Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I know that amendments have been tabled, and they will be properly considered on Report.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of air pollution to legal limits.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of air pollution to legal limits.

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

The only statutory air quality limit the UK is currently failing to meet is on roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. Members will be aware of our plans to combat air pollution. A £3.5 billion investment has already been set aside, but we are now working with 61 local authorities to tackle their exceedances. I have directed local authorities, including Sheffield, to achieve compliance in the shortest possible time. Some £495 million has been specifically set aside for those councils, but I will take legal action if necessary to make sure that councils do what they need to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will know that at least 4.5 million children are growing up in areas with unsafe levels of particulate matters, with long-term implications for their health. UNICEF is now calling for the Government to introduce legally binding limits to meet the World Health Organisation recommended limit values for air pollution by 2025. Will Ministers consult UNICEF to discuss how that can be achieved?

[Dr Coffey]

The issue of particulate matter has grabbed my attention ever since I became a Minister in this Department. It is soot and dust, in essence, and one of our challenges is that a lot of particulate matter is naturally generated; for example, it is sand or sea salt. There are a number of different issues that we need to tackle, and we will continue to work with local authorities to bring the level of particulate matter down, because the Government are very conscious that we need to make sure that the most vulnerable in society, including children who are still of growing age, get the best possible start in life.

Scallop Fishing: Bay of Seine

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Within the European Union, there is the European Fisheries Control Agency, which has a co-ordinating role in respect of the enforcement functions of all member states. On those countries that are not in the EU and our future agreements, arrangements for mutual agreement on enforcement are a common feature of international fisheries negotiations.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

This incident surely reinforces the case for the strictest regulation and monitoring of all sea fishing, so will the Minister assure us that such events will never be permitted to occur in Britain’s historic fishing waters when we have left the common fisheries policy?

[George Eustice]

When we have left the common fisheries policy—I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned for that, alongside a number of Conservative Members—we will become an independent coastal state, and there still will be annual negotiations on fisheries. Disputes of this nature probably will not go away, because we have them occasionally whether we are in the EU or outside it, but we must always strive under international law to resolve our differences and secure mutually acceptable regulations.

Improving Air Quality

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

During the inquiry, we learned from Professor Holgate, the lead clinician from the Royal College of Physicians, that poor air quality is the second biggest cause of avoidable mortality in this country, after smoking. It cuts short some 40,000 lives a year, and we know from the British Heart Foundation and others that even a day’s exposure to elevated levels of poor-quality air can increase the likelihood of a heart attack.

Were any of us to go into our local GP surgery, we would very likely see in the leaflet stands or on the walls information on helping us to reduce our alcohol consumption or to cut back smoking or give up altogether, and hopefully we would see some information on coming off illegal substances. All are public health risks that are well known and well understood, and information on them has reached the level of our local surgeries. I challenge any Member present to go into their local GP surgery and see what they can find about what to do about poor air quality, the second biggest cause of avoidable mortality in our country. We need to do more. GPs are under pressure and there is an awful lot that they need to do. We need education in the medical schools, we need the royal colleges to get on top of the issue and we need Public Health England to take a lead in this policy area. I shall say more about the latter shortly.

I occasionally feel that the issue of poor air quality is set up as a battle between the air-quality zealots on one side and on the other those who champion lower-income motorists and people struggling to get around in their ordinary lives. That is a completely false way to look at the issue. Let us consider for a moment a woman who has to drive a van—probably a diesel van—for her living. She is often stuck in traffic but it is the only way that she can earn her living to put bread on the table for the children. It is possible that she lives near a busy road and her children go to a school that is also near a busy road. That lady needs to earn her living. She needs that van—it is probably the only van that she can get hold of to do her work—but at the same time her health is being damaged. So it is not about the people who are concerned about this issue on one side and on the other people who just see it as a bore from well-meaning busybodies who want to interfere and make their lives more difficult. It is a more nuanced and complicated issue than that. We have to help people to live their lives in an affordable manner so that they can earn their incomes without suffering huge damage to their health. I direct the House’s attention to what the California Air Resources Board did with a targeted scheme to help people on lower incomes to move to cleaner and less polluting vehicles.

If one thing comes out of my speech today, for the House and anybody who may be listening to it outside this place, I want it to be the fact, which is almost unknown and unrecognised by the public, that people in their car are up to 10 times worse off in terms of the damage being done to their health than they are outside on the street. It is the complete opposite of what most of our constituents believe. They believe that if they are in their car with the air conditioning on, they are relatively protected from all the horrible fumes outside.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I thank my political neighbour for giving way. I suffered from breathing fumes in traffic jams when driving my car on holiday. I did not know that my chest problems were to do with breathing fumes. The simple technique of making sure that when we use our air conditioning, we press the button that recirculates the air inside the car rather than drawing in polluted air from outside, is very important. It would be helpful if that information was given to people.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for giving us that personal example of how he was affected.

