Salter Speaks, ‘making a fair fist’

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

It is a pleasure to follow Mr. Benyon, whose arguments I listened to carefully today and in Committee. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my comments. Having been incredibly helpful to him yesterday, I am mindful to be slightly less helpful today. I, and my colleagues who similarly failed to support the Government on this issue in Committee, have problems standing on our heads. I do not seek to speak for my colleagues, but myself and others—I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)—were members of the Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill. As we have said, the Bill has been extensively scrutinised, and I would like to think that the Government’s response to how this excellent Bill can be made into a brilliant Bill will weigh in the balance some of the wise recommendations that came out of that pre-legislative scrutiny exercise conducted with Members of the other place.

On the Joint Committee’s report, I remind the Minister of those who have argued the “furthering” case, and I am a signed-up member of the “furthering” tendency. Page 22 of the report states:

“The Environment Agency argued that the MMO should have a duty to further conservation of marine flora and fauna and to secure compliance with the Water Framework Directiverequirements and objectives in transitional and coastal waters.”

On the same page, the Joint Committee recommended:

“We have no doubt, from the weight of the evidence received, that the statement of purpose of the MMO is ambiguous both in terms of the draft Bill and in the policy framework which the Government envisages.”

I do not think that any of us would want to put our names to this groundbreaking and long-awaited piece of legislation if it had any ambiguity in it, particularly in respect of such a fundamental component of delivery, which the MMO must surely be. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, the final recommendation stated quite clearly that we should include a duty to further sustainable development.

My problem with why the Government find that difficult concerns the lawyers’ argument that it would not be compatible with 70 other pieces of legislation. Hang on a moment! Are we in this place to make legislation that is only compatible with legislation that went before? If that is the case, how do we ever establish precedents? How do we ever move the policy agenda on? I am concerned about the future of our seas, certainly in terms of generating a sustainable harvest of fish for the planet to feed on and benefit from. There might be only 50 years of life left in the oceans if mankind carries on exploiting them at the current rate. We must also consider the impact of climate change and population growth. All those factors tell me that I do not want to listen too carefully to arguments from lawyers about precedents concerning 70 other bits of legislation that go back to God knows when.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend Huw Irranca-Davies, has been superb throughout consideration of the Bill, but—here is a challenge for him—I need him to be even more superb and come up with some very convincing arguments, if he is to tempt me to follow him into the Lobby.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-10-27c.167.2#g171.0

 

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

The Minister is certainly making a fair fist of moving towards allaying the concerns that a number of us raised in Committee. She mentioned the coalition of support for the Government’s strengthened position—I accept that they have strengthened it and moved towards “furthering”—but will she tell me whether the WWF is part of that coalition, or whether it is still pressing, as I believe it is, for the text of the original amendment to be written into the Bill?

‘Angelic’ Salter Wants you to forget his own Expense Scandall

Salter has been saying he is an  ’angel’  as he has not been caught with his snout in the parliamentary trough by the telegraph this summer.

But a couple of years ago our own ‘angelic’ politician was hauled before parliaments standards board and made to pay back thousands.

 

He was guilty of using parliamentary pre-paid envelopes for his own self publicising leaflets, and has apologised for doing so. As the costs of the mailings remain a proper charge on parliamentary allowances, he said he intends to reimburse the costs of the relevant stationery from the appropriate allowance for the current financial year.

• Salter is Guilty :

• 1. he posted to a number of constituents in pre-paid House of Commons envelopes, a breach of the Stationery and Postage Rules;

• 2. the report’s imprint did not state that it had been funded from Mr Salter’s Parliamentary allowances; and

• 3. the report promoted the re-election of a councillor in the May 2007 local elections by featuring a picture of him.

For the findings in full see

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/1071/107103.htm#a2

salter speaks in Parliament, fishing again

It looks like wonderboy Marty hs been watching the movie ‘End of the line’, I can see several qotes from it in his lenthy speech. So much for his being an expert on fishing, and on his being responsible for New Labour helping to eradicate fish from the sea. He pretends he is in opposition. He wont have long to wait fortunately. 

