Fisheries

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you for your patience with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was contributing to the debate on education in Westminster Hall, which I helped to secure, and being in two places at once is not an ability that I can establish. I have enjoyed the debate that I have listened to so far and I intend to read the report of it as soon as it is available later tonight.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate along with other hon. Members. I admit that I was not one of those who signed the early-day motion because I do not sign early-day motions. There was a clause in it about using enforced temporary closures to manage fisheries of which I could not have approved because such practices have led to problems in my constituency, with the under-10 metre fleet lurching from crisis to crisis because of temporary closures here and there. I am delighted that this wonderful motion does not contain that clause, so I can give my full support to the intentions behind it.

It is fair to say that discards are a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has previously related to the House the success of Project 50% and I will not steal her thunder because I am sure she will speak about it again, but I wanted to say that we can learn from some really good examples around the British isles of how to do something about discards. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) has said, this is about addressing local regulations. Fishermen in my part of the world often catch far more than the quota they are allowed but will land only what they are legally allowed to land. Sadly, the discards—the smaller fish—end up going back into the sea. Fishermen need to secure the maximum price for their fish, so they pick only the best and the rest sadly go to waste. We need to get around that problem. I do not blame them for doing that because that is their business and that is all they are allowed to do. Unlike during world war two when fish was the only major foodstuff that was not rationed, our total allowable catch is going down nowadays.

I said I would keep my comments short, but I want to talk about the common fisheries policy. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was right to suggest that we should have control of our fisheries. Constituents find it very difficult to understand that countries with no sea or fishing whatever should have an equal voice to that of the United Kingdom on the common fisheries policy. I wonder whether the Minister would consider afresh working with colleagues in the European Union and saying that the CFP does not work at all so we need to start again. What matters is not the politics of fish but the fish, fishermen and constituents. To that end, I suggest that we should scrap the current Fisheries Council and reconstitute it to include only countries with fishing fleets in the European Union. Frankly, if countries such as Austria can use their place on the Council as a bargaining chip for other European negotiations, that short changes our country.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should take all international agreements, whether they are European or international—at a time of threat from global warming, when we need sustainable solutions for our oceans and seas, which must be reached through co-operation—and say that everyone can do as they like? Is she suggesting that we should say that Iceland can hunt whales and everyone else can catch what they like?

[Dr Coffey]

That is not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that the artificial Fisheries Council is making policy, but that some of the member states on it have no interest in fishing whatever and therefore simply trade their votes for influence over other arrangements. I appreciate that my suggestions are radical, but is this not a debate for ideas? Of course, I am not the Minister—I am not the person who has to go to Brussels to do the negotiations—but if someone keeps walking down a street and falling into a hole and does not change their route they will for ever be trying to get out of the hole. Speaking for myself and other hon. Members present, I think that something we can do as new politicians is say that if fisheries policy has not worked and stocks are not recovering we should try something new.

I say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that rather than limiting ourselves to working only with the European Union we should work with non-European Union countries—Iceland, Norway or other neighbouring countries—to tackle the wider challenges.

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Dr Coffey]

I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I am afraid that I will not cede the floor to the hon. Gentleman.

Let us develop the debate by considering what we can do locally. The creation of inshore fisheries and conservation authorities is a useful step in the right direction, but they must take fishermen with them. I did a PhD in chemistry, so I accept that evidence is available. Science shows that if there is evidence, one can propose a theory around it. Often, people have an argument about whether that theory is right, and one must continually build evidence. An important part of that evidence should be the knowledge and understanding of the fishermen who fish those waters every day. It is frustrating when fishermen say that there are plenty of fish out there, or they are told that they can fish for cod, when the cod were there three or four months ago but it is now too late.

Fishermen have to be involved, and science has to be involved. Sadly, fish have become subject to politics. Regrettably, every year we seem to have a crisis about quotas, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister fought the fight to get more fish for our fishermen, so that our ever diminishing industry manages to stay alive for another season. I hope that we can end this ridiculous quota swap and give fishermen a guarantee of a sustainable future.

I was a little surprised by reports that fishermen are going to be paid to fish for plastic, rather than fish—that is one of the ideas coming from the European Union—which would be rather disheartening for our inshore fleet. I will not give another analogy, but I imagine that the fishermen with whom I am in touch would say that if all that they have to do is fish for plastic, they might as well put their boats aside.

I shall bring my comments to a halt, because I believe that there are plenty of people who have great experience of fishing. I do not pretend to do so—I speak only for a small number of fishermen in my constituency, but they are culturally and socially important. If the United Kingdom loses the battle for fish, it will be a sad loss for our country.

