Environmental Protection

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress, and I will perhaps come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and commend the excellent work that she did on this subject as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I think another Select Committee then looked at this subject in 2022, and the Government at that stage said that they would implement a deposit return scheme. Does my hon. Friend accept that over 200,000 people responded to the consultation that was then run, and 84% of respondents said that they agreed with implementing such a scheme?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This move has overwhelming support from the general public, who are sick to death and fed up of seeing their streets and rivers blighted by litter. Slovakia implemented a scheme in 2022, and that country now has a 92% return rate; it is right up there with countries that have had schemes for decades. We know that we can do the same in the UK; just look at how behaviour has changed since the introduction of charges for carrier bags in shops. That led to a rapid change in people’s habits. Imagine where we would be if the previous Government had focused on recycling plastic bottles, rather than smuggling champagne bottles in suitcases into Downing Street.

The deposit return scheme is one of the three strands of our packaging reforms, along with extended producer responsibility for packaging and the simpler recycling programme for England. We estimate that, together, the packaging reforms will support 21,000 new green jobs in our nations and regions, and stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. CPRE, the countryside charity, estimates that the deposit return scheme will deliver 4,000 of those new jobs. It is also estimated that the reforms will save over 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.

The deposit return scheme will end the epidemic of litter on our streets and restore pride in our communities. It will improve the countryside, preserve our wildlife and protect our beaches and marine environment. I have spoken to several fantastic organisations that were part of the huge campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) mentioned, including the Marine Conservation Society, the Aylesbury Wombles and, in my constituency, Destination Ball Hill. There are so many people spending so many volunteer hours dealing with this pollution problem, and doing their best to keep their area looking nice.

The brilliant charity Keep Britain Tidy estimates that littered drinks bottles and cans along our roadsides are killing millions of our native mammals every year. If we drive along the M1 motorway, we see buzzards and birds of prey circling, and that is because our national highways have become nature corridors. They are a very important habitat for RES—rare and endangered species—and much-loved small mammals such as shrews, bank voles and wood mice, but we are finding more and more of them becoming trapped in plastic bottles carelessly discarded along our highways. We must act to protect these precious creatures. We want less Mr Toad and more Moley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have been engaging extensively with the Association of Convenience Stores because it is imperative that they do not miss out or else we will end up with a scheme run by large retailers for large retailers. It is in the design of the scheme that the deposit management organisation which this instrument sets up must have representatives from large and small retailers on its board to ensure that the full voice is heard. In fact I am about to tell my hon. Friend and the House about the details of this.

A person who is supplied with drink in a container that is in scope of this instrument pays a deposit which can be redeemed when it is returned for recycling. The design is informed by well-established international examples and extensive industry engagement over many years—about seven years. Industry partners have shared their experiences delivering these schemes across the world and the scheme will be centrally managed by an industry-led, not-for-profit organisation: the deposit management organisation.

The instrument applies to England and Northern Ireland. My officials have worked closely with the Scottish Government, who are amending their existing legislation so that we can launch compatible schemes simultaneously across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland in 2027. The Welsh Government have withdrawn from the four-nation DRS approach; however, we are keen to remain in close working partnership with them as they make decisions regarding a DRS in Wales. We are keen to keep the door open, to provide as much interoperability across the UK as possible.

I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which draws this instrument to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it is politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.

The instrument sets out the scope of the scheme and places obligations on drinks producers, importers and retailers. Producers of drinks in plastic and metal containers will be obligated to label products and charge a deposit when supplying the drink into England and Northern Ireland. They must also pay the deposit to the deposit management organisation along with the producer fees to fund the scheme.

Retailers across England and Northern Ireland will be obligated to participate in the scheme by charging a deposit on plastic and metal drinks containers, taking the containers back and refunding the deposit. They are also required to pass the collected containers to the deposit management organisation for recycling and to display information to consumers so that they understand how the scheme works. Those obligations on producers and retailers across England and Northern Ireland will start from launch in October 2027. To administer the scheme, the instrument requires the appointment of a deposit management organisation. The instrument allows for certain provisions to come into force on the day after it is made that are necessary for the appointment of the deposit management organisation and the establishment of the administrative arrangements.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister has been most generous in giving way to Members. She mentioned that the scheme will apply to plastic and metal drinks containers. What discussions has she had, or what information have her officials gathered, about the potential for manufacturers to switch their containers to glass and the impact that might have on use of resource and climate change?

[Mary Creagh]

There has been talk of that, and I met with the glass industry recently, but so far we have seen no evidence of manufacturers switching. Manufacturers must be part of the deposit management organisation, so they will pay under either EPR—extended producer responsibility for packaging—or DRS. Glass has been excluded from scope on the basis of extensive consultation.

The DMO will be appointed in April 2025. It will be obligated to: meet collection targets; pay return point operators for collecting containers; recycle the collected containers; and pay national enforcement authorities. The instrument provides powers for the deposit management organisation to set deposit levels, prescribe labelling, interact with other schemes, set producer fees, calculate handling fees for return points and exempt some retailers from hosting a return point.

Under the “polluter pays” principle, it is the responsibility of businesses to bear the costs of managing the packaging they place on the market. Through specific return point exemptions based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises grounds, this instrument will also protect small businesses across England and Northern Ireland, which we recognise are vital to our high streets and communities.

Further information has come to light since the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am in contact with Minister Muir as we progress, but Northern Ireland has given DEFRA responsibility for delivering the scheme, so this statutory instrument has Northern Ireland’s consent. I hope that answers his question.

