(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for showing such passion and determination for bringing about these much-needed changes.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said, this matter strikes a deep chord not only with my Strangford constituents, but across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My constituents have contacted me in large numbers about the archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice of importing hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Let us be quite clear: this debate is not about traditional, sustainable hunting for food. If it was, and if people were starving, there could be some justification. It is about the execution of some of the world’s most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more than a sick thrill, a photo opportunity and a gruesome souvenir to put on a coffee table or to hang on a wall. Society has moved on. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that is the reality. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos and cross-party consensus in both this Chamber today and the main Chamber, the UK’s doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade.
Recent figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paint a deeply concerning picture. Between July 2024 and September 2026, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies, which the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) mentioned in his intervention. Let that sink in: 41 permits in just over two years.
Those permits cover animals that are on the brink of extinction, with some 21 permits issued for African elephants. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant—I cannot get my head around that one. Five were issued for lions and four for hippopotamuses, and there were others issued for leopards, polar bears and rhinos. We see lovely nature programmes on TV where animals roam free, but some men—and probably some women as well, unfortunately—wish to kill them. Every single permit represents an animal that died in distress, often slowly, from blood loss or infection, just so a British hunter could boast about it. It is a national embarrassment that, in 2026, we are still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures.
The public support for taking action is overwhelming. Up to nine in 10 British people—almost 90%—want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I wish the Minister well in the role she plays—she knows that we wish her the best in what she does—but the Government should take the action that people overwhelmingly want. It will go through Parliament without any hiccups or problems whatever. We have seen private Members’ Bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time because of a small minority. This is something that 90% of people in the United Kingdom believe should be law.
The current Government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yet—I say this with respect to the Minister and the Government—when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, Ministers provided no dates and no timeline. Today the Minister is in the hot seat: I ask her to give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it will happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while the Government drag their feet.
We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down the British people’s standards. We should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, but to do that we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world’s biodiversity.
I am not the only one who loves David Attenborough’s TV programmes. They are all about the oceans at the moment, and he has done other wonderful programmes in the past. They motivate us to speak out, and today we are doing that. I urge the Minister to please stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching; our constituents demand action. The wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. Give this House and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date by which legislation will be introduced, and let us finally consign this cruel trade to the history books, where it belongs.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will not, because I am addressing the point of timing, but I will come back to my hon. Friend if she would like to intervene in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) all raised very valid questions about timings. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling. Our aim is clear: to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, asked how we have progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and are ready to move quickly when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures Members.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Let me continue for one more moment.
I recognise that Members and stakeholders will want to see faster progress, but our objective is not simply to put legislation on the statute book that is not fit for purpose. We want to deliver a ban that is robust, enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.
I understand the process only too well, but I encourage the Minister and the Government, because we all want to ensure that they get a win-win out of this. Eighty-six percent of the people of this nation want this to happen. That has to be a win-win for the Minister, for the Government and for all of us.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier contributions. I hope I have made it clear that this formed a part of our manifesto commitment and we remain committed to it. I understand and recognise the public sentiment that he references. It remains a core part of our commitment, and we are fully committed to bringing forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows.
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
You are most kind, Sir Roger—thank you very much. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for raising this vital issue.
The Northern Ireland fisheries industry, which is critical to the wellbeing of our coastal communities, contributed to the groundbreaking road map that the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to, and it welcomed the opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to come to my Strangford constituency and visit Portavogie, where he was well received. How good was his visit? Well, the people of the fishing sector in Portavogie still say what a pleasure it was to have him there. They often reminisce and tell me how good it was to see him. I am sure that when the Minister comes over, he will be more than welcome, and maybe he will get the same accolades after his visit.
I have said on several occasions that the Northern Ireland fishing sector has been facing a perfect storm of crewing issues, fuel prices, spatial squeeze and restrictions on access to Isle of Man waters, to name a few of the major and existential challenges they face. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I have also highlighted, on behalf of the sector, the fragmented governance and a legislative framework that—I say this with great respect—is increasingly out of step with the operational reality of fishing businesses, creating further challenges.
