Red Squirrels: Potential Extinction

David Crausby Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dr Coffey]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), is now responsible for domestic forestry and the Forestry Commission, so I no longer have day-to-day contact in that regard. I hope that the tree strategy will be a way to make progress.

I suggest that some of the biggest forest and woodland planning applications had particular issues. We have to balance compliance with the habitats directive and the different assessments that have to be made, and I know how expensive those can be. Applications for financial support from the Government need to ensure that they are not only absolutely compliant with UK forestry standards, but taking wider environmental regulations into account. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), however, that lessons could have been learned from some of those major applications, and I hope that they will be for future developments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland asked why the Forestry Commission does not allow more shooting. Shooting, or culling, of grey squirrels is an important driver in their elimination. The Forestry Commission has asked me to point out that it has responsibility for public access and public safety on its estate. However—I will be open about this—I do not think that the commission does a very good job of tackling non-native invasive species. We have the wild boar problem down in the Forest of Dean, and other such problems across the country. I would like to see a more proactive approach, such as the deer initiative, in which people who are not Forestry Commission employees work in partnership to tackle the deer problem. I would like to see more of that happen with some other non-native species.

In speaking about other elements of the issue, many hon. Members paid tribute to the important role played by volunteers in the protection of our domestic red squirrel populations. As they said, a variety of charities up in Cumbria raise public awareness of the threats to red squirrels, engage directly with local landowners, and created a citizen science system in which members of the public record red and grey squirrel sightings. Pockets of improvement could happen elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight talked about the nature networks and the woodland and habitat links in his constituency. I see that as something we could take forward in the environmental improvement plans that we expect across the country.

As for grey squirrels being a carrier of pox, I have already tried to address some things, such as dealing with grey squirrel procreation success—I think that is the best way of putting it. We also have to be open about this: for red squirrels to survive for the next 500 years —although none of us will be alive then to keep that guarantee to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire—we must significantly or entirely reduce the threat from the grey squirrel and its diseases. We must also ensure that any future introductions of species align with international guidelines. Such threats have to be tackled head on.

I have already referred to the fact that landowners, if they wish to do more and possibly designate reserves, may apply for countryside stewardship scheme funding. That is open to them. Many different challenges will of course continue but, in response to other questions about funding, it is available. Natural England still funds a variety of activities such as species recovery programmes, which are very much alive. There is also what we will do with the shared prosperity fund. The choices about future funding in Wales are a decision for the Welsh Government, but certainly the environmental land management scheme will be a real opportunity for farmers and landowners to consider carefully where, in the right place, we can continue to invest significantly in a species.

In conclusion, the passion to protect our red squirrels touches many right hon. and hon. Members. It is important to keep our focus on ensuring that iconic native species, whether fauna or flora, remain important in the future. That is a key part of our 25-year environment plan. I am confident that some of the measures in the forthcoming environment Bill will help, but equally important is direct action through the nature improvement and recovery networks that we will establish.

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

For the record, I point out that Members who have made a speech ought to listen to the following two speeches and to be present to hear the wind-ups. That does not apply to those Members who have only intervened.

Coastal Erosion

David Crausby Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the three Front-Bench speakers at 10.30, but a number of Members wish to speak, so, if Members keep their contributions to about four minutes, we will have a chance of getting everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members keep their contributions to three minutes, we will get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing this extremely important debate. Moray has suffered from significant flooding over several decades. Millions of pounds have been invested in flood alleviation schemes in Forres, Elgin, Dallas, Newmill, Keith, Rothes and Lhanbryde, but none of those is a coastal community. Coastal communities, which suffer just as much as inland communities, feel neglected in our area. Portknockie, for example, suffered landslips just last year, and although I welcome yesterday’s announcement from Sustrans and Moray Council—in response to my correspondence— that work is being done to reopen a path between Portknokie and Cullen, I still have constituents living in homes at the top of a landslip, precariously close to the edge, who fear every day for their properties.

For 10 years before being elected to Parliament, I was a councillor on Moray Council. Part of my Fochabers Lhanbryde ward was the communities of Garmouth and Kingston. They have suffered more than most. Ross House, which 10 years ago was 150 yards from the River Spey, now has the river lapping against its walls. That shows how much coastal erosion there has been. Garmouth and Kingston golf course, like Montrose golf links in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, has suffered considerably. We have had a par 5 go to a par 4, and it is now a par 3 because so much of it has been washed away.

I welcome the fact that Garmouth and Kingston could be designated as potentially vulnerable areas under the new Scottish Environment Protection Agency scheme, but I was struck by the words of my hon. Friend, who said that too much time is spent on studies and not enough on action. I endorse that wholeheartedly.

