Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T2.  Today a letter is on its way to the Secretary of State. It is signed by over 40 MPs and peers, and highlights the Coalition for Fisheries Transparency’s “Criminal catches” report. Will the Minister agree to meet us to discuss how we can stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for illegal seafood linked to criminality, environmental destruction and human exploitation?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Once my hon. Friend gets the letter off to us, she will certainly get a reply. The UK has a robust regulatory framework to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation work closely with the devolved Governments, local authorities and port health authorities to ensure that documents are appropriately checked and verified on seafood imports from all countries. If she wants to demonstrate cases where that is not happening, I would be very interested indeed to hear from her.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Ms Lewell. I am tempted to join the discussion about non-stun slaughter, but I will not, other than to say that my understanding is that the derogation to allow it is meant to cater to domestic populations, yet we are exporting quite a lot. Not allowing animals killed in that way to be exported would be one way to significantly reduce the numbers.

I very much welcome the animal welfare strategy. There is lots of good stuff in it, and things that some of us who have been around for a long time have been pushing for for many years. I would like a bit more clarity from the Minister on the timescales and when these measures are likely to come into effect. Will legislation be needed? Will there be one overarching animal welfare Bill—primary legislation—or can we do things by statutory instrument? Will the Government look to private Members’ Bills? That was something that the previous Government used to try to kick issues into the long grass; they were nervous about bringing forward anything more substantial because they thought that we would try to ban trail hunting. We tried to tack that on, so they farmed off individual, discrete private Members’ Bills to their Back Benchers instead, and even those did not get over the line for the most part. Also, how will progress be monitored? Can we have a regular statement to Parliament?

I am a little concerned by how much is going out to consultation. I have had a briefing from the NFU, which I have read carefully. I appreciate the financial pressures on the farming sector, and I know that colleagues will talk about things like the sexing of the 40 million to 45 million male chicks that are slaughtered each year within a day of their birth. There are systemic issues with how much farmers are paid for their food and how much we are prepared to pay for it, but we should not use the argument about the financial pressure on farmers to move away from doing what is right in terms of ethical animal welfare practices.

I look at things very much from the perspective of trying to avoid a shift towards ever more intensive industrialised farming. We know that the poultry industry, for example, is huge: over 1 billion meat chickens are bred every year. We know the impact on our water supplies and air quality from what are more like factories than farms. There is very little profit to be made from that.

On the dairy sector, one of my concerns is how the strategy links up with moves to reduce emissions from livestock. The Climate Change Committee recommended reducing herd sizes to about 80%, but the Government talk about increasing production as a way of compensating for that. As I understand it, a beef suckler cow naturally produces about 4 litres of milk a day, and at the moment a dairy cow produces about 28 litres a day. If we are talking about increasing production and getting ever more milk out of a cow—treating them like machines rather than sentient animals—that will be of real concern to me, so I would like to know how that will be dealt with.

My final point is about octopus farming. The sentience of decapods and cephalopods was recognised, after quite a battle, in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, but cephalopod molluscs, which include octopus, have not been brought into the scope of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There are measures abroad, in the United States in particular, to ban octopus farming. I am very concerned about plans for an octopus farm in the Canary Islands. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s stance on that?

Food Inflation

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West]

I look forward to reading the report that comes out of my hon. Friend’s Committee.

How do we build a future without food banks? Let us look at what has worked. As a former borough leader, I introduced free school meals for all primary school children. It was a great equaliser and social leveller. Children were more focused and made better progress; families who were just about managing saved money; there was no stigma, as everyone sat together, and the people serving the food got the London living wage. These meals provide an opportunity for children to sit down to eat a nutritionally balanced meal, have meaningful conversations with adults and learn to eat with a knife and fork. Under our mayor, free school meals for all primary school children were subsequently rolled out across London. More secondary school children will benefit under this Government’s new policies for all families receiving universal credit. I take my hat off to the Government for that change.

I am also incredibly proud of the Government’s Best Start in Life holiday activities and food clubs, something my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has campaigned on for years in this place, along with other Members. That £600 million investment, over three years, means nutritious meals and exciting activities for half a million children across the country every year, helping children to achieve and thrive. It means consistency for parents, who will not face a cliff edge on childcare when term time ends, and money back in the pockets of parents who would otherwise have to fork out during the holidays just so they can work to put food on the table. Children who attend the holiday activities and food clubs are more likely to take part in sport and exercise, which addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), and children feel more confident and social with their peers after attending a club.

