Fisheries Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that I want to make sure I can answer as many questions as possible, from Members in as many parts of the House as possible, but this is a well subscribed debate and I have been able to make only about two or three of the points I wanted to make while I have been answering questions.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

But because this legislation is so important and because of the passions aroused, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Walker]

I thank the Secretary of State for that. It would be nice if we could talk a little more about fish, and I want to talk briefly about bluefin tuna. For the first time in about 50 or 60 years, these wonderful fish are appearing off the shore of Cornwall and up the west coast. When we have left the EU, will we look at having a recreational catch-and-release fishery for bluefin tuna? If we could discuss that, and if I could bring a delegation to see the Secretary of State to discuss it, I would be extremely grateful, because there is huge commercial and conservational opportunity attached to such a fishery.

[Michael Gove]

I quite agree and we are actively exploring that. One of the points I was due to make is that recreational fishing is a crucial part of the life of the nation; it provides, through tourism and other expenditure, support for many important parts of our rural and coastal economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

Yes, that is a very important point about processors. I have a processor in my own constituency, so I fully understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. We want to see more British fish landed in British ports.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Lady was starting to make a good case for recreational angling before she was dragged away by colleagues who wanted to talk about commercial landings. Recreational angling accounts for about £2 billion into the economy, whereas commercial fishing accounts for about £200 million. If we want to maximise the UK’s fish stocks, as I am sure that we do, we need to focus on recreational angling and the value of recreational angling, and we need to have fish species that are largely kept back for recreational anglers.

[Sue Hayman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very well-made point. Yes, I support exactly what he is saying. We know that the Secretary of State also recognised in his speech the importance of recreational angling. If we are to achieve the goals that we are talking about, can the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to bring forward future measures to support recreational sea angling? If so, can he provide us with some details on those plans today?

Ministers, when questioned about their support for our smaller-scale fishing communities, often point to the coastal communities fund. Members may be interested to know that, in response to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), it was revealed that only about 6% of the fund has been awarded to the fishing sector to date. If the Government really think that fishing is the lifeblood of coastal communities, why do they not back this up with the funding that the industry so desperately needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely not, no. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope he has jogged the Secretary of State’s memory a little with his first point.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I mount a bit of shameless lobbying? To tackle illegal lobster potting, the Scottish Government have put a limit on recreational lobster fishermen, such as myself, of one lobster landing a day on the west coast of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who represents Barra, will know, it is often very difficult to get your boat out more than once every four or five days. Will the hon. Lady ask the Scottish Government whether, instead of putting on a limit of one lobster a day, they will look at a limit on the number of pots a recreational fisherman can have—say, five or six—beyond which they would need to get a licence?

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am certain that the Scottish Government will be closely following the debate and that they will make a note of his request.

If the steady stream of Ministers heading for the exit delays negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, we could find ourselves in an extended period where our fishing industry just complies with the rules, rather than having someone in the room standing up for it. Mr Barnier has already suggested that it will last for at least two years, which could be an underestimate if we consider how long it took to reach the much simpler withdrawal agreement.

We may have to suffer the CFP for quite a few years to come and it may change to the advantage of the remaining members of the EU, and not to ours. We may lose markets to sell fish into, or at the very least, find that our competitive advantage disappears because we will be subject to the same tariffs as other non-member states. I hope they will be the same tariffs, but going by the poor negotiation results that we have seen so far, we may end up with higher tariffs that reduce our fleet’s traditional competitive advantage.

It will not come to that, of course, because the new fishing deal has already been written into the withdrawal agreement by the departing Brexit Secretary. On page 4, the political declaration tells us that he has agreed to a new fisheries agreement with access to UK waters and assigned quota shares being

“in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”

That means the common fisheries policy will carry on regulating our fishing fleets after we have left the EU. Taking back control has never sounded so hollow.

It is a sad state of affairs for this Secretary of State to have to deliver that news, because in March he said that he feels a

“debt to fishing communities who are looking to government to deliver a better deal for them”

and promised that he would ensure that our

“fishermen’s interests are properly safeguarded”

during the implementation period. That period starts on 29 March and lasts for an indeterminate amount of time, during which access to some important markets might be limited. France, for example, is the UK’s most important export market for fish. It is nearly twice as lucrative in cash terms as the US, and almost three times as strong in export volumes. Spain, by the way, is just behind the US in cash terms and slightly ahead in volume. Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany are all significant customers for our fishing fleets. Two thirds of our fleet’s fish is exported—perhaps a case of EU citizens jumping the queue to buy fish.

Once the deals are done and we finally leave the CFP, however, we will still be in it. It is a conjuror’s trick, and not a good one. Last year, the Secretary of State spoke to leaders of the Danish industry and guaranteed them continued access to our waters after Brexit. Earlier this year, the UK embassy in Spain reassured Spanish trawlers that their access to UK waters was assured. The withdrawal agreement replaces common decision-making on the CFP as a member of the EU with CFP rules handed down from Brussels and no input from Ministers from these isles on behalf of the industry here. Well done to the Brexiteers—they certainly landed a whopper there.

The Norwegians sometimes describe their relationship with the EU as a “fax democracy”, because the rules just come down the line from Brussels. That seems to be what removing ourselves from the EU will do, except, of course, that the European maritime and fisheries fund money will vanish. We have heard nothing about what might replace that in due course.

We will be left to accept the rules that are handed down; we will lose access to the decision-making body and the funding from the EU; and we will have to deal with the consequences of the Government’s poor negotiation techniques and the uniquely weak position that they have left us in. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave evidence to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee 26 months ago, he said that

“we have to recognise historic rights…In some sectors, for instance on scallops, access to the French part of the channel is quite important to the UK industry. I accept there are trade-offs. All these things will be a matter for negotiation in a new world.”

During the referendum campaign, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:

“I think the fishermen are wrong in the sense there is no way we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters. There are a whole host of international rules and agreements even if we were outside the EU which would impact on their activities.”

Then of course there is the same problem agriculture has in relation to workforce planning. We will lose access to EU workers, who make up 58% of Scotland’s fish processing workforce and 70% in Grampian, where the Secretary of State’s family business was based.

Scotland’s seafood and fishing industries could be destroyed without access to EU markets. Scotland’s processing industry could be irreversibly damaged without access to EU workers. We also have to consider Scottish farmed salmon, the UK’s most valuable food export, and how losing the market advantage over Norwegian salmon that EU membership gives us could be utterly devastating. Scotland stands to lose a lot without access and there is little indication of how any of it might be replaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, may I take you to the sunlit uplands of 2028 as imagined by my great friends in the Angling Trust in this amazing press release?

“In South Cornwall, swathes of new guesthouses, hotels and restaurants have opened up to service the visiting anglers fishing for blue fin tuna in Falmouth bay. The millions of pounds this has brought to the region has resulted in hundreds of full-time equivalent jobs servicing anglers travelling from the UK and from overseas to take advantage of the world-class big game angling opportunities that Cornwall is once again offering.

Meanwhile, nearly a decade of management measures protecting the spawning bass stock in the southern North sea has turned Clacton-on-Sea into the go-to location for weekend Londoners now spending their money bass fishing and enjoying their catches cooked before them in one of Clacton’s many new seafood restaurants capitalising on the turnaround of the North sea into one of the UK’s most productive fishing grounds. More broadly, the Essex coast is once again seeing former charter captains, such as Stewart Ward, returning to the sea.

It is worth remembering that none of these dramatic developments would have been possible without the Government’s brave and radical decision when the UK left the EU to ensure fish stocks were managed sustainably and to maximise the return to the UK of the sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment.

The policy was controversial at the time, but the bold and ambitious move has paid off in ways even the most ardent supporter of such a policy could not have expected at the time. The UK is now a world leader in how to manage fish stocks sustainably, so they deliver the biggest benefits to society as a whole.”

The press release concludes:

“EU policy makers are now planning to follow suit in the next reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which, like the reforms before it, from 2002 to the last one in 2022 failed to live up to their promises.”

That is the prize—and, my word, is it a prize. Imagine people from around the world travelling to Cornwall to catch 500 lb tuna fish—not to knock the tuna on the head and put them in a refrigerated ship to be cut up on a slab, but to be part of a conservation programme so that they can be tagged, measured and released; a big game fishery that means people who love fishing and catching big fish do not have to fly to Kenya to do it? People from around the world will be flying to London and regional airports to get to Falmouth, so they can go big game fishing. This is going to be a fantastic opportunity. Charter skippers will be able to charge somewhere in the region of £1,500 a day to take three fishermen, fisherwomen or fisherpersons out. Wow.

As for bass fishing, what an opportunity: thousands of beds around Essex filled up with anglers at the weekends and during holidays with their fly rods and spinning rods, coming to Essex and other coastal communities and counties to catch bass; bass that are no longer plundered but preserved for game fishermen. Of course, I do not want to see commercial fishermen cut out of bass fishing, but I know there is a way of managing our bass stocks so both interests can have a sustainable future. As well as the big politics of Brexit, that is what we need to be discussing today: the fish, because the fish are really important.

I want to say a couple more things before I sit down—I said I would be brief. The management of our fish stocks, as far as recreational anglers are concerned, has been nothing short of catastrophic up to this point. Until 1 October, if I had gone bass fishing with my son and we had caught a bass each, we both would have been required to return them. Even if they had been above the 42 cm keep limit, it would have been illegal for us to keep a fish. That is not right; fish stocks belong to everyone. I see in front of me my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who speaks so passionately about fishing. She understands that they need to be shared out and that recreational fishermen need to be able to keep a fish or two, or maybe three, for their family and friends. That is not being greedy; it is connecting with nature and the sea.

I look around the Chamber and see colleagues who are passionate about fishing, but we need to have a bit more passion about the fish. We need to make sure that we have viable fish stocks for people to enjoy.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic spokesperson for the leisure and recreational fishing fraternity. Will he tell us how the ban on catching bass has affected the angling fraternity under the common fisheries policy and how they will benefit once we leave?

[Mr Walker]

The press release that I quoted mentioned Stewart Ward, who is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who was sitting here a few moments ago. Stewart Ward lost his business. He was a charter skipper in Essex, and he wrote to me to explain why it happened. When people pay their £40 or so to go out on a fishing trip, they like to keep a fish or two, which is perfectly reasonable. It is a natural thing for someone to want to bring their catch home—it is part of the harvester in many of us. However, his clients and guests were not allowed to keep the fish, and they could not justify spending the money if they were not able to bring part—not all—of their catch home. It has had a damaging—some would say catastrophic—effect on the recreational angling fleet and those who enjoy recreational angling.

I have spoken for too long. I think I have made the case for fish, and I hope that we in this Chamber can continue to make the case for fish long after we have left the EU in a few months’ time.

Air Pollution: A10 and Broxbourne

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in tonight’s Adjournment debate on air pollution around the A10 and Broxbourne—a matter close to my heart because I happen to live near the A10, in the constituency of Broxbourne, in the borough of Broxbourne. I am never happier than when representing my constituency in the Chamber of the House of Commons. It is why I was elected to serve in this place—to give a voice to my constituents’ concerns on the Floor of this place.