Many studies, at my request, have looked at dredging, for example. Every time that I, as an elected representative, and communities say we should dredge the River Spey, people come back to us to say, “Well, no—you’ve got to worry about the flora and the fauna.” I am sorry, but I do not worry about the flora and the fauna; I worry about my constituents, who are living in fear every day that their house might be flooded, that they might be moved away or that they could lose property altogether. Some of the studies have to look at the real personal impacts of flooding and coastal erosion in their area.

I would finish with a quote from a lady from Garmouth who said, “We want action, not sympathy.” They are fed up with warm words from politicians of all Governments. What they want now is action from their Governments, whether that be the Scottish Government, the UK Government or local authorities, because they are living in fear of coastal erosion. It is only right that we as politicians stand up for them to get the changes they need and deserve.

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I ask the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople to divide up their time to give the Minister enough opportunity to wind up the debate and to allow the mover of the motion time for a brief response at the end. I call Kirsty Blackman.

Fisheries Policy

David Crausby Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to call the Front-Bench speakers at about 3.50 pm, so that I can give Margaret Ritchie time to wind up. Four or five Members are standing, so if they can keep their contributions to less than 10 minutes, we should just about fit all them in.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and others for securing the debate.

I am lucky enough to serve what I would argue is the most beautiful constituency in the country, but it is also the one with the longest coastline. It therefore has a large number of fishing ports, including larger ones, such as Mallaig and Ullapool, and some very small ones. I want to raise an important constituency matter, and I would like the Minister with responsibility for fisheries to discuss with the Secretary of State for Defence the issues that I will raise, because they run across both their portfolios.

The North West Inshore Fisheries Group has made representations to me and the Secretary of State for Defence about the consultation on the proposals, published on 30 September 2015, to extend the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre range and to introduce new byelaws. Like me, the NWIFG fully accepts that measures need to be expedited in the interests of national security, and that a suitable operational area is required for the secure deployment of acoustic and other test equipment, which the Ministry of Defence has used in this area for many years. I stress that I fully support BUTEC operating in the area, but that must be done on a sustainable basis, and it must take the local fishing community’s interests into account.

Given the significant scale of the proposed area extension and the associated restrictions, more could and should have been done to liaise with fishing and other interests. A full socioeconomic and environmental impact assessment should have been carried out before the consultation proposals were made public. A number of Members have mentioned the value of the fish landings in their areas, and analysis carried out over a three-month period in the area I am talking about—the fishing grounds at the edge of the existing MOD range—showed that just seven vessels landed 28 tonnes of nephrops with a value of £271,000. Those seven vessels are a tiny proportion of the fleet in the area, and I should add that the value of the nephrops catch there is approximately three times the national average—this is the most important area for nephrops in the whole of western Scotland, so it is an area of some importance for us all.

The fact that there has been little liaison with the industry is important, given the assurances given in an Adjournment debate that I secured on 23 June. The Minister for Defence Procurement said:

“I want to ensure that full and proper discussions are held with representatives of the local fishing communities, which we will start shortly, in advance of the byelaw consultation. The aim of these talks will be to investigate what options might be available that would allow some fishing to take place at certain times within the revised water space—much as happens at present in part of the area other than that which is completely prohibited, which the fishing communities are well accustomed to.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 863.]

Local fishermen’s attempts to engage in constructive dialogue with the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and QinetiQ to get information about the plans and about the reasons behind the extent of the proposed extension were largely unsuccessful. The one meeting that did take place, with representatives of the North West Responsible Fishing Association, did not provide sufficient detail to enable the association to assess the proposals’ implications for local fisheries and communities. Those were not the proper and full discussions that the Minister for Defence Procurement promised in the House on 23 June, and that must be corrected.

The NWRFA, which is a member of the NWIFG, represents 70-plus fishing vessels in the area of Skye and Lochalsh and constitutes approximately 60% of the fishing fleet registered in the Portree fisheries district. Of the 70-plus vessels represented by the NWRFA, 25 fish directly in the Inner Sound area, and the majority are directly affected by the BUTEC proposal, so this is no small matter.

The one public meeting that was held, in Kyleakin on 13 November, did provide some useful information, but there was insufficient time for that information to be reflected in responses before the original consultation deadline of 18 November. We appreciate the short extension until 30 November, but the consultation period was still well short of the standard 90 days generally allowed by other Departments. Scotland has just come through a consultation on marine protected areas, which has taken some months and involved a full public consultation. Why are my constituents not afforded the same rights when the Ministry of Defence wants to come in and make changes? Forty-nine days is not sufficient time to allow for a detailed economic impact assessment of the loss of vessel earnings if the inner sea area of the BUTEC range is more than doubled, as is proposed in the new byelaws.

Thanks to support from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, a Government agency, the NWIFG has commissioned a short economic impact assessment to provide a clearer understanding of the proposals’ implications. Significant work is required to compile information that adequately reflects the complex interrelationship between the various issues—fishing activities, the displacement of activities impacting on wider areas beyond the BUTEC range and the repercussions for onshore businesses and support services that are reliant on fisheries, secondary employment and so on. It was not possible to prepare a substantive report of that kind before the consultation deadline of 30 November. The draft report is due in the third week of December. The need for such an economic assessment was discussed at the public meeting, and there was consensus that it needed to be done well, even if that went beyond the deadline I mentioned, which has now passed.

