Toby Perkins MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who join the British Army not only recognise that they have to abide by the law, but expect the Government to have their back and offer them that fairness? Can he offer an assurance that people who served in Northern Ireland will be given the fairness that they expect, and that this is a Government that genuinely have their back?

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech, which calls on us to be ambitious at COP30 and to ensure that Britain reaffirms its commitment to leading multilateral climate processes. It is also a moment to renew domestic efforts to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to the changing climate. We know that the green transition will lower energy bills, as well as ensuring that our food processes are nature-based and take on board the challenges that the hon. Member set out. As has rightly been highlighted, more action is needed to ensure that food systems are fit for purpose in future, both globally and in the UK. Agriculture is the second highest-emitting sector—the highest after energy. Intensive agriculture is also one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss, alongside a warming climate. Pollution from agriculture impacts 40% of the UK’s inland water bodies. In Brazil, agriculture has driven large-scale and devastating deforestation of tropical rainforests, which are one of the biggest levers for mitigating climate change, so the hosting of COP30 in Belém could not be more important. Food systems have vast potential to make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions, adapting our landscapes to a changing climate, providing healthy and nutritious food for people, restoring our natural environment and supporting thriving rural communities and economies. Here in the UK, we have a farming and food sector to be proud of. I absolutely echo the hon. Member’s call to do all we can to rebuild the relationship with the farming community. In its advice to the Government on the seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee has identified some of the policies and measures needed to support the transition to sustainable agriculture and reduce land-based emissions by 64% by 2050. As we head towards this important conference, I join the hon. Member, as I know colleagues do across the House, in calling on the Government to be as ambitious as they possibly can and carry on in that leadership role.

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  I praise the hon. Lady for getting this really important debate going today. She is absolutely right, and I am confident that Britain will be among the most ambitious nations at COP30. However, will she, as I do, take a second to reflect on the fact that, thank God, we have a Government going there who believe in climate change and recognise that we need to get the rest of the world to be more ambitious, rather than a Conservative Government who would be going there to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008, or Reform turning up to say that climate change is entirely bogus?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  I share Mr Speaker’s fury about the collapse of this trial, as I am sure all Members do. It is a huge disappointment that this former Conservative party researcher has escaped justice. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has been able to be so unequivocal about the facts of this case. It is extraordinary that, having listened to him, the Leader of the Opposition should carry on almost as though his statement had not happened, because he had answered many of the questions that she posed. On the changes that have happened since, can my hon. Friend be sure that we would be more able to pursue a criminal conviction if this offence had taken place under the current legislation? If not, can he tell us what he is doing to make sure it does not happen again?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is absolutely right that we are all here to respond to petitions that hundreds of thousands of people have signed. Does he think, as I do, that given the huge public interest in this matter, it is absolutely extraordinary that one person has turned up to speak from the main Opposition party, and that that person, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—barely talked about the items raised by the petitioners? Does it not say absolutely everything about the modern Conservative party that they do not think today’s debate is even worth turning up for?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am really pleased with the way my hon. Friend is presenting the debate. Many of us agree with what he says about how the immigration debate is being utilised and weaponised, but also believe that the level of legal migration is too high and support the Government in getting a grip on it. We want to ensure that those who come here are delivering, but we also recognise that some people who are already delivering will be affected and that they need to be properly considered.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening this important debate. As we know, over 100,000 people signed each of these petitions, including a number from my constituency of Chesterfield. I will also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well. Members have expressed strongly in this debate the sentiment that many migrants have made a huge contribution in our constituencies and the country. I think there is nothing inconsistent in saying that, on the one hand, we absolutely recognise that contribution but, on the other, we recognise the Government’s desire to reduce net migration and that the number of people coming into our country is unsustainable. We can absolutely recognise the huge contribution that migrants make without in any way undermining the positive steps the Government are trying to take to get the system under control. I agree entirely that Britain is a country that keeps its word, and we should continue to keep our word to the Hongkongers who have come here. I echo the comment that many others have made that it will be a huge propaganda victory for the Chinese Government if they are able to say that we are undermining that commitment. I also support what has been said about those who have already started down a path. We should not be changing the rules that we have made for those people. It is important to recognise that many people now have real uncertainty. We are in a competitive environment for many of these skilled migrants. There are many other countries that would like to attract them, and if we start pushing them away and making them believe that their commitment to this country will not be honoured, we risk losing people who are crucial to our public services and economy. We should consider that very seriously indeed. My constituent Erinda came to see me. Her family are from Albania and have been in the UK for several years. She came here on the skilled worker visa, and her husband and son were brought here as dependants. They have made their life here; they have joined the local church and have made a huge contribution to the local community. There is real concern among her church community that they now might not have the stability that they believed they should. We should offer that certainty to people who have come here on the five-year route. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) about the danger of exploitation of some people on the skilled visa route. I have seen appalling situations, including people working in the care industry who are being forced into doing, in effect, 70 or 75-hour shifts over the course of a week, and being told, “If you’re not willing to do it, we’ll scrap the basis on which you’ve come here and you’ll lose your right to be in the UK.” We need to make sure that those people, who are making an important contribution, are properly protected. I support what the Government are doing in trying to tighten up our immigration rules, but I also hope that at the end of the consultation they will support what the people who signed the petitions have asked for.

