Environment Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hope that the next contributions will be very brief indeed, because we can only keep the debate running until seven minutes past eight.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak about these Lords amendments.

I welcome the Government’s progress on the Office for Environmental Protection. I think that its independence is better protected than it was before, but that is something of which we must be very conscious. I believe that it will be very effective under Dame Glenys Stacey, and I think that the Secretary of State will work with her, as will Ministers, to ensure that it is indeed independent. It must have enough resources to be able to continue its work. I hope that it will prevent a great many cases from going to court. We will ultimately need a judicial system to make it work, but I hope that the new system and the new body will bring about many conclusions on environmental problems, and a good deal of advice so that cases do not end up in the courts for years.

I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to welcome the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has put into the outflows amendment, and also the work done by the Duke of Wellington. Together, they have negotiated extremely well—dare I say it—with the Government, and what the Government have now come up with is absolutely right.

[Geraint Davies]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we do not accept the Wellington amendment, we will all have to wear Wellington boots to avoid the stools while we are paddling. But does he agree that we also need on-roof water capture with water butts, upstream water capture, and downstream and water processing plant capture so that we can take the pressure off the sewerage system when there is flash flooding, and sort out this problem without immediate massive investment in the sewers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him my hon. Friend—from the Select Committee. As he rightly says, we need to capture more storm water and rainwater, because it is unfortunately getting into the sewers and causing these outflows. That is an important point. The water companies have to ensure that they recompense their shareholders, but having done an enquiry in previous Parliaments, I know that we have to apply a lot of heat to those companies to ensure that they put the investment into curing the problem of outflows. We also have to ensure that the Environment Agency and Ofwat use their teeth on those companies to make that happen.

I believe that we can do this. There is a great deal of cost involved, but those companies need to concentrate a lot of their resources on these issues to ensure the quality of the water we bathe in, the rivers that we fish in and those that we want to swim in. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I also do a bit of wild swimming. I swim in the River Parrett, so I will probably end up in the Bristol channel one day. But seriously, I believe that we will clean up the water but we must put pressure on the water companies. What the Minister has said is welcome, and I know that the Secretary of State will also put pressure on them. I will stop there, because I know that many hon. Members from across the House and from Devon and Cornwall and across the west country want to speak on this issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will now put on a time limit of three minutes so that we can get as many people in as possible. If people could speak for less than three minutes, that would be absolutely great.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is the second that the Government are bringing forward concerning the welfare of animals, and its scope relates to the keeping of animals in Great Britain. We are a proud nation of animal lovers, and we have a strong record of being at the forefront of championing the best standards of care and protection for our animals, both at home and around the world. The UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals as long ago as the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822. Since 2010, we have achieved a great deal. On farms, we introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, and introduced mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses. We have also modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, and banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens. Our 2019 manifesto outlined how we intend to go further. Earlier this year we published the “Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, laying out how we will ensure that animals, both domestically and internationally, are subject to the highest possible standards of welfare.

A week ago, the House gathered to pay tribute to Sir David Amess. Many hon. Members highlighted his tireless work for higher animal welfare during his 38 years in this House. We will feel his absence today. He typically sat a couple of rows behind me off my left shoulder, sometimes with helpful interventions and often with more challenging ones, but always with a sense of good will and that positive smile even when being challenging.

In particular, Sir David campaigned for many years on the issue of live animal exports. He also campaigned on primates kept as pets and on the puppy trade. I last met Sir David at an event organised by the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation at the Conservative party conference, where he expressed his delight at how many of these issues, many of which will be raised in today’s debate, had moved to the fore. We will obviously miss him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I thank Lorraine Platt for the work that she has done through the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation to campaign towards several of the measures that we are bringing forward in this Bill. I also take this opportunity to thank the Scottish and Welsh Governments for their contributions to the development of the Bill. Although the provisions in the Bill will not extend to Northern Ireland, I thank the Northern Irish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for their collaboration and valuable support in helping my Department with the development of these policies.

The Bill focuses on five key areas. First, the Government will take advantage of our departure from the European Union to ban the export of certain livestock and other animals for slaughter and fattening. That will apply to journeys beginning in or transiting through Great Britain to a third country. Many hon. Members have campaigned on this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). We have carefully considered the scientific and expert evidence and the responses to our recent public consultation in England and Wales.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I very much welcome the ban on the live export of animals for slaughter. However, I want to ensure that livestock and breeding stock can come in and out of the country without hindrance. Is the Secretary of State confident, as he brings in that ban, that we can keep breeding stock coming in?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why the Bill relates specifically to animals for fattening and slaughter; it does not include animals for breeding. The Government’s view is that exporting animals for slaughter and fattening is unnecessary; indeed, such journeys are unnecessarily stressful for the animals concerned. Those animals could be slaughtered or fattened domestically, and that could be carried out by means of a shorter or less stressful journey.

The Government’s recent consultation also covered a range of proposals to improve the domestic welfare in transport regime, and the Bill provides us with the power to introduce improvements by means of regulations at a later date. We recently published our response to the consultation, outlining how we will take forward these reforms, working alongside farming and animal welfare organisations. We will carry out further engagement with stakeholders before implementing any reforms, and we will work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure, as far as possible, a consistent legislative approach across Great Britain.

Secondly, our departure from the EU also means that we are able to bring in measures to tackle the serious issue of puppy imports into Great Britain. The number of cats, dogs and ferrets brought into GB through non-commercial and commercial routes has increased significantly over the years. That has been accompanied by an increase in young puppies being illegally landed in the UK. For example, the number of dogs intercepted rose from 390 in 2019 to almost 1,300 in 2020. That problem has been highlighted by many hon. Members in recent years, not least by the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and by many other members of that Committee.

There is growing evidence that commercial importers currently abuse our non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in lots of puppies at once to maximise profit, and that the welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised. The Bill therefore reduces the number of pets that can be brought into the country for non-commercial reasons by a person who is coming into or returning to the country. The maximum number of pets will be reduced to five per motor vehicle on ferry and rail routes, and three per person where someone is arriving by air or as a foot passenger. That will deter traders from abusing the non-commercial pet travel rules to bring in puppies for onward sale.

