Sewage Discharges

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sewage discharges.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank all colleagues who are here to debate this important issue. I also thank the public and the e-petitioners for driving us to seek this change. I welcome the Minister to her place, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, for everything he has done on this matter. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will try to limit interventions. I recognise that there is a Minister here—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—who cannot make a speech, and I hope some of these words will apply to him.

Let me illustrate why I sought this debate. As of 16 September, on nine out of the 16 days of the month Bexhill’s beach had been issued with a pollution risk warning and signs warning against bathing because of the risk of sewage discharge. On 18 August, a fault at a pumping station at Galley Hill caused a discharge of waste water, and sewage was pumped into the Bexhill coastline. It lasted for two and a half hours, starting at 2.59 pm, and bathers were not warned about what was occurring until early evening. In the settlement of Heathfield, residents at the bottom of the hill are up to their knees in discharge when heavy rain comes. That has led to rat infestations, illness for children and pets and contamination of homes and gardens.

Our sewerage system is not fit for purpose, and yet we keep building homes in these areas and making the situation worse. Much of our nation is covered by combined sewerage systems comprising hundreds of thousands of miles of sewers. When those systems cannot cope with the volume, rather than back up into properties, they discharge into our seas, our rivers and our waterways from approximately 15,000 combined sewer overflows. The practice is disgusting. Last year, there were more than 370,000 monitored spill events. Every discharge impacts our environment and our marine life, and our ability to enjoy it and make a living from it. This can no longer be tolerated.

Successive Governments have failed to tackle the issue, going back to the 19th century when much of the combined sewerage system was installed, although I welcome the Government’s latest steps to tackle the problem. Our job is to find solutions. With that in mind, I have four issues that I wish to touch on, and I will ask the Minister a number of questions.

The first issue is the storm overflow discharge reduction plan. I welcome the concept, but we could be more ambitious with the deadlines to eradicate storm overflows. The plan relies on data being correctly and fully recorded. Many citizen scientists, for whom we should all be very grateful, believe that the discharges are not fully recorded. I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. Given concerns about under-reporting, is she confident that the discharge data is accurate?

The event and duration of overflow discharges is monitored, but not the volume and impact. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended the installation of volume monitors on overflows. Will the new Minister explain why the Department rejected that recommendation?

Given that the 2035 and 2050 targets have been criticised for lacking sufficient ambition and urgency, will the Minister consider allowing Ofwat to permit sewage companies to deliver their improvement plans earlier and to higher standards? Southern Water, in the area I represent, aims to meet the storm overflow targets, but it would hit 80% by 2030, rather than 75% by 2035, which is the Government’s target.

The second issue is bathing water testing and quality. To use an example local to me, Bexhill’s bathing water quality is rated sufficient. There was a concern recently that it would drop to poor. The town comprises 40,000 people, and that number swells during tourist season. To assess water quality, testing occurs weekly between May and September. It is tested at different times of the day, but always in the same place in the sea. I am told that the water is tested in the busiest part of the beach, but our beach has no focal point and surely a wider area of bathing water should be tested. We are adjacent to excellent bathing water at St Leonards, so swimmers cross from excellent to sufficient in one stroke.

Every day—I am sure it is the same for other colleagues—the Environment Agency sends me pollution risk warnings. However, for many days, Bexhill has been the only beach where signs advising against bathing should be displayed. When I asked what made Bexhill unique, given that it rains across the Sussex coast, I was told that there was something particular about Bexhill and heavy rainfall. In Bexhill’s case, the testing place is adjacent to an outlet coming from a stream, which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. In three years in which the agency has tested sub-optimal bathing water, Southern Water’s own testing in the immediate vicinity has come up clear on the same day.

Many suspect that heavy rainwater is coming from the highways into the stream and then entering the sea. That may or may not be the cause of the low bathing water quality. However, the fact that we do not know why our bathing water is only just sufficient tells us that we do not know enough about what is going on and therefore we do not know how to clean things up.

Does the Minister believe that it would be more optimal to test water quality on different parts of the beach and on a continuous basis? Given that the bathing water testing regime is some 30 years old, does she believe that the Environment Agency’s testing takes into account the latest pollutants, such as plastics, and gives an adequate reading of our bathing waters? Will the storm overflow discharge reduction plan prioritise busy bathing areas, such as Bexhill, which have bathing quality status below excellent or good?

