Fisheries

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point. We need to move from advice to management. We have a far too centralised common fisheries policy and, as we have been saying for decades, we need to decentralise it.

The fundamental problem, as many hon. Members have said, is the blunt instrument of the quota system. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test implied, we do not want to replace that overnight with the blunt response of stopping all discards. That could have immediate catastrophic consequences. We need to move to a situation where there is no need for discards of dead fish from trawlers.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. In the Northumberland coast fishery, where most of the boats are day boats that do not travel far out, an immediate ban on discards would prevent people from catching other species. At the moment, a lot of haddock are being caught because they are plentiful. We could not stop all the boats from fishing completely because of the number of haddock they are catching.

[Andrew George]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is assiduous on this issue and helps to emphasise the particular problems for day boats and inshore fisheries.

There is also a problem with the illogicality of throwing back dead fish. No one quite understands the benefit of that. The only possible scientific benefit is that other fish might feed on those fish. As all those involved in fisheries management will understand, the problem is that to apply an effective fisheries management policy, one needs to be able to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch. Of course, a lot of the by-catch is of a high marketable value. One has to query what would be the ultimate impact if one said, “We’ll stop all discards and you can land and market all the fish you catch, regardless, because we feel sorry for you and don’t like to think of you throwing back dead fish.” We cannot simply adopt, overnight, a ban on discards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I understand the concerns of a number of communities in London about the construction phase of this project, if it goes ahead. I am delighted that one particularly popular area of green space south of the river has been protected and I applaud Thames Water for having found an alternative site. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to make sure that the impact of the construction of the project is as minimal as possible.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Will Ministers look again at the funding of Northumberland national park, because pro rata cuts hit very hard the least well-funded national park, which suffers from what is known to be an unsatisfactory distribution of funding between national parks?

[Richard Benyon]

I am well aware of the national park’s concerns. I have to be cautious because I believe that there might be legal proceedings under way, but I am a firm fan of what it does. It is important to note that the national parks will go back, as a collective group, to the funding of about five years ago. Life did not stop in the national parks back then—they did a lot of good stuff then and they will continue to do a lot of good work in future.

Flood Risk Management

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley]

I am glad to receive support from the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will join me in saying that these risks, which people in both our constituencies face, are present and real risks now and that we need Government funding now to address them. I say that because by the time that we work out a new system in five years’ time, our constituencies might have flooded.

In fairness to everyone else who wants to speak, I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and then I will draw my remarks to a close.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I just want to make the point that upstream flooding, which the hon. Gentleman describes as a form of alleviation in main urban centres, has a cost for the agricultural communities in the areas concerned. Even as far away as Northumberland, we were aware that in east Yorkshire there was considerable resistance to such schemes, but they are an essential part of flood management. Nevertheless, it requires a lot of co-operation and discussion with the farming community, to ensure that a proper balance of interests is recognised.

[Hugh Bayley]

That is obviously right and it is a very important contribution. We cannot get flood risk management for free, whether it involves building flood defences in York city centre or paying farmers to let their winter cropping fields flood at a time when they would otherwise be planting root vegetables or some other crop. However, it might be both cheaper and more environmentally sustainable to pay the farmers to grow more trees, create ponds and use other measures to retain some of the water long enough to protect downstream areas from inundation.

I could say much more about the consultation documents, about what the insurers are telling me or about the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, but I will sit down now so that other Members can have their say.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Sheridan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am somewhat nervous, because I have known the gentleman sitting to the left of you—the Clerk, Mr Hennessy—for 30 years and I have never spoken in front of him before. It is a new experience for me.

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate. As Members may know, I will bore for Britain on the topic of coastal defences and, of course, river defences too. I mentioned the issue of flood defences in my maiden speech and in recent debates on shoreline management plans, and I will continue to do so because it is absolutely the No. 1 defining issue in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal.

I pay tribute to the Minister who is here today. He is actually very popular in our constituency, not only because he yet again confirmed the situation regarding Felixstowe’s flood defences in the main Chamber earlier today but because he visited my constituency. When he did so, people liked the fact that he listened, reflected on the facts and actually did something about them. We have seen that in some of the thinking expressed in the consultation paper and also in his encouragement of officials at the Environment Agency and Natural England to do the right thing by working with local people and landowners, to get more for less out of the budget. Sadly, due to the economic legacy that we inherited, that budget is slightly reduced from what we would of course like it to be.

In fact, I will go further and say that the Minister has been so successful that the risk is that he will get promoted, but we desperately do not want that to happen because we need him to sort out the fish problem too. Having said that, I will move on to other issues.