 

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=speaker:10526+section:debate&o=d

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: New Clause 8 — MCZs: duty to manage and mitigate impacts upon existing activities (26 Oct 2009)
Martin Salter: As my hon. Friend bears the scars of the Bill Committee and we shared many hours on this subject together, I certainly commend her remarks to the Minister. This is an excellent Bill that is good for fisheries and good for conservation. It needs us to be big people and take on vested interests, and to be prepared to make the arguments for the next generation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: New Clause 8 — MCZs: duty to manage and mitigate impacts upon existing activities (26 Oct 2009)
Martin Salter: Does the Minister accept that although there might be short-term pain, it could be for long-term gain? That long term might not be too far away. Evidence from St. Lucia in South Africa, where marine protected zones were introduced in 1995, showed that in just three years the biomass of that reserve tripled, making a strong economic argument for those who would have opposed it in the first place.

(Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c106) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I congratulate Mr. Mitchell on lightening our proceedings. I think that most of us wondered whether we would achieve such levels of excitement.

Let me begin by identifying an absurdity that has featured in a number of statements made today. Members have said that it is not possible to create a patchwork quilt of marine conservation zones—that they will not work. Every Member has been lauding the achievements of Lundy as a no-take zone. That is the first patch in the patchwork quilt that we need to establish around these shores, if there are to be any fish left for the people of Great Grimsby and elsewhere to fish for.

I oppose new clause 8, and I oppose amendment 24, which seeks to enhance the sea fisheries defence. I support Government amendment 5, which seeks to minimise that defence in the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy, as outlined by Mr. Benyon. By way of a change, I support Government amendments 13 and 14, which seek important reforms to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

It is a pleasure to follow a number of speeches, particularly those of my hon. Friend Rob Marris and Mr. Walker. However, I must take issue with what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said about accidental damage. There is nothing accidental about beam trawling. Beam trawling is an environmental disaster. If we were to translate it to the agricultural field—pardon the pun—it would mean a farmer ploughing the same field seven times in a single growing season. Beam trawling does long-term environmental damage and cannot exist alongside conservation and sustainable fisheries. They are completely opposed, and such damage is not done accidentally.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c107) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)
I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was expressing concern that accidental damage might be a universal get-out clause for the fishing industry.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c107) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I welcome that clarification.

There need not be a conflict between fishing—whether commercial or recreational—and conservation, provided that the fishermen decide to come down in favour of conservation. Turning to my own sport, I have lost count of the number of arguments I have had with salmon anglers who opposed the bringing in of the rule of returning spring salmon before 16 June. It has finally got into the psyche of Britain’s game anglers that we cannot continually remove spawning fish from the food chain and expect a run of salmon in subsequent years. Fishermen can be conservationists, but the choice is theirs, and fishermen or their public representatives who choose to oppose the single most important piece of environmental legislation affecting the coastline and seas of this nation have clearly not opted to come down on the side of conservation.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c107) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Angus MacNeil (Spokesperson (Transport; Rural Affairs; Scotland Office); Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Scottish National Party)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
No, I will not.

I have huge affection and respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. He is a doughty champion for his constituency and for the commercial fishing interest, but I say to him that he will do them no favours in the long term if he encourages people to set their faces against the very conservation measures that are designed to protect the existence of the fish that his constituents wish to catch.

I get tired of listening to the argument that people have had a traditional right to pursue their quarry in this way. The same argument was made about the white rhino in Africa until it was hunted to extinction, and the Spanish and the Portuguese are making the same argument about the bluefin tuna fishery. Bluefin tuna have got probably months, and certainly no more than two or three years, left to exist as a species that can be sustainably harvested. Sadly, a couple of years ago in Luxembourg the European Fisheries Council recommended quotas that were twice as generous as those that should have been introduced in order to secure sustainability.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Angus MacNeil (Spokesperson (Transport; Rural Affairs; Scotland Office); Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Scottish National Party)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
No, because there is very little time.

The commercial sector broke those quotas by a factor of 100 per cent. Unless we change the terms of this debate, and unless we in this House come down forthrightly on the side of conservation, there is no hope for the commercial fishing industry or recreational fishing.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby, Labour)
Will my hon. Friend give way?

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby, Labour)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his moving tribute to me, but, as far as I know, we are talking about white herring, not white rhino. It is not true that the fishing industry is opposed to conservation measures; it supports them, but it wants its position to be made clear within them. As my hon. Friend is such a passionate supporter of marine conservation zones, will he tell us whether he wants them to become no-fishing zones?

