Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

I assure the hon. Lady that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee will play a key role in the pre-appointment scrutiny of the OEP chairman. I also assure her that the OEP will have a multi-year funding settlement and that Ministers will be required to safeguard its independence. In many ways, the departmental structure will be broadly similar to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has clearly demonstrated its total independence from the Government. I am sure we will see that same determination from this powerful new environmental watchdog.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I was very sorry to have to miss your visit to the SNP group the other day, Mr Speaker. I shall take this opportunity to thank you for everything you have done—for your doughty defence of democracy and particularly your support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights and for Back Benchers’ interests. I wish you and your beautiful family all the very best for the years ahead. May I also commend the two gentlemen to your left—stage left, as we used to say—Mr Peter Barratt and Mr Ian Davis, who I know have offered you such valuable support over years?

Let me begin my question by saying happy non-Brexit day to the Government Front-Bench team. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Scottish Government support the proposals on the OEP? Were they consulted on them?

[Theresa Villiers]

There was extensive work between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on the Environment Bill, including the clauses on the OEP. We are grateful that, as a result of that work, large elements of the Bill will apply in Scotland. I understand that the Scottish Government intend, I hope, to create a body that is broadly similar to the OEP, to manage the scrutiny of environmental matters where they are devolved in Scotland.

Environment Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I am afraid that I see this Bill as, at very best, representing a failure of ambition. I suspect that it is not at its best, however, and that actually it represents a failure to understand the issues and the hope that a lick of paint on some old policies will make those annoying environmental folk just go away. Let us examine some of the Bill’s shortcomings.

It relies on the Government’s 25-year plan for the environment; Mao only had a five-year plan but here we have a Tory Government with a plan five times longer and far less ambitious. These are some highlights from it: 11 years to reduce five air pollutants by half—“Don’t breathe yet, children; wait a while, and even then…”; the ending of the sale of fossil fuel cars and vans another decade after that; in the meantime, encouraging industry to follow some good practice guidelines on emissions—well, that ought to do it, but then it might not; and trying to get England’s water companies to reduce the leaks from their pipes by 15% over the next six years—the other 85% can keep leaking, it seems.

There is a section on adapting to climate change—making sure that policies take the changing climate into account. That is like deciding to increase the size of the Thames barrier to take account of increases in sea level. I understand the planning for that has already started.

In my view, this is truly weak and limp-willed, hoping that a bit of light dusting will mean guests do not see the hole in the floor. Let me give a glaring example: in clauses 18 and 40—the clauses that compel Ministers to consider environmental effects—the Ministry of Defence is excused. In fact, the military are entirely excused from any obligation to think about their effects on the environment, in spite of being a major polluter. In the action plan with such a distant time for completion there is a section that has the ambition of ensuring seafloor habitats are productive and sufficiently extensive to support healthy, sustainable ecosystems. For a century, however, the MOD was simply dumping large quantities of unwanted explosives and chemical and biological weapons into the seas around our coasts—and it also threw in a load of radioactive waste for good measure.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the MOD and its responsibilities. I remember doing a school project in the ’90s about this, when there were things washing up on Scotland’s beaches. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government must be a lot more ambitious about cleaning up their own mess?

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is utterly inexcusable that one Department that has so much impact on our environment is excused from its responsibilities in this way. I certainly remember reading about the 1995 incidents when explosives were washed up on the Clyde coast—a shocking occasion. The largest of those munitions dumps, at Beaufort’s dyke in the Irish sea, now has a gas pipe running through it, and none of it is even monitored, let alone tidied up. I know this because I have asked. How can that flagrant disregard for the marine environment align with this vague promise to look after the seabed? And how does that match up with excusing the MOD of any responsibility under the Bill?

There are other MOD sites, of course: the ship refuelling stations, the bases handling nuclear weapons and nuclear subs and the ranges where live firing is practised. We already know about the damaging health effects on former soldiers of some of the munitions they have dealt with, but we do not know anything about the weapons that are fired on those ranges. The MOD has told me that it does environmental audits with its “industry partner”, whatever that is, but that it will not publish them. We are not to be told about the environmental impact of this massive polluter, and it is being excused responsibility under the Bill. I do not think that is good enough. There is no such thing as acceptable environmental damage, and there should be no such thing as a Department with an environmental “get out of jail free” card.

Of course, this thing will ultimately pass—no one is going to vote down an environment Bill—but it really is not what is needed. Serious action to limit emissions and clean up the messes that have been left would be more worth while. For example, what about legislating so that English water companies cannot pay dividends to their shareholders while they are still pouring a precious resource into the ground? Or even better, why not copy the Scottish system and have a publicly owned water company that can spend on infrastructure because it does not have to make a profit? How about taking the power to close down companies that refuse to comply with best practice? How about telling them that their days of pouring pollutants into other people’s air and water are over? No soft touch, no more, “Come along now, play nicely”; instead, we need to say, “You do not get to do this any more.” And here is another thought: what about refusing to allow the import of products that can be shown to have a poor environmental footprint? None of that is in the Bill.

There is some target setting in there, but no indication of taking any power that might allow those targets to be met. Just last week, Ofgem refused to allow a subsea cable to be laid from Shetland to the mainland to allow the output from a large wind farm to get to potential customers. That was refused on the basis that subsidies have been withdrawn by this Government under its previous guises since 2010. Where is the provision in the Bill to put those subsidies back or—given that Shetland would like to press ahead anyway—to force the provision of the connection to the grid? Where is the ambition?