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I share the Secretary of State’s despair at the fact that the consensus on these matters appears to be dissipating. Does he agree that this is incredibly damaging for investment in the sector? Investors really need to see that whoever is in government, and whatever happens in elections, they have a Government who are committed to this agenda. Does he agree that it is completely wrong to say that Britain is the only country taking this issue seriously? In fact, China is absolutely leading the way in investing in the necessary technologies. We need to catch up and ensure that everyone knows that Britain is open for business in this sector.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact she has listened this week, but she knows that many disabled people watching our proceedings today will remain very worried. She is absolutely right that the existing system is not working. Can she say more about the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review and about how we can rebuild the confidence of disabled groups and the people who are worried, because every welfare reform seems to have been bad for them, in the fact that we can have a system that assesses who really needs it?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Flood Defences: Chesterfield · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of improving flood defences in Chesterfield. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate. Flooding is a critical issue for my constituents in Chesterfield and a problem impacting people right across the country. I have seen at first hand the appalling impact that flooding has on our communities. I keenly recall the floods in 2007, when I was a councillor for Rother ward on Chesterfield borough council, and how many of those who were flooded felt abandoned. Following those floods, I, along with Lifehouse church, Chesterfield rotary club and Soroptimist International Chesterfield, set up the Chesterfield flood victims appeal, which raised around £16,000 for flood victims without flood insurance. The work the appeal did, meeting flood victims and helping them as they tried to put their homes and lives together, had a lasting impact on me. It became clear that once someone had been a flood victim, they were forever a flood victim.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Flood Defences: Chesterfield · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is not one that I was planning to refer to, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to it because my hon. Friend is absolutely right. To an extent, we have taken for granted over the years the contribution that farmers and others play. They need to be compensated for it. Many of them want to be a part of that conversation, but it is very difficult in the current climate. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister joined me in Chesterfield earlier this year to see the Wingerworth flood basin in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and hear why we need a similar scheme in Holymoorside to protect us all from the River Hipper. I warmly welcome the Government’s recently announcement of significant funding for flood defences, including the record £2.65 billion in the next two years, a £4 billion injection for the three years after that and an additional £7.9 billion over the next decade. It is a welcome sign that the Government are taking flooding seriously. However, we are now waiting for the Government to consult on the revised formula, which will determine the allocation of that vital funding. When an area is flooded, the local authority is compelled to produce a report, known as a section 19 report, to investigate how the local response worked and identify recommendations for future flood readiness. Derbyshire’s section 19 investigation took an inordinate amount of time to produce what is a relatively short document, and set out a number of potential recommendations and investigations. The final report took more than 16 months from the day of the floods before it was put before the county council’s cabinet for approval, and it appears that very little of that report has led to concrete action to mitigate the flood risk in Chesterfield. It will soon be two years since Storm Babet, and some people are still not able to return to their homes. If we have another flood event this autumn without my constituents seeing any significant efforts being made to protect homes and businesses, they will understandably feel very let down. The section 19 report stated that, to protect central Chesterfield and Tapton Terrace, Derbyshire county council, in partnership with the Environment Agency, is looking to identify potential sites for flood storage within the Spital Brook catchment to slow its flow into the River Rother. It is also looking to identify potential sites for flood storage within the Holme Brook Catchment, including at Linacre Reservoir, to slow the flow of Holme Brook, again to protect central Chesterfield, Tapton Terrace and the Brampton area. The report also stated that DCC is exploring the feasibility of removing the bridge at Crow Lane near Tapton terrace, that the Environment Agency is investigating whether an updated dredging assessment is required on the Rother near Tapton Terrace and that the EPA is exploring options to be able to progress a scheme to deliver upstream flood storage on the River Hipper, which would also reduce flood risk to downstream communities in Chesterfield. The option that is really needed is the major scheme on the River Hipper at Holymoorside, but it is unclear what other schemes are being considered, what investigations are taking place and when decisions will be made or work completed. I am also told that Yorkshire Water is investigating the feasibility of a storage measure at Horns Bridge, to be