Countryside Stewardship Mid-tier Agreements

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Today, I announce that this Government will offer one-year extensions to more than 5,000 farmers with Countryside Stewardship mid-tier agreements expiring this year.

Countryside Stewardship pays farmers and land managers for environmental work alongside sustainable food production. This targeted, time-limited extension ensures they will continue to be rewarded for their vital role in sustainable food production and nature’s recovery.

With agreements set to expire on 31 December this year, one-year extensions are being offered while the Government develop the reformed sustainable farming incentive for 2026, refreshes the environmental improvement plan and rolls out the new Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme. This is part of our plan to give farmers long-term strategic certainty.

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) will write to eligible farmers with details about their extension offer. The letter will contain details of how they accept their extension and the deadline they need to meet for it to be processed.

The one-off investment of up to £70 million from within existing budgets ensures more than 5,000 farmers, foresters and landowners have the support they need to continue their vital role in sustainable food production and nature’s recovery. It reflects our commitment to working with the sector to build a stronger, more profitable farming future.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) and I will now review plans for the sustainable farming incentive to ensure the available funding is distributed more efficiently and more fairly. The Government will publish information on the next iteration of the scheme in due course.

Funding for farmers through the environmental land management schemes, which include the Countryside Stewardship mid-tier scheme, will increase by 150% to £2 billion by 2029, helping to boost rural economies, strengthen domestic food production and enhance the UK’s natural environment for future generations. This underpins the Government’s cast iron commitment to food security and creating more resilient farm businesses.

Through the Countryside Stewardship mid-tier scheme, farmers are planting wildflower margins to boost pollinators and managing hedgerows to create vital habitats for birds and small mammals—alongside sustainable food production.

Investing in nature through the Government’s plan for change is central to securing Britain’s future economic growth, developing a sustainable, resilient and profitable farming sector, and ensuring long-term food security.

[HCWS965]

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your watchful eye in Westminster Hall, Mr Stuart, on this first evening back. I begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling in this debate, including from 170 of my constituents in Wallasey and the 102,000-odd members of the public who signed the petition. For many, the idea of culling badgers—a protected species—is deeply upsetting and even unconscionable, and I understand and respect that view.

As many have said, this is a totemic and polarising issue. The fact is that over successive years, hundreds of thousands of badgers have been culled indiscriminately across a vast area, stretching from Cornwall to Cheshire and across to the midlands. For valid reasons, many, including the Labour manifesto, have described the policy as ineffective.

I will be clear from the outset that this Government are committed to ending the badger cull. We stand by that commitment, and I say again that the badger cull is ending. We have already taken decisive steps to bring the cull to its closure.

Bovine TB has a devastating impact on our farming community, as we have heard in great detail from all parts of the House. It has cost the lives of more than 274,000 cattle, compulsorily slaughtered in England because of the disease. It costs the taxpayer over £100 million a year, and it costs farmers dearly in lost income and extra business costs. We have heard about the stress and mental health problems that waiting for those constant tests have subjected many families to. Far too many farmers have suffered profound stress and hardship as a result. They live with the constant anxiety of regular testing, the financial strain of movement restrictions and the heartbreak of losing affected animals, often reared with care and pride over generations.

In the year up until June 2025, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England for bovine TB control. That is fewer than the year before—but that is little consolation for any farmer who has had to watch one of their animals being taken away. Since 2013, more than 247,000 badgers have been culled under licence. That is a very large figure, and a hard figure to hear. Our challenge is to strike the right balance: tackling bovine TB with urgency while protecting our wildlife. The Government are committed to moving decisively towards a future free from this devastating disease, and to doing so in a way that is effective and that earns the trust of the communities most affected.

The petition calls for an immediate end to the badger cull and a stronger focus on cattle-based measures. I want to respond to that clearly, because I understand, and we have heard in this debate, how deeply people care about the issue. This debate comes at an important moment—perhaps slightly too early, I must say, but the petitioners are the petitioners, and we get the debates when we get them—since we are refreshing the bovine TB eradication strategy introduced by our predecessors in 2014. It was they who instigated this cull.

A new strategy is being co-designed with farmers, vets, scientists, conservationists and the Government, all of whom will have a voice, in an attempt to deal with some of the polarisation in the debate. It will be informed by independent evidence in the review led by Professor Sir Charles Godfray. The update to that review, which was published on 4 September, has been referred to on several occasions.

On the role of badgers, the petition argues that wildlife are being scapegoated. I understand the use of that word, but we must be clear that transmission runs both ways within species and between cattle and badgers, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by using modern technology such as whole-genome sequencing. We must have an honest debate and, to have an effective policy, we must recognise the reality that TB infections go both ways, from one species to another and back again. The Government’s direction of travel, though, is clear: we are investing in non-lethal interventions—non-lethal for badgers, that is—and cattle-focused measures, including both cattle and badger vaccinations, to end the badger cull by the end of the Parliament.

The most sustainable way to protect farms and wildlife is by investing in measures to reduce infection in both species, such as badger and cattle vaccination. Sir Charles Godfray’s evidence review concluded that the overall package of interventions—cattle testing, movement controls and on-farm biosecurity alongside the badger cull policy—has contributed to reducing bovine TB in cattle, but it also concluded that it is not statistically possible to isolate the impact of each individual measure. He said that it was possible to control bovine TB effectively both with a badger cull and without one, and therefore we must see how to move forward in the best possible way, given the manifesto commitment on which we were elected last year.

The petitioners, and many voices in the debate, argue that badger culling should stop immediately. They say that it lacks solid scientific evidence, it has gone on too long and it takes the focus away from tackling bovine TB in cattle. But, however much one might sympathise with those views, it is not really about choosing between badgers and cattle. The real question is how to take those facts seriously and decide the best way to keep bearing down on bovine TB until we can finally get rid of it.

I say again that the badger cull is ending. The 2025 season is nearly over, and this is the final year of industry-led culling in England’s high-risk and edge areas. To provide a little more information about that, at the height of the badger cull there were 73 licences to cull badgers operating up and down the country, and in this season there are 21. By the end of this season only one licensed cull will remain. It will continue until the end of the season and then there will be an analysis to see how effective it has been scientifically. A decision will then be made about whether to continue with that final licence.

[Andrew George]

Is that licence in a low-risk area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes. It is to deal with a TB hotspot that appeared. By the end of this season there will be no cull licences in any high-intensity or edge area.

