement of cattle between farms, together, as I have already suggested, with a much bigger push into researching and administering effective TB vaccines for both cattle and badgers.

To conclude, I return to the Godfray review of 2018. Can the Minister say what happened to some of its other proposals? It queried the current governance arrangements, saying that, in its view, too many Government bodies were involved, and it suggested a single bovine TB authority. What is the Government’s view on that? To some extent, the review was looking at the New Zealand example. The review recommended moving to using a more sensitive test in the high risk and edge area. Does the Minister agree with that? It argued that a key problem is the high level of cattle movements in England, and that risky trading should be disincentivised. Again, does she agree? If so, what does she plan to do about it?

The review recommended mandatory post-movement testing and using the most sensitive test; the Minister’s comments on that would be welcome. It describes the number of “no regret” biosecurity options being taken up by farmers as “disappointingly low”. That was back in 2018, so can she tell us if there has been any progress since then?

As always, there are many questions, but there are many ways to tackle bovine TB. The Government and Members on the Government side clearly believe that shooting badgers is the preferred option, but in our view the evidence of efficacy is unclear. On the Opposition side, we would take a different path, as I outlined earlier—but let me clear that we will be absolutely steadfast in our resolve to eliminate bovine TB.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government have invested over £40 million in vaccines and tests. As set out in the Godfray review—again, this is in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire—our aim is to have a deployable cattle vaccine by 2025. Field trials began last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) mentioned that the challenge is having the sensitivity to make sure that we deal with the matter properly.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

May I share my disappointment that the oral vaccine that DEFRA was keen to roll out proved too unpalatable were it to be made abrasive enough for it to work on the badger, and now we are stuck with having to trap and vaccinate badgers? Unfortunately, some badgers are too clever to get caught. It tends to be the same badgers getting in the traps all the time because they know there is food there.

[Jo Churchill]

Indeed. As every Member said, we need to approach this issue in the most humane way possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

I was, in fact, due to go tomorrow, but I am now unable to. I dare say those conversations will happen in short order. I know that my Northern Ireland equivalent is looking at this issue at the moment, and it is hoped that we can learn from one another. We can certainly get those conversations where we can all be enabled to make the right decisions as swiftly as possible.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out that culling causes badgers to move, and perturbation, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said. Taking that into account is important. That is why we need a gradual, monitored, evidence-based approach, so we do not risk perturbation and the disease getting a hold. We need the areas that can cull to do so while we build the vaccination capability and a vaccinated population.

The strategy is rooted in routine and targeted testing of herds, movement restrictions on infected herds, rapid detection and removal of cattle testing positive. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) said that it is particularly stressful when a calf is involved. We do have an isolation policy so that a positive cow is pulled out in order that the calf can be born.

Measures such as the statutory testing of cattle, movement between farms and surveillance at the slaughterhouse also apply. Over the last 12 months, we have compulsorily slaughtered more than 27,000 individual head of cattle in England to control the disease. Many of us represent rural constituencies, and we have heard today from virtually every Member about the misery that both sides of this bring to people. The cost to Government of dealing with the disease is about £100 million a year; it is a huge burden for the taxpayer.

One of our top priorities, as I have said, is to develop the vaccine for cattle so that it does not interfere with the TB testing regime. We hope to get that introduced within the next five years. It is expected to be a game changer in providing a strong additional tool to help to eradicate the disease. It is important that we look at the trials that are ongoing at the moment and we get the evidence base. There is not a single answer to the scourge of bovine TB, but by deploying a whole range of policy interventions, we can turn the tide on this insidious disease and, we hope, achieve the long-term objective, which I think everybody shares, of ensuring that we make England officially TB free by 2038—sooner if we can make it, but definitely not much later.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

May I remind the Minister that in North Yorkshire we have very healthy badgers and very healthy cattle? Contrary to what many people think, the badger is not an endangered species; indeed, I think that in our part of North Yorkshire there are probably four or five times as many badgers as there have ever been before. It is the hedgehogs, bumblebees and ground-nesting birds that are feeling the pressure, from the high numbers of badgers, and that is having an effect on the ecosystem as well.

Bees: Neonicotinoids

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for raising this topic. This is a debate we need to have, and we need to focus on the facts.

