UK Fishing Industry

Debate between Neil Parish and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for initiating it. I know of her great experience in the fishing industry. As she, above all others, will know from her personal loss from fishing, safety at sea is paramount. I pay tribute to her.

We look forward to our very able Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), going to the December Council and coming back full of fish, and making sure that we have sufficient quota for our fishermen, because there is the science now to be able to say that for most quotaed species there are enough there for our fishermen to catch.

I am amazed that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is so pessimistic about the common fisheries policy. Whether we were a Brexiteer or a remainer, I think we can all accept that the one section of society that got well and truly stitched up when we first went into the Common Market was the fishing industry, because it put forward quotas that were reasonably accurate, while others put forward quotas that were not, and we landed up with a very small supply of what were potentially our own fish.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I completely agree: I think we were stuffed —is that parliamentary language?—when we joined. But I am not pessimistic about the common fisheries policy; I am realistic, and the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that in the last 15 to 20 years, since we undertook these reforms, the picture has been improving.

[Neil Parish]

I accept that there have been improvements to the common fisheries policy, but there were many improvements to be made. We are getting on now to having discards banned from the common fisheries policy, which we as a nation can work on much better. We can also use a fishing management system similar to that of the Norwegians, where we can shut down an overfished area very quickly; they can do it within a day, whereas it is impossible to move that fast when there are 27 countries trying to come to an agreement. There are great opportunities to be had. There is no doubt—there are figures to prove it—that the European fishing vessels take from our waters some £530 million-worth of fish and we take about £110 million-worth of fish from their waters, so whichever way we look at it, there will be benefits for our fishermen.

UK Fishing Industry

Debate between Neil Parish and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who made a good and passionate plea on behalf of fishing and fishermen in this country. I will begin by talking about the present situation and then expand a little on the direction of the fishing industry after we leave the EU. The Minister has the unenviable job in the very near future of spending probably nearly all night in Brussels as our fishing levels are thrashed out.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Only one?

[Neil Parish]

Several I expect. I think that the right hon. Gentleman partook in such meetings when he was fisheries Minister.

The current Minister will have the unenviable task of sitting down with Ministers from across the whole of Europe to thrash out in great detail how much and where we can fish cod, sole, hake and so on. Our fishermen throughout the whole country, and especially those in the west country, will expect a very good deal from him because he is such a magnificent Minister. We expect him to come back with more fish in his pockets and in his suitcase, and to ensure that we have those opportunities. We have to remember that we will still be fishing under the common fisheries policy for another two to three years. For our fishermen, with their quotas and all the things that they need to do, we need to sustain the fishing industry in the years ahead.

Many crews on our fishing boats are central and eastern Europeans. Their labour is needed, so we need to ensure that everything is in place.

Weather Events (South West England)

Debate between Neil Parish and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bradshaw]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What she describes fits into the overall picture, which is that the joined-up, strategic, collaborative, comprehensive approach adopted following the Pitt review after the serious floods of 2007 has been picked apart. The Cabinet Committee on Flooding that was set up under the previous Government was scrapped. It has now been reintroduced, we hear.

I do not know whether the Committee has sat; I do not know whether the Minister serves on it. However, we have lost three and a half years of effective policy on flood defence, flood management and managing flood risk, and I still do not detect the “joined-up-ness” that we need. When the Prime Minister comes to the Somerset levels and repeats what he heard from the last people he spoke to about dredging, has he actually looked at the evidence? Has he looked at all the advice that is coming, including again today, from organisations that know much more about flooding than anyone in this room does? They say that we need a much more holistic and joined-up approach—in the end, an approach that would save us as a country not only a great deal of heartbreak, but a great deal of money.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is not just about dredging, but the problem with the Parrett and Tone is that the river channel is only about two thirds of the size it should be, so dredging is needed. The problem has been that dredging has not been put into the equation. The issue is about water management, but it is also about dredging.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who serves on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which sits this afternoon, to invite Professor Brazier from Exeter university to come and give evidence to the Committee. If the Committee is to publish a report on the lessons that could be learned from what has happened in the past few months, it is very important that it listens to the views of people who have conducted such important research.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right about the need for good repairs. The county councils naturally argue that a major repair is much more expensive than just filling a pothole, but she is right that it is a pointless exercise if all the tarmac comes out of the pothole five minutes later. An awful lot of money is available to be spent.