The third issue is the impact from roads and house building. I will refer to the experience of residents in Heathfield, who have been blighted by sewage and flooding, and they still are when heavy rain comes. This is not just about the sewage companies, but about highways agencies ensuring that their drains can take heavy rainfall rather than it ending up in the combined sewer and causing a discharge or backfill. Despite this, Heathfield has more house building on top of the ridge below which these other roads sit.

On house building and roads, does the Minister believe that it is right to put the onus mainly on water companies to deliver fixes in the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, when many of these assets and the responsibility for them rest with the highways authorities? Has she considered giving the highway authorities a statutory duty to act and to maintain these assets after action has been taken, along with the funds that are to be generated for the plan? Alternatively, would she consider a prohibition on surface water from the highways entering the sewerage system? Either would reduce the chances of the combined sewer becoming overwhelmed in inclement weather. Next, will the Government commit to implement the plan for sustainable drainage systems—or SuDS, as it is known—thereby removing the automatic right to connect to the public sewer system, in order to prevent new developments from adding more surface water to the combined sewerage network?

Highways authorities can refuse to allow connection to their water courses. Will they be required to provide this access in order to avoid a situation in which developers connect to the combined sewers? Will the planning provisions in the forthcoming Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill enable further action to ensure that development takes place only where it will not put further pressure on the combined sewerage system, or will it provide local planning authorities with a justification for saying that further house building cannot take place without the establishment of separate drainage systems? Will the new planning rules allow for sewage companies to be statutory consultees on new planning applications rather than on just the local plan? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has a fine amendment in mind for that, and I would fully support it.

The final piece is the role of all of us—the role of the public. With more understanding of the combined sewer system and a demand that we end discharges into our waters, the public stand ready to play their part. However, many householders just do not know whether they are putting the heavy rainwater from their gutters into the sewerage system. If they did, many of them would take action to halt the flow and thereby halt the number of discharges when the system is overwhelmed. It might be cheaper to provide water butts to homes for free than to cope with an overwhelmed drainage system.

Will the Minister consider a requirement for householders to be informed if they have a combined sewerage pipe from their homes? Will she consider further financial incentives for householders to ensure that their rainwater goes into a water butt or tank, to help to reduce volume and to help when water is scarce in drier times?

I am so pleased that we are having this debate. I will end my remarks there because so many people wish to speak, and I am grateful to the Minister for the response that she will give.

[Julie Elliott (in the Chair)]

As everyone can see, this is a highly subscribed debate. If everyone gets to speak—I want to try to get everybody in—they will have a minute and a half. I will have that limit informally for the first couple of speakers, but I will quickly introduce it formally if people do not stick to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

Thank you, Ms Elliott, for chairing us so efficiently. I thank the Minister for the responses she has given. I thank the other two Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and all the other colleagues who have come forward with their ideas. With so many ideas having been put forward, would it be possible for the Minister’s Department to collate those in its response, so that we get a full response?

The hon. Member for Leeds North West asked whether we in East Sussex are satisfied. We are never satisfied in East Sussex! That is what keeps us here. My neighbours —my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—and I are in a car. It is the East Sussex car and we will continue to drive it.

I will say this to the hon. Member for Leeds North West: I could give him £56 billion-worth of reasons why I am happier, because this Government are the first to do something about it. No other Governments have. We should all encourage the Government for that.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West is right that I did vote with him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). However, we were not voting to end discharging, as has been put out on social media—not at all. It was just discharge at certain levels. Nobody who voted the other way was doing anything but voting for improvements for the first time. It pains me to see some of the abuse that goes on. We are not campaigners here. We can work effectively together for all of our constituents’ sake to make a better environment. All I would hope is for us to stick with the facts and the ideas and be nicer to each other and to our waterways.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered sewage discharges.

Sewage Pollution

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I said, we have brought many prosecutions since 2015 and levied fines of about £140 million on the industry. In one case, that precipitated a change in ownership of a water company. The right thing to do is bring prosecutions where a company is in breach of its permits, and that is what the Environment Agency is doing.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for granting not only this urgent question, but a 90-minute debate next Wednesday at 2.30 pm in Westminster Hall. Bexhill’s beach is red-flagged today, as it was yesterday, meaning that people should not enter the sea. It was the only beach in the area to be red-flagged and it is the only beach in the area whose bathing quality is not either “excellent” or “good”. I welcome the Secretary of State’s plan, but may I ask him to ensure that the areas that do not have good-quality bathing have a higher degree of prioritisation in the delivery of this plan?

