Plastic Bags

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), for all the work she has done on this issue, for her Committee’s excellent analysis and for her excellent presentation of it.

Simply put, the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. Reducing their use must be part of a coherent waste management strategy with a focus on preventing plastic from entering the waste stream and reducing litter. There should be no disagreement on that in the House, but, of course, one of the Minister’s first acts on entering the Department was to announce in his infamous letter that there would be an abandonment of waste management by Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The hon. Gentleman and I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee together, and we discussed these matters informally and formally. However, I ask him to refer to what I actually said in my letter, which is that there are some areas of policy that have been taken forward, and it will now be up to industry and wider society to respond, and others that we will continue to conduct research on and get behind. To say that my letter said we were abandoning waste policy is not an entirely fair characterisation.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister pleads in his own defence, and I will let the industry judge for itself, but the industry has been clear that it was deeply unhelpful of the Department to announce that the Government no longer saw fit to take part in some aspects of waste management and that it was down to the industry just to get on with things.

The rationale behind the Government’s position was that they should not intervene in areas where there was no market failure. The problem, however, is that I happen to believe that 2,309 items of plastic per kilometre on UK beaches constitute market failure. The remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the levels of plastic litter experienced around the UK coastline bear witness to that. They are disgusting, but they are also a warning about the level of plastic that has not washed up on our beaches and that is still floating out at sea. The Government have just not thought through waste management in this respect. If they had, they would have listened to the industry and delivered a workable policy programme. They have not done that.

What percentage reduction in plastic bag use do the Government expect will be achieved as a result of their policy by 2020? Will it be as much as in Wales, where there is a simple charging system without all the loopholes and caveats the Government have added?

When does the Minister think that a biodegradable plastic bag will fulfil the criteria for exemption from the single-use plastic bag charging policy? My hon. Friend made an incontrovertible and admirable point: where else in Government policy does one create in law an exemption for something that does not exist? It really beggars belief.

The Committee’s report stated:

“The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing evidence or considering the concerns of all stakeholders.”

If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend’s Committee let the Government off lightly by putting it so delicately.

The report continues:

“It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed and flawed policy proposal to allow an exemption for biodegradable bags.”

The question we must ask is why. Can the Minister give a reasoned explanation— because there is certainly not one in the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report—of why the Department has gone into such contortions to do that? The waste management industry and environmental scientists are clear about the fact that the exemption is absurd. The British Plastics Federation has made it clear that DEFRA made the decision on the exemption before consulting manufacturers. British Polythene Industries opposed the exemption and stated that it would increase the use of plastic bags and undermine recycling targets. What progress has been made as part of the small business research initiative on biodegradable bags?

Objections to the policy on environmental grounds have been as emphatic as the industry’s. A professor of marine biology and adviser to DEFRA told the Environmental Audit Committee that he was surprised by the proposals to exempt biodegradable bags. His research found that approximately 98% of plastics, including so-called biodegradable plastics, remained after 40 weeks, in part because of a lack of light reaching the bags under water. There is no such thing as a biodegradable plastic bag; the plastic just degrades into smaller pieces that are more easily ingested by marine life. That means that they are more easily able to contaminate and pollute the marine environment.

Quantities of litter on UK beaches have more than doubled since 1994, according to the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch survey, which is the source for the figure of 2,309 items per kilometre found in 2013. Last year English beaches had, on average, 45 plastic bags per kilometre, an increase of just over 20% since 1996. Let us consider the impact of that on wildlife. The northern fulmar does not regurgitate plastic, but accumulates it in its stomach. Data collected between 2007 and 2011 show that 95% of fulmars in the North sea had plastic in their stomach—62% exceeding legal limits.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report states:

“Several key impacts of the policy (e.g. reduced disamenity impact of litter; reduced damage to marine life) are difficult to measure in quantitative and monetary terms.”

Indeed they are, but that does not mean they are not real. They are what classical economics regards as externalities, and, as so often with the present Government, externalities are ascribed a nil value. That is the problem. The Government have chosen to discount the importance of litter and, significantly, of damage to marine life, because it is too difficult to work out what those things cost. That is the wrong approach. Litter ruins neighbourhoods; plastic waste damages entire marine ecosystems.

The waste management industry, perhaps more than any other, can produce growth that increases the productivity of our economy and creates new, skilled jobs. The job creation rate for recycling and reprocessing is significantly higher than that for landfill. It has been estimated that one job in landfill is created for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. By contrast, SITA estimates that job creation per 1,000 tonnes of waste for recycling ranges from 0.75 to as many as 40 jobs, depending on the material. That is between 38 and 2,000 jobs for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. That is the industry on its own, making an immensely valuable contribution to jobs and growth; but it is even more important as a driver of the wider economy.

[Joan Walley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread concern that the Government are stepping back from supporting the waste management sector, and offering only a limited programme of waste prevention activities? There are opportunities for innovation and growth in jobs, but the sector is not being supported by the Government to the extent it should be.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am happy that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because, as on most such occasions, she is right. She will have heard the Minister giving his justification for the Government’s approach to the waste management industry and the issue of the circular economy. The point that she and I are trying to make is that the opportunities are huge; and so are the risks of inaction. The Committee warns in paragraph 68 of its report:

“The Government’s waste management strategy needs to be clear, consistent and easy to understand in order to secure reduced carbon emissions, improved rates of recycling and avoid contamination of waste disposal streams. Gains in other areas could be far more important than can be generated by bags alone.”

Again, it is a question of an integrated approach to and coherent policy on waste management. The Committee was right to highlight that; the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. The policy is, frankly, an unscientific mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has pointed out that no genuinely biodegradable plastic bag exists. Paragraph 33 of the Government’s response to the report states that they are

“aware of the concerns regarding contamination of the recycling stream with biodegradable plastics and are addressing this with feasibility studies”.

I should be grateful if the Minister would update us about the progress of those feasibility studies.

In places the Government’s response is incoherent. Paragraph 24 states that

“the Government intends to require retailers to publicise the number of bags sold and how the proceeds of the charge have been spent.”

That is from a Government who are anti-regulation; but three paragraphs on, paragraph 27 states:

“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”

Goodness me; within three paragraphs the Government contradict themselves on whether regulation on plastic bags is appropriate or burdensome for business. The policy is incoherent, and an incoherent response has been given to a coherent report.

It is alarming that the policy has been allowed to get so far when Government officials and advisers express serious concerns about the impact on the marine environment, in particular. If the Government do not abandon the absurd parts of this policy and adopt the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation for a simple universal charge that will reduce plastic waste and litter as part of a wider, comprehensive and coherent waste-management strategy, I assure the House that the next Labour Government will. It is an essential component of a resource management strategy worthy of the name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

Some organisations have taken that on. I have met some of them and they have given evidence to the Committee. Other organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, have taken a different position. It is important to look at the implementation of the charge. The huge majority of the bags will be distributed by retailers who will be covered by the charge. We can continue to examine how the exemption operates post-implementation. The smaller retailers who want to make a charge can do so. They are exempt from the compulsion to do so and the reporting of that, which will be an obligation on those who are covered by the charge.

[Barry Gardiner]

If small retailers charge 5p for a bag but are exempt, that will presumably constitute part of their revenue stream and they will have to declare VAT on that element of their income, whereas those who are not exempt will be exempt from declaring VAT. The exemptions are working directly counter to each other. Is that correct?

[Dan Rogerson]

I have been having discussions with some of the organisations representing smaller retailers. Some small businesses have already chosen to introduce a charge voluntarily in local areas. That is a decision for them. We are talking about the difference between compulsion and an option to do so. When smaller retailers have chosen to introduce a charge voluntarily or as part of their business model, and to use the money for good causes, which is what we are expecting larger retailers to do, that will be a matter for them to decide. I want to talk about how we expect that money to be used because that is important and there have been discussions about that outwith this place.

As in Wales and Scotland, we hope and expect that retailers will give the proceeds of the charge to good causes. The Climate Change Act 2008 does not give the Government the power to determine what retailers do with the proceeds of the charge. We will require retailers to report to the Government the number of bags they give out, the amount raised by the charge and what they do with the proceeds. We will then make that information public. We expect that pressure from customers will ensure that the net proceeds, when reasonable costs have been deducted, will go to good causes. Many large retailers have already stated that they will give the proceeds to charities and publish details on their websites.