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I certainly support the power in the Bill to have, on the basis of good scientific evidence, MCZs that are no-take zones where appropriate. They could be established for a host of reasons, but particularly in nursery areas for recovery species. We have already witnessed commercial fishermen in the south-west praising the fact that their catch has risen as a result of the Lundy no-take zone. I offer a potential golden future to my hon. Friend’s constituents through having no-take zones.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c108) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Angus MacNeil (Spokesperson (Transport; Rural Affairs; Scotland Office); Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Scottish National Party)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c109) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
No.

The Marine Conservation Society wrote the following to the Minister back on 3 July:

“The true value in marine reserves lies not in their ability to protect the most fragile species as is often put forwards. Instead marine reserves, where no extraction or disturbance takes place, allow the sea to fully recover for species diversity and productivity.”

There is a common interest between conservationists and the commercial sector to ensure a more productive sea.

I turn briefly to the Government amendments that seek to amend and improve the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Environment Agency has just concluded a consultation on the removal of freshwater fish that the Bill allows for. The consultation overwhelmingly came down in favour of a catch-and-release regime for our freshwater fisheries. Henceforth, the archaic, anachronistic system of regional byelaws is to be replaced with a national catch-and-release regime for coarse fish, which is long overdue. Yes, there will be some exceptions for fishery management, predator fishing or conservation purposes, but in their response to the Environment Agency consultation as part of this Bill, freshwater anglers overwhelmingly came down on the side of conservation, and it is to their credit that they did so.

I take issue with the argument that somehow, only Members with coastal constituencies have the right to argue about the condition of our sea. Actually, some of the finest contributions came from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Newbury—constituencies that are a considerable distance from the sea. The sea is a common heritage that we all share.

Given that time is of the essence and that we have other groups of amendments to move on to, I would like the last word in my contribution to go to a trawlerman. Mr. Dave Murphy was a trawler captain for Interfish until two years ago, when he became the outreach officer for the Finding Sanctuary project. He says:

“Protecting habitats has got to do fish stocks good in the end. I’ve had the opportunity to make my life fishing. I’d like my two boys to have the same chance.”

That is what the Bill is about: ensuring that the fish stocks that we value, and that we want to see protected and enhanced and flourish, are there for future generations.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c109) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
9:00 pm

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton, Labour)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has heard from Mr. David Murphy, who is doing excellent work in developing “Fishermap” for Finding Sanctuary. However, will he urge the Minister, as I should like to do, to issue the ecological guidance necessary for that project to do its work?

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c109) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
As my hon. Friend bears the scars of the Bill Committee and we shared many hours on this subject together, I certainly commend her remarks to the Minister.

This is an excellent Bill that is good for fisheries and good for conservation. It needs us to be big people and take on vested interests, and to be prepared to make the arguments for the next generation.

Link to this Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 October 2009, c109) Video match this
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Tory Conference – pics they didnt want you to see

Here are some excusive pictures of the toffs at the tory conference. 

Actually it looks a bit like the Labour conference.

Or it might be someones wedding photos.

Oh well.

Now these are definately tories, but its a bit old. £2000 a for the bullington uniform, no wonder they wanted to ban this picture.

Burglers Helped By Liberals

If your a burglar, or a squatter, what would you really like? Well how about a list of empty properties, they would pay good money for that one.

So thanks Liberals, for listing some tempting targets. They have helpfully pictured them also, see their blog.

http://www.redlandslibdems.org.uk/2009/08/empty-homes-campaign-august-update.html

Replacement by Naz Sarkar

See the amazingnew website of my replacement Naz Sarkar.

Just one thing, its  only August, how does he know what the Newbury Today will say in November???

See it yourself at http://www.readingwest.com/

He isnt having a good start, last month he made a fool of himself with the Paxman of local Berkshire radio; Andrew Peach. Still at least no one noticed:

http://playpolitical.typepad.com/labour_party/2009/07/labours-new-candidate-for-reading-west-naz-sarkar-is-humiliated-in-an-interview-with-a-bbc-local-rad.html

http://www.wikio.co.uk/news/Andrew+Peach
It’s A Peach!

