English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging

Question

11:27:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to prohibit bottom trawling and dredging in all English marine protected areas.

My Lords, 60% of English marine protected areas are protected by by-laws that limit the use of damaging fishing gear. On Monday 9 June, the Secretary of State announced that the Marine Management Organisation was starting a consultation on proposed by-laws to protect a further 42 MPAs. This substantial package would ban bottom trawling and shellfish dredging over 30,000 square kilometres—that is 13% of English waters. It is a significant step in preserving marine ecosystems through targeted action.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I very much welcome last week’s announcement that progress will be made in marine protected areas, as currently 90% of the UK’s MPAs remain open to bottom trawling. Does the Minister agree that, given the state of fish stocks, this is an important move to ensure that fishing has a sustainable future? Following the consultation, I hope to see a swift implementation; can he give more detail on the timeframe for that?

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome of the announcement; it is an important step forward in a long-term plan properly to protect our marine ecosystems and environment while enabling fishing. We have had to very carefully considered the next steps to manage bottom trawling in MPAs, along with other fishing methods, in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations. It is important that we get this right and the proposed by-laws are very substantial: they will close 13% of English waters to bottom trawling, which will be critical to protect our MPAs. We want to move at pace, but I will not set out a precise timeline because it is important that we see the consultation through first.

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help me clarify something. I have a cutting from Fishing News, “the voice of the fishing industry”. When Minister Zeichner addressed the Shellfish Association last week, he said that this news about the ending of bottom trawling will be “very, very grim” for the industry. He knows how frustrating it is, he said, and: “This is about ending trawling in areas where damage is done – why make changes in areas of MPAs that aren’t at risk?”— which would apply to the 42 new ones that have not yet been bottom trawled. It seems to me very concerning, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could lay out the Government’s precise position on this.

My Lords, the Government support the fishing industry and recognise its key role in food supply, which is why we are also launching the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is investing £360 million over the next 12 years to support the next generation of fishermen and breathe new life into our coastal communities. This investment will make the fishing industry fit for the 21st century, but we make no apology for taking the steps—which, indeed, were initiated by the previous Government—to protect our natural marine environment over the long term. It is worth pointing out that the majority of fishing fleets that will be impacted by this ban on bottom trawling and shellfish dredging are not UK fleets but fleets from other nations, principally France, Ireland and Denmark.

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could clarify something. I know I am a bit dense, but the headline seemed to be that the Government are banning bottom trawling in MPAs. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who mentioned the remarks made by the Minister’s honourable friend in the other place, is it a fact that the Government are banning bottom trawling in some MPAs but not all?

My Lords, we want to stop fishing only where it is damaging protected species and habitats in MPAs. For example, some MPAs are designated to protect sea-birds or harbour porpoises; bottom-trawling restrictions will not help these species. Our regulators undertake detailed assessments to make sure we protect our MPAs, while allowing fishing and other activities to continue where they are not damaging to them. I ask noble Lords to forgive the mammalian comparison, but it is horses for courses.

My Lords, while extending the ban on destructive bottom trawling is very welcome indeed, can I ask whether the Government considered a full ban, given the urgency expressed in the Labour Party manifesto on this issue? While the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has asked for a timetable—I think it is reasonable to get some sense of a timetable—can I ask how a timetable will take place for comprehensive protection? Can the Minister outline to us how enforcement will prevent exemptions or delays and ensure that our MPAs are genuinely safeguarded as marine biodiversity?

At the risk of repeating myself, we are not undertaking a blanket ban, because it is important that we can support fishing and other marine activity where it is not damaging marine ecosystems. One of the reasons that we are having the consultation is to understand the detail of it, but there are some MPAs that are not about fishing activity but other protection. We are looking in a proactive way to understand how best to protect water column activity, for instance, as well as to ensure that our seabeds are protected. I will not be drawn any further on the timetable, but we are clear about the importance of proceeding at pace while taking the fishing industry, marine conservation organisations and the wider community along with us. The Wildlife Trusts called the Secretary of State’s announcement the other day a “great step forward”. Oceana UK said it was a “golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries”, and, frankly, I agree with them.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I do not think there has been a Labour questioner so far on this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his responses on this, but can I ask—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—to what extent the security position is also being factored into these discussions? Quite clearly, damage to undersea cables and pipelines is a serious problem and bottom trawling will not help.

My noble friend is absolutely right, and this is why we are serious about taking action in this area. When it comes to national security or promoting biodiversity and protecting our marine environment, we want to work with all stakeholders to get this right. I would be very interested to hear the views of the National Preparedness Commission and other such authorities in understanding the impact of bottom trawling on this important kind of national infrastructure.

My Lords, bottom trawling is an appalling way to fish but a superb way to destroy everything on the seabed. Last year, according to statistics from Oceana UK, just 10 fishing vessels of at least 20 metres in length were responsible for 27% of the suspected bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, wrecking fragile seabed ecosystems, releasing carbon and dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of discarded fish of the wrong sort. I say to the Minister that that applies to every single MPA, not just those with special species that he wants to protect. None of these 10 vessels was from the UK, and just 6% of the total 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in MPAs was carried out by UK vessels. While we welcome the consultation, would the Government partly redeem themselves from selling out our fishermen to the EU by banning those 10 big foreign boats, which would lead to a 20% saving overnight, and then phase out the rest of bottom trawling over the next couple of years?

I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows that the UK has 377 marine protected areas, of which only 38 are fully protected. Can I just clarify that the 42 that the Government are consulting on are different from the 38? Surely the Minister can tell us when the consultation will end?

As the noble Baroness sets out, the consultation has 42 MPAs, and 41 of those have bottom-towed gear restrictions proposed. As I understand it—I will write if this is not the case—those are separate from those previous 38. The consultation will close later in the year, I understand, sometime in the autumn, but I will write with further details if that is not the case.