Pig Farming

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate. I hope he will not mind if I take his name in vain. Pigmeat is really important to this country and, dare I say it, there is never a better way to start the day than with a cup of tea and a bacon sandwich. I can hear people salivating around me as I mention that. The state of the industry has already been well described, and there have been numerous interventions from hon. Members about some of the points that I will try to present in a slightly different way in my speech. There is no doubt, however, that the industry needs some action from the Government. I will ask for clarity on actions that are already under way, and make some suggestions about the future.

In 1998, this country was 80% self-sufficient in producing enough pigmeat for our needs. This year we are at 48%, for reasons that have already been referred to: aspects of the animal welfare standards; the stall and tether and castration bans; and the dumping of cheap meat on our market, especially when we had the German dioxin feed scare. The current value chain has been well documented. I received my figures from one of my local farmers, Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork, who has approximately 18,000 pigs at any one time, all of which are free range and very tasty. I had better not promote any more producers. He told me that farmers effectively end up losing £20 per pig. From the figures he gave me, the farming industry loses £4 million per week, while processors make £8 million, and retailers make £16 million, profit per week. There are various causes. We have already heard that the pricing that cannot be agreed with supermarkets, but there is also an issue about the price of feedstock. I appreciate that the Government cannot control that particular aspect of the input, but they can do something about the output prices in their proposed legislation for groceries and the inclusion of a draft adjudicator code for supermarkets. There is also the issue of welfare standards.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend has introduced an important issue to the debate—the dioxin scare in Germany, which has caused a fall-off in demand for pork in that country. Is there a sign of hope in the fact that the lack of demand for pork in Germany is likely to be a very short-lived phenomenon, and will hopefully lead to prices being a little more buoyant in future than they have been this year?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that that will be the case and, going even further, that our British farmers will be able to exploit an export opportunity. It would be interesting to see Germans eating British sausages, rather than their own bratwurst, but why not? We have won on other fronts in Germany in the last century and I am sure that our pig farmers would be proud to go in and make sure that an English wurst—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

1966.

[Dr Coffey]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was not referring to anything else.

We should be proud of the welfare standards that we enjoy in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is right that some of the regulations have been partly changed, and the task of bringing welfare standards up to those enjoyed in the United Kingdom will be completed by 2013. I call on the Government to ensure that they use all possible influence to make sure that that date is not delayed in any way. We have already heard other examples of derogations that have been extended. It is critical for our industry, and just as important for the welfare of the animals that are farmed, that we do not delay.

What can we do? The industry is innovative. We have heard about Ladies in Pigs, with its lip-smacking recipes and demonstrations around the country. The industry is good at talking about consumer choice and education. We can continue to advertise the fact that 45% of pig herds in this country are reared outdoors, whereas in the rest of Europe it barely reaches 5%. Such things are important, and they are one reason why British pork is rightly a premium product. I wonder whether it is appropriate to bring in the following point, and I do not know if the pig industry has ever done this. I have received a number of letters from constituents who are concerned about halal labelling on other forms of meat. Regularly, meat is presented—one might buy chicken or something similar—as having been prepared to halal standards. I think I am right in saying that halal is irrelevant when it comes to pork, bacon and so on. Therefore, if people want to be confident that they are not eating meat that has been prepared in a halal way—or indeed in a kosher way—then eating a pigmeat product would be one particular avenue for them to pursue.

We should also make sure that the industry of butchers continues to recommend itself to consumers. I think that we all regret the loss of any high street butcher from our constituencies, and I am proud that we have so many—do not worry, Mr Bayley, I will not be naming them all, or any. Butchers provide a professional insight for consumers and help with choice. I hope that they will be encouraged by the information in the Budget today on small business rate relief. There will be significant reductions for properties with rateable values of less than £12,000—an example of the Government supporting high street shops, including butchers, to ensure that they can continue to sell good British pork and other pig products.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said that we are not calling for a subsidy. I completely agree with that, and I do not believe that the industry is calling for it either. However, the Government could make sure that they take advantage of my hon. Friend’s excellent Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill. We were very strong on that issue before the election and I am very keen to see that we make good progress. That would not cost money, it is free to do, and it would have a dramatic effect on consumer education, as the consumer would know that the products that they buy that sport the British flag were raised and reared here and conform to UK welfare standards. It might also be worth trying to pull together all the different legislation on UK food labelling and having a more simplified process. My hon. Friend’s Bill might be a good avenue for doing so.

It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the position on Government buying standards for food, which were due to come into effect this month. I understand that that is not a buy-British campaign, but it is supposed to ensure that a high quality standard of food is purchased by Government. I look forward to clarification on that.

