EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I know that in previous debates on fishing the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the importance of tariff-free access to the EU market, and the trade and co-operation agreement gives our fishing export businesses that access, which is particularly important for the shellfish sector.

It is not the case that shellfish cannot be exported at all until April. There have been certain issues regarding bivalve molluscs and getting the correct paperwork, and some issues around depuration and the ability to export stocks that have not been purified prior to export, but they do not amount to a ban on the export of shellfish.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the distant water fleets. It is a convention that in the absence of agreements on quotas—this is pertinent to the agreement we have with Norway—access is suspended, but we will seek access to Arctic cod in the usual way for those parts of our fleet that benefit from that stock.

The hon. Gentleman asked when fishermen will see the uplift in quota. As I made clear, the EU is giving up 15% of its catch in our waters in year one, so fishermen will see some important advantages in this very first year.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]]

We are seeing teething issues arise for our fishing exporters, with health checks and customs documents causing some backlogs in exports to the EU. Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps his Department is taking to ensure that exporters know what is required of them, so that those challenges can be eased?

Waste Incineration and Recycling Rates

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate. I also refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that my family runs a plastic waste recycling business.

I want to use my limited time today to talk specifically about waste incineration, touching on my concerns about how decisions regarding new incinerator applications and environmental permitting for waste incinerators are made, and the future direction of waste incineration itself.



I am sure we are all aware of the waste hierarchy. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. When waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for reuse, then for recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal—landfill and waste incineration. I believe all Government policy should be based on this hierarchy.

There is a strong case to argue that if sufficient weight is given to utilising waste incineration as an option for dealing with waste, then a fiscal disincentive, an incineration tax, should be considered as an option, as we have with the landfill tax—I would also favour increasing landfill tax—because otherwise that can become a barrier to developing a greener circular economy, by preventing resources from being reused and depressing recycling rates, and, as a method, incineration gives rise to air pollution concerns.

I want to touch on air pollution. It is quite clear that the process of incineration from waste creates a number of emissions, and there is much concern regarding waste incineration and air quality and human health. This concern relates predominantly to particulate matter, which is predominantly composed of materials such as sulphate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon. The Minister will be aware that, back in 2018 and 2019, Public Health England funded a study to examine emissions of particulate matter from incinerators and their impact on human health. The study found that emissions from particulate matter from waste incinerators are low, and make only a small contribution to ambient background levels. However, while levels may be low, this study acknowledged that there is a contribution nevertheless. There will be many factors that influence the impact on air quality and human health that the incinerator can have, such as the stack height of an incinerator, whether the incinerator is located in the bottom of a valley, the resultant impact of temperature or cloud inversions, and its proximity to homes, schools and playing fields.

Rather frustratingly, and despite huge amounts of local opposition—including from an excellent and well-run campaign group in my constituency, the Aire Valley Against Incineration, along with many residents, myself, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), from my neighbouring constituency—the green light has just been issued for the Aire Valley incinerator to operate. This incinerator is to be built on the periphery of Keighley, in the bottom of a valley in close proximity to schools, playing fields and homes. The scheme was awarded planning consent and given the green light by our local authority, Bradford Council, back in 2016, and earlier this year was awarded an environmental permit by the Environment Agency. All this despite strong local opposition.

Residents are quite rightly concerned about air quality—not just from the incinerator itself, but from the increased traffic flows bringing waste to the site. In questioning the decision making for the environmental permit that has just been issued by the Environment Agency, unbelievably, I was told that the Environment Agency could consider only emissions from the incinerator itself, not the emissions from increased traffic flows, because that was a planning matter, which Bradford Council, in already giving the green light, had considered acceptable in the first place. This raises a much bigger issue: the process of how permits are awarded for incinerators. My concern is that a cohesive, full-picture review is not taken into account when looking at the impact on air quality from the whole incineration process itself, which includes the emissions from traffic flow.

For me, this debate is vital. As a Member who sat on the Environment Bill Committee, I am pretty excited about what the Government are doing going forward. However, I reaffirm my commitment that all Government policy should go back to that first waste hierarchy and look at adopting a review of whether an incineration tax is the right route to go down, as I believe it should be.

The message from Keighley is that we do not want this incinerator. It is unfortunate that it looks as if the green light has been given, but local voices should be heard much more loudly and clearly in any decision-making process for anything that is likely to have an impact on air quality or human health.