Most importantly of all, as I have said, the scrapping of the two-child cap on universal credit will start making a real difference in April this year. It will be the most cost-effective way to lift half a million children out of poverty, and allow them to look forward to supporting their parents at the same time.

The essentials guarantee that I would like the Minister to consider would embed in our social security system the widely supported principle that, at a minimum, universal credit should protect households against going without the essentials. The experts—the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—are calling for an independent process to advise the Government on benefit rates. As the Minister is from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, she may well wish a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions to answer this point, but it needs to be said again and again that income is one of the key drivers of food bank need. As independent process to set universal credit could advise the Government to ensure that rates are based on need and essential costs.

A protected minimum floor for universal credit would provide a safety net below which no one should fall. It would build on the introduction of the fair repayment rate by limiting all universal credit reductions, including from the benefit cap, to 15% below the standard allowance. It would also provide support to households, both in and out of work, and help over 240,000 children.

The local housing allowance has not kept up with the cost of housing. We know that the Government are straining every sinew to bring on new, genuinely affordable homes, but the local housing allowance remains frozen while we wait for that reality to unfold. If that remains the case over the course of this Parliament, renters will be about £700 worse off by 2029, and 50,000 renters will be pulled into poverty. If we do not re-establish the link between the local housing allowance and actual rents, increasing numbers of people will be forced to turn to food banks because they simply will not be able to pay the rent.

Will the Minister commit to ending the need for food banks for families by the end of this Parliament? We have made other commitments on things we are going to do by the end of the Parliament—for example, on immigration —but what is more important than ensuring that every family and child can afford nutritious food? Will the Minister work with colleagues across the ministerial teams on the possibility of an essentials guarantee in our social security system, and on ensuring that the local housing allowance keeps up with the reality of rental costs in the private sector?

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I visited the Coexist Community Kitchen in my constituency, which does amazing work to get the community in. It runs cookery classes, is accessible and has affordable and healthy food, and sometimes it is free. Quite a lot of people go there on social prescriptions. On the issue of cross-departmental working, does my hon. Friend agree that is not enough for the health service just to issue prescriptions? It needs to support community kitchens so that they can do the cookery classes and make the food available. There needs to be institutional support, as well as the prescribing end of it.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend, who is a former Minister, makes an excellent point. I know that the Minister present will look into our idea of a publicly backed food hub or wholesale platform. It could operate on a cost-recovery basis and work with local suppliers to help them to supply food to local schools, households and NHS facilities in their area at stable and affordable prices, thereby helping to develop thriving and inclusive local economies.

When it heard this debate was going to happen, the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union wrote to me to say that despite being in work, six out of 10 food workers say their wages are insufficient for them to meet their basic needs, such as food and energy, while nearly half say they are feeling food-insecure. Three out of 10 say they do not have enough food to feed themselves and their families. Let us make a difference. Let us make the change that we all voted for in July 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing the debate.

For many people across the country, rising food prices are one of the most concrete ways in which the cost of living crisis impacts their lives. Thanks to rising costs, many families simply do not have enough money left at the end of the month to save for a home, plan a holiday or even send their children on a school trip.

In general, prices rise because of three things. First, they can rise because too many people want too few goods. If the demand for something grows faster than the supply, the price will of course rise. We saw that in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The supply of Ukrainian wheat fell, demand stayed the same and global food prices rose.

Secondly, prices can rise because it becomes more expensive to produce goods in the first place. To keep earning enough to survive, the people who produce those goods will need to increase their prices to cover their growing costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, we see that today, as this Government’s energy policies create the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. Higher energy prices for businesses mean higher production costs, causing prices to rise. The same is true of higher taxes or greater regulatory costs, both of which this Government have imposed on businesses of all kinds.

Thirdly, prices can rise because of external factors, which can also be in response to Government policy. If the Government increase the supply of money, say, or keep interest rates too low, people will be more likely to spend, reducing the relative value of the pound in their pocket and, again, causing prices to rise.

If we talk to anybody involved in producing food in this country, we will hear a lot about the second cause. Costs are rising and prices are rising with them. As I mentioned, that is due partly to energy costs, but also partly to the vast sums food producers must spend to comply with the regulations they need to navigate if they ever want to sell their products.