I should declare that I am a farmer, though not a sugar beet farmer. I am very fond of bees, not least because we grow field beans on our farm and we understand the role of pollinators. We should not dispute the fact that neonicotinoids are toxic to bees, although in a slightly more complex way than with other toxins—the behaviour of bees can be affected, which can result in hives failing to survive.

No farmer likes using pesticides; they are expensive and have an effect on the environment. In many crops, such as wheat, which can be affected by aphids, the farmer waits until a threshold of aphid attack is reached before using the sprays. A certain degree of predation can be coped with as the aphids feed on the plant and suck the sap. However, although winter barley can have an aphid attack in the growing season, it is also affected by a disease called barley yellow dwarf virus, which is spread by a virus vector. Farmers spray their barley crop in the autumn not because a threshold of aphids has been reached, but because they need to prevent the virus from being spread. The same situation occurs with sugar beet.

The sugar beet virus yellows is caused by three viruses—beet yellows virus, beet mild yellowing virus and beet chlorosis virus—and is spread by an aphid vector. It is a bit like mosquitoes spreading malaria—one bite is enough to infect the plant. Farmers need to protect the crop. In a bad year, the crop can be affected up to as much as 30% on the yield, which is sufficient to make it unviable to grow.

Sugar beet is a biennial crop. It does not flower in the first year. Using a seed dressing when planting the seed—we are not talking about spraying it over the crop and bees that are flying around being affected—renders the plant toxic at that critical stage so that if an aphid feeds on the plant, it dies and does not spread the virus still further. It is our old friend myzus persicae, the peach-potato aphid, that spreads the virus.

This is not a problem only in the UK. Ten European Union countries have applied for similar derogations. France has a derogation that runs until 2023. There are alternatives, but, as the French have said, none of them works well enough on their own compared with the seed treatment. Some may not be good for the environment either. For example, the virus overwinters on many flowering weeds. Many farmers might be discouraged from putting in flower margins around their fields because that could overwinter the virus, which could then be spread into the crop. As farmers, we want our flower margins and a wide diversity on the crop.

I believe that the derogation is sensible. The biennial nature of sugar beet means that we do not have bees feeding on the pollen and nectar on the sugar beet crop in the same way that they would on a crop such as field beans, which is an annual crop.

We have seen a massive decline in oilseed rape in this country because we have lost the same type of seed treatment that controls the cabbage stem flea beetle. It is not a virus vector, but at the very early stage, when the first two cotyledon leaves emerge, the cabbage stem flea beetle will decimate the crop. Many farmers have stopped growing oil seed rape. We are into the law of unintended consequences, because oilseed rape is a massive source of pollen and nectar for the very bees we want to encourage. We need to be very careful that we do not just go with emotion. We all love bees and want to protect them, but we need to ensure that we have a diversity of break crops. As part of our new environmental land management scheme, we want to have more margins, more wildflowers and more diversity, but if we lose our two main break crops in the east of England—sugar beet and oilseed rape—it could unfortunately result in the opposite happening.

Oilseed rape is drilled in mid-August, grows through the winter and does not flower until the following spring, when the residues are not sufficient—I think scientists would make this point—to cause problems for bees. We need to be very careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it is sensible for the Government to allow a derogation, as 10 EU countries have done, to allow this to happen. I think that that will secure the viability of the UK sugar beet industry and not affect bees. It would be sensible to do more research as we put in place the derogations, which, by the way, are needed only if we have a mild winter and aphids over the winter. I would support that.

As I say, I am a great champion of bees, but many of the emails I get do not really take account of the science. We need to look at the science and the evidence, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will look at the science and realise that this is a proportionate change and will help the sugar beet industry in the UK. We can import sugar, and we can stop producing sugar in this country, but I think it is important that we do things in a way that is proportionate and that also does not undermine our bee populations.

UK-EU Fisheries Allocations

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I do agree with that. That is one of the thrusts of my comments this morning: the Minister and the Government must ensure that we have transparency and a settled perspective for the fishing fleets in Kilkeel, Portavogie in my constituency, Ardglass and across the whole of Northern Ireland.