With the NWIFG, I have requested that a period of at least three months be allowed following the publication of the full socioeconomic impact assessment, to allow sufficient time for consideration of its findings. We have also requested that a working group be set up to facilitate constructive dialogue, and that it include representatives from the local fishing industry, the Ministry of Defence, QinetiQ and other relevant stakeholders. The group could consider the implications of any economic and environmental impact reports and discuss possible options in relation to the size or location of any restricted areas required for BUTEC’s activities. It is not good enough for the Ministry of Defence to complete its consultation, as it has done, for the Minister then to rule, and for the fishing communities in my constituency to be put at risk. There must be proper consultation.

The BUTEC range is in the inner sound of Raasay, in the middle of some of Scotland’s most valuable and intensively used inshore fishing grounds. The new draft byelaw proposes an extended inner sea area of 53.9 sq km, which would more than double the area in which fishing by any method is prohibited at all times, and reduce the fishable area in the creel-only zone by 11%. Based on information on fishing areas collected during the ScotMap exercise and fisheries officers’ local knowledge, it is estimated that at least 23 creel fishing vessels could be directly affected and no longer able to deploy a proportion of their gear where they do now; some vessels will be affected more than others.

These are all small, locally based vessels with limited range and very few, if any, options to relocate to fish elsewhere. It is therefore highly likely that the proposed extension of the inner sea area would displace creel fishing effort on to adjacent grounds, with concomitant impacts on others fishing in the area, particularly in the creel-only zone. Displaced fishing effort might result in an additional loss of catch in the adjacent area. Those involved in the fishery advise that it will exacerbate gear conflict on what are already crowded fishing grounds targeting nephrops.

I want to deal briefly with the consultation process. There are discrepancies in latitudes and longitudes of range boundaries published in MOD consultation documents. The consultation document does not sufficiently explain the reasons for selection of the boundary areas indicated, and whether any alternative areas could and should be considered. As part of the proposed working group discussions, the NWIFG requests further consideration of whether all fishing activity must be excluded from the entire expanded inner sea area, and whether continued activity may be possible, even for part of the year, or around areas with creel-friendly hydrophones. None of that has been addressed to date. Much of the proposed expansion is into the only designated creel area on the Scottish coastline. Further discussion is requested on potential for a cap or limit on the number of days that the outer sea would be closed to fishing activity. Presently, the outer sea area is open to fishing activity all the time.

Fishermen would like the current arrangement to continue, and would like assurances from the MOD and QinetiQ that the outer sea area will not be closed more regularly if the BUTEC range expands and operates under the new proposed byelaws. The MOD and QinetiQ are requested to provide a protocol for closure of the outer sea area; input should be sought from the fishing industry and sufficient forward notice and details of the closure period should be provided. We all have to work together. If the outer sea area is closed and fishing gear must be removed, fishermen will need sufficient notice to get access to their gear and move it, prior to closure. Most fishing vessels that would be displaced from the expanded BUTEC range will not be able to continue fishing with the same effect elsewhere, because the surrounding waters are already fully exploited with fishing activity. Displaced vessels may need to be scaled down, with respect to both vessel size and amount of gear, and in some instances vessels may be forced to stop fishing entirely.

If fishing vessels are forced out of operation, fishermen and their families will suffer directly through loss of jobs, and there will also be indirect negative impacts downstream—for processors, restaurants and the local service industry. Creel fishing represents a significant economic activity in the highlands; the vast majority of fishing vessels working within the inner sound are full-time operators, not part-time or hobby fishermen. A typical creel vessel in the Skye and Lochalsh area employs two to three people—and only local people. In addition, many fishing businesses have been passed down through families, and will be inherited by the next generation. If the BUTEC range expands, a wider negative ripple effect will be felt by the community; that will include the many issues associated with elevated unemployment, and insufficient opportunities for alternative employment in the area. Ultimately, loss of local fishing jobs could result in depopulation—something that we are all too familiar with—which would have a negative impact on schools, other local enterprises’ income, and service provision. I therefore appeal to the Minister to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and come up with something respectful to local fishing interests, as well as the interests of the MOD.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. Members will have to keep their speeches shorter than 10 minutes, as I asked, if I am to get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

I think that £20 is very reasonable.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. We have two people standing, and I will call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 3.50 pm. If Kelvin Hopkins could keep his speech below nine minutes, I will call David Simpson, and he will get the same amount of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

Do I have the floor or not, Mr Crausby? [Interruption.]