The creation of a clunky and unwieldy Office for Environmental Protection is a major disappointment. It will involve enforcement provisions that give weakness a bad name. Where are the prosecuting powers it needs? Where is its ability to act independently and develop the principles behind environmental law? There is nothing in the Bill to protect the Aarhus convention rights. Back in July 2016, I asked the then EFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whether the UK would continue to abide by Aarhus after leaving the EU, and she replied:

“Until we leave the EU, EU law continues to apply so the UK continues to comply with EU law that implements obligations in the Aarhus Convention. The UK remains a Party to the Aarhus Convention.”

In November last year, I asked the next EFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), whether he planned to maintain compliance with the Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters after the UK had left the EU, and he replied, “Yes”. So where are those commitments, and why are they not in the Bill? Will the Secretary of State undertake to bring forward amendments that will satisfy those commitments, and can we be assured that amendments will be tabled in Committee that will beef up the OEP? Can we at least give the tiger a set of dentures, if it is not going to have serious teeth?

I would like to ask some further questions about devolved issues. It would be helpful if Ministers set out how they developed their thinking on the need for the climate change measures and legislation to be covered by the OEP, and how they decided that this was needed. Also, do Scottish Ministers support the proposals? What consultation was undertaken with them prior to their inclusion? Will the Secretary of State set out what resource has been made available to date for the OEP? It is suggested that the OEP’s remit covers all UK climate change legislation. Are the Government proposing that it has oversight of Scottish legislation, which is devolved? If there is a need for a UK-wide approach, would that not logically suggest that the remit for doing this should be given to the Scottish Government, given that they already have world-leading legislation and more ambitious targets in place? This is surely something that the UK Government should be seriously considering.

Every Member here will have had the same representations from environmental organisations that I have had. We all know that they are unhappy that there is no protection in the Bill against regression and that they fear that the legislation could be watered down in the future. I know that there will be armchair constitutional experts muttering into their port that one Parliament cannot bind another, but we all know that politics makes that a lie. We all know that confident, positive action arising from having the political will to deliver has a binding effect on future Parliaments and Governments. If it did not, the NHS would have disappeared decades ago. Strong action now to protect and enhance the environment, and repercussions for those who transgress, will set a tone that a future Government or Parliament would find it hard to undo.

We need to see changes in the way we see waste. We must no longer think that we will deal with it when we come to it; rather, we need more planning not to create it in the first place. A bit of Government encouragement could do that, and plastics are not the only waste we should be concerned about. I am young enough to remember a time when aerosols were innocent cans that people used every morning, and most people never knew the damage that the gases could do. Well, we all ken now, and the question is: what else are we blithely ignorant of as we go about our comfortable, modern life? Cut the waste; do it in legislation; and do it now! Have courage! Take that courage in both hands and give us legislation that is fit for purpose. Do something stunning this year instead of something that could be described as stunningly stupid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not give way because I have so little time.

I am delighted that so many stakeholders have expressed their support for the ambitions of the Bill. For example, the Aldersgate Group, a green business group, has said that

“businesses have backed the introduction of an ambitious and robust environmental governance framework that includes…legally binding environmental improvement targets to support investment in the natural environment over the long term.”

I hope that that gives the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the assurance that businesses have looked at the content of the Bill. Far from the negativity that we have heard this evening, they see great benefits to the economy from sustainability. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) also referred to the business benefits of the Bill. While I am on the subject, I will be very pleased to meet him to talk about the Somerset Rivers Authority, although I will not go into that now because it is quite detailed.

Many of the Members who have spoken are clear about the benefits of the Bill, as am I. We have heard a great deal of positive comments, so I will shoot through just some of them. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said that the improvements on biodiversity will help the Manx shearwater. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is a massive campaigner for the environment, talked about hedgehog highways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said that her children wanted the deposit return scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) talked about the benefits for healthy soil that the Bill will enable us to deliver. The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) talked about the wider catchment work that we can do under this Bill and other measures. The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) talked passionately about the children in her constituency, and this Bill really will introduce things that our children want for the future of their environment.

Many points were raised tonight and I will not be able to get through them all, but a lot of colleagues mentioned environmental non-regression, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who does such a great job chairing the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the equally excellent Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). I was also a member of that Committee, so I know how detailed her work is.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) also mentioned non-regression, because there are concerns in this area. I wish to be clear that our EU exit does not change the UK’s ambition on the environment. The UK has no intention of weakening our environmental protections; the Prime Minister has recognised the strength of feeling on this issue and he is committed to a non-regression provision on environmental protection in legislation.

A lot of comments were made about the OEP, not least by the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is a passionate and ardent campaigner on the environment. I hope she is really going to get behind this Bill, because she has so much to input.

Like them, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) raised issues about OEP independence, and it will be independent. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has been asked by Government to conduct a pre-appointment hearing on the appointment of the chair of the OEP, and there will also be a legal duty on Ministers to have regard to the need to protect the independence of the OEP.

[Deidre Brock]

rose—

TB in Cattle and Badgers

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wilson. There have been so many passionate contributions that, in winding up for the Scottish National party, I do not think I can mention them all; I presume that I have a limited amount of time as well. However, I will highlight three in particular.

I commend the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), who secured the debate, for her nuanced and evidence-led approach to this clearly very sensitive and emotional issue. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—this point was made by other Members from across the Chamber, and I commend them for that—mentioned the importance of making it clear that this is not a farmer versus badger issue. She gave alternatives to badger culling, which I am sure the Minister will be interested in pursuing the details of, if he was not aware of them already, because they sound like they are achieving some impressive results. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke of a human aspect that we must never forget: the devastating impact that this disease has on farmers, their families and the communities around them. There were numerous other contributions from other Members who spoke with passion and often from personal experience.