On 5 October, I received a letter by email from the Minister to say that the A10 running through Broxbourne—the spine of Broxbourne—had some of the highest roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the country. This is a cause of great concern to many. However, I am well aware that the Government will be working closely with Hertfordshire County Council and Broxbourne Borough Council to address the problem. I accept fully the Government’s reassurances that this is a collective priority of both national Government and local government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of air pollution. Air pollution is not a significant issue in only one constituency—it also applies to my own. To address pollution in Northern Ireland, the ecarNI project consists of a consortium of public and private sector organisations working together to bring benefits to our environment, society and economy. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman about this beforehand. Does he agree that more needs to be done to increase both the number of electric cars on our roads and access to charging points through grants and other incentives, thereby reducing air pollution?

[Mr Walker]

I agree that if we want to promote electric cars, we have to have ease of access to the energy that powers them, so more charging points would seem to be absolutely essential in the drive to get more people transporting themselves around in electric cars. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

On 5 October, I received the letter—the email—from the Minister alerting me to the pollution levels on the A10. I have to say that I am disappointed, not by the conduct of the Minister but the conduct of the Environment Agency in relation to a really important local issue going on in my constituency that has a direct bearing on this pollution.

The background to this is that Veolia has put forward a planning application for a massive 350,000-tonne incinerator in my constituency, which has generated a huge amount of local concern. We have just had a public inquiry, and it is now being considered by the chair of that inquiry. What is deeply irritating is that the public inquiry closed on 2 August—the very same date that I received a letter from the Environment Agency saying that it was minded to grant the permit to the Rye House energy recovery facility on Ratty’s Lane. I am stunned that it chose to write to me to announce that on 2 August, and I am further amazed that originally it wanted to close its consultation on 30 August. After interventions from myself and others, the consultation period ran to 24 September.

It simply is not good enough for the Environment Agency to have entirely ignored in its draft determination the major issues relating to nitrogen dioxide on the A10—I am sure that it would have known about that. It is worth drawing the House’s attention to the covering letter of the draft determination, which is extraordinary Whitehall speak. I will take the edited highlights on page 1 and thread them together. The EA starts:

“Unless the document explains otherwise, we have accepted the Applicant’s proposals. The document is in draft at this stage, because we have yet to make a final decision.”

The first sentence says that the EA has accepted the applicant’s proposals, and the sentence after states that the document is in draft because it has yet to make a final decision. However, it goes on to say:

“Our mind remains open at this stage… unless we receive information that leads us to alter the conditions in the draft Permit, or to reject the Application altogether, we will issue the Permit in its current form.”

Then, in a piece of Orwellian double-speak, the EA says:

“In this document we frequently say ‘we have decided’. That gives the impression that our mind is already made up; but as we have explained above, we have not yet done so. The language we use enables this document to become the final decision document in due course with no more re-drafting than is absolutely necessary.”

What a load of phooey and rubbish—I am not sure that “phooey” is a parliamentary word, but once it is in Hansard, perhaps it will become so.

It is impossible to imagine that the EA was not aware of the information about nitrogen dioxide on the A10 when looking at the draft permit. As I said, there is a planning application before the planning inspector for a 350,000-tonne incinerator in my constituency. Of course, it would be entirely legitimate for Members to say, “Well, Mr Walker, you’re just a nimby, aren’t you?” But unlike on most occasions when someone is accused of being a nimby, I can come up with a good defence. The proposed site for the 350,000-tonne incinerator already has a 750 MW power station next to it—that is a lot of megawatts—as well as a 90,000-tonne refuse-derived fuel plant and a 66,000-tonne anaerobic digester. We are doing our bit for Hertfordshire.

On top of that, if the 350,000-tonne incinerator goes ahead, a further 97,820 HGV movements from diesel lorries will be generated in my constituency up the A10. My voice is rising because that is not good enough. Another 97,820 HGV movements up the A10 and down the link road where, at a measuring station, nitrogen dioxide levels are already 35% above acceptable air quality standards, is not acceptable. Another 98,000 lorries is not compatible with any pledge that I or my council has been given about taking seriously the business of this pollution on the A10.

I am aware that some of the proponents of this power station have been touring various party political conferences—perhaps those populated by Conservative Members, but not me—saying, “Does that Charles Walker wield undue influence?” Do I wield undue influence on behalf of my constituents? Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to you that the only influence I wield is the voice that I bring to this place—the Chamber of the House of Commons. When Broxbourne is doing its bit on power generation and on recycling, and is paying the cost of that right now—air pollution up the A10 is at some of the highest levels in the country—it is a pretty rum deal that we are being asked to do even more and to bear even more of this burden. It is not credible that the Environment Agency did not factor this into its decision making on the draft permit.

I am not known for going on at great length in this place, and I feel that if I was to add further to my speech, I would be going over old ground. I will just conclude with a quote from the Royal College of Physicians. It has written to me about tonight’s Adjournment debate, so concerned is it for my constituents. It states:

“The negative health impacts of air pollution can and must be mitigated. Closer working between different government departments to deliver strict enforcement of air quality limits, and transition to clean fuels and renewable energy sources will go some way to reducing our exposure to air pollution.”

I want to start seeing such joined-up thinking, and my constituents want to experience that joined-up thinking, because right now they are feeling extremely let down and, dare I say it, extremely vulnerable to events over which they do not seem to have any control. As I say, the public planning inquiry for this incinerator ended on 2 August, which was too late—I repeat, too late—for the new evidence, which I have presented on the Floor of the House today, to be inserted as part of my constituents’ representations, and that is a pretty poor show.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on securing this important debate, as well as on bringing to the attention of the House the specific challenges we face on the stretch of the A10 in the Broxbourne constituency, the wider importance of tackling poor air quality and, indeed, the impact of the potential incinerator.

I understand that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the impact of the proposed plant, and about the possible increase in the number of HGV movements further worsening the air quality. He will be aware that the application has been called in by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his own determination. It would not be appropriate for me to make direct comment on the application, as the final decision now lies with the Secretary of State. I am absolutely convinced that he will take into consideration all the relevant information regarding the application.

It is fair to say that the Environment Agency is an independent regulator, so I do not have any control over how it considers approving permits. I share my hon. Friend’s frustration about the legalese that is often in such documents, but we have to recognise that this is a quasi-judicial process. My general expectation is that the Environment Agency would consider the impact of the proposed development itself, rather than its location. However, the formal planning process should consider the location, including the travel routes and the impact it may have on the environment, including the air quality, in determining whether the development should go ahead.

However, as I said, this is now in the hands of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

My hon. Friend mentioned the point raised by the Royal College of Physicians; I am glad that it has shown an interest in this debate. It is important that I should start by providing some context. Overall, air quality has been improving in this country, but we are still falling short on a specific element of air pollution: roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide.

We are not alone in that across the European Union. Current air quality problems, particularly on NO₂, are in large part caused by the EU’s failed regime for vehicle emissions testing: cars were deemed to have passed the test of operation within NO₂ limits, when, for several manufacturers, that was far from the truth. Eighteen other EU member states, including Germany, France, Italy and Spain, are also breaching air pollution limits as a result of that failed testing regime.

A former UK Government took the decision to encourage diesel vehicles, to tackle the challenge of climate change and reduce carbon. Although we may have benefited in that regard, we are now absolutely suffering given the impact on air quality. The combined effect of those two factors means that we are having to go much further than was anticipated on tackling the NO₂ air quality challenge when the UK signed up to the targets, prior to 2010.

Air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010—emissions of nitrogen oxides have fallen by almost 27% and are at their lowest level since records began. But there is clearly more to do. That is why the Government have committed £3.5 billion to transport and improved air quality, including £1.5 billion support for electric vehicles, £1.2 billion for cycling and walking, and £475 million specifically in support of the activity resulting from the UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide emissions. I should remind myself that, after the votes tomorrow, a further £20 million in funding will be allocated by the Budget to support more local authorities to meet their air quality obligations.

In Broxbourne specifically, the Government have already provided a quarter of a million pounds to retrofit buses with pollution-reducing technology. The Government are also taking regulatory action. We have already made clear our intention to end the sale of new conventional diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040, and have implemented a vehicle excise duty surcharge on new diesel vehicles until the cleanest models come on the market. We will also be publishing a clean air strategy before the end of the year, which will set goals working towards World Health Organisation recommendations on particulate matter emissions. That goes further than what the EU requires, and we have also committed to new legislation on air quality.

I should point out that councils already have many powers to tackle air quality and a legal duty to do so; awaiting any new legislation that may arise should not be an excuse to avoid action now. All councils have existing legal obligations on monitoring air quality, establishing air quality management areas and devising action plans to address the issue. Some time ago, I wrote to several councils with long-standing issues to challenge them on what action they were taking locally to tackle the problem.

Tonight, my hon. Friend has raised the A10 in his constituency of Broxbourne—specifically, the stretch of the A10 between the B198 and the slip road to the A1170, near the retail park in Cheshunt. The A10 road link was initially identified as moderately exceeding nitrogen dioxide limits, according to the central national model used by the Government for reporting compliance to the European Commission, in line with the ambient air quality directive requirements. I contacted Broxbourne Borough Council about this matter and I am pleased to say that an air quality management area for part of the A10 has already been established.

As the House will be aware, the High Court required the Government to take a more direct legal approach with those local authorities responsible for roads such as this, which our projections indicated would become compliant with legal limits within the next few years. To that effect, I issued ministerial directions and offered support to 33 local authorities to take more detailed study and action. As part of that work, Broxbourne has carried out a detailed study of the A10 road link in question, using local modelling data, which gives a much more granular, representative picture of air quality on that road. The study was submitted to the Government on 31 July this year, as required by the ministerial direction.

Some variance between the national model and the output of a local study is to be expected. That reflects the level of detail that can be modelled at a national level. It is also important to add that the latest 2017 reporting data suggests that our previous projections were overall more pessimistic than other projections, and that nitrogen dioxide levels at a national level have fallen faster than expected.

However, the Broxbourne study clearly identified a much more significant problem than the national model, projecting that this stretch of road will see emissions that exceed the legal limit until 2028 if no further action is taken. That is clearly unacceptable. Now that both the council and the Government have a greater understanding of the problem, our priority is to work with Broxbourne Borough Council to find a means of addressing this as quickly as possible.

I recognise that this is a stretch of road that presents a number of challenges due to the sheer amount of traffic using the route into and out of London and on to the M25, as well as the numerous junctions in the area and the importance of the route in relation to key international transport hubs.

Earlier this month, I issued Broxbourne Borough Council with a further ministerial direction requiring it to carry out a more detailed study to identify the most suitable measures to address the exceedance in the shortest time possible. The deadlines for that work include an initial plan by 31 January 2019 and a final plan by 31 October 2019, and sooner where possible. That is a challenging deadline, in particular as the work includes more detailed local transport and air quality modelling to really understand what is happening in the local area and understand what solutions can be found to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels on this specific stretch of road. We can then provide Broxbourne with the funding to implement the solutions.

There is joint working: I am pleased to say that the Department for Transport and my Department have established a joint air quality unit, with officials from the two Departments working together. They have already provided detailed guidance and will be supporting local councils as they develop this work. The unit is already working closely with Broxbourne, having held a workshop last week to explain the process over the next 12 months and the support we will be offering. We will shortly be providing a further £100,000 of funding to get this process under way. The council is now actively considering what measures could bring forward compliance with legal limits as soon as possible, which could include a charging clean air zone.

