Agricultural Transition Plan

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have taken a number of things into account. Under the SFI, we have introduced a management payment of an extra £20 per hectare on the first 50 hectares, which will help smaller farmers who do not have the capacity in their business to employ a land agent, so that they have time to go into the agreement and are rewarded for doing so. That is very important.

The flexibility in the SFI scheme also helps tenant farmers. If they enter a scheme and, for some reason, they lose control of their land—if they are removed by their landlord or want to give it up, for example—they will not be penalised for leaving the scheme; they will have the flexibility to come in and out. I hope that helps tenants. We have engaged extensively with the Tenant Farmers Association, and the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the Kate Rock review, which looked specifically at the needs and desires of tenants. We have taken on board lots of those recommendations and built them into the scheme.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—what a blessing it is to have someone who knows so much about farming at the Dispatch Box—and in particular for his emphasis on food security, which, as we can now see, has been too neglected for too long. It is clear from the current food price inflation and shortages in the shops that we need better food security. Perhaps he would like to visit the area of outstanding natural beauty around Dedham Vale, where we see good landowner co-operation and work by combined forces. Perhaps he would also like to contact Mr John Geldard, who is leading a highly innovative co-operative scheme in Cumbria. Agri-environmental schemes can work at scale across many estates, and can be far more effective and far better value for the taxpayer than other schemes.

[Mark Spencer]

I would be delighted to visit both locations—I have known John Geldard and his son Richard for a number of years. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to co-operation between farmers. The third scheme that we are announcing is landscape recovery, which will involve huge projects over many hectares, with farmers and landowners coming together to contribute a positive environmental output. For example, if we want to reduce phosphate levels in the river Wye—this is an existing scheme—landowners can co-operate to reduce the input of nutrients. We will extend that to a further 25 schemes, subject to the quality of the bids. I am quite excited about it, and I think that non-governmental organisations, landowners and farmers will want to get together and deliver on the landscape recovery scheme.

Crustacean Mortality in North-east England: Independent Expert Assessment

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

It should be clear to my hon. Friend that Dr Caldwell was in correspondence with the expert panel, and they exchanged a number of pieces of correspondence. The evidence that was put forward by that individual scientist was considered by the expert panel in coming to its conclusions.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am on my feet because I have a crustacean industry in my constituency, and I also represent a constituent, Charles Clover, who is director of the Blue Marine Foundation. I have also read Jenni Russell’s commentary about this in The Times, which I find to be compelling. I am disappointed by many of the exchanges that have taken place, and there has clearly been a huge breakdown of trust. May I just counsel my right hon. Friend that he has to recognise that DEFRA has lost that trust—certainly of local fishermen and local people—and he just has to go back to the beginning and start again? He has to get everybody into a quiet room and see whether there can be agreement about finding a way forward. I know that he has been provoked, but this kind of argy-bargy will inspire no public confidence at all, and that is what is lacking at the moment.

[Mark Spencer]

I take at face value the advice of my hon. Friend. I think that DEFRA was and is seeking to have that trust. The way we establish the facts is to ask world-leading experts to look at those facts and come to a conclusion, independent of any interference or guidance from anyone else. That is what the independent panel did. It came to its conclusions and we put them into the public domain. We are as keen as anybody else is to establish what may have caused this disaster. We do not want to see a repeat of it, and we will do all we can to ensure that does not happen and to establish the facts as we can.

Northern Ireland Border

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, Minister Poots has taken legal advice. Under the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland, I understand that he is entitled to issue this direction. The Northern Ireland civil service and DAERA are taking separate legal advice relating to some of the accounting officer issues, and Minister Poots understands why they would want to do that.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, I come back to what I said previously. The agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol required many things, including that there should be no disruption and no unnecessary checks that would cause problems for trade within the UK, which is why there are still grounds for us to try to resolve some of these issues constructively. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to have discussions with the European Commission on this particular point.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I have confidence in and admiration for my right hon. Friend, but I am somewhat disappointed that this matter is being treated as some kind of technical problem when it is actually a constitutional crisis. He says the Northern Ireland Executive should seek to resolve it but, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Executive resolves matters by agreeing things between the power-sharing parties. They fundamentally disagree on this matter because the Northern Ireland protocol is, in fact, incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. The protocol is also incompatible with the Act of Union, because it has been ruled that it supersedes the Act of Union. And the European Union says there are not enough checks taking place.

