Zero Total Allowable Catch: Pollack

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this debate to the House. The subject might be considered fairly niche, but it is incredibly important to many people in my constituency and across Cornwall. It was suggested my opening line should be, “Never mind the pollacks—here’s the Adjournment debate,” but of course I could not possibly say that.

I begin by thanking the Minister. I am grateful to him for responding to the debate. He has been willing to engage and meet with colleagues who have sought to raise concerns about the issue over many weeks. I thank him for his engagement—I hope it will not end now—as he has been working with us to find a solution to the challenge. He is aware that the decision to have zero total allowable catch for pollack, which was made in December and took effect from 1 January, is damaging the livelihoods of many fishermen in Cornwall.

It is estimated that upwards of 40 boats that either operate out of or land their catch in Mevagissey, Newquay and Fowey, in my constituency, rely on pollack catch for a significant amount of their income. As has been reported by the media, the Hunkin family have said that they stand to lose around £200,000 this year alone from the decision to have zero quota for pollack, which represents about two thirds of their total revenue.

In fact, the issue affects fisheries across Cornwall. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), boats would operate from Padstow and Port Isaac, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), boats would operate from Looe, Polperro, and, in the far west, Newlyn. The decision is having a serious impact. Although pollack is caught from many ports around the UK, the decision has had a disproportionate impact on the inshore fishing fleet that operates out of Cornwall.

We all accept that the recommendation by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas that pollack should have a zero quota put Ministers and officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in an incredibly difficult position. After that recommendation was made, it would have been very difficult for the UK not to go along with it. We all acknowledge that. However, as a result of that decision, many fishermen had their ability to make a living taken away overnight. To put that in perspective, the 570 tonnes of pollack quota that was available to vessels operating from Cornish ports represent a loss of £2.3 million to the Cornish economy.

That loss impacts not only fishermen, but supply-chain businesses that serve and support the fishing industry. The harbourmaster at Mevagissey, Andrew Trevarton, has estimated that the loss of pollack quota will result in a loss of 20% of Mevagissey harbour’s income, and there is no prospect of an easy way to replace that income. It is difficult to overstate how important having a thriving, operating fishing port at Mevagissey is to the economy of that village. It attracts about 800,000 visitors every year, largely because it is a living, operating fishing port—not a museum, but a thriving part of the fishing industry in Cornwall.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand. As he rightly says, issues with pollack fishing seem to be more prevalent in the south-west. In Northern Ireland, we do not have the same concerns. Despite that, allowing certain fish to be caught only as bycatch is impacting the livelihoods of local fishermen. Does he agree that if these issues start to arise further afield than the south-west—for example, in fishing ports in Northern Ireland—and the Minister tonight decides to assist the hon. Gentleman, the same grants and opportunities should extend to all areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Steve Double]

The case that I am making is on a very specific issue: the impact on a specific part of our fishing industry of the removal of the pollack quota at such short notice. We all want a thriving fishing sector right across the United Kingdom. We want fishermen and businesses that support the sector to thrive and be profitable right across the UK. We need policies that enable that to happen, but what we face in Cornwall and other parts of the south-west is very specific. It relates to the short timeframe in which vessels and fishermen must adapt, because the quota went from 1,500 tonnes to zero virtually overnight.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour on securing tonight’s much-needed Adjournment debate. One fisherman said to me that it is as though his right leg has been amputated, and he must now get through the rest of the year on crutches, until we can find a way through this situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the options that we have been offered so far mean only a displacement to different species and ways of catching fish, and will therefore not be of any help to the long-term prospects of the fishing industry in Cornwall?

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for making the very next point that I was going to come to. One of the suggestions that has been made to the fishermen who have been affected by the decision is that they can switch to targeting other species. That is simple to say, but not that simple to do, partly because of the lack of time. There was no lead-up to the decision; there was literally two weeks’ notice. To switch to catching other species, fishermen need different equipment, and for much of it, there is a lead time of several months before it can be delivered. As my hon. Friend says, switching to a different species simply displaces the catch of other vessels. The vessels that work hard targeting that other species will then have to reduce their catch, and perhaps look for something else, which will also have a knock-on effect. While I appreciate the sentiment that these fishermen need to catch something else, it really is not that simple. Certainly, it is unrealistic to expect that to happen when they have had such a short timeframe in which to adjust.

There are real concerns and questions about the data on which the decision was made. It is accepted that pollack stocks were diminishing, and quotas were being reduced for some time, but what shocked the industry was the decision to go suddenly from 1,500 tonnes to zero at once, when previously quotas have dropped by a few hundred tonnes a year. As we understand it, the data has largely been gathered from the catch of trawlers, but it is well understood that the main place where pollack can be found and caught is on reefs and wrecks, where trawlers cannot fish. There are real questions about the accuracy of the data that has been used to make the recommendation, and whether it is based on the reality of the stock of pollack that is available.

The fishermen I have spoken to are incredibly frustrated—some are even angry—because for several years they have been saying to the Marine Management Organisation, “We are concerned about pollack stocks, and therefore we would like an increase in the minimum catch size, an increase in the mesh size for the nets or a closed season for one or two months a year to protect the stock so we don’t have to take this drastic action”—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

[Steve Double]

When those fishermen put that to the MMO, it said, “Oh, there’s no need for that. We are not concerned. We don’t think those measures are necessary.” But it looks like the fishermen were right all along, because if these measures had been brought in gradually over the past few years, we may have had sustainable quota for pollack without this sudden drop to zero.

I know the Minister has been looking at ways to support those who have been affected severely by this decision. I welcome the steps he has taken, the work he has been doing and the measures he has brought forward through the fisheries and seafood scheme to expedite applications from those who have been affected by the reduction in pollack stock to help them diversify. That is very welcome, but will he clarify the letter sent out on 23 February, which said the scheme will be available to all those affected by the reduction in pollack quota, including netters? The press release that went out later that day seemed to suggest it was only available to handliners and boats under 10 metres. If the Minister could clarify exactly who the expedited FaSS is available to, that would be welcome.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I can do that while my hon. Friend is on his feet. I was trying to establish a priority list, so boats under 10 metres and handliners will be prioritised over boats over 10 meters and those that are netting. That does not mean those boats are excluded; it just means that we will prioritise the others.

[Steve Double]

I am very grateful to the Minister. It is very helpful to have that clarification.

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—I will call it CEFAS, which is a lot easier to say—is working with fishermen to gather accurate data about the current stocks of pollack, which will hopefully inform future decisions. Paying fishermen who have lost their catch due to this decision to gather data is very welcome, but we should acknowledge that the scheme will assist only a relatively small number of vessels. Both schemes are welcome, but they do not go far enough and will not help anywhere near the number of boats that have been affected or mitigate the losses that are being experienced.

We need to focus on two things. First, we must help and support now those who have been so badly affected by this decision, and protect their livelihoods in the immediate future from the loss of income that they experienced virtually overnight with no time to prepare. Secondly, we should lay out a pathway to return pollack quota sustainably as quickly as possible.

I urge the Minister to prioritise work with the specialised committee on fisheries, where I understand that the UK and the EU will be discussing pollack as a priority topic later this month. This is the first chance to review the data and make requests of ICES for refinement of the science and management, particularly of recreational fishers. As the Minister knows, that is a real concern of many commercial fishermen: there seem to be no restrictions or regulations around recreational fishers when it comes to pollack. Those fishermen want to see the UK engaging robustly and confidently as the independent seafaring nation that we are, and to make the most of that opportunity. I also understand that the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has a meeting with DEFRA and CEFAS later this month, ahead of the SCF meeting. I hope the Minister and his officials will take that opportunity to really listen to the concerns of our fishing representatives and understand the impact that this decision is having, and to work with them to find a way forward.

