Degraded Chalk Stream Environments

Jon Cruddas Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on his thorough, wide-ranging and very informative speech. I, too, was exercised to come to this debate having read the report by Martin Salter that he referred to. It is a fantastic piece of work that all Members should have a look at.

The hon. Gentleman is a passionate and long-term defender of our river system. I simply want to make a couple of technical points. To clarify, by contrast to him, I am not and I cannot self-identify as a fisherman. I have stood by a few chalk streams with him occasionally, but that does not make me a fisherman. However, just like him, I am worried about how we preserve the unique biodiversity and international reputation of our threatened chalk streams. My chief concern is the degradation of our river systems due to water abstraction and what this tells us about some wider public policy concerns that we should all share in this House, irrespective of whether we are advocates of fly fishing in chalk streams.

It seems to me that the basic issue is quite simple: how can we protect our natural environment and chalk streams without making alternative sources of water available? The fundamental issue is how we can make more water available. As has been said, we have unique resources in this country. England has 160 of a total of 210 chalk streams in the world, and southern England has several of the greatest chalk streams on the planet. Yet today many of them are in an appalling state. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, no water is moving through them—there is no flow—and year on year the situation is getting worse. It is literally happening in front of our eyes: our unique river system is dying through a lack of water. I recently saw some data that suggested that only 14% of the rivers across England are now considered to reach good ecological standards. That is an environmental catastrophe, as the hon. Gentleman said.

The question is, why is that happening? Without doubt, our climate is changing, but this crisis is not about drier winters, hotter summers and drought: that does not give the whole picture. That is why this seemingly narrow conversation about chalk streams has much greater significance in terms of wider public policy issues and concerns. How do we achieve the provision of new water? The supply, distribution and quality of new homes is a central issue, as are the role of the water companies and patterns of regulation. These are all issues that—dare I say?—flow out of this debate about chalk streams. The demand for water, especially through new house building in the south east, has dramatically increased. For example, it is estimated that in my part of east London—in Barking, Dagenham and parts of Havering—there will be some 50,000 new units in the next 10 to 12 years. That is an awful lot of house building, and the question is, where will the water come from? Nationally, we seem to be moving towards a consensus of at least 300,000 extra units a year, which returns us to the question where the water will come from.

I, too, read the Thames Water briefing that was sent out at the back end of last week. It said—I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned these figures, which caught my eye—that accounting for climate change, population growth and environmental regulations, there will be a daily shortfall of some 350 million litres a day by 2045, and that will, in turn, double in the following 50 years. So this is an environmental catastrophe that is being played out day to day across the country.

A failure to provide new water means that water companies extract water from our rivers, which cannot cope and subsequently die. That appears to be the basic reality. The rivers are further undermined when excess sewage is discharged into them, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Time and again, the water companies have been fined, but they just take the hit. The point that he did not make is on how the water companies free-ride their ecological responsibilities. For example, last week it was brought to my attention through The Guardian that Ofwat has reduced the fines on Southern Water from £37.7 million to just £3 million for thousands of pollution spills, wilful misreporting of data and cover-ups. How will this type of leniency and—dare I say?—criminality be changed in terms of their behaviour, which is degrading our river systems?

Objectively, it seems clear to me that we need new water infrastructure, leakage reductions, smart metering, education and desalination—those all have their place—but the reality is that we do not have enough reservoirs. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that the last one was built in 1975. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was 42 years since we built a reservoir in this country. If we join the dots, the policy does not add up. How can we satisfy growth in London and the south-east without such new infrastructure? If this is not confronted, the crisis that our rivers face will intensify and they will never recover.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Thames Water has announced plans to bring forward the Abingdon reservoir, with construction starting in 2025, but I gather that this has been beset by problems. It would be good to hear where we are with that project and any other proposed infrastructure projects, not least because the responsibility lies with several different authorities: the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority, the Government and the water companies. I will end on that point, but I repeat that tonight’s short and apparently narrow debate has great significance, not just for those who fish in our unique chalk streams, but for everyone who is interested in how we will meet the demands of a growing population without further degrading our river systems and wider environment. That is something that should be beyond party politics, and something on which we might all agree.