Is it not now clear that the Northern Ireland protocol is unfit for purpose and is not delivering on what it said on the tin, which is that it would strengthen and underpin the Good Friday agreement? It needs to be scrapped and replaced by something completely different, and the EU should agree to that. The EU is the only party that has threatened to put infrastructure on the border in Northern Ireland, and we should keep reminding the EU that it is the one threatening the peace in Northern Ireland.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is why the UK Government have engaged in negotiations with the European Union to seek important changes. We are motivated solely by our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In so far as the implementation and the interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol by the European Union to date is incompatible with the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, all parties should seek to adopt a more sensible interpretation that brings it back into line with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is what we are endeavouring to do.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is an honour to be called so early in this most important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on obtaining it at such a timely moment, and on speaking with her characteristic enthusiasm and charm, if I may say so, while not relenting on the urgency of the problem and the challenge that we face.

I will be attending the COP as Chairman of the Liaison Committee with a number of other Select Committee Chairs, and we will be concentrating very much on how we scrutinise the Government’s performance to deliver the COP goals. I think that this House sometimes gets a little negative, by finding fault with what the Government have or have not done. We should ask creatively and think positively about what the Government are going to do in the future and hold them accountable for that. [Interruption.] That is not a criticism of the Opposition. I have been in opposition as well; I know what it is like. This is too important. That is what we are going to do. We want the Government to define the metrics by which they will measure the performance of their own Departments.

I do not agree with all the hon. Lady’s figures, but if hon. Members watch the video that I produced just before the conference—if people google “Bernard Jenkin COP debate YouTube”, they will find the 11-minute video that I launched about climate change—they will see that she almost understates the perilous future that humanity faces on the present projections. The IPCC’s midpoint projections show that we are planning, as a race, to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere between now and the end of this century than in the whole of human history so far. That is completely unacceptable, but that is the current trend. We have to change that.

We have to change the population projections. We cannot have over 11 billion people on the face of this planet by the end of this century; we will destroy the opportunity of our children and our grandchildren to survive. We cannot continue the massive decimation of species in our oceans and on our lands among the five living kingdoms of species on this planet. We are seeing an acceleration of species decline as we speak. And we cannot continue the wanton despoliation of our planet—the rape of our seas, the plundering of natural resources, the destruction of carbon-absorbing habitats—which is also still accelerating, despite all that we are doing.

In order for us to address that, this country must demonstrate that we can do and lead better than anyone else. I am the first to admire how the Prime Minister has put the environment at the top of the Government’s agenda, set targets and put this issue at the heart of the national debate, but we must still do much better. The machinery of government is simply not up to this. The Cabinet Committee system and the Cabinet Office are not thinking strategically enough about these huge challenges to deliver what is necessary. I have long complained, in this House and in my work as a Select Committee Chair, about the lack of strategic capacity at the heart of Government. That is what we must now address, and that is what I will be addressing.

Environment Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

We have designed the targets clauses to look beyond the political cycle of any one Government, avoiding action focused on short-term quick wins. We would not want to have to deprioritise key aspects of the environment with longer recovery times just to meet a five-year target. As many hon. Members will know, anything to do with land and land use can take a long time to see results, so this is the right approach.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

We are so delighted to see my hon. Friend in this role, taking the Bill through, but why does she think that there is a temptation for Parliament to legislate for targets, which the Government seem to find very unhelpful? Will she reflect on the fact that the public at large are getting very little hard data or measured metrics about how we are doing onr4321a achieving all these goals? Perhaps the answer is not to legislate for more targets, but for the Government to acknowledge that they need to do much better at accumulating data and presenting it to the public, so that the public are engaged and have more confidence in what the Government are doing.

[Rebecca Pow]

Data is key, and science is key. As I mentioned—and I was slightly disparaged—that is why we want to do the soil health monitoring: to gather the data. When I talk later about storm sewage overflows, the House will hear that our approach is very much about getting the data. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the more we can explain things to the public, the better. Personally, I do not think that we do that enough. Perhaps the press could help us.