Environment Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 22nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for his interest in this subject, which I have become much more interested in since researching it and talking to relevant bodies.

Steel is considered to be safe, as are tungsten alloys and tin, so there are alternatives out there. There is obviously an issue with single-use plastics, which would currently have to be used with alternatives to lead. However, I believe that with the inspiration and impetus from this amendment, the whole shooting community—including manufacturers of alternatives to lead shot—would be encouraged to use and produce ammunition that was far, far safer than lead shot.

Lead does not need to be used; non-toxic ammunition is widely available, effective, and comparably priced. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may be interested to know that Denmark and the Netherlands banned the use of all lead shot in the 1990s; they have proved that changing to safer ammunition is entirely possible.

Why do we need to do this new clause? We know that 8.7% of ducks and geese across Europe die every year from eating lead shot; this includes 23% of pochard, which is a species threatened with global extinction, and 31% of pintail ducks. Lead poisoning from ammunition kills an estimated 75,000 water birds each year, as well as other birds and mammals.

Through ingestion by cattle—which then results in food-safety issues as it enters their system—lead can end up in restaurants and retail outlets; in our food. It also seeps into land, including wetlands, and creates toxic grounds; wetlands have been found to be peppered with lead shot.

Lead is dangerous for people’s health, as lead shot often fragments and is ingested in game meat.  Children and pregnant women are particularly at risk due to the negative impact of lead on the developing brain, which has led to Waitrose labelling its game meat products as not safe for pregnant women and children.

Lead is not something we should allow into our food system. Somewhere in the order of 10,000 children from the UK hunting community are estimated to be at risk of negative impacts on IQ due to household consumption of game meat. If the effects were immediate and something happened to us that caused an immediate breakdown of our health, we would have stopped this years ago, but because lead has a subtle effect on our health—on our brain development and IQ—it has been allowed to carry on for too long.

The new clause has not just been dreamed up in the past few months; it is the result of the Government engaging with this issue since 1991. There have been stakeholder groups, compliance studies, risk assessments and reviews, but the stars are now aligned. We cannot any longer say that the new clause is not needed. I know that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation is moving towards a ban on lead shot, which I welcome. It wants to take action within the next five years to see a change. There is clearly appetite in the shooting world to accomplish what is set out in the new clause by banning lead shot. However, things are not moving fast enough. We cannot entirely rely on that compliance, but the new clause would take us where the shooting community seems to want us to go.

The stars are aligned, and it is time for the new clause. There is a limited ban at the moment, focused on wetland birds, but it is widely flouted and there has been only one prosecution, which is another reason why we need to have the new clause in the legislation. The partial regulation focused on protecting wetland birds, and similar regulations in other home nations, have been ineffective in reducing lead poisoning in water birds because there has been a high level of non-compliance. Birds feeding in terrestrial habitats, where most of the lead shot is legally deposited, are also affected. Moreover, enforcement of the limited regulation has been negligible so far, and human and livestock health have not been protected. Two large-scale restriction proposals are currently being progressed in the EU under REACH, which will bring about a total ban and additional benefits to law enforcement. Let us pre-empt that and go one step further in the UK.

This is the right time for policy change. The coinciding of the new Environment Bill and proposed policy change on lead shot is opportune. The nine main UK shooting organisations recognise the risk from lead ammunition. There is no debate about that. The imminent impacts of regulation on lead ammunition in the EU, and the likely impacts on UK markets for game meat, all need to be considered. Hence, on 22 February, the move to a voluntary phase-out of lead shot within five years was announced. That has already prepared the UK’s shooting community for change, and I have seen that the media narratives around shooting have changed to reflect that.

To date, however, voluntary bans on lead shot have always failed, so to say that the new clause is unnecessary is just not good enough. Denmark, which has gone ahead of us on this issue—we can learn from them—banned all lead shot in 1996. Hunters accept that it was because a progressive Government took such a step that they now lead the world in the control of lead poisoning from shot.

Although there is a desire for change within hunting organisations, there also remains a tradition of resisting regulation, which might just roll on and on over the next five years.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I want to pick up on that point. It is not only BASC but the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers Organisation and the Country Land and Business Association that are behind the transition. They are actually going further than what the hon. Lady is asking for, by asking for a ban on single-use plastics in the cartridges, but what they are clearly asking for is a period of smooth transition over five years. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is more appropriate?