Thames Water Reservoir at Abingdon

Jon Cruddas Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered plans for a Thames Water reservoir at Abingdon.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you, Mr Stringer, and to raise this important subject. Obviously, it is the perfect day for a Conservative MP to open a debate about digging a very large hole.

It may interest Members to learn that, for the last 20 or 25 years, there has been a proposal to build a large reservoir in my constituency. It is known as the Abingdon reservoir, which reflects the name of the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). However, it would be situated in my constituency, near the villages of Steventon, the Hanneys and Drayton. This is a very large piece of land—probably one of the largest pieces of open land in the south-east of England. There have been various thoughts about what might be built on that land, including, amazingly, an airport and a garden city. However, the reservoir has been the most enduring proposal.

I am neutral about whether the reservoir should be built. On the one hand, I am a nimby, and it would make my life a lot easier if a reservoir was not built in my constituency; on the other hand, I recognise that it is potentially a large and important piece of infrastructure for the south-east of England. One thing that I am firm about is that the reservoir should not go ahead unless the need for it has been properly examined. I was successful the last time construction of the reservoir came close to happening, in 2010. I called for a public inquiry, which we secured, and which rejected the need for a reservoir. For me, it is unarguable that there should be a second public inquiry if Thames Water, which is behind the proposal, comes up with a proposal for a reservoir.

At the moment, Thames Water is developing its statutory water resources management plan, which the regulator requires of water companies to allow them to put forward proposals that will ensure a secure water supply and protect the environment. The reservoir is being presented by Thames Water as a solution for long-term water shortages. I will rehearse some of the arguments for and against the reservoir, and then ask the Minister a number of questions.

I do not think anyone would disagree with Thames Water, or indeed other stakeholders, that there is severe pressure on water resources in the south-east. As I am sure many people in this room who are knowledgeable about this subject know, it is a great irony that we live in quite a rainy country but that we still have great pressure on water resources and do not have as much rainfall as required. Thames Water estimates that by 2045—in another quarter of a century—it will need to find an extra 350 million litres of water per day to supply the population in London and the south-east. It is working with other companies as part of the Water Resources in the South East group to look at the long-term needs of the wider region and the best options for strategic water supply. According to Thames Water, the reservoir option will improve its resilience and that of Affinity Water by creating a regional storage and transfer hub.

Thames Water bases its estimate of the extra 350 million litres a day on a population increase forecast of 2.1 million over the next 25 years, which translates into an extra 1.3 million houses, and on climate change projections—for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a climate change denier, and I accept that climate change will absolutely have an impact on water supply in the south-east. Thames Water forecasts that, by 2050, our summers may be an average of 3° hotter and 18% drier. The Environment Agency’s welcome tightening of regulatory oversight also makes it harder to extract water from rivers and underground sources.

There is perhaps a slight contradiction: on the one hand, there is great concern about a reservoir in my constituency, but on the other hand, my constituency is home to some of the chalk streams of south-east England, including Letcombe brook. I have two little-known facts for hon. Members about chalk streams. One is that 85% of the chalk streams in the world are in the south-east of England, while the other 15% are in Normandy because they are part of the same chalk ridge that was once fused together when we were members of the ice age version of the European Union. My other little-known fact is that somebody who is passionate about chalk streams is the former lead singer of the Undertones, Feargal Sharkey, whom I got to know when he was head of UK Music and I was the Culture Minister responsible for music. I spoke to Feargal this morning and he made a point that I will bring up in my conclusion: a reservoir has not been built in the south-east since 1976.