We were talking about interim targets. Certain habitats take a very long time to change or recover, such as peat bogs, native woodlands and the marine environment. Five years would potentially be too short to get a result. This should not be just a tick-box exercise towards a five-yearly target. The Bill’s very robust statutory cycle of monitoring, annual reporting and five-yearly reviews, combined with regular scrutiny from the office for environmental protection, will ensure that we meet the interim targets set in the environmental improvement plans.

Hon. Members who were on the Bill Committee will be well aware of the whole process of reporting, monitoring and feeding back, which is constant. It comes under scrutiny as well, so even though an interim target is not legally binding, we will still be held to account for meeting it and heading towards it. If it is not right or if we are not making enough progress, the OEP will certainly have something to say about it, and indeed so will Parliament when we come to report on it. I recognise the concerns raised by peers, but it is our view that the changes made in the other place would lead to a detrimental impact on the enhancement of the environment and should be reversed.

I turn to Lords amendment 28, which I have been informed by the parliamentary authorities invokes financial privilege, but on which I still wish to reiterate the Government’s position. The Bill embeds environmental principles that will guide future policy making to protect the environment. The Government firmly maintain that exempting some limited areas from the duty to have regard provides flexibility in relation to finances, defence and national security.

First, the exemption for the armed forces, defence and national security remains essential to provide vital flexibility to preserve the nation’s protection and security. Defence land and defence policy are fundamentally linked. If the duty were applied to defence policy or Ministry of Defence land, it could result in legal challenges that could slow our ability to respond to urgent threats.

Secondly, applying the duty to taxation would constrain Treasury Ministers’ ability to alter our financial position to respond to the changing needs of our public finances. The Treasury’s world-leading Green Book already mandates the consideration of environmental impacts, climate change and natural capital in spending. That applies to spending bids from Departments, including for a fiscal event.

Environment Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I would argue that it is not blurb. The way we direct such changes is through policies such as these, and they will start to happen immediately. Water companies are totally aware of the policies, and through such measures we will cut down on harmful sewage storm overflows. Under the Bill we must also set a range of water targets. We have set up the storm overflows taskforce, which will report early next year on what the target should be for elimination. We will also have targets in other important areas of water quality, including phosphates, nitrates, waste water—all those areas are important and will be tackled. That is coming down the tracks imminently.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The Minister is bringing in a fantastic Bill, but it is sad that we are not implementing the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) brought before the House in his private Member’s Bill. They would have made it illegal to have sewage discharges after a certain date. The question “when?” is the right one, and the balancing argument is about how much it would cost, and how much it would add to consumers’ water bills. Does the Minister have that data? Do we know how much would need to be invested in each water area, and how much that would impact on bills, so that we can quantify how long it would take to do at a reasonable pace? That is what we need to know. Perhaps there will be a compromise on this issue, but at the moment I am afraid I am likely to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby in support of the Lords amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend. This is an important issue and we have thought about it. The Government will come back and report on the costs and benefits; we are doing a whole analysis of that. As an approximate estimate, to get rid of or eliminate storm sewage overflows would cost between—these are very wide figures—£150 billion and £660 billion. One must consider the cost of bills, because there will be an impact on those. That is why I made the point earlier that a lot of other areas in connection with our rivers and our water are really important. We must also deal with those, and it must be proportionate. My hon. Friend is right, and we will soon have the data from our storm overflows taskforce, and from our duty to report on what the cost benefits would be of completely eliminating storm overflows. Such things are used far too frequently, but they are also an emergency measure that should potentially always remain, just in case we have to deal with huge floods.

Another area of work that needs to be done—we are doing it—involves levelling up and what was MHCLG but is now DLUHC, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities,. It is about sustainable development and what we do with drain water, all the rest of the water, and separating out our systems. This is a cross-departmental issue, and we are tackling some really important matters in the Bill.

The Bill also requires us to set and achieve at least one target in the priority area of water. Our policy paper, which was published in August 2020, set out the objectives for the water targets we were considering. Those include reducing pollution from agriculture, waste water, abandoned metal mines, and reducing water demand. All those issues are significant to the whole area we are talking about.

Outside the Bill, we have committed to undertaking a review of the case for implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England. That schedule would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes on new developments, which so many people have been calling for. Those are not mandatory at the moment, but to really have an effect, they need to be. We are reviewing that and, based on what we find, we will be working with DLUHC on that very issue.