We will also continue to work closely with other parties responsible for roads that interact with the A10 and which may also be able to take action that could have an impact on this link. As I have said, the M25 is a major source of traffic on and off the A10, so we will ensure that Highways England is engaging with Broxbourne to understand these actions and to identify what complementary actions can be taken to drive improvements.

I will also continue to press the Mayor of London on the need to take robust action to address very high emissions in the capital. Specifically, we will need to understand what the impacts will be on the traffic coming into and out of London on the A10 as a result of the tightening of the standards for the London-wide low emission zone for HGVs.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I know the Minister will not be able to comment on this, but may I just restate my constituents’ irritation that despite all these words of concern a planning application for a 350,000-tonne incinerator that will pump further nitrogen dioxide into the Broxbourne-Lee valley and generate another 97,820 lorry movements is not compatible with the desire to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels?

[Dr Coffey]

I understand that. Broxbourne has come to the attention of the Government via national modelling and local modelling specifically because of nitrogen dioxide emissions on that stretch of road. That is why the Government are working directly with Broxbourne. I have already indicated to my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be making the determination. I fully expect that the location and the travel routes that are being proposed would be part of his consideration.

I pay tribute to Broxbourne Borough Council, as I believe it has embraced this important situation with a positive attitude. It appears to recognise that what may appear to be politically difficult decisions on tackling air quality still have to be taken in a timely manner to proactively improve air quality. Frankly, I wish more councils would act in such a proactive manner. I have already suggested to my hon. Friend that I cannot comment directly on the application. I have to leave it at the comments that I have made twice to the House now on the process and next steps.

I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his commitment to the issue. He talked about the importance of improving air quality across the United Kingdom. He will be aware that how this gets tackled is a devolved matter, but I am sure that he will support the positive action that is being taken to increase the opportunities for electric charging and similar. He and I were together at the bike ride for the poppy appeal—[Interruption.] Indeed, you took part, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to say that he and I managed to achieve the same distance on the electric bike and that we were not the slowest—but nor were we the fastest.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is keen to see quick progress. I am conscious of the decision that he wants the Secretary of State to make on this matter, but I stress to the House that it is important that we work together on the impacts of air pollution. I am conscious of what he said about lorry movements today.

I thought it might be worth adding that, although we have largely been talking about the impact of NO₂ emissions, the other challenge that people are increasingly becoming aware of—I expect that the Royal College of Physicians is increasingly pressing the case on this—is tackling the issue of particulate matter. This tends to be soot and dust—that is largely the way of describing it—and the width of a human hair is 10 times more than the size of one of these elements of particulate matter. That gives hon. Members an indication of quite how tiny these elements are.

Yesterday, today and tomorrow, the World Health Organisation is holding its first ever global conference on the impact of air pollution on human health. I am conscious that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the impact on the health of his residents, particularly along the A10. I am really pleased that this issue is gaining traction. One challenge of NO₂ emissions—I point out that we are absolutely compliant with the law on particulate matter emissions—is that NO₂ particularly affects those who are already vulnerable to poor health, whether they are little children, people with asthma or elderly people. The challenge of particulate matter is that it pretty much has an impact on everybody. It is one of those things—it can simply get through our internal systems and cause difficulties when we breathe in. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has re-released figures that suggest that the deaths of fewer than 40,000 people can be attributed to the impact of air pollution, but that is still 40,000 people too many.

This is a challenge that we face as a country. We have been praised by the WHO on what we are trying to do about particulate matter. It is why there has been a call for evidence, which has closed, on particulate matter coming from tyres and brakes—I am conscious that that may well be a consideration in terms of the HGVs, as well as other vehicles, along the A10. We have also undertaken a consultation on the impact of domestic burning, which accounts for about 40% of the particulate matter generated in this country.

The Government are taking a holistic approach to how we tackle climate change and air quality. It is important that the two go together. We need to put more focus on the actions that each of us can take to improve air quality in our homes and communities, and I assure the House that the Government are treating this as very important indeed. Our intention is to continue to improve air quality for all the associated public health benefits. We are taking action alongside Broxbourne Borough Council and across the country to realise this vision. I thank my hon. Friend again for affording me the opportunity to respond to his concerns in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Fishing Industry

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Murray]

As far as I am aware, when we leave the EU, we leave the common fisheries policy.

The UK has given notice that it will withdraw from the 1964 London convention, which gave some nations restricted access to the 12-mile limit. The UK 200-mile or median line limit is prescribed in the Fisheries Limits Act 1976 but, once we leave, the rules for the management and conservation of fish stocks, and indeed the amount of fish that can be taken, will be governed by the UN convention on the law of the sea, particularly articles 61 to 63. There is a clear distinction between UNCLOS and the CFP in as much as the UK will be free from the principle of equal access to a common resource on which the CFP is based.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that that will allow us to manage better our sea bass stocks for both commercial and recreational fishermen?

[Mrs Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that I will come on to that point.

It might be worth considering UNCLOS in more detail. Article 61 says we must be responsible for setting conservation measures, taking account of the scientific information available. Such information often comes from the well-respected International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, with which the UK scientific body the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science works.

In short, article 62 states that the coastal state—in our case, the UK—shall set the amount of fish that can be taken in our exclusive economic zone and determine whether our fleet can catch it all. If it cannot, we can offer the surplus to other nations, which must comply with any conservation measures that we have set. Interestingly, paragraph 4(h) of article 62 says that the coastal state can set laws concerning

“the landing of all or any part of the catch by such vessels in the ports of the coastal State”.

It is worth noting that, in some instances, that could have a real economic benefit to the UK. Article 63 says that when a stock occurs in an adjacent EEZ, each coastal state shall work together to set conservation measures.

Zonal attachment is used by many nations to manage their fish stocks while ensuring economic benefit to the coastal state. A good example of zonal attachment is that of a farmer harvesting crops in his fields who does not invite his neighbours to come in and take those crops free of charge. According to a report by the University of the Highlands and Islands in 2016, EU boats overall landed 10 times more fish and shellfish—six times more by value—from the UK EEZ than UK boats did from the EU EEZ. For most individual member states, the imbalance was even greater. Iceland retains about 90% of the benefit from its fisheries in its attached zones, while the figure for Norway is 84%. In contrast, the UK secures a mere 40%, which can be attributed to the common fisheries policy. We give away—free to other nations—60% of the fish in our zone.

Has the Minister ensured that the historical catch data from all EU vessels that have fished in the UK EEZ has been collected? That could provide the basis for increased benefit in the UK zone once we leave the European Union. While any surplus quota that we are unable to utilise could be offered to other member states, meaning that some economic gain for the UK might be obtained, we must make sure that UK fishermen come first.

A significant central feature of moving towards fishing our zonally attached fish will be increased catching opportunity. Once achieved, that opens up the happy possibility of managing fisheries innovatively, looking to optimise benefit for our nation and its communities across the seafood supply chain. The range of options is huge, and can be properly discussed once the enabling opportunity is secured. In the words of Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation:

“don’t stress over choosing the wallpaper before we’ve bought the flat.”

Let me turn to effort control in place of quota. Under the CFP we have a management system that comprises quotas and effort control in the form of kilowatt days. Will the Minister confirm that once we withdraw from the CFP, he will move away from that confusing system of fisheries management and put in place a something simpler? Many fishermen I have spoken to are not in favour of a days-at-sea scheme, but that warrants further investigation. Has the Minister spoken to his counterpart in the Faroe Islands, which operate a days-at-sea system, to find out how their management system works? Has he asked for the views of CEFAS on the days-at-sea scheme versus the use of quota?

Many inshore fishermen have expressed concern about access to the UK’s six and 12-mile limit by other member states fishing for certain species. There appears to have been disproportionate access to those limits for more than 40 years, and that must stop. A lot of inshore vessels are unable to migrate and have found themselves competing with many larger vessels from other nations in the same waters. Will the Minister give due thought to exclusive access for small UK fishermen to our 12-mile limit when considering any post-CFP management regime?

Turning to this year’s Council of Ministers meeting, it appears that an uplift of total allowable catch is proposed for a number of species. As a consequence, the available quota for the UK fleet will increase. It is also heartening to know that the serious uplift of opportunities that arose from the EU-Norway talks has resulted in better quotas. However, in areas VIId and VIIe off the south-west coast, I am surprised that the quota for Dover sole has not followed ICES recommendations. The uplift of quota proposed by the Commission is less than scientists have suggested. The South West Fish Producers Organisation has also expressed concern about sprat stocks in that area.

ICES advice still points to the bass stock being outside safe biological limits—that issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—and I have two concerns about bass stock. My constituent, Mr Chris Newman, contacted me last August after hauling in his trawl to find around 1,000 kg of bass. The bass was in abundance at the time because it swims with mackerel, and I had already heard that there was an abundance of mackerel locally. Because of how bass management currently works, Mr Newman would have had to catch 33 tonnes of species to legally land his bass, so he ended up having to discard much of it. That is disgraceful, not only because he was denied around £10,000 of income, but because much of that bass would not have survived once it was discarded.

It has been reported on social media this week that another fisherman in Plymouth was denied a similar income because he had to discard bass that he was prevented from landing. When will the EU realise that fish cannot be told not to swim into a trawl? The Secretary of State has described EU bass management as a “blunt management system”. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that our post-CFP management of fisheries will be flexible enough to prevent such situations by invoking emergency measures?

Secondly with regard to bass, I want to make a point on behalf of recreational sea anglers. They have been allowed to keep a single bass from each year’s angling. It appears that, if implemented, the European Commission’s proposal for 2018 will prohibit a recreational hook-and-line bass angler from taking a single bass for the entire year for personal or family consumption. That is unacceptable and I ask the Minister to make representations at the Council of Ministers in support of those recreational fishers. A lot of young people go angling, and many of them would not recognise if they had a bass on the end of their line. How will we police that?

[Mr Charles Walker]

It is simply madness to suggest that someone in a west end restaurant can sit down to eat wild bass caught by a commercial fisherman, but that one of my hon. Friend’s constituents, or one of my constituents on a day out at the beach, cannot keep a single fish that they catch off the beach or on a boat. That is simply not tenable.

[Mrs Murray]

I take a different view. I think that there is a place for commercial fishermen and recreational sea anglers to work together with us. A lot of people who go into a restaurant and think they are buying British bass are actually ordering farmed bass that has been imported from abroad. We need to make sure that we have a flexible management system that accommodates everybody.

I would describe any possible transition period after March 2019 as a bridge. Nine months is all that is needed at the very most. Looking forward to December 2018, assuming that we get a satisfactory trade deal, will the Minister make it clear at the Fisheries Council negotiations that the UK will be introducing its own management system from 1 January 2020 at the very latest? After all, the necessary processes and coastal state arrangements already exist. We can ensure, from that date, that zonal attachment of fisheries will apply to the UK, as it does to many other nations around the world.

