Lowestoft Tidal Flood Barrier

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

As I will highlight, we must not forget that some coastal areas face devastating flood risk problems too. They might not emerge quite as often as fluvial floods, but their impact on communities is very real. I will highlight the 1953 flood, which is still remembered vividly right along the East Anglian coast.

The second point the National Infrastructure Commission raised was that the existing catchment flood management plans and shoreline management plans should be updated to take into account the commission’s new standards and should set out long-term plans for flood risk management. Thirdly, it argued that currently—at the beginning of 2020—the Government should be putting in place a rolling six-year funding programme in line with the funding profile the commission set out. This would enable the efficient delivery of projects addressing the risks from all sources of flooding. It is vital that when these improvements to the country’s flood defences are made—this comes back to the point the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised—coastal communities are not overlooked. Storm surges, such as those in 1953 along the East Anglian coast and more recently in 2013, have a terrible impact from which it can take communities a long time to recover—some never do.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I commend, as always, my hon. Friend’s tremendous advocacy for his constituents, and I am delighted that that was so well reflected in the election result in his constituency. Does he agree that the wider economic damage done by the tidal surges in East Anglia can be felt for many years and have an economic impact on businesses in his constituency, many of which have employees who live in central Suffolk and elsewhere? It is particularly important that the Government take note of this as they seek to support economic growth in and protect the economy of the east of England and Lowestoft.

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend is right that these storms can have a devastating impact on homeowners and businesses, but that the supply chains of those businesses extend far outside Lowestoft into places such as his constituency.

The 1953 floods caused devastation and loss of life all the way down the east coast—not least in Lowestoft, where the Beach Village, known locally as the Grit, ultimately had to be pulled down and made way for industrial development. Hundreds of families lost not only their homes, but their families’ fishing heritage. The 2013 storm surge, which I shall describe in more detail shortly, thankfully did not have the same impact, primarily because we have better defences than we did 60 years ago, and because we were warned. However, there is a sense in Lowestoft that we “escaped by the skin of our teeth”, and that next time we will not be so lucky.

The needs of coastal communities have been highlighted by the Committee on Climate Change. It has pointed out that coastal communities, infrastructure and landscapes in England are already under considerable pressure from flooding and erosion; that 520,000 properties in England are located in areas that are at risk of damage from coastal flooding; that damages as a result of flooding and erosion amount to an average of more than £260 million per year; and that coastal management around the country is covered by patchwork legislation. In short, we need to do better.

On 5 December 2013, a storm surge caused havoc down the east coast. Lowestoft was one of the worst-affected communities, as I highlighted in another Adjournment debate in the Chamber later that month. In the Lowestoft and Oulton Broad area, 158 residential and 233 commercial properties were flooded, including 90 residential and 143 commercial properties in the low-lying central area of Lowestoft. In addition, tidal flooding resulted in the closure of key transportation links, including Lowestoft railway station, the A47 through Lowestoft and the A12 to the south. Lowestoft was essentially cut off.

The impact on many people and their properties was dramatic. In Levington Court, which provides housing and care for vulnerable older people, 19 flats on the ground floor were evacuated. Residents’ possessions were lost, and they did not return to their homes until several months later. In the nearby Fyffe Centre, which provides accommodation for the homeless, 27 people had to leave. Again, it took many months to refurbish and repair the property.

In adjoining residential areas, including St John’s Road and Marine Parade, many properties were hard hit, including homes in the rental sector. Some people lost all their possessions, which in many cases were not insured. The community rallied round superbly to support them, but full compensation—and I do not mean just financial compensation—can never be provided for the loss of belongings and possessions that can mean so much personally.

Businesses were badly hit, including the Ling’s car showroom, East Coast Cinema—Britain’s most easterly cinema—and Buyaparcel. Wetherspoons’ Joseph Conrad pub in Station Square was badly damaged, and traders in Bevan Street East, close to the town centre, were dealt particularly savage blows. The doctor’s surgery in Marine Parade had to move, and has never returned.

The challenges of rising sea levels and climate change mean that such events will take place more frequently. Sea levels along the Suffolk coast have been rising by 2.4 mm per annum since the 1950s. In Lowestoft, research carried out by Halcrow and BAM Nuttall concluded that a 1953-type flood, which was previously considered to be a one-in-1,000-years event, would now take place every 20 years. There is thus a need to move quickly, and to put proper and full flood defences in place as soon as possible. As climate change continues to drive an increase in severe weather events, significant investment in Lowestoft’s infrastructure is required to provide resilience, to facilitate regeneration plans, and to encourage businesses both to grow and to move into the area.

If—although I should say “when”—we get another storm surge, similar to those of 1953 and 2013, the impact on the town could be profound and far-reaching. Not only could many homes and businesses be badly damaged, but vital infrastructure could, in effect, be taken out. That could include 38 electricity substations, three water-pumping stations, one gas facility, and multiple telecommunications and IT assets.

Transport infrastructure could also be impacted, including Lowestoft railway station again. Up to a mile and a quarter of rail track and signals would be submerged, the bascule bridge across the port could be seriously damaged, and two and a half miles of A roads and 30 miles of minor roads could be affected. In addition, vital community assets would be impacted, including three doctors surgeries, two Government buildings, three community centres and facilities, and up to eight schools and colleges. The results would be devastating and people would quite rightly be very angry, pointing a finger at the council, at the Government and at me, saying, “You had advance warning in 2013, why have you not done anything?”