Let us take dairy farms as just one example. What hurdles must a dairy farmer in Kent, in my constituency, clear if they want to sell milk, cheese or butter? To even begin the process, all dairy farmers must register with the Food Standards Agency as a dairy producer. If they want to turn some of their milk into cheese or butter, they must also get a separate approval as a food business establishment.

Cows must be kept according to regulations set out under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, which include rules on space, housing and veterinary care. The herd must be regularly tested by the Animal and Plant Health Agency for tuberculosis and brucellosis. They must be specifically protected to minimise contact with badgers, with the construction of specific fences and feeding facilities. Farmers must also create and implement a hazard analysis and critical contact point plan identifying all potential contamination hazards and setting out plans to minimise them. They must test for certain bacteria and must be prepared for unannounced inspections by the Food Standards Agency.

If farmers want to sell milk, they must comply with the Drinking Milk (England) Regulations 2008, which define the appropriate fat content for different sorts of milk and sets out specific rules on pasteurisation. If they want to turn the milk into cheese, they must comply with certain compositional standards, including rules on protected designations for specific regional varieties. If they want to turn the milk into butter, they must comply with the Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) and the Milk Products (Protection of Designations) (England) Regulations 2008, including rules on additives and fat percentage.

Then there are rules on labelling and marketing, on mandatory written contracts on milk sales to regulate pricing, and on manure spreading and waste management. If farmers want to adapt their buildings or extend them, they need to navigate the labyrinth of our planning system. Then and only then are they allowed to sell their milk, butter or cheese, and the price in the shops will need to reflect all the costs I have just mentioned if they want to keep the farm running.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is always easy to criticise regulation, but we often find that regulations are introduced for very real reasons, whether that is protecting public health, animal welfare and so on. Will the hon. Member tell us which of the regulations and requirements she has listed ought to be dropped?

[Katie Lam]

What is important here, and what I am trying to set out, is how many costs farmers have to meet even just to get their produce out of the door. When we talk about food prices, it is inevitable that we will talk about why those prices rise, what the costs are and how they might be going up. Many of my farmers work incredibly hard to put food on people’s tables, and my aim is to talk through the costs they face even just to be able legally to sell their produce. It is important for constituents who are listening to this debate to understand what goes into the pint of milk that they buy.

Dairy farmers live an extremely difficult lifestyle. They work long hours and can never afford to take a day off—the cows will, after all, always need milking. Thanks to farmers’ hard work, we are able to enjoy some of the finest dairy products anywhere in the world. Given the difficulties they face, we should not be making their lives harder by forcing them to navigate mountains of paperwork and endless regulatory compliance. It is bad for them and bad for those who want to buy their products at an affordable price.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I too enjoyed being a member of the Treasury Committee—as the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) still does—to which you always make a trenchant and relevant contribution. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on successfully securing this debate—I think she is on the Treasury Committee as well. There seems to be a preponderance of current or ex-Treasury Committee members in this debate, which perhaps suggests that the issue before us, food inflation, is, as anyone who has listened with an open mind to all the excellent contributions will realise, quite a complex issue.

There is no single cause for the fact that, in the UK, food inflation for the last period has been running about 1% above CPI inflation rates. Many Members, from all parts of the House, have talked about the effect that that has had on their constituents. This debate reflects real concerns about food inflation and cost of living pressures that are affecting millions of households across our country. Those pressures have been building for years, and too many families were left to face them alone under the previous Government. Tackling the cost of living remains at the heart of what this Labour Government hope to achieve in our time in office.

Food poverty is not an abstract issue, as many of us who visit food banks in our constituencies know; nor is food insecurity, which now touches more than 14 million people in our country—not a small number, and a very sobering one when we think about it. In my constituency, I see parents skipping meals so that their children can eat. I see many others relying on food banks to get by. When I was first elected, we did not have any food banks in Wallasey; we now have too many. All are doing a fantastic job; I pay tribute to the work that Wirral food bank does, and to the many volunteers who run social supermarkets and food clubs in the constituency, which have grown up to meet need as it has arisen.