I also welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge of £5,000 grants to help businesses through the floods. Will the Minister give us more detail on how people can claim that money? It is always great when the Government offer money, but people would like to be able to claim and use it.

On the Somerset levels, it has been said that raising the railway line across the moors would cost £200 million. There is one solution to ensure that that railway line does not flood, and that is a sluice at the end of the river Parrett to stop the sea from coming in. At the moment, the sea comes in and drives the fresh water back, and that is what keeps the moors flooded. I cannot guarantee that the sluice would mean that the moors never flooded again, but a tidal sluice on the end of the Parrett, north of Bridgwater, could mean that the depth of water on the moors would not be enough to flood the railway line.

Doing the arithmetic, it would cost £200 million to raise the railway line and that will never happen. I reckon that a sluice across the Parrett would cost some £50 million and if hydroelectric power was put there as well, the project would start to show its worth. It would help farmers, properties and nature conservation. When there is water over the whole Somerset levels for six to eight weeks, there is nothing left when the water recedes. There will not be the lovely flora and fauna or reeds and rushes that everybody wants, because it will all have rotted. Then there is the farmland, what has happened to people’s property and the stock that has had to be moved across the moors. We have to look at the situation seriously.

The other great benefit of having a sluice across the River Parrett is that the water could be penned in during the summer and the area could be made like a mini Norfolk broads. That would bring the benefits of a huge tourist attraction. Devon and Cornwall need a railway line, but we have to cross Somerset to get there, and we need to consider that. I know that the right hon. Member for Exeter does not like dredging and all those things, but they must be part of the armoury. We can hold water in certain places and further upstream, but in the end rivers such as the Parrett and Tone silt up, and without dredging we will not get the water away fast enough.

The management of those waterways has to be much more local, and that is where inland drainage boards can do a lot more. We might need more drainage boards. Will the Minister consider that? We might, dare I say it, have to get people living in houses further up the catchment area to pay a small amount, because their water is flowing down and flooding the lowland areas. There are ways of raising money, which will help. Local management would be so much better.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman just said. He seems to agree with the research from Exeter university, which argued that if landowners and farmers in upland areas were paid to manage their land differently, the amount of money saved through reduced flood risk on the Somerset levels and elsewhere in low-lying areas would massively outweigh that expenditure. Is it not better to pay farmers to do that, rather than to graze the uplands intensively, which is sadly sometimes the case?

[Neil Parish]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is part of the solution, and we have to look at how land is managed and how farmers are paid. At the moment, farmers are paid for loss of income. We should say, “If you are going to hold that water and that will reduce flooding, you should be paid to manage that water.” In the end, that would probably be a much cheaper option.

We must also remember—this is where I probably do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that we need land for food production; we should not take away too much land from food production for that type of process. It is about getting the balance right, an issue on which the right hon. Gentleman and I do not entirely agree. Land management is part of the solution.

Let us go forward and look at the infrastructure across the west country, including road and rail, and let us look at maintaining our coastline. Let us look at having, in the Somerset moors, the south-west and the country, pads and pipes where we could put in these massive mobile pumps that the Dutch have. We could have Dutch pumps in Sedgemoor and they could be moved around the country. Rather than having millions and millions of pounds invested in one pumping station, let us spend a few million pounds on portable pumps and the necessary infrastructure to connect those pumps wherever they are. We can import the pumps from Holland and have them ourselves. That is key.

We have to learn lessons. A lowland area has to be pumped fast. We should stop the tide from going up the Parrett so that we can fill it with fresh water. Then, when the tide goes down, we can let it out. There are lots of practical solutions. We have suffered and people still are suffering. We can never guarantee that flooding will never happen again, but we can reduce it. I will stop there, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset wants to speak.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Debate between Neil Parish and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes. I shall mention some of the provinces of the Church of England that already have women bishops when I come on to one of the possible solutions to the impasse.