[George Eustice]

I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our discharge reduction plan absolutely prioritises bathing waters in those near-term investments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman knows that as a cook I am quite keen on guessing the weight of things, but I confess myself totally unable to guess the weight of Hansard without touching it.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s serious question, we will continue to work with the fishing industry on the best way to make sure we have the data that we need—as I think he would agree—to assess the future sustainability of stocks.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

10. What plans his Department has to improve the quality of food labelling.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

Now that we have left the EU, we can review food labelling to make sure that consumers have the information that they need to make healthy and sustainable choices. We have already launched a consultation on animal welfare labelling, and we will consider the wider aspects of labelling in the coming months.

[Huw Merriman]

We know that our consumers want to buy British and buy Northern Irish to support higher animal welfare standards and our farming community, but sometimes they find food labelling confusing and misleading as to country of origin. What action have the Government taken to clarify the confusion? What steps will the Minister take, particularly with regard to making the technology even better in future?

The Climate Emergency

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The next time a young person asks me how seriously Parliament takes climate change I will struggle to answer, given that this morning we ate into our time with a discussion on pornography, followed by a debate about whether we should have a debate on Saturday. When Parliament starts providing a proportion of its time that is commensurate with the importance of the issues out there in the country at large, those people will have more respect and regard for us and what we do.

It is a great shame that we have not had more time to discuss climate change, because so much progress was made by all three mainstream political parties when they were in government. Emissions have reduced by 44% since the 1990s, for which we credit the Labour Government. Since 2010, the proportion of renewables in our energy supply has gone from 4% to almost 40%, and we can credit the Liberal Democrats and the coalition Government for that, as well as this Conservative Government. We are making great strides, and we have the best record on emissions of all G20 countries. When we speak to young people it is important to reassure them that we are on a good road, but that we need to do more and must not be complacent. It is also important to debate this issue with the transport sector, because 33% of our carbon dioxide emissions come from that.

There are reasons to be positive. Through the Transport Committee I had the pleasure of visiting Porterbrook, and its amazing engineer, Helen Simpson, who has a real passion for the environment and for getting more women into engineering. Together with the Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education at the University of Birmingham, she has come up with the first retrofitted hydrogen train. That is a green train; that is the future for this country. Indeed, it is not just about this country, because we can sell our industry to other countries, making them greener in our one planet, and making our economy better in this country. I fully support that.

I am also excited about the airline industry. I am a supporter of Heathrow expansion, but the future of air travel should involve solar or battery power, and we should look to a time when at least short-haul flights can be green. I do not believe that we have to slow our economy down; I believe that if we grow the economy and unleash our great innovators, entrepreneurs and engineers, we will not only fix climate issues in this country but be a groundbreaker for the rest of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That was a typically balanced and thoughtful contribution from the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. One thing I would say is that sustainable farming, particularly mixed and livestock farming, is a critical part of ensuring that we have a healthy environment. I absolutely take on board her point. One thing we absolutely do not want to do is use a crude taxation intervention when it is much more sensible to work with farmers to raise the quality of livestock. There are things we can do on how livestock farmers operate that can contribute to reducing emissions, while at the same time maintaining high-quality red meat that is available to people at every price point.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

T3. May I invite you, Mr Speaker, your officials and all Members in the Chamber to join me, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Kew Gardens, the British Beekeepers Association and others as the all-party parliamentary group for bees and pollinators discusses how we can green the parliamentary estate and get a hive of bees on board as well? Does the DEFRA team agree that we would all get a tremendous buzz to see Parliament as a hive of activity for our pollinators?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I had better answer this with a coat of honey. It is important that this Parliament is open to nature. We have already seen great changes through the Administration Committee and what we are trying to do about elements of plastic. The Department already has a beehive on its roof and I am keen that we should continue to do whatever we can as leaders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be very aware of the national pollinator strategy and how important it is to the future of biodiversity and sustainable food production.