Actually, since 2013, the council has been proactive. It has acquired temporary barriers that have been deployed on two occasions, when thankfully they were not really tested. It has also been hard at work on preparing a scheme that provides Lowestoft, its residents and businesses with the protection and peace of mind they are entitled to expect. The scheme is oven ready and ready to go, but funding has not yet been obtained for its final phase, the provision of the tidal flood barrier. That gap now needs to be filled.

East Suffolk Council, along with Suffolk County Council, Associated British Ports, the Environment Agency and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership have developed a comprehensive flood protection scheme that brings together tidal, fluvial and pluvial flood risks under one umbrella. The project includes the tidal barrier in the outer harbour to the east of the bascule bridge, with tidal walls to the north and south of the barrier. It also includes separate but equally important work to protect a number of properties that have experienced significant flooding, especially in periods of heavy rainfall, along Kirkley stream, in Aldwyck Way and on Long Road. The project will protect vulnerable parts of the town and has strong political and community support.

The Port of Lowestoft is owned by Associated British Ports and this includes the outer harbour. The port is undergoing a period of expansion, primarily as a result of the large number of wind farms either in operation, being constructed or being planned off the East Anglian coast. There is also the exciting prospect, post-Brexit, of a revival of the fishing industry. Lowestoft used to be the fishing capital of the southern North sea—a crown that I hope it will acquire again. The port is strategically well placed to serve the wind farms, both for project management during their construction and for their subsequent operations and maintenance. The port is the main base for the Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm and the East Anglia Array. Last year, Scottish Power opened its new £25 million operations and maintenance base in the Hamilton dock.

The original programme for the construction of the tidal barrier envisaged the port closing for up to six months. It has subsequently become clear that this is not practical, as it would make the port unattractive to current and future wind energy companies and business would be lost that we would never be able to get back. The programme for building the barrier has thus been amended to enable it to be constructed over three short windows each winter, without the necessity of closing the port for any significant period. These plans are now fully developed, but the cost of amending the design and elongating the programme has resulted in the cost of the project rising from approximately £30 million to approximately £70 million. This is the funding gap that now needs to be filled.

There are now three phases to the project. Work on the first two phases—the fluvial and pluvial works, and the tidal walls—will start this year, and the final phase of the flood barrier will be carried out once funding is in place. The project has three particular advantages. First, it is highly innovative. It involves a tidal barrier that will be installed while still accommodating a 24/7 operational port, and it will not impact on the port’s activities. Its delivery will still enable the port to attract new business that will help revitalise the town by bringing new jobs to the area.

Secondly, the need to be low carbon is ingrained in the project’s DNA. East Suffolk Council has made a commitment to carbon neutrality in its procurement procedures and, as such, its existing and future procurement arrangements will reduce the carbon footprint of all new council development. Moreover, the scheme will help to promote the offshore wind industry, which is so important in reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

Finally, there will be a high level of local and UK content. Local businesses have been involved at the design stage, and their participation will be strongly encouraged and promoted during construction. Moreover, once completed, those businesses will be able to grow as part of the offshore renewables sector.

The construction of the Lowestoft flood barrier will be a catalyst for the regeneration of the town, not only for the offshore energy sector but in fishing through the REAF—Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—budget. This is not just a barrier in name, but in its impact: it removes barriers to growth. The overall benefits of the barrier to the town are significant, as the protection provided will remove the risk of flooding, which will allow much-needed regeneration and redevelopment projects to proceed. In the town centre, it will allow new commercial and residential development, which is currently held back due to the risk of flooding.

A study carried out by Mott MacDonald showed that 71% of the current economic value in the town is at risk due to flooding—a significant barrier to jobs and growth creation. The flood defence project reduces the risk to 3% over five years. The Mott MacDonald study also shows that the scheme will support the generation of 3,500 additional direct jobs locally and 8,000 indirect and induced jobs nationally. It will generate an additional £195 million per annum of gross value added. In summary, the barrier will remove barriers to the regeneration of growth in the UK’s most easterly town.

While Lowestoft and the surrounding area are benefiting from the emergence of the offshore wind sector, the opportunity to raise funds from the many developments taking place off the East Anglian coast to improve infrastructure is currently constrained. The coastal communities fund, which is financed by money received by the Treasury from the Crown Estate out of royalties received from the granting of licences for the wind farms, runs until 2021. In reviewing the fund, I ask the Government to consider targeting projects directly related to the offshore wind industry, such as the Lowestoft flood barrier, that will have a significant economic impact.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I have nearly finished.

The Lowestoft tidal flood barrier provides the town’s residents and businesses with the protection and peace of mind that they are entitled to expect. It is also the key to unlocking many great opportunities for the town. I have sought to highlight some of them, and I ask the Minister to set out the pathway that East Suffolk Council and I should pursue to ensure the project secures full funding as soon as practically possible and that we build the Lowestoft tidal flood barrier without delay.

Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries Study

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall cover a lot of the issues that he has raised in my speech, but I will highlight two things immediately. First, he is correct to say that, with the opportunity to land more fish in UK ports, the whole of the country and particularly our coastal communities could benefit. Secondly, the point I will be making is that although the REAF report is very much bespoke to the East Anglian area, there is no reason why similar reports could not be produced for other regions, such as the one that he represents.