introduced during the next asset management programme period. I am pursuing that with Yorkshire Water. While I would always prefer to have a roundabout flooded rather than people’s homes, I would like to see some real urgency to act, as the closure of Horns Bridge roundabout brings Chesterfield to a standstill and hugely affects transport between the M1 and Sheffield, Derby and Manchester. Derbyshire county council set up the Derbyshire Strategic Flood Group. I attended the first meeting, at which the council said it would start to investigate the costs and feasibility of the schemes I referred to. That was over 18 months after Storm Babet had taken place. The next meeting is not planned for months while that work is investigated. Again, that makes me question how seriously and urgently Derbyshire county council is taking its job of flood risk management. The message I want the Government, Derbyshire county council, Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency and all the other bodies involved to hear from this debate is that we need to see real urgency in the approach to reducing flood risk and protecting Chesterfield. Can the Minister explain what she can do to help me imbue the local authorities with more of a sense of urgency about these works, both large and small? Secondly, does the Minister believe that the section 19 process is fit for purpose? If a section 19 report identifies the cause or causes of flooding and makes recommendations for what is needed to reduce the risk in future, but there are no statutory requirements on what measures are needed or even timescales for investigations into what work is needed to reduce the risk, how will the public have confidence in that process? Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on her new funding formula and give us any indication on whether we are more likely to see flood funding for Chesterfield as a result? How will this formula be different from what went before? In the meantime, residents of Chesterfield are looking ahead to another potentially rainy autumn and winter. Can the Minister give the people of Chesterfield an assurance that she understands how desperately we need to see action to further protect people’s homes? Is she aware that the River Hipper scheme will also support a major regeneration project in Brampton on the former Robinson site, as well as more than 50 businesses flooded in 2023 and many more that were nearby and escaped on that occasion? I am glad that I have had this opportunity to give voice to the frustration that flood victims in my constituency feel. I look forward to the Minister giving me some hope to take back to the people of Chesterfield following this debate.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Flood Defences: Chesterfield · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the importance of plans and the issue of ensuring that children feel supported. The Minister and I are both former shadow Education Ministers, and we know there is no end to the number of things that people think should be on the school curriculum, but that is something that should be considered. More broadly, communities need to understand that the Government cannot always build a wall and save them. On some occasions, particularly as we go forward, floods are going to happen, and there needs to be a local plan for how we support people during floods and protect life in those times. The whole community needs to be involved, and that is a very important point. If the Government accept that in some cases they cannot do more to protect an area such as Tapton Terrace, can the Minister explain what mechanisms might be in place? Who do we need to get around the table to discuss a plan, which might involve knocking homes down and potentially building flood-resilient ones there? We previously had a plan about having all the living space on the first and second floor, and just garage space downstairs. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how we can look at getting people around the table to discuss that.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Flood Defences: Chesterfield · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that we need a holistic approach; I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. Whichever community they are in, flood victims do not just lose irreplaceable possessions or even replaceable furniture and fittings; they lose the peace of mind that most of us take for granted. People in a property at risk of flood— as more than 6 million people across the United Kingdom are—live in fear, every single time there is heavy rain, that it will happen again. Those in flood risk areas will receive Environment Agency text warnings; in the weeks after the floods, every time they get those warnings, they will start lifting all their property upstairs in preparation for potential floods. After two or three false alarms, they stop doing that, but the fear of being flooded again never leaves them. Being insured is important but, even for those who are insured, being flooded and forced from their home for months at a time is a hugely disturbing and disrupting experience. Following the 2007 floods, two things happened. First, in 2008 the Government, in conjunction with the insurance industry, updated the 2000 statement of principles, which subsequently morphed into the Flood Re scheme, which should mean that all residents, even in flood-hit areas, are able to obtain flood insurance. I stress to anyone who has been flooded that they can still get flood insurance through the Flood Re scheme. That is very important. Many of the people I met after the floods in 2023 said, “Oh well, no one will give us flood insurance round here.” They did not realise that with the Flood Re scheme, they could have been insured. The second thing that changed was that we got a 250,000 cubic metre flood alleviation scheme on the River Rother at Wingerworth. Although that was welcome, Storm Babet, which hit Derbyshire so fearfully on October 20 2023, demonstrated that tragically, even that scheme was not enough in itself to keep Chesterfield safe. Storm Babet had a devastating effect on Chesterfield, leading to the River Rother and the River Hipper bursting their banks. As many as 600 homes and dozens of businesses were flooded, many of them the very same ones that were flooded in 2007. One of my constituents, Maureen Gilbert, tragically lost her life, drowned in the front room of her own home. The economic cost to residents, businesses, communities and our nation is enormous. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency estimated that the 2015-2016 winter floods cost the nation’s economy £1.6 billion. The risk of flooding and the associated costs are only projected to rise over the coming years, due to climate change. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, has been investigating the Government’s approach to flooding resilience in England. We have heard from expert witnesses about the historical under-investment in flood defences across the country, and about the importance of investing in and maintaining existing flood defences, as well as building new ones. In Chesterfield, while the Wingerworth flood basin was not enough to prevent that flooding in 2023, it has come into its own over this past winter, as the floods that hit on new year’s day and the following weekend did not lead to any further flooded homes. However, there is still a need for improved protection from flooding for residents on Tapton Terrace; in Brampton, around the Chatsworth Road area; in Birdholme, off the Derby Road; and around Horns Bridge roundabout. In meetings with management at the Environment Agency locally, I was told that the cost of protecting the homes on Tapton Terrace would actually cost more than the homes would be worth to buy. I was told that it would be cheaper for the EA to buy them than to protect them, so I said, “Go on, buy them then. At least give these people peace of mind.” The truth is that many of the people who live in flood-hit areas lose so much of the value of their homes. For the vast majority of us, the value of our homes is the biggest and most expensive asset that we have. If a person’s house goes from £200,000 to £130,000 over the course of a day, there is nothing that they can do about that—they are effectively trapped in that property. In fairness, the Environment Agency investigated, but it came back and said, “Well, that isn’t something that we can do.” I have to say that Tapton Terrace is a particular worry to me because of its proximity to the River Rother, whose geography means that the speed with which it floods poses a real risk to life—we have already had one fatality there. It is very hard to see how anyone living in those properties who does not have the mobility to get upstairs is not very seriously at risk, as Mrs Gilbert tragically was in 2023.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely recognise that my hon. Friend is coming from the right place on her amendment. I totally agree with her that a reform is needed, and she has raised some very powerful cases. She describes this as a very narrow change, but in actual fact she is asking us to ensure not just that in such cases the police should act differently, but that in every case ever no woman can ever be prosecuted. It is a hell of a leap for us to take, when this remains against the law, for her to say that these women, whatever the circumstances, must never be prosecuted. That is why I do not think I will be supporting the amendment, despite recognising that she is right that such a reform is needed. Can she say anything to explain why there must never be any prosecution ever?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been down to the local Co-op in Chesterfield and met one of the shop workers, who faced a terrible attack. Luckily, the people were jailed, but in so many cases there is a sense that shoplifters are able to walk out the door without anything being done. The traumatic effect that this has on shop workers has to be seen to be believed. Would the Minister say that the message the Bill sends to anyone who wants to walk out of a store after doing these things is that the police will come after them, and they will end up going to jail?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Health of the Elderly · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most important things we can do to support the health of the elderly is to ensure that they can get to see their local doctor. It is great to hear the Health Secretary talk about the improved access to appointments—we are seeing that in Chesterfield—but he is also right to say that it is the first step back up the mountain. The Government inherited a real crisis in GP access and the situation is particularly difficult in more deprived areas. Will my hon. Friend tell me what more we will do to ensure that people are able to see a GP, and in particular that practices that serve the most deprived communities can get access to the extra GPs they need?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member have any proposals?