We have moved further; with Lords amendments 46, 47, and 74, we will require water companies to do near real-time reporting of storm overflows and water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works so that we have fully transparent data. People called for transparency of data in the debate on the previous group of amendments, and we will have it in relation to the impact of those things on our waters.

The first part of Lords amendment 45, new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991, was introduced in the other place by the Duke of Wellington and seeks to place a duty on sewerage undertakers to progressively reduce the harm from storm overflows and to ensure compliance with that duty. We have listened carefully to Parliament and, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will agree, we have moved on this matter more than anything else in the Bill. I hope that I have made clear everything that we are bringing forward.

That is not to say that we are not listening; we are. I am confident in all the things I have outlined, together with the draft policy statement for Ofwat, which states that we expect it to

“incentivise water companies to significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows.”

That is the pointer for the water companies really needing to work on this issue. I know that a group of colleagues from the Portsmouth area are banking on that. They are working with the water companies in the area on pollution issues. They have brought all the bodies together in a partnership to tackle their sewage overflow issues, and they need what is in the Bill to point them in the right direction. We have their full support, and I commend them for all the work that they are doing. There is a whole group of colleagues doing that.

We have been clear that we want to see fewer discharges of untreated sewage into rivers, lakes and seas. I am personally determined to see that happen, and I am really proud of the actions we are taking. Lines 7 to 14 of Lords amendment 45 are therefore unnecessary, and I ask the House to support amendment (a) to leave them out.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Green]

I will allow one more intervention—the hon. Lady.

Draft Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

This statutory instrument is an attempt to replicate current arrangements with the EU and to enable the current statutory regime on waste to continue after Brexit day. However, we believe there are very good reasons why that regime may not be effective after Brexit day, and we are sceptical about whether this SI will be able to remedy that. It also revokes some EU legislation that the Minister tells us it is not necessary to retain, but I re-state our profound concerns about the rate at which SIs are being driven through, and the lack of available time to scrutinise them before they come to Committee. It would be very serious if any of the revocations turned out to be of regulations that were not adequately replicated elsewhere.

This is a very important matter; if waste is not properly regulated in this country there could be a significant additional contribution to our carbon footprint, and thus climate change, and also to the pollution of our seas, air and countryside. Labour is extremely concerned that without the regulatory umbrella of the EU, recycling and waste management will take a major step backwards. I am seeking cast-iron guarantees from the Minister. If she does not feel able to give us those guarantees, I am afraid we will have no option but to vote against this SI to register our unease at the situation.

The UK target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020 is important. It is of great public concern at a time when plastic and the lack of recycling more generally is often highlighted as causing damage to our natural world, blighting our countryside and coasts. Clearly, the lack of recycling does not of itself cause litter, but a strong social focus on recycling, particularly a regime that gives every citizen a financial incentive to recycle, as in Germany, will tend to reduce littering and pollution. Adequate recycling facilities in the UK would remove the need to export our waste, and so would bring an end to much of the outrageous pollution of our seas from materials supposedly being recycled in Malaysia and Indonesia.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee why he thinks the United Kingdom is incapable of providing these policies and legal frameworks for ourselves?

[Sandy Martin]

I do not believe that the United Kingdom is incapable, which is why I am asking the Minister to give us a cast-iron assurance that these things will be put in place.

The recycling rate in Labour-run Wales is 57.7%. Wales is already meeting its target, but the rest of the UK is falling below the 50% recycling rate. The rate in England has flatlined at about 40% to 45% for the past 10 years. We all know some of the reasons for that: the lack of resources for local government and the complete lack of a joined-up national strategy. The Secretary of State has bombarded us with Bills, strategies and consultations over the past few months, so it certainly appears that the Government recognise the need for action, but the appearance of action here in Westminster does not necessarily translate into actual, practical action on the ground. The 50% target and future targets are critical to hold the Government to account and ensure that there is a materially significant driver to remove the hurdles to increased recycling. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the progress report provided for in the SI does not in any way reduce or dilute the requirements imposed on the UK as a current member state by article 11.2 of the waste framework directive, which stipulates a minimum 50% recycling rate by 2020? Will she reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to the 50% recycling rate by 2020 target?