The total reported value of the catch of commercial species from the southern North sea has in recent years varied between £190 million and £260 million, and only between 7% and 8% is landed by the UK fleet. Most fin fish are currently landed overseas, in ports in the Netherlands and France, with shellfish landings taking place off the west Norfolk coast and in the Essex estuaries. A varying but low number of UK-registered offshore vessels are operating in the southern North sea, but the vessels land only low values into regional ports because of their foreign ownership. The Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation lands its fish in the Netherlands, not in Lowestoft.

The specialist modern vessels represent a substantial investment, made possible by access to UK waters under the common fisheries policy and through the purchase of access to UK quotas. They are said to comply with the CFP’s economic link obligation, mostly by gifting some quota to the UK. However, although East Anglia sits next to one of the richest fishing fields in Europe, very little local benefit is in practice currently derived from it.

Some Dutch demersal trawlers have used pulse fishing, which employs electric currents to force fish from the seabed—a technique that the European Parliament voted to ban with effect from January of this year, although 5% of the fleet of the North sea is permitted to continue for scientific purposes until 2021.

At present, we have a system that not only brings very little benefit to the East Anglian fishing industry, but is extremely environmentally damaging. This study’s main finding is that the UK’s departure from the CFP provides a remarkable opportunity to bring about a renaissance of East Anglian fisheries. However, that will be achieved only if our leaving the EU is accompanied by well-designed national policy and regulation that provide the framework for regional strategies such as REAF.

The report concludes that there is the opportunity to increase UK vessel quota catch in the southern North sea by seven times its value and UK vessel non-quota catch by 25%. That will together add 25 or more vessels to the UK fleet, creating jobs both offshore and onshore. Up to 13,300 additional tonnes per year of allowed catch will become available to UK-registered vessels in the southern North sea, potentially being able to be landed and processed in the UK. That will come about through a change in the way the fishing opportunity in the North sea is allocated between countries as we move to a geographic area allocation under the international law of the sea, known as zonal attachment, replacing the current basis for fish catches, known as the relative stability rule of the common fisheries policy. It is vital that zonal attachment and a requirement to land fish in the UK are the basis of any future agreement with the EU. Such a change would allocate the aforementioned sevenfold greater catch of quota stock value to the UK from the southern North sea; it would be worth approximately £28 million to £34 million at the quayside. That includes an eightfold volume increase in sole, a tenfold increase in herring and an elevenfold increase in plaice.

In addition, the economic link rule, which the UK uses to regulate the activities of vessels fishing UK fish stocks, should be strengthened so as to promote the landing of fish in UK ports. The potential benefits could increase further as fish stocks improve through effective management and as the regional fleet becomes more competitive and more efficient. In addition, there may be more opportunities to start harvesting crabs further offshore and to expand oyster cultivation.

To realise that opportunity, the REAF strategy makes 11 recommendations, which I will briefly outline. They fall into three categories of change. The first is economic change, bringing potentially rewarding and well-paid jobs to the East Anglian coast for not just the catch sector, but the whole length of the supply chain, from the net to the plate.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s strong advocacy for his fishing fleets in Lowestoft, which he has always demonstrated in his time as the Member of Parliament for Waveney. In East Anglia, we are proud of our food and drink produce. Does he agree that the opportunities he has just outlined would have an impact in constituencies further inland, such as mine, where we have the UK’s biggest producer of sushi, Ichiban, which produces 60% of the UK’s sushi?

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right. While I concentrated on the coast, where my constituency is located, the supply chain goes much further inland in East Anglia, into those constituencies, such as his, which are landlocked—for example, the merchants and the type of processing industry he highlighted. The tentacles of the industry’s supply chain extend a long way.

The second category into which the recommendations fall is environmental—the importance of promoting sustainable fishing, helping to avoid the overfishing mistakes of the past, so that we leave our fisheries to the next generation in a better state than we inherited them. The third category, linked to that second objective, is regulatory change, putting in place a local, bespoke system of management, which includes fishermen, and which avoids the past mistakes of the common fisheries policy, which was too centralised and distant at times.

In brief, the 11 recommendations can be summarised quickly as follows: introducing a new system of control in the inshore fleet through hours-at-sea restrictions and the use of gear; requiring the offshore fleet to land its catch in the UK and restricting it from fishing within 12 nautical miles of the coast; considering restricting offshore vessels to 500 hp and banning beam trawling; investing in a regional hub fishing port in Lowestoft; providing access to finance for the scaling-up and automation of the processing sector; upgrading the control regime for anglers; removing barriers to aquaculture expansion by de-risking developments and improving access to finance; setting up an apprenticeship scheme; combining the two inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the Marine Management Organisation into a new single East Anglia regional fisheries authority; managing fishing stocks as a mixed fishery and introducing more effective controls over fishing mortality; and, finally, making more use of data to manage potential conflicts between fishermen and other marine activities, such as wind farms and dredging.

The REAF study is very much a living document. It is not a piece of academic research purely designed to provoke contemplation and debate. It sets out a range of practical recommendations that, if implemented, could bring significant benefits to local people, communities and businesses. Brexit on its own is not a magic wand that will revitalise our fishing industry, but it gives us the opportunity to start again with a clean sheet of paper, to pursue innovative and radical policies that can bring real benefits to East Anglian coastal communities. We need to get Brexit done, so that we can get on with putting in place strategies such as REAF.

So that East Anglia can get on with this work, I ask the Minister in his response to confirm support for the following first steps. First, it would be appreciated if he could ask his officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—who have been extremely helpful in this process—to continue to work with the REAF team, so that a strategy can be agreed for starting work on implementing the study’s recommendations. This regional approach to fisheries management will help to secure the Brexit dividend, and REAF provides a blueprint that could be used elsewhere around the UK coast.