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree, and I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the wide support for a move in this direction, but if we can ensure it is in legislation, the move will go further, it will be deeper and it will be guaranteed to happen. Given the high toxicity of lead, we cannot just leave this issue to voluntary moves by all those organisations. Let us go with the flow and accept their willingness to change, but let us underpin that with legislative change, which moves it on faster. These issues have already been under negotiation. The smooth transition is happening. I am not asking for this to happen on 1 January—the proposal is to give another year. There is time to move forward; the new clause is very reasonable. If we want to go further and talk more about single-use plastics, that will happen in time, and this proposal will enable manufacturers to do that.

Only regulation will provide a guaranteed market for ammunition manufacturers. Moving all users of ammunition through these changes, all at once, will enable ammunition manufacturers to make the change that we all surely want to see, and will ensure the provision of game free from lead ammunition for the retail market. It will enable cost-effective enforcement and protect wildlife and human health much earlier than in five years. Why would we want lead shot in our food for another five years? Why would we want to kill all those birds for another five years?

Action on this issue was recommended in 1983 in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on lead in the environment. It has been long enough. It is long overdue. Now, at last, is the time to act.

Environment Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 21st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

That sounds a lot, but when you put it into the context of the data I described, it comes to about 6,000-odd hectares.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Across the whole UK, there are about 17.6 million hectares of productive agricultural land. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is about striking the correct balance? With the Prime Minister announcing 30,000 hectares for tree planting annually, does he agree that that will contribute towards reaching the target? It is about striking a balance.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and may well have anticipated my next comments. He referred to his miniature oracle—the mobile phone—to look up the number of hectares in productive use in the UK. In a tree strategy, it is important not to substitute productive land for tree cover if that can be avoided. We must ensure that marginal land, or land that is not in particularly productive use, can be afforested, and that land that is in productive use or has a high yield can continue to operate on that basis. We should not try to sequester land that could be used for other purposes to put trees on.

On the overall target, we must ask ourselves—indeed, the Committee on Climate Change has asked itself—whether it is possible to get that number of trees on the land in the UK, bearing in mind the constraints that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The answer is yes, absolutely, it is possible. The Forestry Commission and Forest Research have done a lot of research on the amount of marginal land in the UK that could have forest cover without impinging on grade 1 agricultural land, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on. The answer is that roughly 5 million hectares are available in England for that sort of activity. There is land available.

A tree strategy would have to take account of the point that the hon. Member for Keighley made about what land was available and how it might be afforested, as well as the incentives that might be needed to do that because a lot of that land is in private ownership and some might be purchased for forestation and made available to the public. Other land could be made available through covenants, which the Minister mentioned. But overall, the purpose would be to ensure forestation that increases overall forest cover while making room for the various things that need to be done on the land up to 2050.

I want to come to the 30,000 hectares, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which we have recently heard about in the press. One is not entirely clear what that figure means. A blog from the DEFRA press office on 12 June was headed—I am not sure about the grammar here—“Tree planting on the up in England”. Actually, it talked about tree planting not being particularly on the up in England, because not only have present targets been missed by up to 70% in recent years, but although total new planting in 2019-20 was indeed up, it was only up to 2,330 hectares, which is a tiny proportion of what is required annually to get anywhere near that figure by 2050.

Indeed, the figure very much squeezes the definition of what has been planted by taking into account the total number planted with Government support over the last three financial years and those hectares that the Department thinks have been planted without support—because people like planting trees. It suggests that total new planting, taking into account everything in the UK—Scotland and England as well—comes to about 13,000 hectares altogether. Therefore, even by squeezing the statistics as hard as we can, we still get a pretty low version of that tree planting figure.

Nor is it clear from that press release whether the 30,000 hectares of trees that we hear mentioned is an annual tree planting target or a target up to 2025. It states that

“tree planting in England increased last year but was below the rate needed to reach the manifesto commitment to plant 30,000 hectares of trees across the UK by 2025.”

That is very different from 30,000 a year. If the target is indeed 30,000 a year, that goes some way towards beginning to meet what the Committee on Climate Change has said is the imperative for planting up to 2050, but only halfway. We would probably need to plant about 50,000 to 60,000 hectares a year if we are to reach Committee on Climate Change target.