French fishermen and the French Government complain about the UK not issuing enough fishing licences to fish in waters off the south coast of England. The sentiment in Northern Ireland is that we wish we had half of France’s problems when it comes to fishing opportunities and the ability to catch fish whenever we can. Following the 2016 referendum, a wagon train—or, to use a pun, a boatload—of officials from London visited County Down to gain an understanding of the fishing fleets’ operations and the path to market for seafood landed at the ports. The interdependence of fishing operations was recorded multiple times. The routes to the markets in GB, the EU and further afield were clearly explained. What was the result of that? We are still wondering.

The first part was the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. Senior fisheries officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Northern Ireland in early January 2020 to proclaim the benefits of the protocol for the fishing industry. We do not see those benefits. The “best of both worlds” was proclaimed on the tin and we heard that the proof of the pudding would be in the eating—we heard all the wee puns that we all use every day—but, as we often find, the devil is in the detail.

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

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, having been to Portavogie and Kilkeel myself. Does he agree that one of the complications of the protocol relates to the movement of fish, particularly prawns and scampi, from Scotland to Northern Ireland? None of it is marketed in Northern Ireland, because it all goes back to Whitby, in my constituency, to be processed. Does he agree that this is a problem that needs sorting out? The movement between GB and Northern Ireland is not just about retail, but about processing goods as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him for identifying that issue. He is a fellow member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I am very pleased that we visited Portavogie. I also know that he has a particular interest in fishing. Just last week, we discussed some fishing industry issues that were of interest to both of us, and we are on the same page on them.

On 24 December 2020, the second part of the result was unveiled: the trade and co-operation agreement. The UK’s objective of becoming an independent coastal state was realised. Increased shares of fishing opportunities were secured, albeit at lower levels than in the expectations that had been raised by London.

What did that mean for local fishermen? According to the protocol, access to the EU market would be near seamless for seafood from Northern Ireland. That was good news, but there was one issue: fishermen would have to catch and land the seafood before they exported it, as referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Regardless of neighbourhood agreements dating from the 1960s, Northern Ireland fishing vessels were excluded from all waters around Ireland, and vice versa, from 1 January.

The neighbourhood or voisinage agreement extends to inshore waters. Significant economic pain was endured until this matter was resolved in mid-2021. As we approach the first anniversary of the TCA, waters between six and 12 miles remain out of bounds, yet, right now, it is access to these waters that counts. To use an analogy, they are like a farm that straddles the land border. Imagine the headlines if a landowner was unable to work his land on the other side of the border to which he lives. We have examples of that in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is aware.

This is particularly frustrating because, despite the hours upon hours of explaining these issues to officials from London, and despite Dublin exuding its desire for free trade between both parts of the island, a deal was struck with the EU that ignored fishery access issues around the island of Ireland. The frustration that fishermen in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have is palatable. The TCA permitted access for EU fishermen—French fishermen—to waters off England’s south coast. English fishermen continue to be abhorred by that, and we support them.

To cap matters off, the TCA confirms that fishermen from the Isle of Man can have access to Irish or EU waters in the Irish sea, from which Northern Ireland’s fishermen remain excluded. My goodness, it is hard to believe. You could not write this story. You could not make this up. It is quite unbelievable.

Leaving the critical issue aside, there is then the issue of getting the fish and shellfish ashore so they can be processed, packed and exported. That is the very issue referred to by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). Fishermen can catch a fish beyond the harbour at Portavogie, Kilkeel or Ardglass, but when they bring it back in they are subjected to all sorts of rules, tariffs and levies.

Some £100 million-worth of seafood is exported annually from Northern Ireland. Around 60% by value goes to GB, including to Whitby and other places, while 30% goes to the EU and 10% to the rest of the world. The protocol and the TCA combined confirm that the waters around Northern Ireland, including the water that local fishing vessels float on in their home ports, is sovereign UK territory. It is the land mass that is the EU’s single market. Remember that what we currently have is implementation of some 20% of the protocol. It has permitted seamless trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, but what would the result be if the protocol was implemented in its entirety, as some would like?

