Middle Level Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Requirement to provide specified facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock.

New clause 3—Requirement to provide specified facilities in March.

New clause 4—Requirement to provide specified facilities and moorings.

New clause 5—Removal of power to charge before specified facilities and moorings provided.

Amendments 1 to 26.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped as one, so we are effectively discussing the Bill as a whole. I think that every part of the Bill is included in one or other of the amendments.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that that is the situation. It would therefore be apposite for me to make a few introductory remarks by saying that I, the petitioners and others much appreciate how the Bill’s promoters have responded positively to many of the points that have been made. A series of good points are set out in the promoters’ statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who was an assiduous member of the Committee, is present, and everybody agrees that it is a credit to the House that the Bill has been considered in such detail.

Several points were made on Second Reading, the commissioners responded to them, and some of those responses were reflected in amendments in Committee. When the petitioners had the chance to be heard—I think over three days—many of their points were also accepted. The stage that we are at now is the consideration of the amendments that were proposed as a result of those representations. There are questions over whether the amendments go far enough, whether they could be tweaked in some way and about what signals could be sent to the other place, which has yet to consider the Bill. When the Bill goes to the other place, I am sure that there will be petitions against it.

We will be able to see the extent to which the petitioners’ arguments are accepted today, because it is obviously open to the Bill’s promoters to say at any stage, “Well, I think that’s a good point. We hadn’t thought of that.” My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is sponsoring the Bill on the promoters’ behalf, is a good listener, and I sure that things will go well in the future. If the Bill had never been objected to, it would have gone through as it was originally, but it is now much better. However, “much better” does not mean that it is not capable of being improved further. That is the whole purpose of putting forward these new clauses and other amendments this afternoon.

Paragraph 2.3 of the statement on behalf of the promoter, the Middle Level Commissioners, in support of the Bill makes it clear that

“the Commissioners currently do not receive any income from navigation of the waterways.”

With the passage of the Bill, they will receive such income. New clause 1 is designed to ensure that the quid pro quo is that if the waterway is not navigable, those charges should not apply. The petitioners believe that under case law in the case of Brett v. Beale and others, the commissioners must provide something beyond what is already provided in return for making additional charges. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will accept that that is a reasonable proposition.

The March Cruising Club is of the opinion that if boaters can be charged to use the system for navigation, it is essential that boater facilities are maintained and that an adequate depth of water is introduced as a minimum standard. Where that does not apply, any requirement to pay charges should be waived.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill affects my constituency. Without the Middle Level Commissioners, we would not have many homes protected and many thousands of hectares of farmland would not be kept productive. Does he agree that the key point is that if navigation, locks and waterways are funded through this charge, there will be more money for flood defences, which are a key priority in this part of East Anglia? Does he agree that the principle of the Bill is fit for purpose? Now that he is involved with his various amendments, the Bill may well become better, but surely the principle is very strong.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I think the principle is that if the farmers—I know my hon. Friend has a significant interest in farming—are going to benefit from land drainage schemes, and this is essentially one mega land drainage scheme, I do not see why they should not have to pay for the benefit that they get from the scheme. That is what this is all about.

I am told—I do not hold myself up as an expert on anything, but certainly not on this—that if there was no longer any land drainage, the navigation would be much wider, more effective and deeper. In a sense, the land drainage enables the farmers to make their profits off the land and is of direct benefit to them, whereas the navigation would be there even if there was no land drainage. I do not know whether my hon. Friend accepts that that is a true analysis—perhaps he is a better student of geography than I—but that is what I am told.

When the commissioners were first given their role, it was on the basis that they would recover charges from the landowners, rather than from the users of the navigation. If charges are to be introduced for the use of the navigation, the argument is that those charges should be used to keep the navigation open and usable by those who are being charged for using it. That seems to me a perfectly equitable principle on which to proceed. That is the background to the first new clause.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing his opening oration. Can he tell me how many times this water is not maintained to this depth? Are we dealing with a solution looking for a problem or is this a genuine problem?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not briefed to have an answer to that. All I can do is make the general comment that this has been raised by the March Cruising Club, which I imagine would not be concerned about it if it was not a problem. The March Cruising Club believes it is important to have this adequate depth of water set out to make sure the navigation is available.

That brings me on to new clause 2, which would require the provision of specified facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock. It states:

“The commissioners must, within twelve months of the day on which the Act comes into force, provide facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock including a lavatory, a fresh water point, bins for the disposal of refuse”

and so on. It also states that they should provide

“a minimum of ten moorings, each available for up to seven days at any one time and capable of accommodating a boat of up to fifty feet in length.”

Again this is a quid pro quo: if the commissioners want to make money out of the navigation and the vessels using it, it would be sensible for them to make sure there are proper facilities for those vessels, which will be paying significantly for the privilege of using the navigation.

A similar point is raised in new clause 3 by the March Cruising Club. This clause states:

“The Commissioners must, within twelve months of the day on which this Act comes into force, provide facilities within the town of March including a lavatory, a coin operated water shower”

and so on. I understand that the commissioners have more or less guaranteed that that is what they are going to do, but the petitioners understandably want to ensure that those undertakings and expressions of good intention are properly reflected in the legislation, rather than just being left as a matter of good will.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Surely there are few precedents for putting in the Bill specific infrastructure service provisions such as these. Doing so would cheapen the Bill in some ways and would make the point publicly that there was not this confidence between the Middle Level Commissioners and the different boating interests. What those boating interests want above all else is good navigable waters that are well maintained and at the right depth and with locks that work so that they can enjoy their boats at different times. If there is a surplus of revenue, and the relationship between the commissioners and the boating interests is positive and proactive, these other facilities can be looked at in the future. I urge my hon. Friend to consider that putting this in the Bill is not a good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am glad my hon. Friend agrees that the provision of these facilities is a good idea, but I cannot understand why he thinks requiring them to be provided in the Bill is not a good idea.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

There is no need.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Ultimately, it is an issue of trust as to whether or not the undertakings given will be honoured. We have precedents from other private Bills in this House—for example, the north London cemetery Bill—where the promotors have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means giving an undertaking, which was then put in the public domain. That may be another way of resolving this problem. From what my hon. Friend is saying, it seems that everyone is agreed that these facilities are necessary and desirable, and should be provided.

New clause 4 says that the

“Commissioners must within twelve months of the day on which this Act comes into forces enable access to the facilities and moorings specified under this Act to be by a boater key system paid for by boaters for a nominal fee and operated by the Commissioners.”

That is not an unreasonable suggestion. It is a commonplace practice in the boating industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I particularly support new clause 5 and struggle to find a reason why anyone could not, because it seems to be only fair and proper. Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Bill’s sponsor or the people behind it to find out whether they think it is a common-sense clause that they would accept or, if not, what logical reason they have for not accepting it?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

We have not yet reached that stage. That might be my fault, because I have not sat down with the Bill’s promoters to discuss these issues in detail. I understand that there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues in Committee. For the reasons that I have set out, the petitioners are still unhappy and feel that there should be a new clause to incorporate this provision.

[Kevin Foster]

I am finding my hon. Friend’s speech of some interest. He might be interested to know that clause 4 was amended in Committee to make it clear that revenue from navigation would be spent only for navigation purposes. That was done specifically in response to the petitioners’ concerns, to ensure that they could be confident that, although they are currently getting something for nothing, they will get something for what they pay—the navigation fees will go on navigation facilities and costs.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We will come to clause 4 and the amendments to it later. I shall say nothing other than that the petitioners and I were pleased that clause 4 was introduced in Committee in response to the concerns that were expressed. As I mentioned at the outset, just because it was introduced at that stage, that does not mean that it is perfect, which is why we are dealing with these new clauses and the amendments to clause 4, to which I shall come in due course and in order, because it is much easier for people to follow proceedings if people start at the beginning and go through clause by clause.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if new clause 5 is not accepted, that would effectively mean that people think it would be fine for the charges to be made but the facilities not to be in good repair and working order? That would clearly be intolerable—[Interruption.]

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who speaks on behalf of the promoters, saying from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is wrong about that. Let us wait until we discuss clause 4, which was introduced in Committee, to see whether we can tease out a little more information on all the implications.

Amendment 1 basically says that the time given between the Bill obtaining Royal Assent and being implemented is unreasonably short. The period is currently specified as only 28 days; it seems to me that it would be reasonable for it to come into force six months after the day on which it was passed. I would not say that it is the most important of the amendments, but it would be interesting to hear why the promoters do not think that that is a reasonable position to have. We know that, under the provisions of this Bill, some byelaws will have to be drawn up. That does not mean that work on the byelaws cannot start in advance of the Bill being passed into law—a period of six months will then need to be left for the Bill to be implemented—bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing with a lot of lay people who will probably need quite a lot of notice of the changes that will have to be made under the provisions of this Bill.

Amendment 2 is, in a sense, a drafting amendment. As we get a definition of “polluting matter” under clause 2, it seems much easier to keep it as an objective test. I have no quarrel with defining polluting matter as

“sewage or any other injurious matter, whether solid or liquid”.

We will not let our imaginations run riot on that. What I find more difficult is what is meant by the word “offensive”. What is added by including that word? Essentially, what is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another, and it is a subjective test. I would be interested to know from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay what that subjective test adds in that particular part of the clause on polluting matter.

Let me turn to amendment 3. I am going through these amendments quite quickly, because there is no need to spend a lot of time on amendments to which there should be a short and succinct answer, saying, “Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, these are good amendments and we will be happy to incorporate them in the Bill.”

Amendment 3 is more of a probing amendment. We are in the new age of electricity, and the definition of power-driven vessel here includes

“any vessel propelled by a detachable outboard engine”

but it does not include a sailing boat, a rowing boat or a canoe—fine. However, now that we have a new generation of electric motors, why do we not introduce in a Bill such as this an incentive for people to use electric power on these waterways? Obviously, electric power is much less polluting and better for the atmosphere. If it is as quiet as many of these new cars seem to be, it will hardly disturb anybody, as the boat, powered by an electric motor, glides down the route of the navigation. I am interested in hearing the thoughts of my hon. Friend on that.