Environment and Climate Change

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I have had the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his Bill, and we are looking into whether we can use the extended producer responsibility scheme to cover the initiative that he asks about. I am grateful to him for raising that point, because his proposed legislation draws attention to a defect, but I am not sure that it is absolutely quite right. I am happy to work with him to bring about change.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has talked about flowers and about honey; does he agree that although we talk a good game in Parliament, the parliamentary estate is an appalling environment for our pollinators? Through him, may I invite every MP present to join me in two weeks at the all-party group on bees and pollinators, where we are going to see a mock-up of what it would be like if we turned Cromwell Green into a wild-flower meadow and hosted a beehive that MPs could manage, thereby doing more than just talking?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree. Of course, at DEFRA we have a beehive on our roof. Everyone can play their part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

I absolutely understand the concerns about climate change that have been registered loudly recently, and it is absolutely right that we take them into account, but it is also hugely important that we talk about the progress we have made so far and about building on it, rather than looking at the issue with too much fear and ignorance. I am proud that the UK leads the way, with the most impressive performance in the reduction of emissions among G20 countries. We have managed to reduce emissions by 44% since the 1990s. It is absolutely key that we drive forward, but we should do so in the belief that we can reach the ambitious targets that we have set ourselves.

Let us take renewables as an example. Back in 2010, only 6% of our electricity was generated from renewables; now, we are at almost 40%, so we should be optimistic. We should tell ourselves that we can do more, but we should also be proud of what we have done and try to lead the way when it comes to the rest of the world. My big concern is what is happening in China. It used to be the case that 70% of our power was reliant on coal. We have reduced that to the point where coal-fired power stations should be phased out by 2025. That is great news, but in China 70% of its power is reliant on coal, and it is currently building hundreds more coal-fired power stations.

The reality is that even the big steps that we take will not make that much of a difference to our one earth, but the small steps that the Chinese can take will make a huge difference. I would like to see this country—this Government—using our soft power to lead China and tell it that it is not acceptable from an environmental or even an economic perspective for it to continue using fossil fuels in the way that it does. We should use our expertise and innovators to try to take China to a better place. The reality is that China pollutes more in a single year than the UK has polluted in 100 years. China will soon be responsible for more pollution than Europe and the US put together, so it is vital that we press the Chinese to do more.

I want to send out the message to young people that, yes, they should be concerned, and that, yes, we should listen to them, but please let us start on the basis that this country has done more than most across the globe and has got itself into a better position. We will deliver more—we are committed to delivering more—but let us deal with the facts and not just the ignorance.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman]

I have absolutely no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

This is a crucial time. This is not about what Parliament votes against, but what Parliament actually stands for to make the decision happen. What will the Labour party do to enact the decision that was made two years ago?

[Sue Hayman]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that my party does not believe that the agreement on the table is good enough. If it is voted down next week, as many in this House believe it will be, we should go back to the country and have a general election, so that my party can actually look forward to working for a better deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

That is a gross generalisation. The reality is that 52% of this country voted to leave, and that is what this deal does. But also, importantly, 48% did not, and this deal will actually see us continue with our relationship with the EU, and in fact deepen it in many regards. [Interruption.] Security.

[Pete Wishart]

It does not even start to—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not need to address his points to me. I am beyond redemption. He should turn his attention to some of his hon. Friends and colleagues on his own Benches, and I invite him to do that. I think they are all thoroughly looking forward to his speech. His efforts may be more fruitful with them than they are likely to be with me, because I shall go on to explain why this deal is totally, absolutely and utterly unacceptable to me, to my constituents and to the vast majority of the Scottish people.

I have never seen another example where it has been the main policy intention of a Government to intentionally impoverish, with such chaotic abandon, the people they are notionally there to serve. When the history books judge this little period of British history, in the late teens in this century, they will only ever conclude that this is the greatest example of political, cultural and economic self-harm that has ever been committed by a nation unto a nation.

The fact that we have got to this point will be forever remembered as the greatest single failure of any modern Government in post-war history. And you remember why we are doing this—remember why all this started? [Laughter.] They laugh. A referendum. It was supposed to heal the divisions within the Conservative party on the issue of the European Union. Ten out of ten for that, Mr Speaker. What an absolute and resounding success. Not only have they further divided their rotten party, but they have gone and divided a nation and then taken that nation to the very brink. And now, of course, we observe the abyss on the other side of that brink, in all its grotesque horror.