Everybody has said in their own particular way that we all agree that we have to reduce the incidence of and eradicate bovine TB, and we also want to stop killing badgers, so we have to do more on cattle, which is exactly what the Government wish to do. Cattle measures are the foundation of our eradication programme. That means there should be regular testing, both routine and targeted, using the highly specific skin test, supplemented where appropriate by the highly sensitive interferon-gamma test. We also have robust rules on cattle movements and slaughterhouse surveillance, and tools like the ibTB map to help farmers to make risk-based and informed decisions when they buy or sell stock.

But more can be done to strengthen our cattle testing programme. The DEFRA-funded TB advisory service and the TB hub are the go-to advisers in supporting farmers to implement practical biosecurity measures. Simple things such as raising water troughs, securing feed stores and keeping wildlife out of buildings are simple, low-cost steps that make a real difference. Yet I recognise the Godfray panel’s view that more must be done to strengthen biosecurity across the board, so we will focus on what that might look like.

One of the most exciting developments in a generation is cattle vaccination. The cattle BCG vaccine, used alongside a new test that can tell the difference between vaccinated cattle among infected animals—the so-called DIVA skin test—is being trialled on farms as we speak. If marketing authorisations are granted by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, we could start using those tools in the next few years. These things are annoyingly slow, but I will see whether there is any way to ensure a speedier way to get those things used. Vaccination is clearly never going to take off if one cannot tell the difference between an infected or vaccinated animal, so it is clear that we have to make progress on that.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful for all that my hon. Friend has said, but I am reminded of what Kate Bingham said when she talked about the scaling down and scaling up of our capability in responding to the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend look at the methodology so that we are able to respond not only to this particular crisis but, as the shadow Minister highlighted, to the future risks that farmers face?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am well aware of the increased risk of disease and issues suddenly emerging, having lived through the last outbreak of foot and mouth in this country, albeit not quite in the way that the shadow Minister did. It can be catastrophic, so it is very important to think about how we can be ready to scale up surveillance very quickly.

In her contribution my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the battle against covid that we all lived through a few years ago and compared it with this battle. Even though the repayment method will be long, money was no object then; in this instance I am afraid that finances and money have to be an object. We have to try to get our surveillance and ability to respond quickly in the best place we can within the resources we have, so there is more of a constraint than there might have been in some of the examples that my hon. Friend used.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful remarks. She says that the DIVA test is currently being tested, which is wonderful, but does she accept that, given it was possible to produce a vaccine within a relatively short time in the pandemic—I appreciate that civil servants seem to have a rather stretchy temporal language—a few years is not good enough? Can she be more specific, given that this is costing the country millions of pounds every year?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Well, I have been in the job a month—I will be more specific when I have had more time to chase the questions I want to ask the appropriate people. However, I will make the observation that covid was a virus, and we are not dealing with a virus in this instance. This disease is difficult to find, pursue and detect because it has evolved to evade detection, which is what these kinds of things tend to do.

It is not simple and easy. One has to be careful to ensure that things are safe and not try to chivvy along medical regulators just so that I can make a convenient announcement to Parliament. We need to know that things are safe and effective. As various people have said, if we are to unleash them and they are to be used with the Government’s scientific imprimatur, we had better be right about it; otherwise, we will get into a situation where we cannot tell whether cattle are vaccinated or infected. Once we are in that situation, we cannot ever come back from it. This has to be done in a precautionary way. I am probably as frustrated as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) by the speed at which it is going, but it will take as long as it has to, with chivvying at an appropriate level.

To end the badger cull responsibly we must continue to tackle TB in wildlife using tools that are backed by science. Badger vaccination is not about ignoring the role that badgers play in spreading TB, and it is certainly not about blaming wildlife; it is about reducing infection within badger populations in an area where they pose a risk to cattle without resorting to culling a protected species. That has to be an aim we wish to pursue. I am told that vaccinating 30% of a badger population is effective at achieving the goals we wish to achieve.

Multiple studies show that vaccination is an effective way of controlling the disease in badgers, which is why we are scaling up at pace. In 2024, more than 4,000 badgers were vaccinated. That capability will expand further with the introduction of a new badger-vaccination field force next year, which will see us partnering with industry to deliver more vaccination areas. Alongside that, a new national wildlife TB surveillance programme and an updated badger population survey are being put in place to ensure that the field force and other measures are deployed where they will make the greatest difference.

When bovine TB hits a farm, it is not just an entry on a spreadsheet or a data point in national statistics; it means months of restrictions, mental strain and real financial jeopardy. National numbers matter, but people live this day after day in the affected areas, which is why our strategy must be practical on the ground, understandable at the kitchen table and, above all, effective. It is also why we are co-designing it with those who face the devastating disease every day, ensuring that their experience and insight shape the solutions we put in place.

As I speak, a steering group drawn from the existing bovine TB partnership for England is overseeing several expert working groups involving over 100 individuals. These groups are focused on governance and resourcing, cattle surveillance and breakdown testing, accelerating cattle vaccination, trade and movement, and badgers and other wildlife, as well as how to respond to changing epidemiology. The plan is to present a new strategy next year. In doing so, we will deliver a step change that reflects the best available evidence, the lived experience of those affected and a shared commitment for England to be free of bovine TB by 2038.

We will consolidate and strengthen cattle-focused controls, testing, movement, biosecurity and advisory support. We will continue to advance the cattle-vaccination programme at pace—and we will see quite what that means. People with greater minds than mine have talked about the relativity of time, but I want it to happen as quickly as is safely possible. That way, when authorisations are in place, we can begin the roll-out. We are preparing for deployment so that we can go quickly as soon as we get the go ahead.

We will scale up badger vaccinations across large, contiguous areas, supported by enhanced wildlife-TB surveillance. This is how we will end the badger cull: by building the capabilities and viable alternatives that make culling less necessary. We should not underestimate the challenge, though. The nature of the disease means the strategy must remain flexible, adapting to the disease picture as that too evolves.

The petitioners who made this debate happen want a cattle-centred approach, farmers want certainty, fairness and access to all the tools that work on their farms, and scientists want us to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The strategy refresh is our chance to knit those threads into a durable plan to ensure that we achieve bovine TB-free status in England by 2038.

The Government will end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. We will replace it—safely and credibly—with vaccination, strengthened surveillance, better biosecurity and, crucially, we hope, a cattle vaccine and a DIVA test that can build resilience into the herds. That is how we will reduce disease, costs and stress, protect a much-loved native species and restore hope to the farming families who have lived for too long under the shadow of bovine TB.

Male Chick Culling

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this debate. She raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate on animal welfare standards in farming in June, and I am grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to focus on the subject in more detail today. I fully recognise that there is strong public feeling on the routine culling of male chicks, as highlighted by the breadth of support that the Vegetarian Society’s “Ban Hatch & Dispatch” campaign has attracted. My hon. Friend has spoken passionately on the subject this evening.