To make a wider and less reservoir-focused point, there has not been investment in water storage for some 40 years. Increases in housing and population, climate change and tighter environmental regulation will result in average daily consumption per person rising from 1,300 litres to roughly 1,400 in the next few years. I should also say that one of the arguments that came up when a reservoir was debated almost 10 years ago was the desire to see Thames Water do more to tackle leakage. London suffers from having Victorian infrastructure; we lose an enormous amount of water through leakage. I am pleased to see that Thames Water wants to reduce leakage by 15% by 2025 and 50% by 2050, but that will still not be enough to supplant the increase in demand for water.

Thames Water says that it has looked at several options, including water transfer from the River Severn; making more water available from the remaining power station at Didcot, where the coal-fired power station has been closed down; water transfer from the midlands via the Oxford canal; and a reuse scheme at the Deepham sewage works. However, it has reached the conclusion that the reservoir is the best option and that the site in my constituency is the best of the 50 sites it claims to have surveyed.

Obviously, Thames Water wants to emphasise some of the benefits that might come to my constituents, including nature conservation, new natural habitats, opportunities for recreation such as fishing and walking, and the opportunity to reduce abstraction and save our vulnerable chalk streams. It is also keen to lay to rest the accusation that it is undertaking this infrastructure scheme in order, frankly, to line its own pockets. Apparently, any reservoir would be constructed under the same financial arrangements as the Thames sewer, with a separate company and additional money on our bills for some 40 years until the construction cost has been paid off.

My constituents, particularly those local to the site, have certainly not taken Thames Water’s proposals lying down. I pay tribute to Brigadier Nick Thompson, who led the Group Against Reservoir Development in its first battle when there was a public inquiry, and to Derek Stork, who now leads GARD. Given that this is happening in my constituency, I am pleased to say that the average resident has quite a bit of ammo behind them; Derek is the former head of technology at the UK Atomic Energy Authority, so he is no slouch when it comes to looking at the issues with his colleagues.

GARD points out that filling the reservoir would take three years and cause immense damage to the local community, the landscape and archaeology. The reservoir would have walls 25 metres high and would take 30 days to drain in an emergency. Building it would be enormously disruptive to the local community and would take something like 10 years, with all the resulting lorry traffic and disruption.

My constituents have already been affected by the very serious matter of planning blight. For example, many landowners have not modernised their buildings in the past 20 or 30 years; their land is still being used mainly for farmland because the threat of a reservoir has been hanging over them. They require certainty. Last year, a constituent was unable to sell their home, and I had to bring Thames Water to the table to purchase it. Many others who live near the site find that it is having an impact on their house prices and the opportunity to sell, and some of them face negative equity.

What concerns my constituents is not just the building disruption, but whether the case has genuinely been made. They have taken on some of Thames Water’s assumptions: they think that its population forecast and usage projections per person are unrealistically high and, although they are certainly not climate change deniers, they challenge its forecast of the impact of climate change on water availability. The data shows that water availability in London has increased over the past 70 years by about 200 litres a day. My constituents are not necessarily making the case that there should never be a reservoir, but they certainly do not believe that one is needed now; in fact, they argue that if there is ever a case for one, it will not be needed until at least 2100.

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Given what the right hon. Gentleman says about the degradation of the river system, especially the chalk rivers, the clock is ticking and there is an imminent crisis, as Feargal Sharkey would say. I do not want to bring the debate back to Europe, but it is 45 years since we have been in Europe and 42 years since we built a reservoir. Does the right hon. Gentleman not conclude that the clock is ticking for us to save our river system in the south of England, especially the chalk stream system?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. Obviously I am focusing on the specific proposal for a reservoir, but there is a lot more to say about managing water resources in the south-east. GARD is not saying that we should not build any more infrastructure to make more water resources available; it is saying that the Severn transfer option is viable and cheaper, and there is also the possibility of the Teddington abstraction scheme. Thames Water itself acknowledges that water transfer is an option, although it argues that it is not as good an option as a reservoir. It also claims to be looking at the Teddington scheme.