The action plan recognises the issues and refers to fleet modernisation, to infrastructure and technology, to workforce and labour, and to supply chains and domestic consumption, as the hon. Gentleman clearly laid out. It has been a huge task to set out a road map that addresses the complexity of UK fisheries while navigating the realities of a devolved fisheries landscape. It is crucial for the survival of the industry that the action plan is turned into meaningful delivery.
Of particular interest to the Northern Irish industry are a number of recommendations that speak to the multiple threats it currently faces. The hon. Gentleman referred recommendation 12 of the report, on sustainable management and access to space, which goes to the heart of the issues in respect of marine spatial squeeze. The report calls for the value of food production from fishing to be weighed equally against other uses of marine space, with cumulative displacement effects assessed properly and a formal statutory route established for the industry.
I often say—and I stand by this—that fishermen are the original stakeholders in our seas. They feel increasingly that their rights are being ignored and eroded, so we are here to speak up for our fishing sector. As well as Portavogie in my constituency, I speak for Ardglass and for Kilkeel—the hon. Member for that constituency does not come here to speak for them, so I am happy to speak up for them in his absence.
On fleet modernisation, recommendation 16 calls for a
“more enabling, outcome-focused approach to gear trials”.
Where have we been in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland industry has been leading the way on gear trials over many years, and needs support to turn innovation into reality. The Minister will find a sector in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland very willing to work alongside him to do so.
Recommendation 17 calls for a
“dedicated, purpose-built immigration route”.
This is my big ask, and I know it is an ask of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) as well. The recommendation demands that a “short-term bridging solution” be implemented before the current skilled worker visa eligibility for fishing roles disappears at the end of 2026. Time is of the essence; we put that on the record, ask for the Minister’s intervention and hope for his support. The immigration salary list, the mechanism that currently keeps fishing crew roles accessible under the skilled worker route, is due to be abolished. As the report says, the deadline is not abstract: the fishing industry is facing an imminent recruitment cliff edge. That is my biggest ask of all the recommendations.
We all know that the use of migrant labour should be a short to medium-term measure until we are able to grow the workforce in our own ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that truth reinforces the importance of the strategy that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has spoken about, because in order to grow that workforce, signals have to be sent to the industry that the Government have a clear vision of what is expected of them? Unless and until we do that, we will not persuade the next generation to go to sea.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the knowledge he brings to the debate. The Minister is listening intently, and hopefully he will respond to that in a positive way.
The Minister should be aware, if he is not already, that we are looking for visas for seasonal workers for nine months. In other words, the people who get them go back home again—they are not staying here. The Department has in place a system, through the seasonal worker programme, for other sectors; that is an issue we could probably look into.
The funding and investment section of the road map calls on the Government to treat the current acute cost pressures facing the sector as a matter of immediate urgency. It calls on them to allow the industry to access the same energy cost support that is already available to other sectors of the economy. Northern Ireland fishing boats are being forced to tie up due to the ongoing high costs of fuel, which have persisted since March 2026. What annoys us is that Republic of Ireland and EU companies are already getting fuel support from their countries, creating an unfair competitive advantage over those in other jurisdictions.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) hinted that fuel is not really something that matters in the longer term, as though it is a short-term problem that will be fixed, but if it is not fixed in the short term, the fishing industry has no long term. Boats are tied up right now. They are losing money now. In my area, Dumfries and Galloway, fishing is largely off-quota or non-quota fishing, and the No. 1 problem right now is the astronomical cost of fuel.
I thank the hon. Member; I am conscious of the time, so I will bring my comments to a conclusion.
The fishing sector has long called for a national fishing strategy and is ready to work with the Government to achieve this, as it has demonstrated through the development of the action plan, which is a good blueprint for the way forward. Nothing in the plan requires new powers or legislation, but it needs support from across Westminster—a range of Government Departments have a stake in fishing, including the Home Office in respect of crewing, which we are very interested in, and the Department for Transport in respect of safety—and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as industry across the UK.
If we work together, the action plan could create the opportunity that secures the future of UK fishing. I will be backing our fishing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK by supporting the plan and calling for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland fishing and seafood strategy to be a key part of that.
I thank the Minister for his helpful and positive responses to the questions we have asked. I am sure he will come on to this, but I gently remind him that, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, one of the problems for many of us is the crews and the workforce, as we raised in submissions to the former Minister. Can the Minister give me some assurance in relation to that?