I suppose I should make it clear that, despite the fact that I am a Brock, I have no conflict of interest. In spite of the name, I have no relatives who are badgers and I know no badgers personally. I will admit, however, to a general liking for the creatures, who seem amiable enough. I certainly have the occasional visit from badgers in my garden in Edinburgh.

I was reading the British Veterinary Association’s website recently, as one does, and spotted a report about the badger culling areas of Gloucestershire, Somerset and Dorset, using data from 2013 to 2017. The BVA clearly considered that this report showed that culling was effective in controlling bovine tuberculosis, indicating a 55% drop in bovine TB incidents. On the face of it, that is clear evidence that the policy is working.

However, it struck me that this is the removal of a species from an area, which in itself raises obvious questions about whether an effective solution is necessarily the best solution and, perhaps more importantly, about the effect of taking an entire wild species out of an ecosystem. What does removing badgers from these localities do to biodiversity? Their diet is mainly earthworms and insects, I think, but they also clean up carrion and windfall fruit and perform other similar housekeeping duties. I am not an expert—we will have to ask someone else—but I assume that their burrowing and hunting habits help to till the soil and move nutrients. An ecologist could no doubt educate us on the benefits to a local ecosystem of having a brock or two in the area; I imagine that there are multiple benefits.

[James Gray]

The hon. Lady has, until now, been making a sensible speech. My memory from my upbringing in Scotland is that there was a scarce population of badgers —almost none at all. If she came down to Wiltshire, she would find a large number of badgers indeed. It is not one or two here and there; we are talking about dozens and dozens of setts absolutely crammed to the doors with ill badgers. These notions—the idea that there are one or two, and questions like: “aren’t they nice?”, “what about the biodiversity?” and “don’t they help till the soil?”—just show that she has absolutely no idea about what life is like in a badger area.

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has greater experience of these things, given where he resides, but I assure him that there are significant brock populations now in Scotland. I will go on to speak about what is happening in Scotland around this issue.

Lastly on the point that I was making, I point to our experience of the effects of wiping out other species in large geographical areas, and to the fact that we often find conservation organisations trying to reintroduce the animals that we have hunted to extinction. England may continue down this road, and that is, to some extent, a matter for England to decide. However, it is worth remembering how much we criticise other nations for failing to protect their wildlife.

[Mr Goodwill]

The cull is not about eradicating the badger. Typically, the population will be reduced to about 30% of what it was before. In areas such as Scotland and north Yorkshire, where we have low levels of TB, the badger population is not a problem. However, in areas where we have large numbers of badgers and high infection levels, controlling—not eradicating—the population at sensible levels might also have good knock-on effects for other species, such as bumblebees and so on, which have been crowded out by the badger.

[Deidre Brock]

That is an interesting point. As I understand it, culling badgers actually encourages them, in some instances, to roam further, because they are not threatened by other setts in other areas, and that potentially encourages the spread of TB. I do not believe that Members have yet raised that aspect of it.

Scotland has, of course, gone down another route. The control of bovine TB in our country is a partnership working success, with the Scottish Government assisting the livestock industry in maintaining Scotland’s position as officially tuberculosis free since 2009. That might be unpopular around these parts at the moment, since it is an EU Commission recognition of how good Scotland is on this. There is a monitoring regime, with movement controls and quarantine where needed. The hon. Member for High Peak spoke about the big drop-off in monitoring by Natural England. Will the Minister help us to understand why that might have happened, and what impact the huge recent cut to Natural England’s funding—since 2014, I think—has had on its ability to monitor?

We have a monitoring regime, with movement controls and quarantine where needed, and that now includes other animals as well as cattle. It is about better animal husbandry, good biosecurity and high-spec testing. I say to my good English friends that that may be a better solution than killing thousands of animals. It has also been very important for trade for Scottish farmers. People cannot trade beasts across the EU, as many hon. Members will know, without their herds being certified as TB free. There are concerns about what will happen post Brexit, and perhaps the Minister can also address that. English farmers may also be concerned that the EU funding, stretching to millions of pounds, for TB control will not be there after Brexit. The question will be how and, indeed, whether it is replaced.

It is disappointing that neither the House of Commons Library briefing for this debate nor any speaker today, I think, has referred to the example of Scotland—officially TB free since 2009. Might I suggest to Ministers and to hon. Members concerned about this issue that they take the time to look to Scotland for some inspiration?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on securing this debate and, as several hon. Members have said, on the sensitive way she approached a difficult and contentious issue, particularly in her recognition of the trauma this issue causes farmers.

Bovine TB is one of our most difficult animal health challenges. It is a slow-moving, insidious disease. It is difficult to detect. None of the diagnostic tests are perfect. I will come on to that later. It can exist in the environment for several months. There is a reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population, hosted in badgers. No vaccination is perfect. The best vaccine we have is the BCG vaccine, which typically provides protection of around 70%.

As the hon. Lady said, bovine TB also imposes a huge pressure on the wellbeing of our cattle farmers and their families. As many hon. Members have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), it is a tragedy when farmers have a TB breakdown. Some farmers lose show-winning cattle. For many, their herd of cattle is their pride and joy, and it is utterly soul-destroying to see those cattle lost.

No single measure will achieve eradication by our target of 2038. That is why our 25-year strategy, launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) in 2013, sets out a wide range of interventions. Cattle testing is the cornerstone of our current programme. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), suggested that we are focusing on badgers at the expense of other interventions. That is simply not true. We have a wide range of testing regimes.