I want to give other hon. Members a chance to make the points that need to be made, but I want to ask the Minister about a number of points. I would be grateful for her insight into what work the Department has done with Thames Water to assess not just its proposal for a reservoir but its overall water resources management plan. Will she assure me and my constituents that, as this journey continues, Thames Water, her Department and other stakeholders, such as the Environment Agency, will fully involve my constituents in their deliberations and consultations? I hope she will support me, my constituents and Oxfordshire County Council in calling for a public inquiry to ensure this process is conducted in an open and proper manner.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by making the following points. When I sat firmly on the fence about the reservoir a decade ago, I must confess that I was not entirely confident that a public inquiry would lead to the reservoir being dismissed. I was pleasantly surprised that the inquiry concluded that a reservoir was unnecessary. It is sometimes easy to dismiss local campaign groups as nimbys or as people who will find almost any way to stop any kind of development near where they live, but, as it turned out, the campaign group defeated Thames Water in a sort of David and Goliath battle with the power of its arguments. The planning inspector found that Thames Water had not made its arguments effectively. I do not think that a lot has changed since 2010 or that the alternative options have been explored fully, and they need to be.

On the point the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) made about chalk streams and the environment, I have one other element of frustration, and it is partly directed at the Minister—her post, as opposed to her personally, because she is obviously a very good friend of mine. It seems slightly odd that Thames Water, a private company, is being left, to a certain extent, to its own devices to come up with a solution to a potential water crisis in the south-east over the next 10 or 20 years. It would be much better if this whole debate were led by the Government. They should say, “This is the need over the next 25 years. This is our best guess—made on all the available expertise, in a dispassionate fashion. These are the best ways to combat water shortage. They are about not just tackling leakage and more efficient home use, with water meters and the like, but realistic infrastructure that provides the best access to water resources with the minimum disruption to communities.”

I am delighted, at what I think is still quite an early stage in this process, to have had the opportunity to raise these issues at the highest level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I was not going to speak this afternoon; I came to listen. There is a little bit of time left so I will say a few words, but I will not take up too much of Conservative Members’ time: they obviously have urgent meetings on the Estate to get to over the next couple of hours, as their party disintegrates.

The two speeches that have been made were very thoughtful and contained nuanced arguments about the case for and concerns about the reservoir. I came to listen because, although this is primarily a local matter, it throws up a lot of issues about ways in which we can achieve new water; the supply, distribution and quality of new homes; the role of the water companies themselves; and patterns of regulation—to name but a few.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on securing the debate. I know something about it because of my interest in chalk streams. As I understand it, Thames Water announced its new plans to start construction on the reservoir in 2025. I totally understand the local concerns that have been registered about the proposal, because it was rejected in 2010 at the public inquiry. There is a general concern that, to satisfy growth in London and the south of England—another consultation is ongoing—the Thames Water plan for the reservoir suggests a storage and distribution hub for the south-east.

Objectively, it seems clear that we need new water and new infrastructure, including reservoirs. I accept, however, that there are other suggestions for bringing new water into the stressed south-east, including transfers from Wales and the River Severn, or water re-use and desalination. There are a whole number of other proposed remedies.

One point I want to flag up that has been mentioned in the debate but which is often overlooked in the case for any new supportive water infrastructure, is the degradation of the river systems in England—specifically, of the chalk streams. As the right hon. Member for Wantage mentioned in his speech, England has a unique concentration of chalk streams—160 of the 210 that exist globally—and they are disproportionately in the south of England. Yet they are in an appalling state; no water is moving in many of them and there is no flow. More generally, I recently saw data that estimated that only 14% of the rivers across England are considered to have reached good ecological standards. At the same time, demand for water, especially through new house building in the south of England, has dramatically increased.