Many people have raised concerns about whether we could enforce any UK-set rules on fisheries, including on access. Will the Minister confirm that the UK already polices our 200-mile limit under the CFP using different tools? Fisheries protection vessels from the Royal Navy for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency are all at sea making sure that the rules are enforced. Other enforcement tools include the electronic vessel monitoring equipment on board many vessels and observation aircraft. The UK will continue to enforce any rules it sets after we leave the CFP, as we have done for years.

I would like to raise briefly the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Factortame case. Will the Minister confirm that we will be able to redo our economic links, unfettered by that EU ruling? Nobody else permits foreign rights to national resources and assets to the degree the UK was forced into.

Finally, fishermen have always felt that their industry was sacrificed when we joined the European Economic Community. It is therefore necessary that we have a separation of catching opportunity/access, and access to the EU market. Those are separate subjects. Norway never let them be mixed. Indeed, there is no international precedent or supporting economic reasoning for doing that. For example, if France wants to sell us its wine and cheese, it must buy our fish. That is common sense. Will the Minister confirm that he will not sacrifice access to fishing resources for access to markets in any negotiation?

I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his negotiation next week. I know that he, like me, knows how important fisheries are to our coastal communities and that, like me, he is optimistic for the opportunities our fishermen will have after we leave the common fisheries policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I accept that there have been improvements to the common fisheries policy, but there were many improvements to be made. We are getting on now to having discards banned from the common fisheries policy, which we as a nation can work on much better. We can also use a fishing management system similar to that of the Norwegians, where we can shut down an overfished area very quickly; they can do it within a day, whereas it is impossible to move that fast when there are 27 countries trying to come to an agreement. There are great opportunities to be had. There is no doubt—there are figures to prove it—that the European fishing vessels take from our waters some £530 million-worth of fish and we take about £110 million-worth of fish from their waters, so whichever way we look at it, there will be benefits for our fishermen.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will my hon. Friend look at the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) about making bass a recreational species only? Will he and his Committee look into that?

[Neil Parish]

As Chairman of the Committee, I would be delighted to look at that. We look at all the evidence and look at exactly what can be done. There is a real place for recreational fishing, just as there is also very much a place for professional fishing. I would be very happy to look into that matter.

Lea Valley Greenhouse Glass Industry

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate on the Lea valley greenhouse industry. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you represent a large part of it, what an industry it is. There are 350 acres of glass greenhouses in the Lea valley—a magnificent sight to see. The industry employs 2,500 people and has a turnover of £500 million a year.

Let me put some more numbers into the record. You will know these, Madam Deputy Speaker, but many people will be ignorant of the facts and I want to inform their thinking about this great industry. Our glasshouse industry in the Lea valley produces 80 million cucumbers a year—75% of the UK’s total cucumber production. It produces 70 million sweet peppers a year, which is more than 60% of the UK’s sweet pepper production. But it does not end there. The industry produces thousands and thousands of tonnes of tomatoes, lettuce, baby leaf salad and herbs, as well as bedding plants, trees, shrubs and flowers—a smorgasbord of great things.

The Lea valley glasshouse industry also produces a huge number of aubergines. I am not particularly familiar with aubergines, but I was given a few by a greenhouse owner a few weeks ago and they were turned into moussaka by Mrs Walker. I had always thought that moussaka was an impossibly exotic dish left over from the 1970s, but it has a lot going for it. If anybody out there wants to try moussaka—a lovely, evocative word that rolls off the tongue—I advise them to get to know aubergines from the Lea valley.

I have visited these amazing greenhouses, and it is just extraordinary to see the labour and effort that goes into growing this fresh produce. One of the most beautiful things about going there is getting to see the boxes of bumblebees that are used to pollinate crops. Bumblebees are lovely creatures anyway, but to see them beetling around—if that is not mixing a metaphor—the greenhouses and pollinating really is a wonderful sight. The glasshouse industry is hugely important to the economy of the Lea valley and it is a hugely important part of this country’s overall farming economy, which is why I am so pleased to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here to respond to the debate.

I want to pay tribute to those who run the greenhouse industry in the Lea valley. All of them are fantastic people, and many of them are of Italian extraction. First generation Italians or their children and grandchildren run many of these amazing businesses, of which there are about 85 in the Lea valley. I am so lucky to have more than 10,000 Italians and their descendants living in my constituency. They throw a great party, we have a great town twinning event with Sutera every year and they are an absolutely fantastic group of people to know, work with and represent.

I want to discuss a couple of issue that may threaten the future of our glasshouse industry. The first relates to the vote on the EU. I am a committed Brexiteer and I know the Minister is a committed Brexiteer, as are many people in the farming community, but that is not to say that they do not have concerns. Our industry is reliant on seasonal workers, many of whom come from eastern Europe, and they play a very positive part in the production of these amazing crops. I hope that the Minister will work with the National Farmers Union, the Lea valley glasshouse industry and other interested parties to make sure that the industry can still access the labour it needs to put this wonderful food on our tables.

There is, however, another and far darker cloud on the horizon, which is the proposed incinerator in the Rye House and Fieldes Lock area off Ratty’s Lane in my constituency of Broxbourne. The planning application is for an incinerator that will burn 350,000 tonnes of rubbish. The incinerator was originally going to be on the New Barnfield site in Welwyn Hatfield, but in 2015 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government threw out that application. In doing so, he said that the alternative sites, one of which is the proposed site in my constituency, were wholly unsuitable as locations. Those were not his words, but the arguments put forward by Veolia. In 2013, Veolia identified the Ratty’s Lane site as

“a safeguarded strategic rail aggregate depot”

located on a floodplain and opposite a Ramsar site, which is one of the highest designations for a protected and treasured environment. It said the site was too compact to house a 350,000 tonne incinerator, let alone the recycling part of the operation, and was not easily accessible from the road network for more than 280 lorry movements a day. However, having said all that against the site, Veolia, when it lost its planning application for New Barnfield, suddenly changed its tune and decided that the area in my constituency was after all the perfect site for its incinerator.

As the Minister will be aware, this is causing huge concern to the 85 businesses that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and I represent. This is a serious business. The interests of a French multinational such as Veolia are not unimportant, but its interests are certainly less important than those of the 85 businesses, many of which have been established for 50, 60, 70 or 80 years, that are contributing to our communities in the Lea valley.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, among others, and on the remarkable work he has done on this issue. Is he aware that many people in Roydon and Dobbs Weir in my constituency of Harlow have expressed numerous objections against this waste installation that we are all threatened with, yet all their objections seem to have been ignored?

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points. This application is hugely contentious. It is on the edge of Hertfordshire. I do not want it in my backyard, and up until 2015 Veolia did not want it in my backyard. However, what Hertfordshire County Council, the sponsor of the facility, is actually proposing is that all the smoke ends up in Harlow’s backyard and Epping Forest’s backyard, so it is your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow who are downwind and will get the fallout.

The critical point is that we have an industry that is turning over half a billion pounds a year and producing huge amounts of fresh produce that graces the restaurants and cafeterias of the House of Commons and is to be found in the homes of millions of people up and down this country, and the producers of that food get very nervous when half of the 350 acres of glass might fall within a 5-mile radius of a 350,000-tonne incinerator. Their concerns need to be heard.

It is simply unacceptable for Hertfordshire County Council, the sponsor of the incinerator, to be the determining authority for the application. Hertfordshire both owns the contract and is the determining authority for the contract, and if it does not determine in Veolia’s favour it has to pay a break-up fee of £1.2 million. This cannot be a safe decision. It cannot be a safe decision for my constituents, but it certainly cannot be a safe decision for your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow or for the 85 businesses that risk suffering the fallout from the facility.

It is no good for the Environment Agency to say, “There’s no worry here. These are tall chimneys. This is not a problem.” I am not saying that it will say that, but it does not matter what the Environment Agency says about this. The fact of the matter is that 85 producers are concerned that if they are downwind of this facility, they will lose contracts with supermarkets. That could be devastating. There are 2,500 jobs on the line and a half a billion pound industry.

I know that the Minister is not a miracle worker—he is pretty good, but he is not a miracle worker—and it would be unfair of me to suggest that he was, but what we do have in this Minister is a champion for the farming industry and a champion of our industry in the Lea valley. My simple request to him this evening is please to engage with the concerns of the Lea valley growers and our greenhouse industry, and please to reflect those concerns to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, because we need this application to be called in.

We need the chance to argue our case before an independent planning inspector—not just me, not just my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and not just you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the NFU, the Lea valley growers, my constituents, my right hon. Friend’s constituents and your constituents. We need the chance to argue our case before an independent inspectorate. That is what we are asking for today. Please, as our voice for agriculture, will the Minister listen to the concerns that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow are raising today and take them to the Secretary of State, because this is a very important industry? No doubt he will have received representations from Madam Deputy Speaker, who is not allowed to speak in this debate. If she could, I am sure she would join me on these Benches.

I do not want to go on for too long. I said that I would be brief and I want to get home for my moussaka— I genuinely am having moussaka tonight. I thank my colleagues who have remained in this place for attending and for listening so intently and politely to what I have had to say on behalf of 85 businesses in the Lea valley that do an outstanding job, produce an outstanding product, employ 2,500 people and make a huge contribution to farming and agriculture in this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, I commend the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for his eloquence in putting the case so well, and the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for supporting the case. I of course am not able to make any comment from the Chair, but if I were able to do so I would tell the House how much I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I am not familiar with the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but if there are concerns about the licensing of the woodpile operation he mentions I will ask officials to look at them.

I want to point out the history of the Lea valley. The success of the Lea valley over the years has been its fantastic contribution to feeding London throughout its history. From the middle ages onwards, it served the fledgling London with wheat, hay and barley, which came through to east London. The Lea valley has fertile alluvial soil, so by the mid-18th century it had become the leading market garden for Britain, growing a wide range of field vegetables and fruits. By the mid-19th century, the advent of the railways resulted in greater supply to London. As the population grew and the glass tax was removed in 1845, Lea valley became home to the very first greenhouses and subsequently developed its industry in everything from grapes to cucumbers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of labour, and I can reassure him that I am in regular contact with representatives from the farming industry, including the National Farmers Union and others, and I am picking up that concern. Indeed, it was recently the subject of a report produced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and only last week we had a Westminster Hall debate on that very issue.

In the last 12 months the number of EU migrants to the UK has increased by about 171,000, bringing the total to more than 2.3 million. However, horticulture faces a particular challenge relating to seasonal workers, who come here for a few months and then return home. Between 1945 and 2013, a seasonal agricultural workers scheme enabled people from countries outside the European Union to work here on a temporary basis. The scheme was closed in 2013 on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, but we have always made it clear that we will keep the issue under review. We established a SAWS transition group, which has met regularly, and met as recently as 6 March to discuss some of the challenges that businesses are facing this year. For instance, changes in the benefits system in Poland mean that fewer Polish citizens come here, and the work being done in Bulgaria to encourage people to stay and take employment there has also had an impact.

We estimate that there are between 67,000 and 80,000 seasonal workers in the UK, and that is very important to the industry. The Home Office, which leads on the issue, has said that it intends to commission the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the issue of immigration in the context of the decision to leave the European Union, including the issue of so-called tier 3 low-skilled labour. We had some discussions with members of the SAWS transition group to establish when they will be able to give us accurate data for the third and fourth quarters of this year, with a view to meeting again before the end of the year to review the position. I am therefore well aware of the issue of labour, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will be looking closely at the issue.