We also have concerns that many of the puppies imported into Great Britain have been sourced from breeding facilities with low welfare standards, and that their welfare is being compromised during transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Second Reading of this Bill. I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say, and I welcome what the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has said, except perhaps for one or two comments on sewage that were unnecessary on this particular Bill. Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State spoke about Sir David Amess. If Sir David were here tonight, he would be joining in this great debate, and it is such a sad loss that we do not have him here.

Let me get straight into the Bill. On the keeping of primates, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has done tremendous work on that area over the years. She is a great member of the Select Committee, and we very much appreciate what she has been doing. Since we have been talking about cross-party working on animal welfare issues, may I say that nowhere is that more present than in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee? I am delighted with all its members, who usually support the work we do.

We need to make the licensing of primates being kept by individuals very strong and ensure that the private keeping of those animals is phased out as quickly as possible. I understand that that will take a little bit of doing, but it is absolutely the right way to go. We have some very good zoos in this country, but sometimes some extra animal welfare requirements are needed, so let us work with the zoos to ensure that we can make them better and improve life for the animals.

On livestock worrying, there is no doubt that there have been a lot of cases. The problem is that some members of the public think the dogs are just enjoying themselves. They may not actually savage the sheep, but they chase in-lamb sheep and cause many complications with lambing. So much of the damage to sheep cannot be seen at the time; it comes later, so we must do everything we can not only to tighten things up and make the process of identifying dogs easier, but to get the message out to the general public about the danger of releasing dogs, especially when two dogs play together and cause huge damage to livestock. Let us try to ask people to be more careful as they walk through fields.

We are looking at opening up the countryside and at an agricultural policy that enables more people to walk in it and enjoy it. I very much want people to do that, but we have to do it responsibly. We must remember that livestock are worried by dogs a lot. I think that people do not altogether realise that, so I look forward to measures being strengthened in the Bill.

It is quite right that exporting livestock will not be allowed for further fattening or for slaughter, but we do need to be able to export and import breeding stock, because otherwise we will reduce the gene pool. Farming needs really good-quality stock for the future. Livestock can be transported properly and in good vehicles; when people have them for breeding, they make sure of that.

I want to talk briefly about the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets. A lot of animals have been seized, especially puppies, which not only are very young and unsocialised, but can have many diseases. As well as being bad for the puppies, importing them can bring in diseases; even if those diseases are not contagious, the puppies very often need a lot of medical attention, leading to high veterinary bills, and unfortunately they sometimes die. It causes huge problems.

As hon. Members have said, there is huge profit to be made from bringing in puppies. After Second Reading, I want us to look at that. I understand that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State want to reduce the number permitted to five per vehicle; I would like it brought down to three per vehicle. We do not want the system to be abused. Surveys by Dogs Trust and others give 1.4 dogs per owner. That is an average, Madam Deputy Speaker—you can’t actually have 1.4 dogs, can you? Multiplying that by two gives us 2.8, by my maths, so I would have thought that three per vehicle was about right.

I welcome what is being done in the Bill, but I think we could go further, and tightening things up in this area is key. What would probably make the most difference —I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to move quite quickly on this—is allowing dogs to be brought in only once they are six months old. The benefits would be twofold: first, it would be easier for border authorities to recognise puppies that were too young, and secondly a six-month dog is not as cuddly and sale-worthy as a young puppy. That approach would probably do the most good of all, and I would like to see it in the Bill.

With his veterinary experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), my colleague on the Select Committee, is rightly keen to ensure that moving heavily pregnant dogs be stopped, along with the ear-cropping and tail-docking of dogs. I will not go into more detail, because I am sure that he will.

I do not want to speak for too long, because many other Members have yet to speak. I very much welcome the Bill, which deals effectively with the keeping of primates, with zoos, with livestock worrying, with the export of livestock and with the importation of dogs and cats. As I said, I would like to see some tightening up in places; I am sure that the Government are listening.

I very much welcome the Opposition’s support for the Bill. I think that it was very much in our Conservative manifesto, so I am not quite convinced that we have copied it all from Labour’s; some of it we actually came up with ourselves. We are very much a party that supports animal welfare, but I accept that there is a lot of cross-party support for it in this Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend; I will come to that in a moment.

At the moment, a farmer has the right to shoot an out-of-control dog, but I have not yet met a farmer who wants to do that. Farmers love animals but sadly these sheep-worrying incidents occur far too often. Livestock are vulnerable and fairly defenceless. Dog walkers want extra access to the countryside; in return, as my right hon. Friend said, dog owners and dog walkers must be more considerate about how their dogs behave and ideally have them on a lead.

The estimated cost of dog attacks on farm animals in the first quarter of 2021 has risen by 50%. As we have already heard, the National Farmers Union estimated in 2020 that £1.3 million worth of animals were attacked by dogs—an increase of 10% on 2019. But when it comes down to it, the issue is not the monetary value of the animals attacked, but the completely unnecessary nature of the attacks and the fact that the dog owner could prevent them.

Research carried out on 1,200 dog owners revealed that 88% walk their dogs in the countryside. Some 64% said that they let their dogs run free off the lead, while 50% admitted that their pet did not always come back when called. We are trying to do what we can to stop livestock worrying, and part 2 of the Bill is entirely welcome.

[Neil Parish]

rose—

[Bill Wiggin]

I was about to talk about zoonotic diseases such as neosporosis, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Neil Parish]

The other problem is that dog owners think that their dogs are obedient, but when dogs get excited and see sheep, they are off—they are no longer obedient even if they normally are. When they are really excited by chasing a sheep, they will not come back. That is why they need to be kept on leads, for the sake of sheep especially.

[Bill Wiggin]

Keeping dogs on leads is particularly important with sheep. It is completely the opposite when there are cattle with calves in the field. The dog owner should let go of their lead and let the dog run away, because otherwise it is people who become the casualties. This is complicated, which is why the Countryside Code matters and why us rural MPs must take opportunities such as this to remind people that what they do with sheep, they do not do with cows.

Let me turn now to the banning of exports for slaughter. Supermarkets have a vice-like grip on the provision and price of meat. Our centralised supply chain is narrow, and I am not entirely happy with the introduction of this ban. The beneficiaries will be supermarkets, the Republic of Ireland, and uncastrated ram lambs. As I mentioned earlier, the Government should be in the business not of banning but of licensing. In that way, only the highest level of animal welfare would be allowed. Sadly, instead, these sheep will now go through Ireland and make the much longer journey to France and Spain.