What we need is urgent help now. Fishermen have lost a major part of their income overnight through no fault of their own. They have ongoing business costs, mortgages to pay and families to support, and it is unrealistic to expect them to adjust at such short notice—they really need some help now. I urge the Minister to continue to do all he can to find a way of getting help to those fishermen as soon as we can, and to work with fishermen in Cornwall and elsewhere towards seeing a pollack quota return as soon as possible, so we can have sustainable fisheries for pollack going forward. I thank the Minister again for all he has been doing. I look forward to his response to this debate, and I will continue to work with him and colleagues to find solutions to these challenges, to help the fishermen I represent and to ensure they have a viable future.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Steve Double Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I was born and raised in the heart of Cornwall, have lived there my whole life, and have always enjoyed the sea. Members who follow me on any my private social media platforms will know that I am found in, on or beside the sea at just about every possible opportunity. Therefore, I have taken a very keen interest in the whole issue of water quality, particularly bathing water and sewage discharge, throughout my life, long before I was first elected to this House.

We have to start by saying that this is not a new issue. Let us remember that Surfers Against Sewage was started in 1990 specifically to raise awareness about it and deal with it. At that time, less than 25% of UK bathing waters were at a minimum acceptable standard for bathing, whereas there is now only one beach in my constituency that does not meet that standard. I am sorry, but pretending that things are worse than they have ever been is absolute nonsense. We have seen incredible progress on this issue over many years.

I remember very clearly that the Labour Government did absolutely nothing in 13 years to address the issue—zero. When we came into office in 2015, we were the first ever Government to take this matter seriously and start to address it.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend has just said is not actually accurate. Labour did not just do nothing; in 2006, it cut a deal with the water companies to agree self-assessment on their environmental performance. Does he agree that that is worse than nothing?

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Labour actually made the situation worse—so much so that in 2009, the Labour Government was taken to court by the EU for failing to deal with the issue—so I am sorry, but we will take no lectures whatsoever from the Opposition Front Benchers about dealing with it. We are the first Government who have ever taken this matter seriously and taken action to start addressing it. We do not even have to think back in history, because we have a living example right before us today: in the one part of the UK where the Labour party is in government, the situation is far worse than in England. Wales is responsible for 25% of sewage discharges for the whole of England and Wales, yet it has only 5% of the population, so again, we will take no lectures from the Opposition.

It was this Government who first introduced substantial monitoring of storm overflows. When Labour left office, 7% of storm overflows were monitored; that figure is now 91%, and it will reach 100% in the next few weeks. I place on record my thanks—and, I believe, our thanks—to one of my Cornish colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who started the process of dealing with this issue when he came into DEFRA. I do not believe we would be in the position we are in today with monitoring, or with any of the other measures, if he had not initiated that work when he first became a DEFRA Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats often claim that they are very interested in sewage, yet they fail to mention that the water Minister between 2013 and 2015 was the former Member for North Cornwall, a Liberal Democrat. What did he do to improve the situation? Nothing.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It was not until 2015 that the Government started to take this issue seriously and take action; it did not even happen under the coalition Government. Therefore, all the crowing from the Liberal Democrats that they regard this as a really important issue is nonsense, because when they were in government, they initiated nothing to address it.

It is clear that there is now far greater public awareness and concern about this issue, and it is much higher up the political agenda than ever before, and rightly so. Some of us, particularly in Cornwall, have been pushing for that to be the case for a very long time, so I welcome the fact that sewage discharges are now a much bigger priority and there is much greater public awareness of them. However, again, let us be frank: people are only aware of what is going on because of the increased monitoring that we have introduced. For 13 years under Labour, all of this sewage was being discharged into the sea, but no one knew about it because there was no monitoring. It is only because of the increase in monitoring over the past few years that we know what is going on.

The first step towards dealing with an issue is to know what is happening. The first step that the Government took was to introduce monitoring, and we now have the data that enables us to hold the water companies to account. Before we had that monitoring and that data, we could not hold them to account because we did not know what was going on; now, we are holding them to account. Since 2015, there have been 58 prosecutions of water companies for failing to fulfil their obligations, and £141 million has been secured in fines. That money is being invested in environmental improvements and in reducing pollution. We must always remember that under this Government, it is the water companies that get taken to court; under Labour, it is the Government who get taken to court.

We now have a plan to reduce storm overflows, which I had the great privilege of launching during my brief time as water Minister. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) put in most of the legwork to produce that plan; I just had the glory moment of crossing the t’s, dotting the i’s and launching it. We now have a plan to invest £56 billion in upgrading the infrastructure to reduce sewage discharges, but we have to be honest with the British public. We hear comments from Opposition Members like, “Let’s stop sewage immediately; we could do it straightaway,” but that is nonsense. We are talking about Victorian infrastructure that has been in place for over 100 years: it is going to take an awful lot of money and an awful lot of time to upgrade and improve that infrastructure to address this issue. However, we now have a plan to make sure that it will happen, and we can hold the water companies to account to ensure that they make that investment and deliver on that plan.

There is also a myth—I am sure Labour Members will mention it today—that somehow Conservative Members voted to allow water companies to continue to discharge sewage. It is a lie: it is not the truth. Actually, we were the ones who brought forward the Environment Act 2021, which contains all the measures that enable us to hold the water companies to account. The Opposition did not support the Act so, if anything, they were the ones who tried to stop us taking action against the water companies, and we were the ones who voted for the Act and all the measures it contains. We need to be absolutely clear that we are the ones taking action and we are the ones taking this matter seriously.

The motion mentions directors’ bonuses. It is absolutely right that directors of water companies who fail to keep their obligations when it comes to sewage discharge and other forms of pollution should not be rewarded because of that, but we are already doing it. Ofwat has confirmed that it has the power to review both dividend payments and bonuses where water companies fail to keep to their environmental obligations. I know it is difficult for Labour Members, because they probably sit there looking at all the things we are doing and thinking, “Why on earth didn’t we do this when we were in government for 13 years?” I know it must be difficult for them, because they did absolutely nothing. They made things worse, not better, and it is this Government who are delivering on this issue.

I take this issue seriously. I have taken this issue seriously for many years—long before I came to this House—and it is right that the public are now much more aware of how important it is, but let us get real: we are dealing with it. We are taking the necessary steps to reduce the amount of sewage that will be discharged, and I welcome that. I believe that this Government will continue to deliver on our plan, and we will see things continue to improve in the years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Sometimes we witness revelations that are incredibly shocking, yet simultaneously not surprising at all. And so it was with the exposure of this week’s “Panorama” investigation that United Utilities, one of Britain’s largest water companies, had been systematically falsifying its environmental performance to mislead consumers and regulators and to push up profits.

Although Labour had decided to use one of our precious Opposition day debates to discuss water companies and directors’ bonuses in advance of those revelations, they have clearly added to the urgency and salience of the debate. Several Members commented on the fact that the issue has a much higher profile that it did. I pay tribute to Feargal Sharkey, who has done some amazing campaigning and played a significant role in raising the issue of water quality. He has proved that he has not just “a good heart”, but a switched on head as well.

It has been a good debate; what was said was important, as well as what was not said. The demeanour of Government Members spoke more loudly than the words we heard from them. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) mentioned the number of Secretaries of State there have been—we have had six Secretaries of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2019. Interestingly, the newest one, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), could not be bothered to turn up and respond to the debate. The Minister who did respond, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), could not wait to race away and has not returned to this important debate, despite having spoken at its start.