Indeed, in recognising the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Front Bench, who has come along to help us in our deliberations, I could perhaps say that this is an issue for the Government. Perhaps the Government might be interested in thinking about introducing some sort of incentive for the use of electric motors rather than outboards. I know that a lot of my constituents would be very happy if there were more electric-driven vessels rather than power-driven vessels. This could open up a much larger issue, but why not start raising it now on the first occasion today?

That takes me on to amendment 4, which is about the “use”. Are we talking about the use of vessels? The Bill says:

“‘use’ in relation to any vessel on a waterway, includes launching the vessel onto the waterway, keeping or mooring it on the waterway”.

I have no quarrel with the rest of it, which is

“navigating it on the waterway, and letting it for hire on the waterway”.

There seems to be a lot of concern about what happens when people have a vessel that is kept at the side of the waterway or even in a marina, or is used as a houseboat. Are we really saying that that amounts to using the vessel on a waterway? Under this definition, it would amount to using the vessel on a waterway and that does not really seem to be common sense. Surely using a vessel on the waterway means actually using it—navigating it and letting it for hire on the waterway—but it does not include keeping or mooring it on the waterway.

Amendment 5 is a more extensive version of a similar concern that has been raised by a number of the petitioners. They say that the amended definition of waterways, compared with the definition before the Bill was in Committee, is a

“move in the right direction”,

but that

“it still serves to extend the jurisdiction and control of the Commissioners into privately owned property (such as marinas), which will usurp the rights of property owners to decide who and which boats can use the water over their land.”

The petitioners feel that this is an

“unwarranted interference with the rights of private citizens”,

and that, at the very least, there should be a provision for boat owners whose vessels remain permanently in the marina to make an off-the-water declaration—a sort of waterways statutory off road notification—so that they are no longer liable for the charges. In fact, that is a very good analogy. If individuals do not use their motor vehicle on the road, they do not have to pay road tax, so if people are not using their houseboat on the water, why should they have to pay these charges? That issue could be resolved by having a narrower definition of waterway, which is what amendment 5 would do.

Lines 11 to 18 of clause 2 say that

“‘the waterways’ means the waterways in respect of which the Commissioners are the navigation authority…including…the waterways set out in…Schedule 1”—

what we would all understand as the waterways—

“water control structures…or…the banks of, those waterways; and…any watercourse in the Middle Level”,

which is obviously what this Bill is about. However, I do not see why that should include a lake, pit, pond, marina or substantially enclosed water adjacent to those waterways and from which any vessel may be navigated, whether through a lock or into the waterways themselves. If a vessel is navigated into the waterway, it is in the waterway and is liable under the provisions of this Bill. But if it is not navigated in there, it does not seem relevant to say that it could be navigated. One way of reducing the scope of the definition of “waterway”, about which the petitioners remain concerned, would be to support amendment 5.

I turn to amendment 6 to clause 3—a clause that was introduced as a result of the work done in Committee. The clause establishes a navigation advisory committee, and the petitioners are very pleased about that, but they also think that it needs further definition. That is not a criticism of the people who tabled the amendment. However, given the way that we deal with legislation in our two Houses, sometimes an amendment can be improved when further considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for the points that he is making. However, does he agree that the slight danger with this amendment is that it would say that the persons are representative of all the interests, when the whole point of a representative committee would be to have people who represent different interests, just as we in this House all represent different constituencies even though we have the same duty as Members?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, but it is nothing to do with this. It is not a question of what the persons are representative of, because that is spelled out, but a question of whether they are representative of the groups listed or appear to the commissioners to be representative of them. It should be quite easy to establish whether somebody is representative of these interests rather than appearing to the commissioners to be representative of them.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had intended to make this point of order when the hon. Gentleman stopped speaking, but I feel that he might be in the middle of a “Stackhouse filibuster”. Earlier today, Toys“R”Us announced that the company has gone into administration. That has ramifications for the store in Parkhead in my constituency. I have spent the majority of today trying to get in touch with the administrators of Toys“R”Us, with no success. Have you been given advance notice of any ministerial statement tomorrow? How can Members of Parliament do their job if they cannot get in touch with the company to seek security for the staff who work for it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Normally I would not take a point of order at this stage, but as Sir Christopher has only just cleared his throat in making his speech, I recognise that it would be frustrating for the hon. Gentleman not to get in. The matter is on the record now. I have been given no notice of a ministerial statement about the serious issue at Toys“R”Us. I do recognise that you are representing your constituents. I hope that the message has gone out loud and clear that Toys“R”Us should be linking up with the Member of Parliament to ensure that you can represent the rights of the workers there.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Unfortunately my children and I are so old that they do not benefit from visits to Toys“R”Us, but it is very sad when any long-established business goes into administration.

[Philip Davies]

With regard to whether people are representative or appear to be so to the commissioners, perhaps the commissioners might fear that there could be some kind of legal action on the basis of whether and how someone could be determined to be representative—that somebody might say, “Well, I don’t think these people are representative of X, Y and Z”—and so a qualification was put in to help to get them out of a potentially sticky situation. Does my hon. Friend think that that is why the amendment was worded as it was?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If I may say so, that is a more plausible explanation than the one being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, but I think we have said enough about that. We will hear what he thinks when he responds to the debate.

I turn to amendments 6, 7 and 8 to clause 3. The petitioners are concerned that the requirement that the commissioners must take the committee’s views into consideration has limited use, because the commissioners could say that they have taken those views into consideration but found them to be of no value. The only remedy for any such failure to take the committee’s views properly into account would then be judicial review, which is strictly time-limited, expensive and hugely unreliable, with historical bias, they think, in favour of authorities. I do not know about that, but certainly they are right in saying that judicial review is a long-winded and potentially expensive way of seeking redress.

In the light of those concerns, I have tabled amendment 7 to clause 3(6), which would mean that instead of the commissioners being required to “take into consideration” any matter, they must “give full” consideration. There is a difference between taking into consideration and giving consideration. If the commissioners gave full consideration to any matter, that would be useful.

To reinforce that point, amendment 8 would add a sentence to the end of subsection (6), which would then say that the commissioners give full consideration to any matter, recommendation or representation which may from time to time be referred or made to them by the committee

“and in the event of not accepting such a recommendation or representation give full reasons for that decision.”

That would provide the sort of protection that the petitioners seek and would strengthen clause 3 and make it an even more effective addition to the Bill.

Amendment 9 to clause 4 would leave out subsection (2). It is in essence a probing amendment, to draw attention to the whole issue of charges and constraints upon the way in which charges can be made, which, as has been said, is a useful amendment to the Bill. I am suggesting that it could be linked more specifically with each of the different uses for which charges will be recoverable.

Amendment 10 would mean that in exercising the power under clause 4(1)(a), rather than the whole of subsection (1),

“the Commissioners must aim to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the annualised costs incurred by the Commissioners in exercising their functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.”

It seems that that relates to the use of any waterway by any vessel. Those would be the charges for the use of the waterway, and they would link in directly with the functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.

I am much more dubious about linking in the reasonable charges for the provision of services and facilities in respect of the waterways and their banks, because they are not separated out from the more general, nor is the requirement for registration of any vessel under navigation byelaws. Those charges should be separately identified and accounted for, and they should undergo this test: taking one financial year with another, the charges under those subsections should not exceed the annualised costs. This is a refinement of clause 4, and I think that it would improve the clause significantly.

Amendment 11 also deals with the annualised issue. The effect of amendment 12 would be as follows:

“The Commissioners may revise, waive or remove any charge fixed under subsection (1)(a), and different charges may be fixed for different cases or classes of case.”

The amendment would extend the commissioners’ discretion, while making sure that it was specific to the different categories of activity for which they can recover charges.

Amendment 13, which is a probing amendment, would leave out subsection (4). I hope that we will hear further explanation of why the commissioners want to

“make the use of the services and facilities referred in subsection (1)(b) subject to such terms and conditions as the Commissioners may specify in writing.”

The most radical amendment that I have tabled to clause 4 is amendment 14, which I hope will find favour with Members from across the House. The amendment would add, at the end of the clause:

“No charge shall be payable in respect of the use of a waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled”.

I raise that because there is quite an issue about disability, the use of waterways and the use of powers similar to those sought by the promoters of the Bill. Such powers have been abused on occasions, and disabled people have been severely pilloried and discriminated against. Why should it not be possible to exempt disabled people from these charges?

I have been sent a press cutting dated April 2015 from Wiltshire, where a disabled boat owner who lived on the Kennet and Avon canal faced costs of up to £76,000 as a result of action that was taken against him by the Canal and River Trust. The individual was living on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance. Instead of allowing him to repair his boat over a period of time, the trust strictly imposed the conditions of his licence and required him to vacate his boat, which was also his home. Insult was added to injury by the fact that he was denied legal aid, and he was instead represented by the legal officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Sir Christopher, I am just waiting to see how this links in with the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It links in with my amendment 14, Mr Deputy Speaker, because amendment 14 would exempt—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am more bothered that this is about the Avon canal and that particular individual, who is not actually on the Middle Level or affected by it. I understand you making a reference, but not in detail.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I accept that we do not want to go into any more detail than I have already, but the analogy is that the powers that are being sought in the Bill by the Middle Level Commissioners are almost identical to the powers that have already been obtained by other organisations, such as the Canal and River Trust, which operates on the Kennet and Avon canal.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Is there any serious demand from disabled people in the boat-owning community in East Anglia for this exemption? I have a number of disabled constituents who are boat owners, and as I pointed out on Second Reading in the last Parliament, many boat owners from my constituency will motor upstream into the different parts of the Middle Level. I have not come across any demand from disabled people; this is not like the blue badge scheme. We have great respect for those in the disabled community, but is my hon. Friend really saying that there is a desire to give them an exemption from these charges? Would that not just make the scheme that much more bureaucratic? Also, most disabled people are very proud, so do they really want this exemption?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Obviously, they would get the exemption only if they applied for it. Disabled people are proud, and I have a lot of disabled residents among my constituents, but that does not mean that, for example, they do not cherish the ability to park their cars using a discretionary parking permit.

In direct answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention, I had not received any representations from disabled constituents of his before making this speech; if I had, I would have referred them to him. However, what I can say is that the Canal and River Trust, which was dealing with this issue in Wiltshire, has now accepted in principle that disabled boaters should not have enforcement action taken against them in the same way as able-bodied boaters, but it has not yet been very keen to communicate that policy to disabled people there.