One of the great things about leaving the European Union is that we will regain control, and it will be in the gift of the British Government to do whatever they choose to do. If we deem that we need additional labour in a particular area, it will be within our power to secure that labour, and to set up whatever work permit arrangements are required to satisfy our needs.

My hon. Friend dedicated most of his comments to the issue of the Hoddesdon incinerator proposal in his constituency. Applications of that kind are always incredibly contentious. I remember that, a few years ago, there were proposals for an incinerator in Cornwall, a few miles down the road from my constituency, and I am well aware of the deep-seated concern that people may feel in such circumstances. My hon. Friend made a number of flattering remarks about my knowledge of the issue. As he knows, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government would have to lead in this regard, and planning issues are obviously a matter for the local authority in the first instance, but there is a role for the Environment Agency in a couple of areas.

As my hon. Friend also knows, Hertfordshire County Council is currently dealing with the planning application. One of the roles of the Environment Agency is to act as a statutory consultee in the planning process, and I am told that it is engaged in a dialogue with the council in that role. The agency also has a role in the environmental permitting regulations, dealing with any concerns that would arise as a result of an environment permit. I understand that it has received an application for an environmental permit, and that the application has been duly made, which means that the information has been received, but it has not yet been processed or assessed. I am told that the Environment Agency is due to start consulting on the permit application imminently and that it intends to hold a public drop-in session in due course. I understand that that consultation will take place in earnest in the weeks ahead.

I have asked the Environment Agency whether in principle there are certain issues here. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that it very much depends on the individual application and that it would not be appropriate for me to make any judgments on the case he described in his constituency. However, as a general point on some of the concerns about smoke, I am told that a properly constructed incinerator with the right kind of filtration would not necessarily have a problem such as he describes and residues would not necessarily be expected. I am also told that the environmental permit will assess and control emissions to air, land and water. That said, he is right that each case has to be considered on its merits. This case will be considered thoroughly on its merits. The consultation is under way. I would encourage any—

[Mr Charles Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He said that the application will be considered on its merits. As it currently stands, it will be considered by Hertfordshire County Council, which is both the owner of the contract and the determiner of the contract. It is impossible for anyone in my constituency, and I believe in the constituencies of Epping Forest and Harlow, to imagine that the application will be considered on its merits, given that Hertfordshire County Council, if it does not grant it, will have to pay a £1.2 million failure fee to Veolia. That is the real concern, which is why I am hoping that the Minister will help the Lea valley growers and the NFU to make representations to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for a proper independent inquiry by a planning inspector.

[George Eustice]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but he will be aware that I am not an expert on planning law and planning policy and that any such decision would be a matter for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Food and Farming: Employment Opportunities

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate; he demonstrated that he has a passion for this issue. Although I am not the shadow spokesperson for fishing and farming, I think it is really important that he has raised this issue, which includes the future of fishing and farming, for debate today. This debate is particularly important because across the sector there are serious skill shortages that must be addressed if the success of the industry is to be maintained.

I will start by highlighting the situation in the UK food and drink manufacturing industry, which has up to 400,000 direct employees in roles ranging from sales and marketing to supply chain and logistics, and from production management to engineering. This industry has enormous potential as a high-value manufacturing sector, using innovative technologies in engineering, digital and life sciences to meet all the challenges of managing future food supplies and contributing to the wider carbon reduction agenda. That potential is being put at risk.

The Food and Drink Federation has highlighted that by 2024 more than a third of the sector’s workforce will have retired and 130,000 new recruits will be needed to fill the looming skills gap. A recent survey by the federation revealed that the top five skills gaps in the sector were in engineering, food science and technology, innovation, including product and process development, leadership and management, and customer service management. Although the ageing workforce and the skills gap are not new, the need to close the gap has become more urgent because, as in the rest of the agri-food supply chain, food and drink manufacturers currently benefit from bringing in skilled labour from the EU, which represents 29% of their workforce—120,000 workers. A high number of these workers carry out vital production, technical and specialist roles. Post-Brexit, the industry expects there to be restrictions on accessing non-UK EU workers, which will only intensify the skills gap.

To address the problem, the industry wants to see co-ordinated careers action and a more strategic approach to engagement with schools, to encourage homegrown talent for the long term. The Food and Drink Federation is also asking for technical education reforms, including with the institutes of technology, as the proposed T-levels fall short for the food and drink industry. The federation hopes to fulfil its pledge to increase the proportion of the workforce in food and drink manufacturing who are on apprenticeships to 3%—from the current 1%—by 2020, and to tackle market failures such as the fragmented apprenticeship provision for the sector and the lack of new standards at level 4 and above. I hope sincerely that the Minister will commit to addressing those issues with his appropriate colleagues in the relevant Departments as a matter of priority.

Some 11% of workers in the sector are employed in agriculture, with a high dependence on people from outside the UK. Up to 80,000 workers come to the UK every year to pick fruit and vegetables, 98% of them from the EU. In my own region—the north-east—farmers have told me that they rely on workers from abroad not only for seasonal jobs but to work on their farms throughout the year. Although it is important that young people are encouraged to take up careers in agriculture, the uncertainty in the agricultural and horticultural sectors about their workforce post-Brexit means that there is a need for urgent assurance from the Government. Farmers need the certainty of a good stream of seasonal workers, so if the Government will not give in to pressure to reintroduce the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—SAWS—will the Minister say exactly what measures are being put in place to encourage local people to fill the jobs?

Will the Government support schemes such as Wheels 2 Work, which helps young people in particular to access jobs in rural areas when there is no public transport? Finally, how much resource have the Government invested in plugging the gap left by the removal of SAWS? As food and farming accounts for 13.6% of the total workforce in employment, I hope that the Minister can fully address all the issues raised in the debate.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr Thomas, you will have two minutes once the Minister sits down.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is very nice to see you in the Chair imposing a time limit on speeches, Mr Davies. That is fantastic; thank you.

I have not shot grouse before, and I doubt I ever will. In fact, I confine myself mostly to shooting clay pigeons. Today, I want to challenge the untruths being promoted by those who wish to ban grouse shooting—people who outside this place knowingly promote cod science in what I regard as a shameful attempt to set community against community and neighbour against neighbour. That wilful cynicism was no better exampled than by the reaction of Mr Mark Avery and Chris Packham to last December’s floods when, at a time of disaster, they took to the airwaves and their blogs to blame that brutal act of nature on gamekeepers and grouse moors. That was a simply unforgivable act of premeditated malice, with two media savvy men using the suffering of real people and real communities to promote their narrow political objectives.

I was driving north on 27 December 2015 through the lakes when I heard those people and their collaborators putting forward their knowingly scientifically dishonest theories—theories that sadly went unchallenged by the poorly briefed journalists interviewing them. This debate provides me with the chance to put the facts behind the Christmas floods before the House. The facts are these. The two-month period of November-December 2015 was the wettest recorded in the north of England since 1910. The December rainfall total at Shap in the single month of December 2015 was 77.3 cm or, in old-fashioned money, more than 30 inches of rain. From 1 December to 28 December 2015, Bainbridge in North Yorkshire received 49.62 cm of rain—three times more than the December average of 15.65 cm—or, in old money, 19.5 inches of rain per acre. Bingley in West Yorkshire received more than 80% of its monthly rainfall in just two days between 25 and 27 December.

In raw numbers, 1 inch of rain equals 113.31 tonnes of water per acre, so each acre in Bainbridge for the month of December received 2,209 tonnes of rain. I know it is difficult for people in this place to imagine what 1 inch of rainfall per acre actually looks like. Well, it is equal to 16 of the largest African bull elephants landing on an acre of ground. So the rainfall at Bainbridge for December 2015 was the equivalent of 312 bull elephants jostling for position on a space the size of four football pitches.

Sticking with totals and elephants, on 5 December, one storm—Storm Desmond—deposited 13.45 inches of rain on Honister pass. That is the equivalent of 212 bull elephants all arriving in the same place, on the same day. That is why there were floods in the north of England—a biblical rainfall falling over sodden ground in a very short space of time. It was nothing to do with gamekeepers, beaters or the people in tweed who like to shoot grouse.

However, Mr Avery and his friends have never paid science and the facts much regard. Only recently, in his blog, Mr Avery stated in relation to run-off:

“Leeds University research, led by Dr Lee Brown and published in 2014, confirms Ban the Burn campaigners’ criticisms of the Walshaw Moor Estate burning.”

The glaring problem—there is only one—with Mr Avery’s posting is that it is entirely untrue. Very kindly, Dr Brown let me have a copy of his headline findings, and what he actually states in his summary is this:

“River flow in catchments where burning has taken place appears to be slightly more prone to higher flow peaks during heavy rain. However, this was not a conclusive finding.”

[Angela Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Walker]

No, I do not have time.

As I like to deal in facts, unlike Mr Avery, I have read the excellent and thoughtful Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council local flood risk management strategy, to which my excellent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), contributed. It was published in June this year. I have read all 60-plus pages of it, and the word “grouse” is not mentioned once. However, what is referenced is the 60 flood events in the area since the end of the second world war, with the statement on page 14 that

“flooding has been a regular feature in Hebden Bridge since the 1800’s.”

That grown-up report does not focus its attention on banning anything. Instead, it talks of working with

“land and asset owners to implement natural flood management schemes to maximise water retention, storage and slow flows.”

That is a responsible council talking the language of collaboration, not division, and a council that wants to bring town and rural communities together, not drive them apart.

I will conclude with this. It is a wholly reasonable position for people to dislike shooting birds for sport and the table. It is a position I happen to disagree with, but I can live with disagreement. However, what is unreasonable is for people such as Mr Packham and Mr Avery to disguise their dislike of grouse shooting as part of some wider concern for the environment. That is the lie that needs to be exposed today. These two gentleman are known for their hostility to the farming community and land management. As one farming friend described them to me,

“These two men are not participants in the countryside. They are simply voyeurs.”

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Bingley, in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady provided me with a peer-reviewed study showing those numbers.

There has been no grouse shooting and no grouse moor management in the Berwyn range, where the number changes have been happening, since the late 1990s. Between upland breeding surveys, red grouse numbers declined by 54% and the occupied range—in other words, where the birds were—fell by 38%. Grouse count data collected on four moors since 1995 show that grouse numbers have remained at low levels on three of the moors. The study is important because it covers an RSPB-managed reserve. Grouse numbers declined, and so did hen harrier numbers.

Contrast that with what happened in relation to the plastic carrier bag charge in Wales, where landowners and the RSPB worked together to protect the black grouse, which was a huge success. There was a big increase in black grouse numbers on one keepered moor; on the three other RSPB moors, black grouse numbers did not increase. On the keepered moor on the Wynnstay Hall estate at Ruabon, the number of black grouse, one of our rarest grouse, increased. That shows what partnership can do, but it also shows that, when the land is not being managed by keepers, or is not where driven shooting happens, there is a decline in biodiversity. The RSPB reserve saw minor increases in black grouse.