As a nation, we are rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality British produce. This Government want to build on and maintain our world-leading record on animal health and welfare, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that animals receive the care, respect and protection that they deserve. I completely understand that the culling of day-old chicks is a process that many, including someone not far away from this Dispatch Box, may find incomprehensible and wasteful.

I assure my hon. Friend that all farm animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health and welfare legislation, including when they are killed. Regulations set out strict requirements to protect the welfare of animals at the time of killing, which includes male chicks in the egg production sector. As she pointed out, the permitted killing methods for chicks, such as gas stunning, are based on scientific research and assessment to ensure that the birds are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering. All laying hen hatcheries in the UK use argon gas mixtures as their stunning method. That is a much more humane method than other gases, such as carbon dioxide, which is routinely used in several European countries and elsewhere in the world.

However, as has been commented by the Animal Welfare Committee—an expert committee advising the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments on animal welfare issues—the routine killing of chicks is principally an ethical issue, rather than a welfare problem, because it does not lead to direct welfare harms. Of course, that does not mean that we should not work to see if we can move away from it in the future as quickly as is practical and possible. Being able to do that relies on viable alternatives being developed; my hon. Friend talked about some of those in her remarks.

The Animal Welfare Committee reviewed the alternatives to culling newly hatched chicks and published its independent opinion on this issue last year. In its report, the committee recommended that chick culling should be banned as soon as reliable, accurate technologies were available. It also highlighted that several consequences would arise from such a ban, and as such it would be crucial to learn from those countries that have already committed to move away from the culling of male chicks.

My hon. Friend mentioned that Germany, France and other European states have banned the culling of male chicks, but some European states have encountered issues following a ban. In some cases, in countries where there is a ban in place—Germany, for example—male chicks are merely transported to other member states prior to being killed, which is not the welfare gain one would want to get from such a ban. Any ban on the culling of male chicks needs to allow for the rearing and processing of those male birds that hatch despite the use of in-ovo sexing technology.

Another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals and raptors.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on securing the debate and outlining so eloquently the case for this cause, which I support. Given that we use many male chick carcases for animal feed, pet food and places like bird of prey centres, and we import far more than we use, does the Minister agree that we need to find a solution to meet that need, if we are, as I hope, to eventually move to in-ovo sexing in hatcheries?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree that when a supply chain, however difficult, is established and we try to move away from it, there can be unintended consequences. We have to look at the whole series of issues along that chain, so that we do not end up in a situation that has lower welfare outcomes than the one we started with. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is well aware of that, and we will not move in any way if we would end up in a worse welfare situation than the one we started with, but he makes a perfectly good point.

As I was about to say, another issue flagged in the Animal Welfare Committee’s report is the fact that male chicks provide a whole food source for exotic animals, and we would have to replace that.

In recent years, there has been phenomenal global progress in the development of technologies that could help to end routine culling of male chicks by identifying or determining embryo sex before hatching, and it appears that this is going on in the dairy industry as well. There is clearly a lot of scientific work going on to see what we can do to get away from the current situation in our livestock supply chains. Several new methods and systems have appeared, and many refinements in existing systems have continued, since the publication of the Animal Welfare Committee’s report on this subject.

We welcome the UK egg industry’s interest in the development of day-zero sexing technology, which enables eggs to be sexed prior to the start of their incubation. Such a commercial system offers many benefits, including economic and sustainability savings by directly freeing up hatchery space, in addition to providing an ethical solution to the culling of chicks.

In Germany, one alternative is the rearing of male layer chicks for meat production, also known as brother hens. Due to their slower growth rate, rearing brother hens requires a greater input of feed and a longer rearing phase to produce a smaller bird with less desirable body composition, making it more challenging to rear them commercially at scale in the UK. There is a lack of published research on the welfare of brother hens, but animal welfare concerns have been linked to this practice. In particular, managing aggression and high mortality within all-male flocks can be problematic, often accentuated by housing inappropriate to the birds’ behavioural needs.

Aside from in-ovo sexing technology and rearing of brother hens, I was pleased to hear about an initiative to assess the viability of dual-purpose poultry breeds in the UK—that is, breeds that can be used for laying and meat. Clearly, they are not as specialist as the different breeds currently used for the laying of eggs and for meat, but since they are dual purpose, they do not result in the mass culling of males in the laying industry. The initiative was awarded funding earlier this year as part of DEFRA’s farming innovation programme.

Using birds that can serve both as egg layers and meat producers could offer an alternative to chick culling, but it is different meat—they grow and turn out differently than UK consumers are perhaps used to. It is also thought that dual breeds bring other animal welfare benefits, as hens of dual-purpose breeds have lower incidences of keel bone fractures, and some breeds show less injurious pecking behaviour than found in commercial laying hen breeds. The males of dual breeds have better walking ability, lower levels of pododermatitis and better feather cover than fast-growing meat chicken breeds.

In addition to the animal health and welfare benefits, the project is also looking at the sustainability benefits of dual breeds. Dual breeds have lower protein requirements, and a German trial found that locally grown beans were a suitable alternative to very high- protein soya. If this approach to chicken breeding can be made viable, become popular and be accepted by UK consumers—those three things all have to work—it may deliver sustainability benefits. Bringing value to male layer chicks is of key importance, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of this research and whether dual-purpose breeds might offer a more ethical and sustainable approach than our current one.

This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Our farm animal welfare policy is backed by a robust evidence base, and is supported and shaped by input from our many excellent stakeholder and expert advice groups. I look forward to speaking to hon. Members about this in more detail soon. Although, as I said earlier, this is principally an ethical rather than animal welfare issue, that does not mean that we should not be trying, very robustly, to address it. I look forward to seeing progress in this area over the next period.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was incredibly educational.

Question put and agreed to.

Coastal Erosion: Suffolk and Norfolk

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

That was a careful introduction and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. He is absolutely right. I understand that the debate is about coastal erosion in Norfolk and Suffolk, but in my constituency of Strangford, especially in the Ards peninsula in the past few years, we have seen erosion in a manifest and significant portion as never before. I am looking forward, as I know the hon. Gentleman is, but if we are to address our environmental obligations, steps need to be taken, and taken on a UK-wide basis—not just for England, but for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England together, because then we can pool our energies and address the problem at a strategic level. That is how it must be done, because this is happening everywhere.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. In the spirit of Christmas, I allowed that intervention. The debate is about coastal erosion in Suffolk and Norfolk. The hon. Member is getting close to the edge of scope there, but because it is Christmas, I allowed it this time.