All I can say is that, given how the powers have been used on inland waterways in other parts of the country, there is potentially an issue, and by putting forward amendment 14, I have at least ensured that it is discussed. As we know, there is even more interest in the other place in promoting the cause of disabled people than there is in this House. It may well be that, when the Bill gets to the other place, Members there will wish to pursue the content of amendment 14 if it is not accepted by the sponsor today.

Amendments 15 and 16 are designed to leave out clauses 5 and 7. I tabled them to enable us to have a debate on the content of those clauses, should that be thought desirable. However, having regard to the time, the best thing to do is probably not to speak to those amendments but to go on to one or two of the later amendments.

[Philip Davies]

That’s a shame.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend says that that is a shame—

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

It is not a shame at all.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Well, it is one each on that one.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very informative speech. He will recognise that other Members are affected, other than just those from the fens, because the River Nene—or “Nen”, depending on which part of my constituency someone is from—flows into the Middle Level. So this issue is wider than just a local area.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

This is the Middle Level Bill!

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is very important that my hon. Friend has been able to put his interest in this subject matter on the record.

Amendment 17 relates to clause 9, which addresses stranded, grounded and sunken vessels and vehicles. The amendment would remove the subsection 3, which states:

“Whenever any vessel is, without lawful authority, left or moored in any waterway the Commissioners may after serving not less than 28 days’ notice on the owner of the vessel, unless it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name and address of the owner, raise and remove the vessel.”

As set out in the rest of clause 9, it is perfectly reasonable for a vessel that is stranded or abandoned in a waterway and is interfering with navigation to be removed quickly. However, when one takes into account the very wide definition of “waterway”, the inclusion of subsection 3 is potentially oppressive. It could mean that the commissioners could, for example, go into a marina and raise and remove a vessel at considerable cost after no more than 28 days’ notice. The amendment would therefore remove that power from the Bill.

Clause 11 relates to the requirements for registration and incorporates a very important amendment promoted by the March Cruising Club and others on the charges and the amount by which they could be increased in any one year. It introduces a requirement that such charges should not increase above the rate of inflation as defined by the consumer prices index. Many boaters—some may be represented by my hon. Friends here this evening—are not very well-off in financial terms and need to be able to plan their budgets ahead. When they work out the costs of having a vessel on the waterway, they need to have the certainty that the charges levied cannot be increased by more than the rate of the CPI each year. By analogy, the Government have said that council tax should not increase by more than the CPI. They have made some exceptions to that recently, but the general proposition is that they cannot be increased by more than the CPI.

[Mr Bone]

On that point, is my hon. Friend not concerned that the Bill does not state what the initial fee will be? It just says “a reasonable application fee”. Would he not prefer the Bill to state what that fee should be?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Much as I would like to agree with my hon. Friend, there has to be some discretion, because the fees needs to relate to the powers and duties that will be carried out and funded by them. One of the clauses that we looked at earlier specified that the money for the fees had to be spent on various things, particularly, for example, on navigation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Can I just help a little? In fairness to Mr Bone, he was not here, but you do not need to explain what we have already discussed and we do not need to go back over it. I know that you were not attempting to do so—come on, Sir Christopher!

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Okay, amendment 26 is to clause 15, line 38. The clause, on the protocol of removal of vessels, states:

“The Commissioners must, in consultation with the Navigation Advisory Committee, prepare, publish and maintain a protocol on the use of powers under or by virtue of this Act to remove vessels.”

My amendment proposes to change “in consultation with” to “in conjunction with”, because it seems to me that the Navigation Advisory Committee should work jointly with the commissioners rather than just in consultation with them on this important matter. Again, amendment 25 tries to reduce the powers conferred upon the commissioners under clause 14(4) and how they can be exercised.

As I said at the beginning, this is a much improved Bill, compared with how it was. It has now reached the stage where, because all the amendments have been grouped together, it would not be sensible to test the will of the House on each one—I am glad that you agree with me on that proposition, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the Bill’s promoters are worried about whether the fact that we are discussing these things in the House today means that they cannot be discussed further when the Bill gets to the other place. My understanding is that when it goes to the other place, there is a fresh opportunity for people to put in petitions, in which they can include whatever they wish to, and I am sure that the other place will build upon the discussions that we are having this evening and have had prior to it, so that eventually, the Bill will be even better than it is now.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I am pleased to respond on the Opposition’s behalf to this opposed private business. Although it might not be the most conventional way to introduce legislative change, and I have heard the detailed reservations of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), we are none the less satisfied that the Bill makes sense, and our intention is to support the Bill as it stands. Although the Bill is fairly narrow in scope, we acknowledge that it has important consequences for those who will be affected. We are satisfied that due scrutiny has taken place in Committee and is taking place at consideration stage this afternoon.

The Middle Level of the fens was first drained in the 17th century to reclaim an area of farmland in Cambridgeshire and west Norfolk. The Middle Level Commissioners are the navigation authority for the waterways, established through a series of local Acts passed between 1663 and 1874, so we appreciate that the legislative framework underpinning the role of the commissioners is in need of an update. This is not least because almost all the fenland within the Middle Level waterways is below sea level, and if it was not for a complex system of flood mitigation and drainage schemes managed by the commissioners, the waterways could pose a significant risk to the estimated 100,000 people who live and work in the area.

In the simplest terms, the Bill will introduce a registration scheme for vessels in the Middle Level and allow the commissioners to bring in revenue from boat owners that will be used to improve the waterways. The Environment Agency, the Canal and River Trust and the Broads Authority all have similar powers in respect of their own navigations, so in many ways, the Bill is long overdue in bringing the Middle Level into line with its neighbours. Additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to the fenlands and waterways, and although I appreciate the desire of local boat users for improved facilities on the waterways, as we have heard, the Bill will allow the commissioners to raise revenue to deliver this.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Members will be pleased to know that I can be relatively brief.

The Government support the Bill, which is promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. We have had a good debate this evening and I commend the many probing amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) tabled, but I believe that all the points he raised have been dealt with comprehensively, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who has a deep grasp of all the detail of the Bill.

The legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is made up of a number of 18th and 19th century Acts, which are now considerably out of date and do not align with modern requirements or the statutory framework that is applicable to other navigation authorities. In particular, the current legal framework that governs the commissioners does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels using the waterways or the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. As a result, the commissioners do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways, which has meant that moneys raised through drainage rates and levies have had to be used to fund navigation rather than for flood defence purposes, which is contrary to Government policy.

The commissioners are therefore seeking to update and clarify their powers to enable them to properly regulate and fund their waterways. The powers that they are seeking are similar to those used by other large inland navigation authorities, for example the Canal and River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority.

I very much support the Bill and hope that it will pass unamended this evening.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

We have had a good humoured and thoughtful debate, and I am grateful to everybody who has participated. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), who conceded that some of my amendments were sensible, if not the new clauses. I hope that if they are not accepted by the promoter tonight, they will be taken forward when the Bill is debated in the other place in due course, as it inevitably will be.

The issues we have discussed are of considerable concern to the petitioners. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for having got to his feet. It is quite unusual in these debates for the person who has got down to the detail in Committee to come here to explain his reasoning and the work that he did. I thank him and the other members of the Committee once again for the work that they did and the courteous way in which they dealt with the concerns expressed by the petitioners. He has set a useful new precedent: instead of hiding their light under a bushel, the people who get involved in the Committee stage should participate on Report, as he has done.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for showing sympathy with some of my amendments, although she cannot bring herself to support them yet.

I will not press all the amendments in the House tonight, because it will be much better for them to be dealt with in the other place, where the ideas can be developed and the responses from the petitioners and the promoter can be made available. However, I do think that amendment 14 bears further consideration. For the benefit of those who were not here for the debate, amendment 14 is in page 6, clause 4, line 11, at the end to add

“(8) No charge shall be payable in respect of the use of a waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled”.

I only got one response on that from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), whom I thank for having gone through all my amendments seriatim, which is fantastic. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, is assiduous in answering the points that have been made. It makes it much easier for someone summing up a debate if they know their points have been answered.

On the issue of disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay seized on the fact that “registered disabled” is no longer a category of persons, but this amendment would apply to people who were registered disabled with the Middle Level Commissioners. Obviously, there is a registration system for people who have these boats and it would be able to include provisions as to whether or not someone is disabled, so the technical objection that my hon. Friend raised is not a valid one. If I had used a capital “R” and a capital “D” in my amendment, perhaps it might have been. I hope people will support the amendment on the basis that a lot of people are disabled and face considerable difficulties, and it would be reasonable for all other boaters to be prepared to cross-subsidise those who register with the commissioners as being disabled.

Middle Level Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It might be helpful for the House if I give some background to the Bill and set out the reasons why it is before us. The first point—

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I will make some progress and then I will happily give way.

For those not familiar with the Bill, the first thing is to ask, “What is the Middle Level?” The Middle Level is the central and largest section of the Great Level of the fens, which was reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. The area is bounded to the north-west and east by the Nene and the Ouse washes, to the north by the previously drained marshland silts, and to the south and west by low clay hills. The Middle Level river system consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, approximately 100 miles of which are statutory navigations, and has a catchment of just over 170,000 acres. Virtually all the fenland within the Middle Level catchment lies below mean sea level.

The Middle Level Commissioners, together with the local internal drainage boards, therefore operate a highly complex flood protection and water level management system to balance the various water uses and requirements, and to alleviate the risk of flooding of land and properties. The efficient operation of this system is vital to the safety and prosperity of the 100,000-plus people who live and work in the area and the 26,000 properties that depend on it. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local boards, much of the fenland would be underwater for a lot of the year, access from higher ground would be cut off, and many of the current land uses would be impossible.

[Kevin Foster]

My understanding from the promoters of the Bill is that it is about the framework for the management of the levels and the waterways, rather than specific developments or projects. If the commissioners decided to pursue such things, they would have to go through the usual process to get permission. Given the historical nature of some of these sites, that could involve an extensive consideration of archaeological impact.