There are regular surveillance tests, every four years in the low-risk area, every year in the high-risk area and every six months in hotspots. There are pre-movement tests. Recently, we introduced compulsory post-movement tests for cattle moving between holdings. There are trace tests on cattle that have recently been added to a herd. We have tests on a herd following a sale of cattle to another herd, where that leads to a TB breakdown. We have radial testing in some areas and contiguous testing in others, where there are implications from a neighbour’s farm with a breakdown. Where there are inconclusive reactors, we have re-tests. Recently, we dramatically increased the use of the far more sensitive interferon gamma test, to ensure that we detect the presence of the disease and root it out faster from our herds.

It is not correct to say that our policy is built solely on the contentious badger cull policy. The cornerstone of our fight against TB is and always has been a very thorough testing regime, to remove the disease from cattle. All the demands we place on farmers through testing, despite the trauma concerned and the dangers they pose, are crucial to our fight against the disease. We must continue to be vigilant on this front. That was one of the recommendations from the review conducted by Sir Charles Godfray.

Seven years into our 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, we feel that it is a good time to reflect on the strategy and think about other elements we might want to evolve. That is why the former Secretary of State asked Sir Charles Godfray to conduct a review around the five-year point of the strategy. That was published a little under a year ago. Several hon. Members have asked why the response has been delayed and when to expect it. All good things are worth waiting for. I envisage the response being published soon. I hope it will not be interrupted by an election purdah.

The response to the Godfray review is an opportunity for us to take stock and review the current strategy, seven years in. The shadow Minister offered to work with me on this. When we publish our response to the Godfray review, I will invite him and his team to meet me in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go through what we are proposing. The tone of this debate has been slightly different from previous debates on the matter. While we will never entirely agree, I detect a sense that both sides can make a step towards one another and achieve a consensus on certain issues. I am keen to try to achieve that. This is a long- term fight—it is a 25-year strategy—so it would be helpful to have cross-party understanding and consensus on elements of it.

This debate relates to Derbyshire. As the hon. Member for High Peak knows, we took a difficult decision to pause a proposed cull in the south of Derbyshire. I understand that has caused great frustration to farmers. We did that to ensure that we can assess how we can have co-existence of badger vaccination and culling in parts of the edge area. That is why we chose to pause it for this year.

Badger culling is a controversial policy. We have powerful scientific evidence to show that the cull is working, despite passionate attempts by some to suggest otherwise. TB was first identified in the badger population as long ago as 1971. A series of trials in the 1970s demonstrated that a badger cull could lead to significant reductions in the incidence of the disease. That was borne out further by the randomised badger culling trial in the early 2000s.

Crucially, a recent independent peer-reviewed epidemiological study, published by Downs and others in the internationally-renowned scientific journal Scientific Reports, showed that licensed badger culling is leading to a significant reduction in the incidence of the disease in cattle in each of the first two cull areas. The study showed that there was a 66% reduction in TB incidence rates in Gloucestershire and a 37% reduction in the Somerset cull area, over the four years of intensive badger culling, relative to similar comparison areas. No significant changes have yet been observed in the third area in Dorset, but that is after just two years of culling. Furthermore, there was no evidence of an increase in the TB herd incidence rates in cattle located around the buffer area. One of the key findings of the report was that the so-called perturbation effect, which was a concern for some when the cull was launched, has not materialised in the culls so far.

The Government do not dismiss badger vaccination, but it is important to remember that the only vaccine we have is the BCG vaccine, which does not provide full protection. We do not have any hard, scientific evidence of how it works on a field deployment scale.

[Deidre Brock]

I may have missed something, but I noted from the Library report that was given to us that the Animal and Plant Health Agency was conducting an efficacy study and that the results were expected later this year. That is a research programme to identify an oral vaccine and a palatable bait. I wonder whether there is any update on that.

[George Eustice]

I think that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). In all my time in this role previously, I kept going and persevered with the research to try to identify an oral vaccine, because—in reality—if we want to deploy a vaccine on scale in the wildlife population, an oral bait vaccine would be the answer. I have had numerous submissions over the years inviting me to pull up stumps on that research, but I persevered.

However, I am afraid that in the end we could not get there, for the reason that my right hon. Friend pointed out, namely that a badger’s digestive system is too powerful and it breaks down the vaccine. All attempts to find other ways around that were unsuccessful. It is also the case that when such vaccines were deployed in the field, certain badgers would get a lot of the vaccine and others would get none at all, because there would be a propensity for some badgers to take up the bait but not others. So it is not something that we are continuing with at this stage.

I will pick up on a few points that hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for High Peak raised the issue of cows that were heavily pregnant with calves. She is right that it is an absolute tragedy to cull such cows and in fact a couple of years ago I changed the rules in this area, so that a cow that is in the final month of its pregnancy can now stay on the farm and be placed in isolation. We have even provided that a cow in the final two months of its pregnancy can be isolated, provided that the isolation facilities are sufficiently robust. So I have already changed the rules in that regard, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire pointed out, it is horrendous when a cow that is about to give birth has to be shot on a farm.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of the badger population in Derbyshire. The reality is that in in her area in the north of Derbyshire, where badger vaccination is taking place, incidence of the disease in badgers is quite low. However, that is not the case in south-west Derbyshire, particularly along the border with Staffordshire, where there is a high prevalence of the disease in the badger population.

Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Here we are again, stuck in an endless groundhog day that stretches out before us with no end in sight. Alternatively, as this place revels in classical references, perhaps we are like Prometheus, tied to his rock and condemned to endless agonies—unless, of course, someone somewhere—the public, perhaps—takes the sensible decision that the whole bùrach is too much of a mess, and that it is time to finally put it out of its misery.