Local bloggers have unified in their condemnation of newly selected prospective Labour candidate for Reading West Naz Sarkar after he was ambushed by Andrew Peach during an interview on local radio. Mr Sarkar betrayed his lack of local knowledge by failing to understand the reference to the ‘IDR’ and refused to be sidetracked as he continued to make partisan arguments. The political scoop…

Sarkar Branded as “Hapless” by his Local Paper

Richard Willis’s Blog

Councillor Naz Sarkar is in trouble again. His local paper in the London Borough of Waltham Forest has picked up on his recent interview on BBC Radio Berkshire with DJ Andrew Peach. The interview which was added to YouTube has now received almost 6,000 hits and the total is still climbing. The Waltham Forest Guardian [...]

now it’s gone viral

Jane Is The One

the hilarious Nasty Naz interview with Andrew Peach of Radio Berkshire that is, which is just everywhere, we are still waiting (1) for His Master’s Voice to report it (2) for Mr Salter to put out a statement in support of Nasty and his great future in Reading West. The two of them were last seen supporting “diversity” together at Battle Primary School, and they might well wish…

Sarkar Interview is an Internet Sensation

Richard Willis’s Blog

As I pointed out on 15 July, newly selected Reading West Labour candidate Naz Sarkar gave a less than convincing interview to Andrew Peach of BBC Radio Berkshire. Since I wrote that initial article the story has been picked up by Iain Dale and someone has made a YouTube clip of the interview which has now passed [...]

Naz Sarker: The Most Hapless Political Interview of the Year

Iain Dale’s Diary

Last night I spoke at a dinner for Reading Conservatives, and a very pleasant evening it was too. One thing they were keen to point me to is the Youtube clip below of the newly selected Labour Candidate for Reading West, Naz Sarkar, being interviewed on Radio Berkshire’s Andrew Peach. It is a classic example of how now to give an interview. By the end of it, Peach was treating…

Naz Sarkar: The Most Hapless Political Interview of the Year – Politics Index

Politics Index (Free subscription) |
Last night I spoke at a dinner for Reading Conservatives, and a very pleasant evening it was too. One thing they were keen to point me to is the Youtube clip below of the newly selected Labour Candidate for Reading West, Naz Sarkar, being interviewed on Radio Berkshire’s Andrew Peach. It is a classic example of how now to give an interview. By the end of it, Peach was treating…

this is pretty good stuff

Jane Is The One (Free subscription)

I know that most people interested in the politics of Reading have seen this clip already, but I watched it today and I must say I was impressed. Nasty Naz, hey! Way to go, boy! Andrew Peach couldn’t stop laughing. By the way, the IDR, if you call it an issue, is one for Reading East much more than for Reading West, hein? And Nasty Naz reveals to us that Martin Salter is standing down…
It’s time to say bye bye Mr Salter Time for change in Reading West
www.ReadingWestConservatives.com

“Gaffe Prone” Labour Candidate Trips Up

Richard Willis’s Blog (Free subscription) | 15/07/2009

… a deselected Councillor defecting to the Lib Dems , I have been sent a fascinating interview that Andrew Peach of BBC Radio Berkshire conducted with newly selected Sarkar. What is amazing is not so much Sarkar’s robotic continual attempt to parrot the line he has been given but his clear lack of local knowledge. He tries to emphasise his local credentials but to the clear amusement…

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/printertopic=1/t=128450/start=0/postdays=0/postorder=asc/vote=viewresult.html

A Labour seat. Incumbent MP stepping down.

After an exhaustive selection process, they choose: a complete and utter numpty. No change there then.

Witness what is being hailed as one of the worst radio interviews ever given:

Salter Speaks on Newspapers 9 July

Newspapers (Surveillance Methods)

Energy and Climate Change

House of Commons debates, 9 July 2009, 11:31 am

 

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister will agree that this is an extremely serious matter and there are many avenues that the House and its Committees may wish to explore. For example, do Mr. Coulson and his employer, the Leader of the Opposition, stand by the comments that the former made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in March 2003 that it is acceptable to make cash payments to police officers for private information? Why on earth did the Metropolitan police not properly investigate and prosecute those who were working for Mr. Coulson who tapped the phones of Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament and other public figures?

 

David Hanson (Minister of State (Crime and Policing), Home Office; Delyn, Labour)

I am afraid that I will sound repetitive, but the allegations that my hon. Friend makes are ones that the Metropolitan police are examining as we speak, as part of their efforts to uncover the truth of the matter. It is not for me to comment on those operational matters.

 

 

Salter Speaks Under Mrs. Winterton ( N Ireland) 15 July 09

[Ann Winterton in the Chair] — Abortion Law (Northern Ireland)

Westminster Hall debates, 15 July 2009

All Westminster Hall debates on 15 Jul 2009 Next Westminster Hall debate »

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr. Dave Watts.)

• Link to this

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

9:30 am

 

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs. Winterton.