Even more powerful was the row upon row of empty green Benches behind the Minister during the debate. It is clear that Conservative Members of Parliament do not want to be anywhere near here to speak up for their Government’s record on this issue. I have great affection for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, but she appeared to inhabit a parallel universe when it came to the state of our water industry. Had she been here to listen to the debate, she would have heard Member after Member reflect the fury of their constituents and of a raft of organisations including the Environment Agency, which last year described the performance of English water companies as “very disappointing”, saying it was

“simply unacceptable to see a decline in this vital metric”,

in reference to the increase in pollution incidents.

Members have reflected what Surfers Against Sewage has said, and the Rivers Trust has slammed the Government’s performance, yet the Minister—[Interruption.] She marches back into the Chamber just as I was saying that if she had been here, she would have heard about a very different reality in respect of our water industry from the one that she appeared to inhabit. She described the “wonderful water” that we deserve and are all experiencing. She seemed to believe that she and this Government had brought forward strong measures that Labour and the Liberal Democrats had stood against. She said that if we introduced automatic fines, it would somehow be good for the water companies because it would prevent other kinds of action from being taken.

I am afraid it was really quite bizarre to listen to that depiction of what has happened, but there were many other, very relevant, contributions to the debate. They started with the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who cut through the word that might be used to describe some of what we heard and what is also in our rivers. He clearly admitted that in the 23 years he has been a Member of Parliament, the situation has got worse. He did not buy the idea that we are living in some golden age of river hygiene.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) spoke about the broken Government promises on environmental standards; the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) spoke of his frustration at the Government’s failure on this issue; and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) gave us a passionate and evocative description of the beautiful coastline in his area, and accused the Minister of—just like, unfortunately, the surfers in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) —going through the motions.

[Steve Double]

rose—

[Mr Perkins]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made an interesting contribution. He slated the record of the Liberal Democrat Minister between 2013 and 2015, apparently forgetting that that Minister served under a Conservative Secretary of State, in a Conservative-led Government who were implementing policies as a result of the Conservative austerity programme. I stand behind no one when it comes to condemning Liberal Democrats for their record between 2010 and 2015, but even I thought that was a bit rich.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the performance and failure of Thames Water. He said that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane had given an extraordinarily complacent speech. I think he spoke for many when he said that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke about 2 billion litres of sewage outflow in two days in her area in 2020; my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke about the appalling levels of pollution in his constituency; and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) spoke of the duplicity of water companies on self-monitoring. It is important to say that although some Members gave credit for the increased amount of monitoring, the “Panorama” programme has called into doubt whether we can believe any of the figures we see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly referred to the other causes of river pollution—another important factor, which was not covered as much in this debate. She also spoke about the lack of capacity in the slimmed-down Environment Agency to take on those alternative causes of river pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), in a very good speech, mentioned the Environment Agency saying in 2010 that we had the healthiest rivers since the industrial revolution, and its frustration that we are seeing that progress stall under this Government.

[Steve Double]

I take note of what the shadow Minister says. He mentions both Surfers Against Sewage and surfers in my constituency. Will he acknowledge that when Surfers Against Sewage began its campaign in 1990, less than 25% of the beaches in the UK met the acceptable minimum standard for bathing water quality, and today that figure is over 90%?

[Mr Perkins]

The first thing to say is that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the state of the beaches back in 1990 was even more disgraceful than it is today. The vast majority of the progress was made between 1997 and 2010, almost—[Interruption.] Yes, it was. It was almost up to 80% by then. If we read its reports, the Environment Agency expresses its frustration that the significant progress made in that period has slowed since then.

[Steve Double]

Can the shadow Minister explain to me why it was that the Labour Government were taken to court by the European Union in 2009 for failing to address the issue?

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Environment Agency has said. It has said the improvements in water quality have slowed under this Government and it has expressed its frustration that we are plateauing.

The hon. Gentleman said in his comments that Ofwat already has the power to ban bonuses. If he had listened to the Minister, he would have known that that is not true. What Ofwat has at the moment is the power to ensure that those bonuses are not paid from the money paid by bill payers. That is not the same as what we propose. Our proposal is very different, so he was incorrect to say that the powers we are proposing are those that currently exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) summed up the difference between the behaviour of bosses and the experience of his constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) made clear earlier, the Government have been complicit in this disgraceful practice, through the funding cuts that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) referred to. They have cut the Environment Agency’s funding in half, leading to the dramatic reduction in monitoring, enforcement and prosecutions that in turn has led to the dramatic increase in illegal sewage discharges.

Now, to make matters worse, the Government are simply ignoring the BBC’s investigation. It was shocking that the Environment Agency did not provide anyone for that programme; it is a Government regulator and should be answering for the performance of the water companies. While Tory Ministers claim that they have a grip on this issue, even the Environment Agency has been forced to admit that the water companies’ performance in the most recent year was “completely unacceptable”.

Britain cannot afford years more of the decline in its natural habitat and of worsening water quality, but these years of failure may finally be at an end. Soon, people across Britain will have an opportunity to bring down the curtain on what by then will be 14 years of failure, and to elect a Labour Government to address this shocking situation. The Labour party’s DEFRA team have already met with water company bosses and, while the meetings were cordial, the message was unmistakable: the days of a Government turning a blind eye to the failure and corruption of self-regulation will be at an end under Labour.

That starts with punishing the worst actors. We will give the water regulator the power to ban bonuses for water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth, but that is only the first step to clean up the water industry. Labour will go further, putting the industry under special measures. We will end the pointless practice of self-monitoring, and will require water companies to install remote monitors on every outlet overseen by the regulators and the Government. Any illegal spill will be met with an immediate and severe fine—no more delays, no more appeals, no more lenient fines that are cheaper than paying to upgrade crumbling infrastructure. Rogue water bosses who overseer repeated severe and illegal sewage discharges will face personal criminal liability.

The days of failure under this Government are now coming to an end. A Labour Government will get our water cleaned up and resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I will give way in a second.

Ofwat is monitoring companies’ gearing levels closely and has encouraged water companies to de-gear, with the average gearing across the sector falling to 69%, down from 72% in 2021. In March 2023, Ofwat announced new powers that will strengthen the financial resilience of the sector, including powers to stop water companies making dividend payments earlier this year. Those powers are already being put in place by Ofwat, despite what the Opposition may say.

Many Members across the House made the point about bathing water quality, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. Bathing water has improved significantly over time. In 2010, the proportion of areas with good or excellent bathing water, meeting the highest standards in force at the time, was 76%. Now, in 2023, 90% are classified as good or excellent, which is a significant improvement. It has to be noted that Labour actively did nothing in its time to improve bathing water quality, but this Conservative Government are delivering on that point.

[Steve Double]

Would the Minister acknowledge that the reduction in bathing water quality is often to do not with sewage, but with water run-off from agriculture?

[Robbie Moore]

Picking up on that point, the quality is not only to do with sewage. Of course, that is one of the factors, but there are many other factors to do with agricultural run-off, as well as with faeces from birds and from dogs, particularly in beach environments. I have to be clear that where water companies are significantly contributing to the poor designations that have been identified for bathing water, we will take action.

The Labour party is all talk when it comes to protecting our water, but look no further than Labour-run Wales, where sewage is discharged into waterways more frequently. Just remember that this is what the Leader of the Opposition wants as a blueprint for a Labour Government in England. Look at Labour’s record in government, when it managed to monitor only a tiny fraction of storm overflows—only 7% in 2010—and we are now at nearly 100 % this year. If we do not monitor, we cannot enforce. Look at its voting history. Labour and the Lib Dems voted against reducing pollution in the Agriculture Act 2020. Look at their faces now. They know deep down that this Conservative Government are taking action.