That is why the new clause sets out targets with particular percentages, because that is the key point: the percentage of land in the UK under woodland or forest cover, now and up to 2050. That is what the target effectively works around. We also need to understand clearly that the target has to be met between Governments, because half of the UK’s new trees were planted in Scotland last year and a substantial amount of the overall UK forest cover target would have to be met there. Therefore, not only would the target have to relate to English planting; it would have to relate to mutual action and discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—and indeed the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly—about what is to be done on tree planting in the UK as a whole. As a matter of interest, Wales comes somewhere between Scotland and England in terms of its percentage of forest cover. Northern Ireland is very bad in its forest cover, so there are further areas to be made up in that context.

Moorland Burning

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I previously worked as a chartered surveyor.

I will focus my contribution on conservation. I speak with some authority on the subject, having been directly involved in many moorland restoration schemes before entering this place, through interactions with landowners, farmers, conservationists and bodies such as Natural England.

As a tool among many, burning plays its part as a conglomerative measure to achieve ecological and conservational benefits. Let me explain why. The process of burning small areas of heather removes older growth and allows plants to regenerate and thrive. New heather, mosses and grass shoots follow, and they, along with the new green flushes of new growth, allow plants such as bilberry to grow, which are key to providing food diversification for many animals such as deer and mountain hares. New growth shoots are liked by many bird species, including red grouse and the golden plover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said. It is important to note that the golden plover, like many other bird species, is often found nesting at higher densities in areas of recently burned heather.

Of course, the burnt areas also act as valuable firebreaks, and evidence upon evidence has been put before us that where dead woody undergrowth is allowed to build up, wildfire risk is dramatically increased. It might be asked why cutting should not be the preferred method for controlling heather growth. The simple answer is that, more often than not, the topography does not lend itself to that technique. It is expensive in labour resource, and often it does not have the desired positive effects that I have outlined. It is also important to note that controlled burning is a precise and professional operation. It is much more than having a box of matches and some dry weather. It involves planning, teamwork and, often, specialist kit. Land managers must understand and comply with strict burning codes, and burning is all undertaken within controlled burning seasons, which run through the wet months from October to April. Why is there a burning season, it might be asked. It is because rank vegetation is burned off when peat is holding water and before the bird nesting season starts. Those controlled, or cool, burns, as they are known, do not burn the peat or the understorey of mosses.

It is my view that heather burning plays its part as a conglomerative measure to achieve ecological and conservation benefits. We should always take an evidence-based approach, and the evidence is clear. When it is carefully managed, burning is good for moorland management and for conservation.

Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend’s important point underlines the purpose of our amendment and impels me to highlight that this is not just a theoretical question about the protection of the marine environment, but a practical question about how we approach that. For example, the marine conservation zone in Lyme bay has the very practical effect of—among other things—preserving the environment for cold-water corals and various other things in that very fragile ecosystem that require our protection to survive and thrive. Those considerations of the marine environment are absolutely and indistinguishably conjoined.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the purpose of the amendment? Given that paragraph 355 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states:

“This includes both the marine and terrestrial environments. ‘Water’ will include seawater, freshwater and other forms of water”,

I am not sure what the purpose of the amendment is.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the explanatory note, which is not legislation. One of the problems that Committees face is that explanatory notes have a sort of half-life: they are quite often helpful for elucidation, but they add nothing whatsoever to, or take nothing away from, the legislation in front of us. Explanatory notes might mention what is or is not the case, but essentially they indicate only how benevolently or otherwise the Government look upon the legislation.

Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

That is indeed a concern. We have raised, and will repeatedly raise, the difference between the Bill’s aspirations and many of the practicalities. The difference between the Bill’s lofty aspirations and its often severely lacking practicalities is apparent throughout its construction. This is one instance where that is the case. The chair of the OEP is, in the first instance, to be a non-executive member of the office. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister shares my understanding, but it looks to be the case that the chair will be appointed from among the non-executive members whom the Secretary of State has appointed in the first place. The key at that point is who the non-executive members are and how they are appointed. In this instance, they appointed just by the Secretary of State. We suggest a procedure that grounds those appointments within parliamentary procedures.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member recognise that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have the opportunity in the appointment process to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member has put his finger exactly on the problem, because according to this piece of legislation, in practice, they do not. There is no requirement to do that in the Bill. The amendment is designed to do exactly what he suggests should be done, which is that the appointment should take place with the scrutiny and consent of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which is more of a point of information than anything else. The changes that have occurred since the Committee last sat will be considered via amendments submitted by Opposition and other Members during our proceedings. There is no facility for making a ministerial statement to the Committee, but the Minister will have ample opportunity to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise during the debates that we will have between now and 1 December, which is the agreed out date. If there were extra evidence sessions, that would delay the out date. Although it cannot be done, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and the Committee has heard it. I know that the Minister will seek to answer those points during the debates that lie ahead of us.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. As it is fairly warm in the room, would you mind if Members removed their jackets?

[The Chair]

It goes completely against my natural instincts and my absolute principles, but of course, gentlemen may remove their jackets if they wish during our proceedings. There is no need for a new point of order on every occasion. I assure the Committee that I will not be taking my jacket off.

Ordered,

That the order of the Committee of 10 March be varied as follows—

(1) In paragraph (1)(d), leave out “and 2.00pm”.

(2) In paragraph (1), leave out sub-paragraphs (e) to (l).

(3) After paragraph (1), insert—

“(1A) the Committee shall (in addition to its meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 3 November) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 November;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 November;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 November;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;

(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 November;

(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 December;”.

(4) In paragraph (4), leave out “5 May” and insert “1 December”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

When we return after the half-term recess, the Agriculture Bill will come back from the Lords, so we will have another opportunity to debate the amendments on protecting standards.

What this is all about is that under future trade deals this could all change, and we know that the Americans want to be allowed to export such products to the UK. We know that was a sticking point. We also know that the former Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), was rather keen to open the doors to such exports—he and I were in Washington at the same time a couple of years ago, and we were both on social media saying very different things about chickens. I just do not agree with the hon. Member for West Dorset that there is not a risk from those products.

There are many other examples of animal abuse that we need to crack down on. We need to enforce the existing law and to strengthen it. We are still seeing undercover footage emerging from so-called high welfare farms, so red tractor farms. I mentioned this the last time I spoke on the subject in 2019, but a different case emerged over the summer, at Flat House farm in Leicestershire. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said that the footage contained

“some of the most disturbing images I have ever seen… We cannot allow farms like this to operate in the UK.”

It was a pig farm, and we know that pigs are incredibly intelligent animals. I think they ought to be treated on a par with dogs. We saw that they had bleeding hernias, lacerations, bites and deformed trotters. There were dead and dying animals being dragged into the walkway and left there to rot. My concern about not having protection for standards in the Agriculture Bill is that that sort of industrialised farming, with very small profit margins, and therefore with corners cut and welfare standards not adhered to, will become the norm in this country. I do not want to see that happen.

The Government brought forward the dual Bill on sentencing and sentience because they had promised, during the discussions on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in late 2017, to legislate for animal sentience before we left the EU. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) had tabled new clause 30, which I seconded, and the Government voted it down. There was immediately an outcry—I would have preferred to have the support before the vote—because the Government had whipped their Members to vote against the new clause, and they were forced to say that they would legislate for this. They then brought forward the draft dual Bill, which went through pre-legislative scrutiny, and the sentience bit was not very well drafted. We have since had nothing. I brought forward my own animal sentience Bill—I have lost track of when; probably somewhere in 2019 when everything disappeared into the black hole. I was, for a very short while, on the Petitions Committee earlier this year, and I had the pleasure of speaking to a petition that received 104,000 signatures calling on the Government to legislate on animal sentience. My one question for the Minister is: what on earth happened to that legislation? A clear promise was made to this place and to the public that there would be legislation.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a great contribution to the debate. I am sure she agrees that the Bill is completely worthwhile, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on bringing it forward. However, does she agree that it is slightly disappointing that only one Opposition Member—herself—is contributing to the debate? While the Government side of the House is full of people contributing to the debate, it is slightly disappointing that the other side of the House is empty.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps my colleagues are all worn out from trying to get hungry children free school meals earlier in the week. The fact that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has the next Bill on the Order Paper may have something to do with the packed Conservative Benches. I say that as a former Government Whip for Friday sittings. That may be churlish of me.