When I was first elected to Parliament, I served on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Abortion law in Northern Ireland was an issue then and it will continue to be an issue until the Government fulfil their responsibility and grant equal rights to women in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that this is an immensely controversial issue. Parliament has taken a fair old battering in recent months, but we right hon. and hon. Members are at our best when we do what we are sent here to do: to engage in the battle of ideas with mutual respect, particularly on difficult, controversial issues like this. I trust that this debate will be conducted with that in mind.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c73WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when David Taylor speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c73WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

No.

I well remember campaigning with colleagues from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on a cross-party basis for the Belfast agreement in 1998. I campaigned with Sinn Fein in the Falls road in the morning, with the Social Democratic and Labour party at lunchtime, and with the Progressive Unionist party in the afternoon in the Shankill road. [Interruption.] I am afraid that my colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party were on the other side of the issue at that point. One thing that came through in talking informally to people was that, yes, this issue—sadly, in my view—unites the vast majority of politicians in Northern Ireland.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c73WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when David Taylor speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c73WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

No, I will not.

The single exceptions are Anna Lo from the Alliance party and Dawn Purvis from the Progressive Unionist party. I have immense respect for those two people, who have shown great courage in standing up for what they believe in. Other politicians in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Assembly, share their views, but in the prevailing atmosphere people feel that it is difficult to express them, or they feel uncomfortable doing so. We all understand that; we are all under pressure from our electors.

We should all be concerned about this matter. It is a human rights issue. It is staggering that anyone can sit back and believe that it is okay to treat certain United Kingdom citizens as second-class citizens, purely on the basis of where they live. This is happening to women in Northern Ireland on a daily basis.

Devolution is a good thing, and I have no doubt that the devolution argument will be made today.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c73WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Jim Dobbin speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Jim Dobbin (Heywood & Middleton, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c74WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

No.

We did not devolve this issue to Scotland. There are, in my constituency and others, people from all over the UK, whether from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, who have the right to travel to have heart operations or to see cancer specialists. However, somehow, a woman from Northern Ireland facing potentially serious medical complications or even worse cannot travel and be funded for abortion services in the mainland in England. How on earth can that be right?

It will be said that this is not a matter for the Westminster Parliament. However, a significant e-petition on the No. 10 website has been signed by many thousands of people, and my hon. Friend Ms Abbott tabled early-day motion 625. Of course, in May 2008, Northern Irish Members of Parliament had no compunction about coming to this place and voting to restrict the reproductive rights of my constituents, and they voted to reduce the abortion limit down to 12 weeks. I am afraid that anyone in this debate who trots out the argument that this is not a matter for Westminster has sold the pass.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c74WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Diane Abbott speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in addition to tabling an early-day motion, I tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on abortion rights in Northern Ireland, in response to which I received hundreds of letters from men and women in Northern Ireland, saying that, on this matter, the four major parties did not represent them and that they looked to the Westminster Parliament to be a voice for women there?

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c74WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I am well aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. We are nothing—we are pygmy politicians in this place—if we do not stand up for the rights of people who feel that they do not have a voice. My hon. Friend is right to articulate the fact that many women—many people—in Northern Ireland feel that they do not have a voice on this issue.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c74WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Bob Spink speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Bob Spink (Castle Point, Independent)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nearer to the people the decision is taken, the purer the democracy? People’s views should be respected. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to protect the unborn child and are absolutely right in holding that passionate view.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c74WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, but his argument blows apart if localism is taken down to its purist level, because the local decision of the individual woman herself is the one that we are defending.

Women in Northern Ireland have been waiting for more than 40 years to secure the same sexual and reproductive rights as women in the rest of the UK. The Abortion Act 1967 allows women in England, Scotland and Wales access to safe, legal abortion services. For women in Northern Ireland the situation is drastically different, because Victorian legislation—the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—is still in place there, which is a scandal. That means that women are only able to access abortion if their lives are in danger or if continuing the pregnancy would lead to severe and permanent harm. The penalty for obtaining an illegal abortion is imprisonment for life.

Northern Ireland women are living under a Victorian law created at a time of workhouses and child labour. Women were not even allowed the right to vote at that point, yet this law continues to govern the health and lives of women in Northern Ireland. The law in Northern Ireland is so restrictive that even a 14-year-old girl who had been raped or was a victim of incest, or even both, because that can happen, would not be able to access an abortion just because she had been raped or was a victim of incest. It is one of the most restrictive laws on abortion in Europe.