Sewage Discharges

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. We need to be absolutely clear: nobody wants to see untreated sewage discharged into our rivers and seas. To suggest otherwise is quite frankly nonsense. I have the privilege of representing the wonderful constituency of St Austell and Newquay. It has two coasts, and hardly a week goes by when a constituent does not contact me about this issue.

To suggest that Conservative Members do not take this matter seriously, and at times are not angry about what is going on, is quite frankly wrong. This is the first Government to put in place a deliverable plan to address the issue and hold water companies to account. That is what we voted for, and that is what we are delivering. Yes, it could be quicker—and I know that because I had the privilege of being the Minister who launched the combined sewage discharge reduction plan. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who did most of the work on that; I just got to do the glamorous bit and launch it. It contains a review date of 2025 to look at whether the delivery of the plan can be sped up. I urge the Minister and whoever is in the hot seat when the review takes place to continue to do that.

The Government are looking at planning reform, and if there is one thing we can do to help it is to speed up the planning process for water companies that want to upgrade their sewerage systems. Removing the red tape would help deliver the plan much quicker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T3. It is not just beaches. In 2021, Ealing and Acton saw 34 raw sewage dumps—216 hours’ worth—including in the dear old River Brent. Did taking back control mean returning to being the dirty man of Europe? Is it any wonder that “Brexit opportunities” has vanished from the new ministerial responsibilities?

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

Listening to those on the Labour Benches, one would think that between 1997 and 2010 there was no sewage discharge from our system. The fact is that there was, but it is only because of the measures that this Government have taken to put monitoring in place that we are aware of the problem, and we are now the first Government ever to take action to solve this problem.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

T6. Rob and Sally Mercer, in their farm near Lichfield, each week provide fresh meat, eggs, fruit and vegetables to around 250 families. They run an education project, too, and they have an established charity. I have nominated them for a National Farmers Union community farming hero award, so my challenging question to the Minister is this: does he agree with me that they should get it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

In my tourist town of Eastbourne, the sea is our greatest asset. Meeting with the Environment Agency just a week or two ago, water quality was deemed to be good, yet social media discharges by local Liberal Democrats would have people believe that it is dangerous to swim. Does my hon. Friend agree that the raft of measures we are bringing in through the Environment Act 2021 will not only improve the quality of the water, but that responsible, balanced and honest accounting is important, too?

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend is a strong champion for her constituency of Eastbourne and the businesses there. She is absolutely right. This is the first Government ever to take the action we are taking to address this long-standing issue that has been going on for many, many generations. She is absolutely right that the misinformation put out by some Opposition parties is shameless scaremongering.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T5. During her leadership campaign, the now Prime Minister chose to make a big thing of solar panels being on agricultural land. She did not talk about biomass, which actually takes up far more arable land. Does the Secretary of State agree with her attacks on solar, or does he think that it has a role to play in helping to sort out our energy crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The Environment Agency is a key player in tackling sewage discharges, yet it has seen its funding halved over the past 10 years. What is the Minister doing to reinstate the essential funding for the Environment Agency?

[Steve Double]

I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady quotes. In this spending review, the DEFRA budget increased by more than £4 billion, and the Environment Agency is being more active than ever before in enforcing the regulations on our water quality.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I want to see clean water in the Ladybrook, the Micker brook and all the streams that feed into the great River Mersey. United Utilities is responsible for our waste water and sewage discharges. It is consulting on its plan to spend up to £18 billion on the water quality and discharges in our area. I am asking my Cheadle constituency to join that consultation. Will the Minister join me in encouraging everybody to play their part and make their voices heard?

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that addressing that long-standing issue will be a combined effort with everyone working together. It is really important that everyone engages in ensuring that we get the right solutions in every situation to address the problem and reduce the amount of sewage being discharged as quickly as possible.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Diolch, Mr Speaker. The demand for pet food banks is more than doubling in parts of the UK as owners have to make heartbreaking decisions thanks to the cost of living crisis. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), said, charities are bracing themselves for an increase in the number of abandoned animals, but it does not have to be this way. What assurances can the Minister give us about targeted financial support for those charities through a really difficult winter?

[Steve Double]

I am sure that we would all agree that owning a pet brings additional responsibilities. Everyone should consider those, including the costs, before deciding whether to take on that responsibility. The Government have already introduced £37 billion-worth of support to help households, targeting that at those most in need. The Prime Minister will announce further measures later today.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, as well as the news from the Environment Agency on Wednesday that there will now be a regulatory investigation into Walleys Quarry in my constituency. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for his help over the summer. Will the new Secretary of State visit Newcastle-under-Lyme, and does he agree that now that we have two investigations—regulatory and criminal—into Walleys Quarry Ltd, it is imperative that those are concluded as soon as possible so that my constituents get justice and everyone gets to see some accountability?

[Steve Double]

I am very aware of the issue that my hon. Friend is raising, and I am pleased that we are making progress with the Environment Agency on enforcement action. I am very happy to meet him to ensure that we continue to do all we can, and if appropriate, to visit the site with him.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Agricultural and County Shows

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for securing this important debate. What better way to end our last moments of this term before we leave for the summer recess than talking about our amazing regional agricultural shows?

We have had a virtual tour of agricultural shows across the country during this debate, from the Wolsingham Show, which we were told is the oldest in the country, beginning in 1763, to the Ynys Môn Show—I am sure we all look forward to seeing pictures of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) shearing sheep in due course. We also heard about the Royal Welsh Show and the Pembrokeshire County Show, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), as well as the Cardigan County Show. In typically modest Yorkshire style, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) highlighted that the Great Yorkshire Show had 135,000—I think he said 140,000, but my figures say 135,000—visitors this year, which beat the Royal Cornwall Show, which had a mere 126,000 visitors. However, we did have the Prime Minister, so I trump him there. The Royal Highland Show—although a long way from Glasgow East—was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). It would be remiss of me not to mention the Cockermouth Show. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who is my Parliamentary Private Secretary, so is unable to speak in the debate, was telling me before the debate what a wonderful show it is and that he will have a stand there this year. I am sure everyone looks forward to that.

There are more than 400 show days per year around the country, put on by over 350 agricultural and county shows. They welcome over 7 million visitors and act as a vital link between rural and urban Britain. Shows of all sizes, big and small, connect our rural communities and play an important part in the tapestry of rural life. Agricultural shows bring people together to network and do business, and they give the public a glimpse into farming life. They play an important role in continuing to inform and education the population about where our food comes from and the vital connection we all need to have with the natural world.

Agricultural shows provide a chance for farmers to discuss emerging technologies and innovations with manufacturers. Several hon. Members made the point about the importance of farmers getting together at these shows and talking about their working practices. They are a fantastic showcase for the diversity and success of British agriculture, particularly for people who do not work in the countryside. They offer benefits to small businesses and the local area, and they are a great showcase for the amazing regional food and drink that is produced up and down our country.

A number of hon. Members said that virtually every show has had to stop for the past two years because of the pandemic, and it has been welcome seeing so many of them being held again this summer. The strong attendance at shows up and down the country shows how much they not only have been missed, but are valued by so many people. For the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, agricultural shows give us the chance to meet people from all kinds of farming backgrounds and rural lives across the country. They help us better understand the experiences and views of members of the farming community, who can help shape ideas, ask questions and offer challenge.

The future farming and countryside programme, which is leading the farming policy reforms in England, attended 28 events in June alone. These included the Royal Cornwall Show, the cereals show in Nottinghamshire, as well as shows in Norfolk, Hereford, Lincolnshire, Devon and Northumberland. I look forward to attending the North Devon Show next month and, as a proud Cornishman, I am sure I will get a warm welcome. Attending the agricultural shows is valuable to DEFRA. I know the Secretary of State and all Ministers have been working hard to attend as many shows as possible this summer and will continue to do so. I also know how important attending shows is to local Members of Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned. They give us that important connection and ability to discuss rural issues with so many people.