I generally welcome the change in thinking on flood defences. For me, there is an incentive, as that change in thinking will help people and communities who help themselves. It is that partnership model that I recognise, but it is a model that still provides protection, within the funding formula, so that where there are wards of deprivation the formula acknowledges that deprivation and will work towards alleviating it.

That gives a fresh element of hope to my constituents who, under the shoreline management plans, were told, “You’re on your own”. Actually, this new model is a way forward. The Minister has already seen some of the schemes in my area that I want to commend to the House. For example, at Bawdsey there was a situation whereby the economic benefits under the calculations did not derive any financing in particular. What happened was that some local farmers came together and offered up land for development. The local council agreed to grant planning permission for houses to be built on that land. Together the council and the farmers put the money from that development into a trust, which has now paid for coastal defences to protect the area around Bawdsey for some time to come.

More recently, in Thorpeness local home owners came together—I must admit that not all of them did so; one or two decided not to put their hands in their pockets. However, the rest came together and said, “We want to protect our shoreline along here”, and the Environment Agency, working with Suffolk Coastal district council, came up with a scheme that will make a difference to people’s lives.

There are ideas for future schemes. I am hesitant to speak about them, but one can see other opportunities whereby communities decide to have infrastructure development. I say that I am hesitant to speak about them, because I do not want my constituents to write in and say, “Thérèse Coffey demands turbine be placed in Felixstowe”; nor do I want my local paper to get the wrong end of the stick. However, there is an opportunity for communities around the country to come up with imaginative ideas for possible schemes.

For example, if we had a wind turbine in Felixstowe, that would work in a high wind when the port itself, down the road, is closed, because the cranes there cannot operate in high winds. That would contribute to the local economy, and the income could be ring-fenced and put into future sustainable defences, not only for Felixstowe itself but for areas, such as Felixstowe Ferry, at the mouth of the River Deben, that face particular difficulties at the moment. The Environment Agency is being very kind at the moment, but I recognise that that kindness cannot go on for ever with our future policy.

I am also interested to learn from the Minister how the pathfinder evaluations might fit into the consultation on the future of funding for flood defences and whether any element of that evaluation process will be incorporated in the consultation.

In Happisburgh, people are very excited because they have been offered some compensation for their houses that are about to fall into the sea. I mentioned that in the shoreline management plans debate, but unfortunately the Minister was in Brussels at the time, trying to do his best for us on fish. Although flooding is terribly disruptive to home owners in places such as York, the water normally goes away, and repairs are needed, but the risk with erosion is that it is terminal. Once someone’s house has gone into the sea, it has gone; not only that, the owner is liable for its safe disposal. With a ’60s or ’70s house with lots of asbestos in it, the owner might be able to apply for a grant of up to £5,000, but that might not cover the costs. The Pitt review constantly referred to in the consultation is based on fluvial flooding rather than on coastal erosion, which has been an add-on.

One thing that is mentioned in the document is that with homes built since 2009 it is the developers who are supposed to take on the flood risk. That is a reasonable suggestion, and I hope that anyone who has bought a house in a flood-risk area since 2009 realises that. With good design, housing can be a lot more resilient to flooding.

Under OM1 in the consultation, I am slightly disappointed to note that the agricultural land value estimate has not been updated or upgraded since the 2007 comprehensive spending review, despite in the other part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs there being thoughts on food security and about ensuring that we have that element. It would have been nice to see a slightly more generous value attributed to agricultural land.

Under OM5 to OM7, a lot of money is set aside per acre and per hectare for the recreation or preservation of habitats, to comply with the European habitats and water directives, and that, I am afraid, reinforces the view held by some that nature is more important than people. OM3 gives the figure of £3,050 rental income per year for properties at risk of coastal erosion. In my constituency, trying to rent a coastal property for £3,050 a year simply would not happen—a beach hut, perhaps, would be about it. The figure is probably more generous than it has been previously, but I urge the Department to think again on that.

I have to hold my hand up: I have not yet gone through the document with a fine-toothed comb, but will be working on that to ensure that I get my consultation response in by 16 February. However, the document contains some very encouraging phrases that reinforce the principle of partnership and give an opportunity to constituents who are being told that there is no public funding available for them.