Those two apparently separate issues are intrinsically related. A policy failure to provide new water means that our water companies extract water from our rivers, which cannot cope and subsequently die. At the same time, excess sewage is discharged into the rivers by those same companies, further undermining their quality and sustainability. Time and again, the water companies have been fined, but they take the hit—there are notorious cases of discharge by Thames Water. In effect, they free-ride their ecological responsibilities.

The situation has to be sorted out via public policy making because, as a consequence of all this, it has been 42 years since we have built a reservoir. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing the debate, intimated that he was moving closer to Labour’s policy on water ownership and frustrations with the current system. Responsibility lies with a number of different authorities: the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority, the Government and the subject of today’s debate, Thames Water.

I repeat that I do not want to stray into local planning consultations, and I respect the contributions to the debate so far, which have made powerful cases, but an overall case needs to be made on consumer demand and preserving our unique English river systems, especially in the south of England: new infrastructure is needed. That does not mean that I am in the pocket of the water companies, but consequential environmental issues are involved, and the clock is ticking. New build, or the start of the build, in 2025 is being talked about, but any cursory look at the English river system tells us that we need urgent action now.

Recreational Sea Bass Fishing

Jon Cruddas Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who made a brilliant speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also welcome him to the all-party group on angling, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I look forward to some pleasant days out.

I am a terrible fisherman, so restraints such as the 42 cm landing size, the one-fish-per-day limit, or the moratorium will not affect me because I do not actually catch anything. However, I have great affection for the recreational angling community, and this is a great opportunity to debate the issue. I do not think we have discussed recreational fishing since December 2014, when the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) secured an Adjournment debate on bass fishing. After that debate we were optimistic about the future direction of travel of Government policy, but I am afraid we stand here today pretty disappointed about where we have got to.

Angling is one of the highest participant recreational sports across Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and in the country at large. If we joined conversations in recreational angling chatrooms, and talked to people from the Angling Trust and the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society, we would quickly appreciate the concerns across the country. Anglers are desperate to help to rebuild bass stocks in a fair, efficient and proportionate way, and we were looking forward to making real progress at the December Council of Ministers meeting.

The basic problem now is that the recreational angler feels singled out and that EU fishing Ministers have unfairly targeted them in the new six-month moratorium. That moratorium risks criminalising thousands of law-abiding people, and it will be difficult to enforce without the active support of angling clubs, anglers and the Angling Trust.

Evidence suggests that charter boat bookings are already down, which will impact on tourism revenues and potentially put some operators out of business. Anglers fishing from April to June will have to return all their bass, yet a commercial boat can come alongside and catch and kill the same fish. Ministers have boasted that these supposed conservation measures will have little effect on commercial inshore bass fishing, while also claiming that they have secured a good deal for bass stocks. Those statements cannot both be true. We therefore need to find out what the Government’s actual position is.

DEFRA’s own “Sea Angling 2012” report shows that there are 884,000 sea anglers in England, who directly pump some £1.23 billion per annum into our economy. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned, bass are the most popular recreational species, and bass angling is worth some £200 million in England alone. Let us cut to the chase: for the past decade and a half, recreational sea anglers have been led to believe that their most popular sporting fish would be managed sustainably and be acknowledged as a valued recreational species. Why is that? It is because politicians of all parties have told them so.

In 2002, the Prime Minister’s strategy unit commissioned a report on the benefits of recreational sea angling. That report, “Net Benefits”, was eventually published in 2004, and it said:

“Fisheries management policy should recognise that sea angling may…provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation.”

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on “Net Benefits” said:

“We support the re-designation of certain species for recreational use and recognise the benefits that this can bring from both a conservation and economic point of view.”

In the 2014 debate, the hon. Member for Meon Valley, who is now a Minister, concluded his speech by saying this:

“does the Minister agree that the development of sea bass fishing as a recreational activity is the best long-term solution to both the ecological and the economic sustainability of the fishery, as proved by the Irish sea bass experience, the striped bass fishery of the north-east coast of the US and many other examples?”—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 119WH.]

