National Pollinator Strategy
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Neil Carmichael(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on obtaining this debate. It comes at a very important point, following the conclusion of the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiries on neonicotinoids and pesticides and on the draft pollinator strategy, and action that might be forthcoming as a result of that and of the two-year EU moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids that has got under way. I, too, urge a rapid passage towards a final national pollinator strategy, which is urgently required. I want to reflect on one or two things that ought to be rather more emphasised in that strategy, particularly those that arise from the work that the EAC has done on the matter.
I join the hon. Lady in emphasising that we are talking about pollinators, not just about domestic bees, or even wild bees, although it has been important that a lot of the campaigning on these matters has related to Members and other people in public positions standing next to people dressed in large bee outfits.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
As somebody who has done the bee photograph twice, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he agree that the essence of our Environmental Audit Committee report is that there is a strong case for protecting bees and that our work should inform a proper national plan?
Dr Whitehead
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I hope he was not one of the people wearing a bee outfit who stood next to me; I think he probably stood next to somebody else in a bee outfit.
The “Bee Cause” campaign and various others have done well to concentrate on the threats that pollinators face, but we should reflect not just on bees, both domestic and wild, but on pollinators across the board. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, they are, collectively, such an important element in the national health of our crops and fruits, and they interact with the natural environment in a whole range of other ways. We do not understand wild pollinators to the extent that we should; indeed, our EAC inquiry found that the general research is very ragged. We need to obtain a deeper understanding, particularly of pollinators in the wild. I hope the Department will take cognisance of that.
Energy Price Freeze
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Neil Carmichael(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neil Carmichael
That brings me to my next point, which is, ironically, that there is a tension between wanting to have lower prices and protecting the environment. I have often thought that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is both poacher and gamekeeper. We need to continue investing in green energy. I will always promote green energy because my constituency has a lot of important companies that are working extraordinarily hard to develop green technologies. However, we must respond to the price issue as well. That is why the Government are right to calibrate the green taxes more sensibly to reduce prices in the energy market. I get the sense more and more that the Opposition agree that the price freeze is simply idiotic.
I will talk about two other important matters. The first is energy storage. We do not give enough attention to that subject. Energy storage technologies will help and we need to invest in them. I hope that we will see energy storage treated as a capacity in the Energy Bill and that it will be invested in. Liquid air, for example, provides us with an opportunity to store energy and thereby flatten out demand and sort out the trough problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) spoke sensibly about the need to focus on making houses more energy efficient. Of course we must do that. We have the least energy-efficient houses in Europe in broad terms. We have to continue with the green deal. I am delighted that the Minister is promoting that and that it has got off to a good start. We have to ensure that our houses do not leak energy, but contain it and therefore use less of it. That is one way to reduce bills.
Something that has not been discussed in the debate thus far is competitiveness, not just in this country, but across Europe. In January, the Prime Minister set out the stall for renegotiating our position in the European Union. One of the key points that he made was that we should strengthen the single market in energy. He was absolutely right. We have to recognise that there are lower commodity prices on the continent. We must be able to benefit from those prices. We need to attract investment from the continent and we must invest in the continent so that we have a more competitive and more connected energy policy.
Connectivity is lacking in certain areas. We need more investment in our infrastructure so that we can be sure that whatever form of energy we alight upon can get to the right place in the most cost-effective and efficient way. That is definitely a way to drive down prices. We must set out the stall for increasing competition in the energy market both locally and internationally, with Europe as a target. That would not be a particularly difficult thing to do.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about interconnectivity. Will he therefore explain why the Government have specifically excluded interconnections from their capacity market arrangement? Will he be at the forefront of trying to change that?
Neil Carmichael
It is always great to hear from a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee. He asks a very good question. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] And he will get a very good answer. I am referring to connectivity across Europe. I do not think that the remit of the Energy Bill extends that far. There is not sufficient connectivity between England and France. There is no connectivity between Norway and—
Neil Carmichael
No, the hon. Gentleman has had a fair crack of the whip.
In summary, this is about powering through with more competition and ensuring downward pressure on prices, while recognising the global and economic challenges we still face, even though they are being rapidly dealt with by the Government. We cannot talk about a subject as critical as energy without considering those other issues—that is the key point on which I shall conclude.