Agricultural shows are of great value to farmers. As well as the opportunity for networking and seeing examples of best practice, they allow farmers to give feedback to DEFRA Ministers and officials. For example, we have spent much of the summer so far talking about the new sustainable farming incentive, which opened at the end of June. These conversations have been extremely fruitful for talking about the benefits of the sustainable farming incentive and other environmental schemes and grants, and receiving feedback on what farmers want to see in the future from our work. Conversations with farmers at shows provide vital feedback that we will incorporate in our future communications about the scheme, helping many more farmers than just those we meet in person to understand the benefits.

Of course, agricultural shows afford broader benefits to the economy. For example, they provide income and employment for small businesses, such as exhibitors and marquee manufacturers that rely on agricultural shows, as well as local accommodation providers, caterers and equipment hire providers. The economic benefit of these shows goes beyond the agricultural sector in supporting the rural economy.

Agricultural shows also play an important role in connecting rural communities and educating the wider public. The Country Land and Business Association commented that agricultural shows are particularly important to the culture of rural areas. The shows act as a vital link between rural and urban Britain, and can be used as a major education tool in informing those who attend about the diversity of agriculture and land-based activities, and in promoting the importance of those who live and work in rural communities.

A further point can be made in relation to land management practices, given that the shows are seen as showcase events. Since the start of the century, we have seen the importance of the environment and the role that land managers play as custodians of the countryside. It is here that education is becoming so important; and, in a practical sense, shows provide a larger audience for the essential message of what agriculture is and does.

Let me respond to a number of the points raised during the debate. Several colleagues wanted to thank the many volunteers who make these shows possible; I would like to reinforce that point. From my own experience, I know the importance of the hundreds of volunteers who give their time to put on these shows. It is right that we all acknowledge their work and say thank you to them for all that they do.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire made a really important point about making sure that food production is at the heart of agricultural policy. That is something that we have demonstrated with the publication of the national food strategy; with the events of recent years, including the events in Ukraine, it will become even more important going forward to put food production and security at the heart of our policy making. He also said that farming is a unique part of our national heritage—a point that I am sure many of us can get behind and welcome.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) made the point that shows give a great opportunity to young people, which I have seen many times. One of my earliest memories was being given the day off school to attend the Royal Cornwall Show, which is something I would encourage. I am not here to make education policy, but it is important to teach our young people about where our food comes from, in order to help them better understand the importance of food production and our environment, and the central part that our famers play in that. The more we can give our young people the opportunity of engaging with these shows, the better, because they are a really great way of teaching them about those things.

One thing I was aware of before—but of which I have become particularly aware in the two weeks that I have had this role—is that sadly sometimes our farmers are presented as the villains when it comes to environmental protection and net zero. I think that is very unfair, because certainly all the farmers I know are really committed to sustainability and to doing everything they can to protect out natural environment. Again, our agricultural shows can play a vital role in getting that message out and helping people to engage with the farming sector, in order to understand all that the sector is doing to work with us to protect our environment, fight climate change and adapt to it. That is an important point to make.

In closing, this has been a great debate and a great way for most of us to end our time in Parliament before we head off to the recess. Agricultural and county shows are an essential part of the ongoing relationship between DEFRA, farmers, land managers and the wider public. They continue to be a fundamental element of our open dialogue with farmers, and we are committed to working in partnership with them. Like all Members who participated in the debate, I celebrate our agriculture and county shows, and I wish them the very best for the future.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Steve Double Excerpts

Friday 15th July 2022 Ministerial Corrections

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Has the Minister had a chance to look at the comments made yesterday by Emma Howard Boyd, the chair of the Environment Agency, concerning the behaviour of water companies and the pollution in rivers, and her recommendation that instead of fining the chairs of the water companies that grievously pollute our rivers, consideration ought to be given to putting those people in jail for the damage they are doing to our environment? Is he going to respond directly to the Environment Agency and wish it well in that endeavour?

[Steve Double]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for raising that very important point. I am, of course, absolutely aware of the Ofwat report and the comments of the Environment Agency.

[Official Report, 14 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 581.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double).

An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

The correct information should have been:

[Steve Double]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for raising that very important point. I am, of course, absolutely aware of the Environment Agency report and the comments of the Environment Agency.

Shark Fins Bill

Steve Double Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) and thank her for introducing this very important Bill. I also thank her for her very kind words at the start. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

The Government continue to be a leading voice for the protection of sharks. Much work has been done and continues to be done in the UK and globally to ensure that we do not lose these important marine animals from the ocean. The Bill shows that positive change is happening, signifying another step in the right direction to taking meaningful action on the conservation of sharks. Yesterday marked International Shark Awareness Day, which celebrates these amazing animals. What better way to raise awareness than by introducing this Bill here today? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) pointed out, for many years sharks have been misunderstood and vilified—I hold Steven Spielberg personally responsible—but I am sure we have all noticed that that outdated view is fading fast and opinions are shifting.

Let us be clear: shark finning is a vile and cruel act. Shark fins are recklessly removed from living sharks at sea and their finless bodies are wastefully returned to the water. Without their fins, sharks are unable to swim through the water, which means they cannot pass oxygen through their gills and they are left to slowly drown. Shark finning is a practice that has been banned in the UK for almost 20 years. We also have a fins naturally attached policy, which means that sharks must be landed with all their fins on their bodies. We can now go even further and ban the trade in detached fins in shark fin products. This underlines our determination that shark finning must stop, wherever it takes place. The Bill has the full support of the Government and we will do all we can to assist its swift passage through both Houses and on to the statute book.

As has been said, the effects of shark finning are devastating, with impacts seen across many species, from the sleek and elegant blue sharks to the majestic gentle giants we know as basking sharks. A number of Members referred to their encounters with sharks. Thankfully, my only encounters with sharks have been in Cornish waters with basking sharks, which are wonderful creatures to behold.

We also need to make absolutely clear that we are only able to take this step through the Bill because we have left the European Union. Exercising our independent trade policy enables us to take this step and ban these products from the UK. This Bill will ban the import and export of detached shark fins into and out of Great Britain. That includes parts of fins and products made of fins. The only exception is where imports or exports will facilitate the greater conservation of sharks—for example, through education and training. There are strict processes in place to assess applications for exemption certificates to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban.

I will clarify one point that has been raised a few times in the debate. To be absolutely clear: this Bill bans the import and export of all detached shark fins. There is no exemption in the Bill for a personal allowance of 20 kg. That was allowed previously, but it is being removed through the Bill. The only exemption, as I have referred to, is for conservation or research.

I briefly highlight that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), I represent a coastal community—in fact, I have the pleasure of representing two coasts. We take incredibly seriously our responsibility to protect our seas and coastline. I pay tribute to the many organisations in my constituency and across Cornwall that play a vital part in keeping our beaches clean, tidying up our seas and protecting them. They include the Newquay Marine Group, Newquay Beach Care, the Three Bays Wildlife Group, the St Austell Tidy Up Team, Friends of Par Beach and Final Straw Cornwall, among many others. They do an incredible job of raising awareness and mobilising volunteers to keep our beaches and seas clean and protected.

There are also organisations that work across Cornwall and further afield, such as Fathoms Free, the amazing Beach Guardians led by Emily Stevenson, and of course Surfers Against Sewage, which I have had the pleasure of working with over many years. They all play an absolutely vital part and we should pay tribute to them and to the many others across the whole country who take such matters seriously.