I am afraid that the bad news does not stop there. Professor Holgate also told us that even in buses and taxis, for which researchers have done similar measurements, people are two to three times worse off than if they were walking on the street. Of course, we absolutely need to encourage more bus travel, hopefully in clean buses—perhaps electric or hydrogen-powered—but we have to look at how we travel around our big cities, particularly as we arrive in major towns, the traffic slows down and we all get stuck in it. If people knew the facts and were aware, there would be a demand: when people stood for the local council or for Parliament, they would be asked, “What are you going to do to help to make this issue better in my local area when you get on to the council?”, or “What is Parliament going to do about it?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the Select Committees on bringing forward this important report. Effective action on air quality is now vital and urgent. I live in a town centre with heavy traffic and am, I think, personally affected as much as anyone by poor air quality. I also congratulate hon. Members on a series of first-class, informative and persuasive speeches.

I have a particular interest in the transport aspects of our air quality problems, and I have two proposals to advance today. I have had a long association with transport policy. I was the transport policy officer at the TUC in the 1970s, and later I worked on transport policy at the National and Local Government Officers’ Association, which became part of Unison. NALGO and others put forward a proposal to transfer the whole cost of vehicle licensing to fuel. We have a sliding scale now, but it is less effective than transferring the total cost to fuel. The advantages are that it would promote and encourage the use of fuel-efficient vehicles—hybrids and electric vehicles, in particular—and deter excessive vehicle usage and mileage. For many, it is necessary to own a vehicle. Less well-off people who live in rural areas depend on private motor transport, and having a cheaper vehicle would be better for them, while it would deter excessive car usage by better-off people—those like ourselves who perhaps drive our cars more than we should. I still believe that such a policy would be sensible, even though successive Governments have rejected the idea, at least so far, and that it should be given further consideration.

My second interest, and my primary concern, is to advance the case for GB Freight Route, a scheme to build a freight priority railway line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major economic regions of Britain to each other and to the continent of Europe. It would take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads each year and save millions of tons of toxic emissions. We would need to make possible the carriage of lorry trailers and lorries on trains, however, as significant modal shift for freight from road to rail cannot take place unless lorry trailers can be transported on trains. Our historic rail network cannot carry such traffic because of loading gauge restrictions. The tunnels and bridges are too small and too tight to accommodate lorry trailers on trains.

GB Freight Route would overcome that problem. It would be constructed on old track bed and under-utilised lines and has been precisely designated as a route. Sites for terminals where lorry trailers would be lifted on and off trains have been identified, close to motorways serving our major cities and regions. GB Freight Route has major support from a wide range of interests including major hauliers, Eurotunnel, supermarket logistics departments and many others. I have made many presentations, including to Rail Ministers in the past, and intend to carry on doing so.

I should declare an interest—a non-pecuniary interest, I emphasise—as a member of the team promoting GB Freight Route. We have received support from a transport consultancy and a major railway equipment company, which have raised the matter with the Transport Secretary. Other members of our team include experienced railway engineers, a major haulier and a member with city experience and links. We have, then, a wide range of skills in our team promoting the scheme.

Today is perhaps not the time to go into great detail about GB Freight Route, but I hope it will be supported by all those concerned about the air quality crisis that affects us all in Britain and which must be addressed. GB Freight Route can and should make a substantial contribution to improving air quality, especially in and around our cities, and I hope that hon. Members will consider supporting it and urge the Government to give it serious and positive consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called to make a brief contribution to this debate. I congratulate the Select Committees on their reports. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his excellent introductory speech. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who made her trademark thoughtful contribution to the debate.

I want to focus on the River Thames. It is busier now than it has ever been—even than its heyday in the ’30s—due to containerisation, so congratulations to London Gateway, Tilbury and the other access ports. I commend inner-London river traffic: Bennett’s Barges, Thames Clippers and the tourist fleet, including the excellent City Cruises. I will return to Thames construction traffic in a moment, but first I want to mention river crossings in London. West of Tower Bridge, there are more than 20 crossings over the Thames. East of Tower Bridge, where estimates say half of London’s population now live, there are only two river crossings between the Tower of London and Dartford. The static traffic and massive congestion through and around the Blackwall tunnel is a huge source of emissions and pollution, contaminating the whole of east London and drifting westward.