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

[Dr Whiteford]

Thank you very much, Mr Crausby. I want to pick up on the important points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the EU-Faroes deal. Between us, we represent the bulk of the UK’s pelagic fleet, and I fully appreciate his frustration about Faroese access to EU waters, given the experiences of recent years and the sacrifices that our pelagic fleet has made to secure a compromise to end the stand-off on mackerel. However, it is important to remember that during those years of deadlock there were also significant adverse impacts on those parts of our white-fish fleet that historically have fished in Faroese waters. Reciprocal access to Faroese waters is extremely valuable to our demersal fleet, not least because it gives them effort refuge. Although I would strongly resist any further Faroese incursions into our waters, we need a balanced outcome that recognises the needs of every part of the fleet, including our white-fish fleet, and that is fair and workable for all parties.

Another key issue currently affecting the pelagic sector is the proposed zero TAC for west of Scotland herring, which was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Crausby. I was talking about renegotiating the repatriation of UK waters, not the CFP. Is it in order for that to be corrected on the record?

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am keen to address the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, with which I am in substantial agreement. Everyone here today is committed to the long-term sustainability of the marine environment, our fishing industry and our coastal communities, and to the sustainable harvesting of this precious food resource. It follows from that that we are committed to basing TACs on the best available scientific evidence. However, there is wide acknowledgment that the evidence on herring in area VIa is partial and inconsistent and does not accurately reflect what is likely to be happening in the whole area, which is ultimately a somewhat arbitrary set of lines drawn on a map. I accept the need for a precautionary approach and the need to consider clearer evidence, but that needs to be proportionate. We need an allocation that allows fishing to take place in support of the Pelagic Advisory Council plan that is already in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) mentioned the MOD consultation on the BUTEC range, which could potentially affect a large number of fishing vessels in the area. The inner sound of Raasay is home to some of Scotland’s most valuable inshore fishing grounds, and the nephrops creel fishery alone supports 54 vessels and is worth nearly £3.5 million to the fairly fragile local rural economy. I hope the Minister has listened to him and will undertake to make representations to his ministerial colleagues in the MOD.

On the subject of Government Departments that intersect with fisheries, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, the hon. Member for Strangford and other Members from Northern Ireland and parts of the west coast of Scotland have raised concerns about the way in which UK Border Force appears to have changed its approach to international seafarers who crew fishing vessels in our fleet. That issue affects my constituency, too, although the issues on the east coast and the west coast are somewhat different because of their geography. The boats are mostly fishing outside the 12-mile zone, and these seafarers are immensely valued by the skippers and are impossible to replace in the current context, so it is important to understand that they are not immigrants; they are contract workers who do not settle here. They are mariners whose main base is still in their home country. The industry is keen to clarify and regularise their status, so that they can continue to run their businesses effectively. I hope the Minister will help us to explain to his colleagues in the Home Office the value that those seafarers bring to the industry and to our wider economy.

The fishing industry is extremely important to Scotland’s economy. It contributes more than £500 million a year in revenues and sustains many coastal communities. Sea fish are not only important to our economy and exports; they are a key sustainable healthy food source, and we must continue to work with the industry to protect our marine environment. Harvesting this renewable resource in a long-term sustainable way is in the interests of everyone, including the fishing industry, and no one recognises that better than those who work on our seas. We recognise that we have some way to go on making the discard ban fully workable, and flexibility will be essential, but we are seeing the tangible results of conservation measures. It is crucial that our fishing industry derives concrete benefits from its efforts.

The passion and commitment we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber today, and the wide range of issues that have been raised, illustrates the importance of the industry to our coastal communities. The viability of the industry depends on the political decisions made in the next few days, so I urge the Minister to pick up the points made by Members on both sides of the Chamber this afternoon. I wish him well for the negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. In the Celtic sea, depending on which area we look at, the French and the Irish have the majority of stock, particularly of haddock. She is right about that; I think that the figure I saw was more than 80%. However, to make a slightly different point, a cut there has a disproportionate effect on the French and Irish, because they have a larger starting base, and if it is a stock that we never had much of in the first place, a cut does not matter as much. Nevertheless, I understand her point, and we should probably have a fairer share of that stock.

I also recognise that the news is not universally good. Yet again, for the third year running that I have been Minister—and it was the case for some years before that, too—there is some very challenging science for the Irish sea in particular, which I will return to later. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) pointed out, dramatic cuts are being proposed for haddock; we will try to get the cuts to VIIa haddock reduced, and to get something that we regard as more proportionate. There is also very challenging advice on plaice.

In the Celtic sea, things are a little more mixed. Once again, we got challenging advice, as we expected, on cod and haddock, with cuts of 30% and 27% respectively being recommended. In previous years, we carried out what we call mixed fishery analysis on those stocks, to ensure that we were not disproportionately cutting something to the point that we end up having to discard it in a mixed fishery. Those figures are more closely aligned this year than last year, so the mixed fishery analysis is probably less likely to help us as an argument this time around. Nevertheless, we will make that analysis, and will work with the French and the Irish, who have a shared interest in that stock.