Another slightly controversial question concerns feedstock. Pigswill was banned as a source of food for animals, which was understandable at the time. I am not suggesting that all pig farmers want pigswill to return, especially those at the premium end, but have the Government considered reviewing that policy as a way of trying to reduce the input costs for our farmers? Will the Minister also clarify what the UK pigmeat supply chain task force is doing, as well as the EU advisory group on pigmeat? I only learned about that group yesterday through a response to a question about pigs in the House of Lords. It is good to see that the other place takes an interest in this issue too. I appreciate that the Government cannot just go out and tell people to buy pigmeat, but there is a lot that they can do to ensure that the product that we are proud to see on our shelves, when carrying a British label, is deemed to have been produced to the same welfare standards anywhere in this country. I look forward to the action of a great friend of farming—the Minister.

Finally, I must apologise for forgetting to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk on securing this debate. I hope that it will not be groundhog day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) suggested, but all I can say is that, with the friends of the farming industry who are present in the Chamber today, the Minister will know that we will not give up.

Forestry (England)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

As I said clearly, the representation on the independent panel will be broad, with as wide a range of views as possible of those who have an interest in our forests and woodlands.

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

My right hon. Friend is aware that I have three forests in my constituency—Rendlesham, Dunwich and Tunstall—and I held a public meeting last Friday. People there will welcome the announcement that she has made today, particularly those who are concerned about access. I am encouraging those people to join bodies such as the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Friends of Sandlings Forest, but a particular point came up about access. Horse riders, carriage drivers and cyclists are slightly concerned that some of the organisations that my right hon. Friend mentions are closing access now, supposedly to protect biodiversity, wildlife and so on. Will she bring that to the attention of the panel when it meets?

[Mrs Spelman]

I would be delighted to bring those concerns to the panel. I know that my hon. Friend has met large numbers of people in her constituency and approached the whole issue with great diligence. I think she would therefore acknowledge that there are some important questions to resolve, and tensions between different access groups. This is precisely one of the aspects that I will ask the independent panel to look at.

Flood Defence Allocations

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is the one area of the Pitt review about which we have qualms. I am happy to discuss it because I know that he has a lot of contact with members of the fire service. I am not sure that placing a statutory duty on fire and rescue services will make any difference to the services I have seen. We are really going to be testing them through Exercise Watermark. Some of them tell me that they would like a duty, but quite a lot tell me that it would not make a blind bit of difference to how they operate and how they integrate with other emergency services. However, I have an open mind and I will listen to him.

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

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for meeting my constituents and because the schemes for Felixstowe and Thorpeness are on the national list. That has yet to be confirmed by the regional flood and coastal committee, but I am sure that it will do so. Will he tell us a little more about how the funding will help people who help themselves and how it will protect those in vulnerable households and areas?

[Richard Benyon]

I have been impressed by innovative schemes in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which we are using as a basis from which to take forward a number of ideas. I can confirm that the central Felixstowe beach management works will proceed under the next year’s budget.

Flood Risk Management

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely agree. My consultations with Maria Damanaki and others across the Government have centred on the proposition that when a country is seeking to join a club, tearing up the rule book before it even enters is strange behaviour. We aim to ensure that Iceland’s accession is seen in the light of its actions in relation to the fish stock.

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

I agree that if we are to have quota rules, they must be obeyed. Has the Minister any other views on quotas— specifically in relation to fishermen in the under-10-metre sector—that he might wish to include in his discussions so that we do not experience another crisis in the summer?

Public Forest Estate (England)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am sure he would be spinning in his grave.

I turn to the consultation document that the Government published last week. I have read it, unlike many Government Members, and it rewards reading. It raises more questions than it answers. There are a lot of warm words in it about communities instead of the Forestry Commission managing forests, yet on page 33 there is a harsh reality:

“Any sale would be at the open market value”.

Forests currently sell for between £3,000 and £6,000 a hectare. I will give way to any Government Member whose community can afford to compete with the private sector to buy up thousands of acres of woodland. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] No takers?

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

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

Oh, we have one!

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her challenge. It is not in my constituency, but the community did indeed come together to purchase Bradfield woods.

[Mary Creagh]

My question is this: was it at full open market value? That is the question to which we shall return.

Page 13 of the consultation document contains more warm words about public access. However, although the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, introduced by a Labour Government, provides pedestrian access to 90% of the freehold area of the public forest estate, 20% of the estate is leasehold, so CROW rights there depend on the lease. The document warns:

“So-called ‘higher rights’, such as cycling and horse riding, have not been dedicated.”

Ministers talk of conditions in leases, but if they lease land for 150 years, who will enforce the leases a century from now? The public forest estate makes up 18% of the woodland in England but accounts for nearly half the publicly accessible woodland. That tells us all that we need to know about public access to private woodlands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Recognising the challenge of securing insurance in certain parts of the country, I recently met representatives of the Association of British Insurers, and they talked about building design and the fact that electric circuits are at the bottom of buildings rather than in the middle and higher. That is one of the primary reasons why people are out of their homes for months if not years, as opposed to merely needing replacement furniture and so forth. Will the Minister agree to meet the ABI to discuss such building design principles?