[Peter Aldous]

Dame Angela, that is very magnanimous of you. Actually, the hon. Gentleman does have a point in that coastal erosion is included in the responsibilities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I will come on to this—along with flood prevention and protection. It is an entirely different challenge, and therefore coastal protection, whether in Suffolk and Norfolk or in Strangford in Northern Ireland, needs to be considered separately.

As I mentioned, erosion along the East Anglian coast is nothing new. December appears to be a particularly bleak month, with a tidal surge predicted in the next few days, although we do not know its severity. If we go back 10 years, a storm surge took place on 5 December that caused devastation right along the North sea coast, not least in Lowestoft. If we go as far back as the 1890s, the author H. Rider Haggard, who had a home at Kessingland, observed:

“Never has such a time for high tides been known, and the gale of December last will long be remembered on the east coast for its terrible amount of damage.”

The remnants of the medieval port of Dunwich are in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who would have liked to be here but was unable to join us due to a funeral commitment. Dunwich has been described as England’s Atlantis. The 1953 big flood, which wreaked devastation on both sides of the North sea, resulted in the loss of the beach village—a whole community in Lowestoft.

Our coastline is, in many respects, wonderful and beautiful. It attracts visitors from all around the world but it is also fragile, being low-lying, standing on clay, and porous not impervious. The challenge we now face is that events that were once predicted to take place every 50 or 100 years are now taking place far more regularly, on an almost annual basis, with lives and livelihoods being threatened, and homes, businesses, roads, infrastructure and farmland all at risk.

In recognition of that challenge, the three district councils—East Suffolk Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and North Norfolk District Council—that have the responsibility for managing and protecting the coast have pooled their resources and formed Coastal Partnership East. The team has great expertise and knowledge and it is working tirelessly, but I fear that it does not have the resources to do the work that is urgently needed.

That work is pressing, for a whole variety of reasons. I shall briefly outline the ultimate impact, which, as I said, reaches far beyond the East Anglian coast. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia produced a briefing earlier this month for the all-party parliamentary group for the east of England, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It highlighted both the region’s vital offer to the UK as we progress towards net zero, and the risks that climate change brings. The briefing pointed out that we are the UK’s “most vulnerable region” to the impacts of climate change, with 20% being below sea level and the coastline eroding rapidly. It assessed that

“11,000 houses on the open coast are threatened by flooding and erosion over this century, if current policies continue.”

We should also highlight that as well as homes, businesses will be lost, including the caravan and holiday parks in Kessingland, Pakefield and all along the coast, which are so important to the region’s economy. Business opportunities could also be forgone. The transition to net zero provides a great prospect for Lowestoft, but if we do not build permanent defences around the port, the town will not realise the great potential offered.

Agriculture has underpinned the East Anglian economy for a very long time. We are rightly known as the breadbasket of England, but much of the UK’s most fertile land is low-lying and, particularly in the fens, relies on an extensive network of ageing drainage infrastructure and sea defences. The current funding methodology underplays the importance of protecting the UK’s most valuable agricultural land, thereby impacting on our food security. The 1953 floods gave rise to the construction of extensive defences to protect the regional coastline. However, many of those defences are now worn out and in urgent need of repair.

The impact of coastal erosion on the environment should not be underestimated. As well as being a vital part of the region’s leisure economy, the Norfolk and Suffolk broads are a haven for wildlife and a place of natural beauty and cultural heritage. However, they are at risk from the threat of coastal erosion, with the coastal frontage between Eccles-on-Sea, which I understand now hardly exists, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and Winterton-on-Sea, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, having been identified as the stretch of coast along which the broads are most at risk of encroachment. The Broads Authority recognised that threat in its Broadland Futures Initiative, but strategic planning for its management needs to start straightaway. It should be added that coastal erosion brings with it the risk of polluting our oceans still further, with the leaching of waste and plastics into the sea.

I shall briefly outline the areas at risk from coastal erosion in my own constituency. All four of those—at Corton, in Lowestoft, at Pakefield and in Kessingland—warrant a debate of their own, so I apologise in advance to those communities for my brevity, although I shall do my best to highlight the salient points of concern. Corton, to the north of Lowestoft, has been subject to coastal erosion for centuries. There was a village to the east called Newton, which no longer exists, and agricultural land continues to disappear over the cliff. The threat to the village of Corton is at present being managed, but my sense is that in due course more intervention will be required, and it is important that we be prepared for that and not respond in a crisis management way.

As I have mentioned, Lowestoft was hit hard by the floods in 1953 and 2013. Since 2013, work has taken place to protect the area around the port and the town centre, with flood walls being built around the outer harbour, but the barrage that will provide full protection has yet to be constructed. Time is of the essence in getting that built. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have discussed the matter, and I have written in detail to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is vital that that work proceed without delay.

The situation unfolding in Pakefield illustrates the gravity of the threat that coastal erosion is now presenting. It has been known for some years that there is a problem, and some four years ago the local community came together as the Pakefield Coast Protection Steering Group to work with Coastal Partnership East to come up with both temporary and long-term solutions. A rock revetment to provide temporary protection was installed last December, but that did not prevent significant further erosion following a storm last month, and three properties had to be demolished. There is now an urgent need to protect the toe of the cliff and to prevent the cliff access road from being lost. If the latter happens, a large residential community will be very cruelly exposed and at serious risk.

Park Holidays UK, which owns the adjoining caravan park, has recently obtained planning permission to roll back its site, and is in principle prepared to joint-fund a protection scheme, although it emphasises the need for speed in determining any further enabling planning application.

Three issues arise out of the situation at Pakefield. First, since this spring, Coastal Partnership East has not been attending the steering group meetings, as it has no further information or guidance to provide to the community and it is focusing its resources on emergency events such as those at Hemsby. I do not criticise it for doing so, but that illustrates the need for it to be provided with more resources and financial support. Secondly, it is clear that those who have lost their home to the sea are not provided with the appropriate level of compensation and support. Finally, it is concerning that the existing grant funding arrangements for protecting communities from coastal erosion are not working, are not fair and equitable, and need to be reviewed. The current budgeted cost for properly protecting Pakefield is estimated at approximately £11 million, but the flood and coastal erosion risk management grant-in-aid calculator calculates that only £492,000 can be provided towards that.

Kessingland is an example of a highly innovative nature-based scheme, where the parish council, with local landowners and businesses, and the local internal drainage board have worked together successfully. The scheme involves the managed realignment of the coast to create an intertidal habitat in front of new sea walls and a pumping station. The problem that the scheme now faces is that, due to economic pressures beyond the control of the parties, there is now a significant funding shortfall. The scheme has to proceed. If it does not, the A12, which links Lowestoft to Ipswich and beyond, will be flooded on every mean high water spring tide. It should also be pointed out that that road will be used to support the construction of Sizewell C.