I commend the Department for Transport and Mayor Khan for recently confirming the construction of the Silvertown tunnel from Greenwich to Newham. However, it is worth remembering that it took five years to convince Mayor Livingstone that his manifesto against east London river crossings was wrong, and after him, it took three years to convince the right hon. Gentleman who is now Foreign Secretary, when he was Mayor of London, that his own manifesto against east London river crossings was wrong. Fortunately, Mayor Khan has arrived convinced of the need for these crossings, and with DFT support the Silvertown tunnel has now been given a green light. I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of that, and perhaps an update on other possible river crossings, with public transport access, which would be very welcome indeed and in line with recommendation 15 of the report and the Government response. Tolling might be needed to help pay for those, because obviously they come at a cost.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that a case has been made for a lower Thames crossing—a tunnel for traffic that would take some of the traffic away from my hon. Friend’s constituency? It might, we suggest, be combined with a rail tunnel for GB Freight Routes. That would cut costs and be a very convenient crossing for both.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend is a well-known champion of rail freight transportation, and in his speech he made the case quite well for the construction of a national link. Were there to be a lower Thames crossing, obviously one would expect the authorities, local, regional and national, to get the biggest bang for the taxpayer’s pound, to ensure that we get the maximum benefit. I am sure that, as and when that debate takes place, my hon. Friend will be at the forefront of those advocating a rail dimension to that crossing.

Leaving the EU: Fisheries Management

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I enjoyed hearing again a quotation that I had heard a few minutes ago. Repeats from the SNP are quite something. More particularly, however, the hon. Gentleman’s question betrayed a misunderstanding of the principle of relative stability which underpins quota negotiations.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I have suggested several times over the years, including in the Chamber, that only when all the fishing waters of Europe have been returned to their own countries will the fish stocks and fishing industries of Europe be saved, and that the UK must lead the way in that process. Will the Government now publicly urge the complete abolition of the common fisheries policy, which has been such an unmitigated disaster?

[Michael Gove]

My admiration for the hon. Gentleman knows almost no bounds. He is right: the common fisheries policy has been bad not just for Britain, but for fish throughout the European Union. My only hope is that he will not only have an opportunity to see our shared ambition for a Britain outside the European Union fulfilled, but will be able to persuade socialist and progressive colleagues across the European continent to reform their own governance in a way that is genuinely liberating, as he has long advocated.

Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset can clarify this, but the way I read it, clause 1(1) allows a Secretary of State—not an individual human Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State—to grant successive 150-year leases. That is what it enables; the power is vested in that office. One would expect there to be such leases, but of course we do not know what will happen down the road. None of us will be there then.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of when the current lease expires, so we know where we are in the process? If there are, for example, another 15 years on the current lease, will it be rolled over into a new 150-year lease from, say, next year? That is just so we are aware of the cycle.

In terms of what is envisaged in a longer lease, can the hon. Gentleman reassure me about two things? First, will the longer lease be on a peppercorn rent—in other words, a nominal rent, rather than a real terms value rent of thousands of pounds a year, which it would be at market value?

Secondly, he mentioned planning permission, which would restrict, for example, over-building on the site, but of course in a lease one can have restrictive covenants that trump planning permission. Those who are not planners or property lawyers may not know this, but even if planning permission is granted for a piece of land to construct buildings, for example, if the land is subject to a lease that has a restrictive covenant forbidding the construction of those buildings, buildings could be constructed legally pursuant to the planning permission, but cannot not be constructed in practice because of the restrictive covenant in the lease. That is a stronger brake on such developments, so I hope that can be done.

Those three things go together. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me on the restrictions in the lease, on the restrictive covenants and on whether there is going to be a peppercorn rent?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I have some questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West suggested that we might have had an evidence session, and there are certainly some questions that I would like to have asked. For example, one assumes that the board of trustees is happy with the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset knows that.

Secondly, are we talking about generating additional income or replacing what was in the past Government revenue support? Presumably Kew has land and other property that is surplus to its own requirements, and which it is quite happy to lease out to others for their use and to generate rent. How much land and property are we talking about for potential leasing? Those things are all of interest. I am sure the Bill will go through without any difficulty, but I think those questions ought to be asked.

[George Eustice]

Perhaps I can add some clarity. We are aware that there are approximately six properties around Kew Green that are part of the Kew Gardens estate, some of which are rented. Some are, I understand, in a state of disrepair, so they need to be renovated. Those are the types of property that could be brought back in under a different lease and generate a better income stream than is currently possible.

To answer a point that was raised earlier, Kew Gardens itself does not have a lease; it operates under ministerial direction and occupies Crown land, so that is a different matter. The Bill is about giving Kew trustees the ability to grant leases, subject to approval by Ministers, to other parties for a period of up to 150 years.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is it the case that the additional income will be substituting former Government revenue support? Are the Government shifting the burden of costs on to Kew, rather than the Treasury?