I have huge respect for people who raise moral issues in this Chamber and elsewhere, but it defies my comprehension that somebody could say to a 14-year-old girl who had been raped that they would, because of their particular religious beliefs and their own particular morality, force her to go through the agony of childbirth to satisfy their own moral code. I do not see what is particularly moral about that, but I respect people who have a different point of view.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c74WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when David Taylor speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

I would guess that this is one of the rare debates in which my views and those of my hon. Friend are not closely aligned. Does he not accept that, with policing and justice powers on the point of being devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is quite probable that that Assembly will widen the laws to include reference to rape, incest and other issues? Is not that the forum in which these matters should be debated? He has been a strong supporter of devolution and I know that he still adheres to that point of view.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c75WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I will touch on some of these points a little later, but I have already highlighted the inconsistency in respect of certain medical conditions: where there is no devolution people have a right for their travel to be funded, whereas in Northern Ireland that is not the case, solely in respect of abortion, even for rape victims.

For the vast majority of women in Northern Ireland who want access to safe, legal abortion services, their only option is to travel, either to the mainland or to other countries, such as Holland, and pay for an abortion procedure. Despite being UK taxpayers, women from Northern Ireland who travel to the mainland are unable to access abortion services that are available to women in the rest of the UK, free of charge through the NHS, which we all pay for, whether we are taxpayers in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. They have to pay for their own travel, accommodation and abortion procedures, which can amount to £2,000 or even more. That is not okay, although it is manageable if one has £2,000, but many people in Northern Ireland do not have access to such cash, so their choices are limited.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c75WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Emily Thornberry speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury, Labour)

One way forward, which would not be popular with all of us—compromise is always required—might be to allow women from Northern Ireland to have a free abortion if they came to the mainland. In that way, abortion would remain illegal in Northern Ireland, but it would be legal for a Northern Irish woman to have an abortion in England. That would be illogical, but at least it would allow such women access to free abortions.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c76WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I thank my hon. for her intervention, which is in the spirit of my early-day motion 1754 and early-day motion 625 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. That is the least that the Government should do—I am giving away the conclusion of my speech—and I do not want to hear Ministers washing their hands of the matter by trying to farm it out elsewhere.

I shall give a short case study, and I am grateful to organisations in Northern Ireland for providing me with the information. Susan—the name has been changed—is 37 and is married with four children. She has found that she is pregnant with her family’s fifth child. She has recently moved back to Northern Ireland after living abroad for many years, and lives in a rural area where she has not built up a strong support network of friends, so she feels isolated. She believes that having another child would place unbearable pressure on her, her husband and their children. Since her husband lost his job 10 months ago, the family have been reliant on benefits and have no other financial or family support. That makes it impossible for Susan to raise £2,000 or £2,500 even to travel to the mainland to secure an abortion.

A myth surrounding abortion in Northern Ireland is that people there do not support a woman’s right to choose. A survey by the Family Planning Association in September 2008 showed that almost two thirds of people—62 per cent.—in Northern Ireland support abortion following rape and incest, but it seems that our politicians do not. Furthermore, in its submission to the UN committee on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland called for

“the same access to reproductive health care services and rights in Northern Ireland as are available in Great Britain“.

It has been estimated that since the Abortion Act 1967 excluded Northern Ireland, about 70,000 women have travelled to England and overseas to have an abortion. For the past 40 years, women have voted with their feet.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c76WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Julie Morgan speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I do not know whether he took part in any of the meetings with women trade unionists from Northern Ireland, but there was strong support among trade unions for the measures that he proposes. They said that they were looking to us to help them.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c76WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Martin Salter speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is why we are here today.

A culture of secrecy continues to surround abortion in Northern Ireland. The majority of women who have abortions are unwilling to speak out about their experience because they fear the reaction from wider society, and sometimes from family and friends. The Family Planning Association is the only organisation in Northern Ireland that offers non-directive, non-judgmental counselling and support services for women and their partners or families who are faced with a crisis pregnancy. Its office in Belfast is picketed four days a week—I have seen videos of that—by anti-choice protesters, including protesters from Precious Life. Those protesters not only harass women going into the building, but intimidate them by telling them that they will be waiting for them when they emerge. When the women leave, the protesters follow them to bus stops and train stations, and thrust false information and graphic photos in their faces. That is not moral or acceptable, and I would not dream of doing that.