Secondly, seedcorn funding should be provided, so that REAF can carry on into its next phase. East Suffolk Council has confirmed that it is prepared to continue to offer support and host meetings. It will convene a new REAF group and oversee the preparation of the first year’s programme of works. However, it does not have a budget to fund anything more than basic secretarial support. To take the project forward, there is a need for a full-time outreach worker, a liaison officer, who will foster, galvanise, encourage, interpret and explain. This person would spend the first six months of their time visiting ports and landing places, working with fishermen, talking to processors and hauliers, and generally obtaining further background information. This person will play a crucial role in advising the steering group about the practicalities of what is or is not happening on the ground. They will feed back to the different sectors of the industry and ensure that they continue to be fully supportive of the project. This will mean constantly getting out and about at times that suit the industry, not standard office hours. They will be the linchpin of the project. A dedicated project manager and administrative backup are also required, as well as a modest level of specialist consultancy support.

Thirdly, we need to promote a new approach to managing mixed fisheries by controlling the inshore fleet through hours-at-sea restrictions. The Minister has previously indicated that the Government will carry out an hours-at-sea pilot; we ask for that pilot to take place in East Anglia.

Fourthly, it is important that we put in place an apprenticeship scheme for those wanting to pursue a career in the industry. That will include establishing an apprenticeship training programme for future skippers, funded by the national apprenticeship levy; preparing a careers in fishing brochure to accompany the scheme; and making available finance for graduates from the scheme, to support them in acquiring a vessel and a licence. East Coast College in Lowestoft wishes to be involved in this scheme, and there is a need to forge the proposals into a deliverable project.

Fifthly, Lowestoft wants to regain its crown as the capital of the southern North sea. That will require a fishing port development study to be prepared, working in close collaboration with Associated British Ports, the owners of Lowestoft port. The scope of the project could include a new fish unloading quay, berthing and provisioning facilities, and the creation of a new fish market. This would provide the port with the capacity to handle shellfish and both inshore and offshore vessels.

Sixthly, following Brexit, there will be a need for investment in the processing sector, not just in East Anglia but nationally. A scheme needs to be set up for which East Anglian processors can apply, and it should mirror the support that Marine Scotland provides to Scottish processors. My seventh and final ask is that we start work on forming the new single East Anglia regional fisheries authority, which will provide clear and visible signs on the ground of improvement in regulatory operations.

I suspect that I have spoken for too long and I apologise. I hope that I have illustrated that we have a detailed plan for securing REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries. We now want to get on with delivering that plan, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that he supports that local ambition and that his Department will work with us to secure what I believe is a very exciting future.

Plastics Recycling

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Vince Cable]

That is exactly the issue that I am getting on to. As it happens, I think I visited the hon. Gentleman’s waste plant when I was Secretary of State, so I have some recollection of it. It was a progressive development, but it has the anomalies that he describes.

My second question relates directly to that intervention; it is about the role of exports. We have somewhat flattering statistics that suggest that Britain is meeting, and indeed exceeding, the European waste objective—I believe that 48% is recycled. The definition of recycling does not equate to reprocessing. There are vast differences, and according to the National Audit Office, half of all products that are described as recycled are exported. Quite apart from the question that one might raise about the quality of the treatment in the countries to which such products are exported, there is a serious problem about what we are doing in this country, and in particular how we will respond to the closing of doors in China.

I think China now bans waste imports, and I believe that Malaysia has indicated that it is doing the same. If that is increasingly the pattern in the more developed of the emerging economies in Asia, where will this stuff go? Are we looking for cheap and nasty disposal in Africa, or will it be stocked and dealt with here, and if so, how? To deal with it involves incentives and support for the reprocessing industry—not just recycling, but reprocessing. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) pointed out, that requires tax, because at the moment it is unattractive to reprocess. It is much more profitable to export. There will have to be a tax on the finished plastic products, which will have to be fairly substantial to level the playing field.

I ask the Minister what the Government have analysed the effect of the Chinese border closure to be. What impact will that have on the recycling and reprocessing industries, and how rapid an adjustment will we have to make to the closing of international markets?

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does the issue that he has just raised not bring a wider and more important principle into the debate? Just as with energy production, the Government are beginning to meet targets through interconnectors and looking at importing renewable energy, perhaps from Denmark and elsewhere. Part of the issue is that the Government are potentially meeting recycling targets artificially by exporting goods, when we do not know that they are being recycled in the way that we would like them to be. That is not really in the spirit of addressing our carbon reduction targets as well as I hope that all of us in the Chamber would want.

[Sir Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that the Government are necessarily being disingenuous; it just happens to be that the way that recycling is treated has not traditionally distinguished between domestic processing and export. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government are trying to redress that.

This is a relatively short debate, so I want to give others an opportunity to speak. My final point relates to how we deal with end-use consumption. Two of the Government’s consultations are about that, but I think it is useful for Members to express a view at this stage. One obvious area is the plastic bag experience. We had a massive impact—an 88% reduction in demand—as a result of quite a modest 5p charge on bags. However, at the moment it is restricted to firms with more than 250 employees. I understand the reasoning; the Government do not want to expand the regulation to single-handed shopkeepers. However, there is surely a number in between—say five employees and above—that would be much more realistic and have a significant impact.