Under current EU legislation, it is a requirement for the UK Government to report to the European Commission on their record with regard to meeting targets. If targets are not met, the report must include the reasons for failure and the actions that the member state intends to take to meet them. Under the new rules set out in this SI, the Government will produce a progress report on whether the 50% recycling target has been met by 2022,

“in a manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

So far as I can tell from this SI—I invite the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—that will be the only action required if the UK fails to meet its targets. That would drastically erode the importance of the UK’s obligation to meet the 50% target. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that, in the event that the 50% recycling target in the waste framework directive has not been met as required by 2020, the report that the Secretary of State must produce by January 2022 will include, as the directive would have required, the reasons for failure, the actions that the Government intend to take, and the date by which the target will be met?

Recent additions to EU legislation require member states to recycle staged, enhanced target percentages of municipal waste—55% by 2025, 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035. If we are to maintain our current good standing as a nation and, depending on future trade arrangements, if we are to maintain some of our trade with the EU, particularly in the field of waste management, we need to ensure non-regression with the EU. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that those enhanced targets will form part of the UK statute book, alongside the current 50% target?

If an EU member state were to be found guilty of failing to meet its targets in a directive, the EU penalty formula would be applied—in this case, a maximum fine of about €700,000 every day if we do not meet the target in 2020 and continue not to meet it for a significant period. To try to replicate that level of deterrent, we would require a strong, accountable watchdog, completely independent of Government, with the power to impose significant financial sanctions on the Government, which would have to be spent outside the immediate remit of the responsible Department if it was to have any chance of concentrating the minds of those responsible for the targets in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This SI simply states that the Secretary of State must produce a progress report in a manner that they consider appropriate. That is a policy change. We are going from a compulsory and obligatory target with strict fines to an advisory target with no consequences for targets being missed. Will the Minister give us a cast-iron guarantee that the watchdog proposed in the Government’s draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill will be set up within a reasonable timeframe and will have the power to impose actual and significant sanctions on the Government in the event of recycling targets being missed—including any missed before it came into operation?

Current EU legislation requires member states to report progress—a requirement that currently covers the entire UK—but the SI requires the Secretary of State to publish a report only on whether the UK target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020 has been met with respect to England. It sets no obligation for the devolved Administrations to publish such a report. Wales is well ahead of England in meeting recycling targets and there is no reason to suppose that Scotland might not be well ahead of it in the future, but, while waste and recycling policy are devolved matters, there are UK-wide issues that will affect the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ ability to continue to improve their levels of recycling. Will the Minister therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that a UK-wide report is produced on the extent to which the 50% recycling target has been delivered by the 2020 deadline, as well as separate reports for each country?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. He will recall how much work we did on trying to reinforce the linkages between Whitehall and the devolved Adminstrations and the relationships between the devolved Parliaments and this Parliament, and to create consensual frameworks around exactly the kind of thing that he is discussing. I hope that the Minister will treat his request extremely seriously.

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am sure that if he agrees with me the Minister will be able to do so, too.

The Opposition are concerned about the potential significant weakening of the UK’s obligations to meet existing EU recycling targets. No legislation is set to be in place on exit day to hold the Government to account for their action or inaction on recycling rates and other crucial environmental targets, and the least that we can do is demand a firm guarantee from the Minister that the Government intend to abide by them.

The Minister claims that the SI simply replaces the reporting requirements in the waste framework directive with an equivalent domestic requirement. However, in effect it changes the important recycling rate targets from obligations to advisory targets that can be easily ignored. We need strong targets that the UK must stick to, and an environmental watchdog that is funded, well resourced and independent of Government, to hold the Government to account. It will need the power to impose sanctions that will deliver real compliance with those important environmental objectives.

We are still waiting for the details of the office for environmental protection, and to know whether it will have powers to issue fines equivalent to the EU powers currently in operation. It should not solely be down to organisations such as ClientEarth, in the case of air quality, to bring cases against the Government for failure to hit their own targets. Only a statutory body with independent statutory powers will do. I await the Minister’s response with interest.

UK Sea Bass Stocks

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the quality of his opening speech and on raising this subject. In Essex, we have a lot of recreational anglers who provide a great deal of employment and generate a lot of tourism, but we also have very small-scale inshore fishermen who catch sea bass. Do they have a future in my hon. Friend’s scheme, or will they be squeezed out by the ban on commercial fishing?