I also pay tribute to Feeding Britain, which was started by Frank Field, who was my constituency neighbour. He perceived this issue and how much it was growing, and in his usual way he decided that he was going to do something practical and see what he could do to help. He did, and Feeding Britain now makes an important and interesting contribution to the work we are all doing to bring about this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment to ending the mass use of emergency food parcels by the end of this Parliament.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I echo what the Minister said about Frank Field. Quite a long time ago now, he approached me about setting up Feeding Bristol as an offshoot of Feeding Britain. Feeding Bristol has gone from strength to strength, particularly with its holiday hunger programme, which provided tens of thousands of meals for children who would otherwise have gone hungry during the school holidays. We all owe Frank a debt of gratitude for that.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was thinking, when I attended his funeral a few years ago, what an effect he had at a grassroots level with his vision for getting stuff done. There are many hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country who, even though they might not know it, owe him a debt of gratitude.

The actions we have taken start with easing cost of living pressures and raising living standards. It is obvious, as many colleagues on the Government side of this Chamber have said, that one of the basic causes of food insecurity is the price of food, but it is also people’s inability to have enough income to do one of the most basic things in life: putting food on their family’s plates—or their own. Analysis demonstrates that that difficulty particularly affects those with children and those who have disabilities or other issues around being able to earn a reasonable amount of money if they are in work, so that they can cover basic costs. The Trussell Trust demonstrated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said, that a third of those who attend food banks for emergency food parcels are in work.

I found it interesting to hear Opposition Members say that increases in the national minimum wage or in the money that people earn for working were actually part of the problem. Those who do low-wage work also have to eat. Although the increases add a cost, we have to appreciate that maintaining a very low-pay society will not help us get out of this problem.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Like others, I very much welcome the Bill, and I hope it swiftly passes into law so that we can play a full role at Ocean COP1 next year. If we look back beyond recent years, we had people such as John Kerry, and David Miliband as co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, spearheading efforts on this front, but it then felt as if the issue dropped off the agenda. Next year will be important for ensuring that it becomes a priority again.

I will start by saying why the oceans matter, why they are under threat and why protecting them is so important. As we have heard, oceans are a massive carbon sink. They absorb over 90% of excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, as well as around 25% to 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions. They host around 80% of all life forms, many of which are still waiting to be discovered. They are under threat from plastic pollution, ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral reefs, and from overfishing on an unsustainable industrial scale. The largest factory trawlers have net mouths of up to 1,200 metres wide and 200 to 300 metres deep that sweep up hundreds of tonnes of fish and seafood in one trip, much of which is bycatch, not for human consumption, that is then discarded. Oceana has called this

“marine deforestation—akin to clear felling an entire rainforest when you’re only looking to harvest one type of tree”.

The Environmental Justice Foundation has done some brilliant reports in the past into slavery and labour exploitation as part of this industrial-scale fishing, particularly in the Thai seafood sector. The fish stocks in territorial waters are depleted, but the further afield those ships go, the higher the risk to the workers that are kept at sea for years at a time.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, between 35% and 37% of assessed fish stocks are being fished beyond biologically sustainable levels. That figure is much higher in the high seas and in straddling fish stocks, with two thirds classified as over-exploited or depleted. That includes iconic species, such as sharks, that are a crucial part of the ocean ecosystem. It is estimated that there has been a 71% decline in the ocean population of sharks and rays since 1970. Some 77% of oceanic shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. Roughly 100 million sharks a year are killed by humans through targeted fishing, shark finning and bycatch.

Many of us will have seen “The Blue Planet” series that did such a brilliant job at highlighting, among other things, the threat of plastic pollution and at spurring calls to action. I want to give a shout out to BBC Bristol’s natural history unit, which has been hugely influential, as well as giving great enjoyment to all the people who have seen its programmes. It is a great shame that agreement still has not been reached on a global plastics treaty, and we must keep up the efforts on that front.

I hope that Sir David Attenborough’s latest production, “Ocean”, will have a similar impact when it comes to bottom trawling. As Sir David says:

“What we have done to the deep ocean floor is just unspeakably awful.”

He says that the trawlers tear the seabed with such force that

“the trails of destruction can be seen from space”.

It was reported that some of the material filmed for the programme was deemed too shocking to be shown.

Due to climate change, more than half the world’s straddling fish stocks will shift across maritime borders between economic exclusion zones and the high seas by 2050. In the high seas, fisheries management is much more challenging and stocks are much more likely to be over-exploited, as I said earlier. That makes the need for marine protected areas in the high seas even more important. As we have heard, as well as being an island nation ourselves, because of our overseas territories the UK is the custodian of a fifth of the world’s territorial waters. That means that we are the neighbour, which is the next best thing as a custodian, of much of the high seas, including the Sargasso sea.