[George Eustice]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene again, I can perhaps deal with that point. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Tyneside, pointed out, we have given quite a generous spending review settlement to Kew, with increases in resource and capital spend. This proposal will release additional funds to help it invest in its estate. It comes on top of what is already quite a generous settlement for the spending review period.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Thank you. I have nothing else to say.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

This debate has been very useful indeed. I thank the hon. Member for North Tyneside for her kind words. I think that John Wood of Oxford hit it on the head in saying that the importance of this incredible place needs to be protected not just now, but for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, who is a surveyor, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, who is a solicitor, understand that better than I do.

There is no doubt about the Government’s determination to ensure that Kew remains the property of the people of the United Kingdom and that is it not frittered away. The Minister made it very clear, in response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, that the properties around the green need to be protected and need to provide an income source, which cannot happen at the moment. It is important that Kew gets funding from us, and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman is right. Nowadays, 125-year leases are unusual, but people want long-term security. We need to give Kew—this incredible world heritage site—the ability to say, “We know we can look forward 150 years, under the Crown and under Parliament’s direction, and sort out the things we need to sort out.”

I suggest that we all need to go to Kew to have a look, because I did not realise that there were seven properties around the green. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West said that normally we take evidence and, as he said, evidence has been taken on the hoof. Perhaps we need to hoof it, while the tube is running, to go and have a look at this wonderful place. I know that the Minister has been to Kew many times, as has Lord Gardiner. It was certainly a favourite place of my children when they were younger.

I thank the hon. Member for Luton North, with whom I have worked for far too many years. He is quite right to bring up the ideas he raised, because we are setting this out for the future. We cannot say that we will be able to change it, because we will not. Kew has to move on. There is no doubt that what it has achieved for the past 150 years is breathtaking. One only has to look at the television programmes to see that. Because of its seeds database, if anything went wrong, we would have the ability to take out these wonderful seeds and start again. It looks after plants that may not be here in the future—that may die out. Its role is not just scientific; it is a guardian of our future. The hon. Gentleman is right that we must take that very seriously.

I thank all Members who have been here today, especially the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right—any income will go back into Kew. The lease is to Kew, which is a UNESCO world heritage site, and it will spend the money on enhancing Kew. If she has a quick word with the Kew team in the Public Gallery, I am sure that they would enlighten her about what they are doing. As I said, we need to go to Kew. Leith is very beautiful, but Kew is equally beautiful. I look forward to that. I hope that helps her.

Mr Turner, thank you for your clear leadership. I am grateful to all my colleagues for their support for the Bill and, as I said, to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner, who will steady it through the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

On a point of order, Mr Turner, will the Bill go to the House on Report and for Third Reading in the same way that other Bills do?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

This Government have introduced the concept of a national living wage, which will raise incomes for the lowest paid in our society. I, too, visit my local food bank, and I send my case officers into the food bank to help people who may be having particular problems or crises in their lives. Many complex issues contribute to poverty. I advise all Members to work closely with their local food banks, as my office does.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to improve air quality.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve air quality.

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

The United Kingdom complies with the EU legislation for nearly all air pollutants, but faces challenges in achieving nitrogen dioxide limits, along with 16 other EU member states. That is why we have committed more than £2 billion since 2011 to reduce transport emissions and the autumn statement provided a further £290 million to support greener transport. We should all recognise that air quality is actually improving, but we recognise that we need to go further and faster and will be consulting on a new national plan by 24 April.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but I believe the Secretary of State is aware of the GB Freight Route rail scheme, which will take up to 5 million lorry journeys off Britain’s roads each year, save thousands of tonnes of emissions, and radically improve air quality. Will she and her Ministers use their good offices to press the case for GB Freight Route in Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We recognise that, which is why we will in future be ensuring that farmers who want to submit their basic payment scheme applications on paper will be able to do so, but the Government are also investing hundreds of millions of pounds to bring broadband to areas that do not currently have it.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

3. What progress her Department is making on reducing air pollution to within legal limits.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

Today we have laid out how we plan to tackle air pollution hotspots in our towns and cities while minimising the impact on businesses and families.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, but she may be aware of the GB freight route scheme, a proposal to build a dedicated freight railway line linking the channel tunnel with all the major economic regions of Britain and with a gauge capable of transporting full-size lorry trailers on trains. The route could take over 5 million lorry journeys off our roads each year and save thousands of tonnes of polluting emissions. The Department for Transport is taking an interest in the scheme. Will the Secretary of State use her good offices to encourage her colleagues in the Department for Transport to support this scheme?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am certainly very happy to look at that, and today I have launched plans for clean air zones in five cities outside London to make sure we are in compliance with air quality limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reality is that there is a global shortage of the BCG vaccine. Clearly, human health is the priority and we need to ensure that humans are protected against TB. Believe me, as soon as that vaccine becomes available, we want to restart vaccination in the edge areas.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T7. In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority found that neonicotinoids posed a “high acute risk” to honey bees. The e-petition against the use of neonicotinoid pesticides has so far gained more than 90,000 signatures, so what representations will the Government make to the European Commission’s review of its control of neonicotinoids?