The second potential action, which the Government again are consulting on, is introducing deposits for bottles. One of the reasons the German experience in this area is so much better than the British experience is that the Germans have, in effect, a 20p tax on plastic bottles, which can be refunded, giving people a strong incentive to reuse as well as recycle.

Modern Farming and the Environment

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Colin Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Young as I look, it was not many years ago that I was one of the—[Interruption.] Is that going to be a point of order? I was one of the youngest people sitting round the ring at Thainstone mart, buying cattle; the average farmer was aged 60 to 65. Let me comment, in response to my hon. Friend’s point, that perhaps the common agricultural policy payment scheme has, if anything, stopped the intergenerational change, and now that we are able to design our own policy, I hope that, as I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), we can find a process to encourage new entrants. However, we cannot get past the fact that this industry is hugely capital-invested. We have to be realistic about what we are bringing new entrants in to do.

Since the war, there have been three generations on my farm in the north-east of Scotland. My grandfather was a doctor from Glasgow, but mysteriously decided to be a farmer. Apparently, land was cheap in the 1940s—there was a chap with a moustache who wanted to devalue most of the land in Europe. My grandfather bought a farm in the north-east and he will have started off the soil process of modern farming by putting on lime and draining the land. My father will have gone to the next stage by analysing the nutrient value of the crop and trying to do something about further drainage of the land and improving the soil. It is an ongoing process. Finally, I tried to introduce precision farming to reduce the compaction of soil.

It is important to recognise that farmers have made mistakes on land usage. My businesses previously were in East Anglia, where I saw monocultures. I recognise that monocultures do nothing for the soil. We have a relatively traditional approach in Scotland. Water will clearly become more of an issue, even in wet Aberdeenshire, where we already have nitrate-vulnerable zones. We must be conscious that the water is affected by everything that runs off our land.

On that point, having run businesses before, I was amazed to discover that as much as 75% of the nitrogen used on crops cannot be used by the crop. If cars leaked 75% of their fuel from the tank, we would try to redesign the system. Farmers are well aware that some of our farming practices can be improved. There are great opportunities in technology. Air is clearly a public good. Agriculture is said to produce 10% of gases emitted, but we have come a long way.

The NFU’s report showed that we increased economic growth in agriculture, while reducing the inputs, between 1990 and 2016. Farmers are taking action while output increases. This is an important point. Modern farming tries to produce as much as it can from an acre, in an efficient and sustainable way. Some 87% of farmers are recycling waste materials from their farms, 69% are improving fertiliser application accuracy, where, as I have said, an enormous amount can be done, 75% are improving energy efficiency, not to mention the amount of renewables, 38% are increasing their use of clover in grassland, 27% are improving nitrogen feed efficiency for livestock, and 27% are increasing the use of legumes in arable rotation. In all those figures there is still a great deal of room for improvement.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making a good point about the contribution that many British farmers are making to reducing their carbon footprint. Does he agree that there is an environmental argument for supporting British farmers, in order to reduce the food miles associated with importing a lot of food, and that, particularly in the post-Brexit landscape, supporting British agriculture to reduce our carbon footprint and ensure sustainability will mean reducing the food miles from imported food?

[Colin Clark]

It is also an issue of displacement. If we are too restrictive and prohibit too much in the UK, we may simply displace productivity to other regions, such as the Mediterranean, where water is obviously in short supply, and where aquifers may be used that cannot be resupplied, or—the classic example—the rain forest; we may import beef from there, because it is cheaper, but there is a huge environmental impact. When we make policy decisions, we have to be careful not to displace production from the UK, where we have high sensitivities, to other countries. Perhaps we need to find technological answers to that problem.

There are examples of piecemeal policy on renewable energy. The report from the National Farmers Union and NFU Scotland both commented on this. Take the issue of anaerobic digesters in the renewable heat incentive scheme. There are monocultures of maize in northern Europe, Germany, the Paris basin and, to some extent, parts of England. In creating a monoculture, we have to be very careful not to create a problem, whether that is soil erosion or potential for further flooding, for the sake of producing what is effectively very expensive energy. In the north-east, a 3,000-acre traditional rotation farm might these days just grow grass. Growing grass is less damaging than growing maize, but I am concerned that we are subsidising things that distract us from our primary aim, which is to produce food. We have to make sure that the policy is sustainable. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at the fuels used in anaerobic digesters.

Also on the renewable heat incentive scheme, there is concern in Scotland—and, I am sure, England—that in the forestry industry, raw material is being cut down immaturely for use in RHI. We policy makers must not deal with one issue or priority without thinking about what could roll on from our actions.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I expect he will come on to the fact that the common agricultural policy disproportionately rewards larger farmers and large landowners, at the expense of many smaller farmers in the UK. A consequence is that many smaller farmers are looking to diversify out of necessity, to maintain the profitability of their main farming business. As part of our green and environmentally friendly agenda, we should help farmers into suitable diversification into renewable energy where that can help the profitability of the farm.

[Colin Clark]

I would say there is an opportunity there. Smaller farms can come together to share machinery. There are also schemes for them to come together to share environmental and biodiversity priorities. There is an opportunity for smaller farms to interact. Scale is not everything. Clearly, sharing a combine over many thousands of acres will lower the cost of that equipment per acre. Aberdeenshire is not unusual in that respect. It is rural, but not all of it is arable. I would rather not suggest that this is all about farms becoming much bigger, and us ending up with a similar situation to East Anglia, which is a relatively large-scale operation. East Anglia is also a good example. In Cambridge and Suffolk, G. S. Shropshire & Sons Ltd are doing some brilliant things on biodiversity and having a more holistic approach to their farms, instead of simply using the land for the crop that they want, and not being concerned about the next stage.