[Barry Gardiner]

Given that retailers will be obliged to publish how many bags they have given out and how they have given the money from those bags to charitable causes, is it correct that it will be simple for anyone to calculate how much VAT will be related to the income derived from those bags? It will be a straight 20% to the Government, so why in paragraph 27 of their response to the Committee do they say that that will be a large additional burden on business?

[Dan Rogerson]

Just for clarification, when the hon. Gentleman says burden on business, is he talking about small businesses that we are exempting from the charge?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am referring to paragraph 27, which states:

“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”

For that reason, the Government did not propose to follow the Committee’s recommendation to report on the VAT and to hypothecate that for the monitoring and effectiveness of the scheme. The excuse given by the Government for not doing so is that it would pose an additional burden on business, but the Minister has just told us that the business will have to report on the number of bags sold and the proceeds of that charge. Given that all one has to do is divide the proceeds of the charge by five, how is it that the Government use the excuse of that being an additional burden on business to avoid the Committee’s conclusions? It is simply a case of dividing by five the burden that has already been placed on them to report on the proceeds.

[Dan Rogerson]

The reporting system will require retailers to report on the VAT that is paid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I was covering the importance of where the money goes and our ability to state our expectations of that. As the Chair of Committee said in her opening remarks, the provisions that allow us to do that without requiring primary legislation are in the Act. That is the area in which we work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

With regard to the regulations on the scheme and the explanation of how the scheme will operate, we will be tabling the regulations in December. One of the hon. Lady’s other questions was about the timetable for implementation. It is still our intention to table the regulations by the end of this year and to have the charge come into operation in October next year. That timetable still remains and, obviously, we will have the opportunity to explore the operation of the system in Committee. Should the hon. Lady be a member of that Committee, we could debate any further questions she has, but the reporting of how that money is to be spent will come to the Government, because retailers will have to do it and make it public. I would be very surprised if companies that were taking the charge in and giving it to good causes did not wish to demonstrate clearly to their customers the purpose to which the money was being put. It would be rather strange for them to give money to good causes—I am sure many of those companies are altruistic—and not tell the public about the good causes to which they are giving money. We have seen other schemes in supermarkets in which, as part of their corporate-social responsibility, they demonstrate how they are supporting community activities in the local area.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I would like to make a little progress, if I may.

It is not only charities that stand to gain from the charge, because when littered, carrier bags cost all of us. They cost taxpayers in England around £10 million every year in clean-up costs. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady mentioned biodegradability—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, who is concerned about the marine environment, also mentioned it. The Government’s position is that there will always be a need for some plastic bags. People may forget their reusable bags or they may require a new bag to avoid contamination if they are buying raw meat. At the same time, we should aim to reduce the visual impact and the harm to wildlife if those bags go on to be littered. A bag that biodegrades into harmless products is clearly more desirable. That is why we are working with industry and academic experts to review existing standards and to set a suitably robust standard for biodegradable bags. Bags that meet that standard will be exempt from the charge.

Hon. Members have referred to bags that are already on the market and the challenges we face. Bags biodegrade in different circumstances in different environments. Those circumstances include hedgerows in the countryside and the marine environment, which we have talked about. We will need to be satisfied that there is a product that is biodegradable in the multiple circumstances in which it may be littered or find itself disposed of.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister is being very generous giving way—I do like him so much and I find it difficult to be quite so difficult with him. He is absolutely right that, depending on the light available, plastics will degrade in differential ways, but standards could be set to allow bags to be used in different circumstances and different contexts. Is he seriously saying that, if someone lives or does their shopping within a mile of the seaside, they will not be able to get hold of a particular plastic bag, whereas if someone lives in Birmingham, that bag might be available to them? Context-specific measures cannot be applied in legislation in that way. We require a bag that does not just break down into small particles, because those small particles are ingested by birds, as well as fish and other marine organisms, and that is a key problem. Unless he can come up with an answer to that critical point, the exemption for supposedly biodegradable bags really does not wash.

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong to have different types of bag that biodegrade in different circumstances and then allow them to be sold in particular places—we are absolutely not doing that. We are talking about a product that meets a standard that covers that range of circumstances. That is the super-biodegradability aspiration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

Obviously, as I said, the hon. Lady will be able to study the detail of the regulation when it is tabled. The intention behind signalling the desirability of a product that meets the criteria is that that is an important and perfectly reasonable thing to do to stimulate investment in innovation. The hon. Member for Brent North has pointed out that we have studies under way, as is referred to in our response, first, on materials, and secondly on processes for reprocessing bags, to satisfy concerns in that regard. We have had the initial work back. We will review it and consider whether we want to take anything further forward.

[Barry Gardiner]

On a point of clarification—

[Dan Rogerson]

I want to make some progress and come to some of the other issues raised in the debate.

The Chair of the Committee was right to point out that, along with such a product, we need a standard to measure it and ensure that it is suitable. However, we would not be doing this at all if we were signalling that in no circumstances would such a product ever be exempt. The whole point of extending that possibility is to stimulate the discussion and innovation. That is the reason behind that aspect of the policy.

The hon. Lady also referred, as did her Committee, to paper bags. We are focusing the charge on plastic bags as part of a targeted and proportionate approach. Plastic carrier bags take the longest to degrade in the natural environment, can harm wildlife, as hon. Members pointed out, and are extremely visible in the environment because they take so long to degrade. Paper bags make up less than 0.1% of the bags distributed in the UK by the seven major supermarkets and can also biodegrade naturally in the open air. Of course, paper bags should still be reused a number of times before being recycled and should never be littered. We have analysed their life cycle—this addresses the carbon problem that the Chair of the Committee was keen to point out—but, because they make up such a small part of the overall number of bags used, we do not think that that will be significant, although they do have a part to play, for the reasons I have set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The assumption, from what the hon. Lady is saying, is that there might be a massive switch to paper bags and that therefore some of the littering issues and so on might continue even if biodegradability and the use of oil and so on—separate questions—are taken aside. I suggest that retailers, who are used to other forms of the policy in the Welsh jurisdiction, will make the charge part of the operation of their businesses. That was another of her questions—she mentioned working with retailers. We have had regular meetings with the British Retail Consortium and others. The fact that a system has been introduced in other jurisdictions means—the vast majority of those businesses operate across those boundaries—that retailers understand how such a system can work and will be prepared for it.

The hon. Lady mentioned the European Union. We are very pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, but with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances. The negotiating position adopted by the United Kingdom Government was to safeguard that flexibility, so that member states can take systems forward in the way that is most suitable in their jurisdiction. That was at the heart of what we were trying to do.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister assure the House that, when the Government said, quite properly, that they were going to pursue a charge on plastic bags, a company did not come to them and say, “Hold on a second. We think that we have a product that’s going to be developed that will go a substantial way towards meeting some of the problems with plastic bags, so can you tailor-make an exemption for us”? I ask that because it would be deeply concerning if there were any suggestion that the Government were passing legislation simply to facilitate a company bringing a product to market in that way. It would be good for the Minister to clear the air and say that that is definitely not the case.

[Dan Rogerson]

As the hon. Gentleman may well be aware, the European Commission is committed to further research on oxo-biodegradable bags, and we will always use robust scientific evidence to inform our decisions. As I set out in our discussion about how things biodegrade in different environments, whether the marine environment or another environment, and the standards that we are seeking to set for our domestic policy, we are very clear that we would have a high barrier for any product to overcome to satisfy the exemption. This is not about taking one technology and saying, “We think that’s fine. We’ll make an exemption for it.” It is about saying, “We want a new sort of product that will overcome a high barrier.”

[Barry Gardiner]

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to deny categorically that, when the policy against plastic bags was being put forward, a specific company came to the Government and lobbied and got the exemption put into the legislation. I understand what he is saying about standards and the benchmark—when standards are in place, they apply to everyone—but it is really important that the Minister stands up in the House and says, “No. The exemptions that we have put into this legislation are not a result of lobbying by a specific company that came to us once this process was under way.”

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister, so he knows that decisions that are taken are subject to a process of discussion across Government, across all Departments. I can certainly say that the policy that we have taken forward is not to suit any particular company or any particular technology. It is to meet the obligation to improve environmental outcomes and to deal with the issues of litter, and to generate an income stream for good causes, which we have discussed. That is the focus of the policy.

In concluding my remarks, I thank hon. Members for their close interest in the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

May I say first that the Minister has been most gracious in allowing so many interventions? Perhaps that was more a function of the attendance at the debate, but it was very helpful in flushing out some of the issues.