Around 6,400 animals were transported from the UK directly to slaughter, according to Government figures in 2018. Now the country is facing a shortage of abattoirs, abattoir staff and carbon dioxide. We will need to see animals being sent abroad, and they will go as breeding stock. How long does a sheep have to live in France or Spain as breeding stock before the purchaser can decide to eat it without the UK farmer going to prison for up to six months? That is the sort of thing that I am hoping will come out in Committee.

What steps will the Government take to ensure that live animals are not transported through Northern Ireland to the Republic and then onto Spain? This legislation, while well-intentioned, is full of loopholes, which the unscrupulous traders will exploit. These are the same people who do not care about animal welfare. That is why licensing is much safer than allowing the unscrupulous to win through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Indeed, we had not yet heard about the crustaceans. I will of course work with my hon. Friend, who raised this serious issue with me several days ago. We have commissioned research from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to find out what on earth is going wrong on the beach in Redcar.

Many hon. Members feel that more should be in this Bill—Gizmo, Tuk, microchipping, animal sanctuaries, fireworks and animals being used in scientific research—and I am happy to take those matters up with them individually, although not now. I accept that not everything that we could possibly do for animal welfare is in this Bill, nor indeed is everything in our action plan for animal welfare covered.

Nevertheless, the Bill is significant progress. This House has been passing animal welfare legislation since 1635, when we prohibited

“pulling the Wooll off…Sheep”

and forbade the attaching of ploughs to the tails of horses. I am sure that we will continue to pass animal welfare legislation, but I would like to point out the significant steps that we are taking this evening.

I hope that hon. Members will not take it amiss if I say that, in many ways, the most important speech was not made: the one by our hon. Friend who represented the city—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] —of Southend. I do not think it presumptuous to say that I know what he would have said; after all, he had been saying it for 38 years. I quote from a speech that he gave on live exports in 2012:

“Any practice that regularly inflicts such pain on living creatures, and, worse, regularly leads to their deaths, should be ended as soon as possible.

This is not an impossible dream.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 514.]

Well, not any more, David. I know that he would have been proud that Brexit allows us to deliver on many of the issues on which he campaigned.

The Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to end live exports for fattening and slaughter. Long journey times pose clear welfare risks, and a consultation several years ago showed that 98% of the public support a ban. I thank the farming world for working with us on it. Breeding animals are typically transported in very good conditions, above the regulatory baseline, and poultry are generally exported as day-old chicks in excellent condition. Nevertheless, we will continue to work with Members across the House on closing possible loopholes. Clause 43 will allow us to make regulations on the matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) called for.

I am a great supporter of local and even mobile abattoirs; I visited one at Fir farm recently and am always happy to take up the issue with anybody who wishes to discuss it. Wider transport reforms are also important. We have done a great deal of work on length of journey for animals generally.

[Neil Parish]

Will the Minister give way?

Environment Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones]

I do agree, and I am sure that that topic will be dealt with by my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), very appropriately when we debate the next group of amendments.

I want to share some of Rosamund’s letter to the Prime Minister, from which I quote:

“Ella was hospitalised 28 times in 28 months and admitted to ICU five times, fighting back from the brink of death. Her condition meant her lungs frequently filled with mucus, which made her feel as if she was constantly suffocating.”

I was disappointed to hear the Minister say today that she is delaying the consultation about air quality until next October, because that means that an additional 36,000 to 40,000 people in the UK could die prematurely every year owing to exposure to air pollution. Among them are between 22 and 24 children and young people who die from asthma every year, eight to 12 of whom live in London. The UK has one of the highest death rates from asthma in Europe, whereas in Finland, a country with better air quality, not a single child dies of asthma in a year.

As Rosamund goes on to say, the Environment Bill is our once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that children born now—including our own children—can grow up breathing safe, healthy air. Those are powerful words from a mother determined to ensure that no other parent experiences the loss of a child and no other child loses its life because the Government refused to act. Labour will not stop in the fight for cleaner air, and if this Tory Government will not act, Labour will. Let me make clear again that we will deliver a stand-alone clean air Act when we win the next general election.

As we have heard, this Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers that it needs. A strong, effective and trusted OEP is, in the words of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, essential to underpin all the other measures contained in the Bill. As the OEP will be scrutinising and holding Ministers to account in respect of their compliance with environmental laws, rules and regulations, it is vital for the OEP to be strong and independent, and to engage properly with all devolved nations in our United Kingdom.

It is also beyond comprehension that since the Bill worked its way through both Houses, Ministers have actually weakened their own proposals for this new office. If that approach continues, the OEP will become a lapdog rather than a watchdog, and this will be simply another missed opportunity for the Secretary of State. It is because of that missed opportunity that Lords amendment 31 in the name of Lord Krebs, Lords amendment 33 in the name of Lord Anderson, and Lords amendment 75 in the name of our former colleague from South Down, my noble Friend Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, are so important. They strengthen the powers, reach and scope of the OEP, and they have our full support.

I thank Lord Teverson for Lords amendment 1, which requires the Government to declare a biodiversity and climate emergency. How can anyone disagree with that? I also thank Baroness Bennett for Lords amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that soil health and quality remains a priority area for environmental improvement; and, of course, I welcome Lords amendment 28 from Baroness Parminter. This amendment removes the exceptions in the Bill for policy making on defence and security, tax, spending and resource allocation from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. If the Bill is going to mean anything and if Ministers are serious about tackling the climate emergency, they will support those amendments today.

Lords amendment 12, in the name of Baroness Brown of Cambridge, is an important component of the fight to make this Bill fit for purpose. It seeks, very simply, to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets that he or she sets. It is obvious why targets are required, and it is obvious why we need to be able to track our progress, monitor our focus and honour our promises. The amendment received cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that it will do so in the House today.

At every stage of this Bill, Labour has proposed fair, balanced and objective amendments that seek to make the Bill fit for purpose and, moreover, actually help us tackle the climate emergency and set out a real place to protect our environment and preserve our planet. I have said to the House before that we do not have time to waste: the climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary. But that requires a strong Bill, not a half-hearted attempt that does not recognise, or match, the seriousness of the challenge in front of us.

Disappointingly for many in the sector and for the future of our planet, nothing in the Bill will stop the UK falling behind the EU on the environment and environmental standards. Over the past year, as well as dealing with the coronavirus pandemic we have seen fires raging across Australia, the US and the Amazon, at the same time as glaciers are melting away in the Arctic and Antarctic. We are seeing increasingly erratic and life-threatening weather patterns in our cities and rural areas alike.