If we are to preserve the environment, wildlife and habitats, we must consider the potential of the most productive land. In Scotland, under the CAP regulations, we have seen as much as 10% of very productive land being taken out of arable use, rather than other land that would be better suited for environmental schemes. We all remember set-aside, which, in the long term, created weed banks and other problems on farms. We have to consider how to make the most of the best land, and make it as productive as it can be, in a holistic and sustainable way.

I recently read about gene editing technology, which offers us an opportunity as we leave the EU. I hope the EU changes its mind about this technology. It could offer the answer with regard to drought resistance, plants capturing nitrogen, pest resistance and the reduction of pesticides. On animal diseases, too, there are opportunities and technologies that we should be looking at.

Last July, the European Court of Justice declared that gene editing crops had to jump the same bar as genetic modification, but it is significantly different technology. While I am not an expert on it, I would like us to explore it further. I am particularly conscious that we have some of the best research and scientists in the world, yet we are giving up an opportunity to look into a very interesting area that could have answers. According to scientists from the Sainsbury laboratory,

“This ruling closes the door to many beneficial genetic modifications such as breeding of disease-resistant plants”.

They added that it was

“A sad day for European plant science.”

While we do not want to drop our standards, there is genuine science that we should be exploring and looking at. Policy mistakes have been made in other parts of the country that I do not want to see here, so I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about gene editing.

Farming should be able to monetarise environmental benefits such as carbon sequestering. The Scottish NFU says that it is

“supportive of measures such as carbon accounting, which offer farmers the tools and recommendations to make efficiency improvements whilst also taking into account business operations.”

That is poignant, because if there is a zero-carbon target, we have to get much better at accounting for sequestering carbon on farms. We hear about industrial ways to capture carbon, but every day that we are in the countryside, we are standing on the biggest carbon bank that this country has. Particularly in northern Scotland and the central highlands, with regard to reinvigorating—

UK Fisheries Policy

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

There is a tension between having devolved matters in fishing and agriculture and a UK approach to trade. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be some reconciliation of that tension? How does he propose to deal with that?

[George Eustice]

Fisheries negotiations are international, so they are a UK competence, but we always take members of the devolved Administrations with us as part of our delegation. Trade and fisheries are both UK competences, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall that they should be kept separate.

We have a huge trade deficit in food with the European Union. A sensible basis for the discussion is that we will buy its food, if it buys ours. However, the difference in fish is not as big as some envisage, although we have a trade surplus. We export just over £1 billion of fish to the EU, but we import just short of £1 billion.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall mentioned the issue of spider crabs and promoting other fish species. A levy body called Seafish is responsible for that.

Food and Farming: Employment Opportunities

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas]

On exports, we have a wonderful opportunity. We should be proud of and talk much more about the sheer quality and diversity of what we produce. Small and large businesses deliver produce that other people around the world deserve to know about and get their hands on. That is how I would like to approach leaving the European Union.

Other considerations include the rural location of farming and fishing businesses and the cost of rural housing. Also, many young learners consider that it is a career only for those from a rural background. As a result of those challenges, fewer and fewer individuals are interested in pursuing a career in the sector, which is why I requested this debate. We face a generational crisis in the farming, fishing and food sector. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, only 13% of farm holders in the UK are under the age of 45. That figure represents a decrease of 5% in the last 10 years alone.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He makes a good point, because although the Government have had tremendous success in expanding apprenticeships and vocational training opportunities in many industrial sectors, there is a problem in getting younger people engaged in farming. What are his thoughts on taking a more holistic view of farming, in the context of the whole supply chain and the food and drink industry generally, as an opportunity to get young people engaged in training courses?

[Derek Thomas]

I have personally done some work on that. Only last year, I brought 36 producers, many of them farmers, into Westminster Hall, the Jubilee Room and other rooms of the House, to celebrate their wonderful, innovative work to develop their produce. I wished to expose their produce to the London market and we made some progress. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must celebrate all avenues in the sector, so that more and more people see the opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

That is an important point. We have experienced people from the food sector involved in the development of the new apprenticeships. The idea that I had came when I visited a McCain factory, which manufactures chips from potatoes. It was clear to me that it had a well-resourced and well-managed apprenticeship programme within McCain, but there are 300 potato farmers in its supply chain. In most cases, those farmers do not have a human resources director to take care and look after an apprenticeship programme professionally. There was an opportunity to use the organisation and the skill sets that companies such as McCain have to foster apprenticeships on farms in Norfolk and Suffolk and wherever potatoes are grown.

I have been privileged to meet apprentices as the Minister responsible for agriculture, fisheries and food at DEFRA, and I know what great careers can begin from an apprenticeship. For example, I recently spoke alongside a former apprentice at a Feeding Britain’s Future event for unemployed young people interested in careers in food and farming. The young man had decided to do a mechanical engineering apprenticeship instead of following a conventional university degree, and after four years of training was earning more than £40,000 a year. Apprenticeships are a brilliant alternative to university because they allow apprentices to earn while they learn. New apprenticeship standards are being developed at degree level. Apprenticeships provide fantastic learning opportunities by allowing apprentices to develop their new skills on the job.

Employers benefit from apprentices. It has been calculated that the average person who completes their apprenticeship increases business productivity by around £214 a week through increased profits and productivity, and better-quality products. Small employers provide fantastic opportunities for people to get on the career ladder. Some 96% of the food manufacturing sector are SMEs, which can also benefit from hiring apprentices. SMEs have to pay only 10% of the costs of training their apprentices—the Government pay the remaining 90%.