“Fishing after Brexit” sounds like the title of a novel about regret. Here we are, though, making sure that the common fisheries policy continues to rule over our fisheries after we have left the EU, and that access to markets for our fishing industries is restricted. We will still be stuck with the EU quotas, and ships and crews from other EU nations will have access to our waters. So much for the promises and predictions of the Leave campaign, and so much for the bravado and balderdash of the Government.

A previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now lost to the anonymous corridors of some duchy, admitted repeatedly that leaving the EU would not include leaving the CFP, but that we would have better negotiating positions. It did not ring true then, and it certainly does not ring true now. The fishing fleets have been sold out once again by a Tory Government. It is economic catastrophe and utter betrayal, all wrapped up in one ideological miscalculation. Thirteen Scottish Tory MPs promised to vote down the withdrawal Bill if the negotiations continued. I look forward to their finally joining the rest of Scotland’s MPs in opposing Brexit.

The Climate Emergency

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The climate emergency seems to be the kind of emergency where a lot gets said and a lot less gets done. We meet here in this leaking, cavernous, old museum to discuss this climate emergency while outside it people have been banned from protesting about the possible extinction of us as a species. That is an interesting juxtaposition—one to note for our memoirs, should any of us ever get to write them.

I was in Aberdeen at the weekend, for the social event of the season, of course. There is something about the granite that whispers about the enormous length of time that this planet has been spinning around, changing, developing and surviving. You get to thinking about the species that no longer exist, about how some of the extinction events were on a massive scale and about how no species is guaranteed to survive any of those events—that means us too, whether the protests have been banned or not. But we would never know it from looking at the political and governmental response—or inaction—to this emergency.

This is not something that has been sprung on us, either. It is not as though this is news that no one saw coming. The man with the cleft stick has not just arrived, out of breath and anxious, with the news that we are all stuffed. Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” nearly 60 years ago—something that we mark as one of the base cases of the modern environmental movement, but she was not the first voice. George Perkins Marsh spoke about the urban heat island effect and the greenhouse effect, and called for a more considered and sustainable development. That was in 1847, three weeks and 162 years ago. In his lecture, he commented that the ideas were not new even then and that he had borrowed them from Peter Pallas, a Prussian zoologist of the 18th century.

The Irish physicist John Tyndall proved the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect in 1859. Later that century, 1896 to be precise, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated how much atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and published the first calculation of the global warming effects of human emissions of CO₂. His work inspired the American Thomas Chamberlin, who published the next year on the CO₂ feedback loop that drove the ice ages and might now be driving us to a tipping point. In 1934, the US Weather Bureau issued its first analysis of temperature change, which inspired the Englishman Guy Callendar to analyse historical temperature records and calculate a half-degree warming between 1890 and 1935. From there, he built the theory that burning fuel increases atmospheric CO₂ and he coined the term “greenhouse effect” in 1938. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee said that pollutants were causing climate change and time was running out to turn it round.

The science is not new; it has been there for 250 years or so. It has, for sure, been developing, but it is not some fad; it is not a crazy fashion that the kids are all getting down to. It is dusty old stuff from the history tomes. But here we are talking again about the climate emergency, and protestors have been banned from London. There is a massive irony in the failure of this UK Government to take any sort of effective action, in that the greatest hero for many of them would be Margaret Thatcher, and she was the first leader of a major state to call for action on climate change. The 1988 Toronto conference was treated to some stark evidence produced by scientists. Thatcher, perhaps because her training as a chemist made it easier for her to understand the language, took up the baton and issued the call. She said it was a key issue and her Government allocated additional funding to climate research. It was, however, mainly relabelled or redirected from elsewhere—they were Tories, after all. Thatcher made that call 31 years ago, yet here we are once again talking about the climate emergency and the protests are banned.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 and in 1990 issued its first report, which confirmed the past scientific findings and issued warnings for the future. Those warnings have continued ever since, but I am starting to wonder whether familiarity is breeding contempt, because the warnings are getting starker and the flash headlines are getting scarier, but the action is not getting any more urgent.

The Environment Bill, which we finally got a sniff of this week, appears to be a howler of a missed opportunity. Apart from the toil of reintroducing EU protections into UK legislation, it misses the chance to be ambitious and claim a future worth having. It promises net zero emissions in 31 years—so, incredibly, we are at the halfway point between Thatcher pledging that the UK would get serious about the environment and the Government actually doing something. If the captain of the Titanic had been warned about the iceberg well in advance and started a discussion about what to do that carried on long enough to watch the thing tear a hole in the side of the ship, while the debate was still about which way to turn, he would be in about the same position we are in now. It is past time for talking and long past time that we should have been doing. It is time to inject a sense of urgency into the climate emergency.

The House can take it as read that the Scottish Government are doing things better, but this should not really be about party political point scoring or engaging in the constitutional debate. Let us see what the UK Government could offer to help to address the problems we all face. It is time the Government introduced some real measures to address the UK’s greenhouse gas output. They could copy Scotland by being guided by the Committee on Climate Change. Members may have heard of that committee; it was set up by the UK Government, although its calls to action are little heard by Whitehall. They are heard in Scotland, though, and the Scottish Parliament and Government have taken action. The climate change Act kicked off a serious attempt at addressing the problems, and it has not abated since. That is why the United Nations climate action conference will be in Glasgow next year.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important that she puts it on the record in this House that the measures taken in Scotland have been taken on the basis of cross-party consensus. Does she agree that the way we achieve our targets in this country in respect of net zero is by working together, rather than doling out dollops of sarcasm in the form of a speech?

[Deidre Brock]

Me, sarcastic? The very idea! I appreciate the cross-party nature of some of the talks in the Scottish Parliament—that is of course welcome—but at a time when the UK Government are suggesting putting up VAT on renewable technologies, including solar, wind, biomass and heat pumps, from 5% to 20%, I think there is still a lot more discussion to be had between the different parties.