I shall finish on two issues, one of which is the cost of delivery. There is an element of red tape in councils, with planning permission, and there are the aspects of the costliness of permits and studies for Natural England, and the consents from the Environment Agency. I know that the Minister has already taken action, and is committed to removing as many blocks as possible to make it as easy and cheap as possible for land owners to protect their defences—all force to his elbow. The Environment Agency told me a couple of weeks ago that it would not prevent land owners in “no active intervention” areas under the shoreline management plans from defending their property. That came as a bit of a surprise yesterday to some of the people at the all-party coastal and marine parliamentary group, and it was thrown up— perhaps anecdotally; I do not have enough evidence—that the Environment Agency might say that but Natural England will stop us anyway.

[Sir Alan Beith]

There is a tendency for one agency to say that the other agency will not allow it to do something, but in my experience getting them all together in the same room—ideally on site—means that some of that starts to fall away. Fruitful co-operation between agencies is the way forward, instead of blaming someone else for not doing something.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am relaying some of the anecdotes about the frustrations of landowners, but I agree that getting people in the same room to talk things through leads to constructive solutions, once the initial hurdles have been surmounted.

On the funding process, one of my local Suffolk Coastal councillors, Andy Smith, who is a lead council member on coastal matters, has raised with me the annual allocation of funding process. Some schemes take more than a year, and things are unclear or uncertain. There could be a project that was agreed a couple of years previously but which constantly comes up for review regarding the annual allocation of cash. There is something not quite right with that process, and I hope that we can get it right.

Finally, I am encouraging internal drainage boards to participate in the consultation because they could be effective delivery partners for a lot of the work that we want to do. IDBs are not the only solution, but they are a good one. They combine local landowners and councillors, and have an element of democratic authority. The future is quite bright, and could be very bright for coastal and river defences, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the policies of the previous Government, of making 100-year decisions on the basis of three years’ funding, are a thing of the past. There are many generations of families in Suffolk who have done their bit for their bit of land over the years, passing it on from generation to generation. Let us not kill off the chances of this generation for the sake of 100-year hindsight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing a timely debate on the same day as today’s announcement.

In my own patch in Wansbeck, following the most intense rainfall in living memory on 5 and 6 September 2008, a month’s rain fell in 24 hours, which meant that the river Wansbeck burst its banks and the whole town of Morpeth was flooded. That was compounded by other flooding problems including flooding from the Cotting burn, the Church burn and the Postern burn in Morpeth. There was extensive flooding throughout the town centre and nearly 1,000 properties, including many businesses on the main street, were directly affected, causing huge problems. Hundreds of residents had to be evacuated and emergency shelter was provided in the King Edward VI high school, at county hall and in the town hall in Morpeth. Iconic buildings such as the chantry and St George’s church suffered considerable damage, as did landmark shops. The emergency ambulance station, the doctors’ surgery, the health centre at Gas House lane, the Riverside leisure centre and the town’s main library were also inundated and had to close for a considerable period.

Firefighters, ambulance crews, the RAF, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the British Red Cross were among the emergency services involved in the rescue and recovery operations over the whole weekend. A collection of voluntary groups and the town’s churches came together to help hundreds of flood victims and the campaign was spearheaded by the Morpeth Lions club. Families were out of their homes for more than a year and businesses were closed for months, and still people from within the floodplain are not back in their properties.

Prior to the devastating flood, there was a huge flood in Morpeth in 1963, which was before I was born—people might question that. In an attempt to protect the community from further devastation in the future, I am working closely with the Morpeth flood action group, officers of Northumberland county council and the Environment Agency to try to progress the proposals for the Morpeth flood alleviation scheme. The proposed scheme for Morpeth is designed to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Wansbeck and the main burns in the town. It involves the storage of water upstream of Morpeth on the Mitford estate, the building of new defences in the town where none currently exist, and the replacement and refurbishment of some existing defences.

It is imperative that the flood alleviation scheme should be delivered to protect communities and businesses in the town of Morpeth. Local people need the reassurance that their homes are safe from the ravages of the extreme weather conditions and they deserve the peace of mind that those assurances will bring. Shops and businesses need to be assured that they will not suffer a reoccurrence of the devastation of 6 September 2008 and that they can have a secure future in Morpeth where they can build their businesses for the benefit of their employees, local communities and the local economy.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman presents his case eloquently. Many of the businesses he mentions are either owned by my constituents or employ them. A large area of my constituency will face the upstream flooding that is part of the alleviation scheme, but I think we all want to work together to ensure that Morpeth and Rothbury do not have to go through such an experience again.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree with that and understand the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, bearing in mind that his constituency is next to mine. I understand the associated problems, particularly upstream, as compared with those in the town centre of Morpeth.