[Dr Poulter]

The Minister is making an excellent case for the steps that the Government are taking to promote apprenticeships in the agricultural sector. Given the fact that many people decide on where their careers will take them at a relatively early age—it is probably around age 13 or 14—what steps can be taken to encourage younger people to think about careers in agriculture and the whole supply chain, and what work is he doing with schools?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives also made that important point, which I intend to cover later in my contribution.

The Institute for Apprenticeships began work on new apprenticeships this month and will in time oversee the development of both T-levels and apprenticeships, helping to drive up standards and ensure quality. I am delighted that two members of the board, Dame Fiona Kendrick of Nestlé and Paul Cadman from Walter Smith Fine Foods, bring expert knowledge of the food sector.

Finally, it is important to recognise that we must have continuous career progression once people are in the industry. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board runs a series of activities to boost farm competitiveness and sustainability, including farmer-to-farmer learning through business improvement groups and demonstration farms, so that there can be a sharing of expertise through open meetings, digital tools and knowledge exchange publications. Of course, there will be international benchmarking to learn from the experiences of other countries.

The Landex colleges last year came together to launch a new national college in agriculture, to thread together some of the activities that all of the Landex colleges are engaged in, and to try to secure the progression of more people towards level 3 qualifications, again with the aim of continuous professional career development.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned the image of the industry and the work being done to encourage more young people to go into it. Clearly, there are opportunities in the food, farming and fisheries sector, so we should encourage more young people to explore the sector when they think about their future. Overall, we currently have the highest employment rate—74.6%—since comparable records began, and youth unemployment has been falling, but it remains important to ensure that young people are able to make a smooth transition into the labour market, and that they consider the full range of options available as they prepare to launch their careers.

Careers in food and farming are too frequently perceived as low-paid, low-skilled and lacking in career progression opportunities. We need to challenge some of the outdated myths and champion the great careers that the sector offers. Across the country, engineers, scientists and technicians are at the cutting edge of innovation in agri-tech and food production. Industry-supported organisations such as Bright Crop, which my hon. Friend mentioned, IGD and the National Skills Academy for Food & Drink are working to tackle misconceptions and increase awareness of careers in the sector through initiatives such as Tasty Careers and Feeding Britain’s Future, which is run by IGD, and “The World is Your Oyster”, a campaign run by Seafish. All of those projects highlight the varied career paths that the seafood industry has to offer and the unique opportunities it can provide.

We are highlighting some of the superb apprentices already working in the industry, including by featuring them in the Government’s “Get In Go Far” careers campaign. In February this year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hosted a roundtable, bringing together a range of organisations to start a dialogue about what more industry and the Government can do together to champion the fantastic employment opportunities available in the food and farming sector. The roundtable heard directly from apprentices working in two leading food businesses—Nestlé and Mondeléz—about their experiences in the sector. The best people to sell the sector are often the young people who are starting out on their own careers in the industry.

Food Labelling

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy]

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will remind him about a supermarket founded in Yorkshire that has put a levy on its milk and gives that money back to the farmer. The consumers pay slightly more for their milk but know that the extra goes directly back to farmers. I will not name the supermarket, but that item has been its fastest growing product. That shows that when consumers have knowledge, because of proper labelling, they are prepared to buy British.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on bringing the debate today. I am sure that he will be aware, as I am from the experiences of Suffolk farmers, that far too often some current EU regulations—I say this having voted remain—prohibit the proper marketing of local produce. They make it much more difficult for consumers to know that they are buying genuinely British beef from farms in Great Britain. At the moment, some of the beef they buy could be from overseas.

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is right that it is crucial to have accurate labelling. That should not only mean country of origin labelling; it should go right down to local and regional labelling.

Leaving the EU: Animal Welfare Standards in Farming

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming after the UK leaves the EU.

It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. High standards of animal welfare are one of the key hallmarks of a civilised society. I take this opportunity to thank all the Chipping Barnet residents who regularly contact me about the issue, setting out their concerns. In this country, we have a long and proud tradition of protecting animals, often taking action many years before other countries follow our lead.

About 80% of our animal welfare rules are part of European law and are contained in more than 40 different pieces of legislation, including 18 on farm animals. Leaving the European Union gives us a range of choices in this House that we have not enjoyed in this country for more than 40 years. Brexit means that we have the chance to reaffirm our support for the highest standards of animal welfare. It also gives us the opportunity to consider ways to strengthen protection for animals as we design a new system of farm support to replace the common agricultural policy.

I warmly welcome the statement that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made in October, saying that high standards of animal welfare should be one of the unique selling points of UK-produced food in the post-Brexit era. I would very much welcome the Minister confirming, when he arrives, that the Government’s plans for a great repeal Bill will see animal welfare standards maintained at a level at least as high as the one they are at today.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. She is right to highlight that in theory the European Union upheld consistent standards of high animal welfare, but does she agree that sometimes there was not a level playing field? While British farmers were proud to abide by those standards, we saw battery cages going from Suffolk to Spain. At the very time that British farmers were introducing high standards, other farmers in Europe were not abiding by those standards.

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend raises an entirely valid point. It takes me back to my days when I was a Member of the European Parliament. I consistently raised concerns about the inconsistent implementation and enforcement of animal welfare rules. As he points out, that often disadvantages UK farmers, who tend to take them far more seriously than their counterparts in some other countries.