[Mr Chope]

Now that my hon. Friend is taking interventions, may I ask him what his status is? He is telling us about the Bill and the location with which it deals, but his constituency is nowhere near the affected area. Why has it not been possible for the promoters of the Bill to find a local MP who is sympathetic to it?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is a doughty scrutiniser of Bills, even if they do not relate to Christchurch. I know that he, like me, takes his duties as a Member of the House very seriously when it comes to promoting and debating legislation. He rightly champions the point that there is no restriction on our debating legislation even if it does not directly affect our constituencies. Private Bills must be sponsored by Back-Bench Members, for obvious reasons, and some of the MPs directly affected by the Bill are Ministers. Given the interest that I have expressed in waterways and their consistent management, I think that it is appropriate for me to sponsor this Bill. Of course, all Members will have the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I hope that we will hear from at least one local Member who is directly affected. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also share his insights into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend shows his exceptional knowledge of his constituency and the assets that support it. He is right. Fundamentally, as I will come on to say when I talk about the regulatory framework, the waterways in question were built as a drainage system, but they have gone on to be used by pleasure boats and other vessels. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is because some of the uses were not envisaged at the time of the 1862 Act. Clearly motorboats did not exist at the time, and the concept of canal usage was very different.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I will respond to those comments when I come on to the petitions. However, I agree with my hon. Friend: clearly nobody wants to pay extra charges for the same facilities, but if we do not change the legal framework, those using the Middle Level for drainage are being asked to pay for facilities for those using it for navigation, making it very unlikely that facilities will ever be developed. These things need to go hand in hand. When I move on to the petitions, I will say a bit more about the commissioners’ views about the facilities that people who are required to pay should expect in exchange.

[Mr Chope]

Is it right to say that the consultation took place at the same time as the EU referendum, the outcome of which we are celebrating today? Is it also right to say that, for example, the March cruising club, whose headquarters is almost opposite the commissioners’ offices, was not consulted, and that other petitioners were not consulted either?

[Kevin Foster]

I know that my hon. Friend would agree with me that people are more than able to deal with two issues at the same time. The EU referendum was very important and many hon. Members engaged with it—I know that he engaged passionately and put his side of the argument—but they can also deal with other things, as was true today, when hon. Members have had various items on the agenda. I would not say immediately that the fact that the consultation coincided with the referendum meant that nobody took part in it. Petitions against the Bill have been deposited, and if the Bill is read a Second time, the petitioners can be heard before an Opposed Private Bill Committee, which will scrutinise the Bill in more depth. I hope that my hon. Friend will support the Bill on Second Reading so that those points can be made, the petitioners can come along and we can consider how to work constructively and appropriately to create a modern framework of regulation, rather than continue with a framework based on the needs of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When I am out on the waterways, I certainly notice stretches with a lot of litter and debris. Every user of our canals, whether on the water or walking, has a duty to play their part in collecting litter, and we need provision for places where it can be placed.

What is particularly interesting about the Bill is that the commissioners currently have no navigation income. Any navigation works must be subsidised by those who pay a drainage levy. It is the largest navigation authority in the country without a navigation income.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wendy Morton]

I am about to conclude, so I will continue because I am mindful of the time pressure.

The Bill is needed because it will aid the Middle Level Commissioners in becoming—this is crucial—a sustainable navigation authority with the proper powers to manage a 21st-century navigation, which is the in the interests of those who use it and those in the local area.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This debate would not be taking place if I had not blocked the Bill from going through on the nod on Second Reading. We have already heard about the benefits of having a proper Second Reading debate on a private Bill. Having spoken to some of the petitioners on the telephone, I point out that the Bill’s promoters have a serious responsibility to engage with those who take a different view or have concerns about its contents. One petitioner told me there has been no contact whatever from the authorities.

It is easy to talk about the Bill going to an Opposed Private Bill Committee. I have no objection to the Bill having a Second Reading, but it is important that it goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee after there has been an exhaustive discussion between the petitioners and the promoters, rather than the Committee being used as the forum for that discussion, because the private Bill procedure in Committee is expensive and potentially adversarial. I wish that there had been more discussion between the promotors and the objectors.

[Kevin Foster]

When he intervened on my speech, my hon. Friend cited the example of the March cruising club. I have asked for clarification, and I am advised that the club was written to and telephoned but, sadly, there was no reply. A petition would allow further communication, but I have been advised that there was no reply to the consultation. I fully agree that there needs to be such engagement, as well as a formal Committee session.

[Mr Chope]

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the need for informal engagement before the Bill goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee, because apart from anything else, some of the petitioners are not well funded. If the Committee is prolonged and the petitioners have to be represented by counsel, the costs will be disproportionately high.

The National Audit Office published an illuminating report on internal drainage boards on 21 March—basically we are talking about a collection of drains, not canals. The report expresses concern about conflicts of interest and the need for proper oversight and assurance that the internal drainage boards will not engage where there are conflicts of interest.

I notice that there are 33 independent internal drainage districts within the Middle Level, each of which is responsible for the local drainage of its area. When we talk about giving more powers to the Middle Level Commissioners, we need to be circumspect about the checks and balances on the exercise of those powers, which I hope the Committee will be able to investigate when it meets to consider the proposals and the petitions against them.

One of the petitions is from Nigel Moore, who says that he is

“a boat owner and manager of other people’s boats on various navigations, is an adviser on nationwide legal issues relating to boating, and is currently an approved lay advocate for a boater in a High Court action wherein issues arise over the interpretation of similar clauses to that proposed in this Bill.”

He objects to the Bill because it

“entails clear abolition of private and public rights to no justifiable purpose, and will lead to unnecessary future litigation over ambiguities.”

Like other petitioners, he refers to the Bill’s wide interpretation of the term “waterways”. Schedule 1 will extend the term to a lot of areas that are not even navigable. The Bill will also extend the commissioners’ powers to adjacent waters, including private waters that are not currently within their jurisdiction. Apparently that, so Mr Moore says, has been

“a contentious point in related litigation.”

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

My hon. Friend says that rights are being taken away. Surely we are talking about the introduction of a few extra responsibilities and a few extra charges. What rights will be removed?

[Mr Chope]

As a result of the Bill, owners of private waters that are not subject to the Middle Level Commissioners’ control will find themselves incorporated within the responsibilities of the commissioners, who will be able to use their regulatory powers in relation to what are currently private waters. That is an extension well beyond what one might have thought of as being the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, being an experienced Member of this House, as soon as people get the opportunity to start legislating they always want to take more powers than they strictly need, which is one of the petitioners’ concerns.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is confusion about the duties and responsibilities of the authority as between navigation and dredging under the Bill? That needs to be clarified when the Bill goes into Committee.

[Mr Chope]

Again, that is a good point, and it has been raised in several of the petitions.

Mr Moore expresses another concern, in stating that he

“objects to Clause 8(3) because the wording follows that of the contentious British Waterways Act of 1983, section (8), which has led to years of litigation as to its effect, whereas the wording of the similar clause in the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 section (16) is far superior, and allows for no such ambiguity and potential attempted and unwarranted extension of powers. The wording ‘without lawful authority’ is also wholly inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters, when the right to be on the waterways derives from the public right, and the proposed provisions for registration of boats does not change that. This was the burden of Environment Agency submissions in a recent case on the Thames, which was, in my submission, correct”.

So he thinks that as worded, clause 8(3) would not only be against the expressed policy of the Environment Agency, but

“would be unenforceable and ineffectual in law, contrary to the expectation of the Commissioners, and prejudicial to the rights of boaters.”

I hope that even if nothing else is sorted out in Committee, those issues raised by Mr Moore will be.

As we have heard, a petition has also come from the March cruising club, which has been submitted by Mr Harwood, the club harbourmaster. Apart from complaining about the inadequate consultation, he raises a number of issues. Following on from the history that has been outlined by a number of the participants in this debate, he says:

“Pleasure boats have had free navigational access to the Old River Nene, which forms a large navigational section of the Middle Level, from before 1215 protected by Magna Carta and many subsequent statutes and Royal Commissions. There are even Roman transcripts describing navigation along the Old River Nene as early as the 4th Century during the Roman occupation. The Old River Nene is a natural river and a Public Right of Navigation has existed since Time Immemorial and was first codified in the Magna Carta of 1215.”

[Kevin Foster]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of the preamble to the Nene Navigation Act 1753, which describes the ancient navigation as

“being, at all times, extremely tedious, difficult and dangerous, and very frequently altogether impracticable”.

[Mr Chope]

I do not quite know what point my hon. Friend is making, because he is referring to a preamble to a piece of legislation—of course that is not an Act of Parliament. I am not sure that what he says undermines anything I have been saying in citing the submission of the March cruising club. I am sure that when the promoters engage properly with that club, they will be able to explore that issue further.

One other point made by the cruising club, which contradicts a number of assertions made in this debate, is that the commissioners already have the power to charge boats for the use of their waterways, but what they do not have is the power to charge pleasure boats. If there is a shortfall of £178,000 of unfunded expenditure, as has been alleged, there is nothing to prevent the commissioners from charging vessels that are not pleasure boats, or indeed charging for other activities. That would be consistent with the historical rights of pleasure boat owners to use the navigation without charge. The club goes on to say that the Middle Level is basically a “network of navigable drains”, so it is in a completely different category from some of the comparators that have been cited in support of the Bill by its promoters.

The club makes several other points in its submission, one of which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). It objects because

“the Bill contains no obligations under which the Commissioners would be duty bound to provide an adequate depth of water for navigation; dredging; maintenance or any facilities to boaters. Essentially, boaters would notice nothing positive, but would be subject to legislation that would: force them to pay a fee to register; pay annual licence fees; be a criminal offence to use the navigation without a licence; be forced to display a registration number; restrict access during certain times of the year; have the risk of being refused a licence and appealing the decision in a Magistrates Court. There are no advantages for boaters in return. This will destroy the Middle Level navigation and the boating community.”

There are several other detailed points in the submission, but I shall not cite them all.

Unless the issues I have described are resolved amicably between the petitioners and the promoters, the Bill will have a pretty slow passage through the House, because I am sure Members will not wish to impinge on the rights that individuals have enjoyed for many years unless there is strong justification.

Another petition comes from Mr John Hodges, who describes himself as a “member of the public” and a

“homeowner with mooring on the banks of the Middle Level”.

He says that the proposals will “directly and specially affect” his rights. That is an indication of another category of objector.