We have had a very wide-ranging debate. I am particularly pleased to have heard the interventions from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who I know takes marine pollution concerns seriously. The contributions certainly from our Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brent North, and from the Minister have helped us perhaps not always to clarify, but certainly to be better informed.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Joan Walley]

I am not sure whether I am able to take interventions in the summing-up. I shall take guidance on that from you, Mrs Brooke.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I will allow a brief intervention. I suspect that that will not be the case, but we do have time on our side, but this must be a one and only, not an inquisition.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful, Mrs Brooke. Was the Chair of the Select Committee concerned, as I was, not to hear an absolute, categorical denial from the Minister that the exemption was precipitated by a specific intervention from a specific company?

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend any specific issues he has on behalf of his constituency. The statement of principles, which exists with the insurance industry, is still in operation up until the implementation of Flood Re. We of course have regular discussions with the industry to ensure that people are being offered the flood insurance they need.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), which the Minister failed to give, is £403,000 out of the £10 million that the Government promised—less than 5%. That applied at the beginning of the summer recess. Tomorrow is 31 October, the day on which the Government promised that all the 890 flood defences damaged last year and in need of urgent repair would have that work completed. Will the Minister assure us that the 49% of those repairs that had not been completed by last month will be finished by tomorrow, as promised? The people at risk from those 437 unfinished schemes would really like to know.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that work has continued since that reference point in September. The vast majority of those schemes will be completed by the end of the month, and temporary defences are in place to protect any communities where the work is still ongoing into November. The vast majority will be completed by the end of this month.

National Pollinator Strategy

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. She spoke with eminent good sense and with what I would characterise as quiet passion. Other Members who have contributed to this debate have made really telling points. I am talking about my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and for Hendon (Dr Offord) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). It has been an excellent debate.

When I was a child, my mother used to pay me half a crown to wash her car each week—you, Mr Speaker, will probably remember it as 12 and a half pence, as half a crown is probably before your time. I used to wash every bit of the car, except for one particular piece at the front, which was about 1 foot square. I kept that as a before and after shot to show my mother what a good job I had done, and I chose that particular spot at the front of the car because it was always covered in thousands of dead insects.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Either the hon. Gentleman’s mother was a notably frugal custodian of the family purse, or, alternatively, the hon. Gentleman is some years older than me. Possibly, the House might conclude, that both of those statements are true.

[Barry Gardiner]

My mother was certainly very frugal, but she did need her car washing every week, and it was, every week, covered in dead insects. Sadly, the cars are no longer covered in thousands of dead insects. We have cleaner cars today, but the insects are gone.

[Mr Heath]

I just wanted to respond to Mr Speaker’s interjection by saying that when I was a boy, half a crown would buy an entire gallon of Somerset cider.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is indicating only how much older he is than I am, and also perhaps that he had more of a penchant for things that my mother certainly would not have allowed me. I was not in any way allowed half a gallon of Somerset cider; half a pint of carrot juice was more like it.

As the insects have disappeared, so have the birds. As the insects continue to disappear, so will the yield from our crops.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Did my hon. Friend see the beautiful article by Caitlin Moran in The Times last Saturday in which she eloquently begged to have bird song back again? She was making the same point as my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know my penchant for whistling around the place, emulating those very birds he wants to return.

The impact on our crops of the insects continuing to disappear has been calculated at more than £600 million a year. Some insecticides that farmers use to increase yield kill not only the insects that destroy the crops, but those that pollinate them. I would welcome a pollinator strategy from the Government—we have a draft strategy—if it is understood that the decline in the ecosystem services that pollinators provide cannot be dealt with unless that is done on an ecosystem-wide basis.

Popular though the campaign may be, this is not just all about the bees, as Members have said. Yes, colony collapse disorder is serious and, yes, the varroa mite is a problem, as are the acarine mite and nosema apis, and fungal diseases such as chalkbrood and stonebrood, but the fundamental problems that have resulted in the decline of pollinators across the board are much more plain and simple. Since the 1930s, 97% of our wild flower meadows have been lost. If one of the fundamental habitats providing a food source to pollinators is taken away, is it any wonder that we see a decline in butterflies, moths, beetles and other pollinators?

I congratulate the whole NGO coalition, especially Buglife and Friends of the Earth, on campaigning extensively for a national pollinator strategy. The NGOs understand this, as does the Environmental Audit Committee in its excellent report. They have spoken clearly about how changes in land management over the past century represent one of the major causes of pollinator loss. The Government should do more than pay them lip service, as they did in their response to the Select Committee’s report. Many of the groups have a larger membership than all the political parties represented in the Chamber put together, and their bee campaigns have involved hundreds of thousands of people devoting their time for our natural environment. That is marvellous, so the Government need to respond positively.

The Government have the power to halt the decline of our natural environment. Delivering a pollinator strategy is a critical part of that, so we should ask what this Government’s record has been. They opposed the European ban on neonicotinoids and supported efforts to undermine it. They said that a ban could cripple the economy, thus ignoring the direct value of pollination services to UK farmers and the natural environment. That was proof, if anyone still needed it, that for this Government the environment and the economy are always seen as being in conflict, although they are not. The Government’s decision to withdraw from a pan-European research project on honey bee decline was further evidence of their allergy to sound science.

They failed to include pollinator-specific measures in their so-called greening of agricultural subsidy in the CAP.

There seems to be a dangerous idea—clung to by some in the Government—that they have to sacrifice our environment and well-being for the sake of achieving short-term economic growth. In fact, economists now tell us that economic growth depends upon natural capital. This Government have acted with absolute consistency against the science and failed to adopt a fully ecosystem-based way of working that displays the true value of the natural capital upon which all growth depends. There are three key decisions that they could have taken: the decision to adopt a science-based policy on insecticides; the decision to acquire new evidence on pollinator decline; and the decision to create space for nature in precisely the way that John Lawton set out in his report.

We need to embrace a new, restorative approach that rebuilds nature and creates a more resilient natural environment for the benefit of wildlife and ourselves. We need coherent ecological networks if we are to conserve wildlife and landscapes that have become fragmented as a result of human activity. An ecological network must be comprehensive enough to hold a suite of high-quality sites that collectively contain the diversity and amount of habitat needed to support species. There must be ecological connections between those sites to enable species—or, in the case of plants, their genes—to move.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being unable to attend the debate from the start because of other duties. When I was Secretary of State, we established “Making space for nature”, and I went with John Lawton to parts of the west midlands to create those important areas. The question is one of joining up to get the landscape scale, and I agree about that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a clear view of what has been achieved thus far.

[Barry Gardiner]

I respect the right hon. Lady, and she will know that I have always tried to give credit where it is due in the Department. I have given credit to her, in particular, for the way she advanced the natural capital approach. However, I think that there are severe lacunas in the Department’s approach and that we need a much more joined-up approach, in relation to implementing an ecosystem-based way of working in the Department and to joining up across Government. I am sure that is a problem she has faced many times in trying to persuade colleagues across Government. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about the importance of planning, for example, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady will have had her own run-ins with DCLG. I hope that she does not feel that the criticisms I am making are unfair.

The Lawton report summarised the step change that the previous Labour Government made in 2006 when we moved to an ecosystem-based approach, which was essential to mainstreaming our conservation priorities across Government. Sir John’s report spoke about the role of insects in the following way. It states that they are

“the little things that make the world work… vital components of natural food chains (as food for larger organisms and as pollinators for example) and many deliver other vital ecosystem services… It would be unwise to assume we can do without them. Basically, what we are doing is unravelling the fabric of nature. These are local examples on one small part of the planet, of the growing, global ‘biodiversity crisis’.”

In their response to the Environment Audit Committee, the Government basically set out a voluntarist approach that asked the House to trust them. They now have a draft of a pollinator strategy. There is an election coming and people want to be seen to be doing something positive. The 2015 general election is unprecedented. For the first time, people will be able to judge all the major parties on what they have recently achieved in government as well as on what they promise in their manifestos. I am confident that there will be a triumph of experience over hope—what Labour actually achieved in government against what the Conservatives and Lib Dems promised and then failed to deliver.

In 2010, the country did not vote for continuity, except in one thing: Labour’s approach to our environment. The coalition said that it was signed up to Labour’s Climate Change Act 2008. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats committed themselves to delivering on the Lawton report and the national ecosystems assessment that we commissioned on the back of it. They even said that they were committed to the Pitt review that Labour had commissioned after the 2007 floods. Well, we saw last winter what had happened to that.