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. I look forward to seeing him next week to discuss the issues facing colleagues in Northern Ireland, alongside the processing organisation. Perhaps we could pick up that conversation then.
Taking action to deliver for the fishing and seafood industry is a priority for this Government. It involves acting to deliver and consider a number of action plan recommendations. To highlight just a few, they include delivering multi-annual funding. We are already doing that through the fisheries and seafood scheme, which also supports training towards accredited qualifications. We are also considering how the action plan’s four pillars can help us to guide policy, recognising that fishing is a vital food-producing sector that aligns well with existing work in DEFRA to build national food security. We could consider how to address capacity gaps in inshore fisheries management as well.
I can also point to a number of other achievements, including significant progress on the fisheries management plans and the recovery of bluefin tuna and bass. The benefits that those successes bring are evident to coastal communities and demonstrate that good fisheries management works. We have allocated unused authorisations with a focus on supporting young and new fishermen entering the industry, and we have produced our UK seafood careers road map. Since we opened the fisheries and seafood scheme, we have received over 600 applications worth £25 million. Some of that is being specifically targeted at small-scale coastal fleets, and we have made funding available for new engines and gearboxes, which will help improve fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, the £1.5 million annual seafood export package is helping seafood businesses reach new markets.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), said, our current focus is on this autumn’s negotiations for fishing opportunities for 2027, from which I will do my best to secure the best deal possible for UK fishermen. Many of those negotiations are challenging and full of trade-offs that need to be made.
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons Chamber
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Not long after my election in 2024, I received an email from a father of three whose home had been flooded for the second time in five years. He wrote:
“The increasing uncertainty in the weather caused by global warming only increases the flood risk in the immediacy—and in future, we fear we won’t be able to secure insurance on the property. And we live in constant fear of repeat situations for something that, in theory, can be resolved.”
His words stayed with me, because they capture exactly what I hear across North Herefordshire, and what I am sure colleagues hear across the country. Flooding is no longer something that people talk about as a freak event or a piece of bad luck; increasingly, they expect it to happen again. As our climate changes, flooding is becoming something that communities now must plan around.
We recently marked Flood Action Week, and I pay huge tribute to everyone, from local volunteers to emergency responders, who worked tirelessly to help communities prepare. But for many, flooding is no longer an occasional emergency; it is becoming a part of life. We have already seen unprecedentedly deadly climate impacts this summer. The climate crisis is no longer a future threat; it is here now, and affecting homes, farms, businesses and critical infrastructure across the country.
As we head into winter, scientists are warning that a powerful supercharged El Niño could contribute to much wetter and stormier conditions during parts of this winter. We know that the risks are growing and that the cost of failing to prepare will be borne by our communities.
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate—I spoke to her beforehand. This is not the Minister’s responsibility, but back home they have allocated £16,000 for flood resilience, which would hardly pay to get a JCB and a trailer down to where the coastal erosion and floods are happening. Does she agree that it is a case of penny wise and pound foolish? If we do not address flood resilience issues and coastal erosion now, we will pay substantially more later. The Minister should make the money available now.
Dr Chowns
Absolutely, and that is a point I will return to later in my speech. There is a huge benefit-cost ratio for early investment in flood resilience—it pays back many times over.
Let us recognise the scale of the challenge that we face: 6.3 million properties across the UK are already at risk of flooding. The Climate Change Committee estimates that flooding has already cost the UK around £3.3 billion every year and warns that annual damages could increase to about £4.5 billion a year by the middle of the century if we fail to adapt. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, it would be much cheaper to invest now to ensure that we are protected against that.
The costs are measured not only in pounds, but in the strain placed on families trying to rebuild their lives. The bill for flooding is already here; the question is whether we invest now to reduce those costs or pay far more later.
Dr Chowns
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government have a crucial role to play in supporting farmers to put in place the measures that are so helpful for our long-term resilience and have many wider community benefits too.
This work is key because healthy soils, healthy rivers and resilient landscapes are key to long-term food security. As the National Farmers’ Union points out, 58% of England’s highest quality agricultural land lies within floodplains, underlining the fact that flood resilience is not just an environmental issue but a food security issue. I know many farmers whose land has been at times completely under water, which has devastating impacts on their livelihood.