[Richard Benyon]

I have met, and do meet, the ABI, and we do talk about such matters. I need do no more than recommend one of the great legends, Mary Dhonau—[Hon. Members: “Maradona?”] No, Mary Dhonau. She runs the National Flood Forum, and her home has frequently been flooded. The last time she was flooded she made no claim because she had taken precisely the precautions that my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that more households will learn from her experience.

Fisheries

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to address the annual fisheries debate for the first time. That delight is slightly diminished by the fact that England did not win its World cup bid. However, that disappointment will be temporary, whereas the disappointment that fishermen face every day over the fact that their industry is being decimated is beyond comparison.

I thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for leading the charge in securing this debate. I was delighted to accompany her when she put her case to the Backbench Business Committee. I suggest to colleagues that on the first Monday of November next year, we all go to the Backbench Business Committee and secure the rightful place for this debate in the main Chamber. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) points at the Minister. He will have voted, I think, for the Backbench Business Committee’s reforms. I understand that in the Wright report, it was decided that the Committee would take on the role of allocating debates, such as the annual fisheries debate. As often happens in politics, voting for something sometimes has unintended consequences. However, this is the reality for this year. For next year, we should all club together and go to the Committee.

I want to congratulate my constituent, Mr Wightman, who has come to London for this debate. He had, I believe, a successful meeting with the Minister earlier. He fishes from a boat called Maximus out of the port of Lowestoft, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I pay tribute to him for sitting through this debate when he could be out fishing instead.

Fishing may not be the biggest industry in my constituency, but it is an iconic one. The whole area to the north of my constituency is called Sole bay, and for a good reason. It includes places such as Aldeburgh, Southwold, Dunwich, Felixstowe Ferry and other places such as Orford, which have a different kind of fishing. I am surprised that no Member has yet claimed to have the best fish and chips in their constituency, so I will make my bid for that. Although the Minister came to my constituency to look at coastal erosion and meet some fishermen, sadly, we did not have time to stop for fish and chips. If he comes again, I will make sure that that will be our first port of call.

I pay tribute to local fishermen and councils for their efforts, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and our MEPs, to secure significant investment to upgrade the fishing facilities in Southwold harbour. We secured a grant from the European fisheries fund. If colleagues have not had the opportunity to do so, I recommend it. It is a good source of financing to keep our industry going.

Ultimately, however, what will keep our industry going is not fancy facilities but the ability to fish. It is a great irony—hon. Members might remember this as a classic pub quiz question—that the only foodstuff not rationed during world war two was fish, but today we are debating the rationing of fishing. As has been said, it is likely that the total allowable catch will decline in the next agreement, even though the Minister, who has been outstanding during his short time as Fisheries Minister, will fight the good fight. I wish him well.

The fishing fleet in my constituency is an inshore fleet. As has been said, that is substantially the highest proportion of the fleet, with a tiny amount of quota. I know that Commissioner Damanaki has recognised the important cultural role that fishing plays in coastal communities. It enhances the social and economic fabric as well, which should not be underestimated. Different experiments in managing fisheries have been undertaken. It would be worth while for the Minister to go back and look at some of the trials in the eastern sea area to see what worked and what did not.

In a way, I did not appreciate the importance of fishing to my constituency until that became clear in the summer, when fishermen were suddenly prevented from fishing. Although I should not use unnecessary hyperbole, the consequences in terms of the community’s reaction, never mind the fishermen’s, were absolutely astronomic. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister, because I know that he worked exceptionally hard to get the quota swaps. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) that the fishermen’s subsequent quota was higher than last year’s, thanks to the Minister’s good efforts. Although I do not have the data to back that up, I believe it to be true.

Discard rates have been mentioned, as has the distortion of quotas by the fact that discard rates are automatically calculated in. That seems somewhat ridiculous. Discards happen, as has been said. I am interested to hear about Project 50%, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) referred. I hope that the Minister will consider ways not so much to improve efficiency as to reduce discards, especially in our inshore fleet.

On a slightly different subject, other barriers to fishing include marine conservation zones or offshore wind farms, both of which are prevalent off the coast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney will know. Natural England and other organisations have been proactive in engaging with fishermen on the issue. I believe that my constituent has been involved in helping map out areas where fishermen can still fish. However, as he convincingly pointed out to me earlier, they are effectively doing it blindfolded, because they do not know what the Marine Management Organisation is doing in its plans for sustainable management. It should be a round-table discussion rather than a bilateral one.