This Bill needs energy and dynamism, and the amendments before the House today make a bad Bill better. I hope that Ministers will simply and finally do the right thing. They should accept these fair and balanced amendments from their lordships’ House, and I urge them to work with Labour to deliver a real plan to protect our environment and preserve our planet.

[Neil Parish]

It is a pleasure to speak to Lords amendment 1 and to this first group of amendments. I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on David Amess and James Brokenshire. They were great colleagues in the House and we miss them very much. I send my condolences to their families.

I wanted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I cannot do so at the moment because she is not here. She will be a great asset to the environmental team. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) does a great job, but I am sure that some help will be needed with this huge subject and I look forward to my hon. Friend helping her with it.

I welcome the progress of the Bill, and I appreciate the fact that the Government have been open and willing to engage on some of the issues raised. I have no doubt that the amendments put forward by the other place have shaped the Government’s thinking and will make the Bill stronger. The Government might not support the Lords’ amendments, but I urge them to take notice of them as the Bill is finally brought to fruition.

On another positive note, I commend the Government for setting up the interim Office for Environmental Protection. I also welcome the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as its chair, because I believe that she will do a very good job. I hope that the OEP will be able to improve the environment by ensuring that some cases can be settled before they even get to court. That will be a really strong role for the OEP. I also want to ensure that the independence of the chair and the OEP is maintained. I have confidence in the present Secretary of State, but we need to ensure that those offices are independent for all time. Soil health, including organic matter and soil erosion, are also important issues for the way forward, and we need to ensure that we get them absolutely right.

Lords amendment 3 would set out a stringent target for cutting PM_2.5 and I completely agree with the intention behind the amendment. I want us to commit to matching the World Health Organisation limits by 2030, and as I said in a question to the Minister, the WHO is reducing those levels. However, the Bill as it stands includes a legally binding duty on the Government to set an air quality target by this time next year, October 2022. We have had a lot of consultation on this, and I urge the Minister and the Government to get on with it. I look forward to their setting that target, and if they do not have to wait until October 2022, please will they not do so?

I would welcome some detail from the Minister on the timetable for the public consultation next year. When will it be launched, how long will it run and when will the results be published? This really is a pressing issue, so we cannot let that target date slip further. I would also be grateful to know whom the Government plans to consult on the targets. How will they engage with non-governmental organisations, businesses and the wider public? Will the consultation include the option to express support for matching WHO guidelines on PM_2.5? Current UK limits are 25 micrograms per cubic metre. The WHO’s recommended limit is 10, and that was set in 2005. It has spent the last five years reviewing its guidelines and it has just updated them. This new limit is half its current limit, at 5 micrograms, which is five times lower than our current UK limit. I hope that the Government will consider any new WHO guidelines that have come out by the time of the consultation next year. I do not want to see us consulting on matching a target that the WHO set in 2005 and that is no longer relevant.

The WHO also confirmed last year that the guidelines should be the minimum goal. I would like that number to be as low as possible. These particulates are among the most dangerous pollutants. They are small enough to pass through the lungs into the bloodstream and into our organs, so ideally the legal limit should be zero, because there is no safe level of PM_2.5. I know that this would be almost impossible, but bringing that number as low as possible would still mean saving thousands of lives. As we drive to achieve much lower carbon emissions in this country and across the world, we must remember that air quality affects our day-to-day lives. It affects people’s health every day and is potentially killing people as we speak.

We have to ensure that this is one of our great priorities. It is so important, because poor air quality is directly affecting people’s health and lifespan in some hotspots in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made the point that we need to concentrate on those hotspots by working with local authorities across the piece to deliver better air quality. When our Joint Committee comprising four Committees of this House looked into air quality, we saw that it was not just DEFRA, Transport and Local Government but virtually every part of Government that would help to deliver better air quality.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that constituencies such as mine would be more reassured if the Government were to set up some sort of taskforce to pull together these various agencies? Funding is available to local authorities, but there is a lack of strategic focus to enable everything to be pulled together. That is something sensible that we could do to reassure people that the can is not simply being kicked down the road until next October or beyond.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about a taskforce. Whether it is a taskforce or an individual, somebody needs to pull all this together to make sure that it actually happens. That is absolutely key as we move forward.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman has made many interventions, but I will allow him one more.

[Mr Sheerman]

This is a very quick one. The hon. Gentleman and I share this passion, and he knows that a number of our towns are trying to make themselves sustainable under the United Nations sustainable development goals. Many councils now have a climate change emergency resolution and climate change commissions, but they do not quite know what to do. Does he agree that, given that we have all these groups in these towns and cities, we should go for 500 towns and cities in this country, such as Huddersfield, that are committed to becoming truly sustainable under the UN sustainable development goals?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that short intervention! We have taken evidence from the Mayor of Bristol. He talked about air quality, and he told us that the M32 comes right into the centre of Bristol, but the trouble is that the Mayor has little control over what happens on that motorway. That is why I very much agree with joining up what the Government and local authorities are doing across the country. We can do more, and there needs to be more urgency about it.

We must remember nine-year-old Ella, whose death was caused by exposure to air pollution. Her primary source of exposure was traffic emissions. We cannot have our children growing up in a world in which the air they breathe could potentially kill them.

On that note I stress that, although a broad reduction target could help drive improvements across the country, we also need strong limits on concentrations in particular hotspots. We need action on that quickly, as it would ensure that everyone benefits from a minimum level of protection. Without such action, people living in pollution hotspots could be left behind and existing health inequalities could be widened, so this is something we need to address.

The US and the EU are considering tightening their own limits. If we want to be world leading, we need an ambitious target and we need it quickly. However, I know this is a complex issue and the solution cannot be delivered overnight. It is one thing to set a target, but it is another thing to meet and deliver that target. Reducing overall air pollution needs a dramatic reduction in emissions from transport, homes and farming. I have no doubt that it will be difficult to do and that a proper, well-thought-out strategy is needed, but I know the Government are not afraid of setting ambitious targets.