[George Eustice]

We had a comprehensive debate on this issue following that petition last week. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is doing a comprehensive piece of research fieldwork on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees. We will ensure that that evidence is put to EFSA before it reaches its conclusions on the interim review next summer.

Fisheries Policy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Calum Kerr]

I may be a new boy, but the hon. Lady cannot trip me up so easily. No, it has not changed. I am sure that, over the coming months, we will have considerable debate on this. In fact, I see fellow members of the European Scrutiny Committee here who do not share all of my views. The EU’s role in fishing will be a key part of that debate. In this debate, it is important to focus on our own interests and regional interests, because a wider discussion will follow.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The reality is, if we gave notice that we as a nation wanted to withdraw from the common fisheries policy, we might be thrown out of the EU. I tested that with a member of UKRep, the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union. It is a bit of a contradiction to be in favour of the EU but want to get out of the CFP.

[Calum Kerr]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; I always enjoy them. [Interruption.] I am still to develop that skill. We are at a point where the issue is not whether we should be in or out of the CFP, but how we can make it better, more effective and work for all our communities. I look forward to sparring with him when we come to the EU debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing the debate.

Last month, I attended the annual festival of the sea service at Christ church in Lowestoft, which is the most easterly church in the UK. That was an opportunity to acknowledge and thank fishermen and their families. When we eat our meals, we should not forget the risks that they take to put fish on our plates. We should also acknowledge, as many Members have, the work that the RNLI, the Fishermen’s Mission and other support groups do around the coast of these islands. Our coast is one of the British Isles’ main assets, but at times it can be unforgiving.

Our current fisheries policy is set out in the CFP, which was reformed in 2014. The reforms consisted of three parts: first, a legally binding commitment to fish at sustainable levels; secondly, more local decision making; and thirdly, the phased ban of discards. If those policies are implemented, they can bring significant benefits to the coastal communities we represent. I represent the port of Lowestoft, which was once the fishing capital of the southern North sea.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I used to know Lowestoft well in my youth—[Interruption.] It was a long time ago. When I was a youth we used to go to Lowestoft, where there were many fishing boats. Would the hon. Gentleman like to contrast the number of fishing boats in Lowestoft now with 50 years ago?

[Peter Aldous]

Indeed I would. Although the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to his youth as being a long time ago, he must have extremely good eyesight, because he has read what I was coming on to.

In days gone by—I will not say anything about the hon. Gentleman’s youth—it was possible to cross from one side of Hamilton dock in Lowestoft to the other by walking from boat to boat. Today, that same dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. The trawlers that underpinned the industry have gone. The vessels in the Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation are now largely based in the Netherlands. Their fixed quota allocation of 79,000 units is landed elsewhere, not in Lowestoft. The industry that remains in Lowestoft is an under-10 metre inshore fleet of 10 to 12 vessels.

When we have debated this subject previously, I have been pretty pessimistic and said, “Time is of the essence. We’re at one minute to midnight. We have very limited time to save the industry in Lowestoft.” Today, I am more optimistic. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel, although I am conscious that it might be an oncoming train. I believe there is a real future for the industry in Lowestoft, and not only because of the announcement about CEFAS that I mentioned.

We can build a new, 21st-century fishing industry in Lowestoft. The future of the port is beginning to become clear: it is a sustainable and exciting future, involving offshore wind and fishing working together. Two weeks ago, it was announced that the construction base and the operations and maintenance base for the East Anglia One offshore wind farm would be in the port of Lowestoft. It has also been announced that the construction base for the Galloper offshore wind farm will be in Lowestoft.

The fishing industry, through Associated British Ports and other interested parties, is now providing us with the opportunity to work together to invest in the fish market and to secure a long-term future for fishing in the port. My vision is of an inshore fleet of approximately 25 boats that can help to underpin the processing businesses and smokehouses that remain in the town to this day. It will not be easy to achieve that vision, and I will outline the five challenges we need to address in order to deliver that goal.