[George Hollingbery]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a vexed issue. There are people who make a very small-scale living out of bass fishing. My belief is that it is likely that in the near term, as has happened in Ireland, the north-east coast of the United States and a great many fisheries where proper regulation has been put in place, people who run sub- 10-metre boats will find that they make a much better living from taking out and guiding recreational fishing than from trawling for a few vulnerable sea bass out in the ocean. Although I would not condone any policy that forced people who fish at that scale from one to the other, particularly in inshore waters, I think that reality will dawn and that most of them will end up in the recreational sector.

In concluding my remarks, I hope you will excuse me, Mr Crausby, for asking the Minister a series of detailed questions. I have given him notice of some of them because they are quite complex, but I would appreciate answers to as many of them as possible.

To protect breeding fish, will the Minister follow the proposals made by the Angling Trust and others and seek a ban on targeted fishing based on catch composition or sufficiently restrictive vessel catch limits to make the fishery unviable from January to May inclusive, to apply to areas VIId, e, f and h and IVc in offshore fisheries beyond member states’ six-mile zones? For the benefit of other hon. Members present, I am simply asking for proper fishing restrictions to be put in place in pretty much all the coastal waters where we find sea bass, and certainly where they breed.

Will the Minister take on board another of the Angling Trust’s proposals and pursue catch limits for all registered EU vessels fishing for bass in areas VII and IV to cap effort, with limits set at a level that reduces fishing mortality by at least 40% across all member state fleets? I have apologised to the Minister for not giving him notice of that question.

To allow fish to reach breeding age, will the Minister work to ensure that a minimum landing size of 46 cm or over is adopted for sea bass at European level? Will he undertake to impose such a limit unilaterally on UK landings in any event? At the very least, will he confirm that the review of the minimum landing size for bass started by his Department in 2012 is still progressing, and will he undertake to publish the results as soon as possible? To help protect the recruitment stocks, will he undertake to look again at the extension of bass nursery areas?

Finally, does the Minister agree that the development of sea bass fishing as a recreational activity is the best long-term solution to both the ecological and the economic sustainability of the fishery, as proved by the Irish sea bass experience, the striped bass fishery of the north-east coast of the US and many other examples?

With the right measures in the right place at the right time and in the necessary proportion, we can make our fisheries policy work for us and for future generations. I hope the Minister will offer us all hope that such a prospect can be realised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the excellent speeches we have just heard. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) for calling this debate.

The story of the management of this stock has been a very bad one indeed. The high point was the decision by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) to increase the minimum landing size, and all credit to him for taking it. If we had followed that decision through at the time, it would certainly have made a difference. Why his successor rescinded that decision is something that I could not really determine from reading the excellent Adjournment debate in 2007 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

When I was in the Minister’s position, I set about trying to reverse that change in policy, and I tried to increase the minimum landing size. I was persuaded that it was important to do everything to conserve bass at a European level, and I believe that it is right to get agreement among our European partners, because many vessels from other countries fish this stock in our waters. To go to the EU was a sensible piece of advice that I received.

However, if we just left matters to the sclerotic processes of the EU, this stock would crash before we could do anything about it. There is a lot that we can do unilaterally, and there is a lot that we can do in this House and beyond as a sort of club of ex-Fisheries Ministers; I do not know what the collective noun for ex-Fisheries Ministers is, but I think it is an “exhaustion” of ex-Fisheries Ministers. We would all say to my hon. Friend the Minister that he has a much more difficult task this December than the tasks that I faced in three or four years of December rounds of talks. He is a very good negotiator and takes his job very seriously. However, my advice to him would be to take precisely the advice of the right hon. Member for Exeter—that this stock will not exist unless tough decisions are taken.

We now face a collapse in stocks. At times, when we talk about minimum landing size, it seems slightly like fiddling while Rome burns, and that there are more important things that we could do. However, it is still necessary to increase minimum landing size and I hope that the Minister will consider doing that, and take forward the work that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already done on this issue and act unilaterally.

I take an old-fashioned view that fish should not be harvested until they have had a chance to breed. It is the spawning biomass that is crashing and it is on that issue that action needs to take place. This situation has arisen before; we can look beyond our borders and see where it has happened before. There is a fishery on the east coast of the United States called the striped bass stock fishery, which is now worth a lot of money. I have heard varying figures, including the figure that now, in its healthy state, it is worth $1 billion a year to the state of Massachusetts in terms of tourism and the added benefits that angling provides. I have also heard that nationally it is worth $2 billion a year to the US economy, and possibly more.