Finally, the instrument makes provision for monitoring and enforcement activities by the Environment Agency and by local authority trading standards officers to ensure obligated businesses and the deposit management organisation are compliant. This deposit return scheme will improve recycling rates and provide better quality material for recycling. [Interruption.] Was I asked to give way? I do give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s position. Let me place on record the substantial achievements of the last Conservative Government on recycling. This Government do not like the facts, but let me give them some. In 2010, 25,000 tonnes of waste were sent to landfill. By 2022, the last year for which figures are available, that was just 13,000 tonnes—a reduction of almost half. The Conservatives introduced new, straightforward and simpler—Labour will welcome simpler—guidance on recycling by creating standardised rules on what can be recycled to deliver that substantial achievement.

Some love to talk, while others quietly act and get on with the job. In my constituency in 2023, Conservative-run West Sussex county council delivered a recycling rate of 53%. For the same period, the Green and Labour-led Brighton and Hove council, just next door, delivered a rate of only 30%. Who would have thought that socialists would struggle to clean up their own mess? Thanks to Conservatives, local authorities are now required to collect a consistent set of recyclable waste and to ensure frequent collections, underpinning a new recycling economy. Let us be clear: Labour-run local authorities deliver the lowest levels of recycling in this country, so the Government could fix this problem without coming to this place to pass legislation.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Communities in Conservative-controlled local authorities are three times less likely to be subjected to fly-tipping than in Labour-run areas. The Conservatives have a proud record of recycling, and the hon. Member clearly wishes to applaud that, so I give way.

[Barry Gardiner]

I applaud any movement in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman compares local authorities, but does he accept that many Labour local authorities have high-rise and tenement buildings, where collection is infinitely more difficult than in leafy suburbs with individual detached houses?

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman knows of what he speaks, and of course I accept that there is wonderful variation across our whole country. That is precisely why I chose two neighbouring authorities. What could be easier than collecting from dense urban areas, compared with the challenges and costs of having to collect waste across far-flung rural communities such as those I represent? Perhaps later we will hear the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explain exactly why that council, which drove itself into the ground, has such a poor record on recycling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will hopefully speak about the aggressive nature of these proposals.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am slightly puzzled. In the Conservative Government’s response to the previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, they committed to putting these measures in place by 2025. Why have the Conservatives changed their minds so dramatically? Given that it appears that the hon. Gentleman would reject these measures, how does he propose to achieve the target set under section 1 of the Environment Act 2021, which his Government brought forward and for which I commend them, which is supposed to reduce the number of kilograms of residual waste per capita by half, from 577 kg to 287 kg?

[Andrew Griffith]

When the facts change, we change our minds. The Conservative party is under new leadership and we will be unafraid to speak up for those in the economy who create the growth we so desperately need. If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I would be very happy once again to go through the impact of Labour’s Budget on business—that growth-destroying, jobs-killing, economy-sapping Budget. I would be very happy to go through that all night long, but I will make some progress.

The cost of this measure is highly regressive and the Conservatives are not alone in voicing concerns. Industry bodies, including the Association of Convenience Stores, UKHospitality and the British Soft Drinks Association, have raised objections to the cost of the scheme and its implementation. But it is not just business: the Scottish Government have also raised substantial concerns. More tellingly, the Minister’s Labour colleagues in Wales have announced that they will pursue their own separate scheme. How astonishing—nice to see two Labour-led Governments working so very well together! I was not entirely clear what the situation was in respect of Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the Minister’s attempt to clarify that, but she certainly conceded in her remarks from the Dispatch Box that the schemes will not be interoperable on day one. Well, 16 million people live within 50 miles of the border. For businesses, it is unconscionable that they are compelled to deliver multiple schemes in multiple areas without any guarantee or clarity about interoperability.

I read in the weekend papers that all Ministers received a note instructing them to cease anti-growth measures. The Minister and her colleagues will have an abundance of anti-growth measures to pick from. In fact, I cannot think of a single measure or policy that this Government have so far put forward that is at all pro-growth. In respect of this particular measure, it seems as if her Department did not read that memo, or if they did, they simply did not understand what it meant. The country needs a Government who focus on doing their key functions well rather than rolling out more red tape, however well intentioned.

As the official Opposition, it is our responsibility to speak up for businesses and our constituents when the Government get it wrong. The Conservative party is under new management and we are unafraid to champion those who take risks, generate wealth and create the prosperity to pay for the public services that those on the Labour Benches are so keen on funding so well. The United Kingdom has a strong and proud record on recycling and the environment, building on work undertaken by the previous Conservative Government, but circumstances have changed or have been changed by this Government, and when the facts change, so too must our policies. Businesses are currently being subjected to a barrage of anti-growth measures and policies, destroying investment, jobs and growth. This policy is, I am afraid, the wrong scheme at the wrong time. For that reason, those on the Conservative Benches will be opposing today’s statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I commend the previous Government for much of the work they did. I commend the fact that they put in place the Environment Act 2021. I do so because it is really important that we adopt a bipartisan approach to these matters. When we are talking about the environment and climate change, yes in this Chamber we can have some political point scoring occasionally, but it is much more important that we create the bipartisan platform that means successive Governments can build and work from it.

I commend the Minister for introducing the measure so quickly. It is long overdue, and it will make an appreciable difference. I would love to know by exactly how many kilograms of residual waste per capita it will reduce our output, but given that each of us is producing 577 kg of residual waste every year, which is over half a tonne—and some of that is toxic waste—it is very important that we get on with this job. Just a month ago we saw a report from the Office for Environmental Protection which showed very clearly that we are not on track to meet the targets set in the Environment Act 2021 by 2042. Although I commend the Government for the action that they are taking now and the urgency with which they have got on with this measure, I want to quote what the report said under the heading “Progress in the reporting period”, which was 2023-24:

“The scale and pace of actions does not align with the challenge. While flagship waste management policies have been developed, their introduction has been delayed and they largely focus on end-of-pipe action. There is a lack of action focused on circular economy.”