Views differ on offshore wind farms. Developers seem to suggest that wind farms provide a haven for fish and are therefore good things. I am not convinced by that, but at some point during the summer, I am due to visit a wind farm, and I hope that the company will allow me to bring along a fisherman as well. Fishermen in my constituency have made a relevant point about the operational effectiveness of the MMO. I am conscious that that is a new organisation. However, I understand that the leadership and directors have already changed on a regular basis. That brings into question the credibility of the leadership of the MMO. Instead of being focused on internal matters, it should focus on fish and fishermen. I do not expect the Minister to criticise the MMO, but perhaps he will reflect on and express his view of its first months of operation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and other hon. Members said, it would be useful to have a discussion about how we can devolve the management of fisheries locally. I shall give an example. The people to whom I spoke in the summer suggested that it was all well and good for the MMO to say, “Right, you can now go and fish cod,” but it said that when there were no cod there; they had already moved on. It is that inflexibility that concerns people. The fishermen know what they are doing. I appreciate that the MMO must have a process for deciding what can be fished and for closing different areas and so on, but those decisions seem to be completely unlinked.

There is a joke in our part of the world that there are more “policemen” dealing with fishermen than there are real policemen dealing with criminals. That is an interesting set of priorities. As has been said, there is another distortion in relation to leasing of quotas, which are a valuable commodity. In the past, Governments have boldly adopted the notion of trying to get leaseholders to become freeholders, with some element of compulsion. Although I appreciate that such decisions cannot be made on the back of just one or two conversations, perhaps the Minister will take that into account when considering this issue in future.

Fishing is an inherent part of our country’s heritage. It is an inherent part of what makes us special as an island. It is an inherent part of the good foodstuffs that we should be encouraging people to eat every day. I am proud to serve a coastal constituency. I recognise the excellent contributions made by other hon. Members. I am sure that although the Minister is not from a coastal constituency, there are plenty of fishermen in his area, even if they fish just for recreation.

Fishing is one of our most important industries, but it has been treated shamefully under the common fisheries policy. Hon. Members have asked whether we need a common fisheries policy. I believe that it has been a disastrous experiment, and one of the things that one learns as a scientist is not to keep doing the same experiments and expect to get a different result. It is a case of what could be; we need to take it forward in a new way. We do not rely for our defence solely on the European Union. In fact, we do not at all; we use NATO as the appropriate organisation for that. It seems ridiculous to constituents that landlocked countries have a say on fisheries in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council.

Perhaps there is an opportunity to move forward with people outside the European Union and have a fisheries council just of fishing countries, which work together to make a difference. Who knows what the future holds for fish? I hope that it is a thriving future. Some policies seek the restoration of fish stocks, but the same policies also result in the decimation of the fishing industry.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to hon. Members who have attended the debate, including the 12 Members who have made speeches. Before I call the Front-Bench spokesmen, I would like to say that I have taken note of what was said about the debate not being in the main Chamber today. I shall ask the Member who initiated the debate to make her concluding remarks after the Minister—he has agreed to this—has made his concluding remarks. I call Willie Bain.

Shoreline Management Plans

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on an important issue. I wish that more of my colleagues were here today. I am new to Suffolk Coastal, which is the only constituency with the word “coast” in its name—and as may be imagined, the debate subject is one of the biggest issues there—but I am not new to coastal erosion. I grew up as a little girl in a place called Formby, which is also well known for its shifting sands. I recognise that I am very new to Suffolk, and I commend the work done thus far to protect the coast. I pay tribute in particular to my predecessor, the recently ennobled Lord Deben.

I want to raise awareness of the issue of shoreline management plans and invite Members of Parliament to consider joining the all-party coastal and marine group, which decided to include the plans among our particular issues. I am slightly thrown, because I expected the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) to be here, and was therefore about to pay tribute to him. However, I am sure that the Minister of State will pass on to him the gratitude that is still felt in my community for the fact that within only a few months of joining the Government, he came to Norfolk and Suffolk constituencies. That was very well received.

I also want to say well done to the many councillors and Government agencies that have worked hard to produce the shoreline management plans. Although I do not agree with every word that is in the plans, on the whole those responsible have done a great job—constrained by the policy visited on us by the previous Government. The shoreline management plans were driven by the policy in “Making Space for Water”. I recognise that what led to that was severe flooding across the country. However, in my view, much of what went into “Making Space for Water” and subsequent reviews, such as the Pitt review, had nothing to do with coastline management; it was trying to deal with flooding. That is typical of much of the approach that has been taken to flooding and erosion.

Flooding is temporary. It is very disruptive to people; I recognise that. There have been some severe incidents; but it is not terminal, whereas erosion is. Once shoreline is gone, it is generally gone for good. There might be a little movement of sediment up and down the coast; but, as to houses, there is a village in my constituency, Covehithe, that is not expected to exist in 40 years’ time. That is quite an impact for the people who live there.