If we look at the Brexit clock—

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

When I was elected in 2015, it was on the basis that we pledged to give the people the opportunity to determine whether they wished to stay in the European Union or leave. I for one felt that, having given people that opportunity, it was not for me as an MP to then tell them which way they should vote.

I wrote to every single one of my constituents and invited them to 10 meetings across my constituency before the referendum. I also provided them with information from the House of Commons Library, so that they could make their own mind up. During those meetings, I explained what an article 50 process would look like and what a reformed EU would look like, should we vote to remain. I did not expect to be talking about article 50 again, but, to my surprise and disappointment, given the way I voted, my constituency voted to leave by almost 60:40, and the country by 52:48. I declared my vote on the night because I did not wish to influence any of my constituents. I made it clear to my constituents that, having been elected by the ballot box, which gives me the authority to speak here now, I do not feel that I have the right to then ignore that ballot box when it gives a different determination from the vote I cast.

I swore to honour the referendum result. That is what I believe I am doing and will be doing when I vote for the Prime Minister’s deal on Tuesday. I can then look in the eye those who voted leave and say that I am voting to ensure that we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, that we will take back control of our borders and immigration, that we will leave the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, that we will leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and that we will stop paying moneys in, save for those agreed in the withdrawal agreement. Equally, I can look in the eye my constituents who voted to remain and wanted us to continue to have a trading and security relationship with the European Union. That is what the withdrawal agreement does and what the political declaration sets out. That is what we have two years to put in place. I feel I can honour that result.

Many of my colleagues will not vote for the deal. Unlike me, it has been their life’s work to see us leave the European Union. The direction of travel that Parliament is currently focused on may mean that they never get an opportunity to vote for leaving the European Union if they do not vote for it this time around. It may well come off the table. Equally, other Members are more persuaded by the argument for a second referendum, or the latest and ludicrous thing I have heard about, which is a “people’s assembly”. That is what I thought I was standing in right now, making this speech. But we cannot delegate our responsibility. This House, by 498 MPs, voted to allow the Prime Minister to trigger article 50. That means we have to take responsibility for the outcome. We have a deal that will give us that outcome. Anything else would be a complete denial not just of the referendum result, but of the vote that night when 498 MPs said that this was the way to proceed.

I am very concerned about the House not agreeing to the withdrawal agreement, because the no-deal scenario fills me with great dread. It is all well and good for many people and many of my constituents to say, “No deal will be absolutely fine. We were warned the worst would happen after the referendum result and it didn’t happen.” However, Bank of England models suggest that the economy will be 11% worse off by 2030 in a no-deal situation. It is all well and good for individuals to say that it will be fine, but they will not be the ones going into the Division Lobby to vote for a no deal—I will. What if it turns out not to be fine? What if I knock on my constituents’ doors to be told that they have just lost their job, are about to lose their house and do not know what they were going to do with their family because it has turned out that it was not all absolutely fine? They would say, “It’s your fault, Huw Merriman MP, because you made that happen.” I will not play Russian roulette with my constituents’ lives, their security and everything they hold dear just because “It may be okay”. I say to all those right hon. and hon. Members who may be willing to take that risk: be careful what you end up playing with.

I take the view that we would be a lot worse off from a democratic perspective if we saw a second referendum, the can being kicked down the road or no Brexit at all. How difficult would it be for us to go back on the campaign trail and knock on the doors in the general election to ask people to put their faith in democracy if we have just denied the democratic result that they thought they had gained in 2016?

Compromise is not a very sexy word, but when we look at the percentages, 52% versus 48%, it was always going to need a compromise to unite those two positions. It is possible for us to leave the European Union, but it is also possible for us to leave and enter into a new trading arrangement. It is also possible for us to look outside the European Union. The European Union is a great 28-country club if you are a member, but not if you are an African country that is getting poorer and poorer because it will not trade because it pulls up the walls. The population of Africa is due to double in the next 25 years. That is where we should be looking, not just for our own future but for their future too, and for a global economy that comes to us. That is why I will support this deal on Tuesday.