The Environmental Audit Committee has an in-built majority for the Government parties, but on the basis of its environmental scorecard it looked carefully at what this Government have done and gave them a red card on biodiversity. Under this Government, with a Lib Dem responsible for the natural environment, essential work to improve our natural environment has become “green crap”, and we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of a former Secretary of State trawling around the broadcast studios telling all and sundry that he does not believe in half the policies that, as a member of the Cabinet, he was previously responsible for delivering. Unfortunately, this Government’s record on the environment does not lead anyone to trust them. The report, “State of Nature”, and Wildlife and Countryside Link’s report, “Nature Check”, show that the decline in biodiversity is getting worse. That is how we should judge this Minister’s party when it promises to give us a legal target for biodiversity. The Minister must accept that his draft pollinator strategy is neither adequate nor deliverable.

The EAC’s report correctly criticised the Government’s reliance on industry-funded research and voluntary measures. In fact, what it said was damning. It talked of

“excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have no wish to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence or, indeed, the eloquence of his flow, but I feel cautiously optimistic that he is approaching his peroration.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am certainly approaching my conclusion, Mr Speaker—thank you for your guidance.

The Committee talked of

“excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities”

of the industry bodies and said that that was

“symptomatic of a loss of DEFRA’s capacity to deliver its environmental protection obligations”.

There is no point in DEFRA’s merely reviewing the research that the agro-chemicals industry decides it wants to carry out when that is not the research that the public need. DEFRA must set out the type of data it requires and the parameters of such research in order to safeguard the environment. A Labour Secretary of State in DEFRA would set out clearly the need to establish baseline data on the health of our pollinator population and use those data to target a series of measures to reverse the declines in our ecosystem services capacity.

Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This has been a quite extraordinary debate in many ways. Not only have some eminent Members of this House spoken, but the debate has been cross-party and good-natured. I never thought that I would live to see the day when certain Members from different parts of the House would call each other “Friends”. Someone less risk-averse than I am might have referred to Members present as the Yorkshire mafia. I would never dream of doing such a thing, but they have certainly made a powerful case, and I am sure that the Minister has taken note of it. I am also sure that the Prime Minister will have taken note of it before he meets them next week.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), in particular because the topic is not something that he has simply taken up for this debate. His parliamentary questions and previous contributions have focused clearly and repeatedly on moving the debate about flood risk away from rhetoric and on to the simple facts, and that set the debate off on exactly the right tone. I want to pick up on some of those facts: the Government’s capital spending plans up to 2020-21, which will result in a significant increase in the number of properties at risk of flooding; the fact that flood risk is increasing due to climate change; and the fact that the Government’s maintenance spending plans for tidal defences will result in the deterioration of existing flood assets. The issues are serious and it is right that they have been debated so thoroughly this morning. I want to focus primarily on the first two points: increased flood risk and capital investment.

The Government have set out their forward projections for capital investment in flood defences, which say that they will spend £370 million a year in 2015-16 and in every year through to 2020-21. What percentage of that money will be for new-build flood defences, and what will be for major capital repairs and maintenance? The truth is that we do not know. The Government have chosen to use capital spend as a proxy for spending on new flood defences. As a result, many people will think that they are building more defences and defending more properties when in fact, because of climate change and storm damage, they will simply be spending more on major repairs to existing defences. In other words, there may be no increase in the number of defences, or indeed the number of properties and homes defended.

The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change has analysed the claim made by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, that 165,000 properties would be “better protected” in the current spending period. It warns that only a proportion of the 165,000 will actually see their flood risk reduce. Many capital schemes are simply replacing or refurbishing existing defences on a like-for-like basis, and to the same crest height. That is not good enough, for all the reasons that hon. Members have outlined this morning. With climate change, many of the houses will be less well protected than they were when the defences were built. Defences may have been repaired, but the risk that they will be overtopped as a result of changing climate has now increased. Too many homes and properties are still at risk, because the defences that we have are less effective than they once were as a result of the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather.

That is one of the reasons why the UK Statistics Authority is still not satisfied with the Government’s flood spending statistics. The UK Statistics Authority has yet to be satisfied that the Government are telling what it calls the truth about flood defence spending. Needless to say, that makes the job of planning for everyone involved in flood risk management incredibly difficult. The Government’s failure to provide a straight answer to the question of how they plan to reduce flood risk has made effective scrutiny of their policy difficult. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has on previous occasions called for the Government to be more strategic in their interventions, and to stop being

“penny wise and pound foolish”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 570.]

He is exactly right.

The Humber flood risk management strategy produced in 2008 seems to strike the right balance on the basis of the best evidence available at the time. However, we must be clear that the evidence on flood risk has changed rapidly and significantly over the past six years. Let me give an important example: the 2008 strategy states that the Environment Agency considered that it would be necessary to withdraw from 11 of the 33 flood management areas in the Humber plan; those 11 areas contained 1,961 homes in 2008. Significantly, in his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman said that he has been told by the Government that the 2008 numbers in his constituency have increased by more than 1,000 already.

Since 2008 our understanding of how flood risk is changing has increased significantly. The Met Office has stated that what was a one-in-125-days extreme rainfall event is now to be considered as a one-in-85-days event, and that trend is expected to continue. It is also chastening to consider that sea levels in England are rising by around 6 mm per year. The evidence is clear that the risk to the people of the Humber has increased. The simple message is that since 2010, while the assessment of the risks has continued to rise, the Government have chosen to cut investment in flood defences. We need to run simply to hold flood risk at existing levels. The Humber risk assessment must be redone to reflect new evidence on flood risk and the backlog of work that has not been delivered because of the cuts.

The Environment Agency carried out an updated Humber flood risk management strategy in 2011, which makes it clear that more new defences and the improvement of existing defences will be needed, and that more managed realignment of the coast, as well as increased flood storage, will be essential. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) rightly quantified that at £880 million over the next 10 years. The Minister, however, must be clear about who exactly he expects to deliver the strategic approach to flood risk reduction required in the Humber.

Since 2010 the number of Environment Agency staff working to fulfil the statutory consultation role on flood risk has reduced by 40%. The Government have made adapting to future flood risk voluntary for all local authorities. That is not the co-ordinated, long-term, well thought through plan that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) spoke of—he is now, I trust, the toast of the Crown and Anchor pub, to which he referred so liberally. Furthermore, the Government have decided not to implement sustainable urban drainage, which would have required developers and water companies to meet some of the cost. No wonder the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has called for the Government to be more strategic.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am conscious that the Minister needs to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.

Last week, the outgoing head of the Environment Agency used a speech at the RSA—the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—to call for cross-party consensus of the kind that we have seen this morning. That is what we had with the Pitt review: an approach that focused on building the capacity for strategic intervention. There were 92 recommendations, but only 46 were implemented. That approach, however, saw improvements implemented at Brough, Swinefleet, Burringham, Gunness, Stallingborough and Halton Marshes.

Since 2010 many of the projects named in the Humber flood risk management strategy have become stuck in the pipeline, because Government cuts have closed off, and in some cases indefinitely delayed, the available funding for essential projects. Examples include the Sutton Ings flood alleviation scheme, a sustainable drainage retrofit that would have protected an area of central Hull in which there are 2,982 homes at significant risk of flooding. The Ulceby flood alleviation scheme would have protected an area of Grimsby in which 2,164 homes are at significant risk of flooding. We urgently need to get back to an evidence-based flood management policy that all parties in the House can support. Nothing else will deliver the risk management strategy required for the Humber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I will meet Cornwall council tomorrow and we can discuss those issues. I do not know whether my hon. Friend or a member of her staff will be there, but I will be happy to raise any local issues with the council so that we can work through them.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In February, the Prime Minister promised that “money is no object” in the Government’s response to the winter floods. Four months on, only £530,000 has been paid to farmers out of the supposed £10 million available in the farming recovery fund, and only £2,320 has been paid to fishermen out of the supposed £74,000 approved under the support for fishermen fund. Why is that much needed support not getting to the people it is supposed to be helping?

[Dan Rogerson]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing “supposed” about those totals, and the money is there for people to bid for—the key question is encouraging people to do so. My hon. Friends and I, as well as agricultural shows, for example, continue to emphasise that people should apply for that money, and we have simplified the system. Many applications are currently being processed, and I encourage all people eligible for those funds—whether farming, fishing or the other funds I have set out—to apply and make use of that money.