I shall not compare our situation with that of Holland. I do not pretend to be Canute or to think that we can change nature. However, perhaps I may make use of an analogy with our neighbours across the North sea, who have made their country bigger by reclaiming land from the sea. Their shoreline is roughly the length of that of Essex. Yet they manage to spend €1.5 billion a year on their shoreline defences, and to supply on average about 9 million cubic metres of beach recharge, as opposed to the 2 million enjoyed across the UK. As an aside—although there is no conclusive evidence on this—I understand that Holland does not allow aggregate dredging within 10 miles of its shoreline, and, indeed, that it buys aggregate from the United Kingdom.

To return to “Making Space for Water”, I am not going to get into the debate about rising sea levels and similar issues; that is not the purpose of this debate. However, what is relevant is the fact that the plans are now effectively based on 25, 50 and 100-year decisions. We are making 100-year decisions on the basis, to some extent, of a three-year budget. I am not surprised that the consequence is a disproportionate impact on communities that are not densely populated. I should prefer a rethink on “Making Space for Water”. I do not suggest it should be complete and fundamental or that we should turn back the clock in every respect. However, I suggest that instead of making 100-year decisions we should continue with what was the tradition in this country until fairly recently, and make decisions for 25, 30 or 40 years, so that one generation can pass on the challenge to the next, but also do its bit for that generation; and so that one generation will not take decisions that leaves nothing for future generations. That is what is happening in places. I am thinking of places such as Happisburgh, in North Norfolk, as well as parts of my constituency, where people know that their village will not exist in 40 years and there is nothing they can do about it.

Among various things that have happened, more and more powers have been given to the Environment Agency. I understand that the strategic aspect of that was to try to put responsibility in one area and take an integrated approach. With the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 there has been strengthening of the regional flood defence committees. I am concerned that those committees cover a large area. That almost goes against the mantra of the big society and the idea of enabling local communities to take decisions, which of course should mean working with neighbours but should not mean being told, from the regional perspective, “This is what you can and cannot do; this is what we can and will not fund.”

I want to spend a little time focusing on my area of Suffolk. Shoreline management plan 1 was published in 1998 and it continued the “hold the line” philosophy that we should do what we can to preserve the coast. Shoreline management plan 2, which has still not, to the best of my understanding, been signed off by the Secretary of State, contains a significant change, in that properties will be lost. The Under-Secretary came to my constituency and met people who will be affected. I wanted him to meet such people—Mrs Flick, Mr Chandler and Mr Monson —and see the tears in their eyes because of the effect of the policies.

In my maiden speech I mentioned Thorpeness, where something happened that is supposed to be a one in 50 or one in 100-year event—I cannot remember which; within 50 days of the passing of the plan at local council level, a significant loss of beach was suffered. It does not give residents much confidence when there has been a downgrade to no active intervention, and something that seemed far off happens. I pay tribute to the council and the Environment Agency for pulling together and doing some remedial work. It required the financial intervention of constituents, who have put in money. Not all my constituents are particularly cash rich, but they have done that to try to protect their homes for another 30 years. That relates to the policy I mentioned earlier.

Another aspect of the shoreline management plan that is relevant to my constituency is the suggested breach just south of Aldeburgh, moving into the estuary. When the shoreline management plan was initially being made, there was a separation between it and the estuary management plan. I am pleased that there was recognition from the council and the Environment Agency that that was wrong, and such matters cannot be considered in isolation. Under the Alde and Ore futures initiative, work is now being done to examine the impact of breaches of the shoreline among wider areas of the estuary. There were reports yesterday on the BBC that if there were a “one in 100” big North sea storm, Cambridge would be a coastal town. That is the impact suggested by some of the modelling, which I do not decry; but the impacts of smaller storms could wipe out many properties in my constituency, and much agricultural land and habitat.

Two councillors have brought to my attention their concern about the consultation process. I am not clear on this, so I do not speak with complete authority, but my impression from meeting residents is that those who are not on the electoral roll, discouraged because they were second home owners, may not have participated fully in the shoreline management plan. Indeed, some residents have said that they had never heard of it until the impact was known. That is a cause for concern: people whose houses would be lost as a result of the shoreline management plan did not know about it. That needs to be reflected upon, and I hope the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider that when they sign off the plans.

The impact on people and on agriculture is real. One concern about the funding formulas, when we start looking at the cost of coastal defences along different parts of the shoreline, is that issues such as heritage assets and agriculture have not been taken account of in a valid way. I understand that Suffolk produces a great many potatoes for our country, and I am sure they are delicious and are enjoyed by many hon. Members. One of the features of our agriculture, however, is that we have two or three seasons of potatoes, and some of that could easily be lost if there was a breach of the shoreline and subsequently the estuary.