There are positives as well, not least VIId and VIIe plaice in the channel. The ICES recommendation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall pointed out, is for a 125% increase. Western channel sole is recommended for a 15% increase, due to the management plan, which I will come back to. Also, the scientific advice on skates and rays, despite the fact that they are regarded as a data-limited stock, and despite the complications that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) highlighted, points towards a 40% increase in the quota.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), pointed out the importance of reliable science, and I absolutely agree with them. As I said at the start, no system will ever be perfect; the science will never be perfect. There will always be evidence gaps, and however much scientists try to model things to make the science as up-to-date as possible, there will always be instances in which the science is not quite right. Nevertheless, it is still right to take the science as our starting-point in negotiations.

We are improving the science that we have. Last year, we had enough science and enough evidence to carry out an MSY assessment on 46 stocks, and that number is now up to 62. We are getting better each year at moving stocks away from the data-limited category, and at getting reliable science, so that we can set accurate MSY assessments. Those assessments will be absolutely crucial if we are to get to MSY on all quota species by 2020.

May I pay tribute to the fantastic work that the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science does in Lowestoft? I should add that Lowestoft is the right place for CEFAS to be located. We have given a vote of confidence in CEFAS and its future by making available money to upgrade its laboratories. I visited CEFAS last year and I was incredibly impressed by the work that it does on Endeavour, the vessel there. I also pay tribute to the great work that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has done to lobby in the interests of CEFAS when it comes to investment.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), asked about port capacity and how we will deal with discards that are landed. I can confirm that we have a group of people working with industry on this issue. There is a ports group that deals with officials in my Department. I had a meeting with, and an update from, one such official at the beginning of this week, and we believe that we are making good progress in addressing people’s concerns.

I will make a few points about that. The first thing to note is that just as we are phasing in an approach to achieve MSY on stocks, so too we are phasing in the landing obligation on fish species. We are starting in quite a modest way with some of the larger species that define a fishery. This year, we are considering haddock in the North sea, and whiting, sole and nephrops in Ireland, but in the Celtic sea we are mainly looking at hake and Dover sole. In each area, we have typically picked only two or three species to which the discard ban applies this year, and our assessment so far is that the amount of additional fish that will be landed and that will not be sold into the human food chain is actually negligible. We do not believe that that is a challenge that will present itself this year, as some people do.

Longer term, a number of options are available. We will make available grants to those ports that want to have quayside facilities to manage undersized fish that is landed. We will make funding available to support fishermen in investing in even more selective fishing gear, so that they do not catch and land undersize fish in the first place. For those who do not want to invest in such quayside facilities, there are enterprising companies—one of them is based in Great Grimsby—that have surplus processing capacity. Already, they are running a network of lorries around the country, collecting offal from fish processing factories and turning it into fishmeal. We believe that in many instances—this is already being investigated—they will be able to expand their network to consider taking undersize fish to that processing capacity. Yes, there will be challenges, but I come back to what I said at the beginning: the policy will never be perfect and will always present challenges. The question is whether we are moving in the right direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall raised the issue of the Commission’s proposal for a 125% increase in channel plaice in areas VIId and VIIe. The Commission proposal is looking at something more around 63% as a recommendation. That is partly because, on the basis of strong science, we secured an in-year increase in 2015, and the Commission is starting to take that into account. Nevertheless, things are positive for plaice in the channel.

My hon. Friend also mentioned Dover sole. She is right that the management plan limits that to a 15% increase, despite the science advising a 44% increase. We will be looking closely to see whether we can improve that. As a general rule, we are a bit sceptical of management plans. In a reformed CFP, we believe that clear criteria are needed around the discard plan and quotas, with all the flexibilities that I described.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that I was hoping for time for Mrs Ritchie to wind up.

[George Eustice]

Thank you, Mr Crausby. I will make sure that there is.

The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) mentioned the Farne Deeps. I have a meeting with officials tomorrow to discuss the challenge there. He also mentioned salmon, and I attended the summit. I pay tribute to some of the work done by the fishermen with their nets, and the progress made, but the salmon stock is in a dire state. We need to protect all the salmon as they come into our waters, and that is why we are looking at catch-and-release schemes for anglers, improving fish passes and water quality, and removing net gear. We are also looking at options to buy out some licences to secure early closure.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned the EU-Norway deal, which is incredibly important to his constituents. We made good progress and managed to get the proposed TAC reduction there down to 15%; the original proposal had been much higher. It has been more challenging to get an agreement on blue whiting. Looking at zonal attachment, we believe that we have a strong case for a higher share of the quota, but it has been hard to get agreement. As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) said, we were not able to get Iceland and Russia at the table for an agreement on that. We had issues with Iceland seeking access to our waters as the quid pro quo for coming on board, and we were not able to agree to that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet mentioned skates and rays.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. Minister, we finish at 4.30, so you are not giving Ms Ritchie very much time.