Agriculture Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Julian Sturdy]

I accept that fair point, but my reading is that land belonging to those who take their retirement money up front and leave the sector—land that we hope would go to a new entrant—would not be entitled to any payments. However, the devil will be in the detail.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that financiers from the City, rather than new entrants, may purchase that land? That is an issue that I see in East Sussex, where the possibility is that we may lose farming altogether.

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but is that not more about our tax system than this Agriculture Bill? Perhaps that is something to consider going forward.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, I support the principle of shifting state funding for the sector towards supporting innovation and productivity gains, alongside public money for public goods. Leading technologies of the fourth industrial revolution, such as robotics, data science, autonomous vehicles and biotechnology, have the potential to transform agriculture, so it is wise to concentrate support on facilitating the growth and efficiency gains of tomorrow. To that end, a commitment from Ministers to a certain level of funding for productivity and innovation after the “same cash total to 2022” guarantee expires would be most useful in this area.

I note that, as some Members have already said, soil health is not specifically mentioned in the text of the Bill as a public good that deserves financial assistance. There are, though, very encouraging references to it in the Department’s policy statement; that is important given the importance of soil for flood prevention, for the preservation of fertility and for productivity for future generations. I hope that Ministers can give greater prominence to soil health as the Bill progresses.

I broadly support the transition to a system of public money for public goods, but I urge the Government not to lose sight of the fact that the main activity of most farmers will and should remain the production of food. Moreover, food production and environmental stewardship are already two sides of the same coin, as several Members have said. A resilient and profitable agricultural sector is nature’s best friend. If we remember that, we can have a good environmental policy.

The supposedly natural landscapes and countryside of today have been shaped by centuries of agriculture, from the clearing of the forests that once covered virtually all our islands to the first planting of cereals. Policy making in this subject area will therefore benefit from the constant understanding that farming is not some imposition on or extraction from the country, but a positive evolutionary force that has shaped the green and pleasant land that we all seek to protect.

I am glad to see that food security is covered in DEFRA’s accompanying policy statement, but it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. The National Farmers Union recently estimated that if the UK tried to live solely off locally produced food for a whole year, starting in January, we would run out by 6 August. Global population growth means that humanity will have to produce sustainably 70% more food by 2050. That represents 1 billion more tonnes of rice, wheat or other cereals alone. Such figures illustrate the question to which any comprehensive farming and environmental policy will have to stand up. I know that Ministers are deeply aware of this policy aspect, but it would be reassuring to hear further detail on the Government’s vision for food security as it relates to domestic food production.

The Government need to make sure that the move towards supporting public goods does not have unintended negative consequences. I have spoken to the Minister about this issue in the past. The classic example of the unintended consequences of the CAP is the renowned three-crop rule. Although it might have been put in place for the right environmental reasons, it has had huge negative impacts, certainly throughout the UK. The Secretary of State rightly emphasised that the CAP currently incentivises farmers to put every possible acre into food production, so less public funding is available for natural capital assets such as wetlands and forests. Equally, I am sure that he does not want to see a situation in which policy incentivises farmers to take as many acres as possible out of food production, or to cease farming altogether, lay off workers and just collect payments for managing land to provide public goods. Balance is needed, and we have to find that balance for the policy and in the Bill.

Similarly, in designing the policy, Ministers must take care to ensure that funding for the sector is not substantially transferred to people who just own land and are not actually farmers. That might best be done by putting in place clear commitments on future funding to support innovation and productivity increases on farms.

I applaud the measures in the Bill that will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to ensure fair dealing with agricultural producers and to facilitate that through the collection of data, which is mentioned in the Bill a lot. It is important that Ministers make clear as soon as possible how they intend to use the powers and how they can be made as comprehensive and effective as possible, with real teeth, ultimately. There are many positive aspects to the Bill that I support, but the devil will always be in the detail, and that is what I will scrutinise as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be the last to bring in the harvest of contributions on the Bill.

I wish to put on record my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for bees and pollinators. I have an interest not only in the production of food but in enhancing and sustaining the built environment around us and in habitat protection. I, too, wish to associate myself with calls for more references to food production and food security in the Bill. Of course, I encourage financial assistance for environmental good, but I am concerned that there is not enough reference to food production in the Bill.