Farmers are increasingly having to manage both floods and drought as part of normal business planning. They want to be part of the solution, but they need the certainty and support to make long-term investments in managing water, improving soil health and restoring nature. Indeed, I met with the Herefordshire Rural Hub to discuss the local farmers’ water action group, which is looking exactly at how they can manage having excess water in the winter and not enough water in the summer, and connecting those two together to support our communities.
When farmers hold on to water on their land to protect homes and infrastructure downstream, they are providing a much wider public benefit. Does the Minister agree that farmers who help to reduce flood risk in this way should be properly recognised and fairly rewarded for the role they play?
More broadly, we need to invest much more in natural flood management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said. Restoring wetland, improving soil health, reconnecting rivers with their floodplains, planting trees, restoring hedgerows—all these things help to slow the flow of water through the landscape. Every drop of water held upstream is a drop that does not have to be managed in an emergency downstream.
As has been noted, rivers do not recognise administrative boundaries, and neither does floodwater. What happens upstream affects communities downstream, often many miles away, so what are the Government doing to improve co-ordination and co-operation between local authorities, farmers, the drainage boards, regulators and water companies across the whole catchment?
Flooding and drought are two sides of the same coin. I welcome the establishment of the new flood and drought resilience taskforce, which is currently looking at community engagement, water resilience and property flood resilience. Let me pay tribute to Flood Mary—one of my constituents—who has played a crucial role over many years in encouraging the adoption of property flood resilience. The test for me is how the work of the flood and drought resilience taskforce will translate into practical action on the ground for communities such as those in North Herefordshire. Met Office data shows that the winter of 2025-26 was the eighth wettest in England since records began, yet by August this year 71% of England had entered drought status. These are the extremes of flood and drought writ large, in our faces right now. It perfectly illustrates why flooding and drought can no longer be treated as separate challenges. What plans do the Government have to increase water storage, including new reservoirs, so that excess winter water can help tackle flooding while also improving resilience to summer droughts?
The case for action is overwhelming. Flooding threatens homes, food production, local economies and the long-term viability of communities. We know that investing now is far cheaper than paying for the damage later. In fact, the Climate Change Committee estimates benefit-cost ratios of 3:1 to 5:1 for natural flood management, 5:1 for property flood resilience, and 5:1 for other approaches to flood risk management. This is great value for money and a fantastic return on investment.
We know what works: better planning, better maintenance, stronger protection for homes, support for farmers and approaches that work with nature rather than against it. Indeed, I saw lots of that in action when I visited the Netherlands a couple of years ago with the Environmental Audit Committee. What was striking is that there they work out what needs to be done to protect communities, what the most cost-effective investments are and then how they are going to mobilise the funding. But in this country we seem to fight with the Treasury for a little pot of money, with everybody having to get their elbows out to engage in a bunfight about what resources can be secured for different places. We need a much more holistic approach. That requires more investment up front, but it will pay back many times over.
Dr Chowns
I am sorry, but I am going to finish as we are short of time.
The responsibility of Government is not simply to respond to flooding after it happens, but to build the resilience our communities will need in a rapidly warming climate. The question is whether the Government are ready to act at the scale that the challenge of flood resilience demands.
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I beg to move,
That this House has considered domestic farming and food supply.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us what this Government intend to do for the economy. Before those decisions are finalised, I want to make the case for the people who put food on our tables, because whatever Ministers say about supporting working people, farming families have every reason to feel that they have been singled out.
I know personally how hard farmers work. I know the hours, the worry and the sacrifices needed to keep a farm functioning. There is precious little spare money on many farms and certainly no shortage of bills, yet this Government seem to look at a farm valuation and see a pot of money waiting to be taxed. They show very little understanding of how farming actually works. Agriculture is devolved. I get that; I recognise it, and I have plenty to say about the decisions being taken at Stormont. But inheritance tax, trade policy and Treasury decisions are matters for this Government and their consequences are felt on farms throughout our United Kingdom.