The stock spawns in the Chesapeake bay, but in the late 1970s it was overfished and crashed. Immediately, everyone was prevented from fishing it, whether they were recreational or commercial anglers. The stock has now recovered and it is a massive draw. British bass anglers spend all their savings to fly from the United Kingdom to the United States to exploit this exciting fish. It is branded; people wear T-shirts with the slogan, “I’m a striped bass fisherman.” However, British fishermen should not have to do that in US waters; they should be able to do it in UK waters. Similarly, they should not have to go to Ireland, where there is a very buoyant recreational fishery; I will come on to talk about that shortly.

I would love to portray the problem in the simplistic way that some do, which is to say that it is all about the pair trawlers. Well, I am afraid that it is not all about the pair trawlers. In the area from Felixstowe round to Sussex, the use of trammel and drift nets has increased by 20% or 30% in the past year. We need to look at all the activities in this sector. What is really interesting about the Marine Resources Assessment Group study that my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley mentioned is that it relates to a fishery in Sussex, where every way of exploiting this diminishing stock is used. There are pair trawlers coming over from the continent to exploit it; there are inshore fisheries that exploit it commercially; and there is also a very important recreational fishery. That is why MRAG chose Sussex to conduct this important piece of research.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said earlier, I suspect that we will hear later today in this House the words, “long-term economic plan”. Well, let us just look at the economics of the issue that we are talking about. In Sussex alone, I calculate—from the figures in the MRAG report—that between 258 and 267 tonnes of fish were harvested commercially in 2012, and somewhere between 10 and 19 tonnes were harvested recreationally. Taking the median of those two, about 5.7% were landed from the recreational sector. However, what is really important is that the economic output per tonne in Sussex is 40 to 75 times higher for recreational than commercial. The employment that is generated, calculated per tonne, is 39 to 75 times higher for recreational bass fisheries than commercial.

The report states clearly that the final economic and employment impacts of recreational bass fisheries in Sussex are estimated at £31.3 million and 353 full-time equivalent jobs. The final economic employment impacts of commercial bass fisheries in Sussex were estimated as £9.25 million and 111.28 full-time equivalents. That is a staggering difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley said, if calculated across the piece it is more than three times as valuable as a recreational fishery than as a commercial one.

It would obviously be better if the EU had measures in place to put this stock back on track, but I urge the Minister to look at what has happened in Ireland, where there is a recreation-only fishery, a strict catch limit and a high minimum landing size, which I gather is about to be increased to 50 cm, on the basis of scientific advice received by the Irish Government. This is a highly valuable tourist attraction. In Ireland, angling, tourism and coastal communities are integrating in a much better way than in this country. We have a lot to learn in that regard. People who go there are welcomed and find charter boats linked to hotels and pubs. The whole package is there; it is part of a deal that attracts people. I want those fisherman to go to Devon, Sussex and Essex and exploit this exciting game fish.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am going to do something that should never be done in the House of Commons, which is to ask a question without knowing the answer. I do not intend to put my hon. Friend on the spot, but he was Fisheries Minister until quite recently, so why did he not do this? What was the obstacle? Where is the resistance? What were he and his successor having to fight to be able to implement this measure, not just in the EU, but domestically?

[Richard Benyon]

I did set about trying to increase the minimum landing size. I regret that we did not move faster when going through the process of consultation and further consultation, and trying to ensure that this was agreed at European level, because the evidence is all there. When you are a Minister, people tell you that someone cannot be prevented from doing something without enough evidence and judicial review, and that there are threats of infraction, and all the other things. However, I freely admit that if I had my time over again I would steamroller this through and take the consequences, because the consequence now is a crashing stock. The stock will disappear, along with the economic value.

To the fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I say this: I have met them many times and I have great respect for them, but they will not be fishing for bass, not because of any decision taken by any Minister of any party, but because there will be none. They have a great future ahead of them exploiting other stocks, such as thornback rays and other things that are prevalent in those waters, but they really will have an economic benefit if they can get the fishermen on their boats to catch recreational bass in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain Westminster Hall for more than a few minutes.