Setting an ambitious air pollution target can also help to drive action to meet the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050. Pollution from road transport, as well as from domestic and industrial burning, is also a cause of greenhouse gas emissions. We have an opportunity to tackle both climate change and air pollution at the same time, and we can help the planet and protect people’s health. I support a binding commitment to publishing a target after a full consultation, but I make it clear that this is an urgent issue and I will continue to hold the Government to account. October 2022 must be the absolute last point at which we set a proper target on reducing PM_2.5 in law.

Environment Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

On Lords amendment 3, on air quality, the Government are committed to driving forward tangible and long-lasting improvements to the air we breathe. We will set ambitious air quality targets through the Bill, including a specific target on PM_2.5 which is the air pollutant that has the most significant impact on human health. Delivering ambitious reductions in PM_2.5 will require action from everyone: national Government, local government, businesses and individual citizens. The more ambitious the targets, the greater the level of intervention that will be required.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill. We really do need to get to this target quickly. We also have the situation whereby the World Health Organisation is reducing the amount of PM_2.5 that can be in the atmosphere. Are the Government taking this very seriously—not only the target that we have had all along but the new target that the WHO is setting?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend takes a huge amount of interest in this issue and I know my officials met him very recently to discuss the detail.

Back British Farming Day

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Back British Farming Day and the future of domestic agriculture.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit, vegetables and horticulture, I am delighted to have secured this debate. I met my Staffordshire farmers last Friday, and having spoken to the National Farmers Union at the Staffordshire County Show last month, I am very conscious of the circumstances that farmers currently face while trying to feed our nation.

The debate could not be more timely. It should be clear from the sea of wheatsheaf pin badges, displayed on many colleagues’ lapels, that today is Back British Farming Day—a day to celebrate all that our farmers do to produce high-quality, nutritious and delicious food while also caring for our environment and maintaining our iconic British landscapes.

Fruit and vegetables are the staple of our diets, and we all know how important it is for our health and wellbeing to eat our five a day, so I read to my dismay that as a country we are only 16% self-sufficient in fruit and 54% self-sufficient in fresh vegetables. The coronavirus pandemic has reminded us all of the importance of good, sustainable, local food supply chains. My constituents in Stafford have definitely become more interested in buying products close to home. It goes without saying that there are always going to be some types of fruit and vegetables that we will not be able to grow in this country, simply because we do not have the right climate. Of course, we can all enjoy bananas and citrus fruits from other countries, but we should aim to produce much more of the fruit and vegetables that are good at growing here.

Last year, I sat on the Agriculture Bill Committee, where we scrutinised that very important legislation line by line. The Bill advocated the importance of food security, which is why I backed that landmark Government legislation.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Theo Clarke]

Yes, I am delighted to give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for securing the debate. She talks about the Agriculture Bill. It is really important that, as we move to make sure that we sustainably produce food in an environmentally friendly way, we also produce enough food, really good-quality food, more vegetables, more meat and more milk. As we experience climate change—we are a country that has a climate that can produce food—we must make sure that we can produce enough food in future.

[Theo Clarke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was going on to say that I was very pleased that, in the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government commit to producing a food security report at the end of this year and for three years after that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of small family farms in our agriculture system. A lot of the economic analysis done by the Government and companies such as AB Agri shows that some of those smaller family farms are technically the most proficient and often the most profitable, as they have attention to detail. The Government are going to be bringing forward more proposals to support new entrants to our farming industry so that we have a vibrant, profitable sector, with farms of all sizes.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The National Food Strategy has recommended that the Government must define the minimum standards we will accept in future free trade deals and a “mechanism for protecting them”. The report says that without that there is “serious peril” that tariff-free deals could not only “compromise” our own attempts to drive up these standards, but allow cheap imports, which would “undercut” our farmers. Given that the Trade and Agriculture Commission already made exactly that recommendation in its March report, almost five months ago, can the Secretary of State tell me when these core standards will be set out and whether that mechanism for defending them will be in place before the Australia deal is signed?

[George Eustice]

The Government are working on a sanitary and phytosanitary policy statement that will set out the UK’s farm-to-fork approach on these matters, the science of good farm husbandry and how that improves food safety standards. We also have some key things in our legislation, such as bans on the use of hormones in beef and of chlorinated washes. Those are in our legislation and will not change.

Fisheries Management

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate arranged by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for which I thank him. I am standing right next to the Minister, so I will try to be nice to her. It is not an easy job being a fisheries Minister at the moment, because there are many problems to sort out. I will get through all the problems as quickly as I can, and I hope that there may be some solutions.

First, on fishing in Norway, can we apply a temporary trade remedy with Norway to try to get our boats access to these waters? Naturally, we fish for cod in Norwegian waters. As far as shellfisheries are concerned, we still have major problems on the west coast, Wales and others, where we are still unable to trade from class B waters. We have been trying to sort out the different waters, but that seems to be hitting the buffers as well. This really needs to be sorted. It is not all the Minister’s fault. The European Commission could have been, and needs to be, much more amenable to get this to work. We must not be held up as an example to others that may leave the European Union. I rather fear this is where we are with shellfishing.

On international quota swaps, the lack of international swapping has left some companies with less quota than they had before Brexit, and it has left all companies with less flexibility over their quota management. Quota swapping is a key tool in compliance with landing obligations. English fish producer organisations collectively would like, believe it or not, a system that stays as close as possible to the previous one, so that swaps brokered by the producer organisations can be checked and signed off by all devolved Administrations and the swaps can occur at any point during the year. Otherwise, they cannot land the fish they catch. We have worked so hard on this over the years to try to ensure that we stop discarding fish.

The key principles are that whichever devolved Administration donates the quota should receive the incoming quota, and the organisation donating the quota should receive the full incoming quota, so that the levels of quota are kept where they are. There is no fisheries Minister for England, which means that English viewpoints are under-represented in the fisheries discussion. The process for Scotland should not necessarily be adopted for England if other processes would be better for management of English quota.

There are many things for the Minister to do. My final point is probably more for the Chancellor, and I have talked about this before. We must make sure that we give new fishing boats the same capital allowances of 18% a year so that our fishermen can have new boats, new gear and much better safety. That would be much better for the environment and much safer for our fishermen. At the moment, they get only 6% on a new boat and 18% on an old boat. The boats could be made in the north of England. We could have a north-south divide in so far as we could provide the north of England with great employment, and we could have fishing boats all around the country. It is up to us to now develop our fisheries, and I believe that we can.