[George Eustice]

Thank you very much, Mr Crausby. I am afraid I have not managed to get to the other points, but I make one final point before wrapping up, relating to the under-10 metre quota. We are rebalancing the quota. We have made it clear that 25% of the uplift will go to the under-10s. We are doing that by giving the first 100 tonnes to the under-10s, and 10% thereafter. That will mean that next year, for instance, much of the inshore fleet will have a substantial increase in the amount of mackerel they have. There will probably be a trebling of the amount of mackerel, which they will then be able to trade as currency.[Official Report, 14 December 2015, Vol. 603, c. 1-2MC.]

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Crausby. I was under the impression that Ms Ritchie was to be given adequate time to wind up the debate.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Well, you are taking up time, Mrs Murray. I am not empowered to sit the Minister down. It is in his hands, so can we let him conclude?

[George Eustice]

In view of your guidance, Mr Crausby, I will conclude my speech earlier than would be the norm. Normally, those winding up the debate get a couple of minutes, but I conclude very briefly by saying that at the next EU negotiation—some have said that we should seek to repatriate this matter—there is a case for looking at the whole issue of relative stability. It is too early to decide what our negotiating position would be, but I am open to suggestions from Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the Minister for that information. Let us hope that we get a sensible outcome that brings benefit to all our fishing communities. Once again, I thank all who participated—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order.

Air Pollution (London)

David Crausby Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ms Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Throughout the Mayor’s tenure, there has been a growing gap between what he has said about air pollution and what he has done on the issue. That is not unsurprising; Boris Johnson is a politician who talks a good game, but does not necessarily deliver. One example is the introduction of ultra-low emission zones, which would require vehicles travelling to central London to meet stricter emissions standards or pay a daily charge.

Since proposing the ultra-low emission zone nearly two years ago, Boris Johnson has taken a series of backward steps. His approach to the issue is inadmissibly weak. Waiting until 2020 to introduce the zone is simply costing lives. A range of organisations including the London boroughs, the London Health Commission, the Faculty of Public Health and the Royal College of Physicians have come together to call for the ultra-low emission zone to be strengthened, with early implementation, wider coverage, stricter standards and stronger incentives, but from Mayor Boris Johnson, we hear nothing. The financial costs to a fraction of drivers and voters must be weighed against the health benefits, including to those same drivers, who are the most at risk from pollution, and to the larger population, particularly children, who are exposed to air pollution in central London and beyond, all the way to Dartford.

Furthermore, Boris Johnson has paid no heed to the findings of the Marmot review of health inequalities, which linked higher exposure to air pollution among poorer communities with an increased risk of cardio-respiratory disease. Nationwide, 66% of man-made carcinogenic chemicals are released into the air in the most deprived 10% of English city wards. It is imperative that the incoming Mayor—I hope it will be me—widens the scope of measures and schemes designed to reduce pollution. By restricting his focus to central London and zone 1, Boris Johnson has abdicated his responsibility to the most vulnerable by excluding those in densely populated, heavily polluted and disadvantaged areas, and given no thought at all to areas outside London that are also affected by high levels of air pollution in London.

I want, and Londoners deserve, for London to become the world’s greenest capital city. The proposed solutions are as follows. We cannot fight the environmental challenges facing London, including air pollution, in a silo. We need a Mayor of London who will advocate for sustainability, low energy consumption and efficient waste reduction ideas that permeate all sectors, including housing, transport, healthcare, education and business. Not all London’s air quality issues result from the number of motor vehicles on our roads, but reducing the number and cleaning up their fuel sources would lead to big improvements. An incoming Mayor must incentivise use of electric cars and work actively to decrease the number of diesel vehicles on our roads.

With London’s population growing year on year, our city is at a crossroads on the issue of the environment in general and air pollution in particular. Londoners must choose whether they want a change for the better. A London with cleaner air and an increased reliance on renewable energy, and that is a safe city for cyclists and pedestrians, is an achievable reality with the right political will; I contend that the current Mayor has not shown that political will. An incoming Mayor must take urgent action.

For instance, it is unacceptable that statistics from 2013 show that the City of London has the highest carbon footprint per person in the whole of the UK. The average Briton produces 12.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, but emissions per head in the City are 25% higher than that. Maybe that is because the people there are more important or wealthy, but it is not acceptable.

The Mayor should consider the use of sustainable technologies. I visited a very interesting project in Hackney a week or so ago, where solar panels have been put on top of a big council block. That enables people there to get their electricity more cheaply, and it is also a sustainable energy source. It is a very interesting project, which could be potentially rolled out across London.