First, the Government need to honour the legally binding commitment in article 17 of the reformed CFP to encourage sustainable fishing that has the least possible impact on the marine environment and that maximises economic and social returns to coastal communities such as Lowestoft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I shall be considerably less than 10 minutes, I hope. It is something of an embarrassment that I speak from a non-fishing constituency; the fishing fleet of Luton North is not large. On the other hand, I have spoken in fishing debates many times, and on every occasion I have spoken about the nonsense that is the common fisheries policy. I have consistently argued for the abandonment of the CFP, or the UK’s unilateral withdrawal from it, which would allow us to re-establish the limit of 200 miles, or 50%, for Great Britain and, I would hope, the British Isles in general.

I applaud the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who put in her own very fine words what I am saying, and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who spoke in similar terms. If we withdrew from the CFP and permitted only UK fishing vessels to fish in our home waters—with possible licensing for a small number of foreign vessels, where appropriate, on an individual and carefully monitored basis—I think we would see a massive revival of the British fishing industry and of fish stocks across our waters. If all member states and, indeed, all nations operated under similar arrangements, they would all have a powerful vested interest in managing and monitoring their own stocks and fisheries. There would surely be plenty of fish for all British fishermen working under such arrangements, and stocks would be sustained at appropriate levels for the long term.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Government of Guernsey, which is not in the CFP. They showed me what could be done if we managed our own fishing stocks. They have their own 12-mile limit, and they are not governed by the CFP quota limits. They manage their fishing stocks extremely well. They are, in microcosm, what we could become. They are concerned that the British Government might give away control of their fishing areas to the CFP, and they have asked me to urge the Minister to take note of their case and be sympathetic to them. They manage the number and sizes of their boats very carefully. All the fishermen involved make a good living and fish stocks remain buoyant, if that is not a contradiction in terms. That is what we should become, with our 200-mile limit.

The representatives from Guernsey contrasted their experience with that of Jersey, which has seen its fish stocks disappear because it does not have the same control over its own fishing grounds. We should give notice now of withdrawal from the CFP and make Britain another Norway—another Guernsey writ large. The CFP has been a disaster, and it should be abandoned. That would be to the benefit of all fishing nations in the European Union, not just to us.

The appalling insanity of discards has been the most grotesque feature of the CFP. Discards are supposedly being phased out, but they continue for the time being. The excellent Library note on this topic states that according to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report published in February 2012, in European fisheries, 1.7 million tonnes of fish were discarded annually, with some discards being up to 90% of catches. That is a complete nonsense. It will be to the benefit of us all—not just fishing fleets, the fishing industry and people who fish, but the whole country—and our diets if we maintain good fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry. As a great lover of fish, I hope that we will do so.

Fishing Industry

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I first congratulate all four of the Members who have spoken so far, whose wisdom and knowledge I cannot equal? I agree with almost everything that has been said. I do not represent a fishing area—Luton is about as far as it is possible to get from the oceans around our coasts—but I am nevertheless concerned about the marine ecosystem. I want to be able to continue to consume fish, and I am also concerned about the British fishing industry and the fishermen who work in it. I have spoken in probably most of the debates on fishing since I entered this House some 18 years ago. I am also a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, where I regularly speak up for fishing interests, sometimes to the amusement of my colleagues because Luton does not have its own fishing fleet.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about the common fisheries policy and what needs to be done for the future. I have said, and I say again, that I really believe that we must seek the abolition of the common fisheries policy for the long-term sustainability of fishing around our coasts, and for fishing stocks and the ecosystem. We will not solve all the problems until the common fisheries policy is got rid of, and until not just the 6-mile and 12-mile limits but the 50% limit and 200-mile limits are re-established. The only way to protect fishing in our seas is to return to those historical fishing limits, with countries maintaining and controlling their own fishing waters—way out to sea—around their coasts, and with every vessel being monitored and every catch landed in each country being measured. The only time that foreign vessels should be able to enter and fish in such areas is when they are under licence, on a vessel-by-vessel basis.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that inspectors in Spain live miles away from the fishing ports, but that those in my constituency in Plymouth are on fishermen’s backs every five seconds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we monitor our fishermen very strictly, but other countries do not. Well, if they do not monitor their fishermen, let us exclude them from British waters until such time as they are properly monitored.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

The only thing I remember from a briefing by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation before a previous debate on fishing is that one of its spokesmen pointed out, in relation to conserving the herring stock so that there was a long-term future for the industry, “You do need to manage the North sea as a whole, because the herring do not recognise national boundaries.”