Managing Flood Risk

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What a serious and well-informed debate this is, and what a serious and well-informed speech the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has just made. This has been an excellent debate and I pay tribute to many Members for their contributions, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Totnes about fishermen and the fishing communities. She made a very important point. We often think about farming communities and businesses, but overlook what is happening in the fishing communities. That point was also made in the good debate that we had in Westminster Hall on Wednesday morning, but it was good that the hon. Lady made it again here today.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) made some excellent points about land management and, as is his wont, spoke powerfully about dredging. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) who spoke powerfully about climate change and the recent report, the launch of which he had attended.

It is a rare occasion indeed when one can know with certainty in advance of a debate in this Chamber that there will be absolute unity among all three parties and that the Minister and the shadow Minister will agree with the Chair of the Select Committee and each other about matters under discussion. Today we have what may in other circumstances be called a prenuptial agreement. Before the Minister—and indeed his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—and I were appointed to our current roles, we sat under the watchful eye of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) who introduced this debate most excellently as Chair of the Select Committee. It is the report of that Select Committee that we all discussed, agreed and signed up to.

The question is whether Ministers have effectively translated the views and recommendations of the Select Committee, which we know they believed and accepted before they submitted to the yolk of ministerial office, into effective departmental policy. Have they followed through on what they actually think and have they done what they said was needed? Well, they have not. Here is what the Ministers both know and believe, as set out in the Select Committee report:

“Funding has not kept pace in recent years with an increased risk of flooding from more frequent severe weather events, and the relatively modest additional sums to be provided up to 2020 will not be sufficient to plug the funding gap.”

They signed up to that in the light of the disastrous decision to cut the flood defence budget in 2010. The Labour Government had left a budget of £670 million. After the election, the coalition partners agreed to reduce that current 2010-11 budget to just £573 million.

[Mr Blunt]

Labour may have left a budget, but the problem is it did not leave any money.

[Barry Gardiner]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, because he speaks from personal experience. None the less, the Prime Minister is saying now that money is no object. Many people who have been affected by the floods may feel that it would have been better to say that that money should have been spent not on clearing up the mess but on preventing the flooding from being so devastating in the first place by ensuring that the defences were in place.

[Mr Blunt]

The point is that it is pretty remarkable that the Government, faced with the financial circumstances of 2010, managed to sustain capital expenditure on flood defences. Having experienced the pressures inside Government, and seen what was being demanded of other Departments, I think that that was a fairly remarkable achievement.

[Barry Gardiner]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the figures belie that. In 2011-12, there was a budget of £573 million; in 2012-13, £576 million; and in 2013-14, £577 million. The budget for 2014-15 is £615 million. Over the four-year spending period, the Government have allocated just £2.34 billion to flood defences, compared with £2.37 billion over the previous spending period. Those figures are not the ones that the Prime Minister used two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions, but they are the ones set out clearly by the independent Committee on Climate Change in its policy note on 21 January, used by the House of Commons Library in its briefing on flood defence spending and set out by the UK Statistics Authority just six days ago. They can even be corroborated on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the correction it had to put out after the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister both “mis-spoke”. As the UK Statistics Authority reported last week, the flood defence budget has seen a real-terms cut of £247 million in this spending period. The Committee was absolutely clear about the risk from the reduction of flood defence funds. Last October, in their official response to the report, the Government said:

“In the context of the wider need to pay down the deficit, we believe this is an excellent outcome and demonstrates the priority this Government attaches to managing flood risk.”

Well, yes, it certainly does.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the hon. Gentleman not falling into the trap that I referred to earlier? Successive Governments have been too focused on physical structures that may well fail and need to be repaired. We need to have a better balance between capital expenditure and the revenue maintenance expenditure and to look to sources of funding other than local or national Government.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady will recall my own contributions to the report. I was very keen that we put far more reliance on green infrastructure, and I will come on to that a little later. She will know that the Committee’s report was absolutely clear about the importance of partnership funding. Of course she will recognise—I think she did remark on it in the House a few days ago—that the £148 million that the Government had originally included in their spending figures when Ministers mis-spoke on this issue has not in fact been produced. It was actually £67 million of partnership funding that has been produced, not the £148 million that they counted for the period.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am under pressure of time, so I will proceed.

Let us be clear: the Government need to do two things. They need to construct more flood defences that will bring more homes and properties into a lower risk of flooding, but they also need to maintain those new and existing flood defences in proper condition so that they continue to provide protection. Unhelpfully, the Government chose to categorise all major maintenance or repair work to existing flood defences as capital spend. Uniquely in the debate so far, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton alluded to that point.

I want to make two points in that connection. First, it is not sensible to increase the new build flood defences without a corresponding increase in the budget for major repairs. In the interests of transparency, the Government need to disaggregate the element of their capital spend budget that is for new defences and the part that is for the major repair and maintenance of assets. Secondly, as the Government have used the capital spend as a proxy for spending on flood defences, they might confuse people who think that they are building more defences when, in fact, because of climate change and storm damage, they are simply spending more on major repairs to existing defences. In other words, there may be no increase in the number of defences or, indeed, the number of properties and homes defended, just an ever-increasing capital repair bill to maintain them. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made that point earlier.

It is therefore important that we examine the fine detail of the EA’s budget in this respect. In a policy note of 21 January, the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change did precisely that. All its figures are based on real terms, according to 2010 prices. The capital is lower in every year of this Government than when they started with £360 million in 2010-11. The figure falls to £261 million in 2011-12 and to £269 million in 2012-13, before rising slightly to £294 million in 2013-14, and finally, at £344 million, falling £16 million short of where it started in 2014-15. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) noted in her speech to the House last week, those spreadsheet figures translate into real projects. The loss of £274 million has resulted in 290 shovel-ready projects being cancelled and 996 being delayed.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am quite happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman on the generalities when I come to make my main remarks, but the specific number of schemes that he is referring to, which has been mentioned in, for example, articles in The Guardian newspaper, relate to medium-term projects that were in no way shovel-ready. They are schemes that are in the pipeline and that are being assessed. They are projects that will come forward for delivery when they are assessed as being at the stage when that can happen. That is not the same as saying that they are shovel-ready.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sorry; the Minister is wrong on that point. The 290 projects that I referred to are those that were shovel-ready and scheduled within that four-year period; the 996 projects are the ones that were not. Significantly, 13 of those schemes were in the north-east Thames valley, where more than 350 homes have been flooded, and 67 of them were in the south-west, where 100 homes have been flooded.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the further point at Prime Minister’s questions that the EA is planning to make 550 flood defence posts redundant. I specifically questioned the Minister in the Westminster Hall debate last week on whether those redundancies will go ahead. He was pressed for time in his summing up and was unable to explain how he considered that the EA could give people the sort of assistance that we have seen over the past two months and to which many hon. Members have paid tribute this afternoon, and I join them in doing so. How will the EA do that with 550 fewer staff? Today, I ask him to tell the House what roles the people in those posts currently perform. Are some of them the people who actually manage the flows of water in the waterways, by monitoring and operating the sluice gates, the weirs, the locks and the pumps? Do they include the people who survey and assess the condition of flood defences. Do they include the people who prepare the maintenance schedules for those defences? Do they include any of the people who have been helped with the clear-up operations? What is of enormous concern is that those skills and expertise might be lost with these redundancies, with the corresponding loss of service and safety to the public in the future.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am afraid that I cannot give way because I have to give the Minister time to respond. I have given way quite a lot.

Now the Government have set out their forward projects for capital, by saying that they will spend £370 million a year in 2015-16 and every year through to 2021. The Minister needs to be open with the House today about what percentage of that money in each year will be used for new build flood defences and what will be used for major capital repairs and maintenance. The Committee on Climate Change has been astute in analysing the figure of 165,000 properties that the Secretary of State told our Select Committee were “better protected” in the current spending period when he gave evidence to us last year. It warns that flood risk will actually reduce only for a proportion of the 165,000 properties. Many capital schemes are simply replacing or refurbishing existing defences on a like-for-like basis and to the same crest height. With climate change, many of those homes will be less well protected than when the defences were originally built. The defence may have been repaired, but the risk that it will be overtopped as a result of climate change has increased. Far too many homes and properties are still at risk because the defences that we have are less effective than they once were because of the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out in his op-ed for The Daily Telegraph just over a week ago:

“Investment in flood defences is now £500 million below what is needed and this risks £3 billion in avoidable flood damage”.

The point that he makes is as simple as it is clear:

“we need to make long term decisions now that can save money in the future”.

He has promised that our zero-based review of public spending must not only eliminate waste and inefficiencies but

“prioritise preventative spending that can save money in the long-term.”