The previous Government looked at ways of mitigating and carrying out managed retreat, using schemes such as the pathfinder grants. Constituents feel that although that was jolly nice, it was a waste of time. More hope is coming from the community right-to-build proposals brought in by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). Instead of people being told that they have to move to a town, they are now working with councils to get planning permission to go into other areas. Frankly, if they live on the edge of the coast they do not want to live in a town; they are living in an isolated rural hamlet. Some moves have been made on that, but I am not sure that pathfinder money has been spent in the best way. I have been told on several occasions, “We would rather have used this £1.5 million grant actually to put some defences in, rather than being told we will lose our homes.”

In terms of compensation, more and more awareness exists about the human rights impact of the decisions that are made about the change in policy no longer to hold the line. Those who will be impacted by High Speed 2 will receive compensation for the fact that their houses will be moved as a result of a change in or an introduction of Government policy. That does not happen in coastal erosion, where we have decided not to hold the line. I believe, although I am not certain, that those who suffer from fluvial flooding also receive compensation. In Happisburgh there were schemes looking at giving people 40 to 50% of the value of their homes. Frankly, trying to rebuild a home sometimes costs more than that, and trying to buy elsewhere can easily cost more than that. That needs to be looked at. I recognise that traditionally, compensation has not been a feature of coastal erosion policy, but we have not been putting in black and white as effective policy, “You are going to lose your home, and we are not going to compensate you for anything.” I understand that compensation is available for landowners where land has been deliberately allowed to flood, but that is limited to agricultural situations.

Returning to the idea of not trying to be Canute, this country does not have billions of pounds to put a ring of steel or a ring of stone around our shorelines, and that would not necessarily be best for our coast. The Minister has heard from some of my constituents the can-do attitudes they can bring to decisions on how to fund future defences—in particular, the initiative with Suffolk Coastal district council and landowners around the Bawdsey area. Gerry Matthews engineered a scheme whereby exceptional planning permission was given to build some houses on greenfield land. The money from that paid for defences around the Bawdsey area. That has been welcomed, and it was pioneering at the time. Although some of my constituents are concerned that that will mean we will pay for our coastal defences for ever, at least we have been given the choice to do so. In this day and age, it is about making choices for ourselves and not simply expecting the Government to write a blank cheque, especially in these difficult times. Other schemes could be possible up and down our coast.

One aspect that we must get right is that the partners of Natural England and the Environment Agency should not have the sole judgment over whether defences can be done. At the moment the EA and Natural England have some quite restrictive powers, and they can say “No, you cannot put those hard defences in.” It is hard to argue with a constituent who says they are happy to pay for defences or to arrange some match funding, and who is subsequently told that they cannot do so. That has led to some extreme reactions in parts of my constituency: frankly, dumping a whole load of rubble on the beach is not ideal either, and I would not recommend that as a course of action. There are, however, situations where landowners desperately need to be able to maintain their defences. They should be able to enhance their defences if they need to. I recognise the importance of the various directives we have signed up to on habitat, but people are still more important than fossils or certain kinds of birds. If there ever was a case for the Human Rights Act, that is one: humans have a right to live and to defend their homes.

Moves are afoot in the Ministry, and I want to recognise those. The consultation is out now for the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. We have heard about future funding, the draft guidance is out for consultation and people are working together—the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, with DEFRA, Natural England and the Environment Agency—to look at protocols on the subject. I call on the Government to consider that, as I have said, coastal erosion is terminal and we are not reclaiming anything; flooding is temporary. Please bear that in mind when we are looking at the different schemes and at allowing people to make the big society a reality, not just hot air. We must encourage the Environment Agency and Natural England to work with the people on our coastal shorelines to recognise that they can do things. It is not about damaging the future; a lot of the land around the coastal shorelines and slightly inland has been held in families for generations. They do not want to destroy such places; they want to enhance them and to keep them, not only for their descendants but for the enjoyment of many people across the country.

Councillor Sue Allen from Southwold has written to me making the point that we had set aside £1.6 billion for the habitat creation programme, and in writing off Benacre Broad, Covehithe, Tinkers Marsh, Delacroix Marsh, Hen Reedbeds, Reydon Marsh, Dunwich Marsh and Minsmere aspects, 950 hectares of land has to be recreated. The habitat has to be recreated elsewhere, and the estimated cost is £50 million. That sum could produce a significant number of defences in that area. I do not see that as a Ponzi scheme, but I want to encourage Ministers who say, “We are not going to spend money on it from this pot, but we will spend money from that pot” to think about that. That does not make sense to me, and we need to have a rethink.

This is one of the most important issues in my constituency. It does not affect everybody there, but there is a recognition that our coast is important to us. We do not want to see too many more towns such as Dunwich, which can appear more interesting under the sea than they are on shore. I encourage DEFRA to look, as I believe it is doing, at innovative and different ways of protecting the coast—methods such as artificial barriers and artificial reefs, looking at constituents’ ideas for defending their own shorelines, or thinking again about some aspects of the consultation—so that people in areas that have moved to no active intervention, and who, in their view, were not made aware of that, are allowed a second chance to express views to their local councils.