I accept that retaining our current animal welfare standards does not mean that every dot and comma of EU law in this area needs to be set in stone. There may be legislative options that maintain prevailing standards but deliver the outcome in a more flexible way that better suits domestic circumstances. I hope we can all agree that the end result should be the retention and not the dilution of laws that safeguard farm animals in this country. Our goal for the future should be the further strengthening of that protection.

When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently, she indicated that around two thirds of EU legislation could be rolled forward into UK law with only minor technical changes. That leaves around a third of laws within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remit apparently needing more substantive change if they are to be retained after we leave the European Union. It would be useful to hear from the Minister which animal welfare provisions are expected to fall within that category. Will he indicate when the House will be given details on the practical changes that may be necessary to ensure that the protections they provide can be carried over into UK law after we leave the EU?

I was also struck, in the Prime Minister’s recent speech, that final decisions have not yet been taken on which of the powers that will return from Brussels will go to the devolved Administrations and which will stay within the remit of this place. Animal welfare, as colleagues will be aware, is generally a devolved matter, but in light of the Prime Minister’s speech, it would be useful if the Minister could give us an indication of the animal welfare decisions currently made in Europe that he expects to be devolved and the ones that might be retained at Westminster.

None of us in the Chamber should be in any doubt that the food and farming sector is one of the most important for our economy. It supports many thousands of jobs. I saw that for myself in Northern Ireland during my time there as Secretary of State. I met many farmers and businesses creating food of the very highest quality.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I do recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and it is something I continue to look closely at in my Department. I will keep him up to date with progress on it.

Leaving the EU will give us the chance to develop policies for the rural economy that are bespoke to the needs of this country rather than the different approaches and circumstances of 28 different member states. As Secretary of State, I have made very clear my two long-term ambitions: first, to make a resounding success of our world-leading food, farming and fisheries industry—producing more, selling more and exporting more of our great British food; and, secondly, to become the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it in. These ambitions look far beyond tomorrow; they are about long-lasting change and real reform. They form the bedrock of a balanced approach to policy, and the success of one is integral to the success of the other.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the difficulties the agricultural sector faces under current EU legislation is with honest food labelling. Some food sold as British in this country is not, under EU regulations, necessarily grown in Britain—it may well have been grown or farmed a long way overseas. One real opportunity on leaving the European Union is that we can have honest food labelling so that we know that food is genuinely grown, farmed and produced in this country.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. This is something we have improved on greatly through voluntary and compulsory schemes for labelling, and we continue to look at that, particularly as we leave the EU, so he is right.

That brings me to the mechanics of our departure from the EU. The great repeal Bill will transpose the body of EU legislation into UK law. We will then be able to change or amend it, as UK law, at our leisure. We will soon be publishing a Green Paper consulting on a framework for our 25-year plan for the environment. This will help to inform our decisions, better connect current and future generations to the environment, and ensure that investment is directed to where it will have the biggest impact on the environment. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that our constituents want clean beaches, clean air, clean water, good soil and healthy biodiversity, whether we are a member of the EU or not, and I can assure hon. Members of my full commitment to that.

Seagulls (Coastal Towns)

Dan Poulter Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

If the hon. Gentleman means by gull contraception something that deals with the eggs, I have considered that. If he has other proposals, it would be interesting to hear further details.

A variety of preventive measures is necessary, including regular litter-picking and road cleaning, the provision of gull-proof bins that are emptied regularly and discouraging the feeding of gulls—in some towns fines are being imposed. There is also a need, as we heard earlier, to reduce the amount of food waste and organic matter that goes to landfill sites. Commercial buildings that may be suitable for nesting and roosting should be proofed. When sites are redeveloped, preventive measures should be incorporated in redevelopment plans.

The wholesale culling of gulls is not an option and I do not advocate it. Quite apart from the logistics and questionable ethics, the European population of herring gulls is very mobile, and minor gains achieved by removing a local population will invariably be cancelled out by natural migration.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has done well to secure this debate and he is making an excellent speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) is right to point out that it is not about wide-scale culling of gulls, but about individual responsibility when people discard their rubbish. In spite of that, particularly in seaside towns such as Lowestoft, Brighton and Hove, which have active night-time economies, people will still discard their rubbish in antisocial ways. No matter how much we like or dislike it, there is an onus on councils to address that problem and ensure that rubbish and litter are collected in a timely manner to avoid the problems we are talking about.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for those observations. I agree that that is one of the ways forward that we should consider.

To address the very worst problems, where people’s lives are being made a misery, consideration should be given to changing the existing licensing controls in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to allow owners of large sites where significant numbers of birds are causing, or are likely to cause, a legal nuisance, to apply for a licence to take measures to prevent or deter the colonisation of land in their occupational control. At present, someone cannot apply for a licence to deal with a nuisance. They can apply for a licence to prevent serious damage to agriculture, to preserve public health or air safety and to conserve other birds. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether adding nuisance to that list is something that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has considered or will consider.

Consideration also needs to be given to legislation allowing local authorities to require land owners to take preventive or remedial action to deal with actual or likely noise, smell or other nuisance caused by gulls colonising land or structures in urban areas. The problem is not easy to solve. Indeed, there might be a temptation to put it to one side in the “too difficult” category, but that would be wrong. As we have heard, many thousands of people from all around the country are being affected, and we owe it to them to come up with a range of measures to make their lives more tolerable.