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The point has often been made in such debates that fish have a habit of swimming between different areas of the sea. Nevertheless, Norway has not been a member of the European Union or of the common fisheries policy, but it has managed the stocks around its coast. Even though fish swim, there are greater concentrations of them where they are properly protected and managed in national waters. My own view is that when countries are responsible for managing their own waters, they seek to make sure that their fish stocks are sustained, but if they can just fish willy-nilly in other countries’ seas, they do not have that sense of responsibility and will not husband fish stocks even around their own coast.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that Norway has to enter into negotiations with the EU? As he says, fish do not swim under water with little flags saying that they belong to a certain part of the North sea or any other sea, so Norway’s situation is not quite as clear cut as he suggests.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. That has been pointed out to me before, when I have made the same argument, and it is true that Norway has an arrangement with the European Union. Nevertheless, if countries maintain their fish stocks—especially with the 50% limit, rather than just the 6-mile and 12-mile limits—and husband and manage them properly around national coasts, they get a concentration of fish stocks in those areas. I must say that if I were a fish and more likely to be caught in one area than in another, I would swim to the area where I was less likely to be caught, but that is just an aside.

The only way to guarantee that countries are responsible when it comes to fishing is to ensure that they manage their own waters and can restrain other countries from fishing in them. That is absolutely basic. As I say, I have made this point on many occasions. I am not an enthusiast for the European Union in general, but if there is one area of the EU that is dafter than any other it is the common fisheries policy.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that that should be one of the areas that the Prime Minister renegotiates back into the control of the UK when he carries out the negotiations in Europe?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady, who speaks so well on these matters, has made exactly the point I was about to make. For me, when the Prime Minister—it may be a Labour one—comes back with a new deal, the first thing I will want to see is the abolition of the common fisheries policy. If that is not in the deal, I have to say that I will not vote for the deal because it is so absolutely fundamental. One way to achieve that is to speak in this Chamber, as I do, and I hope that people in the European Union—in the bureaucracy in Brussels—are listening. If they are, they will know that if we get more exercised about these matters over time, we will in the end tell the European Union, if we are not agreed, that we are seeking to withdraw from the CFP unilaterally. I say that here as a warning for the longer term. I am sure that many people would agree with us on these matters.

I think I have made my point. I am not an expert in the sense that my hon. Friends are experts—they have made some very important and more detailed points about what is now happening—but, in the longer term, I believe that the common fisheries policy must be ended and that countries must be made responsible for their own fishing waters, with every vessel monitored and licensed. If foreign fishing vessels want to fish in our waters or our vessels want to fish in those of other countries, they must be individually licensed vessel by vessel, and both what they are fishing and where they land their stocks must be monitored.

Fishing Industry

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman does the House a great service by pointing that out. I had understood that regions would relate to borders contiguous to the sea within which there would be fishing. We cannot get away from the fact that Spain had historical rights to fish in our waters before 1973. That is something the Minister will have heard about, and I am interested to know how Spain manages to muscle in. I pay tribute to my Spanish friends, in case they are reading this or watching it on television—we have an agreement not to discuss fishing, Gibraltar or Las Malvinas.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Is the next logical step to make the regions the traditional fishing waters of each member state?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I shall not speak for too long, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). She has lived her life at the heart of the fishing industry, and it is obvious from what she has just been saying, with which I strongly agree, that her heart is still with the industry.

Hon. Members will appreciate that Luton North is not a maritime constituency, and I have to say that the Luton North fishing fleet is not large. Nevertheless, I have spoken many times on fishing policy, and I have strong views on it that I think some Members share. The CFP was a terrible mistake, and it has been a disaster for Britain and for fishing waters around the coasts of the European Union. The reforms come and go, and we have seen some improvement: the movement towards regionalisation is a tacit acceptance that we have to have some local control. The obvious local control should be national local control, which, in effect, means the abolition of the CFP, in time. I have suggested that we ought to give notice—perhaps five years’ notice—that we will withdraw unilaterally from the CFP if we cannot get agreement within the European Union. That should be one of the prime negotiating planks when the Prime Minister is renegotiating our relationship with the EU. The CFP would be my No. 1 policy to dispose of.

Fish stocks have suffered terribly as a result of overfishing, and that has occurred because all member states can plunder other nations’ waters without having any responsibility for what happens. We know that at least one nation has indulged in “black fish” landing in considerable quantities, and if it cannot be trusted to fish in our waters, perhaps it should be restricted to fishing in its own waters, and restoring the 200-mile limit or 50:50 limit would be the sensible way forward.

Britain has large traditional waters; it is one of the largest maritime nations in the European Union in terms of its seas. It is completely daft and unacceptable that a number of land-locked nations in the EU can vote on the common fisheries policy. Many of them will vote slavishly for what the Commission suggests, because that is what they habitually do, so the Commission can always rely on a block vote of land-locked nations and nations that have no interest in fishing to act against what our interests might be.