There is also a petition against the Bill from somebody called Derek Paice, whose submission describes him as living

“on a narrowboat (which, since it is not a ‘commercial boat’, most fits the description of ‘pleasure boat’ in the Nene Navigation Act 1684) on the Middle Level and this has been his home since 2011. This was the only available and affordable option after losing his home of eight years when his father died.”

His submission alleges that

“the proposals contained in the Bill will directly and specially affect his rights and interests, including allowing the commissioners new powers to seize his home and sell it on for less than its value, effectively making him homeless, destitute and an additional cost to the state.”

Mr Paice’s submission goes on to say that the Bill

“contains no protection for the homes of people who, like him, live on their boats.”

Indeed, that theme was picked up by Pamela Smith from the National Bargee Travellers Association, who said that people who have lived and worked on boats for many years but who do not have moorings feel threatened by the proposals. She estimated that between 10,000 and 25,000 people—not just in the area of the Middle Level, but throughout the United Kingdom—live on boats but not at a fixed mooring. They are a different sort of itinerant community, and she feels that they will be very much discriminated against by many of the proposals in the Bill. Those concerns are echoed by other petitioners.

Clause 9 proposes giving the commissioners more powers to make byelaws, but those commissioners already have adequate byelaw-making powers under the Middle Level Act 1874. Under the clause, the commissioners are seeking the authority to examine people’s homes, which, in most cases, amounts to an unwarranted, unnecessary invasion of personal space. There are statutory bodies, including the police, with the authority to enter people’s homes under appropriate circumstances. Requiring boaters to surrender their right to privacy as a condition of being granted a licence to navigate is unreasonable and intrusive.

There are quite significant attempts in the Bill to impose on the rights of individuals. I noticed that when the Minister gave her certification in relation to the Bill’s compliance with the European convention on human rights, all she said was that she had no reason to suppose that the assertions made by the promoters were incorrect. I am not sure whether we can be satisfied that the Government have yet explored the issues relating to human rights for their own purposes so that they can assure us that, in their own view—not just the view of the promoters—the Bill is fully compliant with the law on human rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has already referred to the petition from his constituent, Christopher Taylor, so I will not refer to it again. I have referred briefly to what Pamela Smith has said on behalf of the National Bargee Travellers Association. That organisation has put in a major objection to much of the Bill. It has more than 700 members and four local groups and represents the interests of an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 bargee travellers in the United Kingdom. A significant number of members of the association either live permanently on the Middle Levels or use the waterways regularly. It is therefore a matter of great regret that there has been no proper discussion with the bargee travellers on the very important issues in the Bill, and I hope that that will remedied sooner rather than later. The association says that many bargee travellers use the Middle Levels as a transit route between the East Anglian waterways, such as the River Cam, the Great Ouse, or the Wissey, and the rest of the inland waterways. There is no other inland waterway route, and there would be no choice for them but to be bound by the proposed terms and conditions and to pay the proposed charges.

I am not very familiar with this part of the fens, and, apart from having visited other people who have a narrow boat, I am not familiar with this type of recreational boating. However, I am familiar with the sort of recreational boating that happens in my own constituency of Christchurch. All I can say is that if my constituents were faced with some of the regulations and powers to invade their privacy that are proposed in relation to the Middle Level of the fens, they would be outraged indeed. We have a large number of boats moored on the River Stour in Christchurch, and they do not all have names on them. People certainly do not have to give their name and address to some passing enforcement officer.

It seems to me that a lot of the Bill should be removed before it comes back for further consideration on Report. I hope that detailed discussion, consideration and scrutiny in Committee will have that consequence and that we will be able to look back and say, “This has been a worthwhile exercise, because a not very good Bill has been much improved as a result of proper scrutiny.”

I am not going to speak at length on this occasion, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough are concerned that the rights of the petitioners should be heard in this great home of democracy.

East Anglian Fishing Fleet

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the East Anglia fishing community? It is also about other fishing communities, such as mine in Plymouth, down in the south-west, where they are very much hoping for better facilities in order to produce better fishing.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a debate about the future of the East Anglian fishing fleet. Unless my geography is wrong, I do not think that includes Plymouth.

[Peter Aldous]

I think I would say two things. A lot of what I am going to say about the East Anglian fishing industry does relate to the south-west fishing industry, but I would also make the point that we need localised management going forward to address the specific issues of local fisheries. That was one of the problems with the common fisheries policy. We want to develop our own East Anglian policy. In the same way, my hon. Friend should develop a policy for his industry in the south-west, and likewise in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wants to intervene.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to local community involvement. We need to have that across all the fishing communities, wherever they may be in the United Kingdom. In my constituency of Strangford, the fishing industry is also very important. The Irish Republic has introduced a six-mile limit, which is totally out of order—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. That is too long an intervention.

[Peter Aldous]

A lot of what I am going to say is important for the whole of the coast of the British Isles. Our withdrawal from the common fisheries policy provides an opportunity to put in place a policy framework in which the East Anglian fleet and all those who work in the industry are given a realistic opportunity of earning a good wage and securing a fair return on the investment in their boats and equipment. That is the very least they deserve in what is the most dangerous trade in Britain.

It is appropriate to quietly reflect on the challenges faced by all those who go to sea, their families and those who support them, including the Fishermen’s Mission, so ably run from Lowestoft along most of the eastern and southern coast by Tim Jenkins, as well as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews in Lowestoft, Hunstanton, Wells, Sheringham, Cromer, Happisburgh, Gorleston, Southwold and Aldeburgh. Last month I had the pleasure of meeting Jeff Melton, the skipper of the Serene Dawn from Lowestoft, who lost his leg while at sea. His courage, determination and humour shone through. We owe it to people like him to grasp the opportunity that now presents itself.

The East Anglian coast, along with its ports, harbours and fishing villages, has been shaped by fishing over the last millennium. A significant industry and way of life grew up all along the coast, focused on such places as King’s Lynn, Wells, Sheringham, Cromer, Winterton, Great Yarmouth, Gorleston, Lowestoft, Pakefield, Kessingland, Southwold, Walberswick, Dunwich, Aldeburgh, Orford, Felixstowe and Ipswich. Part of the industry was and still is focused on shellfish such as crabs, shrimps and mussels, while large commercial fleets and allied industries grew up in the larger ports of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, where the industry was underpinned by herrings, the silver darlings of the North sea.

Recreational Sea Bass Fishing

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Scott Mann]

I will try to check out that column in The Times. It is not my regular newspaper—I normally read The Telegraph and The Sun—but I will go back and check it. Such agreements may be fine in other waters, but we should have an understanding that our territorial waters inside the 6-mile limit should be protected for our fisheries and our people.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a splendid speech, which I know will be much supported by Christchurch fishermen. Does he agree that Iceland decided to take control of its own fisheries and that those fisheries are a fantastic success?

[Scott Mann]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I agree that many fisheries people feel that that is the case.

Bat Habitats Regulation (No. 2) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a surprise and a privilege to be able to address the issue of bat habitats again in the House so soon, relatively speaking, since I last spoke about the matter back in January 2015. You may recall that, in the last Session of the last Parliament, my Bat Habitats Regulation Bill attracted a lot of interest. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench today—responded then by promising that various matters would be progressed. I see this debate as an opportunity to find out a bit more about what exactly has happened since he last addressed this issue in the House and about what he thinks should happen in the future.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to cut off my hon. Friend in full flow. This is further to my point of order earlier this morning about the security risk this country faces from a European Court of Justice decision to stop the UK kicking out of this country a Moroccan national whom the Home Office believes to be a severe threat to national security. It now appears that the person concerned is Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law. Whoever it is, this is a very serious matter, and this country and this House should be aware of it. What can be done to get a Home Office Minister to come to the Chamber as a matter of urgency to tell the House about this matter and about what threat this country faces?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for bringing this matter, which is indeed important, to the attention of the House again. As he knows, I have no power to require a Minister to come to the House, but I am quite certain, now that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on the Floor of the House, that those who ought to take note of what he has said will do so. I trust that the matter will be brought before the House in due course, and the hon. Gentleman is of course well aware of the many methods that he can use next week to ensure that it is brought before the House.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for what you have said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I share his concern that this is a very important issue, particularly in the light of what has been said about the need for us to be able, as a result of the current EU renegotiations, to improve our own national security.

The EU is of course a significant issue in relation to the regulation of bat habitats. The only way in which my Bill, as currently drafted, can be put on the statute book is either for the Government to agree to exclude it from the application of the European Communities Act 1972 or for us to leave the European Union. If the Bill does not reach the statute book, the need for such a Bill may be significantly reduced if we can leave the European Union. I do not know whether I will be able to draw out the Minister on that matter in this debate. Last year, I described him as one of the leading Eurosceptics. I hope that in the course of the next few weeks or days, he will re-establish his credentials in that respect.

This morning, I received a written answer to my question. I asked:

“what progress has been made…on developing a toolkit for effective and safe management of bats in churches as recommended in the University of Bristol report on Management of bats in churches, a pilot, published in January 2015.”

The Minister referred to that report when he responded to the debate in January 2015.

The answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), stated:

“The Government has invested significant resources into research and development to assess how we can reduce the impact caused by bats in churches. This has included a three year research project that concluded in 2013, as well as a pilot project led by Historic England that focused on churches with significant bat issues. Natural England is currently creating a licensing framework to provide the mechanism through which the impact of bats will be controlled in churches.”

I will pause at that point. Natural England seems to be taking an inordinately long time to create the licensing framework. One can only assume that either the matter is incredibly complex or Natural England is not investing sufficient resources in that objective. I hope that the Minister will put more pressure on Natural England to come forward with the licensing framework sooner rather than later.

The second paragraph of the ministerial response to my written question causes me concern. It states:

“A partnership of five organisations, including the Church of England and Natural England, is seeking Heritage Lottery Funding for a five year project to support the creation of a national support network for churches that have bat related issues. The outcome of the bid for funding will be known in March.”

That is an incredibly long timescale. Why can the funding not be provided directly by the Government now? Why do we need to go to the Heritage Lottery Fund to try to get it? Why will it take a similar length of time to the duration of the last world war to come up with a solution, if indeed that funding is available? Why, for all the talk, are we not able to do more, more quickly, to resolve what is for many churches and places of worship a really serious issue?