The amount of food that the UK produces has fallen from 100% to about 60% in the past 50 years. We should encourage farmers to produce even more food to ensure that we have food security in an uncertain world. I am proud to represent an area of East Sussex covering 200 square miles, 75% of which is an area of outstanding natural beauty, much of which is managed by the High Weald AONB. The average farm in my constituency covers about 120 acres. It is grazing pastureland with a low yield. Those farmers rely greatly on the basic payment that they receive. Without it, their income will be reduced by 30%. I am concerned that if we do not reward those farmers for the food that they produce we will not see the same number of livestock in our AONB, which helps with the management of the AONB.

I also have great concern with regard to the very worthy element of clause 7(7), which seeks to allow new entrants into the market. Of course I encourage new entrants and the Bill’s nod towards improved productivity, but the difficulty in my part of the UK is that our pastureland tends to be purchased by investment bankers from London who are seeking their own piece of tranquillity. Any further incentives on sale, particularly in the event that food production is not at the heart of the Bill, will mean that there is not as much incentive to farm, and those who purchase the land will not use the land for farming. I have great concern, because our landscape is already being changed by those who are not farming. We know that legislation can throw up the law of unintended consequences. If we are to have this worthy clause in the Bill, I ask that measures are taken to ensure that there is some form of disincentivising to purchase the land for those who will not farm. Otherwise, there could be an impact on my landscape.

I welcome the Bill, including the measures to reduce the administrative burden on farming. In the event that there are not more protections for food security, I ask that we go further in that regard. The farmers I speak to find it incredibly difficult that they are rewarded not on the basis of yield, but on the basis of the number of inspections they tend to have. I refer back to the 100% production post war. We did not reach that production by forced inspections of our farms. Those farmers did that because they knew how to farm. If we let farmers get on with their job they will deliver the goods, and they will also deliver the environment. Overall, I very much support the Bill.

Ivory Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be the last Back Bencher to speak. I shall be looking to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), whose yawning ratio has increased, to see when I should sit back in my place.

I absolutely support this Bill, for all the reasons as everybody else. Therefore, I will not rehearse those arguments and will instead focus on two matters, the first being the definition of ivory. I note the points that have been made about how that can be extended. The explanatory notes say that under clause 35 the definition can indeed be extended to cover beyond elephants. However, that would happen only if the Government took the view that there had been a shift towards trade in other ivory—they would then perhaps then extend this. It would be a bit more up front to put that extension in place immediately and I cannot understand why this is limited just to the elephant tusk.

The second point I want to make is about the exemptions. In the event that we are to have exemptions, and we see the Bill contains some limited ones, surely it makes sense for the Bill Committee to get those absolutely right. Notwithstanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), my concern is that I do not find those exemptions particularly tight. There is a series of exemptions. For example, clause 2 refers to pre-1918 rare items and those with artistic, cultural or historical significance. We all have a view on what such things could be and it will be incredibly difficult to differentiate objectively. The Bill also mentions other time limits; there are references to 1975.

I find the exemptions somewhat random, so my idea to throw into the pot is that we have just one pre-defined list—a “now or never” registration, using pre-1947 as the date. People would not be able to add to the list and anything that has not been registered would just get destroyed. That should include museums. Thereafter, we would have the pre-defined set of items in place, we would have certainty and this could not be gamed. We would therefore just have one criterion. That registration process would be paid for, and any excess amounts banked by the Government should be spent on prohibition work in the field in the countries where this exists. If anything in the list is transferred, there should be a 20% tax, which would also go to those causes.

Those are my ideas to throw into the pot. A lot more could be done in Committee to get these exemptions narrowed and standardised, and to give better legal certainty that this will work.

UK Fisheries Policy

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. It is a pleasure to be called to speak. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for securing this debate.

If ever there was an industry that showed us the benefits of the UK leaving the European Union, it is the fisheries industry. In 2015, trawlers from EU member states took 683,000 tonnes from UK waters, whereas the UK fleet took 111,000 tonnes from member states’ waters, so we can clearly see the disparity. In the English channel, which is near my constituency, 84% of the cod quota is given to the French, leaving just 9% to the UK. The Danish trawling fleet takes 85% of all its fish from UK waters, so this is a fantastic opportunity that we should embrace.