Once the Minister has flattened out all the little local difficulties with the European Commission, we can get on and actually benefit from leaving the common fisheries policy, because environmentally it was disastrous. We will need to get stuck in so that our fishermen can get back to being able to fish and land what they catch.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr Parish, you were four minutes exactly. I am sorry, colleagues; these things are a nightmare to chair because other colleagues pull out at the last minute, but I can now up you to five minutes until further notice. [Laughter.] Seriously, if you put in for these debates, do try and turn up. As you have just seen, a colleague has been discriminated against because of another colleague’s failure to show. I call Angus MacNeil.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Of course, Sir Charles. It is always a pleasure to take part in a fisheries debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for organising it with our friends on the Backbench Business Committee. I thank all who have spoken today. If I may class them together, they are a group of colleagues with whom I deal very frequently on fisheries matters—I would include you in that as well, Sir Charles. It is always good to hear from colleagues, and my door is always open. We have had many bilateral and trilateral meetings over the last few months, and I encourage colleagues to continue to get in touch on behalf of their fishing industries.

I pay tribute to the fishing industry for its resilience, and to all who work in the seafood supply chain. I am reminded of that by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who represents Peterhead and who is sitting in the Public Gallery. It has been a very difficult 18 months for the industry. The pandemic forced the closure of hospitality both at home and abroad, which has led to an abrupt loss of our markets. As we have heard again and again, exporters have had to adapt to the new conditions that we were subject to as we left the single market. On recent visits to Brixham—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) was kind enough to mention that—and Grimsby, I met many people, including the great Jim Portus, who were really impressive and dedicated to this industry. Their expertise and knowledge will allow us to manage our fisheries in a way that is flexible and sustainable, and that enables us, I hope, to take advantage of our new opportunities.

On the future of fisheries management, there is a great deal to do about the administration. The 2018 fisheries White Paper laid the foundations for devising our new fisheries management rules. The Fisheries Act 2020 provides the regulatory framework. The TCA recognises the UK’s regulatory autonomy and that means that each of the four Administrations can reform fisheries management.

Fisheries management plans will allow better spatial management within a very complex marine environment, identifying where fishing can take place in an area while minimising environmental impact. We will start to develop our first fisheries management plans in England this year. We are also preparing a full list and timetable for the implementation of fisheries management plans in the joint fisheries statement that we plan to consult on in the autumn.

Quota was mentioned by many hon. Members, including the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. We have put in place a new method to apportion additional quota between the fisheries administrations. In England, we have allocated additional quota in 2021 based on a new method that gives the fleet segments of quota in the stocks that are important to them and also takes into account their capacity to fish that quota. My hon. Friend represents England very well, if I may say so—as do many hon. Members in this room and outside it—and he need have no fears on that front.

Quota swaps, which were also mentioned by many Members, are important. That is why the TCA provided for an in-year quota exchange mechanism, which will be established by the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. In the future, we expect quota exchanges just to be part of annual negotiations. I am very pleased to say that we have agreed with the EU an interim basis for fishing quota transfers, before the specialised committee establishes a longer-term mechanism.

The details are still being worked out, but we expect an exchange of lists to take place next week on 20 July, when the UK and the EU co-chair the first meeting of the specialised committee. Lord Frost has assured me and others that the devolved authorities and Crown dependencies will be fully involved in the process, which obviously matters to them. I am pleased to say that we have now got to a point of real resolution on this issue, and I know that many people within the fishing industry are working up—PO to PO—the details of exchanges at the moment.

On control and enforcement, which was also raised by many Members, we have a 24/7, effective and intelligence-led enforcement system, which is co-ordinated by the Joint Maritime Security Centre. In English waters, we have really increased resource dedicated to fisheries protection and we continue to work on this. We have made additional Government investment of £32 million in this space over the last three years. The MMO has doubled the number of marine enforcement officers since 2017, and it has two dedicated offshore patrol ships at sea and increased aerial surveillance. All this complements the existing electronic monitoring system. In terms of landings to inspect at sea, in the first six months of this year there were 228 inspections by the MMO at sea, of which 131 were on EU vessels.

The safety of the UK fleet remains our highest priority; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has raised safety with me repeatedly and rightly, and I am always very keen to hear from him on it. We continue to monitor the presence and activity of vessels across our waters. I am aware of recent reports raised by the right hon. Gentleman and others of UK vessels being subject to bullying behaviour. It is really important, and I have stressed this to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and others in the past, that any such incidents are reported in real time, whenever possible. It is true that there is an area where, if the threshold for criminal activity is reached, UK police require, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the consent of the Home and Defence Secretaries and the flag state to take action. However, that does not preclude communications going straight to the vessel immediately, nor the gathering of evidence, which can be done by MMO officials, Marine Scotland officials or the police. That is why it is so important that these incidents are reported immediately.

That is a matter of great concern to both me and ministerial colleagues. I speak regularly about it to colleagues at the Department for Transport; we met at the end of last year to discuss it. We continue to work on a long-term solution. Last week was Naval and Maritime Security Week, which is a reminder that we need to continue to focus on this important issue. We work with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Seafish and the Fishing Industry Safety Group to lower the number of preventable accidents and deaths at sea.

I turn to funding. This year, the Government have spent £23 million on emergency compensation and £32 million on the replacement scheme for the European maritime and fisheries fund. We have also announced new funding, aligned with our reform of fisheries management.

The £100 million announced by the Prime Minister at the very end of last year will support investment to modernise and develop the seafood sector. It will focus on three pillars: infrastructure projects for the development and modernisation of ports, harbours and landing sites across the UK; the advancement and roll-out of science, innovation and technology across the catching and processing sectors; and projects that develop tailored training and qualifications. We will be hearing future announcements about that investment—probably starting with the science, innovation and technology strand, or pillar, of the £100 million—very shortly, certainly this summer. A large amount of money is involved and it is important that we get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raises the issue of live bivalve molluscs with me several times a day. I am as angry as any colleague present that the EU changed its rules on the importation of our class B molluscs; I take that up with it at every opportunity and will continue to do so. We are looking at a number of options to support the industry, including grant funding in England to facilitate business adaptation through the fisheries and seafood scheme. We are working on securing access to new markets, promoting domestic seafood consumption and reviewing the classification of shellfish harvesting areas while—of course—protecting public health.

[Neil Parish]

How quickly can the money be got to the shellfishing industry? That is really important because otherwise many will go out of business.