I think I was reaching my peroration, as the former Speaker used to like to term it; the intervention that I very generously allowed has rather put me off my stride. I conclude by saying that I hope the Minister will answer the question on what on earth happened to the sentience provision. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset on bringing the Bill forward. I very much hope that it becomes law, and that we will soon see animal cruelty in this country treated with the seriousness it deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who I know has worked incredibly hard in getting this Bill off the ground and getting it through to this stage. I thank him myself and on behalf of my constituents from across Keighley and Ilkley, who have contacted me on this specific issue.

We all love our pets. Whether it is cats, dogs, guinea pigs or, as our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary might say, a tarantula, we all seem to have that bond. I just want to outline a very tragic story that I picked up in my constituency. It was to do with an American bulldog, Smiler, who was unfortunately found by the RSPCA in a bath with her head bloodied. She had physically been abused and was found in a state where the owner had tried to clean her with bleach. That story illustrates the necessity of this Bill and how important it is that we strengthen the sentencing measures to give a clear demonstration that any animal cruelty will not be tolerated at all. Strengthening the provisions up to five years will go a long way to doing that.

I want to conclude, because I am conscious of time. On the Conservative Benches, we are animal lovers, and we are on the side of animal welfare through this Bill being pushed through the House. I am very pleased to see that it has been supported by the Government, and we have also seen the Ivory Bill, CCTV in slaughterhouses and an aspiration and a desire to stop live exports, which I am wholly behind. I am pleased that the Conservative Government will be driving this Bill through.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Minister next and then Chris Loder, and then the question will be put. Then we will just suspend for a brief moment for the sanitisation of both Dispatch Boxes before we move on to Sir Christopher Chope’s Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I, too, listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I have to say that I agree with the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), because I do not understand the Government’s resistance to putting these sensible changes into legislation. The problem the Government have is that the more they claim to want to do what the amendment is seeking, but then say, “But we can’t do it”, the greater they raise in the minds of everyone watching—farmers, consumers and others, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House—the idea that something else is going on here. So, let us be honest about this.

We all know how trade negotiations work and the pressure that trade negotiators come under. Let us consider the United States of America—with which the Government, to be fair, are very keen to get a trade agreement, because they have decided to move away from the best trade agreements they have, with the European Union. The fact is that that pressure will exist regardless of who wins the presidential election next month. I think the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put his finger on it when he read from the letter, in which it appears that Ministers are saying, “Well, don’t do this because it will make it more difficult”. But how is doing what the Government promised to do in their manifesto more difficult—and it is only fair?

The Minister talked about undesirable side effects. I listened very carefully but I heard her give only one example, which was her reference to hedgerows in Africa. I understand the point she was trying to make, but it does not really work when we look at the new clause in amendment 16, because subsection (2)(b) talks about standards that

“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to”

the areas we are discussing. Furthermore, the very next subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to determine what those standards are equivalent to. The argument made by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that somehow there will be a fixed process that would lead to absurdities does not really wash when we read what is actually in the amendment that their lordships have put together.

I want to talk about sow stalls, which were banned here in 1999. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the new cruel confinement law, as it is called in California, which not only bans the use of sow stalls in that state, but bans the sale in California of pork produced in other American states that still use sow stalls. I am advised that that includes Iowa and Minnesota. Could the Government please explain why it appears that California is able to ban food products produced by what we regard as cruel means in other states of the United States of America, but that we somehow have difficulty in doing the same in deciding our new rules?

The final point I want to make is on the new clause in amendment 17. Again, I do not understand the Government’s argument. The Minister said that sector-specific targets were not really helpful, but the basic and obvious point is this: if we are going to meet our climate change targets, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, we are going to need progress in every single sector of the economy, agriculture, land use and forestry included. Therefore, it seems that it would be really helpful to have an interim target to help the farming industry to make the changes that we know will have to come. I am pleased to hear that quite a few Government Members will vote for them, but I urge the Government at this stage to think again.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Farming and the future of the agriculture industry are subjects that I am incredibly passionate about. Before entering this place, I had been involved for my whole life in the farming sector, and I use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is my view that for far too long our agriculture industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that the sector undoubtedly encompasses have been restrained and stifled by the workings of the common agricultural policy. Through the CAP, our agriculture industry has become less competitive through ill-thought-through subsidy schemes that have impeded productivity, stifled innovation and failed to protect the environment as much as we could have. Let me be clear: this is the fault not of the farmer, but of the system they have been constrained by. A change is required and this Bill goes a long way to shaking up the system and achieving that, which is great news.