We have been reading about the harrowing case of Sir Edward Downes and his wife who chose to go to Switzerland to die. Would anyone with a shred of morality harass people who have made a brave, courageous, controversial but personal decision about their right to take their own life? I leave that hanging, because I find it one of the more revolting aspects of how the debate is conducted.

Abortion is upsetting for women, and they may be distressed and need to access the Family Planning Association’s counselling services. Northern Ireland is a small community, and a woman being followed down the street and shouted at is hardly inconspicuous. Despite the false information that the protesters give out, the FPA’s counselling service offers a welcome opportunity for women to make their own choice. That is what this debate is about—women in a small part of the United Kingdom having the right to make a choice that is available to women in the rest of England, Scotland and Wales.

The culture of secrecy also extends to politicians in Northern Ireland—I touched on this earlier—and many are unable to admit that they are pro-choice because of their party’s stated anti-choice policies. I have had dialogue with Northern Ireland politicians who felt that they were in a compromise situation. The secrecy around abortion in Northern Ireland permeates every thread of society, and masks the reality of what happens to women when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. It adds to the anguish and struggle that they face when making the decision and raising the money, sometimes without the support of family and friends. Such women decide to access safe and legal abortion services behind a veil of secrecy, and that is not acceptable in 21st century Britain.

In the past year, two UN committees have stated that abortion law in Northern Ireland needs to be amended. In 2008, the United Nations committee on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women recommended that the UK should initiate a process of public consultation in Northern Ireland on abortion law. In line with general recommendation 24 on women and health and the Beijing platform for action, the committee also urged the UK to consider amending the abortion law to remove punitive provisions imposed on women who undergo abortion.

Regardless of whether the Government are devolving policing and justice, which includes abortion, to Northern Ireland, they should remember that to UN committees, Britain and the British Government are still responsible for the UK, which includes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By signing up to UN treaties, the Government have made a commitment to meet the obligations for all UK citizens, not just some. There is a strong and powerful argument that the Government are neglecting their responsibility to enable women in Northern Ireland to access safe and legal abortion services, as recommended by the UN committees.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Department for International Development supports the global safe abortion campaign, because that is stated on its website. The Government provided £4 million to the safe abortion action fund, and £6.5 million to women’s health organisations. It is ironic to have one message for the developing world, and totally different values and messages for women in part of the United Kingdom. It is difficult to square that circle.

There is anecdotal evidence of women in Northern Ireland going online to buy medication to induce an abortion, even though that is illegal. Some women have accessed rogue websites, and received incomplete prescriptions or completely different substances. That could put their health in danger, and is a tragedy waiting to happen. The figures are there for all to see, and they show the number of deaths since 1967 as a result of people being so desperate that they will try illegal abortion methods. That is as much a moral issue as any other.

I do not believe that the Government whom I support do not care for women in Northern Ireland, or do not want to end the scandal of them being treated as second- class citizens in relation to their reproductive rights. The Minister may respond—Ministers have responded in this way in the past—by saying that this is not a matter for the Government any more. He may try to wash his hands of it, but I hope not. I say that it is an issue for this Parliament and for all Members of this House, as Northern Ireland Members have demonstrated by their willingness to restrict abortion rights for my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members who are on the other side of the issue from them.

I ask the Government to commit themselves to extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland while they can still do so. I am not holding my breath for the response to that request, but if they will not do that, which they should, they could start by redressing the blatant inequality faced by women by providing funding for women who are forced to travel to access safe and legal abortion services, so that they can access them free of charge in the national health service that we all pay for. That is the very least that should be done.

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c76WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Several hon. Members:

rose—

• Link to this
• Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 15 July 2009, c78WH)

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

• Email me when Ann Winterton speaks
• Most recent apperances
• Numerology
• Full profile …

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I make a plea for contributions to be as brief as possible, because I have received many names of people wanting to speak, and obviously many people have risen wanting to speak. We must also have the winding-up speeches, which may themselves have to be slightly curtailed. I call David Simpson.

Salter again with the fish

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I thank the Minister for his kind words and I apologise for my absence this morning. I accept that the amendment is a probing amendment. Can he tell us what he proposes to do to persuade us not to press it to a Division, rather than just telling us that it will be swept up in a general reform of the common fisheries policy?

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I seek your guidance? Even though I was not here to move the amendment, it stands in my name and it is for me to ask for the Committee’s permission.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Actually, it is down to the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion to seek permission if he wishes to do so.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
In that case, may I intervene on the Minister?