[Victoria Prentis]

The fund is already open and we are debating a statutory instrument tomorrow that will facilitate the spending of that fund. The money will in the longer term help people adapt their businesses to help with depuration or possibly canning, but it will not help everybody. One of the solutions that I have just outlined ought to be helpful to all our live bivalve mollusc industry. I continue to work closely with colleagues from around the country on this and to bring the matter up with the Commission whenever we have the opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a powerful speech; he is keen, as ever, to support the inshore fleet. He is right that there is not a one-size-fits-all management approach, which simply would not work. We need to draw on local knowledge to make sure that our fisheries management plans are suitable going forward.

I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Access is a reserved issue; the Welsh Government had to consent to the licensing of EU vessels in Welsh waters. We are not concerned that all those vessels will go and fish in Welsh waters, but we are concerned, for example, about valuable non-quota stocks such as scallops. We are working closely with the scalloping industry on the protection of those stocks and with the Welsh Government on management measures. I will be happy to fill the right hon. Lady in on any point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not need the hon. Gentleman’s charity; I would like his support in representing our position to the European Commission. There is a process for doing this and we intend to follow it carefully. We have made it clear that we do not agree with its analysis of the situation; our shellfish from class B waters is fantastic to eat, and they have always done so. We will continue to use the proper processes, through the new Specialised Committee on Fisheries, and if necessary, we will continue to consider when and if legal action should become appropriate. However, I know, as a lawyer, that legal action is never a quick fix and there may be a better way to do this.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]]

First, may I correct the Minister? She did not go to the most beautiful constituency in Devon when she visited Totnes, as she had come to Axminster, in my constituency, previously. The point about the shellfish is that the European Commission has acted very badly. I have sympathy with the Ministers and huge sympathy with the shellfish industry. The FSA can still move faster to reallocate waters from B to A. We also need all the agencies working together more quickly, and I would like to see some direct support to the shellfish industry, because we are putting shellfish businesses out of business, and no politician and no Government want to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

Some might argue that the beer in his constituency is pretty good as well.

Animal Welfare

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who makes a very good point about the diseased animals that people are likely to buy and the great cost and heartache to people when they have to have them put down. It is essential that we do more about this. I am also happy to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who is a great member of the EFRA Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who of course brings his veterinary experience to our Select Committee.

I very much support the petitions that have come through. On shark finning, let me say to my hon. Friend the Minister in all seriousness that I think that we have to take that issue up with the European Union. I will not name the particular countries that are interested in shark finning. They are well south of Europe, and I do not need to name them. That is where we need to act to stop that happening. Of course, the trouble with shark fins is that they are very valuable, but the practice must be stopped.

As for puppies, I very much endorse what every Member has said. I will explain what I am going to concentrate on. In the Committee, we have taken oral evidence on pet smuggling from the veterinary director of Dogs Trust, from Dr Jennifer Maher of the University of South Wales and from Daniella Dos Santos, senior vice-president of the British Veterinary Association, as well as from the RSPCA and others; and it is key that we act on this. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on putting together some very good legislation, but I think that the biggest issue of all is enforcing that legislation. I also think that Border Force needs to have many more staff and many more trained staff so that as puppies come through, they can work out whether they are 15 weeks old or not. All these things have to be done.

Those staff have to be there late at night, early in the morning and at weekends—perhaps not every weekend and every night, but they need to come and go so that those who are smuggling puppies through illegally will be caught. We are talking now probably about a sum of between £2,000 and £3,000 per puppy. It does not take too much arithmetic to work out that if someone smuggles quite a number of puppies through, it is very lucrative. Of course, up until now, the sentencing has been very light. We are now welcoming longer sentencing of up to five years, but we have to ensure that that happens. Puppy smuggling does not always fall within the animal welfare legislation, either. It is therefore absolutely key that we get on with this and ensure that we enforce it properly.

I am going to say something that perhaps is slightly more controversial: we in this country probably need about 800,000 puppies a year. I think that there are in this country about 10 million dogs and they have an average life expectancy of about 12 years, so again, if we do the arithmetic, we probably need between 700,000 and 800,000 puppies. We do not breed that number, and that is a problem. I do not want to go into vast puppy farming, but somehow or other, the Government need to encourage substantial breeding of dogs in a humane way. That is not easy, because we do not want to overbreed from any bitches—lots of things have to be done carefully—but I fear that if we do not do something about the number of puppies that are needed, the sheer price of them will mean that the temptation to smuggle remains. I therefore say to the Minister in all seriousness that I would very much consider this.

I am not going to raise all the points that every other Member has made about the action plan and the minimum of 15 weeks. I believe we should reduce the number of puppies that can come in legitimately to two: not many people go out and buy five puppies for their own use, so therefore those puppies are coming back legitimately through a system that is being abused. There are lots of things we can do, including about the cropping of tails and ears, which is absolutely abhorrent and something we should do our best to stamp out. I think we are agreed on this across all parties: one thing I enjoy about chairing the Select Committee is that we can bring all parties together. I am sure the Minister would congratulate all parties on working on this, so it is not a party political issue.

I will finish where I started: we can have the best rules in the world, but if we do not enforce them, they will not work. We have rules about microchipping and all of these things, but very often when these puppies that are found are taken to a vet, most of the information on those microchips is fictitious: they are not kept up to date. When people genuinely sell dogs, their microchips should be kept up to date, and then we will start to pick up on those that are illegally traded. These gangs are very clever—there is big money to be made—and we must not underestimate them. Let us all work together to try to stamp this out, but that will require Government to work across all Departments, not just DEFRA. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me about that. Thank you very much, Mr Mundell.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Parish. Let us all work together to stick to the four-minute limit on speeches.

Environment Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that the speaking limit in effect for Back Benchers is four minutes. The countdown clock will be visible on the screen of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will now operate. I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

I welcome the return of the Environment Bill and commend Ministers on bringing it back so quickly after the Queen’s Speech. Let me start by welcoming the recent publication of England trees action plan, which sets out ambitious targets for tree planting. I was pleased to see that it also includes plans to deliver what I have previously described as smart tree planting. What I mean by smart tree planting is not simply planting large numbers of trees, but planting the right trees in the right areas so that they can help to mitigate soil erosion and form natural flood defences. I welcome the fact that new woodlands are to be planted that will enhance biodiversity and have recreational benefits, but I emphasise that trees are also a living crop; we want to see them grow and mature, and we will use them for building our houses and will capture the carbon. I therefore want to see the right varieties planted to form the timber of our future buildings.