I will use my time to talk about Lords amendment 16. This has rightly received much attention and I have given it immense thought as I want to ensure that our agriculture industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future. However, as we look to adopt new legislation, it is vital that we scrutinise the detail and the anticipated consequences.

Let us be clear about the current position: the Bill does not lower food safety standards. Of course, the amendment goes much further and obligates that any agri-environmental food import must be produced and processed under standards that are equivalent to the UK for animal health, plant health and environmental protection. We must ask ourselves: while the intentions are entirely laudable, in reality, what will the consequences be for the supply of food that we wish to import, such as the vast amounts of tea imported from Kenya, bananas from the Dominican Republic or coffee from Vietnam?

Let us take environmental standards, for example. If Vietnam and other developing countries, such as Ghana and Indonesia, that export coffee beans to the UK were expected to provide evidence that they meet UK carbon emissions targets, I can see that that would have a dramatic impact on the UK retail and hospitality sector, as I suspect that countries would not be able to meet such requirements. Equally, it would not make sense for the UK to require trading partners with certain climates and environmental conditions, which are very different from those here in the UK, to meet our specifications, such as the UK’s requirement for nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adopted to UK conditions. It is vital that that level of detail must be explored and considered at this stage, to see whether it is practical to try to enforce this amendment to a domestic piece of legislation abroad and to see whether it is workable in law. I want to see a thriving agricultural sector.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend’s argument is that we must not put in a standard because we will stop imports from certain countries, so is he suggesting that we just go to a lower and lower common denominator to allow food in from anywhere? When we do a trade deal, we can write this into law. We could actually write this into law with all the least developed countries to give them preference in trade with us, rather than throwing out our trade to Brazil and Malaysia.

[Robbie Moore]

I believe that a totally protectionist approach is the wrong one for the success of our agricultural industry in the long term. We have a huge opportunity available to us. This amendment would constrain our agricultural food sector’s ability to grow, expand and meet the new export opportunities that will come from our country setting out on the world stage and negotiating new trade deals, which we should be bold and optimistic about for our UK farming sector—for example, expanding whisky exports to Canada, potato exports to Egypt and milk exports to Algeria. I am proud to say that British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years, and that market opportunity needs to be explored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), just as I did after his maiden speech. May I say that he needs to allow a little more of his Scottish charm to seep into his speeches? I need to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as a breeder of Hereford cattle. Some 88% of Herefordshire is farmland, and 10,200 people work on our 2,812 farms.

On amendments 12 and 16, let me say that farming is not a religion; it is a business. We need to increase farm incomes, cut NHS expenditure on obesity, lose the need for food banks, and ensure that we behave towards our livestock in the way that we behave towards one another: with respect, kindness and, most of all, understanding of the huge challenge all this presents. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Green party, Extinction Rebellion and many others have their own agendas on how to run the landscape, so their contribution is not surprising, but the NFU’s is surprising, because it has gone far too far in trying to wrongly frighten people. We must remember that the Agriculture Bill is primarily a continuation Bill. The amendments would put strict conditions in place when the EU negotiates a free trade deal, whereas when we, as part of the EU, negotiated free trade deals with other countries, none of those restrictions were in place. If we impose strict food requirements, America will challenge and win at the WTO. Opposition Members may rejoice at that, but the EU will not be able to accept those terms either.

[Robbie Moore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole House wants to achieve better standards across the board, but we must look at the detail that amendment 16 brings?

[Bill Wiggin]

I agree not only with my hon. Friend but with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who said he made an excellent speech—he did. Our two largest trading partners would be gone, threatening £22 billion-worth of exports of food, drink and feed—everything we are selling. The EU has already threatened to ban animal products, a trade worth £3 billion, only last year. That should be no surprise. Trade deals with non-EU countries would be gone too: the hard-fought trade deal with Canada and 43 trade agreements with 70 other nations. We think that our food standards are very high, yet we allow religious slaughter, we are gassing pigs in our abattoirs, we do not insist on catering or welfare standards labelling, and we fudge our grass-fed labelling—