I am delighted that the Minister is introducing this measure and I commend the Government for doing so, but we need even more, and we need it more quickly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Fishing Industry

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

Well, he died a fish, and we are very saddened by his demise. I should reflect, as we certainly did in those days, on the risk that people take to put fish on our table, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly reminded us. I remember that in 1997, we lost seven men in the industry in my constituency alone. It was just after the loss of the Margaretha Maria 200 miles off the coast of west Cornwall, in which we lost four men from Newlyn. We have sadly lost others in the industry since then. It is worth reminding ourselves just what a hazardous trade it is.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I thank him for coming down to my constituency in the summer to visit Newlyn and for the genuine interest he takes in the industry, both in the catching sector and in the processing and marketing sector, which certainly impressed everyone there who met him. I am very grateful to him for making that visit.

I come back to a debate on this subject after a decade’s sabbatical in the real world, which I must say is a very pleasurable place, and reflecting on a number of changes within the fishing industry in that time. Obviously, there is the B word; we do not want to return to the skirmishes of Brexit this afternoon, but it has certainly been a momentous change. During the period I was away, the fishing industry and fishermen were used as the poster boys for the Brexit campaign. I have to say that they were sold a very cruel hoax in terms of the outcome of the vote; they were made a lot of promises that have not been fulfilled at all.

I had been prepared to concede that there was a major opportunity for the fishing industry, and that it was the one sector within the UK economy that could potentially have benefited as a result of Brexit, but such a benefit has not been delivered. Those people who made promises at that time just walked away from the industry after they had come down to places such as Newlyn to have their photographs taken for the purposes of their referendum campaign. That caused a lot of bitterness within the industry. Nevertheless, we move on.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the common fisheries policy was often described as the worst possible policy apart from all the others, because fishing is a very difficult industry to manage, as the Minister knows and, indeed, as we all know. I remember engaging in fishing debates 10 years ago and there was a genuine belief then that we could move the industry away from the annual cliff-edge of the quota negotiations to a multi-annual system that would enable the industry, especially the catching sector, to plan five years ahead. Yes, there would be adjustments during that five-year, multi-annual rolling programme, but nevertheless it would provide a greater degree of certainty.

As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend, the science supports a multi-annual programme. If we want a recovery programme for most of the stock, there is no reason why we cannot project forward five years—not with great certainty, admittedly, regarding the situation five years hence, but with an indicative quota going forward over that period. That would help the industry to plan for the future.

Another outcome for the industry in my area has been the detriment to the very significant export trade that existed. A number of companies operating back then —particularly those at the smaller end, admittedly—have gone out of business as a result of the impediments that predictably, indeed inevitably, were placed in their way, particularly for those involved in the export of live fish to the continent. That was predictable but avoidable, and it has clearly had a detrimental impact on the local economy. Nevertheless, our local community adjusts itself to the challenges it faces.

The hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have made some excellent cases on behalf of Cornwall’s fishing industry and the important role it plays in the local economy. Indeed, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation produced a report, which I know was handed to the Minister, called “The True Value of Seafood to Cornwall”. It shows that the industry contributes £174 million to Cornwall’s gross value added per annum, with 500 full-time equivalent jobs in the catching sector alone. That equates to about 8,000 jobs in the seafood supply chain, so it is a significant player in the Cornish economy. It is often ignored, but nevertheless very important, particularly in my part of Cornwall with Newlyn being the largest port with a significant market.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth also mentioned the need for a fishing and marine strategy, and I hope the Minister will take that on board. There are both opportunities and challenges associated with rolling out, as the Government must, with our support, the offshore wind programme in the Celtic sea, which we in Cornwall are keen to ensure achieves maximum benefit to the local economy and the community. There is no reason why it cannot be rolled out in a manner that enhances fishing opportunities rather than creating a detriment to the industry, but that requires the Minister, Energy Ministers and others to engage in dialogue with the industry to ensure that the location of those sites is planned with great care.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one of the—probably—unintended consequences of the decisions taken, through a little story of an individual fisherman from my constituency. An inshore fishermen from Cadgwith, who fishes from Newlyn, has been affected by the cut in pollack quotas. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth said, compensation was offered to the industry, and many who received the funds used them, naturally, because they are fishermen, to go into other sectors where in fact there was pressure. For example, the industry is trying to protect the crawfish sector and implement a recovery programme. By then, there was no reason why the fishermen could not invest in the gear necessary to catch crawfish, and that had a detrimental impact on the recovery programme efforts.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I want to clarify something in relation to pollack. My understanding is that the scientific advice given out in June was that the total allowable catch should be set at zero, but it was not set at zero. The quota was set at 925 tonnes; even now, the stocks are much lower this year because the decision was not in line with the scientific assessment.

[Andrew George]

I will come to that in a second. The nature of what happens off the Cornish coast, and certainly in the south-west and other areas, is that pollack is caught in a multispecies environment. It is impossible not to catch pollack even when targeting other species—the hon. Member helps me to make the point—so my constituent went and targeted hake. The first thing to bear in mind is this. While he was targeting pollack, he was between 8 and 20 miles off the coast. To target hake, he had to go 40 miles or beyond, and that placed his small boat in significantly greater danger. In other words, it put him at greater risk to pursue an alternative fishery. That is point No. 1 to bear in mind.