Current efforts are insufficient. Not enough progress has been made on increasing the number of hybrid buses in TfL’s fleet; rectifying that deficiency should be a priority. The fact that Oxford Street remains one of the most polluted streets in the world is evidence that measures to reduce pollution from taxis and buses are not being pursued with sufficient energy. We need to establish more accessible grants for environmentally friendly infrastructure development. London can become a global leader in the proliferation of renewable energy sources, such as solar power. London would do well to adopt such good practices as the creation of last-mile delivery hubs, to ensure that the carbon footprint of final-stage delivery is minimised. There are firms in the City that encourage their employees to walk more—if not to work, then at least between offices. We need to improve London’s sustainable infrastructure; that would create jobs in construction and logistics.

Also, the environmental future of our city must be considered when solving London’s housing crisis; we should think about sustainability and environmentally friendly projects. For example, housing developments that incorporate super-insulation would help to reduce the ever-increasing energy bills of Londoners. We also need to step up our efforts to make the city a safe and accessible place for cyclists. If more people could be encouraged to drop their cars and get on their bikes, London would be a greener and more liveable city. Not enough has been done to address that; it should be treated as an urgent necessity.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that Members of all parties understand that this is an important issue that has not been properly addressed. There can be no doubt that the airport expansion at Heathrow that is being talked about would be the death knell of efforts to improve levels of air pollution, because aviation is such a major cause of air pollution.

Toxic air in London is killing Londoners, and we urgently need measures to tackle it. Promises to meet EU guidelines by 2025 or even by 2030 are unacceptable, and it is shocking that it has taken direct action from the Supreme Court to force the Government and the Mayor to address this issue seriously. It is clear that we have a real opportunity to tackle air pollution through a wholesale shift in the way that we view our living environment. For London, Londoners and the wider population in the UK, it is imperative that we seize the initiative and put an end to this silent killer once and for all, and I am using this opportunity to urge all stakeholders to step up and take responsibility. Individual companies can encourage sustainable travel on the part of their employees; housing developers can encourage sustainable development that uses renewable energy; borough councils can do more to encourage cycling to school, and they can also give out information about air pollution; the Mayor of London, who I think we can agree has comprehensively failed on this issue, can do more; and so can the Government. People should not have had to go to court to force the Government to recognise their responsibilities under EU law.

This important issue is not being dealt with, and as we fail to deal with it thousands of Londoners die every year. I am grateful to the House for having been given the opportunity to bring it to the attention of Members.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call other Members to speak, I point out that I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen from about 10.30 am. We have about 35 minutes before then, and a number of Members wish to speak. I will not impose a time limit, but if Members could keep their contributions to less than five minutes, and ideally to around four minutes, we will probably get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I have always backed high-speed rail—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has now had more than five minutes.

[John McDonnell]

This is my final sentence, Mr Crausby. I apologise.

The hon. Gentleman is basically correct. I have supported the concept of high-speed rail for many years, but we have discovered that HS2 would generate more traffic in our area, rather than reducing it and overcoming some problems at Heathrow.

Government, local government and the mayoralty need to get their act together on this. Last year, I supported the Environmental Audit Committee’s call for a proper inquiry into solutions to air pollution in London. We need it now and we need it urgently.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her mayoral manifesto—sorry, on introducing a subject that is close to all our hearts. For the avoidance of doubt, Oxford Street is in my constituency, although it may one day be in her constituency. However, she is quite right about the problems on that thoroughfare, about which I also have a lot to say. As the father of two young children, living in the increasingly congested Victoria station district, the issue of air quality affecting everyday living is critical.

London is the largest, most established post-industrial city in Europe. It is no surprise that many competing interests jostle with air quality for priority. Our capital is proud to be a global city and it is the epicentre of the UK’s economy. Constant new investment in all our transport infrastructure is required for it to thrive, including—at times—roads. Only then can London maintain its position as a global leader.

More than 1 million people come to work in my constituency alone every day and the congestion this causes inevitably has a major impact on local air quality.

The 10-year age limit on taxis from 2020 should be welcomed, as these vehicles are responsible for a relatively large proportion of emissions in central London. It is essential that a taxi scrappage scheme is introduced to help drivers upgrade their vehicles.

It is worth praising TfL for its efforts on ultra-low emission zones, which are set to be introduced in 2020, although that is perhaps a little bit further in the distance than many of us would like. Investment encouraging pedestrian, electric cars and cycle lanes is also welcome, but I fear that it is insufficiently radical properly to address the heart of this issue.

In a bid to tackle climate change, successive Governments have, through taxation, incentivised drivers to switch to diesel on the basis that it produces less carbon dioxide than petrol. I am sorry to say that this has helped compound the problem. The lobby group, Clean Air in London, led by my indefatigable constituent and good personal friend, Simon Birkett, continues to campaign for a new Clean Air Act to deal with diesel engines, which emit some 20 times more polluting particulates than their petrol equivalents. Clean Air London is rightly calling for a scrappage scheme to remove diesel vehicles from our roads and for widening the congestion charge beyond London, with charges set purely on the basis of emission levels. Drivers may need to be charged far more to drive diesel vehicles through the most polluted areas during rush hour and the ultra-low emission zone should be expanded to include the heavily congested north and south corridors.