I give credit to the Government agencies, councillors and others who have worked very hard on shoreline management plans within the constraints of “Making Space for Water”. I hope, though, that the Government reconsider the issue fundamentally and recognise that 100-year decisions being made today have impacts on people in the shorter term, not just 100 years hence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I am very grateful for that. I think that my hon. Friend will find that I was chairman of Essex Young Farmers, rather than the National Farmers Union. In those days, believe it or not, I was young. My hon. Friend also referred to the 1953 floods and the memories of them. I am probably one of the few people in the House who remembers them—just. I was a very small child at the time, living just outside Felixstowe. The flood came close to where I was living and it was horrendous. That sort of memory lives on. People will always be frightened if they have been through that awful experience.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of agricultural land. As a Minister with responsibility for agriculture, and coming from such a background, too, I am very concerned about it. However, I accept that against someone’s home, it comes second; we must all realise that. I hope that the point I will come to in a minute about other Government proposals will reassure colleagues that it is something that we are trying to address, albeit in a different way. I take his point about the involvement of local landowners in shoreline management plans and I am very much aware of the work of Andrew St Joseph in trying to drive that forward and in generating dialogue.

My hon. Friend and one or two other hon. Members referred to the role of Natural England. Although it has a vital role to play, it is important that it adopts a more enabling and supportive role and that it recognises that other issues are involved. We are making some substantial changes to the way in which Natural England is organised and run, which I hope will make it more responsive to local needs and understanding, and I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon also referred to the difficulty of landowners in doing maintenance work. I am not sure whether that happens just in his constituency, but an Essex farmer, who had better remain nameless, told me that he was given permission by the Environment Agency to do some maintenance work on the sea wall, which involved several hundred tonnes of stone. Natural England then came along and told him that the stone had to go in by helicopter, which stopped the process in its tracks.

Mobile homes, to which a number of hon. Friends referred, are included in the cost benefit analysis, although at a lower rate than a fixed building because they can be moved. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) referred to the issue of consultation and to the apparent priority of the habitats directive, which allows projects to go ahead, even where damage to protected sites is foreseen as a consequence. Projects that damage European protected sites can still go ahead if there are imperative reasons for overriding that public interest or if there are no alternative solutions and if necessary compensatory measures are in place.

The issue of how cost benefits are calculated, to which my hon. Friend also referred, are addressed on the DEFRA website. I will write to him with more detail, because I fully appreciate that people have a right to know. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) referred to the solidarity fund promoted by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, is, in principle, supportive of that, but it is a matter for local people to take forward. Although the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) cover a devolved issue, I appreciate his point about the liability aspect.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, no two places on the coast are the same, which is one reason why greater local involvement is necessary if we are to get this job right. The powers of consent for work rest with the local authority, except where there are certain European obligations to achieve, and then the powers rest with the Secretary of State. The House is aware that the coalition Government are determined to be the greenest Government ever, and that includes protecting and enhancing the natural environment. None the less, we need to be more creative in the way in which we serve those interests as well as meeting our international obligations and protecting agricultural land wherever possible.

Greater local involvement is at the heart of the Government’s proposed “payment for outcomes” funding approach, which we launched for public consultation last Wednesday, alongside the joint consultation with the Environment Agency of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. The consultation suggests changes to the way in which Government funding is allocated to flood and coastal defence projects. That follows recommendations by Sir Michael Pitt in his review of the 2007 flooding. The reforms aim to provide improved transparency and greater certainty over potential funding levels from the general taxpayer for every flood and coastal defence project. They will also allow local areas to have a bigger say in what is done to protect them. Over time, local ambitions on protection no longer need be constrained by what national budgets can afford, and the reforms will encourage innovative, cost-effective solutions in which civil society can play a greater role. This is about saying what the Government think the cost-benefit analysis is and, therefore, what funding might be available from Government. If that is not enough to do the work, the local community has the option to find funding to enable it to happen.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

One of the criticisms that sometimes comes out is about over-engineering and, therefore, the high costs of work. That is a constant refrain from landowners who believe that they could do a lot of the work at a much lower cost.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she makes a point that has been made many times. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is conscious of that issue and is working with the Environment Agency to see how we can alter the situation, which I do not think necessarily means reducing the specification of what is done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.

The proposals to which I have just referred are subject to consultation and final decisions will be made in the spring after the consultation closes on 16 February 2011. I hope that this will mark a significant step forward in how we go about things. I think I have referred to most of the issues that hon. Members raised; if I have not or if I have answered their concerns inadequately, perhaps Members could let me know.