The second point is that there is a pollack by-catch if someone is targeting hake. During one month—March of last year—my constituent caught more than 100 kg of by-caught pollack, which he was entitled to land in the market. Indeed, he was required to land it in the market; he could not throw it overboard. He was obliged to land this fish, as a result of which his licence was frozen by the Marine Management Organisation. Following some dispute, he was fined £1,000, and he then had to move out of that fishery. Of course, he was not targeting pollack at the time; he was trying to avoid it as best he could. The MMO did not offer him any kind of solution to the problem that he found himself with.

As a result of all that, my constituent has come out of that fishery and has since been targeting crawfish, of which the industry itself had undertaken voluntary measures to increase the minimum size and to help to recover the stock. Indeed, the minimum size proposed by the industry and implemented in Cornwall has since been picked up, adopted, in national legislation. The crawfish season is now over, so we now have a fisherman who has tied his boat up and is no longer able to fish.

The point is that I hope that the Minister, when looking at this issue, bears in mind that when we propose regulation affecting the industry, that is in effect a two-dimensional policy affecting three-dimensional reality. That is the problem. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the lessons learned just from that little anecdote when considering how policy is implemented, and on the unintended detrimental consequence. The measure does not actually help even the species that it is supposed to protect.

I hope that we are not coming back here in 10 years’ time, gnashing our teeth about the same issues and continuing this annual bunfight in which we do not even know what the quotas will be in just a few weeks’ time; I hope we have multi-annual quotas. One of the best ways of helping the industry is to provide it with all the capacity to manage itself better and for us politicians to try to stand back and keep out of it.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. My thanks and congratulations go to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. I hope that in the coming years, the Government will find time to return the annual fisheries debate to the main Chamber. That was a good convention that the last Government cast aside, almost as quickly as they did their promises to fisherfolk following Brexit. I am sure that many of us would welcome its return.

This debate takes place in the season of the annual fisheries negotiations between the UK and the EU, as well as the trilateral negotiations with Norway. Last year, those negotiations resulted in more than half of catch limits being set above the scientifically advised levels, yet both international and UK law require that all stocks should be at sustainable levels. That is despite commitments under international treaties and agreements to end overfishing.

We currently have six commercially fished stocks—two cod stocks, two whiting stocks, one herring and a pollack—that are so depleted that the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is for zero catches. We need to understand just how poorly managed those stocks have been. ICES provides zero catch advice for a stock when it is so depleted that, even without any catch, it will not recover above the biomass limit reference point for spawning stock biomass, below which a stock’s reproductive capacity is compromised and it is considered to have impaired recruitment capacity. In other words, the stock has collapsed.

It is important to note that the decline of those stocks was not unpredictable, and nor was it unavoidable. Consistently fishing at too high a level guarantees that stocks will decline; if fishing is high enough, the stock will collapse.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is touching on an interesting issue. The ICES zero quota recommendations are what are called “headline advice”, which basically answers the question, “If you want this stock to recover in 12 months, what would you have to do?” Now, if we ask that question we will, of course, get the answer that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber. In point of fact, in the early years of this century we had the cod recovery plan, which was the dominant feature of fisheries management in the North sea and went over, I think, 10 years—certainly five. He portrays the ICES advice as accurate, but there is a lot more nuance underneath that headline advice, and he would do well to look at that.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am, of course, well aware that it is headline advice and that other things come into play, but as the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned in his opening remarks, the things that come into play—I think he called them the nuances—are often political—

[Mr Carmichael]

indicated dissent.

[Barry Gardiner]

I think Hansard will record that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that himself in his opening remarks.

Overfishing means that the stock is driven down even further. There is no cure to a collapsed stock that involves continuing to overfish. The Celtic sea cod stock has declined by 95% since 2012, but last year the total allowable catch was set at basically the level of the entire adult population—it was actually set just 2 tonnes lower—and now the entire spawning population is lower than that. If we roll over that TAC, the catch limit would exceed the entire spawning population.

The Irish sea whiting stock is currently about 9% of the level it is legally supposed to be. International commitments and the Fisheries Act 2020 commit the UK and the EU, which shares many of those populations, to maintain commercially harvested stocks at a level that can support maximum sustainable yield. The stock is at a mere 9% of that—not 9% of its natural size, but 9% of the already much lower level that is the legal minimum. That is another stock that has declined by more than 90% since the 1980s.

Climate change represents a significant threat to marine life and the fisheries that depend on a healthy ecosystem, but it was not climate change that collapsed those stocks; it was heavy and constant overfishing. We sometimes hear big fishing interests blame climate change for the collapse, and it certainly makes the recovery of those populations harder, but the truth is that we consistently set catch limits above scientifically advised levels. That has crashed those stocks and will continue to do so as long as Ministers are prepared to go into the negotiations and ignore the science.

In introducing the debate, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about climate change and cod stocks. In recent years, every time quotas for North sea cod have been set at sustainable levels in accordance with the science, the stocks of cod have increased. Every time quotas have been set out of line with the science, the stocks have declined. Our understanding of the additional pressures of climate change should be driving us to be even more precautionary in our approach to the protection of fish stocks—not to be pretending that it is the cause of their collapse. While I am thinking about cod and the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the processing industry, I should say that the cod that comes to Grimsby is predominantly from Greenland, Norway and Iceland, which have a much more precautionary approach to setting the quota.

Many people here will remember the introduction of the discard ban or the landing obligation referred to by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). It is a ban on throwing away perfectly good fish that had been caught. What many people will not know is that this ban applies only to quota stocks of dab, flounder and gurnard. All other non-quota stocks can be thrown away at sea perfectly legally, and many are. About 35,000 tonnes of dab are discarded in the North sea every year—that is roughly 90% of the catch and equates to about 5 million fish. Remember that when we talk about the importance of food security. The irony is that dab actually used to have a quota, but the quota was removed when the landing obligation was brought in.

