Blue Belt Programme: Marine Protected Areas

Debate between James Gray and Angela Smith

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Gray]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my notice. In his short time in the House so far, he has been assiduous in championing the interests of the oceans off his own constituency and elsewhere around the world. I am most grateful to him for that. If I may, I will come back to the Sky television programme in a moment.

There is more to be done. For example, there are—I think that my hon. Friend referred to this briefly—current debates about whether the MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is sufficient and whether the protections already in place could or should be further enhanced. I think that the Sky TV programme is about that. A review of the MPA is under way at the moment, with recommendations due to be published next year.

An organisation known as the Great British Oceans coalition, which consists of six major environmental conservation organisations, has said that it wants to see protection of the area around the South Sandwich Islands in particular enhanced to the fullest degree. Doing that, it argues, would help the UK to reaffirm our ambition of becoming a global leader of efforts to protect the world’s oceans. It would also send a strong message to other CCAMLR members that the UK is committed to driving forward international efforts to establish MPAs around Antarctica in particular. Those are of course extremely laudable aims that broadly reflect the intent of the Blue Belt programme, and it is vital that we should not fail to capitalise on the momentum generated by “Blue Planet II”, so I am broadly supportive of the aims and efforts of the Great British Oceans coalition. We all want the UK to be a global leader in marine protection, but there is a debate to be had about how best to achieve that, particularly without disturbing the delicate CCAMLR discussions on MPAs around Antarctica.

Unlike with other overseas territories, for the past 35 years or so the UK has allowed South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to be covered by CCAMLR rules on fisheries management. The reason for that is simple. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands lie within the Southern ocean convergence and share the same wildlife as Antarctica. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are also, however, counterclaimed by Argentina—a matter that we are well aware of in this House. By allowing the islands to fall under CCAMLR, the UK is able to manage those waters effectively within the international consensus of CCAMLR. Working through CCAMLR therefore underpins British sovereignty of the waters, which seems to me to be extremely important. It also helps to foster greater international co-operation around Antarctica and the Southern ocean, and, as I mentioned a moment ago, that co-operation promotes conservation efforts across the entire white continent and its surrounding waters.

After all, since 2012 the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands MPA has managed the local fishery and protected globally significant wildlife very adequately indeed. There is just one small commercial fishery licensed by the UK, which amounts to no more than two vessels fishing for one month a year and taking around 60 to 80 tonnes of fish in the waters. Those two boats also supply scientific data to CCAMLR, which is no easy task. Were it not for the fact that we allow those two vessels to fish for profit in the highly regulated South Georgia fishery, it would be too expensive for them to go there and we would therefore lose the scientific data we currently provide to CCAMLR. In other words, were this fishery to be closed, as some are calling for and the coalition seems to be calling for, the UK would no longer be able to control fishing in the area as effectively.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about this issue, but the campaign that he refers to for the South Sandwich Islands has made it clear that a scientifically credible stock assessment is not incompatible with a fully protected reserve. Does he agree, therefore, that there is an opportunity to retain a small scientifically robust stock assessment alongside the full protection that the coalition is calling for?

[James Gray]

That is a matter that needs to be discussed, and it will be interesting to hear how the Minister responds to that point later in the debate. Of course it would be possible for the two fishery vessels to continue to do their scientific research there at the same time as there being full protection, but we have already got full protection of those waters under the long-standing MPA that is already there. I am not certain that what is proposed by the coalition would necessarily add anything to that. However, it might well undermine our ability to provide that scientific data and it might invite other CCAMLR members to say that it is not being done properly and therefore they—the other CCAMLR members—have some kind of right to do that scientific fishing research in the area. I therefore think there are downsides, as well as upsides, to what the coalition proposes. It is a delicate political decision, which the Minister might refer to in his response.

There could, therefore, be a perversity in what the coalition demand—namely, that more fish will be caught in the area as a result, rather than less. That is something that we have to be extremely careful about. There may be innovative solutions to the problem, particularly surrounding enforcement of the MPA, perhaps using the latest satellite technology, and further discussion may well be warranted about how the UK can best protect the waters around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and revitalise international efforts to increase protection around the world.