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member very much for that intervention, and I look forward to hearing her speech in support of her new clause. I do think that has merit and is worth considering, and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry into housing growth and environmental sustainability to scrutinise the Government’s national planning policy proposals. Achieving growth and delivering for people, climate and nature together is a vital but challenging task. There are many provisions in this Bill that I welcome, and I thank the Minister for his efforts and his detailed engagement. I was grateful that he made time to meet me recently to discuss my proposed amendments. Overall, I support the Government’s intention in part 3, and I think those parties that wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong. It is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers’ environmental obligations. If done well, the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposed in part 3 could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impact protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I see the merit of this strategic approach in delivering larger-scale and more effective nature conservation measures where development has unavoidable impacts on protected sites and protected species. However, the strength of concern from knowledgeable stakeholders should give the Government serious pause for thought. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned earlier, published advice for the Government stating that the existing provisions in the Bill would amount to a regression in environmental law, so it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded about making further amendments. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place, where I am certain that further amendments will be brought forward. The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence that there must be stronger safeguards for the proposed nature restoration fund to genuinely deliver on its potential for nature. My objective in tabling amendments to this Bill is to engage constructively with the Government’s approach to part 3, and to strengthen it so that it delivers for nature and development at the same time. To turn first to amendment 136, I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards, and I look forward to what he comes forward with. This amendment would ensure that environmental delivery plans are used only where there is scientific evidence that they will work. In other words, there must be robust evidence that a particular negative effect on a protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level, rather than on a site-by-site basis. Although the strategic approaches that will be delivered by EDPs can work well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they do not always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The Government have recognised this principle and have committed to a modular approach to expanding EDPs with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, and I encourage the Government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that the scientific safeguards to which they have committed cannot be altered by any future Government without revisiting this legislation. On amendment 150—

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature. Before I turn to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the Bill achieves those aims. I absolutely share the Government’s commitment to freeing up the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are unable to get on to the housing ladder and fewer children grow up in unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation. I see the impact of this country’s failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every single week, so I support the Government’s aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has too often been a barrier to those ambitions, and the Government are absolutely right to attempt to remove this blocker. Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not mean allowing further nature degradation, nor does it have to. The Government have said that these ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations in England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level; as I said a few moments ago, Britain is now one of the “most nature-depleted” places on earth. Most of England’s rare and vulnerable habitats are in poor condition. Alongside building the homes and infrastructure that our society needs, we must rebuild our natural capital—the air, water, soils and biodiversity —on which our society depends.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and for his attention to these matters. The Committee looked in detail at bottom trawling, and we heard from a number of experts. It is also important to say that there is a devolved element. We considered the question of whether the Government’s plan should impose highly protected marine areas on devolved jurisdictions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need consistency on this across the UK, and that we must insist on the same from nations across Europe and the rest of the world.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly think we should get on and do it. My hon. Friend raises an important point about whether primary legislation is needed. It is clear that the Government believe it is, and the evidence our Committee heard is that the Government are trying to find time for that. My hon. Friend makes an innovative suggestion, and I am sure the Government will listen. I think there is agreement across the House that this is important. It was the policy of the previous Government, but it was never brought forward; it is the policy of this Government, and it has never been brought forward. I think we would all agree that it is tremendously important for ratification to take place.