The purpose of the landing obligation was to create a real incentive for fishermen to use gear types and fishing methods that reduced unwanted bycatch and led to more selective fishing. It was designed to reduce the choke problem by incentivising more selective gear that would avoid choke species. Unfortunately, that works only if it is enforced and all the evidence shows that the landing obligation is now being widely ignored. More worryingly, not only is it being ignored, but potential discards are not even being accounted for in the TAC-setting process.

The only solution to discarding and improving scientific assessments is for the introduction of remote electronic monitoring—cameras, specifically. Without them it is impossible to know what is being caught and being discarded. Monitoring is essential for compliance. We currently have a system that literally incentivises bad behaviour. I was very taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about his fisherman and pollack. A fisherman who, like the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned, spends money on more selective gear, abides by the landing obligation and avoids certain areas because of higher bycatch of unwanted species, is massively disadvantaged compared with a fisherman who ignores those regulations. We are, as it stands, incentivising non-selective fishing, rewarding illegal behaviour and punishing those who stick to the rules, such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

The fishing industry rightly talks about the challenges it faces, yet its biggest challenge comes from an unhealthy marine environment that is incapable of supporting thriving fisheries. The notion that we can have a thriving fishing industry without a thriving marine environment is an illusion. We cannot have a growing sustainable fishing industry on the back of a depleted marine environment. No measure of Government support or access to markets can make up for no fish. Somehow this self-evident truth goes out the window when it comes to making decisions. We should be clear: if we do not recover fish stocks and start setting catch limits at levels that allow stocks to grow and adopting a precautionary approach that favours long-term sustainability, then we will be back there every year wondering why quotas have to be cut.

There are instances where the advice is for large increases in quota, and they were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I think he said that when the data became available, it showed a 211% increase in relation to monkfish. When that is the case, I do not think we should chase down every last fish because that will simply result in smaller catches in future years, as well as significant increases in bycatch of other stocks, which will often result in overfishing. However, the argument the right hon. Gentleman made is absolutely right: we need to get good data and it needs to be comprehensive. Once we have that and we can base the scientific assessments on really strong data, we can make sure we fish in line with the science and that stocks can recover.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It comes back to the point I made about data and about the science that you base the data on. He will have heard in many of these debates over the years the concern that by the time the data is gathered and processed and goes through the ICES process, it is several years old, so it is reflective not of the fish stocks at the point at which the decisions are made, but of some years earlier. The one thing everyone can surely agree is that the better the data gathering, the better the science, and the better it is for fishers, conservationists and anybody with an interest in the seas.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. It also adds grist to the mill of the five-year approach, but we perhaps need to be careful. It is perfectly reasonable to move to a five-year approach, but it would not necessarily immediately lead to us increasing quota. It might, in the first year certainly, actually lead to a more precautionary approach because one was looking at things over the five-year period. That might not be something that his constituents would appreciate so much.

We have heard today about spatial squeeze and how the fishing industry no longer has unfettered access to the entire ocean. That is true, but as has been pointed out it is unavoidable; indeed, for reasons of wider sustainability and our energy supply, it is important, but it is also an argument for acting in a way that grows our fish stocks.

[Melanie Onn]

On that point about the renewable side of things, there is an opportunity to bring the industry into consultation with the likes of the Crown Estate at a much earlier stage so that the voices of all of those co-located spatial sharers can be heard and planned around. There are examples of good relationships between offshore wind developers and fishing communities.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that I sat down to receive my hon. Friend’s intervention because she is entirely right. What she said goes to the remarks made by our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) who, because of illness, is no longer in her place. She made a point about ensuring that consultations happen in accordance with the tides so that fisherfolk will actually be at the consultations and not out at sea. Her point was very interesting because that is not always appreciated.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that the fishing industry is resistant to any conservation measures and would resist the proposed management measures that inevitably have to be brought into the industry. From my experience, the industry itself often proposes changes in order to protect its stock for the future. For example, the Trevose ground closure off the north coast of Cornwall during spring of each year was proposed by the industry itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sorry if I have given the hon. Gentleman the impression that I think fishing communities would be against this; I do not think that. That is precisely why I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and for South East Cornwall about the importance of consultation. Look at a case such as Lyme Bay: it was the local community, in consultation with the scientists, who produced the efflorescence that has taken place there. This must be done through the industry co-operating with the scientists.

We should note that MPAs were designed specifically to protect the nature within them from human activity that damaged it, and that includes fishing. It should therefore not be considered a negative that those areas are being protected. The partial ban on destructive dredging and bottom trawling in MPAs has been a success, and I hope it will be extended to a complete ban once the due process and consultation have taken place.

I wish the Minister and his team well in the upcoming negotiations. If he binds himself to the mast of science and turns an Odysseus-like ear to the siren voices urging him to allow greater quota, I cannot promise him popularity, but he would become a unique and respected first voice for common sense and a sustainable future for our industry.

First-hand sales of UK-landed seafood were over £1 billion in 2022, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said. That is a good reminder that wild-capture seafood is a national resource. It is remarkable that the UK Treasury does not benefit directly and that those that benefit the most are large businesses that have managed to aggrandise themselves via the poorly regulated sale of individual quotas over many years. Small-scale fisherfolk and non-sector vessels are left to fish from the pool that accounts for just 4% of opportunities.

In addition, those big businesses that benefit the most by their control of quota also benefit from the free management of the resource via central and local government funding of the MMO, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Natural England and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. It is also clear that big businesses are best placed to make representations and influence policy in a way that a single-handed inshore fisherman simply cannot. A quick scan of successful Government grant applications demonstrates that it is also big business that benefits from grant schemes, with support being provided to companies with turnover in the millions.