Greenpeace is calling on the UK to take a lead in working with our overseas territory, Bermuda, on developing an ocean sanctuary proposal for the Sargasso sea, ready to present it at the first Ocean COP next year. The Sargasso sea is a uniquely biodiverse and important ecosystem. The floating sargassum mats are known as the “golden floating rainforest”, and they are a haven for juvenile fish and turtles, a spawning ground for a rich range of species and an important migratory pathway for humpback whales. As a generator of massive carbon sequestration and oxygen production, the Sargasso sea is vital in tackling climate change and planetary health, but it is at risk of overfishing, pollution and shipping traffic. There is much support in Bermuda for the proposal, and I hope that we will be able to take that forward next year.

Given our strength as a global financial centre, the UK is uniquely well placed to play a role in developing innovative financial instruments that will help finance marine protection, building on what countries like Seychelles and Belize have done with their blue bonds and their debt restructuring. At COP29 last year, we launched our six principles for high integrity carbon and nature markets, and they have been out for consultation this year.

In a world where public sector resources and donations are dwindling, the world is looking to make progress on leveraging private sector finance in a meaningful and sustainable way. That could be of huge benefit to climate-vulnerable coastal countries and small island states, but could also be applicable to funding marine protected areas in the high seas, making it economically viable to protect our seas rather than to plunder them. I have heard that the Treasury may be less enthused about the nature side of these voluntary markets than the carbon side, but I hope that is not the case. I will certainly keep up the pressure on the Treasury to take this forward.

I want to speak briefly about deep-sea mining, to which I am totally opposed. Deep-sea mining could cause irreversible damage to deep ecosystems and a loss of undiscovered biodiversity. I understand that the current UK position, as confirmed by an FCDO ministerial answer last month, is that we back the suspension of deep-sea mining and support a moratorium on the granting of deep-sea mining contracts by the International Seabed Authority. The Minister said that we will not grant licences for exploitation unless

“there is sufficient scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep sea ecosystems, and strong enforceable environmental Regulations, Standards and Guidelines”.

However, it is not clear what powers we will have through this international collaboration to stop other countries issuing such licences, so I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her summing up. I am a little concerned that the measures in the Bill about marine genetic resources will open the door to deep-sea mining. I accept that there is a case for exploring the potential of such resources, if carried out under strong safeguards, but I would resist any attempt to allow deep-sea mining to occur.

Finally, while I welcome international initiatives and, as has been made clear, the Bill addresses areas beyond national jurisdiction, we need to lead by example with stronger protection for our own territorial waters. As has been said, there has been some progress, notably around our overseas territories, but perhaps it is easier to act when those areas are thousands of miles away and do not have the same economic interests. There has been great work around Ascension, Pitcairn and South Georgia, but there is more of a mixed picture around the UK coast.

Dogger Bank in the North sea is one of the largest marine protected areas. Since it was established in 2022, it has benefited from a 98% reduction in bottom trawling, supporting the recovery of marine species like halibut, cod, angel shark and eels. As it says in the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, all marine protected areas must be well managed, enforced and effective, not paper parks. We could start by moving faster to end all bottom trawling in our marine protected areas.

The recent excellent report “Blue Carbon”, published by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, set out a blue carbon mapping project carried out with the help of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. We are the first country to undertake such mapping. We know about the importance of kelp forests, seagrass meadows and mangroves, but it is the less glamorous sediment on our seabed that is the true hero in carbon sequestration. The report found that 224 million tonnes of organic carbon was stored in just the top 10 cm of seabed sediments and vegetated habitats, and 98% of that was in the sediment, such as the mud.

In my role as Minister for climate, it frustrated me that we talked so much about the role of trees and forests in carbon sequestration, but we did not talk about the oceans at all. I was told that that was because it was difficult to quantify, so this project is a great example. If this is the amount of carbon work that is being done by the seabed around the UK coast, just think about the amount that the seabed of our high seas is doing. We must have action on that at Ocean COP. I hope that the Bill will be enacted very soon, and I look forward to next year’s discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

This has been a wide-ranging and important debate on a vital Bill. There have been many valuable and informed contributions, not least from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is rightly proud of the great academic institutions in his constituency, highlighting the important role that UK research plays in the world.