That is the sort of commitment that people get when they have a Chancellor who understands the science of climate change, rather than one whose guru is the chief climate change denier in the other place.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on Wednesday last week, the assessment of how much to invest in flood defence depends significantly on an assessment of the risks posed by man-made climate change. If we are properly to protect the British people against the threat of flooding, we cannot have doubt and confusion within the Government on climate change. But doubt and confusion are what we have from the two Secretaries of State in charge of protecting our homes, infrastructure and industry. The Environment Secretary’s unscientific opinions on climate change and his refusal to be briefed by his chief scientist on the subject are a matter of public record, as is his decision to downgrade flood defence as a priority. The link is clear.

The confusion reached a new height last Wednesday when the Communities Secretary, given the opportunity to show some scientific understanding and rigour, chose instead to cite Lord Lawson. The noble Lord’s dangerous, unscientific opinions on climate science are well known and have no place in the Government, let alone in the answers from a Secretary of State with responsibility for flooding. The fact that the Prime Minister has refused to distance himself from those comments shows that the Government cannot be trusted to get this right. The Met Office has been very clear that such extreme weather events as we have seen are only likely to become more severe and more frequent.

Is the Environment Secretary still refusing to entertain a briefing from his chief scientist on climate science? Will the Minister at least put his own opinion on the record? Does he accept the climate change risk analysis prepared by his officials, which estimates that 1 million properties may be at serious risk of flooding by 2020? Up from the current figure of 370,000, that 1 million estimate includes 800,000 homes. If so, will he tell us whether his Department’s flood insurance proposal—Flood Re—takes account of those additional properties? The Committee on Climate Change adaptation sub-committee has warned that it does not.

The Minister will know that Lord Krebs, as chair of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change, wrote to the Secretary of State in January and made it clear that the committee was available to the Department to ensure that sound science was the basis for all the Government’s long-term funding decisions on flood defences. Will the Secretary of State accept that offer?

I wish to identify one of the most fundamental recommendations made by the Select Committee in its excellent report. The Committee stated:

“We regret that the current regulatory framework does not permit innovative investment in natural flood defences by water companies and expect Ofwat’s next Price Review to rectify this.”

All too often, we reach for concrete and steel solutions to the problem of flooding instead of looking at soft, green infrastructural approaches. There are notable exceptions, and Wessex Water, for example, operates a catchment management system that pays landowners to manage the uplands in a benign way that retains water and purifies it, instead of allowing contaminated water in need of treatment to run swiftly down the catchment. Land management plays a vital role. The retention of flood water upstream through woodland and ground cover in the uplands is every bit as important as dredging in the lower levels of the catchment. Landowners always seek to dredge the river as it passes through their land. That is the quickest way to try to ensure that their own land is not flooded and the problem is passed downstream. This approach was contained in the Pitt review under recommendation 27. When will this most important element of flood risk management, adverted to in the Select Committee report, be implemented?

Weather Events (South West England)

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This debate has been absolutely excellent. I pay tribute to and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing it and on posing serious questions about the Government’s handling of the floods. I echo his remarks praising the officers of the Environment Agency and the emergency services for their work in assisting people throughout the crisis. I also echo the remarks of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) about volunteers and the extraordinary generosity that they have shown, giving up their time and energy to help people out.

It is clear that the Government have failed to take the risk of flooding in the UK seriously—right from the moment they first came into office, when they cut the flood defence budget in 2010. The Labour Government had left a budget of £670 million. After the election, the coalition partners agreed to reduce the 2010-11 budget to just £573 million. The figures for each year since then have been £576 million for 2012-13 and £577 million for 2013-14. The Government have budgeted for £615 million for 2014-15. Over the four-year spending period, this Government will have spent just £2.34 billion on flood defences, compared with the £2.37 billion that the Labour Government spent in the previous spending period.

Those figures are not the ones that the Prime Minister used two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but they are the ones set out clearly by the independent Committee on Climate Change in its policy note. They are also the ones used by the House of Commons Library in its briefing on flood defence spending in England, and the ones set out just yesterday by the UK Statistics Authority, which says that the Government have cut £247 million in real terms from the floods budget. Those figures can be corroborated on the Department’s website in the correction that it had to put out under the Minister’s guidance after the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister both misspoke.

Of course, the Prime Minister has now said that he will spend whatever it takes, but the people of the south-west of England will think that it might have been better to spend whatever it took to prevent the tragedy, rather than to pay to mop up the mess afterwards. It is important to be clear that the additional funding is expected to be a temporary boost from the Department’s contingency reserves and will primarily be spent on repairing and reinstating defences damaged since the east coast surge in early December.

Funding allocated to emergency response and the repair and reinstatement of damaged defences will not protect more homes and businesses. Ministers must be clear on that. Those who have seen their homes and businesses flooded and cut off over the past few months deserve clarity from Ministers. It is right that additional funding should be spent on urgent repairs, but Ministers must not suggest that that alters the fact that the Government’s downgrading of flooding has created a crisis in the funding of our essential flood defences.

The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), has been clear in pointing out that it was a mistake for the Secretary of State to downgrade flooding as one of his Department’s key priorities when he came into office, which became all too evident as the flood waters arrived in people’s living rooms before sandbags arrived at their front doors.

The initial response to the floods was slow and disorganised. The Prime Minister remained disengaged from the worsening crisis for far too long, and finally took charge of Cobra only when two of his Secretaries of State had apparently clashed over the Government’s attempt to blame anyone and everyone but themselves.

The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), challenged the Prime Minister at the last Prime Minister’s Question Time about the redundancy process currently under way at the Environment Agency. The Prime Minister said that we need to spend whatever it takes, but he was strangely reluctant to give any assurance that that included spending to save the 550 jobs that the EA has currently earmarked for redundancy in the area of flood management. Perhaps in his summing up, the Minister could update the House as to whether those redundancies will be going ahead. If he cannot, perhaps he can advise how he considers the EA may be able to give people the sort of assistance we have seen over the past two months in the future with 550 fewer staff.

What roles do the people in those posts currently perform? Are some of them the people who manage the flows of water in the waterways by monitoring and operating the sluice gates, weirs, locks and pumps? Do they include the people who survey and assess the condition of the flood defences or any of the people who have been helping with the clear-up operations? If the Minister cannot advise us in that much detail now, will he kindly agree to set out clearly to the House in a letter or a written statement precisely what skills and expertise may be lost with the redundancies and how it is proposed that there will be no corresponding loss of service and safety to the public in the future if they go ahead?

The Prime Minister also claimed that there would be a fund to pay affected home owners and businesses up to £5,000 to build in better flood protection as they repair their properties. The Minister will recall that one of the amendments that we tabled when the Water Bill was in Committee was to insert a resilient repair clause in the Government’s proposed flood reinsurance scheme, Flood Re. Given that the Prime Minister now believes that that is a good idea, is it proposed that a Government amendment similar to ours will be tabled, even at this late stage?

The House will recall that after the floods disaster of 2007, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the then Prime Minister, set up the Pitt review. The report presents an astonishingly detailed and comprehensive series of 92 recommendations, which, taken together, represent a blueprint for the management of flood risk. However, less than 18 months after the coalition was formed in 2010, the Government stopped producing progress reports on the implementation of the recommendations, despite the fact that half of them were still not fully implemented. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood in her urgent question on 10 February, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government gave the extraordinary reply that she seemed to be “obsessed by process” and claimed that he was

“more concerned…to deal with the problem of flooding.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 565.]

Does the Minister accept that the best way to deal with the problem of flooding is to get on with the process of delivering on the 46 Pitt recommendations that are still outstanding?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has rightly asked for confirmation that a full assessment will be made of the resilience of transport networks against future flood risk, and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who spoke passionately about the needs of her constituency, was at one with him on those points. Everyone in the south-west who was affected by the severe travel disruption caused by the destruction of the Dawlish line will want to know that future Government plans have taken full account of the increased risk of flooding in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the shadow Transport Secretary, has questioned why the £31 million originally allocated for rail resilience against floods, first promised to the south-west in 2013, failed to materialise in the autumn statement. More importantly, why was it subsequently re-announced this year as if it were new funding? That seems to be another example of deliberate obfuscation by the Government, who again and again put rhetoric before reality. Will the Minister update the House on what consideration the Government have given to the Opposition proposals for easing overcrowding in the south-west and ensuring that more passengers reach their destination? The Government should require all train operators to declassify first-class carriages in the event of delays or cancellations due to severe weather. When will that be done?