The impact of market forces on this national asset has left a handful of families and businesses benefiting the most via consolidation of beneficial ownership of quota, while small-scale fisherfolk and our coastal communities wither and are lost. Depleted stocks and limited funding for robust data collection of all commercial species, leading to precautionary management decisions, are by-products of the current system. I ask the Minister whether it is time for the UK to consider what alternative systems to manage this valuable natural resource could look like.

I welcome the beginnings of transparency that have come about from the publication of quota holdings, but that is only part of the story of who benefits from the amazing national public asset that is our fisheries. We all know that in-year swaps and leases occur. Would the Minister look at completing the transparency exercise and requiring those swaps and leases to be published too? We need a system that is not based on the happenstance history of 40 years ago, when the current quota system was put in place, but that provides opportunity and certainty more equitably. We need a system that links opportunities to compliance with fisheries and conservation regulations and that helps to fund better data gathering and evidence to inform our fisheries resource management —one where a sustainable bounty from the seas ensures that the interests of our small fishing communities, the taxpayer and the planet are aligned.

It has already been said that fishing is one of the most dangerous peacetime occupations. The marine accident investigation branch accident reports make sombre reading, but they also provide an excellent opportunity for learning and change. Multiple capsizes of small vessels over several years led the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to update its codes for small vessel inspections, but reports from around the coast demonstrate that those new regulations appear to be applied inconsistently, and in some cases they run contrary to the marine architect designs and tested vessel stability.

The financial burden of being tied up by an MCA inspection and being required to make modifications to a vessel’s hull can be exceptionally heavy. Owner-operators are forced to sell their vessels and in some cases leave the industry, as they simply cannot afford to comply with an individual inspector’s request. I urge the Minister to speak with his colleagues at the Department for Transport to help convene a group of small-scale fishing vessel safety experts? They can help the DFT and the MCA to better understand the impact of their inspection regimes and to find a coherent approach to that vital work—one that provides a consistent set of outcomes, without the lottery of where a fisherman is based and which inspector they get producing different outcomes on similar vessels. The lack of MCA inspectors means that vessels can often wait weeks for an inspection slot. While a vessel is awaiting reinspection, the fisherman cannot earn. What should be a straightforward process can provide huge financial risk and strain, from which some of those microbusinesses simply cannot recover.

Finally on safety, I draw the Minister’s attention to a simple fact that the last Government seemed to do little to address. The MAIB reports set out the circumstances surrounding each accident and the component elements that led to it. All too often, these accidents are highly predictable and could be prevented by simply conducting good maintenance, onboard training and safe operations. Here, I would interject that the question of English language skills, which we debated earlier, comes into play: English language skills and the ability to communicate with every member of the crew is vital for crew safety.

[Mr Carmichael]

For the avoidance of doubt, as I might have said in a previous professional existence, nobody is suggesting that a crew should not have English language skills. The question, rather, is about the level those language skills are required to be.

[Barry Gardiner]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought that his points on visas were well-made, but it is important that we put safety at the forefront. Paradoxically, the common denominator that runs through every report is that the crew involved had all attended courses and attained the required safety and training certificate. I gently suggest that it is time for the DFT and the MCA to consider their syllabuses to see whether what is being delivered leaves graduates with the practical understanding they need to transfer to their work environment. I think a review is overdue.

The roll-out of CatchApp and inshore vessel monitoring to the small-scale fleet has been widely seen as a disaster by inshore fishermen. I am told that CatchApp is regularly down, and inshore vessel monitoring systems and approved suppliers are not required to provide robust support in a timely fashion, leading to lost days at sea. The stress and anxiety that those two systems are causing around the coast is palpable. The MMO warned, during the roll-out of both those systems, of the risks of pressing ahead with them before they were fully tested and, in the case of the I-VMS, that not stipulating service levels would leave fisherman at the mercy of the providers. We debated the issue in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at the time, but the Government simply rode over it. I appreciate that the roll-out programme came under the last Government, but can Ministers urgently investigate what is going wrong with those systems from the user’s standpoint, and what steps the MMO can take to make things work better?

Small-scale fishermen are the beating heart of so many of our coastal communities. Fishing is not a job; it is a way of life, but one where it is increasingly difficult for new entrants to be found or gain appropriate training. Many of today’s fishermen came into the industry via the youth training scheme. It provided college, a small salary and on-the-job training. Some of our country’s finest inshore skippers came via that route, but they are now close to retirement. Only large companies can afford to recruit and invest in new entrants, and over the past decade we have seen a growing reliance on foreign crews. We have heard, and will no doubt hear more, about visa problems. Local apprenticeship courses have met with varying success, but they will not provide the numbers or the pace to replace foreign crews, let alone the fishermen who have reached retirement.

When the Minister considers the successor funding scheme to the fisheries and seafood scheme, I will be grateful if he looks at what more we can do to grow our own talent and build the workforce, particularly for the small-scale fishing fleet. It cannot fund apprentices directly itself, but its members have a lifetime at sea and the knowledge to help to grow that talent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

The hon. Member spoke powerfully about safety from his unique perspective representing island and rural communities, and he talked passionately about the appeals for quotas to the Minister as well.

It is important to highlight the benefits that we can and should reap following our departure from the European Union. For our fishing industry, that departure gave us the opportunity to increase our fishing quotas, which I am pleased the last Conservative Government took advantage of. As Members will be aware, the last Government began the process of replacing the EU’s common fisheries policy, which I think we agree was flawed, with a new bespoke framework for UK fisheries.