I have covered a number of specific local challenges and a wide variety of concerns. I shall now seek to bring matters together with some suggestions as to how the situation can be improved so as to provide coastal communities on the East Anglian coast with the protection and support that they are entitled to expect.

First, I refer to the recommendation in the Tyndall Centre briefing that the specific risks to the region arising from climate change require a scientific, quantitative assessment. I agree with that. We need to know the full extent of the long-term challenge that we face, so that we can pursue a strategic approach rather than a case-by-case crisis management course.

Secondly, much of the work of DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Coastal Partnership East is innovative and forward thinking, but I suggest that the national framework could be improved by giving a specific focus to coastal erosion, as we have touched on. The ministerial responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister include floods, both fluvial and coastal, but coastal flooding and erosion is a very different beast, which requires a bespoke and individual focus. Looking more closely at ministerial responsibilities, he is responsible for floods, but the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is responsible for climate change and adaptation, and my noble Friend Lord Benyon is responsible for green finance. Those three issues are all inextricably connected and intertwined, and they should not be shared out between three Ministers; they should all be under the same roof. Back home in East Anglia, some have suggested that there should be a Minister for the coast. I can see merit in that, but I am mindful that in other cases, the creation of a so-called tsar does not necessarily lead to the solution of a particular problem. Let us get the policies and who is responsible for their implementation right, before we do anything else.

Thirdly, speed is of the essence. The pace of erosion and ensuing risk is far outstripping the ability of Coastal Partnership East and its supporting councils to put together business cases. The coast in Norfolk and Suffolk is experiencing accelerated coastal change, and an emergency package should be made available to support those most at risk, particularly where rehoming those affected by erosion is the only solution.

Fourthly, the capital funding model needs reviewing. From my perspective, the cases at Lowestoft, Kessingland and Pakefield are compelling, and it is perverse that so much lateral thinking has to be applied to get the necessary funding in place. Such a review should include the need to fully incentivise and maximise private sector investment in nature-based solutions.

H. Rider Haggard’s journal notes:

“For generations the sea has been encroaching on this coast”,

the East Anglian coast. It states that since

“the time of Queen Elizabeth”—

meaning Queen Elizabeth I, not Queen Elizabeth II—

“no concerted effort has been made for the common protection.”

Some 130 years later, I suggest that we should correct that omission.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Emma Hardy. [Interruption.] Well, stand if you want to speak!

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate and setting out so clearly the case for change. My North West Norfolk constituency has a glorious coastline stretching from the bottom of the Wash up to Hunstanton and its famous striped cliffs, across to Burnham Overy Staithe, before joining the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). However, along that coast we face significant coastal erosion and defence issues that need to be addressed.

This year, we marked 70 years since the terrible 1953 floods, with the tragic loss of many lives in Hunstanton, Snettisham and others parts of the east coast. Earlier this year, I was present at memorial events in Snettisham and other places to mark the anniversary. I came away from all of those with a clear sense that it is our duty as MPs and custodians of our areas to do all that we can to protect our coastline and coastal communities. By taking action we can help to limit and mitigate coastal erosion and its consequences, as set out in the shoreline management plans and the Wash East coastal management strategy.

Today I want to highlight the importance of coastal defences between Snettisham and Heacham, which are made up of a natural sand shingle ridge and stretches of concrete defences. Every year, there is a beach recycling where material is moved to top up the sand and the shingle ridge, which provides a natural flood defence for properties, caravan parks, holiday homes and prime agricultural land. That is an exemplar partnership project and I pay tribute to Mike McDonnell, chairman of the local community interest company that provides nearly 60% of the funding for the annual beach recharge. Only a few weeks ago, he stood on that shingle ridge with me as we met the Environment Agency and other organisations.

We were there to talk about local concern that the periodic beach recharge project, which was expected to take place and involves bringing new material on to the beach, is not happening this year. In part, that is due to an assessment by the Environment Agency of monitoring data that showed that it did not need to happen. However, that was concerning for my constituents and me. I met the Environment Agency because it said that financial and technical constraints meant that the measure was considered undeliverable in any case. The forecast costs had, for example, increased from £3 million to £8 million. However, given that the Environment Agency has £5.2 million for flooding and coastal erosion projects, it is not acceptable that those costs might prevent doing what is necessary and what is set out in the plans to defend against coastal erosion.

The Environment Agency’s assessment means that further work is now under way to consider how to protect the coastline, as well as the approach set out in the Wash East coast management strategy. My constituents, the county councillors, the borough councillors and I are in no doubt that protecting the coastline is vital. However, as King’s Lynn and West Norfolk local councillor group leaders highlighted in a recent letter to the Secretary of State, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has highlighted, the funding threshold for coastal defences does not give due importance to the damage to internationally renowned sites of special scientific interest, which I am lucky to have in my constituency, and to habitats, agricultural land or vital tourism. That approach clearly needs to be revised and reformed.

It should be a common cause that a managed retreat for loss of land is not acceptable in North West Norfolk. We need to hold the line. As I stood on the beach looking at the homes, the Environment Agency representatives assured me and others that they were committed to long-term coastal defence measures. In his letter last week responding to council leaders, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred to the Environment Agency providing

“assurances to the community that the management of this coastline is a high priority.”

So it must be. The Government must ensure that funding and support are in place for the shoreline management plan strategy for 2025 and onwards. We need to do everything we can to protect North West Norfolk’s coastal environment.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before I bring in the Opposition spokesperson, I should let the remaining speakers know that I intend to call Peter Aldous to respond to the debate at 28 minutes past 5. Bear that in mind, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Just before I end the session, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a safe journey home.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered coastal erosion in Suffolk and Norfolk.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Ministerial Corrections

[Rebecca Pow]

Where water companies underperform and do not meet their targets, a process is in place whereby basically they have to credit the money back to their customers. Last year, £132 million was credited back in that respect. So the regulator does have the tools to do that. It has tightened up so many of its measures, all of which will affect all the water companies.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

When they were privatised, water companies had all the debt written off, so they started with zero. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, much of which has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. The investment has been made by borrowing and putting it on to customers’ bills. Now, the ratings agency S&P has negative outlooks for two thirds of the UK water companies it rates, because they are over-leveraged and took out too much debt in an era of low interest, which they now have to pay back. This is not a triumph but a huge problem for the resilience of our water industry. What will the Minister do when water companies start falling over?

[Rebecca Pow]

For information, Thames Water itself has not paid any dividends for the last six years. Ofwat will rightly hold companies to account when they do not clearly demonstrate the link between dividends and performance. We made that possible through the landmark Environment Act.