It is ironic that if the protocol is implemented in its entirety, every time a locally owned fishing vessel, based in a local harbour such as Portavogie in my constituency, returned to its home port in Northern Ireland, it would have to comply with EU regulations requiring it to act as though it came from a third country—my goodness—such as Iceland, Norway or Russia. Northern Ireland’s fishermen would be foreigners in their home ports. It is simply absurd. It is hard to comprehend or understand, or to even find out why this is happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Sorry. That raised a chuckle across the House but, more seriously, he made the point about the difficulty of seeing how the problems of the TCA can actually be resolved, and reminded us that what was once described as teething problems seems actually baked in and are clearly having a dramatic impact on so many in the fishing industry.

It seems right, when we speak in a debate on fishing, and particularly after the stormy seas of the past few days, to remind ourselves of just how dangerous an occupation fishing is—it is the UK’s most dangerous peacetime occupation—and of what our fishers risk to bring us this incredible food. I must commemorate and salute those who have paid the ultimate price, current fishermen and their families, and the fishing communities whose remarkable strength and resilience, despite at times almost overwhelming challenges, can be seen each and every day.

We must also salute and offer our deepest thanks to the many organisations that offer aid and support to those communities. Not all heroes wear capes—some wear bright yellow wellies. I thank the volunteer crews of the RNLI for their truly heroic efforts. Every day around our coasts, they go without hesitation where others fear to, and I offer our deepest thanks to them for helping to bring home fishermen safely to their families. I also thank the Fishermen’s Mission for its work. It is there for seafarers whenever things go wrong, and its support and pastoral care is just remarkable; the comfort that it provides is priceless. I must also mention the wonderful Seafarers’ Charity, formerly Seafarers UK, in particular for its swift response at the start of the pandemic. Within days, it had set up desperately needed grant systems to help fishermen and merchants, quickly getting money out of the door and into fishing businesses that might not be here today had it not been for that rapid response. The pandemic hit all of those charities’ fundraising efforts hard; I urge anyone watching to please, if they can, choose one or more and give, so that their incredible work can continue. The need for their support continues to grow.

We all look forward to a time when we can come to a fisheries debate in this House and not have to honour any loss of life in the previous year. That will not happen by itself or by accident. It will be as a result of innovative fishermen such as John Clark, from Banff, who worked tirelessly on the design of his new vessel, Reliance III, with the shipyard at Parkol, to place crew safety at the heart of the deck design. A continuous safety rail around the boat ensures that crew can have their safety harnesses attached as they work on deck, stopping them washing overboard in poor weather. In the new design of the main winch, bespoke safety guards protect against snagging risk. Clark and Parkol Marine Engineering are really at the vanguard of the latest developments—and hats off to them. I hope that they and others, using their deep knowledge and understanding of the challenges that the sea presents, continue to show us the way to improve safety, and I hope that others follow their lead.

Obviously, negotiations on catch allocations are ongoing, and the Scottish Government are working for successful negotiations that deliver a sustainable stock management process and a solid financial future for the sector. Discussions with Norway, the Faroes and the EU across all negotiation forums have, I believe, been constructive, with all sides very keen to decide bilateral and trilateral agreements where there are shared fishing interests. Those agreements with Scotland’s closest fishing partners are key to successful and sustainable stock management. Of course, no agreements have yet been concluded, and talks are planned to continue over the coming weeks. However, with the negotiations taking place against the background of COP26, I know that we are all very much aware just how important it is to secure a deal that actually strengthens the financial future of the sector and the sustainability of fishing stocks—not just for short-term prospects, but for our children and our grandchildren to enjoy healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans both today and tomorrow.

Although fishing is a devolved matter, whatever the outcome of those negotiations we are unfortunately still left with the Tories’ Brexit deal with the EU, which leaves Scotland and the UK with less trading power than we had as part of the EU and has resulted in generally lower catch stocks for Scotland’s fishermen. Once again, we find our Scottish fishing fleets and businesses impacted by this Westminster Government’s mishandling of the TCA and their seemingly endless appetite to pick fights with the French. Our fishing industry has been greatly damaged. It might be the case that the licences the French say are outstanding belong to vessels that do not have the right to fish UK waters under the TCA that this Government signed us all up to, but who knows? There has been so little transparency on that matter, and without those details, it is impossible for the rest of us to judge for ourselves. When the Minister gets to her feet, can I ask that she lets the rest of us in on what is happening, specifically how many French applications have not been met with the issuance of a full or temporary licence and remain outstanding; how many of those relate to access to fishing waters outside of 12 nautical miles; how many relate to access to Jersey waters; how many relate to access to the English six to 12 nautical miles; and whether any other EU states are waiting for licences to be issued?