This House has a responsibility to judge on proper evidence, not some scientific allegations made by third parties. [Interruption.] I am quoting the scientific facts from peer-reviewed research. I find it difficult that very few RSPB reserves release their data. They do not allow peer-reviewing of their bird numbers. One need only drive down the Llangollen valley to see the bracken on the hills of the RSPB reserves.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I point out to my hon. Friend that the Avian Population Estimates Panel states that 100 years ago there were no hen harriers in mainland UK, whereas today there are around 645 breeding pairs across the country. In 1963, there were 360 pairs of peregrines in the UK; today there are 1,500. There were 160 breeding pairs of red kites 20 years ago; there are now 1,600. Birds of prey are doing well in the United Kingdom.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting those data. I would have referred to them myself. Furthermore, Natural England’s report “A Future for the Hen Harrier in England?” identified six causes of hen harrier nest failure: wildfire, predation, lack of food, poor weather, infertility and illegal killing. Clearly, there is an issue with illegal killing; I do not say by whom. It is interesting that the figures released by DEFRA show that, of 12 hen harrier nesting attempts in England last year, six were successful, of which four were on or immediately adjacent to moorland managed for grouse shooting.

What is happening in the RSPB reserves? What is happening on the more than 300,000 acres of managed land? Why is it not working? The evidence that I have cited shows that the call for a ban on driven grouse shooting is not rooted in science or evidence, and I do not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

If I may, I am just going to make my opening remarks.

Taking no action over driven grouse shooting is not an option and tighter conservation measures are imperative. Every action taken has consequences on others, and we have heard references to the importance of balance in today’s debate. Our fragile biodiversity and the wider ecosystem demand that we study the evidence.

We have heard again today that historic upland management has undoubtedly been damaging, whether it is about drainage and gripping, or about the industrialisation that we have seen on the moorlands over many centuries, which has been deeply damaging to our environment. However, there are also questions to be asked about land management today.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) about the degradation of her local environment and her local moorland, and about the real need to see conservation creating a more sustainable environment there, so as to protect its unique biodiversity. We talk about moorland as if all moors were the same but they are, of course, all different, with their own characteristics. Yes, we must be obsessed with the conservation of this land.

The big issues that need to be addressed are soil, drainage and hydrology; conservation and biodiversity; wildlife crime; and our wider concern about sustainability. On soil, drainage and hydration, the Boxing day floods brought into sharp focus for me, as for many MPs, the need to concentrate again on the causes of so much flooding. It is Labour Members who have consistently called for further action on catchment management. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for raising their concerns about the impact of land management on flooding.

[Mr Charles Walker]

As I said in my speech, we saw flooding in December 2015 because it had been the wettest two months for 105 years. In some parts of the country, 30 inches of rain fell in a single month. That is why we had flooding; there is no other reason.

[Rachael Maskell]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Yes, there were unprecedented levels of rainfall and, yes, we are seeing climate change that is bringing increased rainfall. The Environment Agency’s mapping shows that we should expect to see more heavy downpours. However, importantly, the causation of some of the flooding—not all of it—is how the uplands are managed. I took time over the summer to visit the sources of some of the rivers that feed into my city, which also flooded. I observed the deep peat bogs and both the post-industrial land and the driven grouse moorland, recognising the differences in the land use, and also pulled on the evidence that we have much debated today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Gentleman may have heard me calling for more research to take the whole debate forward. That is important.

Because of time, I will move on. We need to be cognisant of tomorrow’s debate on sustainability, and the points that Members have made on climate change are important. We have to understand the urgency of the issue. Conservation must be the prime driver and main consideration of our management of the uplands, as opposed to the pursuits carried out on the land. It is a matter of urgency, and we cannot just focus on the economic issues. The economic issues and the environmental issues are of equal importance. The crisis happening across the globe should focus everyone’s attention as a prime issue.

My question to the Minister is: how systemically is she prepared to look at the issues? Can we allow the burning of heather, which reduces the carbon storage properties of soil, impacts on hydrology, removes some mosses and leaves degraded soil and habitats behind? Is that acceptable? We would say no. Heather burning has also been cited by the Committee on Climate Change due to the depletion of carbon-rich peat soil, so how can we sustain that activity?

We know that some landowners will burn peat under agreement with Natural England—that is how the codes are managed—but we heard in the evidence session that some of those burnings go outside the allowed perimeters. We know that there are wider issues, too. We need to know how effective the codes are at managing the land. If there is further, conclusive evidence that peat burning causes environmental harm, will the Government call for a ban? In this post-referendum era, what further obligations will they place on upland managers to revegetate, to protect species and to hold more water in the uplands? This cannot just be a debate about choices and freedoms, as some Members have argued today. It must be seen as a matter of urgency to rescue our consumerist society from draining more natural resources.

Turning to raptors, it is of great concern that just three pairs of hen harriers were found on the moors in the past year. I am told that there should be 300 pairs —100 times the amount. Some 149 moors have no hen harriers at all. The numbers have fallen from last year, when there were 13 pairs. We are losing the species. It is a crisis. Numbers of peregrine falcons, white-tailed eagles and the awesome golden eagle—I once saw a pair soaring as I was hillwalking in Scotland—are declining, too. We need to ensure that we get on top of the issue of predation by humans.

I want to turn to the peer-reviewed research by Dr Ruth Tingay of the University of Nottingham. She has produced 30 peer-reviewed papers and 24 research papers. She highlighted how there have been 252 incidences of raptor persecution over the past 10 years. She highlights whether they were shot, disappeared, poisoned, caught by illegal pole traps and so on. The law is not effective, and we need to move it forward.

I am sure no one in the Chamber would condone wildlife crime, but positive action is needed for the hen harrier. The hen harrier action plan is not working in delivering an increased population, and that must be of great concern to everyone. What additional activity is the Minister prepared to undertake to ensure that we see the hen harrier population increase and tougher penalties on those who abuse the law? Financial penalties are clearly not enough. It is important to apply restrictive penalties, such as removing the right to manage a grouse moor. We also need to look closely at the Scottish licensing system and the shifting of responsibility around vicarious liability. We have seen two strong prosecutions in Scotland under the scheme. We need to look at whether that would lead to better managed moors as we move forward.

In the main Chamber, we have debated the use of snares and the impact that that has, but we need to look at the wider impact on wildlife. We have not heard about the mountain hare and the impact that culling is having on that species.

[Mr Charles Walker]

On a point of order, Mr Nuttall. The Labour Front-Bench spokesperson has been very generous in giving way, but she has now been speaking for 19 minutes, leaving less than 15 minutes for the Minister.

Recreational Sea Bass Fishing

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the recent EU restrictions on recreational sea bass fishing are unfair and fail to address the real threat to the future viability of UK sea bass stocks; and calls on the Government to make representations within the Council of the EU on the reconsideration of the imposition of those restrictions.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this very important debate. Let me place my cards firmly on the table: I am a recreational angler, and a very passionate one. I have cast from many a beach in Cornwall. I have fished with plugs and lures from rigid-hulled inflatable boats. I have regularly fished and ledgered on the Camel estuary and taken great pleasure in digging my own lugworms—big long trenches of lugworms—and ragworms. It is great to be on the coast looking out over Daymer bay and Padstow with the sun going down, the tide coming in and the lines dipping into the sea, waiting for that bite.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend enjoys visiting The Art of Fishing in Wadebridge—one of the best tackle shops in the country, let alone Cornwall?

[Scott Mann]

That is a shameless plug, but it is a fantastic fishing shop, I have to say. The chap there has some very good fishing rods and tackle that can be purchased at very reasonable rates.

I have set the scene for my fishing expeditions on the Camel. However, the situation this year is very different from that in previous years. For the first six months of this year, if I, as a recreational angler, caught a bass that was of legal size, I would not be allowed to keep it—I would have return it to the estuary—yet a commercial fishing boat that was netting on the estuary would be able to claim that fish and take it for the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government negotiated a stunningly bad deal. I cannot think of a worse deal that they could have come back with for recreational bass fishermen in this country. It is no good beating around the bush.

I make no apology for enjoying visiting the website of the Art of Fishing in Wadebridge. I have never visited the shop, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) will send the team my regards when he sees them this or some future weekend.

Why was the Government’s deal so stunningly bad? They have come back and trumpeted a six-month closure. That sounds like pretty good news, until we realise that they have negotiated a four-month derogation for gillnets and hook and liners. Over the next 10 months, each of the boats will be allowed to take up to 1.3 tonnes a month—in other words, 1,300 fish a month, or 13,000 fish a year. Indeed, it is a 1 tonne increase on what they could take last year.

Let us be clear: anglers account for less than 10% of the bass killed and taken out of this country’s waters, yet the value of recreational bass fishing is estimated to be £200 million to the economy, while the figure for bass stocks landed by commercial fishermen is an estimated £7 million.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that, according to the European Commission, recreational sea anglers take 25% of the total stock caught, and that the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas has increased that figure to 30%?

[Mr Walker]

Only in the strange world of the European Union can a few thousand blokes with fishing rods—well, a hundred thousand-plus blokes—

[Melanie Onn]

Blokes?

[Mr Walker]

And ladies—account for 25% or 30% of all the hundreds of thousands, the millions, of bass that are taken. There they are, those recreational anglers, filling up their wheelbarrows and taking them down the high streets of our fishing communities! What a load of rubbish that is. It defies belief that organisations that pretend to be serious expect us to swallow such utter nonsense.

Let us be clear about this. The value of a bass on the dock is about £3.50. The value of that same bass to recreational angling is about £100. It is worth 28 times more to recreational anglers than it is dead on the slab, going to market.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case for getting out of Europe. Does he feel, as I do, and as many other Members in the Chamber do, that it is about time we had control of our fishing grounds around the shores and in the seas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? We make the decisions, and let us do it ourselves.

[Mr Walker]

Of course I agree that we should have control of our fishing grounds, which is why I shall be voting to leave the European Union, but that is an argument for another time. I do not want to stand here and attack commercial fishermen who fish for bass, because I think that there is a golden opportunity here. As was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), there are very few fish left in the sea for inshore commercial fishermen to target.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend—my very good hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years—for giving way. Do we not need to ensure that a bass stock is available? That is key, because if there are no bass, there will be nothing for anyone to fish for.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend has made an excellent point, although I do not think that the proposals that were negotiated, or agreed to, by the Government take us any nearer to that stage.

As I was saying, there are very few fish left in the sea for inshore commercial fishermen to target, and once they have finished with the bass, there will be nothing left. So here is the opportunity: let us create a recreational bass fishery that is the envy of the western world. In 1984, it was decided in the United States, on the east-coast Atlantic seaboard, that the inshore striped bass fishery would be recreational only. That fishery is now worth $2.5 billion to the economy, as people from around the world travel there, booking charters and staying in hotels in order to go out and catch those wonderful fish.

This is the opportunity that remains open to our coastal communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, it has been seized in Ireland, and that recreational fishery is now worth £71 million a year to the entire Irish economy.

[Mr Cox]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishing tackle industry, and the supply of fishing tackle, are vital to all these crucial areas? May I commend to him the Summerlands fishing tackle shop in Westward Ho!? It is a superb exponent of that particular art, and I hope that he will go and see it and buy something from it.