While we are rightly going to great lengths to deliver sustainable forestry policy in England, we must not miss the opportunity to send equally ambitious targets to protect forests overseas, many of which are very sadly facing an unprecedented threat. In 2020 alone, some 11,000 sq km of the Amazon were lost to deforestation—the most in 12 years. That is an area nearly twice the size of Devon lost in one year. Large-scale commercial agriculture accounts for a large proportion of that. We cannot allow this to go on.

[Steve Brine]

I am very happy to put my name to amendments 26 and 27, in particular amendment 27, on financial services. Many of our constituents will invest with and use UK financial institutions, banks and pension funds, and they will have very little sight of the investments that they make around the world that could assist deforestation of the Amazon. Is not the key point that we cannot just rely on transparency—that it is a duty of the House to act, and this legislation is a golden opportunity to do that?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially in terms of pension funds. People do not always know which companies their pension funds are investing in and what those companies are investing in—are they investing in Malaysia or in large cattle ranches in Brazil, where deforestation may be taking place? We need to tighten up on this, and I very much welcome his intervention.

Not only are rainforests a carbon sink, but they hold 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. They help to maintain our delicate global ecosystem, so I am pleased that, as part of the Bill, companies that cause illegal deforestation will be held accountable. The requirement for large companies to undertake due diligence on their supply chains is an important step, but the Bill should go further in tackling the practice.

As Members will know, I have tabled two amendments to the Bill to ensure that the measures have the teeth to tackle the problem. First, amendment 26 proposes that we put into law protections for the rights of indigenous people, requiring that

“free, prior and informed consent has been obtained from affected indigenous peoples and local communities”

before big companies go in and develop land. That is important because, while the Government’s new provisions reference the need for companies to ensure that local laws are respected, they do not consider that the rights of indigenous communities are not always respected in law.

I have visited Brazil; I have seen the trucks going through the forest and the people in the back of them with sub-machine-guns. I can assure the Government that it is not easy for indigenous people to have rights in places where there is no real rule of law in parts. Indeed, 80% of indigenous lands do not yet have secure legal rights. In those places, local people are rightly defending their own land from aggressive development, but at great risk. In February 2019, I had the honour of meeting the chief of the indigenous population in the Amazon. He told me of the daily struggles that he and his people experience in protecting their homes from illegal land clearance. Research shows that more people than ever were killed in 2019 for defending their land. Over 200 were killed—an average of around four people a week. Not only are indigenous people being killed, but many are seeing the land on which their livelihoods depend being destroyed. Amendment 26 would not only save lives but would save livelihoods—something that I know the Government care greatly about. I ask them to look carefully at this issue.

The second measure that I would like the Government to implement to tighten up the Bill is amendment 27. I firmly believe that we must ensure that the legislation includes the financial sector, which is in many cases bank-rolling deforestation in places such as Brazil and Malaysia. If we do not include the financial sector in these measures, we are missing out one of the most integral parts of the supply chain and leaving a large loophole in the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will restrict my remarks to amendments 47 and 49, which stand in my name, and amendment 29, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). The amendments have in common the aim of protecting the landscape and the environment both in very rural areas like mine and in urban and suburban parts of the UK that are threatened by the Government’s planning reforms.

Amendments 47 and 49 would ensure that environmental land management schemes contain a mechanism to deliver adequate financial support to our farmers for delivering landscape benefits, in particular species conservation and protected site strategies, and so rewarding our farmers for maintaining the beauty of our landscape. We have done that inadvertently through various funding schemes over the past few decades, but it is about to drop by the wayside. It is hard to put a price on landscape beauty, but it is vital that we do so.

In the lake district and the Yorkshire dales, in a normal year our Cumbria tourism economy is worth more than £3 billion and employs 60,000 people in our county—tourism is comfortably the biggest employer in Cumbria. Underpinning that economy is the beauty of the landscape.

[Neil Parish]

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. Farming, landscape and tourism are closely integrated. As we deal with the Environment Bill, we have to remember that agriculture and tourism are interlinked, especially in the rural parts of this great country of ours.

[Tim Farron]

The Select Committee Chair is absolutely right, and I completely agree. We have to find a mechanism to make sure that we reward those who maintain the beauty of our landscape.

I have often been in places such as Barbondale, Dentdale, Langdale, Kentmere, Longsleddale and other glorious bits of my part of the world. I almost feel compelled to express envy of the hill farmer I am with in his or her glorious environment, but often the response is a slightly sad look that says, “I can’t eat the view.” It is all very well having a beautiful place, but if those who work there make a pittance, what good is it to them? That is what is happening in the uplands, where people are steadily moving away as farms fail and close. The Government’s plan to offer early retirement to farmers offers no mechanism to get young people in to replace them, and just in the last few days, the only agricultural college in Cumbria has closed.

I am desperate to ensure that the ELMS rewards farmers for landscape value, but there is currently no effective mechanism to do that. That should be added, which is why the amendment matters. I am also concerned about what the Bill means for the status of some of the beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. UNESCO awarded world heritage site status to the lake district just a few years ago. The report that resulted in the award of that status gave as much credit to the farmers as it did to the glaciers. These are managed, crafted landscapes, and we should reward the farmers who provide them.

There are many bad things about our not being in the EU, but one good thing is that we do not need to borrow EU measures. We do not need to borrow the plan for funding ELMS through the mechanism of income forgone. We should be rewarding farmers for the value of what they do, not paying the pittance they were paid in the first place.

In the time left, I will speak to amendment 29. Local nature resource strategies are a good idea. They are welcome, but they are weak, and they will not be worth the paper they are written on if they are not material to the considerations and decisions made by local planning committees. If we are to protect our green belt, whether it be in such places as the constituency of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), other parts of the ring around London, or indeed a very rural area like mine, we must not put planners in a situation where they have no power to prevent developers from damaging the countryside or, as is the case in a place like mine, to prevent developers from delivering up to 50 houses without having to deliver a single affordable property.

Nine out of 10 planning permission applications get passed. More than a million planning applications for homes have not been delivered. Planning is not the problem; planning is the protection for our communities and our environment. That is why this amendment is important to try to undo and mitigate some of the Government’s attack on our rural communities.