Fisheries
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Neil Carmichael(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman underlines a point that I wish to emphasise. The tragedy of the commons is a good example of regulated assistance for rational activity that benefits people who are trying to make a living and acting rationally in so doing. With the assistance of those no-fishing zones, there are substantial consequences beyond those zones, as there are benefits for all concerned.
Yes, it is true that we should end discards, but if we do so that will not by any means solve the problems. The motion goes much further and proposes that an ecosystem-based fishing regime should be part of a new common fisheries policy. The question of discards is a world issue for fishing. The average estimate of discards from catches across the world is about 8%, but it is certainly far worse in Europe, and that is a result, as we have heard, of aspects of the CFP as it stands. Let us consider the prawns and shrimps that we eat on our table. For every tonne of shrimp that is landed, probably 10 to 15 tonnes of fish have been discarded. That is across the world—it is not just in Europe. It is unlikely that many people would accept a non-sustainably sourced prawn on their plate if they were aware of the overwhelming numbers that died to bring that prawn to their plate.
Discards are an important issue not only in the EU but across the world, not just because the fish could be used but because we are damaging species by changing breeding populations and ecosystems.
The motion asks the UK Government to develop a package of measures beyond which it would be impossible to go in considering whether to endorse a new EU fisheries policy.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I generally welcome the motion and will be happy to support it, because it is absolutely necessary that we have a different approach to the common fisheries policy. I wish to draw the House’s attention to a report produced many years ago by a House of Lords Committee, which highlighted the need to apply science and technology—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. If he wishes to draw the House’s attention to something, he can make a speech, but he cannot do so in an intervention, so we will leave it at that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wishes to intervene again briefly, I will give way.
Neil Carmichael
That is extremely generous of the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the House of Lords report was absolutely right to highlight the need for science and technology and draw our attention to the systems used in Norway?
Dr Whitehead
The answer to that very pithy intervention is yes. As we move towards a new EU fisheries policy, it is absolutely vital that we remove ourselves from all the baggage of previous fisheries policies, which, since the first one was introduced in 1983, have never contained an environmental, conservation or sustainability component. A few things have been added—rather like adding Dolby sound to Philips cassettes to try to make them work better—but basically the policy was designed simply to stop countries squabbling about who should fish where. In relation to what I said about the tragedy of the commons, that merely divides the commons between different people to carry on fishing in the same way, rather than moving the debate forward.
It is essential that we have an EU fisheries policy that is fit for purpose for the world we now live in. That is the bottom line of the debate. That includes ending discards and introducing technology that ensures that what is caught approximates most closely to what is intended to be caught, for example by using different nets. It includes looking at science to secure the best way forward for reducing the collateral consequences of fishing. It includes no-fish zones, which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) referred to.
It is an ambitious package of measures. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it must be our starting point if we are to have fisheries that are fit for the 21st century. If we continue with fisheries that are fit for the 19th century, the fish will have disappeared by the time we are not much further into the 21st century. I wish the Minister good luck in his endeavours, which I hope will be fruitful. It is encouraging to hear the difference in tone from the EU Commission, and if we can build on that tone, on the Fish Fight campaign, which I, too, congratulate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on bringing to the public’s attention, and on the head of steam that has built up to recognise that we have to make a step change, not a gradual change in fisheries policy, we will find that these debates have been worthwhile, and that the Minister’s success in achieving such changes on behalf of Europe will have been a triumph indeed.
Climate Change Conference
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Neil Carmichael(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on securing the debate and making it happen. This is a critical issue. Like other hon. Members, I would have preferred to see more people in the Chamber, but it is up to us to promote the problem of climate change and to excite people’s interest in the subject. It is also up to us to come up with ideas and solutions that bring about the scale of interest that we undoubtedly need. The truth is that, even if we did just a little better than we have done thus far, we would still be facing a worsening situation in terms of CO2 output. That is the reality. We need to embark upon a huge set of policy initiatives if we are to see a significant degree of improvement.