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward. The Ulster Farmers’ Union is represented here, and I declare an interest as one of those. Our national food security relies inherently on the economic viability of our local family farms. For the agrifood capital that is Strangford—my constituency—domestic farming is not just an industry. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and share my concerns that the family farm inheritance tax could well be the death knell for family farms in Northern Ireland?
(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI first of all echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to everyone involved in the schools in her constituency. I would make that point about my own schools, but also Church schools across our country. As she mentioned, there are good examples in the Carlisle diocese of work to support young people, such as Trinity school, which supports pupils into further education and employment, helping to grow young people’s confidence and develop skills for the local labour market. It is important that our young people are supported as they look to enter the workforce. I encourage parishes and local churches to explore local opportunities to better provide that support for young people in their community. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to write to her about the northern young leaders project.
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that answer. In February, the General Synod voted in favour of further mental health training materials for Church schools and children’s groups. Providing young people with spiritual and emotional support can make a huge difference as they prepare to leave education and enter work. In my own constituency, Christian organisations such as Young Life provide weekly clubs for young people across the Ards peninsular, offering mentorship and opportunities to develop their confidence and leadership skills. What steps will the Church Commissioners take to ensure that mental health support is central to the Church’s work in equipping young people with the skills they need to transition from education to work?
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about mental health. It is very much in line with what the Government are trying to do to ensure that young people have the support they need. I thank his schools for showing leadership in that regard. There are, of course, many across the country that are doing that. I will ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to get the hon. Gentleman an update on what is anticipated.
(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the sustainable farming incentive applies specifically to England, the allocation underpinning it directly impacts devolved regions. Given that the Ulster Farmers Union—I declare an interest as a member —has expressed severe concern over the long-term stability of the multi-year agricultural budget and the transition away from direct support, what discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the unique family farm structure in Northern Ireland is strengthened and protected within the Barnett consequentials and the UK-wide funding envelope in order to help towards soaring costs?
I always appreciate a question from the hon. Gentleman. We will certainly look into the issues that he describes. Farming is a devolved matter, but he knows my commitment to working in partnership with the Northern Ireland Government. I have already met with my counterparts in Northern Ireland.
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered ocean conservation and stewardship.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. We spend a lot of time in this place talking about land, housing and farms—what grows and what gets built. We spend less time talking about the three quarters of a million square miles of ocean that fall under UK jurisdiction. That is a mistake, because our seas are the foundation of a great deal of our national life. They regulate our climate, feed our coastal towns, carry our trade and increasingly hold the key to this country’s resilience in the decades ahead.
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, I watched David Attenborough’s documentary on the oceans alongside many colleagues in this House and the former Prime Minister. I echo Attenborough’s words that
“We are living in the greatest age of ocean discovery, yet we are also witnessing its greatest peril.”
I am the Member of Parliament for Chatham and Aylesford, and my constituency has a centuries-long maritime history through its association with the dockyard and global trade. That is highlighted by the outstanding work of the Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust in its recent “Awesome Oceans” exhibition with Steve Backshall, which seeks to educate our younger generations. Our nation’s heritage runs through our seas and oceans.
I want to use my time to cover four key elements: the state of our marine protected areas and bottom trawling within them, fisheries and sustainability, the case for parity in marine pollution fines, and the UK’s wider leadership role in the ocean, including in the recently signed biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement and the plastics treaty negotiations.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. My constituency based on the scenic Northern Ireland coastline, and I am particularly interested in what more can be done to protect the sea that surrounds us. Raw sewage contains bacteria, harmful chemicals and microplastics, all of which have serious consequences for both marine and human health. Those microplastics are essentially impossible to remove once they enter the environment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more must be done to tackle the problem of microplastics?
Tristan Osborne
I do agree. The UK Government’s engagement on the global plastics treaty, in alignment with the European Union and other nations, is looking to resolve that exact issue. Microplastics that get into the human biology can significantly heighten the risk of cancer and other problems, and they are a persistent form of pollution that needs to be resolved.
Let me start with a number that should give every Member in this room pause. A third of UK waters now sit within a marine protected area. On paper, that sounds like a country taking marine conservation seriously; in practice, however, the Government’s own assessment finds that we are failing on 13 of the 15 indicators of good environmental status in our seas, and not one of our offshore habitats is currently assessed as in good condition. How can that be when so much of our sea is supposedly protected?