Equine Slaughterhouses (CCTV)

Debate between James Gray and Angela Smith

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gray]

That is possible, of course, but it is hard to work out the cause and effect. In the case of horses, I suspect that it is probably because, depending on the statistics we use, only 4,000 or 5,000 are slaughtered each year in up to five abattoirs—there are none in Wales or Scotland. In other words, something in the order of 1,000 horses are slaughtered per equine abattoir spread over 50 weeks. A very small number of horses are being killed in licensed abattoirs today, and therefore there is no presumption that any of them is carrying out anything other than the highest possible standards of slaughter.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, given that I have just delivered my speech. It is a mistake to assume that the five abattoirs kill an equal number of horses, because they do not. The numbers are very uneven. The FSA’s figures show that the best records and CCTV coverage are sometimes to be found in smaller abattoirs.

[Mr Gray]

The statistical point that I was making was not whether the same number were killed in each of the five abattoirs; it was that a relatively small number are killed across the whole of England. As far as I am aware, there is also little evidence of anything other than high standards in the abattoirs that do kill horses. We must not start by presuming that they are all bad people doing wicked things. They are not, necessarily; many of them are extremely professional abattoirs doing good things, so let us not start from the presumption that they are bad.

There is a bigger gap in the campaign that we are discussing. I think I am right in saying that the only horses that go to abattoirs are those going into the food chain, which in the UK is a relatively small number. If we presume that there are between 1 million and 1.5 million horses in the UK today, that means that 75,000 or 100,000 die every year in one way or another. Of those, only a tiny proportion go into the food chain. Again, my concern about the campaign is that we would be assuring ourselves that we were doing something terribly important about the euthanising of horses, whereas in fact we would be dealing with an extremely small proportion of those that are killed or die every year, and there may well be other abuses elsewhere that we could more usefully spend our time addressing.

That brings us to the question of horse passports. It must be remembered that the only horses that can be presented at an abattoir are those with up-to-date horse passports, in which no veterinary medicine appears. Nearly all horses, especially low-grade horses, will have had some form of veterinary medicine during the course of their life, particularly bute, which rules them out for presentation at an equine slaughterhouse.

Regional Growth Fund

Debate between James Gray and Angela Smith

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

We now come to a debate on UK relations with Libya. I beg your pardon; we do not. That was an extremely good debate on the UK’s relations with Libya, which I enjoyed very much. We now come to a debate on the effectiveness of the regional growth fund.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I am mightily relieved that the topic is not Libya, Mr Gray, because my notes do not refer to it in the least. I am pleased to have secured this debate on the regional growth fund. I want to start by putting the fund in the context of the economy as a whole. There is no doubt that the British economy is in trouble. We have a growth crisis. Year-on-year growth has all but vanished, with this morning’s Office for National Statistics growth forecast for quarter 3 at 0.5%, and with construction already in negative territory. Unemployment is at levels not seen since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and is rising at an alarming rate. Worse still, the young are paying the heaviest price, with youth unemployment at almost 1 million.

Worryingly, unemployment is rising at a much faster rate in the regions than in London or the south-east, as Government cuts bite more heavily into the regions. Already, the unemployment rate in Yorkshire and the Humber is almost twice that in the south-east, according to ONS figures. Inflation is running at more than twice the Bank of England’s target rate of 2.5%, while average incomes are rising at half that rate. That means, as the Governor of the Bank of England said recently, that families are experiencing the biggest squeeze on their incomes in living memory.

The Minister, in his response to the debate, will undoubtedly claim that our growth problem is due to the eurozone crisis. No. The blame must lie at the doors of No. 11 and No. 10 Downing street. Our economic growth has faltered thanks to a reckless slashing of investment by this out-of-touch Government. Yes, in 2008 the global economy did go through the worst financial crisis, and subsequently the deepest recession, since the 1930s, and yes, the British economy was badly affected by the irresponsibility of banks over-lending, but since the Government came to power, the UK economy has stagnated, as I have pointed out. Since last autumn, only earthquake-hit Japan has grown more slowly than the UK in the G7. There is no doubt that the Government’s policies are hurting, but they are certainly not working. Today, I want to spell out that it is not just that the Government are not doing enough to help our economy grow; what they are doing, they are doing badly.

The previous Government’s key tools for regional economic development were the nine regional development agencies covering the country. Those tools for investment enjoyed significant Government support both politically and financially, with a budget of approximately £2 billion a year. I think that in the last year of the Labour Government, the budget was £1.7 billion. The Conservatives made no secret of their desire to abolish the RDAs if they won the general election—they did not win it, but they are in power thanks to the Liberal Democrats—but they were very light on what they thought should replace them.