Shark finning is a cruel and wasteful practice. This Bill will be a significant step in demonstrating the UK’s global leadership in shark conservation, animal welfare and protecting our natural environment. I thank the hon. Member for Neath again for introducing the Bill and I look forward to doing all I can to see it on to the statute book as swiftly as possible.

Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 General Committees

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

It is an honour to make my first appearance in Committee as a Minister with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. The draft instrument was laid before the House on 9 June. It makes an exclusion to the market access principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for legislation prohibiting the sale of single-use plastic straws, stemmed cotton buds, drink stirrers, plates, cutlery, chopsticks or balloon sticks, and of single-use food containers, drink containers, or cups made wholly or partly from expanded or extruded polystyrene. I will cover both the reasons for and the impact of the instrument, starting with the former.

The instrument is being brought forward following an agreement under the provisional resources and waste common framework. The exclusion is necessary because all four nations share an ambition to tackle plastic pollution. The instrument furthers that ambition while recognising the need to protect the UK internal market against unforeseen future barriers to trade. Legislation banning the sale of single-use plastic items covered by the exclusion has been or will be—or has been consulted on being—introduced in all four nations. However, there is a difference in the timing of those bans, which means that the UKIM Act has an impact on the ability to implement such legislation.

The UKIM Act contains two market access principles: mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The principle of mutual recognition means that goods that can be lawfully sold in the part of the UK in which they were produced, or into which they have been imported, may be sold in any other part of the UK without needing to comply with any relevant requirements applying to the sale in that other part of the UK. The principle of non-discrimination means that the sale of goods in one part of the UK should not be affected by directly or indirectly discriminatory relevant requirements towards goods that have a relevant connection with another part of the UK.

I will now briefly outline the impact of the statutory instrument. The exclusion from the market access principles means that those principles will not apply to legislation so far as it prohibits the sale of the single-use items that I previously listed. Taking the example of Scotland, the exclusion will mean that single-use plastic plates produced in, or imported into, other parts of the UK cannot be sold in Scotland, regardless of whether an equivalent ban is in place in the other parts of the UK.

The requirement, in section 10(7) of the UKIM Act, for the Secretary of State to

“have regard to the importance of facilitating the access to the market within Great Britain of qualifying Northern Ireland goods”

has been considered. The supply of the items covered by the exclusion is banned in Scotland, and the Welsh and UK Governments have consulted on banning the supply of those items where they are not already banned. The relevant EU directive—article 5 of the EU single-use plastics directive, under annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol—once implemented, will have equivalent effect to the proposed and existing legislation in Scotland, England and Wales, with the exception that the legislation in Scotland, England and Wales will not encompass items made from oxo-degradable plastic. As such, it is not thought that an additional or separate provision to maintain access to the market within Great Britain is needed for those single-use plastic items.

A full impact assessment has not been prepared for the instrument because it does not impose any new requirements. The SI will affect the application of the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and any forthcoming regulations in England and Wales that ban the supply of items covered by the exclusion. The impact of those regulations has been considered in the case of the Scotland regulations, and will be considered in the case of forthcoming regulations in England and Wales. Ministers from the Welsh and Scottish Governments have consented to the making of the regulations.

In accordance with section 10(11) of the UKIM Act, the Secretary of State will publish a statement explaining why the regulations will be made without consent from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. As the SI is of a cross-cutting nature, it would normally require a referral to the Northern Ireland Executive, as per Northern Ireland’s ministerial code. That has not been possible due to the ongoing absence of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, meaning that the Executive cannot meet. However, my officials have continued to engage at official level with the relevant Northern Ireland Departments in the development of the legislation, and there has been engagement with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for the Economy in the devolved Administration, who have not raised any objections to the proposal.

The exclusion introduced by the SI recognises our shared ambition across the UK to tackle plastic pollution, while recognising the need to protect the UK internal market against unforeseen future barriers to trade. I believe this shows that the process of considering United Kingdom Internal Market Act exclusions in common framework areas is working as intended, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their contributions, and the shadow Minister in particular for her kind words. I view this position as an eight-week job interview, and perhaps I will be in post for a little longer. However, no matter how long I am in post, I can assure her that I am determined to continue the excellent work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, and to achieve as much as I can.

Quite a few points have been raised, and I will try to cover them all, but if I miss any, Members should feel free to remind me. Generally, the fact that we are passing this legislation today shows that the system is working, and that the UKIM Act is there to protect, rightly, the internal market of the United Kingdom, which is vital to every nation within it and plays an integral role in their economies. It also shows that we can respond to requests, such as that from the Scottish Government, to make exemptions. That shows that the current Act works and that we can be flexible, when deemed appropriate, by passing secondary legislation like this to respond to situations on a case-by-case basis.

I assure Opposition Members that the UK Government are determined to continue to be a world leader on all matters that protect our environment and we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations, where appropriate, to achieve our shared ambitions. Where there are grounds for divergence, which in this case are primarily about matters of timing, we will work together to ensure that we can all achieve our ambitions; and where we can be flexible, we will be.

I agree with the comments about the need for a Northern Ireland Executive and I am sure the shadow Minister will be aware that we are doing all we can to secure that, as it is important that that happens.

I also agree with the comments made about children. I have taken a keen interest in plastic pollution since I was first elected and I have spent a lot of time visiting schools to talk about it. I am always inspired both by the level of understanding that there is now among school pupils and their determination. It gives me great hope for the future that they understand these issues far better than I did at their age. There is often pester-pressure by children to amend their parents’ behaviour; we all welcome that and recognise its importance.

I was asked about the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party. The shadow Minister will understand that I cannot speak for them, but I assure her that I am pressing candidates on these issues, which I would have been doing even if I did not have my ministerial role. It is important that any future Prime Minister continues to lead a Government who are committed to addressing issues such as plastic pollution and ensure that we continue to be a world leader on that.

The shadow Minister asked about the “The Big Plastic Count Results” report. I admit that I have not yet had time to read it, but it is in my in-tray and I will make sure I get to grips with it, perhaps over the summer recess, and respond accordingly. I recognise the importance of the issues it raises and of the many different organisations that play a part in raising awareness of them.

We will, of course, consult businesses about any future changes we make on packaging and single-use plastics, to make sure that the impact is understood, and we will continue to work with businesses to bring forward measures that are workable and deliver the change we want in a way that works for them.

The shadow Minister asked when we would publish the common framework. We are aiming to publish it in due course—of course—and she also asked about the impact of the UKIM Act on environmental protection. That Act was introduced to protect livelihoods, jobs and businesses by ensuring that no new barriers to trade arose within the UK. The Act does not prevent devolved legislatures from continuing to make rules about the goods and services produced in their parts of the UK. The fact that we are making these regulations today shows our commitment to that. If devolved Governments want to diverge, then we are willing to consider that and we will take action when appropriate.

The shadow Minister asked about the single-use plastics consultation. We had around 50,000 responses and we hope to publish a response to the consultation this summer, although I make no commitment about how long summer will be this year. I believe that covers all the points that were raised.

To conclude, I trust that hon. Members understand and accept the need for this instrument. It makes an exclusion to the UKIM Act for legislation as far as it prohibits the sale of a number of single-use plastic items. The exclusion introduced by this instrument will mean that the single-use plastic items it encompasses that are produced in or imported into other parts of the UK cannot be sold in a country that has banned them, regardless of whether an equivalent ban is in place in the originating part.

Once again, I thank hon. Members for their contributions and commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this debate to take place and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for the way she opened it. It is truly an honour to respond to this my first major debate in the Chamber since I took up this post. It has been great to see such widespread agreement across the House on the importance of COP15 ahead of the conference. This is a vital moment for nature around the world and a real call to action.