It was a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) making one of the first Back-Bench contributions. She reinforced the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made about the destruction of the marine environment. I know that she speaks from a position not just of expertise but of passion, and she has shown that over so many years, with a commitment to our oceans and with the work that she has led on.

May I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that she shows why it is so important that we have people in this House with such wide-ranging experience, who have had lives outside this place? She has brought expertise to the debate and I am sure that many of us envy her in what she has been able to do, the intellect that she has applied to the argument and the fact that we can all listen carefully to what she has said.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said something important when she talked about marine deforestation and some of the mainstream media shows that had footage that she had heard had been too shocking to show. That represents a real problem in this debate. Are we wrapping this up in cotton wool for some people, to not show exactly what we are trying to deal with? She made the important point that we should not hide from what is going on in the world.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to an extent. It was reported in The Guardian that some of the footage was deemed too shocking to be shown. I do not know whether he has seen it, but what remains in the film is incredibly powerful. I have read about bottom trawling in the newspapers for a long time, so I knew about it from a factual perspective, but it was only when I saw those images that it was brought home to me how terrible it is.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important intervention.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised the importance of mainstream media. We are grateful for her apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for misinterpreting his drive about the importance of the Chagos islands.

It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is no longer in his place, felt that not enough of my colleagues were in attendance, but those of us who were here have stayed here—Mr Speaker has commented on many an occasion that I can often be more than enough. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) pointed out how little we know about the oceans. That is an important point. It has often been said that space exploration gets lots of coverage and we talk about it very much—indeed, we are talking about manning the moon again, and maybe using it as a launch pad to go to Mars—yet so much of our own planet is completely unknown and unexplored.

That brings me to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who has a genuine interest and expertise. He gave a wide ranging and important speech and made an important point about the ocean being one of the biggest solutions to climate change. He is indeed right that the European economic zones are a legacy from the days when we owned half the world. One of the great achievements of the last Conservative Government is the work we did on the blue belt and on ensuring that we protected important marine environments. I do not know whether he will expand on this in later debates, but I noticed that he did not appear to be fully supportive of giving up on the fisheries from the EU with the EU reset. I wonder whether he may have things to add to that debate at another time, but perhaps now is not the time and place. However, he does make an important point that we can only do what we have to do as a country if we have the ability to do it in those waters.

The way that the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) approached the subject of the Conservative party’s record in this area was a real pity. I am proud of some of the work we did on the blue belt, including working on this Bill, and as we have seen during the debate, there is wide support for it across the House.

The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out her genuine delight in the fact that this House has so many experts to speak on such an important issue. She echoed the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on what will happen with the Chagos Bill. I do not want to go into great detail on that, because we are going to be here a long time on Monday evening debating that Bill, but I think she was driving at the fact that the assurances in the Chagos Bill do not go far enough in protecting the blue belt. I welcome her clarification that my party has raised the issue of the blue belt. She comes with expertise and deserves to be listened to when she is raising these important points.

The Minister opened the debate by talking about the urgency and importance of this moment. That is true. When my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke, he made some very serious points, not least about how we can ensure that the responsibilities that the United Kingdom has always taken towards marine fisheries do not get overridden if we cannot control our work entirely. He made the point that, in the scheme of things, we must ensure that we do not hand over the ability to other countries to stop us doing that work.

The reality is that—again, I will touch briefly on this because it is not part of the debate—the UN Security Council, set up for a reason, finds it hard to react to what is happening in Ukraine because Russia can override anything with its veto. We must ensure that we have the ability, as a Government and a country, to employ the laws and protections that we need to put in place. We will raise these areas in Committee, even if that is through probing amendments, because we want to ensure that the Bill can do exactly what it intends to do.

The reality of the Bill also comes into some of these situations that we see on the horizon. We know about the opening up of the Arctic, the melting of the sea ice and the opening of the north-east passage, which for many months—certainly weeks—of the year is fully navigable; the ice has gone away by that much. At the same time, we know that President Putin and the Russians have said that there are hydrocarbon resources in that ocean that they want to mine. That would be devastating for the fragile ecosystems that exist in that unique area of the world, which is almost completely untouched.

I had the pleasure back in May of being part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Svalbard. The University Centre in Svalbard has dozens of countries, universities, academic institutions and hundreds of nationalities studying that region, climate change and the effect it has on the Arctic, and the effects on ecosystems. It is absolutely vital, as we see the geopolitical tensions forming in areas where they have not been before, that we have those strong protections in place.