[Mr Walker]

I think that, during his speech, my hon. and learned Friend unwittingly invited my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and me to join him for a bit of fishing. We shall be able to introduce him to the delights of recreational angling, and that fishing shop will be the first place that we visit after breakfast, at 9.30 in the morning.

But I want to be serious about this. There is a huge opportunity here. As I have said, the value of recreational fishing—bass fishing—to the Republic of Ireland’s economy is £71 million. The value of the entire commercial catch of bass in this country is £7 million. I put to my hon. Friends representing fishing communities that the real prize, the real money and the real future for their inshore commercial bass fishermen is being at the forefront of creating recreational fisheries. There is a laboratory—a live case study. We can forget Ireland and the USA because they are established and thriving. The Isle of Man has decided to pursue that route to create jobs for charter captains and fishing guides, and jobs in hotels and restaurants. That is the opportunity that presents itself.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On the words expressed earlier about the Europe and the CFP, does the hon. Gentleman find it remiss of the Prime Minister that he did not prioritise fisheries in any part of his negotiations with Europe?

[Mr Walker]

I wish the Prime Minister would be more bullish when he comes to defend fishing interests. I remember fishing with the hon. Gentleman in Shetland. He was sitting on the side of a beautiful loch as it neared midnight on about 8 July. He said, “Charles, why are you using a fly and not a worm?” I leave him to justify his position in that matter with his own constituents.

Let us not make this a row between recreational fishermen and inshore fishermen, who have also had a pretty rough deal. Without threatening jobs, could we start to think collectively about creating a new opportunity for what remains of our inshore fleet to thrive and prosper, and about having a sustainable fishery and not one that is here today, gone tomorrow? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon made clear, many fisheries around his coast have been here today and gone tomorrow, and they are now in the last chance saloon.

I have spoken for longer than I thought I would, and I took a couple of interventions, which I greatly enjoyed, but be in no doubt that the Government will continue to be harried and harassed on this matter, because there is no other word to describe their dealings in the European Union but failure.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.

Bass tastes great served at a dinner party or a simple supper. My mother had a very special way of cooking bass that was caught with a rod and line at Queener Point off Rame Head near my home. Bass has always been a highly prized fish. Some people dream of winning the lottery. My late husband Neil—my late, fantastic commercial fisherman—dreamt of catching a bag of bass.

I am here to talk about all fishermen, not just recreational sea anglers and not just commercial men. In addition to recreational sea anglers, two other groups are affected by such terrible measures: trip boats that work out of Looe and Polperro, taking groups of anglers out to sea with fish with rods and lines; and commercial fishermen who trawl or net for a living. Recreational sea anglers spend their leisure time fishing for hours, and it is only right that, when they get a bite and reel in their catch of bass, they can take it home for their supper. Recreational fishing is a very popular pastime for locals and visitors alike. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it is estimated that landings of recreational bass account for about 25% of the total. I have heard that the European Commission is challenging the UK because it is not recording the landings of bass in a reasonable way.

Cornish mackerel handline vessels often use charter trips as a way of ensuring that they have an economically sustainable business. Commercial vessels from the south-west rely on bass in the winter months. To presume that they can make up the economic loss with other species shows a complete lack of understanding of the commercial fishing industry and its seasonal nature. It is essential to have joined-up fisheries management for all fishermen, and restrictions must look at the socioeconomic impact on coastal communities. Recreational fishermen provide support for tourism, and commercial vessels provide support for harbour repairs and local infrastructure.

In 2006, the Labour Government announced that the minimum landing size for bass would be increased from 36 cm to 45 cm. This was to apply only to UK vessels operating within the 12-mile limit. Labour reconsidered, however, and announced in October 2007 that the minimum landing size for bass would remain at 36 cm. The December 2014 Fisheries Council could not agree on bass conservation measures. The Angling Trust expressed its disappointment and called for domestic measures in UK waters, including raising the minimum landing size to 45 cm, strengthening the UK’s network of bass nursery areas, moving away from netting towards line-caught methods and limiting the catch per commercial boat. There was no mention of bag limits, I hasten to add. The Angling Trust should be careful what it wishes for when the European Commission is involved.

I am sure that the UK’s request for emergency measures on 19 December 2014 was made for genuine reasons, and all fishermen accepted that some conservation measures were necessary. Those emergency measures included a three-fish bag limit for anglers, and 18 kg a day limit for demersal boats—which was workable—and a ban on mid-water trawls until the end of April, which was accepted because that was the time at which the fish were spawning. In September 2015, the minimum landing size was increased to 42 cm, which was a sensible conservation measure. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea published advice on 30 June 2015, before an assessment of those emergency measures. Its paper acknowledges that there were uncertainties in the assessment due to inaccuracies in historical landings.

To maintain a sustainable fishing industry—I include recreational sea angling in that description—I propose that in the short term our Minister immediately asks the European Commission to revert to those emergency measures, so that we can make a real assessment of the bass stock. I also propose that the bycatch for demersal trawlers should be increased from 1% to a workable 5%, because discarded bass do not survive. What is the point of throwing this stock back into the sea dead when it is not covered by the European landing obligation? Discarded bass would have a very low survival rate.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the great advantage of commercial hook-and-line fishing is that there is a greater chance of returning undersized bass or bass over a certain size that we might want to release for breeding?

[Mrs Murray]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but my point is that some commercial vessels rely on catches of bass and it is too costly for them suddenly to change their gear. Believe you me, I know about this because I spent 24 and a half years married to one such fisherman. Preventing drift netters from bass fishing is vindictive. They cannot catch any other species during their seasonal fishing, although they could of course simply add weights to their nets, fix them to the seabed and carry on.

Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I am sure—and it is the little bit of it in my right hon. Friend’s constituency that is especially important, as all hon. Members will understand all too well. Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware that a hybrid Bill is also going through Parliament at the moment in a very long-drawn-out process, as is often the case with such Bills. A number of these matters will be considered by that Bill Committee.

On HS2, I will summarise by saying that the company has stated that it will plant 7 million trees, as a mixture of landscaping and screening and to compensate for the loss of some trees. There has also been a survey. Natural England reviewed the ancient woodland inventory last spring and determined that 16 woodland sites along the phase 1 route of the proposed rail scheme should be added to the inventory. Although they are small sites—there are 10 woods of less than 2 hectares—they have been added to the inventory in order to address some of the concerns that exist. That is a good example of where the Government continue to look sensitively and carefully at these issues, to make sure that we get a decision right.

Finally, a number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of pests and disease, which is a challenge we take very seriously. The Animal and Plant Health Agency monitors diseases such as ash dieback, or chalara, which is of particular concern at the moment. It is true that older trees can often survive infection for a number of years; in some cases older trees are more resilient to disease, particularly when it comes to diseases such as ash dieback.

Fighting disease is a very important part of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does. We have committed more than £21 million to tree health research, which includes £3.5 million for studies that are being undertaken to identify what can make trees tolerant to ash dieback, for instance.

In conclusion, we are continually striving to improve things in this area, but we acknowledge that this issue is complex. The challenge for us today is totally different from the challenges of the 1920s. That is why we need to balance forestry interests with our global responsibilities and our wider needs on UK land use. The Government consider that the existing protection for ancient woodland in the NPPF is strong and is protecting our ancient woodlands and veteran trees, but as I said earlier, Members have made some powerful points today. I am sure that my colleague, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will read the transcript of the debate carefully, and I will relay some of the concerns expressed and proposals made in that spirit.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I understand that the opening 28 minutes by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) were brilliant, and I am sure her closing two minutes will be equally excellent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Having heard the hon. Lady’s generous winding-up speech, I am genuinely sorry that I missed the first 28 minutes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered protection of ancient woodland and trees.

Lead Shot Ammunition

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones]

During the remainder of my contribution I hope to address the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Simply removing lead shot, as I said, does not solve the problem, because traces of lead can be left in the meat. In the UK, as many as 12,500 children under eight eat game once a week in the shooting community alone. In children, less than one meal of wild-shot game a week could result in blood lead levels associated with a decrease in IQ.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman said, the shooting of birds with lead shot has been going on for many centuries. Where is the public health crisis to which he alludes? It would be news to many colleagues, because we have not had people coming to our surgeries or writing to us with any experience of a problem with eating lead-shot birds, whether personally or in their families.

[Gerald Jones]

It is not a case of the vast majority of members of the public speaking out on an issue such as this, but the studies are out there. I have outlined some in my contribution and will outline more.

The Food Standards Agency has also highlighted the risks to pregnant women. Of course, no one has died of lead poisoning from eating game, but nor would any serious scientist dispute that lead is a poisonous metal. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set up a new Great British Food unit and game is increasingly being sold as a healthy, local option. What better way to improve that brand than to ensure that the meat we eat is safe and lead-free?

Progressive countryside organisations such as the Sustainable Food Trust are backing the call to phase out lead as part of a modern countryside economy. Non-toxic alternatives are better for the image of the shoot, the economy of the countryside and the health of the shooters themselves.

[Mr Charles Walker]

In advance of the debate I talked to a number of clay pigeon shooting grounds in and around my constituency, and their problem with steel shot is that it ricochets. If lead shot is banned, all those shooting grounds will be put out of business—not just in and around my constituency, but across all Members’ constituencies. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about how that could be tackled?

[Gerald Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there are alternatives that could be looked at. We are asking for this matter to be properly looked at and investigated, with a timescale to phase out lead.

As I said, there are good alternatives to lead on the market such as tungsten, bismuth and steel, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Many shooters in the UK will say that alternatives to lead are not as effective and argue that wounded birds are a welfare issue. Of course, that takes absolutely no account of the welfare of thousands of birds that suffer from lead poisoning. What is more, such evidence is entirely anecdotal.

Ballistics studies and blind trials have shown that alternatives such as steel are just as effective as lead. In terms of prices, steel is now competitive with lead and although other alternatives such as tungsten are more costly, they still represent a fraction of the overall cost of shooting. Some guns will need retrofitting, which is a process that can cost £50, and a few may not be compatible with lead at all, but surely those costs are small compared with the benefits of cleaning up the industry.

In Denmark, a ban on lead shot was introduced 20 years ago and the hunting and shooting sector has not been affected. What should be done here in the UK? The time for voluntary initiatives is surely over. The use of lead shot over and near wetlands is already restricted by law. Shooting groups have repeatedly encouraged members to respect the law, yet 45% of shooters admit that they have not complied with it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned, three quarters of ducks sampled in 2013 had been killed with lead shot. What is more, we know that the problem is not restricted to wetlands. Many vulnerable species feed on lead all across the countryside. Quite simply, the law as it stands is insufficient and ineffective, so the Government must take sensible steps.

The UK is party to the convention on the conservation of migratory species, which last year agreed guidelines calling for the replacement of lead with non-toxic alternatives in countries where migratory species are at risk from poisoning. Back in 2010, DEFRA set up the Lead Ammunition Group to identify risks and solutions. Its chair, John Swift, submitted the group’s work and his report to DEFRA on 3 June 2015. Its results were definitive:

“regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands and for shooting wildfowl are apparently not achieving their aim and are insufficient for dealing with the wider risks.”