[Official Report, 28 June 2023, Vol. 735, c. 288.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow):

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).

The correct response should have been:

Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

That is what we want for all our customers. That is why we have launched our plan for water to pull everything together to ensure that we deal with any pollution incidents, water supply issues and the future of the water industry. It is why we have set our targets and produced our storm sewage overflow plan, and why the water companies will have to spend £56 billion on capital investment by 2050 to address that. Every water company, including Thames Water, has to make an action plan for each of its storm sewage overflows. Thames Water will do that.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

When they were privatised, water companies had all the debt written off, so they started with zero. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, much of which has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. The investment has been made by borrowing and putting it on to customers’ bills. Now, the ratings agency S&P has negative outlooks for two thirds of the UK water companies it rates, because they are over-leveraged and took out too much debt in an era of low interest, which they now have to pay back. This is not a triumph but a huge problem for the resilience of our water industry. What will the Minister do when water companies start falling over?

[Rebecca Pow]

For information, Thames Water itself has not paid any dividends for the last six years. Ofwat will rightly hold companies to account when they do not clearly demonstrate the link between dividends and performance. We made that possible through the landmark Environment Act.

War in Ukraine: UK Farming and Food Production

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

While the heat remains at this level, although in this room it is perfectly nice and a bit more survivable outside, I am content for Members not to wear jackets or ties in Westminster Hall. Those Members who have ties on might get to be even less formal, but apparently, there will be a lot more application of the dress code when we get back in September, both in the Chamber and here.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the war in Ukraine on UK farming and food production.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela, and thank you for your kind guidance on the dress code. I will make do at the moment, but we will see how we go when the heat of debate ratchets up.

For me, the debate had its genesis in discussions with many of the farmers in my constituency, and I start by paying tribute to them for their help with my preparations for today, and also to the National Farmers Union, which has given me so much information. The war, which in many respects came out of nowhere, has piled additional pressures on a sector that was already facing great difficulties. At the outset, however, I want us to turn our thoughts to the brave defenders of their Ukrainian homeland and the colossal humanitarian disaster that they face in Ukraine. I am afraid to say that we now also need to remember the countless victims, it would seem, of war crimes, the evidence for which mounts daily.

The invasion exacerbated existing inflationary and supply chain pressures, which will have lasting consequences for the scale of UK agricultural production. Globally, the conflict will exacerbate the pressure on food supplies in the poorest parts of the world. British farmers are growers, and they are price takers. That means they are exposed and vulnerable to the challenges of rising inflation in times of economic pressure. The cost of producing food in the UK has increased drastically in recent months. The cost of all agricultural inputs is going up, including fuel, feed, packaging, transport, energy and, of course, labour costs.

I pay tribute to all those who work in farming and food production. It is a tough sector to work in, and for people in such vital sectors, conditions have rarely been tougher. Costs are spiralling and profit margins are falling, but they keep going every day. The farmers from Cheshire I spoke to were absolutely clear that they love what they do, and they keep going because agriculture sits at the heart of the Cheshire economy and at the heart of the British economy. They do that to keep the country fed, and if we do not give them help—the help that they need—they will not be able to do it for much longer.

The humanitarian disaster in Ukraine is being felt across the globe. Large parts of the Ukrainian breadbasket are in conflict zones and crops cannot be harvested, or if they can, the grain and the produce cannot be exported, or, as we are seeing, they are being stolen by Russia.

We are seeing the crisis impacting across the world, especially in developing countries. Ukrainian grain feeds 400 million people. The UK is also affected. Brexit has not helped, with large reductions in the labour supply, but I was astonished to hear that last year an incredible 60% of the seasonal agricultural workforce came from Ukraine.

[Christian Matheson]

I absolutely do, and the hon. Lady is right. Many of those workers are back defending their homeland—who can blame them for that? The resultant labour shortages have been met with an inevitable demand for increased wages. One Cheshire farmer told me of an 11% increase in this year alone. Without sufficient labour, farms simply cannot be profitable and, frankly, sometimes cannot work. As one farmer put it, “We’re all running hand to mouth.”

I am not going to query or reject the idea that farm labourers should not get a decent pay rise. I am a trade unionist and I absolutely support that, but the costs need to be shared fairly across the sector and borne by the whole chain. Day-to-day costs are rocketing. Fertiliser, which can increase crop yield by about 30%, has become cripplingly expensive. One Cheshire farmer estimated to me that his fertiliser costs had risen by 300% in just over a year, while another suggested that he was being optimistic and it was more than that.

The situation has not been helped by the closure of the CF Fertilisers factory in Ellesmere Port. I know how hard my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has been working to find a solution to keep the factory open, and he has told me that he is in regular contact with the Minister and her Department—I thank her for that. I desperately hope that we get a solution to the problem, and I thank them both for their work.

Without fertiliser, crop yields will fall. I remind the House that farmers do not tend to buy fertiliser on the spot. They are already ordering their supplies for next year, just as they are already planning crops, ordering animal feed and securing energy deals for six, 12 and 18 months ahead. The uncertainty globally and domestically is impossible to live with.

One of the big asks of the NFU is to have a gas fertiliser price index. Fertiliser markets are opaque, meaning that farmers have low trust in those markets, and are receiving poor market signals to enable them to be responsive. That is a threat to confidence, because farmers do not want to invest in fertiliser, which is stalling fertiliser sales, as well as threatening farmers’ productivity and the UK’s productive capacity. The NFU wants farmers to have access to proactive forward prices on fertiliser, allowing producers, distributors and farmers alike to manage their risk. That will require Government to establish a trusted gas fertiliser index with the industry, to drive transparency in fertiliser markets.

In addition, the industry needs to be able to see clearly where the market is relative to the global benchmark prices. That is well established in the grain, dairy and meat markets. It is also a fact that much of the gas that was used to produce the fertiliser came from Russia. I welcome the fact that we are reducing—I hope to zero—any dealings that we have with Russia, including buying gas from it, but we have to recognise that that will have a major impact on this market.

Fuel costs are also on the rise. Red diesel is more expensive, with one farming contractor I know of having to increase their cash reserve by an astonishing £50,000 to pay for fuel costs. Meanwhile, farmers pay more than ever to fill up the machines that keep their businesses going. Those affected ask me why crude oil prices fall, but their costs go up. The answer is sadly clear: this is a broken market, and without action to address it, things will only go downhill.

Food production relies very much on the packaging available, much of it specialised for certain foodstuffs. Even essentials such as cardboard and the necessary plastics for meat storage are in short supply, before we consider more specialised materials such as silage. British food has some of the lowest carbon footprint in the world, due to how efficient British farmers are, but there is only so much they can do on their own. Such businesses are starting to feel that they are, almost literally, at the bottom of the food chain.