The seriousness of the issue is recognised in the material that has been produced by the Bat Conservation Trust and the University of Bristol. The Bat Conservation Trust has identified a number of case studies of churches where the problems with bats have been mitigated, rather than resolved. It also sets out in detail all the problems that bats can cause in churches, such as droppings and urine, health concerns, what happens when they fly inside churches and the problems that they can cause when building and conservation projects are under way in churches.

The Bat Conservation Trust has a helpful brief entitled “Solutions to bat issues in churches”, and it answers certain questions such as “Why can’t I get rid of bats in my church? What can I do about bat droppings in my church? Why do churches have to foot the bill for bat conservation? What help is available to churches with bats?”, and so on. It is clear from the way that those questions are asked that we are a long way short of finding a solution to this intractable problem that is causing an enormous amount of concern to churches.

In the previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred to the fact that it is not just churches that are affected by this issue. The Bat Conservation Trust took up my response to that intervention, in which I said that we should perhaps start with just one small area, such as churches. The fact that I then contemplated the possibility that we might extend that provision to other buildings caused an enormous amount of angst among members of the Bat Conservation Trust, and it placed a riposte on its website. My point is that we have to start somewhere and try to get some urgency into the matter.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking up my point about other buildings as opposed to just churches, and in order for progress to be made, I am very happy to drop my wide ambition to see this measure extended further. If it means that my hon. Friend can make progress on churches alone, I am happy to limit my ambition to that.

[Mr Chope]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that when he responds, the Minister will accept that dealing with churches would be a good place to start.

One criticism made of the Bill last year was that it contained no definition of a building used for public worship. To address that I have added clause 3, which defines a building used for public worship as

“a building used for the purposes of religious worship by a congregation or religious group whether or not the building is also used for counselling, social events, instruction or religious training.”

I hope that that will overcome the objection raised about the lack of definition in the Bill.

When responding to our previous debate, the Minister said that there were issues that were going to be addressed, and that in light of their vulnerability, bats have been subject to protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. At European level, that was augmented by protection under the European habitats directive in 1994, which was transposed into UK law with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. He said that there would be a review of the relevant European directive, and that

“the European Commission has committed itself to reviewing certain elements of the directive to establish whether they are proportionate. So, in addition to all the work that we are doing nationally, a European-level review is under way.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 1199.]

Will the Minister tell the House where we are with that European level review, and say when he thinks it will reach a conclusion? What sort of conclusion does he think it will reach, and what evidence has been submitted by the Government to that review?

It is a great concern to me, and to a lot of my hon. Friends, that we have European legislation to deal with bats who do not fly across Europe. These are bats who reside in the British Isles. What business is it of the other countries in the European Union to dictate to us how we should look after our own bat populations? This could almost be a starting point for addressing the much-vaunted but totally ignored principle of subsidiarity. If we have a species in our country that does not move from one country to another, it should surely be a matter for domestic, rather than European, law. I would be very interested to know from my hon. Friend the Minister where he thinks we have got to on that.

There is some good news. Last year, I talked about the impact of wind turbines on bats. I put a provision in that Bill largely because of a proposed massive offshore wind turbine project in Dorset. The good news is that the project has now been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate. There will no longer be the adverse impact on bats on the mainland there would otherwise have been if connecting cables had been constructed through forest areas.

In responding last year to the aspect of that Bill concerning the impact of wind turbines on bat habitats, my hon. Friend said:

“That evidence is fairly mixed. Some studies in the United States and Canada suggested that there could be an impact, but, in order to clarify the position in the United Kingdom the Government are conducting their own research, which will be completed later this year.”

The research must therefore have been completed by the end of 2015. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could tell us the outcome of that research into the wind turbine impacts on our bat populations and habitats. He went on to say:

“If that research establishes that the current approach to planning in respect of wind turbines is insufficient to protect bats, we will review our approach at that point.”

There is a useful purpose to be served by having an almost regular review of progress on issues such as this. The other thing my hon. Friend said last time was this:

“In a changing landscape, where hedgerows and other linear features that are so important to bats have been lost as roosting sites, churches can be important to, in particular, some of our rarer birds. However, the Government recognise, and are sympathetic to, the concern of parishioners who are suffering from the effects of bat droppings on pews, precious artefacts and equipment in the public and private areas of their churches. To address that concern, we have invested considerable resources in research and development to establish how we can reduce the impact of bats in churches.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 1198.]

He then went on to refer to the three-year research project completed in March 2014.

At the beginning of my remarks, I referred to the answer to the question of where we are getting to in establishing a toolkit for effective and safe management of bats in churches. The answer seems to be that it is a long way off. In the meantime, what are we going to do? Something has to be done to make things better for churches and for the parishioners and others who use them. There must be a better solution than their having to put up umbrellas in church to avoid being defecated upon.

Why must our fantastic church monuments be covered with paper—not plastic, because it adds to the adverse impact on the artefacts—so that bats can carry on doing their thing inside our churches to the detriment of that important part of our heritage? It must be possible for bats to co-exist with historic churches. The challenge for the Government, which is reflected in the Bill, is to demonstrate a will to make it happen. For that reason, I ask that the House give my Bill a Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I too associate myself with the comments about the sad death of Harry Harpham.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for giving me the opportunity to respond to his Bill. As he indicated, this is a Second Reading in more ways than one, because, a little over a year ago, I stood at the Dispatch Box debating precisely the same Bill. This is an opportunity, as he said, to update the House on what has happened since, although it is obviously a short time in which to make progress on such a long-term problem. I am afraid, however, that the Government still do not support his Bill, for reasons I will explain.

All bats are subject to protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it a criminal offence deliberately to kill, injure, take or disturb bats. There is also a strict liability offence of damaging or destroying their breeding sites or resting places. The Act’s provisions protect bats from disturbance in their place of rest and the obstruction of such locations.

Most of the 18 species of bat found in the UK evolved to live, breed and forage in or around trees and caves, but many have now adapted to roost in buildings, including barns, houses, churches, tunnels and bridges, following the loss of their natural roosting sites through modern agriculture and forestry practices, and also through urban growth. Such artificial roosts are now essential to the survival of many bat species. However, the threat of demolition of old buildings, barn conversions, an increasing use of artificial lighting and the move towards air-tight buildings have highlighted the increasing importance of the remaining roosting sites. Decreasing the protection afforded to bats in these important sites is therefore likely to have a detrimental impact on the conservation status of bats in the UK and would be in contravention of our existing national legislation, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is also underpinned by our obligations under, for instance, the habitats directive.

My hon. Friend’s Bill proposes that surveys must be undertaken before any new buildings are built, to assess the presence of bats in the area; and if there are any bats present, that building should proceed only if bat boxes or other artificial roosts are provided. The requirement to be aware of the existence of bats and to consider the impacts of any build on their numbers already exists. Local planning authorities have a duty to consider biodiversity and the requirements of the habitats directive when considering developments. Mitigation of damage to bat roosts and resting places may be required, but bat boxes and artificial roosts are only two of the possible measures that can be implemented. Each case should be considered on its merits. Furthermore, bats require not just roost sites, but suitable habitats in which to feed. The Bill does not take account of this.

The Bill also proposes to prohibit the placing of wind turbines in the vicinity of any bat habitat. Again, bat surveys are already undertaken at potential wind turbine sites when bats are nearby. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned research on the impact of wind turbines on bats, and I am told the report will be published shortly. My hon. Friend asked for an update on that report, and the fact that it is being published suggests that either it is nearing completion or the finishing touches are being put on it. We expect the report to be published in the spring. Should that research show an impact, we will consider what changes may be needed in the placing of wind turbines. I would make the point, though, that this is not believed to need new legislation; rather, there would simply be a change in planning policy guidance.

Finally, the Bill proposes that bats should be excluded from a building used for public worship unless it has been demonstrated that their presence would not have a significant adverse impact on the users of such a place. Unfortunately, the Bill does not define what a “significant adverse impact” would be. Such a blanket prohibition does not take account of either the potential importance of some churches to vulnerable bat populations or the work the Government are doing to alleviate the impact of bats in such places where they are causing a nuisance or distress. In a changing landscape, where hedgerows and other linear features so important to bats have been lost and other buildings used as roost sites, such as farm outbuildings or other traditional buildings, have been lost or demolished, churches can represent one of the few remaining constant resources for bats, thus giving them a disproportionate significance for the maintenance of bat populations at a favourable conservation status.

However, as I have said previously, the Government recognise and are very sympathetic to the concerns of the many parishioners who are suffering from the negative effects of bats in churches, such as bat droppings. To address this, the Government have invested significant resources in research and development to assess how we can reduce the impact of bats in churches. A recent three-year research project led by DEFRA, along with a pilot project led by Historic England, developed techniques to assist churches with significant bat-related issues. Solutions are ready to be implemented in some churches that were involved in this work. Natural England is currently creating a licensing framework, which will be the mechanism through which these techniques will be delivered.

[Mr Chope]

When does my hon. Friend expect Natural England to complete the licensing framework?

[George Eustice]

I do not have a particular timetable, but the framework is being developed based on the evidence from the research project. I imagine that it could be done relatively quickly.

I thought my hon. Friend took a rather “glass half empty” view of the parliamentary question and the response to it that he received today. The reality is that Heritage Lottery Fund money is being sought to support the roll-out of this work across England and to create an effective national support network for churches that have bat-related issues. He might have misinterpreted one element of the response, because it made it clear that this is a funding application, a decision on which is expected in March this year, and that that funding will support a five-year project. It is not the case that nothing will be done for five years or that further evidence gathering will go on for five years. If the project is supported, it will be largely complete after five years. There is more reason for optimism than my hon. Friend showed.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously, I would not expect the Minister to anticipate not getting the funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, but can he guarantee that, whether or not that application is successful, this work will be carried out, because it would be perverse if it were dependent solely on the success of that bid?

[George Eustice]

When it comes to heritage assets, our churches are almost second to none. We have thousands of churches and they provide incredibly important heritage assets, so I think this bid will be a very strong one. If, however, for some reason the bid were unsuccessful, it goes without saying that we would seek alternative means to fund this important work.

Major positive strides forward are already being made at one church. Work carried out at St Hilda’s in Yorkshire led to the impact of bats being removed altogether, while ensuring that the bats were still able to roost in the roof of the building. This is an excellent example of peaceful co-existence between bats and parishioners in churches.