Unfortunately, the inshore waters off of East Sussex, which I represent, have barely any fish. For that reason, I support the bid from the marine conversation zone for a new zone to be set up for Beachy Head East, which would run from Beachy Head lighthouse to Hastings pier. It has the huge support of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). That area of water, which would run out for six nautical miles, is rich in marine biodiversity, but unfortunately the trawlers that have taken their catch have also taken absolutely everything else. That was brought home to us locally when a sea angling competition caught no sea bass whatever, despite that being the target of the catch. Although I am hugely optimistic for our policy post Britain leaving the European Union, I ask the Minister to note the words, “Beachy Head East marine conservation zone application” and the support that I want to press upon him, because the reality is, unless we protect and preserve our stock, there will be nothing there for future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. May I begin my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and congratulating him on securing this debate? I know that this is very important to him, as a fellow Cornish MP. All of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas), are very aware of the importance of the industry to our area.

We have had many contributions from Members from a whole range of coastal communities, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has probably got more fisheries in his constituency than the rest of us put together. It is a huge industry in his constituency. We have also had very thoughtful contributions from many Members, including my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who made some important points. The last reform of the CFP, which he was instrumental in, established some important principles. As we leave the European Union and the CFP, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the principles behind policies such as fishing sustainably, using MSY as a key target and making a legal commitment to do so, the discard ban and the landing obligation were right.

Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), asked for an update on the situation. He will have noticed that we published our agricultural Command Paper today, and when it comes to fisheries, he does not have much longer to wait. That paper is well advanced: various drafts are being worked on and hon. Members can expect it to be published later in spring. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Queen’s Speech set out a clear commitment for a fisheries Bill in this Session. The intention is for it to be introduced later this year, possibly—probably—before the summer recess. That is the timescale we are working to.

My right hon. Friend asked whether we would be ready in the event that we come out of the European Union at the end of March 2019 without any agreement, including without an implementation period. The answer is yes. On all fronts, Government are working on contingency plans to ensure that we are ready. In the case of fisheries, that predominantly means ensuring that we plan to have adequate capacity for processing catch certificates, for example, which will be important for our export trade, and adequate enforcement capacity to police our exclusive economic zone.

As we leave the European Union, the international legal position is straightforward and beyond doubt. Under the UN convention on the law of the sea, the UK becomes an independent coastal state, just like the Faroe Islands, Norway and Iceland. That means that we take control of our exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles or the median line, in which we have responsibility for managing access and managing that resource. UNCLOS also requires us to co-operate with our neighbours on shared resources and shared stocks, which we intend to do anyway.

Several hon. Members mentioned the 1964 London fisheries convention. Last July, under the terms of that convention, we gave two years’ notice of our intention to quit. That historic agreement gave us some access to some member states in our six to 12-mile zone, so it seemed important to withdraw from it at the same time as we review access arrangements.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) pointed out, there is a huge imbalance in the apportionment of fishing opportunities. In each year between 2012 and 2016, the EU fleet took 760,000 tonnes of fish on average from UK waters. In that same period, the average annual take by the UK fleet from EU waters was 90,000 tonnes. We have been clear that, as we regain control of access and the management of our resources, our intention is to rebalance that arrangement.

The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) pointed out that the European Union’s Committee on Fisheries—PECH—would like things to stay the same, but it would say that. Why would it not, when the deal is so imbalanced? However, at the end of the day, it does not really matter what the European Union asks for, but what we are prepared to grant it. That is the approach that we will take. We will work in an honourable and sensible way with our European partners, while recognising that we will have control of our exclusive economic zone.

[Huw Merriman]

On that basis, does the Minister agree that we can have our fishcake and eat it?

[George Eustice]

That is a very good way of putting it.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall talked about some of Fishing for Leave’s proposals. I have met Fishing for Leave on several occasions. Our officials in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have also met with it about its proposals.

At the heart of it, one of the things I have learned as a fisheries Minister is that nothing ever quite works—there are pros and cons to everything, because the marine environment is incredibly complex. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, quota regimes tend to work well where there are single-species fisheries, particularly for pelagic fish such as mackerel. It would be inconceivable to move away from a quota regime if we were targeting those pelagic fish. An effort regime can work better where there is a highly mixed fishery with different species and where there is an inshore fleet with a limited quota, but it is quite bureaucratic to send small inshore fishermen out with a quota of 20 kilos of cod for an entire month and expect them to manage with that. We are looking at some of those ideas.