I was talking about people coming in and out of the Church. For every one person who may leave the Church of England over women bishops, there will be many more who stay or come back; there are also people who, at the moment, shrug and say, “Why should I take a second look at an institution that treats women like this?”, but who will take that second look if women are fully celebrated in the Church. In the discussions that we often have about the importance of Church unity, we very rarely talk about those who have already left or been driven out of the Church, or who have not come in, including members of my extended family and my circle of friends—I am sure that the same applies to many hon. Members—because of the failure of the Church to make progress more quickly.

Having announced on the eve of this debate that they will have another go in July, the Bishops need to be sure that they will win. The process must be concluded quickly—in months, not years. If they are not sure that they can deliver, they should ask Parliament for help. Since the Synod vote, many of us will have been contacted by priests and lay members of the Church, appealing to Parliament to act. A priest from Lancaster wrote to me, saying, “Please, please, please, help.” She went on to ask us to remove the Church’s exemption from equality laws, describing it as

“deeply offensive to most women priests.”

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I am very much a supporter of the Church of England having women bishops. Do we speed up the pace at which the Church moves by having this debate, or is it much better to let the Church of England get on with it?

[Mr Bradshaw]

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) may be able to add some helpful intelligence in that regard when he replies, but from all the conversations that I have had with people from the archbishop downwards, they are encouraging us to have this debate. They feel that they need the pressure to be kept on from this place, so the simple answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is that it is helpful.

Other correspondents have questioned the continued presence of an all-male episcopate in the other place, and suggested that the Prime Minister put a hold on new bishop appointments until the issue is resolved. A male vicar from London wrote to me saying that because the failure lies in the synodical election process, Parliament should intervene. The Dean of Sheffield wrote to me saying:

“Parliament has a responsibility to take action when the future of the established Church is threatened by the actions of a vocal and determined minority.”

Canon Jane Charman, the diocesan director of Salisbury, wrote:

“The Church of England has a privileged place in our national life and Parliament has not just a right but a duty to help us fulfil our responsibilities appropriately.”

She goes on:

“I believe it would be a kindness to the Church and to our Archbishop designate if Parliament can now do for us what we have proved unable to do for ourselves and so bring this shameful situation to an end.”

Canon Charman goes on to suggest this could be done by a simple mechanism of Parliament amending Canon C2, as we would have been asked to do if the Women Bishops Measure had passed.

Women and the Church, or WATCH, which is the umbrella group for those supporting women’s ordination and consecration as bishops, also says that resolving the issue would be a simple task requiring the repeal of one clause of the 1993 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure or the removal of one clause of one section of Canon Law. WATCH is pessimistic about the prospect of a successful compromise in July and now advocates a simple measure legislating for women bishops. It says that that is the only legislation that Parliament should accept. Provision for dissenters, it says, should be as in all the other Anglican provinces that have women bishops—that is, based on pastoral and informal support.

A non-stipendiary priest and senior civil servant has written to me advocating a simple amendment to legislation, making it legal for anyone to be a bishop regardless of gender. This permissive model would not force the Church to have women bishops but, he predicts, the Crown Nominations Committee would nominate a female bishop within a year or so and some diocesan bishops may well start appointing female suffragans pretty much immediately.

What we have here is not Parliament wishing to intervene or relishing intervening in Church affairs, but priests and lay people in the Church pleading with us to do so. Some people have suggested that it would be unfair or unconstitutional for Parliament to single out the Church of England in legislation in this way. But that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do on same-sex marriage. The Church of England is to receive special legislation, at its own request, applying exclusively to it, banning same-sex weddings in Anglican churches. If Parliament can legislate exclusively for the Church of England to ban same-sex weddings, something the Church is perfectly capable of deciding to do for itself, why should not Parliament legislate exclusively for the Church to do something it wants but cannot deliver for itself—women bishops?