The honest answer is that designation is not always the same thing as protection. Across large parts of the MPA network, bottom trawling and dredging remain entirely lawful. Oceana estimates that, in 2024 alone, there were more than 31,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in UK offshore marine protected areas. More than 70% of those hours were concentrated in just 41 English sites—the same 41 sites covered by the Government’s stage 3 consultation. That consultation ended some time ago, and fishermen, conservation groups and coastal communities responded to it in good faith, so will the Minister provide a clearer timetable for the publication of the outcome?
Bottom trawling deserves a moment of its own, because it is not a marginal or peripheral issue. Heavy gear dragged across the seabed flattens reefs, uproots seagrass and disturbs carbon that has been locked in the sediment for centuries. It is, by some distance, one of the most destructive things that we allow in our oceans.
(2 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
After a summer of drought in England, including in my constituency, we are bracing ourselves for flooding and storm overflows, and then more drought and more flooding, and then more storm overflows, and then more drought, more flooding and more storm overflows. On the levels around Stathe, Helland, Burrowbridge, Stoke St Mary and North Curry, my constituents must get used to the risk of their land being underwater almost every year, sewage being surcharged into the River Tone, and hosepipe bans and drought, if not at the same time, then in very quick succession.
We are looking at a future of water scarcity—too little water—and too much water. The proposed solutions sound familiar: more reservoirs, more underground stormwater tanks, thicker concrete, bigger pipes, more pumping, more energy and more chemicals. Yes, we are going to need some of that, but that alone would amount to one of the most carbon-intensive infrastructure investment programmes this country has ever seen. In treating the symptoms, not the causes, those measures risk failure. Instead, it is time to tackle the problem where it begins: in the way that our homes, streets and buildings have been designed for decades and in the way that they will be designed in the future.
The truth is that England does not lack water. I will be able to point to an awful lot of it this autumn across my constituency. Rather, it lacks the ability or perhaps the political will to manage it sustainably where it lands.
I commend the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. Is it not time to ensure that developers with a number of projects—many of them building hundreds of houses—start paying towards the upgrading of waste and water management? They often have big profit margins on their houses and such a policy would take the onus off Government and off the Minister.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that developers should pay their way. There is much to do, as I will come to.
On average, each house roof in England receives enough free rainwater to meet all its household’s non-potable—non-drinking—water needs, including flushing toilets, washing clothes and watering gardens. Instead of that, we send it, often at high speed, into the sewerage network where it discharges into our rivers. At the same time, we spend millions of pounds making pure drinking water, pumping it into our homes and flushing that down the toilet.
Around a quarter to a third of drinking water in our homes gets nowhere near being drunk. In fact, it is all flushed down the drain without a single drop quenching anybody’s thirst. It is an appalling and pointless waste of drinking water and energy. It means that we respond by investing tens of billions of pounds in reservoirs to hold a bit more rain, so we can treat more of it, pump more of it into our homes and—yes—flush more of it down the toilet unnecessarily. That is not environmental progress; that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.
The water from our homes and highways—vast volumes of rainwater—continue to go straight down the drain as well, mixing with sewage, pointlessly being pumped and treated and pumped and treated, and far too often creating a backwash that sends sewage tumbling into the River Tone in my constituency and into rivers and beaches across the country.
Our waste water treatment plants can cope with the sewage that is produced. What they cannot cope with is the millions of litres of rainwater we add to the sewage before we send it to the waste water treatment plants. Too often we respond by investing huge amounts into storage tanks to hold stormwater, so we can pump and treat more of it. that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.
The climate is making the problems worse and, ironically, our addition of rainwater into the mix is making the climate worse—a classic doom loop. As the atmosphere warms, England’s winters become wetter and our summers drier with more intensive thunderstorms. Meanwhile, housing delivery continues at scale, covering land with more impermeable surfaces while we continue to legally entitle developers to collect new rainwater and add that to the sewerage systems as well, which cannot cope. We are building the problem into existence before our eyes.