[Alan Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is such cross-party support, it is ridiculous and shameful that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), continued to block onshore wind in Scotland? That is not cross-party consensus; that is affecting investment in Scotland.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When it is still the cheapest of renewable energy technologies, it is shameful that onshore wind is excluded from competing for Government-supported contracts. I hope the Secretary of State is paying full attention to that point.

The United Nations climate action conference will be in Glasgow next year, and I understand that the Prime Minister wants to take a day trip to it for flag-waving purposes. May I advise him to take the train, not the plane, and to take the time to listen, rather than just bluster? He might even come away from it with some ideas to start implementing a plan to help with the problem that the world faces.

Perhaps the Whitehall mandarins could take a leaf out of Scotland’s books and work towards zero-carbon aviation. Scotland is decarbonising Highlands and Islands Airports and working with Norway on electric trains. We all know that transport is the second-biggest dumper of greenhouse gases, because we have all read the IPCC report. The same source tells us that, in fact, road transport is even more of a problem than air transport. Nearly three quarters of transport emissions are road-based, while around a 10th are accounted for by aviation. It is everyday transport that we have to address. Where is the UK Government initiative to copy the Scottish Government in supporting the roll-out of electric charging stations? Where is the parallel commitment to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the next dozen years?

The biggest greenhouse gas pest is electricity and heat production. Where are the incentives for renewable energy production? Not only are there no new incentives, but the old ones were taken away, and the costs of connecting Scotland’s vibrant and growing renewable energy producers to the grid are far too high. When will we see Government action to address those issues?

As the shadow Secretary of State asked, given that there is a climate emergency, to which the UK Government have finally admitted, where is the ban on fracking? This unconventional source of gas is banned in Scotland because there is no good case to be made for it. In some parts of England it is damaging people’s houses, impinging on their lives and possibly damaging their health. Get rid of it—it is a nuisance at best.

The Environment Bill, over which we will cast a jaundiced eye next week, seeks to embed in law the 25-year environment plan that was created under a previous Government. It was unambitious at the time, became rapidly outdated and is now a bit of a joke. Ministers should not withdraw it—we have wasted enough time already—but they should be prepared to make major changes to it during its progress through Parliament, and to accept amendments from others to make it something worth passing. I have a suggestion to offer that the Government and the Secretary of State can do relatively free of charge: why do they not invite the climate protesters into the room, ask them what they would put in the Bill, see whether they can get a bit of support in the House, and then pass something that is actually worth passing?

In closing, we all know that really doing something will not be easy. We know that it will entail changes in lifestyles that we have not yet properly considered. We can call it pain if we really must be dramatic about it, but if we do, we should at least compare it to the pain that comes from doing nothing. If not enough is done, some of the people who park their comfortable bahookies on these Benches might find themselves representing constituencies that start to disappear. Frankly, I do not expect the Government to make any real moves in the near future—if Brexit has taught us anything, it is that denial and delusion sit comfortably on the Government Benches—but I do hope that somewhere over on that side of the Chamber exists someone who will raise a questioning voice and ask whether it might be a good idea to do something. Who knows—there might even be a Thatcher fan who thinks that some action should be taken in her name. In the name of the wee man, though: it is a climate emergency, not a coffee morning. It is time to start acting like it is important. Talking is always good, but action is even better.

Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 General Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Well, I cannot begin to describe the deep joy I feel at being here once again speaking on a piece of legislation that would never have been needed were it not for the wilful act of self-harm that is Brexit. Here we are again spending valuable time passing legislation to allow the EU support schemes to continue after we leave the EU. That time could be spent more fruitfully examining and passing other legislation that is probably far more needed or, at least, would be far more needed if the UK Government did not have an obsession with the EU and leaving it. Still, here we are.

I hope that the Minister will enlighten us shortly on how the Government see the support schemes for fishers and farmers diverging from the EU schemes in the early years after Brexit, and whether those currently receiving that support will continue to receive it at a level at least equal to what they currently receive. I include Scotland, of course. I will be fascinated to learn how big the real-terms increases in the payments made to the Scottish Government will be and how the Government will reimburse the mislaid convergence cash with interest, remembering that it was paid in euros and so is worth a lot more these days.

I—and, I think, food producers across these islands—want to know the Government’s future plans. We have to keep coming here to repair some small parts of the damage that Brexit is doing, so the least we should be able to expect is that we can get some idea of the future plans.

I want to know whether a divergence from the EU’s food standards is planned, particularly in light of the reports of the new negotiating position of the President of the Board of Trade and what can only be described as “toadying” to the US food lobby. Maintaining support for our food producers is vital, because the new tariffs will cripple their competitiveness, as the Prime Minister made clear when he promised a culling programme for unsaleable beasts, and the new difficulties with produce crossing borders could cripple the fishing industry. That will all be made very much worse if they also have to compete with low-quality produce dumped on our supermarket shelves from the US, so it is important that we hear about those plans.

This SI, like so many others in the crazy race that Brexit has created, will pass. It is only necessary because of Brexit. Of course, the far more sensible course of action—cancelling the whole daft malarkey—is still open to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will be brief, Mr Gapes, and I will try to address all of the points in turn.

The shadow Minister bemoans the fact that, yet again, we are having to discuss another complex and technical statutory instrument relating to the CMO. I hope to get to the end of the process too. I cannot guarantee that there will not be more of these SIs coming down the line; I am sure there will be more. Whatever our views on Brexit, we are all condemned to relive the groundhog day of Brexit debate until we finally get Brexit done and resolve the situation.