Do we not all share a feeling of rising anger and frustration, which almost brings tears to our eyes, as we listen to the debate? We have heard about the manifesto commitment on which the Labour party was elected, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), the former Fisheries Minister, has said he wishes he had acted when he was in office—a candid response to my remark.

Like many of those present for the debate I am a fisherman, and like thousands of others I have caught sea bass off the Essex coast. I treasure the species from an emotional point of view, but also from the point of view of the coastal communities. It brings life to seaside towns such as Harwich and Brightlingsea that have become so dejected in some respects because they are out on a limb and are no longer the economic centres that they became when they built ships, when there were big fishing fleets and when they were the links to the continent.

[Richard Benyon]

As Fisheries Minister, aside from my personal interest in fishing and angling and what my fishing friends would have told me, I do not think I would have known about the problem until it reached its present stage if it had not been for the Angling Trust coming to see me with a group of people who really know what is going on. We could then put in train a process—which I wish had happened earlier—involving the Government working well with organisations that are informed and rational in how they work with Ministers.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, the debate is not anti-commercial interests, anti-jobs or anti-employment. It is pro-economic, social and environmental development. It is about what all the political parties in the House believe in, yet we have had 10 years of debate and have achieved nothing.

As Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, I have the word “accountability” in mind: that is the crunch. All the democratic pressure on successive Ministers was to get something done; my hon. Friend the Minister must ask himself why it has not been done. I invite him to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury—and indeed the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)—said about wishing they had been tougher with their officials. It is not right to blame officials, who give their best advice, but there is also the question of legal advice.

Legal advice is not an instruction on how to behave; it is something to be taken into account in making a decision. If the risk of being taken to court—to judicial review—is balanced against the risk of losing the fish stock, which is the bigger risk? The Minister must be accountable for the decision. He is not being accountable to this House if he just submits to the legal advice. Legal advice is to be listened to, but in many cases it is to be overridden. It is to be disregarded—well, not disregarded; it is to be taken into account. The judgment that the Minister then makes is not about blindly accepting the legal advice. Otherwise we do not have accountability; we might as well be ruled by lawyers.

We have seen European law, human rights law and fear of judicial review take over the whole of government in some Departments—DEFRA may be one of the worst instances—but we expect our Ministers to govern. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister please to exercise his best judgment. He will then be vindicated for what he does. If he submits to the legal advice, he will be condemned.

When we think about why our system of government feels so unaccountable with respect to so many Ministers, the question we should ask is how they respond to the advice that they are given and whether the House should empower them to act in the national interest rather than submit to the rather blind legal advice they are often given. That advice is given for the best of reasons; that is the job of the lawyers. However, in my experience, lawyers always advise doing the more cautious thing from their point of view—not necessarily from the point of view of the public interest.

Common Fisheries Policy

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for showing me the wonderful marine science hub in his constituency. Amazing work is being done there, demonstrating what a mobile and fluid ecosystem the marine environment is, and important work is also being done on acidification and sea temperature changes. It is impossible to be precise about the number of fish stocks and the trajectory of the rise, but we are already hearing a lot of good news. There is much more work to be done, but I hope that the combination of top-quality science that is respected internationally and the experience of the fishing industry will lead inexorably to greater prosperity for the industry.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I join many other Members in all parts of the House in paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his tremendous efforts. Many people in Brightlingsea, Wivenhoe, West Mersea and Harwich are full of hope for the first time in a generation that they will be able to expand their industry—but is that not the test? Unless the under-10-metre industry expands on our coasts, the policy will have failed, and we shall have to think again. Will my hon. Friend undertake to persist in his efforts, and may I thank him for them?

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He was keen to put me in touch with those in the fishing industry in his constituency, so that I could listen to them and observe at first hand the impact of the industry on the local community, and its intrinsic links with tourism and a community’s sense of place and worth. Nowhere is that more apparent than in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

There is a vibrant marine environment just off the coast of that part of Essex. A variety of stocks are fished in the same waters. The European Union, with its one-size-fits-all common fisheries policy, has never seemed to understand that complexity. Now we have a system that will enable us to try to introduce some common sense that will benefit the fishermen in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We want that to be at the heart of the detailed, technical management of an overarching policy.