We are reaching the culmination of a three-year-long nature campaign, and we are not taking our foot off the pedal now. In fact, just last week my hon. Friend Lord Goldsmith was in Gabon discussing the actions needed to halt forest loss and seeing the remarkable work being doing in the Congo basin.

All the evidence shows us how rapidly nature is in decline. Between 1990 and 2015, we lost 290 million hectares of native forest cover globally. That is more than 10 times the size of the UK. Live coral cover of reefs has nearly halved in the past 150 years, with dramatically accelerated decline in the past 20 to 30 years, and a million species face extinction. We know that so many things are reliant on nature, from food to security, clean air to water, and our health and wellbeing to our very economies, so reversing these trends is vital.

That is why this Government have committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it in, and the good news is that we know we can turn things around. There is someone, somewhere in Government, who is leading the way on all the changes that we need to see. It is this innovation that we need to champion, and global platforms such as CBD give us the opportunity to share these ideas and build momentum behind them. This is a colossal challenge. Even as we confront the impacts of conflict and the ongoing effects of the pandemic, we know that we need to deliver an ambitious global biodiversity framework at CBD COP15 that will help us to bend the curve of biodiversity loss globally by 2030.

COP15 should, and indeed needs to be, the Paris moment for nature. If we can agree, and we must agree, an ambitious post-2020 global diversity framework in Montreal in December—with a clear mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030, including targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and at least 30% of global oceans by 2030, and to see ecosystems restored, species’ population sizes recovering and extinctions halted by 2050, with mechanisms to enable us to hold countries to account—then we will be in a strong position to make this the decade we put nature on the road to recovery. This is why the global biodiversity framework is so important, and we are leading from the front to ensure that we have the policies and finance in place so that this ambition is realised.

[Olivia Blake]

Given the significance of COP15, will the Prime Minister—whoever that may be—be attending it on behalf of the UK?

[Steve Double]

I was going to come to that later, but I will respond to it now. I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to be able to speak for whoever may win the election to be leader of our party and the next Prime Minister. However, I can assure her that I know that our party is committed to this issue, and that is not going to change suddenly. The Conservative party is very aware of its importance, and I am sure that, whoever takes over as Prime Minister in a few weeks’ time, we will continue to champion nature recovery globally and that there will be a senior level presence at COP15. I would not dare to say whether that will be the future Prime Minister, but I join her in saying that I would certainly like that to be the case.

[Deidre Brock]

The Minister is obviously not able to give an indication yet of whether the Prime Minister will be attending COP15, but can he indicate whether a role equivalent to that of the COP26 President will be created to reflect the importance of that summit?

[Steve Double]

I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Member does not think that is me, because it is very clearly part of my new role as a Minister to take up this cause. To be serious, I take her point. We do need to take this issue seriously, as this is a critical moment for nature globally. The UK is proud to be playing a leading role, and I am sure that, whoever attends and whatever title they have, we will continue to play a global leadership role in ensuring that we set the world back on the road to nature recovery. We recognise the importance of COP15 as a key moment in that.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister confirm that, even though COP15 is taking place in Montreal, the presidency is still with China and the Chinese Minister will be the president of the COP?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right about the presidency, which goes with the host nation, but I think the SNP spokesperson was talking about someone in the Government having that prominent role. I think that is correct.

[Deidre Brock]

indicated assent.

[Steve Double]

As I was saying, we are leading from the front to ensure that we have the policies and finance in place so that these ambitions are realised. As leader of the Global Ocean Alliance and ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, we have worked closely with Costa Rica and France to bring together over 100 countries in support of the 30 by ’30 target. I am very proud, and I believe we should all be very proud, of the UK’s leadership to date in bringing parties together and building consensus through partnerships such as the leaders’ pledge for nature, which has now been endorsed by more than 90 political leaders.

We are determined to work with fellow countries to translate our joint ambitions into action on the ground, by building consensus and finding solutions to help agree a strong global biodiversity framework. To secure not just 30 by 30, but all the targets that are so necessary to protect nature, we need urgently to demonstrate our collective seriousness about closing the large funding gap over the course of the next decade. The UK brought nature from the margins of the global climate debate into the heart of our response at COP26. Ensuring that promises made in Glasgow are honoured in full, that we build on them, and that they are translated into effective action as soon as possible are huge priorities for the UK in the year of our presidency and beyond.

Making sure that aid is aligned with our goals is also hugely important. Indeed, we are leading by example, by doubling our international climate finance, investing at least £3 billion of that in nature, including nature-based solutions, urging other donor countries to do the same, and launching a pipeline of new programmes that will help people to protect and restore biodiversity on land and sea. We are calling on multilateral development banks to mainstream nature across their entire portfolios, as well as supporting countries when fulfilling their commitments to the Leaders Pledge for Nature. We are also pulling every lever we have to get private finance flowing in the right direction, from reducing risk to increasing investment.

Adopting a new framework at COP15 will not be sufficient if we do not also put in place mechanisms to ensure that countries can implement it. Frameworks need to result in action on the ground. The global failure to achieve the Aichi targets was driven by partial and insufficient implementation. That was arguably because parties found it challenging to translate international targets into effective national action that could be delivered at the scale and pace needed. The post-2020 global diversity framework must be underpinned by enhanced planning, reporting and review mechanisms that will hold parties to account for their commitments and support implementation—that was the point about data raised by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It is so important that we help countries to develop those capabilities.

The UK, in partnership with Norway and the UN environment programme world conservation monitoring centre, has led a programme of workshops to support discussions between parties to enhance mechanisms for planning, reporting and review, with the aim of strengthening the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the ambitious 2050 goals and 2030 targets. To summarise, the UK remains committed to securing an ambitious outcome at COP15—one that sets the direction and leads to action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030. We will work closely with China as the presidency, and support Canada as host in achieving those outcomes.

Many excellent contributions from across the House have raised many important points, and I will try quickly to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about the UK’s goals, and I tried to outline those in my response. We are clear about the goals that we need from COP15, and we must ensure that they are actionable. We need to see action. We do not need just more targets set or policies agreed; we need them to be put into action on the ground. She asked whether I would commit to keep Parliament updated, and as long as I am in post, I will be more than happy to do that. She also asked about the next Prime Minister attending COP15, and I have already addressed that issue.

The hon. Lady also raised the important matter of the maritime environment. As an MP who represents a coastal constituency—one of only three constituencies that has two separate coastlines—I am absolutely aware of just how important that issue is. We have made great progress on protecting our maritime environment, with over 100 maritime protection areas now in place, but I accept that we need to do more, and that we need to improve enforcement of the protection of those areas. I am more than happy to look into what more we can do to make sure those conservation areas are protected effectively—that it is not just a paper exercise. I would also point to the work we have already done in banning microplastics and the other measures we have taken to prevent maritime pollution, so I take the hon. Lady’s point, but she can be assured that the maritime environment is something I take very seriously.

[Barry Gardiner]

I think the whole House understands why the Minister is unable or reluctant to commit the Prime Minister to attending COP15, but is it possible for him to commit that either the Secretary of State will attend it, or he or his successor will do so as the Minister responsible for biodiversity?