We have been talking about Cancun, but let us talk briefly about Copenhagen and why nothing happened there. The real reason nothing happened was that the United States and China got together and decided that nothing much should happen. The first and most important lesson for all of us in this room and beyond to learn is that Europe has huge responsibilities and a range of opportunities to influence the debate. Europe must play its part in a significant and resolute way if we are to start to secure the kind of agreements that are necessary. I hope that Britain plays a powerful role at Cancun, but we must also engineer a strong European voice; otherwise the same sort of thing will happen.
Related to that, but just as important, is the role of the BRIC—Brazil, Russia, India and China—economies as emerging economies. It is not just a matter of what China and the United States are doing; it is about what those four economies do next. We must encourage them to pursue policies that are CO2-responsible. For example, there is evidence that technology we have in my Stroud constituency is being exported to Brazil and elsewhere. It is critical to encourage such a relationship at national level, as well.
May I address some of the issues raised? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) talked about fossil fuels and the fact that they are subsidised in countries where we should not be subsidising them at all. Instead, we should be encouraging the right kind of technology. That is an opportunity for us and a necessity for those countries. I urge the Government to think carefully about that. The Government should not simply say that subsidising fossil fuels is bad; they should start to think about what is good for the economy as a whole. We need to promote that strong message.
Given the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), it was interesting that he talked about shipping and aviation. It is true that both shipping and aviation produce emissions that are damaging. However, we must get the proportion and scale right, because some 90% of trade is actually shipped. We must bear in mind that if we do not ship certain things and decide to produce them here, it could do more damage in terms of CO2. We should not worry too much about shipping. We must get the proportion and our understanding of the questions of transport versus production exactly right. Talking about aviation taxes is not necessarily the right thing to do at this point, because I understand that aviation accounts for just 2% of emissions. It is much better to strike at the very heart of the problem and deal with the big issues that really matter: energy production and domestic transport.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman observed that although I represent a port constituency, I said that international bunker taxes ought to be introduced on shipping. That should also be the case for aviation, not necessarily because of the percentage of emissions that shipping and aviation currently represent, but because there is an upwards trajectory in the percentage they will represent in the future. Indeed, we are assuming that our own carbon budgets are included in emissions totals. We would have to make unbelievably high reductions in emissions elsewhere in the economy if that is not the case, bearing in mind the trajectory increase. It is also true that, per kilometre tonne hauled, shipping is not remotely as emission-concentrated as aircraft. Nevertheless, taken in the round, the increase is very apparent, which is why I said what I did.
Neil Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I still think it is a question of proportion. That is something we should have a discussion about. I started off by pointing out just how steep the challenge really is and I think all hon. Members in this room would agree with that. I think we all recognise that significant CO2 reductions just have not happened thus far—in fact, there has been an increase.
I shall end by mentioning the point made to me very forcefully earlier this week by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham also heard what was said. The institute rammed home just how big the challenge is and how important technology will be. It talked sensibly about the need for Britain to push ahead with the development of technology. I hope that the Government will continue to reassure us that that is exactly the direction in which they intend to go and that renewable energy and so forth will be promoted. We need to create a secure market for all of those things. It is crucial that we set about producing an infrastructure that is responsive to the new types of energy that will be feeding in, so that we can distribute easily. I am not just talking about a national infrastructure; I am talking about a European infrastructure. Renewable energies have their geographic suitabilities—for example, wind in one area and solar and hydro in others. We need to be flexible enough to benefit in big ways from all of those through a proper infrastructure.
Last but not least, if we are to start taking remedial action, which we need to do because of the scale of the problem, geo-engineering is a way forward. The Institute of Mechanical Engineers also made that point. I understand that we are not yet really in that development area, but we should be, because that is something in which Britain could play a part. We need to start to think carefully about our commitment to geo-engineering as a demonstration of how we will deal with the problem. Involvement would also bring about obvious advantages in terms of jobs and economic growth for ourselves and anybody else who cared to help us.
Those are the points I wanted to make. I can sum them up in this way: first, let us recognise the gravity of the problem. Secondly, let us recognise that solutions will, first and foremost, be international, which is why we must frame our argument along the lines I have described. Thirdly, we must encourage the right technology and implement it where we can.