As things stand, the risk is entirely with the farmer. For example, a potato farmer stored his crop from the 2021 harvest until June 2022—just last month—without earning an extra penny from the processer. One grower was paid £200,000 for potatoes, which sold in the supermarket for £4.2 million, so the grower received only 4.7%. Free-range eggs have also gone up at least 20p per dozen in supermarkets, but only 5p of that increase goes to the producer. Farmers want to grow, to survive and to flourish, but we must have a market that allows that. We need to take the bottlenecks out of the system, so that it flows more smoothly. Only by threatening to withhold supplies did dairy farmers secure a slightly better deal, and they are still struggling.

This period of unprecedented agricultural inflation coincides with the introduction of the agricultural transition plan from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under which the old direct support payments to farmers in England under the common agricultural policy are being reduced. Farmers have already received significant cuts to those old direct payments, with further to come this year. The largest farms will receive cuts of 40%.

The Government are in the process of rolling out new support schemes, but the NFU is seriously concerned that the new schemes simply are not ready for farmers to be able to access them and start to make up the shortfall. That is not just the view of the NFU; it has been echoed by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, and the Institute for Government. Vital farm supplies sit inaccessible in Ukraine, and veterinary medication sits undeliverable in Northern Ireland because of the problems with Brexit. Alternative options are becoming scarce.

When British farmers suffer, so does the rest of the world. As the crisis in Ukraine hits other nations, one farmer asked me why Britain, as a leading member of the G7, does not consider its own agricultural sector to be part of the solution. The farmers who told me their stories also tell a sorry tale about the future of the sector. One simply asked, “Where is the future?” Every year, 8% of dairy farmers quit their business. Previously, others would step in to replace them. That, it seems, is no longer the case. As confidence falls, young farmers find that they cannot get loans. They cannot get started and cannot continue this proud British tradition.

I wish to finish on a positive note on behalf of the UK farming sector. I want to celebrate the success of the sector and the hard work and 365 days a year commitment of our farmers and farm labourers. Let us make every day Back British Farming Day and let us resolve to get a fair deal for farmers. The future could be positive. As I have said, British food has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world. Our farmers tell me they want to adapt to further change—certainly moving away, for example, from carbon-intensive fertiliser—but they want to be able to do so in a managed way and not in a way where they are faced, as they currently are, with the shock brought about by the war. They want to reduce emissions and move to more sustainable fertiliser, as I have said. They want to reduce antibiotic use and further increase animal welfare, but they are doing that now on wafer-thin margins. As one farmer put it in what is probably a very agricultural farming way, “We have no fat on our backs right now, and we need this.”

Farmers want to grow, survive, flourish and contribute to the success of our nation. The war has put intolerable pressure on them at a time when the prevailing situation was already difficult. They feel that all the increasing cost pressures are being borne by the farming sector when they should be shared across the entire food chain. We must have a domestic market that allows that contribution to flourish.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon.

Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022 Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 Draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 General Committees

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I cannot say that I am an expert in all things agricultural or farming, but a few general questions occurred to me while perusing these statutory instruments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

First, I do not think that DEFRA or this country was ever stunningly brilliant at administering the common agricultural policy scheme, so transitioning away from a stable scheme that everyone was familiar with to something different, albeit for good reasons, is bound to create the potential for confusion, worry, and maybe even administrative problems. This is quite a complex transition from a steady state to something that is evolving. It would be useful to know whether the Minister has the confidence to say that her officials and DEFRA can administer the system over its transition period, which, at seven years, is quite long.

Secondly, I understand the need for a transition period of this length, but during such a transition, the objective circumstances change. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned this when he discussed the unforeseen circumstances in which we find ourselves, in which volatile energy prices are impacting directly on farmers’ costs. At the same time, the cost of fertiliser and other inputs is rising, and the Government—this was preannounced and expected—are reducing direct payments significantly and putting in place a different scheme with different criteria.

Farmers face uncertain and volatile—but probably rising—costs at a time when the basic income that they are used to is transitioning. It will be difficult for farmers to deal with that volatility without some sort of reassurance from the Government, especially as the Government’s schemes are being tried out and may change. In fact, the Minister has effectively admitted that they are being shaped as the Government go along, which again creates a lot of moving parts, and more uncertainty and volatility. It also means that there may be a lot of unintended consequences. Does she have any words of reassurance about that? When all the cogs start going, we cannot always predict the output.

As a member of the Treasury Committee, which has just interviewed Lord Agnew about fraud in the coronavirus schemes, I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about the potential for fraud in some of these schemes. Obviously, they are about giving farmers income. The schemes have new criteria, which are being applied in new circumstances. Will the Minister reassure us about the degree of detail in them, and particularly in the mechanism for enforcement and minimising the chances of fraud? If one looks at what has happened in the coronavirus schemes and what is happening with anti-fraud enforcement across the piece with this Government, it is very, very fragmented. The enforcement muscle is weak and unused, and consequently billions of pounds are being lost to criminal gangs, opportunistic fraudsters and, quite often, fraudsters who are far more sophisticated than opportunistic. If these statutory instruments and the changes to agricultural schemes are not properly drawn up or enforced, this is another area where that might happen. Will the Minister reassure me on those points?

Thames in Oxford: Bathing Water Status

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, and in line with updated guidance issued this morning, let me point out that hon. Members are expected to wear face coverings in line with current Government guidance, which is that they should be worn where there is a greater risk of transmission of covid. That is now considered to be the case across the parliamentary estate. Everyone should also maintain distancing, as far as possible, on the estate, including in Committee proceedings where possible. We have been advised that the risk of transmission in Committee meetings appears to be greater. I remind Members that they are also asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week, if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House, or at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Anyone can submit an application, as we saw in Ilkley, where it was not the local authority that submitted the application; it was our hard-working, dedicated campaign group that was at the forefront in submitting that application. I just wanted to reiterate the point that this process is open to everyone to get involved with.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. We are talking about bathing water in the Thames at the moment. I have given some leeway, but let us not stray too far.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you very much, Dame Angela, for getting us back on track and enabling us to get back to Oxford. However, my hon. Friend made a very good point and we genuinely understand everybody’s strength of feeling about swimming in their local area.

Marine Protected Areas

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to facilitate the new hybrid arrangements. I call Tony Lloyd to move the motion.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the extension of marine protected areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. Marine protected areas are of enormous importance not only to our country and our coastal seas, but to the whole world. Our oceans are massively complicated systems and not properly understood, but we know how important they are to human life. For example, some 25% of the carbon gases produced by human activity are absorbed by the ocean. Some of that is good and some of it leads to the acidification of our seas, which is less good. We know, and the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations are in agreement, that our oceans are now at a critical point. Some 1% have protection but scientists think that a minimum of 30% require protection, to allow our oceans to restore and recover.