[Steve Double]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, I cannot do so, for the very same reason that I cannot commit the future Prime Minister: none of us knows what is going to happen in the coming weeks. What I can say is that if I am still in post, I would be more than happy to attend, but that decision is for another day. We will see what happens.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made an excellent contribution to the debate. He made the point—with which I wholeheartedly agree—that we understand why China is not able to host the COP this time; it is a shame, though, because it would have been excellent if China had been able to do so. He also made an excellent point about farmers; I am dismayed that comments are sometimes made casting farmers as the enemy of biodiversity and nature. My experience is completely the opposite, and I would say the same about the vast majority of our fishermen, including the small under-10-metre fleet. They all understand the importance of producing food for us in a sustainable way, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment. It is right that we say that more often, and work with our farmers and fishermen to enable them to achieve that end.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is absolutely right: the two fishing organisations in Northern Ireland, the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation, all want a policy that gives sustainability for the fishing sector. If that sector is not sustainable, the people who work in it will not have jobs for the future. My constituents who work in the fishing sector I represent want a deal that works for them and for the environment.

[Steve Double]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: most farms and fishing businesses are passed down from generation to generation. That is how they operate, and they understand that if they do not operate sustainably, they will have nothing left to pass on to future generations, so I welcome his comments.

I was delighted to hear that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is a fan of “The Wind in the Willows”. I do not know whether he knows this, but “The Wind in the Willows” was written by a great Cornishman, Kenneth Grahame. He based the story on the River Fowey, which I am delighted to represent, as it is in my constituency. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit Fowey and see that river for himself, and just maybe, he will see his first ever water vole. There is much more I could say—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Has the Minister had a chance to look at the comments made yesterday by Emma Howard Boyd, the chair of the Environment Agency, concerning the behaviour of water companies and the pollution in rivers, and her recommendation that instead of fining the chairs of the water companies that grievously pollute our rivers, consideration ought to be given to putting those people in jail for the damage they are doing to our environment? Is he going to respond directly to the Environment Agency and wish it well in that endeavour?

[Steve Double]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for raising that very important point. I am, of course, absolutely aware of the Ofwat report and the comments of the Environment Agency. It is a matter that deeply concerns me as a representative of a coastal constituency. I regret to say that one of the worst offenders is my local water authority. This morning, I asked my office for a meeting with it, and to speak to the Environment Agency, because we need to do better. The Government have put measures in place to better hold water authorities to account. I am determined that we find a way of doing that and that we bring to an end the unacceptable level of untreated sewage being discharged into our rivers and seas. I can assure him that I take it very seriously.

I thank all Members who contributed to this excellent debate. As I said, it was great to hear such agreement across House on the importance of COP15, and on protecting and restoring our environment. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, and as the shadow Minister said, I do feel like I am on an eight-week job interview. However, I assure Members that I am determined, however long I am in office, to take these matters very seriously and ensure that the UK does all it can and continues to lead the world in bringing together real action to protect and enhance our natural environment for the future.

Environment Agency and Water Levels in the Sankey Canal

Steve Double Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by placing on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who, before the events of last week, would have been the Minister responding to this debate. While I am incredibly honoured and delighted to have this role, there is no doubting the commitment and passion for the environment that she brought to it during her time in office. She should feel rightly proud of all that she achieved and, indeed, she will be a very tough act to follow.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing this debate on what is clearly a very important matter to him and many of his constituents. Our canals are a highly valuable feature of our national landscapes. They are the most visible demonstration of our country’s industrial heritage. They are green corridors, sometimes in areas with little other space for nature, as well as a place for leisure and relaxation for so many people, such as boaters, anglers, joggers, cyclists and ramblers. They are rightly treasured across our country, and there is understandable concern when their future is at risk, as in the case he has highlighted tonight. It is important to note, however, that our canals provide all this despite, or perhaps even because of, the fact that they are run not by central Government but by our 30 navigation authorities across the 3,400 miles of regulated inland waterways in England and Wales.

The Sankey canal is an historic part of our industrial landscape. It was the first modern canal in England, with the initial section opened as long ago as 1757. Built to carry coal to Liverpool, it is 16 miles long, although less than 1 mile is used by boats today. The hon. Member for Halton laid out the history of the canal and its importance to the local industrial heritage very well. I understand that a long-term restoration project is under way, led by the Sankey Canal Restoration Society, working with the relevant local councils and the Canal and River Trust, which together own various sections of the canal.

Until recently, the water supply for sections of the canal came via pumps at the Fiddler’s Ferry power station, but with the closure of this plant in 2020, the supply ceased. This is, of course, an issue that local councillors have been aware of for some time, with Halton and Warrington councils reportedly working on a solution for over a decade. The Environment Agency is the regulator responsible for water resources management and compliance with water quality requirements, and it has been doing what it can to support the local councils with advice. In June 2022 the Environment Agency granted an abstraction licence to Warrington Borough Council to abstract water to supply to the Sankey canal.

The Environment Agency has been working closely with Halton Borough Council on fish rescue work that has been undertaken in recent weeks, attending the site to provide advice on the removal and relocation of fish. The hon. Member for Halton highlighted some of the recent concerning events there and I am pleased that the Environment Agency is assisting in that.

While the Environment Agency will continue to support the local councils where possible, this is not an area where we have dedicated departmental resources. DEFRA gives an annual grant to the Canal and River Trust, the independent charity established in 2012 to manage over 2,000 miles of waterways. The grant to the Canal and River Trust provides some financial support for the charity as it establishes itself and develops new revenue streams while working towards self-sufficiency. The current grant stands at about £52 million a year, with £10 million of that dependent on the trust meeting performance criteria covering principal asset condition, towpath condition, and flood management. The funding for the Canal and River Trust is specific to that charity and not a general fund.

[Derek Twigg]

Given the scenes filmed today showing that hundreds or possibly thousands of fish have died, will the Minister go back to the Environment Agency and ask exactly what it is doing to advise and help save the fish in the canal?

[Steve Double]

I had a meeting with the Environment Agency today and received an update on its work. It assured me that it is providing help and support to address the situation the hon. Gentleman highlights with regard to fish and wildlife, but I will happily go back to it in light of today’s debate and ensure that that continues to happen.

Last year 743 million or so visits were made by people to the Canal and River Trust canal towpaths for a wide variety of reasons including walking, cycling, and deriving health and wellbeing benefits from being close to water. DEFRA is undertaking a review of the current Government grant funding, as required by the 2012 grant agreement with the trust. The review is assessing the trust’s performance over the past 10 years for value for money, and gauging whether there is a case for continued Government grant funding after the end of the current grant period which expires in 2027. The review is nearing completion and we expect to announce a decision in the autumn.

On the issues the hon. Gentleman raised about the Sankey canal, I absolutely believe that he, working with colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), with local councils, and with the tremendous enthusiasm of volunteers like the Sankey Canal Restoration Society, can make a huge difference here. Right across the country, volunteer groups, supported by local councils and their MPs, have led the way in fundraising and in delivering fantastic infrastructure projects to restore and improve canal systems. I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman can do the same in his constituency.

[Andy Carter]

We currently have a tale of two canals, however. In Warrington, where the funding has been granted by the local authority, there is water in the canal; in Halton, where the council is refusing to fund it, there is no water. Can the Minister give some direction to the council on what it might want to do to address this problem?

[Steve Double]

Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman made that point very well: one council has stepped up and enabled improvements to take place to restore the canal, whereas another council has not. I believe the answer primarily lies locally in finding a solution to restore the canal and ensure its future. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halton for his invitation to visit the canal, and if I can find time in my diary, I would be very happy to do so. I am also happy to meet him, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South and any other stakeholders, because I want to play my part in trying to find a solution. As the hon. Member for Halton will appreciate, the Department is limited in what it can do, but I am happy to use my office to encourage a local solution to be found. I believe that we can do so—that a local solution can be achieved. The hon. Gentleman’s clear desire is to find a way to secure the future of that historic canal, which is an important part of local history and the current enjoyment of local people. I believe he can do so, and am very happy to do what I can to assist him in that effort.

Question put and agreed to.