[Mr Goodwill]

I was hoping that the hon. Lady would get around to talking about her own party’s policy which, as far as I understand it, is for an independent Scotland to rejoin the European Union and give those new-found freedoms and independent status that it would have as a fishing nation back to those people in Brussels who Scottish fishermen voted to be free from.

[Deidre Brock]

It is interesting that someone who is as pro-Brexit as the right hon. Gentleman still continues, in the face of all the criticisms that have been expressed today, to defend the TCA and the negotiations entered into by his Government. As he has heard me say several times before, our intention is to renegotiate when we re-enter Europe as an independent nation.

In respect of the processes that the Government are using to determine whether those French boats are due a licence, what is the benchmark for the evidence they require? Those who use boat diaries, for example, treasure them like gold, so can the Minister say whether those diaries are being accepted? Are any other forms of evidence being accepted? Of course, all of this could have been avoided if the Government had not rushed through the TCA, but had taken just a few minutes to spell out what evidence was going to be acceptable to them. The conflict with the French that this has caused was entirely predictable and preventable, so I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether the Government even tried to have that detail added to the TCA that could have averted all this.

Finally, the next few weeks—the run-up to Christmas—are hugely important for sales and exports, so what assurances can the Minister offer Scottish fishermen and merchants that their goods will continue to pass without disruption caused by what is, I have to say, a very English problem? I put the Minister on notice now that if we continue to see an escalation and goods are delayed or stopped, I will be coming back to this place to demand a proper compensation package for Scottish fishermen and merchants. Scottish businesses should not bear any more losses because of this Government’s incompetence or lethargy in their handling of the TCA. I know that I have asked a lot of questions, so if the Minister would like me to assist, I am happy to write to her with all of them so that we can get the answers that many in the fishing industry seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am always happy to listen to all voices, but these are people who have a strong interest in the industry. The report carries on to say:

“Access to fish in UK waters—a key bargaining lever in annual fisheries negotiations—was ceded to the EU for 6 years (at least)”,

as we have already heard. We even failed to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, which is something that most coastal states take for granted.

We have heard from other Members why we got to this state, because we all remember what was happening this time last year. I am sure the Minister will remember the desperate telephone call over new year to try and explain what had been going on. We know what had been going on: it was rushed and botched. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, the fishers were betrayed on this issue and became the problem child and so on. I suspect the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) wants me to give way.

[Mr Goodwill]

Of course, we are all disappointed at the delay in becoming a truly independent coastal state. Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that, as a country that exports most of the fish that we catch, we still have access to the European markets, which is as important for many—particularly for shellfish fishermen off the Yorkshire coast—as the fisheries agreement for quota stocks?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely recognise that point. The point I am making, though, is that things have not gone well over the past year and it is entirely reasonable, a year on, for us to challenge the Minister as she goes into negotiations. To complete the point about the NFFO report, in the introduction by Barrie Deas, where the Government’s figures mention £148 million in additional benefit for the UK fishing fleet by 2026, the NFFO’s figures suggest a £300 million loss. I do not dispute that different people can cut the figures different ways. They are not simple issues. I just report what people are telling us.

In this morning’s debate, we have heard about the complexity of the issues and the range of experiences around the British Isles. It is an extraordinarily complicated industry and, frankly, I do not think the Opposition have to make the points because they have been well made. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a powerful contribution, and I am sure the Minister heard loud and clear the problems to which he alluded. Throughout this year, my hon. Friends have raised repeated concerns about the plight of small boats, particularly through the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has been relentless in criticising the hapless catch app, which was quick to be implemented in contrast to the speed at which support for small boats was not supplied. We also heard about the paper fish in the quotas. Sadly, hon. Members have made the point that the quotas are not always as they seem, and the quota swaps issues, complicated as they are, clearly are not working for our people. The shellfish sector was in the headlines at the beginning of this year and the problems continue. If it has had problems, so too has the distant water fleet.