Sadly, over-fishing and industrial fishing are still with us, putting whole species of fish at risk. The yellowfin tuna, for example, is now endangered and could cease to exist within a relatively small number of years. The massively destructive use of bottom trawlers—those that scour our oceans, ripping up the seabed and the basis for the biodiversity that allows the fish to spawn and flourish—is doing enormous damage across the world and in the seas off these islands of ours.

We also know that the use of the oceans as a dustbin for human activity cannot go on. Plastic pollution is across our oceans. Even in the deepest recesses of the oceans, many miles down, we now find plastic waste from human activity. Using our oceans as a dump for our sewage is simply no longer acceptable. I can remember a time when the sewage boat from Manchester went out into the Mersey bay and dumped sewage—admittedly treated sewage, but nevertheless sewage—into the Irish sea. Such practices have stopped in the UK, but they must also be stopped worldwide.

Of course, there are questions about antibiotics in our seas and the short and long-term impact that will have. There are even questions about the destruction of the efficiency of antibiotics for human use. We need international action, and it is clear that we need United Nations treaties to govern the use of the sea as a resource. There is a call by scientists, for example, for a moratorium on the fishing of mesopelagic fish that lie at a depth of between 200 metres and 1,000 metres. It is up to our Government to operate internationally and to call for action at a global level.

Whether the UK has less influence today post Brexit is a moot point that we can debate on another occasion. It is a real issue, although I welcome yesterday’s announcement of the new fisheries agreement between Norway, the European Union and the UK. That is an important step forward in rebuilding the trust that has been lost recently. In fairness, the UK Government have entered an era where there are some very good examples of our international obligations in care for the sea. The protection zone, for example, around St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha is important. I think that Tristan da Cunha is the largest protected area of ocean on the planet. It was a welcome step by our country and Government.

I want to concentrate the bulk of my remarks on UK inshore and offshore seas. The cycle of carbon capture, and the maintenance of productive fishing as a resource for human consumption, depend on the biodiversity in particular of our inshore and offshore seas. Those things are most likely to have an impact closest to our coast. The sea is massively important as a source of carbon capture, and we can increase or decrease that. On an international level, in practice, before I talk about our own coast, maintaining the mangrove swamps and seagrasses—and more locally our salt marshes—is of huge importance for carbon capture; but biodiversity of the oceans is of fundamental importance.

There are good examples. The Lyme bay experiment has yielded positive results and shown what can be done, with less fishing but more fish being caught. It is a measure of how far the productivity of the oceans has declined that we can now demonstrate that we can increase the productivity of fishing with less intensive methods. When we fish less intensively there is an increase in the number of coastal fish such as pollock, cod and wrasse, which used to abound around our coast but have now become much scarcer. However, they increase once again if we take care to manage the resources around our coast.

Our coasts are not yet in the state that we would want: 25% of the UK’s seas and 40% of our inshore seas are in some form of marine protected area, but we face problems. The Government’s marine strategy report revealed that only four of the 11 indicators of good environmental status are met across our local seas. There are problems to do with nomadic fishing practices: the practices of those who come into an area without having been there before, fish and overfish, and disappear, perhaps for some years, to come back when it suits them but does not suit the biodiversity we are trying to encourage. In 2019 supertrawlers with bottom dredges engaged in 3,000 hours of fishing in our offshore marine protected areas. It is estimated that in the first half of 2020, that level of overfishing had already doubled. We have huge problems and have to take action, or the destruction of our seas will continue.

I am bound to welcome—and I do welcome—the steps that have been taken already, with the creation of the many marine protection areas around our coast. There are hundreds of them. However, we have a patchwork with different rules and regimes operating in different areas. We need to look forward to something to give greater consistency around the coastline. There are differences, it is sad to recall, between the English, Welsh and Scottish coasts. Of course Ireland is a different regime, but Northern Ireland, again, has different practices. We need consistency. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at Dogger Bank and south Dorset for the banning of bottom trawling—that is so important because of the impact of bottom trawlers—but of course, that means that of the 76 offshore marine protection areas, only two will potentially have that kind of protection. We need a more joined-up strategy.

There has been progress, as I have said. Lyme Bay is a tremendously powerful example of what happens when we take a whole-site approach and say, “We are looking at the protection not just of individual species, but of the total biodiversity of an area.” That is important. The ban on electric pulse fishing has been another major step forward. I am a reluctant Brexiteer even to this day, but that ban has demonstrated that, where we now have the power to use UK law, we can take positive steps and move things forward. The Prime Minister spoke recently about the need to ban the vessels that “hoover up” our oceans, and he was right to call for that, but we need action to ensure that a ban comes into operation.

We need the UK Government to move forward on a total strategy for our shores and oceans. We have some of the best marine scientists in the world, and we have the capacity, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to be a leader in the demand for international change, but we need a total UK marine strategy that looks after our own shores—both inshore and offshore—and gives leadership on and commitment to ensuring that we cherish oceans around the world as something for the future, not simply as dumps for the past or as a resource to exploit and destroy.

A total international strategy would begin the move towards protecting the 30% of our oceans that we have to protect. The UK Government are committed to that, but not yet. My first call is for the UK to operate internationally to look for the kinds of global treaties that will make a material difference, give protection to our oceans, and bring sustainability for the future. My second call is for a whole-site approach to our inshore and offshore seas to join up the work that has been done across the marine protection areas off our coasts. It is tremendously important that we move in that direction.

Perhaps the most important call at the moment is for some consistency in challenging the practice of bottom trawling by super trawlers, which destroys the ocean bed. As our Prime Minster has already said in recent months, we have to stop those who would hoover up not only the fish, but the seabed, which will take many years to recreate. If we bring an end to bottom trawling in our offshore seas, we will have taken a huge step forward.

I appreciate that this is something that we have to take with care. I know that there is suspicion in the European Union that the Dogger Bank ban is being done for nationalistic fishing reasons, but we have to demonstrate clearly that it is actually being done for scientific marine protection reasons. If we can get those arguments across, we can begin to make a material difference to the biodiversity across our seas.

I say to the Minister that although the Government have done some seriously good things, which I genuinely applaud, I look forward to a joined-up marine strategy that says that we will take the lead internationally to protect our oceans, that we will take a whole-site approach to our marine protection areas, and that we will guarantee that the unacceptable practice of bottom trawling by super trawlers is brought to an end.