Let me deal with the habitats directive, another point that my hon. Friend raised. The Commission is working on its REFIT—regulatory fitness and performance programme—proposals, looking at the implementation of the habitats directive. We think it unlikely that any major revisions to the list of species protected by the directive will be made, but the Commission is keen to ensure that implementation is proportionate. That work is carrying on. My hon. Friend will know that things do not always move at a pace in the European Union, but I can assure him that we are in regular dialogue with the Commission on this matter, and we are keen to see the REFIT approach to the directive taking place.

My hon. Friend’s Bill deals with the habitats directive by inserting a notwithstanding clause. The constitutional position is clear: Parliament has the right to set aside directives in the way he describes if it wishes to do so. It would, of course, cause difficulties for our laws internationally, which is why we have tended not to do this. He should understand that we sign up to other international conventions. He sought to make a distinction between the protection of migrating species and species that are here purely domestically. We have signed up to the Bern convention, which encourages wildlife protection in all the countries that are signatories to it—whether or not they are in the European Union and irrespective of whether the species are migrating. The Bern convention makes some reference to bats in this respect.

[Mr Chope]

May I give an example by referring to what happens with migrating birds in Malta? Although Malta is a member of the European Union, it does not seem that any of these rules apply to that country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response to the points that have been raised. I hope that his optimism about the Heritage Lottery Fund bid is well founded and that that project is able to continue. It is not often that I would describe a piece of legislation that I have put forward as being premature, but in the light of what he has said and of the fact that we are shortly to have an in/out referendum, and on the basis of the Bill’s prematurity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Fisheries Policy

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fisheries policy.

First, I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for making the case for this debate to the Backbench Business Committee. She is a strong voice for her fishing industry. I thank the Committee for allowing time for this debate, although it would have been good if we could have held it in the main Chamber, as we usually do.

I ask Members to spare a moment to pay tribute to those brave fishermen and women who put to sea, sometimes in the most dangerous conditions, to bring a fry to our table. I would also like the House to remember those who, over the past year, paid the ultimate price in the course of their daily work and did not return to their families. My heart goes out to their loved ones. From my own experience, I know how they feel. I also pay tribute to all the maritime rescue services, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguard and the National Coastwatch Institution, and those maritime charities that help our seafarers and fishermen in times of need, including the Fishermen’s Mission.

I have been involved in fishing for many years. As an observer of—and, since 2010, a participant in—these debates, I have noticed that we hear the same message each year from all over the UK: fishermen are struggling to survive and the fleet is getting smaller. While no one would question the need to manage our fish stocks responsibly, the system of management first introduced in 1983—the total allowable catch and quotas system—has been an absolute disaster for fish stocks, fishermen and the UK industry. Various tweaks and changes over the years have made things no more credible.

The European Commission’s proposals this year seem to fly in the face of the sensible conservation of some stocks in the south-west. One example is Dover sole in area VIIe. A 44% TAC increase is advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, but article 4 of Council of the European Union regulation No. 509/2007 limits any increase or reduction of that stock to 15%, because that stock is subject to a management plan. That flies in the face of the demersal landing obligation. We would need an uplift of around 30%, or to have fishermen tied to the quay, if we were to take account of the ICES advice. In the light of the introduction in 2016 of the demersal landing obligation for Dover sole, among other stocks, there can be no justification for restricting the TAC increase to the 15% laid down in the regulation. I urge the Minister to make that point to the Fisheries Council in a couple of weeks.

I also ask the Minister to look at channel plaice in areas VIId and VIIe. In area VIIe—the western channel part of the stock—the advice corresponds to a 20% increase in catches because of growing biomass, which is well above the maximum sustainable yield, and falling fishing mortality. Area VIId, which is the eastern channel part of the stock, is similarly growing in biomass, with fishing mortality falling steadily over years. Under the maximum sustainable yield approach, the increase in catches could be up to 202%—yes, 202%—with biomass falling by just 4%. The Commission very recently agreed an in-year increase in the 2015 TAC for the stock, which provided the UK with an immediate 30% increase for the final quarter. Given the impending introduction of the demersal landing obligation, I hope the Minister supported the French in their endeavours to maximise the increase in the TAC and quota for plaice in areas VIId and VIIe in 2016. Indeed, I hope he may have some good news on the stock.

I am also looking for reassurance from the Minister that he will totally oppose the Commission’s proposal to reduce the TAC for haddock in area VIIa by 52%, given that ICES has advised that it could be increased by 400%. Turning to other stocks in area VII, there is no new advice for pollock, and the advice for monk is the same as last year, but the Commission have proposed a cut in pollock of 20% and in monk of 11.9%. I urge the Minister to secure at least a roll-over of the TAC from last year.

Given how the Commission puts the proposals in place, I wonder whether the Minister, who I know is hard-working, is being constrained by the European legislation under which he has to operate. In October 2014, he said on his web blog:

“Another feature of the reform is that there will be a ban on discarding healthy fish back into the sea. Instead, we will help fishermen manage the realities of the marine environment allowing flexibilities between the quotas they have. So if a fisherman catches more haddock than he expected, rather than having to throw the catch overboard, he can count it against quotas he has for other species, like whiting or cod, so that he can land the fish he has caught. He will also be able to borrow some quota from the following year if needed and there will be an uplift in the amount that he can catch to take account of the fact that fish are no longer being discarded.”

Is he prepared to share with us today the precise size of that uplift for each species? Furthermore, is it right to encourage year-on-year borrowing? Could that not result in next year’s quota being used up prematurely?

Sea bass is a concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who has not been able to get to this debate because of other duties. On 30 March last year, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations published an article on its website that stated:

“The Federation accepts that some remedial measures are inevitable, although we do not agree that the 80% reduction in fishing mortality, suggested by an MSY approach, would be deliverable, necessary or appropriate. We support a balanced package of measures, including all fisheries which impact the bass stocks, applied in a fair and proportionate way.”

The Commission’s factsheet said:

“Sea bass is a special case: real management measures for sea bass were only put in place in January 2015 and catch limits were only put in place in June 2015. The Commission is therefore building on the measures taken in 2015 to halt the dramatic decline in this important stock. Today’s proposal includes a complete fishing ban for commercial vessels and recreational anglers in the first half of 2016. For the second half of 2016, the Commission is proposing a monthly one tonne catch limit”—

that almost halves the quota for my Looe fishermen—

“and a one fish bag limit for recreational anglers.”

The Minister confirmed in a recent answer to my written parliamentary question that the UK response to those proposals is being considered in advance of negotiations at the December Fisheries Council meeting. Can he share with the House today what that response will be?

Finally, I wish the Minister well in his negotiations. I know he will do his best for Cornish and UK fishermen. However, having seen the industry suffer under the common fisheries policy, first as someone connected with the industry and, from 2010, as a Member of Parliament, I have to say that enough is enough. On the 12-mile limit, there is a case for ending access rights. We see from the regulations that France has access to 15 areas in UK territorial waters. Ireland has access to two areas, Germany to six, the Netherlands to three and Belgium to five for a variety of species. The UK gains access to two areas in German waters and one area in French waters. This is not fair.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Is the natural conclusion of her analysis that unless or until we leave the European Union, things will go from bad to worse?

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend has anticipated the point that I will end with.

My hon. Friend the Minister was the Conservative party’s head of press when Michael Howard said:

“From a British perspective, the Common Fisheries Policy has been a failure: it has led simultaneously to the dwindling of fish stocks and the near-destruction of the British fishing industry.”

He went on to say:

“That which no one owns, no one will care for. The first step towards regenerating fisheries as a renewable resource is to establish the concept of ownership. That is why an incoming Conservative government will immediately negotiate to restore national control over British fishing grounds, out to 200 miles or the median line as allowed under maritime law, with sensible bilateral deals and recognition of the historic rights of other nations.”

The shadow Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), drew up a Conservative party Green Paper of more than 30 pages, entitled “Consultation on a National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters”, dated January 2005.

A recent debate in Westminster Hall demonstrated cross-party support for fisheries to be included in the EU renegotiations being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I know that it is not in the Minister’s gift to deliver a promise of national control today, but would he make a simple request on behalf of Cornish and British fishermen, and ask the Prime Minister to make this inclusion in his negotiations? It is not a case of fish knowing no boundaries, but more that, as his then boss said,

“That which no one owns, no one will care for.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is pleased about the investment in flood defences in her constituency. During the last Parliament, we raised £140 million in additional funding, which is 10 times that raised by the previous Government. We are already up to £250 million—more than 40% of our target—within two months of our six-year programme, and we are going to help deliver that.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T8. Page 73 of the Conservative party manifesto said:“We will press for…further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy”.What specific reforms does my right hon. Friend expect to be agreed prior to the referendum?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are working on this all the time. One of the most complicated common agricultural policies in history has just been introduced, and we are already in discussions with Commissioner Hogan about simplifying that and making it easier for farmers to apply it. The next round of CAP negotiations are coming up and we want a much simpler policy.

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill has attracted a lot of outside interest. Indeed, there was a letter in The Times earlier this week saying what a brilliant Bill it is and that it should command the support of hon. Members. It builds on the concerns that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has raised in debates in Westminster Hall and those expressed by church conservation authorities.

I hope it is not out of order to say that, in his Christmas card to me, the noble bishop whose diocese is situated in my constituency wished me good luck with my bats Bill. The reason for that is that this is a narrow but significant issue for churches up and down the country and for our built heritage, including the fabric of churches, whether it be their stone or marble structures, and the brasses and other artefacts inside them. It also applies to people: we may be able to tell those who worship at the church that they should keep wearing their hats if there is a problem with bat infestation, but that does not really work if a children’s day centre or nursery group meets there: we cannot expect all the children to wear bonnets to protect themselves against the bat infestation.

The Bill seeks to increase the number of bat habitats while at the same time introduce measures to prevent bats from being in what might be described as the wrong place. Clause 1 sets out provisions to enhance the protection available for bat habitats in the non-built environment. In that respect, I hope the Bill will find favour with organisations such as the Bat Conservation Trust, because by enhancing that protection we will be able to support our bat population.