The science and the politics are clear and the time for reflection is over. Thirty years ago, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution advised the Government that they should legislate to ban any further use of lead shot where it is irretrievably dispersed in the environment.

The question of lead ammunition is not a debate that could or should be decided by petition. It is a question for the House, DEFRA and the Department of Health. Back in 1983, Willie Hamilton MP summed it up in a debate on lead in petrol:

“Whatever the technical arguments may be and however much it is said that lead can be produced in the body by other means, that is no reason for saying that we should leave everything alone and not tackle the problem. We must tackle this problem and it can be solved and eliminated”.—[Official Report, 21 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 632.]

The same is true today. We can quibble over exact numbers and fuss about the precise costs of steel shot, but the basic message is clear.

We have banned lead from pipes, petrol and paint, but it still ends up on our plates. We have tried to protect wildlife by restricting the use of lead over wetlands, but the rules are too partial and too easily ignored. The Government have evidence from the Lead Ammunition Group and power in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so I hope that, in the public interest, the Minister will show that the Government have the sense to act on the science and commit to phase out lead shot ammunition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have not yet said, and I am not sure that I will say, that there is no toxicity issue at all. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will hear me and other colleagues out, he may get the answer he requires.

The Lead Ammunition Group was set up to come to a unanimous view on steps forward for the Secretary of State. However, it has failed to do that. Nearly half of its members resigned, which meant that its final report was submitted without input from those valuable sources. The report, which was based on evidence that was and remains disputed, reached conclusions outside the terms of reference set by the Secretary of State in the first place. Therefore, when coming to conclusions about what all of this means, I hope that the Minister will recognise that, for whatever reason, the Lead Ammunition Group has failed in its objectives.

Food concerns were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). The advice given so far does not need any alteration. That is key, because if we look at it in the context of other food scares and consumption habits, there is no evidence to suggest that the danger posed by lead is any greater than that of any other food substance that we might arguably eat to excess. That is the point: we can point to any number of foodstuffs and say, “If you ate this foodstuff to excess, you might come across a health problem.” The advice given is quite contextualised, which has not been the case in the debate.

The contribution I want to make to the debate is to give a word of caution about the Lead Ammunition Group’s findings. They are not definitive; they are disputed and the evidence it relied on is hotly debated. Finally, if the problem was as great as one or two Members suggest, it would have emerged as a health scare long before now. We therefore need to treat what we are hearing with caution, assuming that it is evidence. It is nothing new.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. Will he address my concern that steel shot ricochets, which will cause the closure of many shooting grounds, and that tungsten, bismuth and Hevi-shot cost five to seven times as much as lead? That would be a significant part of most people’s shooting budget.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have to consider all these things in the round. It is no doubt very easy to find reasons to argue in favour of a general phase-out of lead, but unless we have applied the same rigorous test to the alternatives—whether it is about the cost, humaneness or toxicity—there is no reason to believe we will go from a bad place to a better one, so I take his points entirely on board.

I hope the Minister will be robust in making a careful examination of this so-called report, because it does not meet the terms of reference that his own Department set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing the debate on this important matter. It not only relates to the health of wildlife and the environment, but has ongoing ramifications for humans if it is not dealt with. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—it is one of my favourite parts of my homeland and I very much enjoy spending time there—for his comprehensive summary of the debate so far.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was, of course, right to mention our long-standing recognition of lead’s toxicity and to highlight the plethora of bodies that have issued warnings on this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assessment of that advice in due course. Unlike other trace metals, lead plays no physiological function in the human body. Instead, it acts as a neurotoxin. Even at low levels of exposure, the damage that lead triggers can be significant: impairment of the developing brain and nervous system, increased incidence of hypertension and stroke, and weakening of the immune system. Worryingly, some of these impacts appear to be irreversible.

We have heard some emotive points this afternoon from all parts of the House. Indeed, I was fascinated to hear my hon. Friend give the etymology of “crazy as a painter”—the origin was lost on me before now—and anecdotal explanations for the fall of the Roman empire. The risks from lead poisoning must be taken seriously and the importance of a strong evidence base in assessing them cannot be overstated. The evidence is clear that there is no safe level of exposure, which is why the World Health Organisation has been clear that all forms of lead are toxic, and food safety agencies across Europe have highlighted the risk to health of eating game shot with lead ammunition.

Under food regulations, there are limits on the amount of lead in lamb, pork, beef and other products, but they do not apply to game. Is it not time to bring it into line? Lead is without doubt one of the best-studied contaminants in the world and there is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating its toxicity to multiple physiological systems in humans and other vertebrate animals.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Gentleman said that there is no safe level of tolerance for lead, but we have heard this afternoon that lead is present in many foods that we all consume, and in alcohol and beer, so clearly there must be some level of tolerance or we would all be dropping down in the streets.

Common Fisheries Policy (Reform)

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

This is the first occasion that I have participated in a debate with the hon. Lady. I am delighted that she is here as successor to Austin Mitchell, who took part in these debates for many years but in a very different manner.

On Norway, the sensible regional management of the North sea would involve the coastal states that are members of the EU and Norway. The point about the current EU architecture is that that is simply not possible. With a different constitutional architecture, there could be genuine regional management involving Norway and EU member states.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, I just want to say that I will call the shadow Minister at 3.8 pm and there is one more speaker. I would like to get the SNP speaker in as well, but I will be calling the first Front-Bench spokesman at 3.8 pm.

[Melanie Onn]

I am happy to have further discussions regarding the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

Turning to the discards ban, those in the fishing industry to whom I speak seem to agree that it is one of the most significant changes to the CFP since its creation. They tell me that the big picture of the fishing industry is currently positive after a painful few decades, but the uncertainty around the landings obligation is their biggest concern right now. Clearly, discarding usable fish does not make economic or environmental sense. Moving away from a system that creates the perverse outcome of thousands of unused fish being thrown back overboard is certainly a move in the right direction. It is also vital for preserving and rebuilding stocks.

However, in 2012, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reflected the feeling among many in the industry when it argued that an immediate ban could lead to further unintended consequences, which would not necessarily solve the issue. The example the Committee gave at the time was of the landings obligation simply moving unwanted fish from the sea on to the land, presumably to be discarded in another way.

I therefore welcome the efforts of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Marine Management Organisation and indeed the Government to find potential uses for undersized fish that are unsuitable for human consumption—fish oil, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and so on. It is no good replacing one form of discard with another, so we need to ensure that the catches have markets. It is important that the Government and the EU work with the industry throughout the staged implementation of the discard ban. They must ensure that the rules are responsive to the evidence gathered over the next five years, which will be particularly important with regards to mixed fisheries. Some in the industry are worried about the prospect of fleets being prevented from going out halfway or two thirds of the way through the year, leaving people unable to work and earn. That is a concern in many of our already struggling coastal communities. Can the Minister say how that potential situation is being avoided?

Another unintended consequence of the landing obligation that was raised with me by the chief executive of Port of Grimsby east is the issue of transportation of unwanted fish once they are landed; I believe he has had previous discussions with the Minister on that matter. While Grimsby has a fishmeal plant to which unwanted fish can be taken, ports elsewhere have to shoulder the cost of trucking the discards to fishmeal plants or landfill sites. Can the Minister clarify where the responsibility lies for the cost of that transportation?

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)on securing this important debate. As someone new to these Chambers and new to some of my portfolio, I found the dialogue positive, engaging and constructive. The comments have been high quality and I am sure that all of us—not least the Minister—will reflect on the many interesting points.

Fishing is of huge importance to Scotland. The Scottish fishing zone makes up more than 60% of UK waters and accounts for 80% by weight of landings of key stocks, as we have heard. The marine industry is also of significant importance to Scotland and the UK’s economy. In 2012, it was worth an impressive £4.5 billion to Scotland, and directly and indirectly employed no fewer than 45,700 people.

None of that is a surprise to the hon. Members present in the Chamber. We all understand the importance of the industry. Scotland has a long and proud history as a fishing nation and we remain a leading player in the sector. Clearly, therefore, we should be a key participant in the EU’s fishing discussions and policy formulations. The Scottish Government are a strong supporter of the industry and fight for our fishermen in Brussels.

The Scottish Government work hard to win backing from our European partners to minimise new burdens and to maximise the catch. I am pleased that our reputation is as a co-operative and responsible fishing nation, which allows us to exert influence over the outcomes of international fisheries negotiations. I encourage the UK Government to engage our Government in Scotland as much as possible, especially because of that record of success.

We must, of course, pay tribute to our fishermen, who have invested in the long-term recovery of stocks—cod, in particular—by agreeing not to over-catch. That self-denying ordinance has been painful, but in the northern North sea it has worked, and worked well. The Scottish Government argued for and secured agreement among EU member states for a phased introduction of the landing obligation in 2016 in order to avoid a “big bang” approach for our fisheries. That has been helpful, but Scotland’s record on discarding is already making good progress.

In the North sea, combined discards of cod, haddock and whiting have fallen from 40% of the catch in 2008 to only 18% in 2014. Of course more needs to be done, but we should be satisfied and pleased with progress. All in all, the picture in much of the Scottish fishery is a positive and encouraging one. A vital natural resource is being restored, and that is good for the environment, for conservation—and, of course, for our fishing and food industries.

The common fisheries policy is the cornerstone of Europe’s fisheries management. It was designed to cement the sustainability of the EU’s fishing stocks by managing them as a shared resource, but historically it has not been effective, as it has paid out large subsidies against a backdrop of declining stocks and poor resilience. Today we have heard some worthwhile contributions about the CFP’s inadequacies.

Earlier this year, DEFRA revealed that 32 stocks of fish species were being fished at maximum sustainable yield, a figure that was up from 26 in 2014. An EU publication has also highlighted that as many as 75% of EU stocks are being overfished, compared with a worldwide average of only 25%. That is unacceptable. To put it bluntly, the common fisheries policy is not working. It has been extended, as the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) explained only too well, beyond its original limits. We want to see a framework that delivers meaningful regional fisheries management and gives fishermen a greater say and greater involvement in their own industry.

Despite our deep cynicism about the CFP, we travel hopefully. At an EU level, we believe in negotiation and in moving things forward by persuasion and partnership. The Scottish Government have approached reform constructively and have worked successfully to win key concessions on reform of the policy. Ministers have championed the move to a regional fisheries management approach in order to enable tailored measures to be identified and implemented on a fisheries-by-fisheries and region-by-region approach. Over time, that will mean that those working in the industry will have greater say and there will be less of a top-down, one-size-fits-all model dictated by the EU.

In our dialogue today, we have heard a number of important suggestions and ideas about how we can improve the common fisheries policy. Despite some differences, even over the EU itself, we have consensus on the need for reform and on the huge opportunity presented by the renegotiation that we understand the Government to have under way.

This Minister seems to be my favourite Minister at the moment, because he replies to all my written questions, so I am delighted that he is present today. This area is new to me, but someone does not have to have worked in it for all the years that some of our predecessors have to understand its importance or that we need change. Not only do we need change, but we have an opportunity such as we have not had before. I urge the Minister to consider all the points made today and I look forward to hearing his proposals.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I hope that the two Front Benchers will allow our mover of the motion a minute to speak at the end of the debate.