Perhaps the most worrying thing of all is the Government’s apparent reluctance to accept and act on climate science. The Met Office has made it clear that such extreme weather events as there have been are likely only to become more severe and more frequent. Has the Secretary of State still refused to entertain a briefing from his chief scientific adviser on climate science?

Will the Minister, who is, I know, very good on such matters, at least put his own views on the record? Does he accept the climate change risk analysis prepared by his own officials, which estimates that 1 million properties may be at serious risk of flooding by 2020? That is an increase on the current figure of 370,000. The 1 million estimate includes 800,000 homes. If he accepts it, will he tell us whether his Department’s flood insurance proposals under Flood Re take account of the additional properties? The Committee on Climate Change adaptation sub-committee has warned that they do not.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Environment Agency is notified of the decisions made in all planning applications where it has lodged an objection on the grounds of flood risk? At the moment, he will be aware that in one third of all such cases the local authority fails to notify the EA of the outcome. The suspicion is that local authorities that refuse an application are happy to notify the agency that they have taken its advice, but are less keen to report back to it when they have ignored it. The Minister cannot expect the EA to prepare adequate flood defences if it is not notified when properties are built in a flood risk area against its express advice. It should be necessary for the local planning authority to give notification in every case where the Environment Agency has lodged an objection on flood risk grounds.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made detailed and pertinent remarks about the importance of the fishing industry, and what he said was appropriate. We often consider farmers’ and businesses’ needs after disruption of the kind that has happened recently, but hon. Members all too seldom speak in this Chamber about the needs of the fishing community. The hon. Gentleman spoke passionately and well.

Finally, what is the Minister doing with his colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that proper catchment management plans and shoreline management plans make better use of natural processes? Land management plays a vital role, and the retention of flood water upstream through woodland and ground cover in the uplands is every bit as important as dredging in the lower levels of the catchment. Landowners will always seek to dredge the river as it passes through their land. That is the quickest way to try to ensure that their own land is not flooded and the problem is passed downstream, but under a proper catchment management plan it may be considered better to flood agricultural land upstream than to endanger an entire village at lower levels. That integrated approach was recommended in the Pitt review under recommendation 27. When will that most important element of flood risk management be properly implemented?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter once again on introducing this important debate. I congratulate all the hon. Members who spoke. It was an exemplary debate, and I look to the Minister for some clear answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady will be aware that colleagues in the Wales Office and the Treasury will lead on how the Barnett formula operates, but if she would like to write to me or other Ministers with specific questions, I am sure we will get back to her.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept his Department’s climate change risk assessment that up to 1 million more properties, including 825,000 homes, are likely to be at risk of flooding by 2020? If he does, why is funding for flood protection £63.5 million less in the current year than in 2010, even after last week’s budget changes? What is the implication for the Government’s Flood Re insurance scheme, which the Committee on Climate Change has warned him does not factor in the impact of climate change at all?

[Dan Rogerson]

The view of Lord Krebs’s sub-committee on Flood Re is being debated in another place. I have been ensuring that, as Flood Re goes forward, it takes account of extreme weather events and factors involving climate change. As I have set out, the Government will be investing more in flood defences than any previous Government, given our spending review deal on capital investment. In the first four years of this Parliament, we have spent more on flood defences than the previous Government did in their last four years in office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and he is right to say that we cannot ignore this disease, as the previous Government did. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the Republic of Ireland. I met Simon Coveney, the Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, at the Oxford Farming Conference, and he told me that thanks to the policies adopted by the Republic of Ireland, the disease there is at its lowest level since records began.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has delivered an unscientific cull that has spectacularly failed, that his own Back Benchers are openly questioning, that has weakened the reputation of DEFRA and Natural England for evidence-based policy, and from which the Prime Minister’s office is reported to be working up an escape plan. Will he now commit to bring the report of the independent expert panel to this House for a debate in Government time, and put to a vote any further proposals on badger culling?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question but I remind him that last time this issue came before the House, the Government had a good majority of 61. I am not prepared to put any pressure on the independent panel; it is up to it to take its time to evaluate the evidence and report to us, and we will come back in due course.

Fishing Industry

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to respond to the many excellent speeches that have been made by Members across the Chamber. I, too, would like to begin by paying my respects to all those who have lost their lives over the past year in our fishing communities and in the wider service given on the seas, in the coastguards, other coastal agencies and the maritime fleet. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who introduced the debate so well, and to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who served as an excellent fisheries Minister over the past few years and negotiated many important developments in European fisheries during his tenure.

The EU is the world’s largest maritime territory, and marine resource makes a significant contribution to our prosperity and social well-being. The marine environment must therefore be protected to ensure that it is healthy, productive and safeguarded for the use of future generations. We are stewards of a renewable resource, rather than miners of a finite one, and we would do well to remember that. Many of the threats to Europe’s marine resource require co-operation and collective action if they are to be tackled effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke about the need for regional control to lead logically to national control, but unfortunately I do not share his view, because effective co-operation is needed if we are to manage the resource responsibly and through the ecosystem-based approach that the marine stewardship framework directive suggests. Our seas and oceans border many nations and unfortunately fish do not carry passports, so they must be managed on an ecosystem basis.

The marine stewardship framework directive outlines a transparent legislative framework for that ecosystem-based approach. In essence, it states the need for each nation to develop, in co-operation with others, marine strategies to be implemented to protect and conserve the marine environment, to prevent its deterioration and, where practicable, to restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected. Those marine strategies must, in accordance with the directive, contain an initial assessment of the current environmental status of the member state’s marine waters. They must contain a determination of what good environmental status means for those waters.

Many Members have referred to the fact that sound science is often lacking, that there are steps that we might like to take but we do not know whether we have the scientific basis upon which to proceed. That is why it is absolutely critical that those elements of the strategies that the framework directive calls for are implemented. Without that sound science base, it is extremely difficult to see how we can move forward.

I want to talk about what has been referred to as the discard ban, which of course is not yet coming in. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—many Members have referred to its briefing document—has highlighted serious concerns about the ban. It mentions recent research published in green policy and fisheries research that shows that the ban, in isolation, will generate little economic incentive to operate more selectively. It has also been suggested that the additional quota provided to enable the landing of by-catch could be too large for certain modern vessels and too small for less technologically advanced vessels. Unfortunately, some people appear to place more emphasis on the need to enlarge quota to deal with the landing obligation and to focus on the measures designed to eliminate by-catch in the first place. We heard some good examples from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) about selective gear and net mesh size, which can do just that. Also, ultimately, that could be done by trading quota.

The NFFO has focused on the fish species that in some cases have shown significant recovery over the past few years—referred to as the “good news” by some Members. Hake, haddock and herring have all shown some recovery, which is testimony to the technological capability of the industry and its efforts to fish more sustainably when required to do so. I think that it is also a vindication of the role that the quota system has played. The fact that stocks are recovering should not be taken as an excuse to say that the quota system should now be disbanded; they are recovering precisely because the quota system has been effective.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will happily give way. I must counsel the hon. Gentleman that I am not the Minister, although I am grateful for the accolade.

[Jim Shannon]

We have great designs for the hon. Gentleman.

Does the shadow Minister not share my concern, and that of many Members of the House, about the difference between the scientific evidence and the claims of those in the fishing industry who say that there are more fish in the sea?

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentlemen’s concern about the lack of scientific evidence. Indeed, I opened my remarks by saying that is one of the key problems. If we are going to base our policy on sound science, we need to establish what that science is. I refer him to his own remarks about Irish sea cod. He talked about the need simply to roll over the TAC in relation to Irish sea cod. However, the NFFO guidance on that states:

“A decade of draconian measures which have cut TACs, restricted days-at-sea, imposed tightened landing controls, introduced more selective gear and decommissioned a significant part of the fleet and obliged most fishermen to divert to alternative fisheries, has failed to generate the kind of recovery of cod seen in the North and Celtic seas.”

If it has failed to generate that recovery and the stocks are still in such a low state, it does not make sense to say, “Well, heck. Let’s just proceed anyway” and bust through any attempt to get the stocks back into a reasonable condition.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—he is being very gracious. The facts are that the sentinel fishery is an experimental fishery for the past two years, and the indications show that last year cod numbers were back in the sea, and this year shows even more evidence of that. That is what the fishermen are seeing and that is what the scientific evidence now shows, but that is not in the report. I wish that it was, because the opinion would be completely different from what the hon. Gentleman has referred to. The report is not up to date.

[Barry Gardiner]

I would have to rely on the Mandy Rice-Davies defence—“They would say that, wouldn’t they?” The point is that anecdote is not the basis of sound policy. We have to establish the facts. I am as keen to establish them as the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, the fishermen in his community. Once we have established the facts, we can proceed with certainty.