The first-class example of a nation that manages its fish stocks extremely well is Norway, because it is not a member of the common fisheries policy—it is outside the European Union. Norway monitors every boat and every catch within its waters. I have just seen a quote today from an article in The Guardian of 14 February in which Fiona Harvey talks about a Norwegian trawler skipper, Egil Skarbøvik. She quotes him as saying:

“In Norway we have been able to build up the strongest cod and haddock stock in the Barents Sea ever, thanks to strong regulations including closed areas, sorting grids and a strict coastguard.”

If every nation did that, we would not have a problem with overfishing or with fish stocks diminishing, and we would not need such nonsense as discards, because we would all be managing our fish stocks and our fishing, and we would all benefit.

If all foreign vessels were excluded from British waters, I feel confident that there would be plenty of fish for British fisherman—there would not be a problem. With the existing fishing industry continuing to fish in our waters, we would see the fish stocks recover, because other nations’ fishermen would be outside. Over time, if it became possible, we could do what Norway does, which is to license individual fishing boats from other nations to fish in its waters. We have seen the boundaries of the CFP being pushed by Sweden and Denmark, and we ought to move in that direction, too. They are inching closer and closer to having real control of their own fishing waters, and I say hooray for them. I think we should do the same. They are smaller nations with smaller fishing grounds—nothing like ours—but we would benefit enormously by adopting such an approach. That is not just a nationalist policy; it is about saving fish stocks for everyone. If we had good fish stocks, we would be able to eat fish comfortably, without having to worry about the long-term future viability of our fishing grounds.

I have made my point many times, and I shall no doubt make it again until I win the argument. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who negotiated quite hard on our behalf and did a good job, and I have complimented him at a personal level, too. However, we still have a long way to go. We have regional areas, but a region that covers Britain and Spain is nonsense. Having Spain as one region and the UK as another would make more sense. That would be a step towards the abolition of the CFP and the restoration of the management of fishing to member states, which is the sensible way ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

Very briefly, because I do not want to deprive the Minister of time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend has made a very powerful point about the number of fish being caught. Surely excluding from our waters the vessels of other member states that overfish, which we cannot control, has to come first before we start to manage our own fishing industry.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber when I responded to that point, which he made earlier. Perhaps if he wants to catch up with that in Hansard we will not delay the proceedings further.

We must take a science-based approach to quota allocation and we must have a clear goal of delivering a diverse and abundant marine environment that can sustain stronger economic growth and deliver more jobs for Britain’s fishing community. It is essential that fishers are able to respond to the changes in the abundance of their quarry. The quota system can clearly create barriers to more sustainable, responsive fishing practices, but I am not persuaded that calls for an increase in total allowable catch and quota are based on adequate evidence or are compatible with the recovery of Britain’s fisheries and the long-term economic health of Britain’s fishing communities.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) stated the need for a greater share of the quota for the under-10 metre fleet. He made that case absolutely superbly. Although I have screeds that I would wish to have said about it, he has made the case and I do not need to do so.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) spoke of the science base. Everything comes back to that: we must follow the science. The difficulty is that often proceeding on the basis of anecdote and surmise is the only thing that we have. There are very few examples of scientific evidence being gathered both pre and post-fishing activity. A happy exception is found in the study, “Long-term changes in deep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic”—a paper published in the proceedings of the Royal Society in 2009.

This week, unfortunately, the proposed European ban on deep-sea fishing, which aimed to phase out trawling below 600 metres, was defeated. Trawling below that level is recognised by scientists as being by far the most destructive fishing activity. In line with its work on a more sustainable EU common fisheries policy, this matter has been very much on the European Parliament’s agenda. The Minister may care to explain why his Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament joined forces with other groups to vote down the ban and also voted to delay progress on the draft legislation, meaning that better conservation measures for deep-sea species are unlikely to be taken forward until after the 2014 European elections.

Deep-sea trawlers are catching top predators first and then moving down the food web. Taking away the top predator from an ecosystem risks a significant, possibly irrevocable, destabilisation because it removes species that play a regulatory role affecting the entire food web. The key target species in deep-sea fisheries include round-nosed grenadier, black scabbard and orange ruffy, but for these three, and up to perhaps another seven, target species for deep-sea trawlers, some 78 species are being caught as by-catch. These deep-sea species tend to be longer lived. The orange ruffy lives for up to 100 years and reaches maturity only at the age of 30. Catching these species can completely destabilise the ecosystem.

The science shows that before commercial deep-sea trawling commenced, the abundance of fish per sq km was 25,000 fish, but afterwards it collapsed to 7,225 fish per sq km. Equally of concern is that the decline was not localised in the fished area of 52,000 sq km but extended to 142,000 sq km—an area two and three quarter times that of the area that had been fished by deep-sea trawling. This is a desperately serious problem.

Finally, I want to talk about marine conservation zones, because they have been—