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Governing the Marine Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present to the House the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on “Governing the marine environment”. Ahead of World Ocean Day and the United Nations ocean conference next week, there is an opportunity for the Government to send a clear signal that the UK is serious about protecting our marine environment. That is why the Committee worked hard to publish our report in a timely manner to advance that effort. I am grateful to all members of the Committee for their contributions. This is the first inquiry that has been initiated and completed by this Committee, and it has been a pleasure to conduct the inquiry together. I wish to record my, and the whole Committee’s, huge gratitude to the staff of the Environmental Audit Committee, in particular Dr Misha Patel, who worked tirelessly and swiftly to produce the report. The Committee initiated the inquiry due to the critical importance of, and risks to, our marine environment. Oceans regulate the Earth’s temperature, absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, support biodiversity, underpin diverse industries and offer significant cultural, heritage and recreational value. At the same time, they are under immense pressure from a variety of activities, and those activities are governed by a complex and fragmented regime of regulation and policy. The Committee heard that this lack of joined-up governance and effective stakeholder engagement risks the unsustainable management and potential depletion of critical marine resources. In fact, UK waters are already failing assessments of their environmental health, leading the Office for Environmental Protection to investigate a suspected failure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the necessary measures to achieve “good environmental status” of marine waters. It was a great pleasure and honour for many Members of Parliament to watch the film “Ocean” in the company of Sir David Attenborough yesterday. We heard the Prime Minister, in his warm embrace of Sir David, assert that his Government would take nature seriously, echoing the importance of action on oceans ahead of next week’s conference. The Committee is in excited anticipation of the announcements that the Government will make ahead of next week’s conference. Turning to the report’s findings in more detail, I wish to highlight four topics on which the Committee heard detailed evidence and has made recommendations to the Government. The first is on bottom trawling. While marine protected areas cover nearly 900,000 square kilometres of English waters, activities that harm marine life are still allowed in lots of those areas. The film “Ocean” I referred to clearly showed the devastation of the seabed caused by bottom trawling. Extractive and damaging practices undermine the very objectives that MPAs were established to address. While the Government have indicated that they are committed to not having bottom trawling in areas that damage MPAs, they have not yet set out a timeline for implementing the change. Every day we wait, further damage is done to the seabed and crucial ocean ecosystems. The Committee concluded that damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, dredging and mining aggregates, should be banned in offshore protected areas. Beyond protected areas at sea, the Committee heard that the overarching vision for how our oceans are used and managed is outdated and does not reflect the current or evolving pressures on the marine environment. The current marine policy statement published in 2011, for example, seeks to maximise the production of oil and gas. That is clearly not the current Government’s policy, but it is according to the MPS. The Committee recommends that the Government bring forward a long overdue review of the marine policy statement to update it to ensure that it reflects current Government policy and sets out how decisions will be made to balance marine exploitation and marine protection. On marine spatial planning, the Committee heard that the marine spatial prioritisation programme should be key in guiding marine governance and spatial planning of activities at sea, such as protected areas, renewables development and fishing. However, it remains unclear what outcomes are expected and what has been delivered by the programme to date. We urge the Government to clarify the scope, objectives and outputs of the marine spatial prioritisation programme to ensure that it effectively implements the Government’s vision for the sustainable use of the marine environment. Changes in marine spatial planning will have real impacts on those who rely on the sea for their livelihoods. The Government must ensure that traditional marine sectors are supported through these changes to retain their expertise and support sustainable practices. Finally, the Committee heard that despite signing the UN high seas treaty in September 2023, the UK has so far failed to ratify it. This crucial treaty would protect marine life in the high seas by establishing protected areas in international waters. Until the treaty is ratified by 60 nations, it will not come into force. We urge the Government to set a clear timeline for introducing the required legislation for ratifying the treaty before September 2025, which will mark two years since the UK signed it. This would send a clear signal that global marine protection is a priority for the Government, and it would take the UK and the world one step closer to real protection for marine life in the high seas. In our hearings, Ministers confirmed that it remains Government policy to ratify the treaty but explained that not enough time had been found in the parliamentary schedule for legislation. It is crucial, both for the UK’s contribution and for the treaty to come into force, that it is ratified. We call on the Government to bring that forward now. While the urgency of the situation for the marine environment is clear, there is an opportunity to turn things around. The evidence is indisputable, and the Government have a number of policy tools and options at their disposal. It is time to act to protect the marine environment. Ahead of the UN ocean conference next week, I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s plans to safeguard our oceans for the future.