Six fisheries management plans were consulted on, covering major species, including bass, scallop, lobster and crab. The last Government negotiated quotas of 750,000 tonnes in 2024, an 80,000 tonne increase compared with 2023 that was expected to deliver a £70 million boost for the fishing industry. Can the Minister provide clarity, for the sector and for Members present, on what the Government hope to achieve in the quotas for next year and how they will approach negotiations for 2026 and into the future?

A significant fear is that the Government will use fishing as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the EU. Can the Minister quash those rumours now and assure our fishing communities across the United Kingdom that this Government will not let them down, as they are currently doing to farmers with their policies on the family farm tax on inheritance? We would like some reassurance from the Minister on that point.

The new Government have published consultations for the next five fisheries management plans, which I welcome. Can the Minister confirm that they will remain live documents, constantly open to review, updates and improvements, to ensure that those FMPs reach their objectives?

As has been said, in December 2021, the Conservative Government allocated £100 million specifically to support the long-term future of our UK fishing sector, supporting job creation and boosting seafood exports to new markets. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government will continue with that support or provide any additional funding to benefit the long-term future of the UK fishing sector? Can the Minister also commit to publishing an impact assessment of the Government’s new labour and employment reforms, including the increase in national insurance contributions and its specific impact on the fishing industry, including the fish processing sector and coastal communities?

I am also keen to press the Minister on several issues that we encountered on the EFRA Committee in areas that I led on in certain respects. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on the Government’s position today, not least because the sector has been waiting with considerable concern following the general election, as Labour’s manifesto was pretty short on fishing—in fact, it failed to mention it at all.

Last year, in the last Parliament, the EFRA Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals, after an inquiry that I triggered. The report highlighted the issue of bycatch, in which seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. Sadly, it is estimated that more than 650,000 marine mammals die each year from being needlessly caught worldwide, including more than 1,000 cetaceans in UK waters.

The last Government consulted on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring systems utilise a range of technology, including cameras, gear sensors, GPS units and more. The last Government began to implement electronic monitoring systems in all priority fisheries, with the aim of achieving that by 2029. Those monitoring systems apply to all vessels over 10 metres in length and active within fisheries in English waters, including non-UK vessels.

Once we were satisfied that the implementation issues had been resolved for each priority fishery, the plan was to make it mandatory to have such systems installed. It was noted that there would be two years’ notice to give vessels time to adapt and for installation to take place. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do in that regard? Does that remain the plan? What are the timescales?

Marine Management Organisation rules state that fishermen and women in UK waters must self-report all cetacean bycatch within 48 hours of their fishing journey, but very few reports are submitted. According to the MMO, six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels as bycatch injury or mortality in 2023. In stark contrast, the previous Government’s bycatch monitoring programme estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals—both grey and harbour—were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Does the Minister agree that that suggests there is significant under-reporting of cetacean and other marine mammal bycatch? Will the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to improve the monitoring, reporting and prevention of such tragic and upsetting bycatch?

I have worked closely with Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the World Cetacean Alliance, the Sussex Dolphin Project and the Blue Marine Foundation, which are great organisations that seek to make fishing safer for the marine mammals that share the seas and oceans that we harvest fish from. Will the Minister commit to working with such organisations to tackle this issue, which unites us in humanity? No one wants to see those air-breathing mammals horrifically caught up by the fishing industry.

The UK has a very important role to play as a global soft power. Like all Members, I am strongly opposed to the hunting of any cetaceans—dolphins, whales or porpoises. There is no humane way to kill a whale, so that barbaric practice must end. Although there is a tradition in the Faroe Islands of killing pilot whales and dolphins for meat and other products, the previous Government long expressed their concern about the welfare issues surrounding those cetacean hunts and the domestic regulation currently in place. Ministers in the previous Government urged the Faroe Islands to look at alternatives to the hunting of dolphins and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring to coastal communities.

During the joint committee on trade with the Faroe Islands in 2022, Ministers raised the UK’s opposition to the continued hunting of dolphins in the Faroe Islands on animal welfare and conservation grounds. I therefore hope the Minister will confirm that the new Government will uphold the previous Government’s position and use every appropriate opportunity to advocate for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands.

This issue sadly stretches further than the Faroe Islands. Horrifically, whaling is still practised in various countries, including Norway, Iceland and Japan. Will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman missed out the United States of America from that list.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

What steps are the Government taking in international negotiations to stop that cruel practice? When negotiating fishing arrangements, trade deals or anything else, UK diplomats and Ministers must make the ethical case to countries that those unacceptable practices must end. Can the Minister reassure the House that the new Labour Government will continue to play their part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all?

It is important to work collaboratively with our international partners to ensure that global waters can thrive. Sustainability in fishing is pivotal to preserve these diverse ecosystems. Indeed, using a scientific, evidence-based approach that ensures high ecological and environmental standards in fishing from all fishing countries is paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade.

I welcome the introduction of highly protected marine areas that protect all species, habitats and associated ecosystem processes within the site boundary, including the seabed and the water column. HPMAs allow the protection and full recovery of marine ecosystems. By setting aside some areas of the sea with high levels of protection, HPMAs allow nature to fully recover to a more natural state, and allow the ecosystem to thrive. Can the Minister update Members on the Government’s plans regarding the development of HPMAs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think we can speak with one voice from this Parliament on those kinds of issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at events such as the G20 and the G7 that I have attended, we have raised those important questions.

I turn to the coastal state negotiations on quota shares.

[Barry Gardiner]

Before the Minister does that, could he look at what we might learn from the American fish management plans, which are gold standard and have had the clear management objectives that, I am afraid, many of ours lack?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will certainly look at that. These are relatively early days in the fisheries management plans. A huge amount of work has had to be done quite quickly. We have established a good structure to look to the future—a much better way than in the past.