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make an intervention because the Minister has sat down. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, I will call him.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
1:15 pm

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I shall make a speech in that case—a very short speech; almost an intervention. I will be comforted by the Minister’s reassurance, if he gives it to the Committee loudly and clearly, about something being brought back on Report.

Huw Irranca-Daviesindicated assent.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I am pleased by the Minister’s response.

I have just one more point. The Government’s advisor on the marine environment out to the 12-mile nautical limit is Natural England, which has said quite clearly that it wants improvements—strengthening, as it describes it—to be made to the Bill. It would like to see the

“inclusion of damage caused by disturbance to the offence of damaging a marine conservation zone. We would also like to see removal of the blanket defence of sea fishing.”

The consensus view of the Committee is clearly in line with the Government’s marine and conservation advisors. In that regard, we are probably all in the right place.

SALTER SPEAKS FISH AGAIN

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I was going to say how much I was looking forward to serving on the Committee but the prospect of continued medical bonding between the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Minister is too horrible to contemplate. I hope that is the last we hear of it, Mr. Gale. I am sure you will clamp down on that kind of nonsense.

I reiterate that this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I welcome the commitment to the broad principles given by both Opposition parties. Many other Members and I worked closely with the Minister and his predecessor Ministers to see the legislation reach the stage it does today. I put on the record a slight concern, for the Minister’s ears in particular. A number of us—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Plymouth, Sutton, the hon. Member for Broxbourne and myself—worked long and hard on the Joint Committee. The Bill has been the subject of extensive scrutiny, and the work of the Joint Committee must not be mothballed, it has to be a point of reference. There might be times when, on an all-party basis, we will come up against Whitehall red lines, but going back to some of the deliberation that took place in the Joint Committee might give the Minister strength to push back some of the red lines that need to be a little less starkly drawn, particularly on nature conservation and sea fisheries issues that we will discuss. However, the programme motion is broadly sensible, and I think that we can meet the timetable we have set ourselves, precisely because of the extensive scrutiny that both Houses have already had the opportunity to engage in.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Question put and agreed to.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I commend the approach outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. As a signatory to the amendment, I would be very happy if the Minister were to take that approach, assuming that we can build consensus across the Committee—judging by the body language of my colleagues, we might be able to do so.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I am still waiting for the Minister to inform the Committee why the Environment Agency got it wrong when it said that the MMO should have a duty to further the conservation of marine fauna, for example, as I quoted earlier, and why the Joint Committee got it wrong. I specifically asked him to inform us what the Government’s response to the Joint Committee was, because he said in his response that that could seriously undermine the Bill. If it is as serious as he suggests, that will be reflected in the Government’s response.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point again. In the Government’s response to the Joint Committee, we ruled out defining sustainable development on the face of the Bill for the reasons I have laid out, but we did say that we would consider how to clarify the MMO objectives, which is what we did in the other place. I want to reiterate what we have done and how it has been welcomed. We responded to the Joint Committee not by defining it in the Bill, for all the reasons I have given, but by strengthening and clarifying what we would do in terms of the marine management objectives.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
Will the Minister read out the Government response, rather than interpret it? I feel that it is the first time he may have seen it.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
No, it is not. Paragraph 3.1.9 states:

“We are currently considering whether and, if so, what changes could be made to meet Joint Committee and public consultation requests to clarify the MMO’s purpose and it’s general objective.”

We listened and brought forward changes on the back of that.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
May I put it to the Minister that that hardly justifies the statement that the amendment, which has cross-party support and which would replace “contributing to” with “furthering”, seriously undermines the structure of the Bill? The Government response goes nowhere near that point. Does he not agree? The answer is yes.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
We responded to the Joint Committee by bringing forward clarification on what the MMO should do to contribute to the achievement of sustainability. There is also what we signed off on the high-level policy objectives and what will come through in the marine policy statement. My hon. Friend is right that the legal precedent aspect was not picked up at the time, but I am picking it up very quickly now. We are faced with a long legal precedent as sustainable development has been a concept for quite some time. It is enshrined within another 70 pieces of legislation and its interpretation in the law courts is very clear. Therefore, if we chose to adopt a different form of wording here it would be interpreted that we mean something different.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)
My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of wording in the Bill with other pieces of legislation that have or may have a bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of this amendment. If he tabled such an amendment on Report he might secure a great degree of cross-party support.

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
On that point—

Link to this Hansard source
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot intervene on an intervention.