Today, we ask the same question: what is the Government’s policy? We ask that as the derogations drive policy in the opposite direction to that argued for by the hon. Gentleman and the Government report in 2004.

Do not get me wrong, I am not attempting to make a party political point about this. For example, under the last Labour Government, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), tried to increase the minimum landing size to 42 cm, but he was replaced by a new Minister who caved in to the commercial lobbying and annulled the statutory instrument that would have delivered this important conservation measure. My right hon. Friend was actively supported in those attempts to introduce that minimum landing size by the then Member for Reading, West, who, sadly, is no longer an MP, even though he is very much active in the Angling Trust and continues to lobby on behalf of recreational anglers.

There is a recurring theme throughout the past 20 years, whereby the ecological case has been consistently put by the recreational side, backed up by Government reports and all-party groups, and this has been accompanied by limited actions of Governments of various persuasions, given pressures from the commercial side. Here we are again today making the same points and trying to give voice to the recreational angling community.

In Ireland, bass has been designated a recreational species since 1990, delivering an estimated €71 million to the Irish economy annually and supporting more than 1,200 jobs. Ireland is also in the EU. The Isle of Man is about to embark on a similar policy. As well as highlighting the ridiculous anomalies with the current situation and the unfair treatment of recreational anglers, this debate today is really about trying to find out the longer-term thinking of the Government, so we do not have to return to this question again and again, whoever is in power.

UK Sea Bass Stocks

Jon Cruddas Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

This topic is important. Only this past weekend experts called for a ban on trawlermen catching sea bass, given the evidence that angling offers three times the benefit to the economy.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) on securing such an important debate, and I want to repeat some facts that he pointed out in his opening address. DEFRA’s own “Sea Angling 2012” report shows that there are 884,000 sea anglers in England, who pump £1.23 billion per annum directly into the economy, with 10,400 full-time jobs dependent on the activity; and that the indirect spend is equivalent to £2.1 billion, with 23,600 jobs at stake. Bass are the most popular species for recreational angling and, according to figures given at the recent Dublin bass workshop, bass angling is worth more than £200 million in England alone.

I admit that I am not a bass fisherman—indeed, many of my colleagues in the all-party group might suggest that I am not a fisherman of any shape or size at all—but my youngest brother is a fanatical one, and many of my constituents are also bass fishermen. Indeed, angling is possibly the recreational sport with one of the highest participation rates in my east London constituency, as in the country at large. This obviously important debate is also about the nature of politics—about keeping our promises, which has been mentioned a number of times this morning.

For the past 13 years, recreational sea anglers have been led to believe that their most popular sporting fish would be managed sustainably and primarily as a recreational species, because Governments, including the previous Labour Government, kept telling them that that was what we were going to do. I want to focus on some of the recent history behind today’s debate, which was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) in his comments.

In 2007, we came close to a breakthrough based on a cross-party consensus, but a Fisheries Minister capitulated to pressure from the commercial sector and overturned the decision of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, who had already signed off the order to increase the bass minimum landing size. Since then, arguably, we have witnessed seven wasted years in terms of sustainable management of the species, and that has been picked up time and again in the contributions this morning. Since 2007, as far as I can see, not a single measure introduced by Governments of either main party has halted the decline in bass stocks. We are still waiting for the publication of the 2012 bass minimum landing size review, instigated by the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). There is some doubt as to whether any meaningful work has been done at all.

The core of the argument put by all our colleagues this morning is that politicians have promised that Britain’s most popular fish in sporting and eating potential should be managed sustainably. That has not happened and bass stocks are in deep trouble. The latest scientific advice issued by ICES in June 2014 recommended an 80% cut in catches of bass throughout the European Union by 2015—more than double the amount suggested in 2013, which we had not acted on. The Solent bass surveys also make dismal reading, but that is not new—the news has not fallen from the sky.