Contrast this with how we look and deal with energy. We no longer assume that all power has to be generated centrally. Instead, we actively encourage decentralised generation, such as solar panels on roofs which, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will now be required on every roof of every new home. We have batteries in homes and heat pumps replacing distant combustion, and we offer grants to make it happen. On water, we remain stubbornly stuck in—well, I was going to say the 20th century, but it feels like the 19th century.
Other countries have progressed. In parts of Belgium, new homes must capture rainwater for beneficial use. No wonder it has achieved the lowest per capita water consumption in Europe, and no doubt the lowest water bills with it. Australia, Germany and Singapore have embedded rainwater harvesting and source-controlled drainage into mainstream development. In England, by contrast, we continue to ignore rainwater’s massive asset value. Even the amendment I proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that new homes should capture rainwater to use it and lower residents’ bills was rejected, I am sorry to say, by the Government.
This issue will not go away, and the alternative approach is really not that radical. It is all remarkably simple. The simple principle is what is called source control: capture rain where it falls, use it wisely and return the excess rain to the ground where it fell. Why use it to top up our sewage? Do we love sewage so much that we actually want to make more of it by adding more water and creating an even greater volume? For all those homes built in earlier centuries where rainwater is directed into the sewer already, why not offer grants to retro-split two drains from the one drain they have at the moment? It would mean lower costs for the consumer, lower water bills, less sewerage for water companies, less sewage going into our rivers and lower costs for the Government, the public and the agencies to cope with.
It could cut water bills by roughly a third, meaning £225 off the average household bill. A household in Taunton and Wellington that catches its own rainwater and takes it out of the sewer would cut its water bill by a quarter to a third. That is around £225 a year off a £695 bill. Nationally, that is 28% to 35% of the total bill. If we gross that up, that is £6.5 billion off bills across 29 million households. Imagine what that could do if it was freed up to be spent in the economy in other ways.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
As I have mentioned, DEFRA is considering a whole range of options to support the farming community, including supporting vaccination availability and expanding testing capacity. We will continue to evaluate measures including the possibility of financial support. We do recognise that this is an incredibly challenging time for those in the livestock community, and we will do what we can to support them.
I thank the Minister for his positive answers, which I think we should be encouraged by. Although Northern Ireland thankfully has no reported cases of bluetongue, the Ulster Farmers’ Union—I declare an interest as a member—has issued an urgent warning that vaccine supplies are under severe pressure in GB, with some major manufacturers completely out of stock. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has rightly moved to a general licence to allow our farmers to vaccinate, but they cannot protect their herds if they cannot access the physical vaccine vials. Will the Minister assure this House that the Government are working directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers to guarantee security of supply, and will he commit to working closely with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that our family farms are not left at the back of the queue for those vital BTV-3 vaccine supplies, as the midges’ active season continues and gets even worse.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for setting the scene.
We must not overlook the fact that nature security is national security. As a person of faith—as you are, Sir Desmond—I am guided by the profound principle of stewardship. We have a God-given responsibility to tend this Earth, protect creation and hand it down to our children—and, in my case, to my grandchildren.
The global statistics are eye-opening. We have seen a decline in monitored wildlife populations over the last 50 years. This is not just an issue for conservationists, but an existential threat to global stability that is unravelling the complex biological safety net that regulates our climate, purifies our water and pollinates our crops. Biodiversity loss accelerates climate breakdown, destroys agricultural land and creates resource scarcity. When water runs dry, crops fail in vulnerable regions and conflict inevitably follows.
In my constituency of Strangford, the hard-working farmers, fishing sector and conservationists support our rich biodiversity, which supports local economies and resilience. Right across Strangford we are seeing superb frontline stewardship work being done on the ground. We are adopting nature-friendly farming practices, and local conservation projects are working tirelessly to protect native species and restore vital peatlands, which act as crucial carbon sinks. We cannot allow environmental protections to become an unaffordable luxury or an undue tax burden on the very people keeping our communities afloat.
I have one question for the Minister, who I wish well, by the way—she has quite an endurance test today. I urge her to outline how the Government are integrating nature risk into our strategic defence frameworks. We need a comprehensive national nature security assessment that backs the brilliant stewardship we see in Strangford while strictly safeguarding the financial resilience of our hard-pressed farmers.