[Mr MacNeil]

When politicians talk about science, in reality, as we have just seen with mackerel, the science has followed what is happening. The ICES advice for the increase in TAC in 2014 is a 65% to 79% increase, which in effect is only a 3% increase in what was caught in 2013 owing to fishermen in other states having a certain view of what was happening in the sea. Another issue—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—is that there are other areas where there is a cod recovery plan in operation but where there were no cod anyway. However, because of the catch compositions the cod recovery plan is leading to the dumping of haddock, and as haddock are being dumped and not landed, consumers will have to choose anther fish, and they will choose cod, so the plan will have the opposite effect to the one intended.

[Barry Gardiner]

It is important to remember that for every hour spent fishing nowadays—in boats bristling with the latest satellite technology to identify the movement of the stocks, with all the modern gear on board—fishers now land just 6% of what they did 120 years ago.

Of course, fishermen always want to maximise their catch, and rightly so—they are business men—but we have to recognise that the loss of our fishing communities up and down the coastline of Britain has happened because of overfishing. There is no getting away from that fact. We have to put in place a regime that can restore biomass and maximum sustainable yield but also ensure that we get to the point where those communities have secure jobs and secure economic benefits because we have enough fish for everyone.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

Very briefly, because I do not want to deprive the Minister of time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend has made a very powerful point about the number of fish being caught. Surely excluding from our waters the vessels of other member states that overfish, which we cannot control, has to come first before we start to manage our own fishing industry.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber when I responded to that point, which he made earlier. Perhaps if he wants to catch up with that in Hansard we will not delay the proceedings further.

We must take a science-based approach to quota allocation and we must have a clear goal of delivering a diverse and abundant marine environment that can sustain stronger economic growth and deliver more jobs for Britain’s fishing community. It is essential that fishers are able to respond to the changes in the abundance of their quarry. The quota system can clearly create barriers to more sustainable, responsive fishing practices, but I am not persuaded that calls for an increase in total allowable catch and quota are based on adequate evidence or are compatible with the recovery of Britain’s fisheries and the long-term economic health of Britain’s fishing communities.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) stated the need for a greater share of the quota for the under-10 metre fleet. He made that case absolutely superbly. Although I have screeds that I would wish to have said about it, he has made the case and I do not need to do so.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) spoke of the science base. Everything comes back to that: we must follow the science. The difficulty is that often proceeding on the basis of anecdote and surmise is the only thing that we have. There are very few examples of scientific evidence being gathered both pre and post-fishing activity. A happy exception is found in the study, “Long-term changes in deep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic”—a paper published in the proceedings of the Royal Society in 2009.

This week, unfortunately, the proposed European ban on deep-sea fishing, which aimed to phase out trawling below 600 metres, was defeated. Trawling below that level is recognised by scientists as being by far the most destructive fishing activity. In line with its work on a more sustainable EU common fisheries policy, this matter has been very much on the European Parliament’s agenda. The Minister may care to explain why his Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament joined forces with other groups to vote down the ban and also voted to delay progress on the draft legislation, meaning that better conservation measures for deep-sea species are unlikely to be taken forward until after the 2014 European elections.

Deep-sea trawlers are catching top predators first and then moving down the food web. Taking away the top predator from an ecosystem risks a significant, possibly irrevocable, destabilisation because it removes species that play a regulatory role affecting the entire food web. The key target species in deep-sea fisheries include round-nosed grenadier, black scabbard and orange ruffy, but for these three, and up to perhaps another seven, target species for deep-sea trawlers, some 78 species are being caught as by-catch. These deep-sea species tend to be longer lived. The orange ruffy lives for up to 100 years and reaches maturity only at the age of 30. Catching these species can completely destabilise the ecosystem.

The science shows that before commercial deep-sea trawling commenced, the abundance of fish per sq km was 25,000 fish, but afterwards it collapsed to 7,225 fish per sq km. Equally of concern is that the decline was not localised in the fished area of 52,000 sq km but extended to 142,000 sq km—an area two and three quarter times that of the area that had been fished by deep-sea trawling. This is a desperately serious problem.

Finally, I want to talk about marine conservation zones, because they have been—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s “Finally” is a brief one, because he has already spoken for 16 minutes. We have another debate and we have not heard the Minister yet, so I do not want an extensive discussion of marine conservation zones.

[Barry Gardiner]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In deference to your ruling, and because I too wish the Minister to have the opportunity to respond, I will conclude my remarks. I apologise for taking more time on interventions than perhaps I should have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

On spurdogs and porbeagles, we recognise that there is a particular challenge whereby there is a zero TAC or a very low TAC. One thing we will argue is that that needs to be loosened. On landings obligations, we cannot have a situation whereby, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, short of eating the catch on the boat, it would not be possible to do much with it. We believe that that needs to be looked at and we will do so.

A number of Members mentioned the mackerel dispute. I am concerned about the continued lack of an agreement on the management of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock. It is the UK’s most important single fishery. I continue to hope that we might be able to get an agreement to end this long-running dispute, but we have been clear—I set this out at the October Council—that it will not be a deal at any cost. We do not want new fishing access rights in our waters and we believe that Norway should do its share. Negotiations are ongoing and we hope there will be an outcome. With a 70% increase in the TAC, it is important that this is the best opportunity we will have to get a solution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the issue of the under-10 metre fleet. I can confirm that this is an important domestic priority for the Government. I have met members of the under-10 metre fleet, as well as the producer organisations, and we are keen to see a permanent realignment of the quota to help the fleet. I also recognise the uncertainty they face with month-to-month access to quota. There have been some novel schemes whereby they have been able to pull together their resources in, for instance, Ramsgate and have quota allocated over a longer time frame. We are keen to make progress on that.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned monitoring under the marine strategy framework directive whereby we can get good environmental status. I can confirm that we will announce a consultation on that in the new year.

Finally, I will trot through some of the other points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned the importance of an EU-Norway deal. We absolutely recognise that, particularly the importance of access rights to Norwegian waters for much of the Scottish fleet. This sort of delay is not unusual—it happened last year and it has also happened in previous years—but we will press for the negotiations to begin early in the new year. Of course, there will be a provisional quota allocation to take account of the fact that there is no agreed TAC.

On the survivability element of the landing obligation, I have talked quite a bit about how the landing obligation will work. There will be exemptions for species that have good survivability rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, it is important that we are able to return those fish that have a good survival rate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Waveney spoke about the importance of trying to identify new markets for less fashionable fish. I agree that more can be done on that. In my constituency, a firm called Falfish markets pouting to the French, so there are sometimes export markets for some fish species.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned points made by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I confirm that I met Paul Trebilcock just this week, as well as representatives of the NFFO. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Neptune project, and the way in which we can get better co-operation between science and fishermen.

My hon. Friend mentioned the minimum landing size for bass. We remain committed to trying to develop that point at European level. One problem at the moment is that most of the bass is taken by the French fleet, so our having a minimum landing size unilaterally would not necessarily help very much. However, that is one measure for which we shall push at European level. We have also called for the closure of some spawning grounds to allow the stock to recover because, as he said, ICES has highlighted a particular problem on that front.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the EFF. I look forward to discussions with Scotland and devolved Assemblies elsewhere about the allocation of such funds. Scotland is still getting slightly more than England at the moment, so the situation is not all bad, but we will look at that. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, we shall indeed roll over the EFF for another year during 2014.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall highlighted an issue that she has raised many times about the nought to 12-mile zone. It has always been a key priority for the UK to retain such a derogation during reform of the CFP, and that has been achieved. It is, however, important to recognise that the UK also benefits from historical access rights in the six to 12-nautical mile zone in Ireland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. We have to be careful about changing the approach too much, because we sometimes benefit from fishing in the waters of other countries.

My hon. Friend’s more ambitious point about the 200-mile zone, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Luton North, is beyond the scope of what we are now talking about. She may want to submit it to the balance of competences review.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister address the point about deep-sea trawling, and the measures he will take?

[George Eustice]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I was not avoiding the subject. On deep-sea trawling, we took the view that the European Parliament’s proposal of an outright ban was quite blunt. We recognise that there are issues, and we want to consider changing management measures and a different approach, but we do not believe that an outright ban on deep-sea trawling is the right way to proceed. Contrary to what he has said, the fact that a motion for that has been defeated opens the door to sensible negotiations on the type of management measures we want to see, and we will certainly press for that.