Many of the SIs that the shadow Minister has debated in recent weeks, although not this one, will have to be debated again because things have moved on, the EU has changed something over the summer or the dates referred to in the original SI are no longer valid. A lot of the current wave of SIs are a consequence of the dither and delay that Parliament demonstrated in deciding not to proceed with our exit from the EU at the end of March.

The shadow Minister asks about pillar 2 expenditure. We have agreed to keep funding on agriculture, including the pillar 2 schemes, at exactly the same level until the end of this Parliament; as he will know, that will be in 2022. In addition, the Treasury has guaranteed that the current schemes will continue to operate and to accept bids up until 2020, and the agreements entered into will be honoured for their full lifetime. For example, a five-year or 10-year scheme under the agri-environment schemes would be supported for the duration, even though we will have been outside the European Union for some years.

The shadow Minister asks about Scotland, which does not get a mention. That is because Scotland has been happy with these regulations. The body of regulations was made in co-operation with all the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked why Wales has chosen a couple of areas in which to have its own SIs. That comes down to an element of its devolved settlement; there are some areas that it prefers to do itself and that is its choice. In Scotland’s case, it was content to know that the powers are appropriate for Scotland to act through this SI. To save the hassle of having to draft the same types of SIs over and over again, it made sense for the UK Government, with the consent of the devolved Administrations, to do this on behalf of everyone.

Finally, the shadow Minister asked about olives. The CMO is a complex body of law that has to be written for the whole EU; it is a one-size-fits-all body of law. That means that we end up with lots of provisions that are not relevant to the UK. We have changed the reference about producer organisations for people who produce olives or table olives; we do not produce or grow olives or table olives in this country, so that reference is redundant. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the provisions relating to the marketing standards around olives have been brought across and made operable in the way he would expect.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asked how we might diverge over time. I have to say to her that that will be for the Scottish Government to decide. The Scottish Government will no longer have to sit on their hands, awaiting orders from Brussels about what they can and cannot do. They will have power—the power to act and the power to design schemes that they think are right for Scotland.

Having wrestled with some of these schemes over a number of years, I can say that the EU schemes are far from perfect. In so far as we may—all of us—choose over time to diverge from the EU schemes, it will be to make them better, to make them more effective and to make them deliver for farmers and fishermen. I can give the hon. Lady the example of the fruit and vegetable regime, which is an EU regime that is poorly drafted and often ends up with litigation, both in Scotland and in England, and a complete muddle. We could improve on it over time.

We have examples of some of the local area groups— the LEADER groups—that are bound in completely unnecessary bureaucracy, having to keep all sorts of records, and the EU taking issue with the way we have checked whether they are VAT-registered or not. There is lots and lots of bureaucratic nonsense that can stand in the way of these schemes and really everybody accepts that it is unnecessary. If we talk to the people who have to try to administer these schemes, I think they would welcome a breath of fresh air and more of a common-sense approach. However, it will be for Scotland to decide whether it wants to do that, or whether it wants to stick slavishly to what has been inherited from the European Union.

Finally, I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. He is right that the purpose of this SI and all similar SIs introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to provide continuity. This is not an area where we are trying to change policies in any dramatic way, apart from omitting things that are not relevant to the UK. It is all about continuity, and the power to change and to diverge from these measures will be set out in the agriculture Bill; we have had a dry run of that already, as the shadow Minister pointed out.

[Deidre Brock]

There were a couple of questions that perhaps the Minister has not had a chance to answer yet. I wondered about the support schemes for fishers and farmers diverging from the EU schemes. I asked whether those currently receiving that support will all continue to receive it, at a level that is at least equal to what they currently receive. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an intimation of the Government’s intentions there.

[George Eustice]

We have set out that we will not change the budget at all until 2022. Within that, however, and again this would be an issue that Scotland would be able to take a different view on, the UK Government—the English Government for English farmers—have already set out our intention to start diverging from the so-called basic payments scheme, probably from around 2021, and to gradually phase it down and replace it with a new type of support system built around agri-environment payments and support for different approaches to livestock husbandry, for instance. So we have set out our approach there, but the funding guarantees that exist are the Government guarantees to keep the budget the same until 2022.

[Deidre Brock]

Could we have a wee bit of clarity on that, because quite often people say “until 2022”, but of course that is currently the date for the next election? We do not know the future; we do not know what the next few weeks will bring. I have also heard it said by various Ministers that it might be until 2022 or the next general election. Can the Minister clarify which of those it is, or say if it is actually both?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady is very experienced, so she will know that a manifesto commitment lasts for the duration of the Parliament in question. That may be until 2022, or it may be earlier. She will appreciate that this is not an appropriate place for me to start talking about the next Conservative manifesto; there are other and brighter brains than mine working on those issues. It will be for all parties to decide what level of support they want to indicate they will give to these schemes in their next manifesto, if indeed they want to give any sort of indicative figure at all; that will be a choice that every party has.

I return to the final points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. As I said, the power to change this measure will be contained in the agriculture Bill. It will have specific clauses to give us the power to modify retained EU law, which would include modifications to improve any of the pillar 2 schemes that we choose to improve. The moment that the agriculture Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have the power through secondary legislation to start the business of improving the common agricultural policy that we have inherited.

I hope that I have been able to address many of the Committee’s concerns, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The explanatory memorandum points out that there is little impact from this statutory instrument, yet here we are. The Minister also said that it is not very important, but as it is about imports and exports, will he tell us whether tariff requirements will change some of the provisions in it? Has DEFRA done any analysis of how the licence regime will impact on businesses exporting and importing agri-products? What costs will industry have to bear?

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to appear after that crash of thunder, following the speech by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew).