Interestingly, a 2013 survey by Hurn parish councillors in my constituency identified eight different species of bats in Hurn parish and Hurn forest in particular. They are concerned about the adverse impact of the cabling for a proposed wind turbine development on that bat habitat. Such situations are covered by clause 1, which would ensure that when a problem in the non-built environment may affect bats adversely, developers should take remedial measures, such as providing a bat box or artificial roost for each bat species located in the vicinity. It would also prevent onshore wind turbines from being constructed unless a local bat survey had been conducted and had established that there was no bat habitat in the vicinity, because of the direct adverse effect of wind turbines on bats.

Clause 2 deals with the issues raised by the Churches Conservation Trust and others about the impact of bats on our churches and those who worship in them. Currently, the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 work together basically to make it impossible for bats roosting and living in our churches to be controlled in any way whatever. In essence, they are above and beyond the law.

If the Second Church Estates Commissioner says that it is absurd that the EU habitats regulations should apply to our United Kingdom domestic bat population and that we should use our common sense, it seems to me that that should be reflected in legislation. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—I am delighted that he will reply to the debate—has Eurosceptic credentials second to none. I hope that he shares my concern about the European Union dictating to us what we can and cannot do with our domestic bat population. We are not talking about migrating mammals—bats are of course mammals, not birds—but our own domestic bats. Surely this is an issue for subsidiarity, to use that ghastly EU word, and an area on which we in the United Kingdom Parliament know what is best for our own bats.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I naturally agree with that sentiment. Why is my hon. Friend seeking to apply the clause only to places of public worship, because I am pretty sure that its provisions would equally apply to other buildings from time to time, and that that would be very much welcomed in different communities, depending on their circumstances? Why is the clause restricted to places of public worship?

[Mr Chope]

As the Bill is a private Member’s Bill, I was trying to restrict the degree of controversy that might develop about it. I know that the mere prospect of legislating on bats has already created an almost hysterical reaction among some members of bat conservation societies. I am therefore loth to make the Bill wider than is necessary to deal with the immediate problem, which has been drawn to my attention by the Churches Conservation Trust and the Countryside Alliance. They are concerned about the adverse impact of bats and bat roosts in buildings used for public worship. I recognise that other buildings could be similarly embraced by the Bill, and perhaps if it goes to Committee, an order-making power might extend the provisions to other areas in due course.

I am promoting this Bill because everybody recognises that there is a genuine problem. The Church Monuments Society is collectively tearing its hair out at its inability to do anything to address effectively the problem of bat damage that is affecting the conservation of furniture, liturgical objects, funerary and ensemble, works of art and so on, in buildings used for public worship and community functions. I hope the Minister will not say that having no control at all over bats in such places is reasonable. Surely we need some sensible control, and I hope the Bill finds favour with the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

In the light of what the Minister has just said, I hope that a review of the bat habitat regulations and the directive will be one of our main renegotiating points when we come to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. While noting some of the measures that the Government have put in place, I also have to note that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs among people involved in church conservation. They believe something much more stringent and urgent needs to be undertaken, which is why I would like to continue this debate—

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are not talking about the Baldry conservation trust, Mr Sheerman.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the full might of the Church of England be deployed in support of the Bat Habitats Regulation Bill, which is due for a Second Reading on 16 January 2015? That Bill would protect churches and deregulate the system so that bats did not get a free ride inside our churches.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

As I think EU Commissioners have acknowledged, no one expected the EU habitats directive to cover places of worship.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but again, I do not want to get on to parts of the Bill that are subject to amendments in future groups, so I will resist that temptation.

Supermarkets can operate properly only with the good will of their suppliers. There are often cases in which, for example, a supplier has a problem at short notice—we have seen that recently with the issue of horsemeat. Things have to be taken off sale at short notice and production dries up quickly. That happens when foreign bodies are found in certain products, which have to be taken off the shelves. A supermarket can operate only if it then has other suppliers that it can go to and ask to fill the void at short notice. It goes to another supplier and says, “We’ve got some empty shelves and a lack of supply. Can you come and help us out?” Do people really think that the supplier would help out a supermarket chain that was trying to bankrupt it or screw it into the ground? Of course it would not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood made the point that the limits in my new clauses may impede small business at some point in future. However, new clause 2 specifies a turnover of £1 billion a year, and all I can say is that, my word, supermarkets must be a force for good if they can turn small and medium-sized enterprises into firms with a £1 billion-a-year turnover. That should be something to celebrate, not to criticise supermarkets for. Suppliers would be delighted to be companies of that scale. I am not entirely sure which ones in his constituency he is thinking of, but if he has any examples of firms that he is worried may have a turnover of £1 billion a year, I would like to meet them to find out what their fears are.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Can he illustrate to the House what he thinks would be £1 billion-worth of cauliflowers?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which strikes at the heart of new clauses 1 and 2. We can argue about the necessity of the Bill, and as far as I am concerned it is not only unnecessary—as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made clear, there are no complaints about the existing code, so it is a solution looking for a problem—but the most unconservative-minded thing that we could possibly see. I have no problem with the Liberal Democrats supporting it, because of course they are always a left-wing tribe, but I am worried that members of my own party are supporting this intervention in the free markets.

Two companies, free to make their own decisions, are making agreements and signing a contract, and then we in the House think that we should intervene in that contract that they have both entered into freely and say, “By the way, we don’t think you should have signed that contract.” I have always thought that companies are more than capable of deciding those things for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is for ever an optimist, but I am afraid that, in my experience, logic is not usually the great winner in these debates. Unless the Government come up with an idea themselves, they appear reluctant to accept anybody else’s amendment, simply because they did not come up with it themselves.

Do we think the Bill should be directed at Walkers snack foods? What about Coca-Cola? That is a poor, small firm that needs looking after when it negotiates with supermarkets!

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend refers to Walkers snack foods. Potatoes are among the raw materials that that company uses a lot of, but there is nothing in the Bill that would protect the suppliers of potatoes to Walkers.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill would still allow Walkers to screw the potato suppliers—who provide the raw materials—into the ground as much as it liked, but it would prevent Asda, for example, from trying to negotiate the best deal with Walkers for its crisps.

I have mentioned Coca-Cola. I also wonder whether Heinz Ltd would really need to take a complaint to an adjudicator. Is Heinz not big enough to look after itself? Why on earth are we passing legislation to intervene in disputes between big supermarkets and big suppliers such as Heinz, Diageo, United Biscuits, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, Premier Foods, Fullers Foods, Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd and Mars? Are we really saying that the House must set up a state regulator to intervene in negotiations or disputes between massive multinational companies? Those companies have recourse to the courts if they feel that a contract has been breached. Are we really saying that Heinz does not have the wherewithal to take a case to court if it feels that a supplier has dealt with it unfairly? Does anyone want to stand up and say that Heinz does not have the wherewithal to take such a case to court? Who wants to make that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for not tempting me to infringe the guidance you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We had a great deal of debate in Committee on the ability of the groceries code adjudicator to comment on several issues concerning the supply chain. In fact, on both sides of the House, several hon. Members said that if the adjudicator were aware of abuses elsewhere they would expect the adjudicator to inform the relevant authorities. I shall be interested in the Government’s response to the amendment, but I would have thought that there was almost an obligation on the adjudicator to report any observed abuse in the management of the supply chain. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South that amendments 34 and 35 are important, and we are convinced that the adjudicator should have an eye to this function as well as his or her core role on the supply chain.

[Mr Chope]

I support new clause 2. In most people’s eyes the Bill was designed essentially to protect the UK supplier, particularly of fresh produce, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said. What the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just delivered is a scaremongering speech designed to undermine British suppliers of fresh meat and produce. That is extremely regrettable.

Last night I attended a speech given by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). His speech was entitled, “Deregulation for Growth”. I must admit to being slightly confused about what I have heard so far during this debate, because it seems to be about regulation. How, I ask the Minister, will the Bill be consistent with the Government’s growth agenda? Perhaps she will tell us when she responds.

The Minister last night said that there was a two-for-one principle—that for every £1 of additional burden imposed through regulation, £2 of savings of regulation had to be found. That brings me to new clauses 4 and 5, which are designed to highlight the fact that the Bill as drafted will embody the law of unintended consequences writ large. It will potentially benefit suppliers not only from elsewhere in Europe, but from right across the globe, when most people who support the Bill think they are doing so in order to help the farmer down the road in the United Kingdom. That is far from the case. What will happen is that the Bill will enable suppliers from overseas to exploit our system, at a time when our own suppliers and producers are not able to access overseas markets on an equivalent basis.

[Mr Bone]

I am sure my hon. Friend is going to explain new clause 4 in more detail. I am troubled by the way it is drafted, as it says

“if they have their principal headquarters outside the European Union.”

Why not outside the United Kingdom?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend anticipates the argument that I am going to put. I was in discussion about whether an amendment referring only to “outside the United Kingdom” would be in order and selectable. On advice—obviously, I am responsible for deciding whether to act on advice—I decided that my new clause was much more likely to be selected if, instead of referring to the United Kingdom, I referred to the European Union. That is because of single market and European Union rules. Obviously, I wanted to ensure as far as possible that my new clause would be selectable, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is saying that the whole public debate is about why cannot we buy British—buy UK food and thereby avoid the risk associated—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I gently remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries —[Interruption.] Order. A Member is speaking, and unfortunately every time a PPS walks past, it is at eye-level of the camera. The first time it is not too bad, but it is happening constantly. We all want to hear Mr Chope, and I am sure the PPSs would like to hear a little more from him.

[Mr Chope]

The only comfort that I take is that my remarks are evidently creating such confusion on the Front Bench that Ministers need an enormous number of messages sent to them from the Box. I take some consolation from that.

It is incumbent upon the Minister when she replies to explain how the Bill will help UK producers while not giving benefits and privileges to producers from the rest of the European Union, let alone from outside the European Union. I should like to give the Minister the maximum amount of time to respond to the debate.

Amendment 27 seemed to be warmly endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not understand why the Opposition did not table such an amendment themselves in Committee or on Report. The amendment proposes that the Bill come into force two months after Royal Assent. Then it would be clear on the face of the Bill when it would come into force. If this is such fantastic legislation, why do we not bring it in in the normal way—the whole Bill, two months after Royal Assent? I hope the Minister will respond to those points and particularly to the powerful argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in relation to new clause 2.