In addition to the trauma and devastating personal and physical effects of the floods, local residents and visitors must now come to terms with problems obtaining buildings and contents insurance, which has been mentioned. It is a huge problem for people living on floodplains. The current agreement with insurance companies will continue until 2013, and who knows what will happen after that? It must be considered as a matter of extreme urgency. Many people living in Morpeth face huge rises in premiums and excesses. One gentleman living in the Morpeth floodplain was asked, after going to court, to pay £300 a month in insurance, and the excess was £20,000. That is not insurance. It is a massive problem. Individuals, families and businesses who have experienced the horror and trauma of flooding have had their lives turned upside down, and they should not have to face additional problems that cause them further distress and upset as well as imposing a huge financial burden on them. Those issues must be tackled as a matter of urgency.

I have not got much more to say, but I pay tribute to the men and women of the emergency services who, on all occasions up and down the country, have been absolutely fantastic when such things occur. They put their lives at risk to ensure that everyone else is safe.

To move on slightly from local issues, recommendation 39 of the Pitt review, which both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported before the election, stated:

“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty”.

The coalition agreement committed to

“take forward the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk.”

Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives supported a statutory duty, and it is in the coalition agreement.

Flood Defence Allocations

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I hope that we will be able to prove at the end of this process that the spending is broadly the same: an 8% cut compared with the previous four years, but with 15% efficiency savings that we think we can get out of the Environment Agency and a greater understanding of how we can deliver. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that what really matters is the outcome: households protected from flooding. I am really confident that at the end of this process we will be able to produce outcomes that are no worse than those in the past and perhaps even better.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Will the Environment Agency continue to work with local organisations and local people on small-scale engineering improvements, which have helped to protect for the future areas such as Glendale and the Ingram valley in Northumberland, as well as considering issues such as those relating to Morpeth?

[Richard Benyon]

I can guarantee that to my right hon. Friend. I can also tell him that our understanding and the software now available to guide on things such as surface water flooding mean that a small and relatively low-cost building of defences can have an enormous effect in delivering precisely the amount of protection we want. I can assure him that the Environment Agency will continue to work with local people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

T5. People in Northumberland will never forget the devastating impact of floods on communities such as Rothbury, Warkworth and Morpeth. Will the Minister therefore assure me that he will take a personal interest in the Morpeth flood relief scheme? It is obviously impossible for all flood relief schemes to proceed at the same time, but the impact on Morpeth, which was visited by leaders from all political parties, was devastating.

[Richard Benyon]

I am more than aware of the impact of those floods on the people of Morpeth, and of the fantastic community spirit that came out at the time. The community wants to ensure resilience against flooding in future. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will meet him, and them, at any time to ensure that we can carry that forward.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is difficult to follow that. Let me be as brief as possible. I commend the hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) on referring to the staff of the Forestry Commission. It was a shame, however, that the Secretary of State never said a single word about the staff; indeed, it was more than a shame—it was a disgrace. The staff of the Forestry Commission are extremely loyal and they have built up expertise over time.

I chair the Public and Commercial Services trade union parliamentary group. I have a representation from the president of the PCS branch at the Forestry Commission. It is worth our while listening to what he wanted Parliament to hear. He says that the staff

“have spent their entire careers, a lot of them, in the FC and are deeply traumatised at the prospect of losing their jobs.”

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about Forestry Commission staff, but as a constituency MP, I have seen the Forestry Commission in Northumberland shed good quality, experienced staff over many years, and whole villages that were built for forestry employees no longer have a single Forestry Commission employee living in them.

[John McDonnell]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I have shared his concerns over the years as well.

The PCS president continued:

“For many there is no prospect of picking up other work because the economy is in such a poor state that there simply isn’t work as all of the other public services also have to make cuts…Staff in the FC are unique; they regard their jobs as vocational. They are amongst the most loyal and committed that I have ever seen.”

Most of us would share that viewpoint and want it to be placed on the record. Where we have loyal staff, I believe they deserve some loyalty from us, as their employers, as well.

The current position has been mentioned, but not as starkly as I am about to put it. The 25% cuts from the comprehensive spending review mean that from a staff of 1,400, between 300 and 350 will lose their jobs. About 29% of the cuts relate to Forest Enterprise, which manages the estate. Already 256 jobs are notified as being lost in that section. Moreover, in the Forestry Authority and Forest Research, at least 40 to 50 and possibly more jobs will be lost as the 19% cuts takes place. The organisation is structured in those three elements: Forest Enterprise, Forestry Authority and Forest Research. Expertise, however, has been built up in the whole organisation so that one feeds information to the other and the expertise becomes interchangeable. By breaking up the organisation, as the Government propose, the bulk of the work within Forest Enterprise will be sold off either to the private sector or to charities and others. The expertise will therefore be cut off from the regulatory authority section of the Forestry Commission as well as from the research element.