Diesel engines are dismally failing to meet nitrogen dioxide emission standards, by an average of some 4.4 times per kilometre in real-world driving conditions. Much of this is caused by the impact of congestion and speed humps, which are inexplicably not variants in the industry standard norms. As a result, nitrogen dioxide levels soar whenever a car’s accelerator is used. This is borne out by the UK being in breach of the EU’s mandated air pollution levels for nitrogen dioxide in no fewer than 38 out of the 43 air quality monitoring zones. These levels were meant to be met some five years ago, as the hon. Lady said, and that situation triggered the legal action that she mentioned. I suggest that, paradoxically, the EU-wide regulatory failing regarding diesel engine emissions has led to this problem.

In my constituency we have a number of hotspots, not just Oxford Street: Marylebone Road, parts of Knightsbridge and the area around Victoria have previously recorded the highest nitrogen dioxide levels in the world and this is causing major problems. Clean Air in London is rightly calling for Oxford Street to be pedestrianised to a large extent and for shops and offices to be fitted with regularly maintained air filters to help reduce nitrogen dioxide levels. I am told that regulations for issuing fixed penalty notices for unnecessary idling of vehicle engines have so far proved ineffective. That needs to change.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the City of London, which suffers from the highest average levels of air pollution. According to an Evening Standard campaign last Friday, the City was advising people not to go jogging during the day because of the pollution levels.

There is much more that I should like to say, but I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak. I finish by mentioning one of my favourite hobbies: walking in all corners of London. I know from personal experience, having been to Dalston and Stamford Hill and other parts of the hon. Lady’s constituency, which are less polluted than bits of mine, that there is none the less a pollution issue there as well.

The problems to which we refer are by no means limited to the city centre or the area around Heathrow airport, although I am sure that that is an important issue for many fellow London MPs. I dread to think of the damage that is being done to the lungs of huge numbers of children and asthma sufferers, of whom there are now a staggering 5.4 million in the UK.

I am delighted that this debate appears to be building momentum across the media. I give particular credit to the Evening Standard, because its campaign is important and will run for months and years to come. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously a lot of what is being said today, because this is and will continue to be a major issue for all Londoners that will unite the political class within London across the House, and we need to deal with it with some urgency.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

No one up to now has been near five minutes, never mind four. I now call Tom Brake, who I am sure will comply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to call the Scottish National party spokesman, Mr Sheppard, to speak at half-past 10.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I will be very brief, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing this debate. She has demonstrated what an effective parliamentarian she is—and why she should stay in this House.

I will not repeat the description of the pollution in London, other than to say that, apart from Oxford Street, areas such as Putney High Street and Brixton Road are also heavily congested and have serious air pollution.

I want to mention schools. It is deeply worrying that, with life expectancy reduced by 11 years, so many London school kids are suffering with air pollution because so many parents are choosing to drive to school. London needs a new initiative, led by the Mayor, to encourage parents to walk to school. That will help to address both the issue of obesity and the fact that so many engines outside school gates in the morning and at the end of the school day are causing real problems for young people’s lungs. The British Lung Foundation has had much to say on that.

It is also important to do something about cycling. Clearly, the funding must be increased, because 1% of the TfL budget is not sufficient. There are real problems relating to cycling in suburban areas, and we need to speed up cycling super-highways. Currently, London’s 40% ethnic minority population is not choosing to cycle. Cycling proficiency training must come back into schools—it has largely disappeared because the money has left local government—because unless we increase cycling, we will not make any progress on air pollution.

The Mayor’s electric car hire scheme has been a spectacular failure. Over the coming year, he should learn from places such as Paris, but I hope that the next Mayor—who, of course, I hope will be me—will do something about accelerating electric car use in the city.

Crossrail 2 will be hugely important in expanding our tube network and ensuring that people stay on the public underground system. As chair of the all-party group on Crossrail 2, I reiterate that it is important that as Crossrail 1 finishes, we move forward with Crossrail 2 in this city and over the next horizon.

Air pollution is chronically bad, and more needs to be done. Much has been said about airport expansion in this debate; I will add nothing—let us see what happens next week—except that, in the end, most pollution is down to diesel. The next Mayor must address that in the congestion zone as well.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Front-Bench spokesmen. I would be grateful if they could divide the time evenly, and leave time for the Minister. Under the new proceedings, I can call the mover of the motion to speak again at the end of the debate.

UK Sea Bass Stocks

David Crausby Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

There are six Members who wish to speak. I would appreciate it if Members could keep their remarks below 10 minutes, so we can get everyone in. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.40 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers from 10.40 am, which leaves 12 minutes to be shared between two Members. We will then get everyone in. I call Charles Walker.

Badgers and Bovine TB

David Crausby Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. Four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye so I appeal for short speeches from now on. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 12.10 pm.