I refer hon. Members to my earlier remarks. Very little seems to have changed in the intervening period. The Minister mentioned that the intent was to retain only regulations that relate to domestic wine production. Does he mean wine made on these islands or domestic to the EU? If I heard him correctly, the UK Government are accepting the rules of the EU for wine production. Is that correct? Will the requirement to provide a UK seller for meat and other products, in addition to the EU’s current labelling rules, actually add red tape to the UK’s food market? It seems that we will in effect be accepting the EU’s single market rules and adding a few UK rules on top. I am not sure how that is taking back control, but I will be delighted to have it explained.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I will speak to all of the instruments at once, given that they are really part of a whole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is being straightforward in what she has just said, but I am afraid she cannot speak to all of the instruments at once. They are being taken separately. There is provision, quite often, to take these matters all at once, and the occupant of the Chair will say, “Everyone may speak to everything at once”, so it is not the hon. Lady’s fault for assuming that she might be able to do that, but I am afraid that it is a pretty strict rule. She has to speak only to the first one, and then later she can speak to the second, and then later to the third and then later to the fourth.

[Deidre Brock]

Those joys await me. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would almost assume that the instruments have been split just to fill the time while the Government are off playing in the delights of Manchester. But that would be very cynical of me.

I find myself on my hind legs again talking to statutory instruments that will be necessary as part of the eye-wateringly enormous effort to replace the sensible functioning of the European Union with domestic legislation that seeks to do the same thing. In the bonkers Brexit boorach, this all makes sense to someone, somewhere. I cannot help noticing, however, that if the Prime Minister’s cunning plan had succeeded and Scotland’s Court of Session had not reeled him back in—something that of course the UK Supreme Court agreed with—this place would be empty now. None of us would be here and the very important pieces of legislation that the Minister has brought to us today would still be sitting in a DEFRA drawer somewhere. Well, that is the optimistic view; they would more likely be headed for the shredder, with all the rest of the legislation that was being dumped on Prorogation.

We still await the return of the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill, as well as the environment Bill in this portfolio and scores of other pieces of legislation in other areas, all of which we have been told are needed to keep the UK functioning after Brexit. We have been told by, in my view, the worst Prime Minister in living memory that Brexit day is a mere 30 days away, come hell or high water, deal or no deal, give him ditches or give him death, but we have only these pieces of secondary legislation now, and the other pieces of secondary legislation and large chunks of primary legislation that we have been told so often are necessary for the proper functioning of the UK post B-day are still missing.

It would seem that this Government are determined to rip the UK out of the EU on Halloween, but do not give a flaming flamingo about getting the shop ready for opening day. For sure, there has been a very expensive advertising campaign telling everyone else to get ready, but the UK Government have stood steadfast too long in their refusal to prepare themselves, and we are now looking at a disaster of the Government’s making, while they insist that we are walking out that door no matter what. This legislation should have been prepared and presented a long time back, along with all the other pieces that should have been presented in an orderly fashion. Instead, it comes bundled on the back of a Prorogation that never was, half-formed and very late.

The Government are not prepared for Brexit, as was pointed out in the Brexit Secretary’s letter to Michel Barnier recently. I particularly appreciated his remark that

“there will be insufficient time to complete such work if left until the last days of October”,

as if there currently exists an enormous reservoir of time to do all that should have been done in the last three years. This Government appear to be just getting around to noticing what is coming. I hope that it will not be too long now until they realise what it means. I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the civil servants who must be working flat out trying to get some sense of order into the chaos, because they appear to be getting absolutely no guidance from the politicians who should be pointing the way—led by donkeys, indeed.

So to this statutory instrument, and I will shorten my contribution at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this particular one, the substitution of the role is largely to do with the timing and such things and it is relatively minimal. I will speak at some length on the pesticides instrument and to a degree on the CAP one later, but I will end my contribution at that point.

Exiting the European Union (Pesticides)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I will start by saying how grateful I am to the Minister for his praise of independent countries as the way forward in our previous debate. I look forward to his support for Scotland deciding its own future.

This instrument is the one where an opportunity was missed. All of us will have received the briefing from the RSPB, which sets out how the SI fails to address issues with pesticide regulation, but it is worth laying them out a little, so that they are on the record for future battles.

Oversight will be lost and power centralised. The new system will see new DEFRA Secretaries having a great deal of say over what is considered appropriate. That power should be devolved, so that the devolved Administrations can consider the best interests of their nations and agree common frameworks where appropriate. Gone will be the requirement to consult the scientists, allowing those who say, “Experts—who needs them?” to have a free hand for dismantling sensible safeguards. That is a bad thing. We have seen the damage caused by disregarding experts.

The revocation of EU regulations on pesticides without corresponding safeguards being introduced seems another exercise in flinging caution to the wind. I hope that it is not part of the abandonment of the precautionary principle signalled by the previous DEFRA inhabitant, who also trumpeted the freeing up of genetically modified organisms and associated practices as one of the supposed benefits of Brexitannia. This SI also leaves big chunks of the regulatory landscape barren, with the future to be mapped out in guidelines rather than legislation. That is likely to leave regulators flying by the seats of someone else’s pants.

Pesticides, fertilisers and genetically modified organisms will be the touchstones of future battles on food safety, and this marks a reduction of our protections, which does not bode well for the future. It does not bode well either for protecting our food against low-quality imports. Can the Minister give us a guarantee here and now that hormone-pumped beef and chlorine-washed chicken from the US will not be allowed on to our supermarket shelves?

We will return to these battles time and again, no doubt. This instrument, like the others, will be passed today. Ironically, they represent the first points on the board of this Prime Minister’s time in office and they were written for his predecessor’s Government.