I could not help noticing the Minister’s visit to Norway in the summer to meet the splendidly named Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen, who was Norway’s Minister of Fisheries at the time. I am glad that she went, but what were the consequences of the visit? What progress has been made? That brings me to a series of questions that are not dissimilar from some that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. Will she spell out what the Government’s objectives are for December’s Agriculture and Fisheries Council? Will she tell us where the Norway deal is for our distant water fleet, particularly those based out of Hull? Will she make a statement to the House on the outcome of any deal and any quotas?

In conclusion, it is absolutely clear that the Government were guilty of overpromising and underdelivering. Thankfully, the Opposition want exactly the opposite, and we want to build on developing a new, constructive relationship with our neighbours—not to get headlines, but to get the outcome that our fishers need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I will make progress, if I may, because I have an awful lot of questions to answer and I want to leave time for the hon. Member for Strangford to sum up.

As all the experts in the House know, the annual fishing opportunities negotiations are under way, and I hope that they will come to a happy conclusion in the next few weeks. Our aim, which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) asked about, is to secure a package of fishing opportunities and access arrangements for 2022 for fisheries that are consistent with our fisheries objectives, as set out in the Fisheries Act 2020, and that are informed by the best available scientific evidence. We are currently working very hard to deliver this through negotiations with the EU, with Norway and with the Faroese. We are determined to be a pragmatic negotiating partner.

We are pleased that the high-level negotiations with the coastal states have recently concluded and there has been successful agreement on the setting of global total allowable catches for 2022 mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring, in line with the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

UK-EU bilateral negotiations began on 11 November. So far, they have covered a range of topics including TAC allocations and special conditions, sea bass and non-quota stocks. Really good progress is being made. We intend to conclude these negotiations by the end of next week, in time for the EU to go through its internal processes, as was envisaged in the TCA.

We are also currently in the midst of trilateral negotiations with the EU and Norway, and bilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroe Islands. They have been positive and constructive so far, and last Friday I had a useful meeting with new Norwegian Minister of Fisheries, as Odd Emil Ingebrigtsen is no longer in post. We are cautiously optimistic that we will reach agreements that will support the long-term sustainability of North sea stocks, as well as maximising opportunities for UK industry. Arctic stocks are one of a number stocks we are considering in our bilateral negotiations with Norway. I know how important they are.

On the apportionment of the additional quota we received in the TCA between the UK Administrations, there is no consensus in industry or between the fisheries administrations about how to use this additional quota. There is always a high demand for more quota but sharing out quota is a zero-sum game. More for one Administration of course means less for another.

This year, following extensive consultation, we went for a blend of 90% track record and 10% zonal attachment. Our approach was welcomed by many but some, including some members of the industry in Northern Ireland, felt we should have taken a different approach. We have been reviewing how this new method for allocation between the fisheries administrations worked this year and will be launching a public consultation soon to help us develop methods for the future. I look forward to hearing from all right hon. and hon. Members here about how that should be done. We have been working closely with all the devolved Administrations on this; it is not easy.

The first part of the £100 million seafood fund, mentioned by many and announced on 11 September, is to provide a £24 million science and innovation pillar. This will support the industry to work jointly with scientists to gather new data to help us manage our fish stocks more sustainably. It will also help us gather new data on gear selectivity and improve understanding of the ecosystem benefits and impacts of aquaculture. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said about net zero, and it will also help with our path towards that. It will help fund projects which develop innovative ideas and technologies, such as new biodegradable packaging for seafood in order to reduce single-use plastics.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and others that further details on the future pillars are expected next week. I expect to hear from many of the Members currently here about their views and ideas for spending that money. The infrastructure pillar will invest in ports, processing and aquaculture facilities for the fishing industry.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the Minister agree that the Whitby Lobster Hatchery will be just the sort of scheme that this might fit?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am absolutely not going to agree on my feet at this point who should be getting that money, but I fully expect all hon. Members in this Chamber to be putting in their bids with enthusiasm. It is a generous scheme, and I am hopeful that those who put in decent bids will be suitably rewarded.

The third pillar—skills and training—will be aimed at attracting new entrants into the fishing industry and encouraging employment opportunities. That will help in the longer term with the labour shortages that several hon. Members mentioned. I am pleased to hear that the MAC report helped with including deckhands—although I heard what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said—who were added following the last recommendations. The MAC is being reviewed again next year, and it is important that we from the fishing industry look closely at the shortage occupation list.