It is worth going back to some of the recent elements in the debate. As emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, in 2002 the Prime Minister’s strategy unit commissioned a report on the benefits of recreational sea angling. “Net Benefits” was eventually published in 2004 and it stated:

“Fisheries management policy should recognise that sea angling may, in some circumstances, provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation.”

That is exactly the point made by the Blue Marine Foundation report that was in the papers this weekend, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

The 2002 report’s recommendations were:

“Fisheries departments should review the evidence supporting arguments for re-designating commercially caught species for wholly recreational sea angling, beginning with bass by the end of 2004.”

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee then looked at the issue when considering the “Net Benefits” report. According to the Committee’s all-party review:

“We strongly support the Strategy Unit recommendations to develop the recreational sea angling sector. We believe that the sector, which has considerable economic value, has been overlooked and under-represented for too long.”

It added:

“We support the re-designation of certain species for recreational use and recognise the benefits that this can bring from both a conservation and economic point of view.”

The same points about the economic case for recreational angling have been made consistently over the past 13 years.

I do not want to be party political in any way in this debate, but I want to emphasise the 2005 “Labour’s Charter for Angling”, which contained the following words in a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter:

“It was anglers concerns for the conservation status of sea bass that has persuaded me to agree to implement much of the excellent bass management plan put forward by the Bass Anglers Sport Fishing Society”,

including increases in the minimum landing size to strengthen the brood stock.

My right hon. Friend was true to his word, and in 2005 he launched the DEFRA consultation on increasing the minimum landing size for bass so as to produce a sustainable fishery with more and bigger bass for the commercial and recreational sectors. He took the long-term view in 2006 when he announced the conclusions of the consultation and his intention to increase the minimum landing size to 40 cm from 36 cm, and later to go on to 45 cm, beyond the optimum spawning size. According to his DEFRA press release:

“I have listened very carefully to the representations made and have not taken this decision lightly. I have accepted the arguments for a bigger minimum landing size to help increase the quantity and size of bass. This will also give better protection for the stocks. There may be short term costs from this measure before we see future gains but it is vital that fisheries management takes a long term view.”

My right hon. Friend went on:

“The recreational fishing sector makes a major contribution to our economy and it is important that their voice, as well as those of commercial fishermen, is taken into account in fisheries management.

In the future, I intend to increase the landing size further to 45 cm, but subject to the results of a review, in 2010”.

To justify that decision, DEFRA claimed at the time that the increase to 40 cm would bring the minimum landing size closer to the average spawning size for bass. As a result, more juvenile fish would be protected and there would be increased recruitment to the spawning stock. In turn, that would increase the number and size of bass available for capture to both the commercial and recreational sectors. My right hon. Friend concluded:

“I have taken on board the concerns expressed during the consultation by the commercial fishing sector about the impact of an immediate increase to 45 cm and the need for a reasonable implementation period to minimise the cost of net replacement.”

The next Fisheries Minister, however, made the decision to go back on the commitment made by his predecessor to increase the minimum landing size in the interests of conservation. On 25 October 2007 he made a statement on retaining the minimum landing size at 36 cm, rather than increasing it to 40 cm and then 45 cm by 2010. The decision was met with predictable anger and dismay by hundreds of thousands of sea anglers and many conservationists in the country. The Minister admitted at the time that his decision was based on looking after the short-term interests of the inshore fleet, rather than on the long-term interests of the species and the environment. We should obviously be concerned about any decision and its effect on jobs, but let us not forget the devastating impact that unsustainable fishing has on all sectors, whether commercial or recreational.

Bass is a highly sought after and valuable resource. It was recognised as worthy of protection by the Prime Minister’s strategy unit, by the whole Government and by cross-party Committees of the House. Unfortunately, the direction of travel was later unwound, and seven years have followed with little having happened. I hope that today we will start a new phase of the discussion, and I praise the hon. Member for Meon Valley for putting the issue on the agenda today. I hope that we can begin to rebuild a cross-party consensus about sustainable management of the bass stock.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—