Fisheries

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I would like confirmation on what the hon. Gentleman said about whiting. The view taken by fishermen in North Shields, and shared by those in Amble, is that whiting is currently a plentiful species. None of those fishermen have any quota left for whiting at the moment, and a reduction in the quota would be an awful prospect.

[Mr Campbell]

Indeed. I also want to gently warn the Minister against changes in quota and I will give two examples. A number of years ago, when I was able to take part in the fisheries debate, I spoke about the cuts to the cod quota. At the time, North Shields fishermen were heavily dependent on the prawn quota, and warned that there would inevitably be displacement, with boats coming from Scotland and Yorkshire. That is exactly what happened to the prawn grounds off the Northumberland coast. In areas such as the Farn Deeps, off the coast of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), there has been great pressure on the prawn grounds. As a result, there have been declining catches over the past four to five years.

The second unintended consequence of changing the quotas is that we end up with the terrible situation of discards, which many hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon. Fishermen who reach their quota of mixed fishes have little chance to do anything other than throw the fish back. Discards are obscene, and environmental madness. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm that discards will be a priority in the reform of the CFP, and that at long last we will do something about the situation.

There is a sense of urgency about the reform of the CFP after 2012, and I hope that the Minister will bear three things in mind. First, we need a long-term approach, rather than an annual quota. The North Sea Regional Advisory Council Advice to the Commission mentioned a 10 to 15-year plan. That was based on the experiences of multi-annual arrangements with Norway, which have proved a better way of conserving stock than the annual quota negotiations in which we take part.

Secondly, we must ensure that policy is led by science, and acknowledge that disputes do not necessarily come from the science itself and the views of fishermen, but rather because of the way in which the science is interpreted, particularly by the Commission. That leads to fishermen’s suspicion that the Commission is not prepared to listen to the other side of the argument.

The third point has already been made, but I want to emphasise the importance of environmental considerations. During debates on fisheries—this may happen at the great debate in the Council—there is a danger of always seeing fishermen and scientists on opposite sides in a great battle to see who can dominate policy. The fishermen I know are passionate about the maritime environment; they choose to work and make a living in it, and if it was simply an economic matter, it would not make sense for them to continue doing that. Therefore, we should pay tribute to the contribution that fishermen make to the debate on environmental matters.

Most fishermen I know support the marine protection areas, but it is reasonable for them to ask why we are rushing to put those areas in place by 2012. They also recognise the pressure on our energy resources, and acknowledge that offshore wind farms will be an important part of renewable energy. Again, however, it is reasonable to ask what the effect will be of an offshore wind farm that runs from St Mary’s in the north of my constituency to Blyth. That seems to squeeze the fishermen out of areas that would otherwise be potential fishing grounds.

I conclude by mentioning another aspect of the Minister’s work. His job is not only to go to Europe and argue the case for UK fishermen, but to argue the case within government. Regional development agencies have not been universally popular in everything they set out to do and, not surprisingly, they have not been universally successful. However, One North East in the north-east was getting a good reputation and winning the respect of many fishermen, even those who were sceptical about the political process. I argued with One North East about the need for a regional fisheries policy. After the south-west, the north-east is the most important English region for fishing.

We got support for projects such as the restoration of the west quay in North Shields, and the general regeneration of the fish quay. However, one early effect of getting rid of RDAs and reducing funding was the ending of a grant to the seafood training centre in North Shields. Perhaps naively, part of my response was to go to the local authority and ask what it was prepared to do, since we understood that local authorities were going to be the basis for local enterprise partnerships. It told me that all it was able to do was facilitate discussions about the centre, and that there was no money. The result was that the centre downsized and went to Amble in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. His gain is very much our loss, although I understand that the centre is pretty much a shadow of the operation that existed in my constituency. That was an example of a response to a situation. We know about the difficulties in public finances, but hitting the traditional skills, and the safety skills being taught at the centre, had an unintended consequence on an already hard-hit fishing industry.

I shall conclude simply by saying this. Between 700 and 800 people in my constituency are still directly or indirectly employed as a result of the fishing industry. Like me, they look to the Minister—I wish him well—and to the Government to do everything that they can to ensure that their jobs survive.