On the quota shares, it is because we are now an independent coastal state that we have the right to negotiate with coastal states in the north-east Atlantic on management measures for mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. Those are important stocks for the UK that have been overfished in recent years because there are no sharing arrangements in place between the coastal states. We continue to push for comprehensive quota-sharing arrangements that are in the best interests of stock sustainability and of the UK catching and processing sectors. We see the three-way management arrangement with Norway and the Faroes that we signed in June this year as an important stepping stone towards securing a fully comprehensive deal on mackerel.

Almost all the speeches touched on the very challenging issue of marine spatial prioritisation. We know that considerable pressure is being put on the fishing sector by all the competing demands in our seas. And we know the seas are going to get busier over the coming decades. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) both raised those points. We absolutely need to factor in increasing spatial pressures and new activities such as the growth of new types of energy.

As a Government, we will very carefully consider the evidence marshalled by the cross-Government marine spatial prioritisation programme for English waters. Lots of work is ongoing on this. I am absolutely determined that we have a full and open debate and dialogue because it is such a complicated issue, and I am very grateful for the constructive engagement we are having with industry representatives.

I move on to labour shortages, which, again, were raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others. We are, of course, aware of the concerns about labour shortages in the sector. Members spoke about the opportunities being there, if only we had the people to do the work—I thought that was very telling. My Department is working with industry to understand what we can do to alleviate those shortages, but they have to be understood in the context of our wider immigration policy objectives. I am sure Members will understand that there is an ongoing dialogue with the Home Office on that.

I pledge that we will work closely with industry to understand people’s labour needs—including, of course, what can be done to make the industry more attractive to the domestic labour market, which is an issue that people have worked hard on. The points made on training were really quite uplifting; it was very good to hear about the work being done in Grimsby, for example.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will happily have a discussion with anyone who has a large budget at the moment, so yes—I will happily come and have a discussion with any mayors who are interested. We have also recently launched the UK seafood careers project, which works closely with industry and across Government and the devolved Administrations to look at how the sector can improve the recruitment and retention of UK workers. Please be assured: we are in constant dialogue and discussion with colleagues in the Home Office and in the education sector to see what we can do on this matter.

I will pick up another point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on enforcement and illegal fishing. We absolutely condemn any illegal fishing taking place anywhere, but particularly in English and UK waters—this is partly a devolved issue. We work closely as a Department with the Marine Maritime Organisation, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and other organisations. In fact, I was talking to the Marine Maritime Organisation about this matter only yesterday. We use a risk-based and intelligence-led marine enforcement model and carry out regular inspections in ports, onshore and at sea, which should ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to enforce fisheries regulations and protect our waters. I was very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s account of the approach taken in Ireland, and I will look closely at that.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the Minister actually believe that the discard ban is being observed? If he has doubts about that, would he agree that ensuring there are onboard cameras and monitoring is the best way to put an end to that element of illegal fishing?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much hear what my hon. Friend says. I agree that the evidence rather suggests that we could do much better, which is why we are making that commitment to remote electronic monitoring.

I am coming close to a conclusion, Dr Huq. Many have talked about support for inshore fishers, and we are absolutely determined to do more. We are looking at the role of the inshore and under-10 metre fleet and at how best we can support them. We think a number of initiatives will benefit them; we are looking at provision of additional quota and new quota trials, which we believe will help the fleet in the long run. We are engaging with the five regional fisheries groups set up for inshore fishers to discuss concerns with policymakers and regulators, helping to identify problems, contribute to policy development and secure solutions. Certainly on my trips around the shores of this country, I have been struck by the concerns that people have and the points raised about some of the boat inspections. Obviously, that is a responsibility of the Department for Transport, but I continue to pursue that.

I have been struck also by the calls from key figures in the fishing industry, including Mike Cohen from the NFFO, for a proper fisheries strategy. I am very interested to talk to stakeholders in the industry in more detail about what that might look like—again, in the spirit of collaboration and co-design that we want to introduce.

I thank hon. Members. This has been a really informative and useful debate. Things have been raised that I will take away and raise with officials today. As I said at the beginning, I recognise just how tough this industry is because of the work involved and the safety issues, but I also recognise that it feels particularly tough as an industry at the moment. It is hard. But I genuinely think there are real opportunities ahead for the fishing sector, and this Government are absolutely committed to making the most of them to ensure that the industry can best contribute to our country’s food security and economic growth.

Storm Bert

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know his constituency well and I know what a champion he is for communities there. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we are reviewing the formula with the Environment Agency, to look at precisely what actions would be most effective to protect communities in whichever part of the country they find themselves in, including his very beautiful part of Dorset.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Last July, the previous Government issued its third national adaptation plan, and this March the Climate Change Committee issued its independent assessment of NAP3. It said that it falls far short of what is needed, that it lacks the pace and ambition to address growing climate risks—which we are already experiencing—and that it fails to set out a compelling vision for what the Government’s well-adapted UK entails, with only around 40% of the short-term actions to address urgent risks identified in the previous climate change risk assessment.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the key recommendations of the Climate Change Committee in its assessment of NAP3 are implemented and that an urgent refresh of NAP3 takes place, to strengthen it and avoid locking in additional climate impacts? Key reforms must be implemented over the next year, along with enforcement. Those are the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. Can he assure the House that he is taking those seriously and moving them forward?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the impact of climate change through the much more frequent severe weather incidents that we are seeing, whether droughts in the summer or floods at this time of year and through the winter. That is why we are reviewing the formula and our approach to managing flooding. We take the reports and views of the committee very seriously as we continue to look at how best to adapt to the challenges that climate change presents to the whole country.