Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind hon. Members that the occupant of this Chair is acting not as Deputy Speaker, but as Chair of the Committee of the whole House—I did try, but anyway, we all now know.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Chair.

This is an issue that I am personally passionate about—I have spoken on animal welfare issues from both the Back Benches and the Opposition Front Bench many times since coming to this place six years ago. I am very pleased that Labour Front Benchers are supporting the Bill, but recognise the need to strengthen its provisions and for the protection of animal welfare to go much further. All animals deserve protection. I know two things about the British public: one, they are disappointed that it has taken us so long to get to this point; and two, they want to see much more. Where is the ban on keeping primates as pets? Where is the foie gras ban? Where is the action on puppy smuggling, and why has the trophy hunting ban not gone through as an Act?

The Bill is long overdue. In the 2019 general election, the Conservative party included this prohibition and many other animal welfare policies in its manifesto. Five years have passed, and we have had setback after setback. Maybe that reflects the number of Prime Ministers we have had over that period and their varying views on animal welfare, but this is the last in a series of delays that are being put right. Last year, when I was a Front Bencher, I was hugely disappointed that the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill. When I was at the Dispatch Box trying to bring that Bill back, they even voted against a number of their own policies. The British public will not forget. Maybe the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is different now, but the Minister is the same Minister who opposed us on that occasion. How many animals have needlessly suffered because of this delay? There are victims here—it is not a victimless delay.

It took a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) to tackle animal exploitation in the wild tourism industry, a measure that we all supported. The approach of the Government for a whole year, which they now seem to have abandoned, was to try to achieve animal welfare improvements through private Members’ Bills. I am glad that we are now back to having Government Bills on these issues, but where is the animals abroad Bill?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Just to help the hon. Member, could he refer to the amendments or new clauses that he is addressing? His speech sounds awfully like a Second Reading speech.

[Alex Sobel]

Thank you, Chair. I will come to those now.

The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) include a number of provisions to extend the scope of the Bill. I want to say a little bit about alpacas, which I believe are dealt with in amendment 2. In my constituency, I have seen a growth in alpaca farming. There are alpacas in Cookridge in my constituency, on the way to Leeds Bradford airport; Meanwood Valley urban farm, which is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), has alpacas; and, on Queensway in Yeadon, I recently spotted a number of alpacas in a field. This is clearly an area of expansion in the British farming industry, but there is also now quite a lot of alpaca breeding, so there is no need to export live alpacas to this country, because there is sufficient depth of alpaca farming to carry on that work. The same goes for other animals, including llamas and deer. We are overrun with deer; we certainly do not need the export of them.

NHS Dentistry

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Access to dental care in West Yorkshire is a problem that cannot be ignored. Dental care is a fundamental right and its absence has far-reaching consequences for the health of our whole community. Currently, no dentists are accepting new NHS patients in the whole of Leeds, with waiting lists lasting years. Only recently, a dentist in my constituency, in the rural market town of Otley, withdrew from the NHS scheme citing a “chronic lack of investment”; Manor Square has been a reliable provider of NHS dentistry to the local community for many years—intergenerational communities and families have been receiving NHS care at that practice for many decades—but now they cannot receive it there.

The practice’s withdrawal from the scheme has affected 15,000 patients and raises serious questions about the future availability of affordable dental care in the whole area. One constituent was paying around £45 for two annual check-ups at the practice, with their children receiving free dental care. Under the practice’s new private dental plan, the cost will be £640, which is clearly unaffordable for many families in Otley. Such costs are set against rising costs for families across the board.

The decision appears to be yet another symptom of the chronic underfunding and neglect faced by the NHS. Oral health is an integral part of our overall wellbeing and neglecting it can lead to serious health issues down the line. The withdrawal of NHS dental care not only affects individuals, but has a broader impact on the health infrastructure of our communities. The consequences are felt not just by those who currently need dental services, but by all of us who value a robust and comprehensive healthcare system.

We need an urgent reform of dental care. We need to recognise its critical role in maintaining overall health. Our communities deserve access to quality and affordable dental services. The Government have no clear plan, but Labour does. Labour plans to provide 700,000 additional appointments and education on basic life skills in areas where children’s dental health is most affected, through supervised toothbrushing, and to reform the dental contract, which the Government have failed to do over the last 14 years. As many colleagues have said, there are major issues facing the workforce as many NHS dentists have left to practise privately, or have left the UK for countries where dentistry is more highly valued than it is by our Government.

To conclude, the lack of dental care in West Yorkshire is a serious concern that demands immediate attention. It is not just a matter of oral health but a reflection of broader challenges across the NHS. That is why we should support the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Members who have taken part in the debate should make their way to the Chamber now, as the wind-ups will begin after Mr Western finishes his speech.

Public Access to Nature

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

The hon. Lady seems to indicate that it does, so I will try to find the space further back in the speech and not repeat that point.

Currently, only 3% of our rivers are accessible to the public, although perhaps that is not such a bad thing for swimmers, given the state of our waterways under the current Government. Labour will end 90% of sewage discharges by 2030 and introduce strict penalties for water bosses who fail to comply. Only the Labour party will ensure access to clean rivers, lakes and seas, so that those swimmers and other water users can enjoy them. Of course, it is important that any expansion of access encourages responsible behaviour, with measures to protect our most vulnerable habitats and species from harm. By incorporating responsible practices into our access rights, we can ensure the wellbeing of our environment for generations to come. That is a far cry from the attitude of the Government, who currently spend less than £2,000 per year on promoting the countryside code.

In conclusion, Labour will create a future where nature thrives, people have a deeper connection to the environment and everyone has equal access to the benefits of green spaces.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Minister.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

I think that time is against us—yes, you are indicating that it is, Madam Deputy Speaker—so unfortunately I cannot take any more interventions.

Secondly, households are paying the price of the impact that this is having on the NHS, the economy and the environment. I am disappointed but not surprised at the conduct of Tory Members who, once again, stood up one after the other and merely read out the cobbled-together lines of the panicked Government Whips—[Interruption.] That is not true! I wrote this speech myself, thank you very much. The Government Whips are struggling to find any serious reasons for blocking Labour’s common-sense approach. Being forced to resort to that is a symptom of a Tory Government who have run out of road and of ideas.

It is unfortunate, and slightly embarrassing for them, that the Government Whips have misunderstood Labour’s plan, fed Tory Members inaccurate numbers and got their maths wrong, which is no surprise given the state of our economy. The Minister may wish to correct the record on their behalf, because if they had read the Bill they would have seen that there are safeguards that prevent anyone from gaming the system. In any case, the Government’s own economic regulator, Ofwat, already has the power to protect customers’ bills.

The Secretary of State’s own Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of Labour’s plan, which shows that cleaning up this mess would cost water companies a fraction of the £72 billion that they have taken out in dividends. There is no reason for inaction—and how much is that inaction costing the NHS, and businesses that are forced to pull down the shutters because of sewage dumping? But with the Tories, there is always a reason not to act in the public interest, and nothing is ever their fault. Bluster, blame game and blocking measures to clean up their mass sewage dumping mess—you name it, they have blamed it, as I have heard throughout the afternoon, whether it is people who use their toilets, the Welsh Government or home drainage systems. The Secretary of State even blamed the Victorians for causing this mess, more than 100 years ago. In case they have forgotten, let me point out that it is the Tories in Westminster who are responsible for economic regulation of the water industry in England and Wales, with the levers of power that are key to improving industry performance and holding water companies to account.

Tory Members now have a second chance to do the right thing, having previously voted to continue sewage dumping. If they vote with Labour today, we can end the sewage scandal once and for all. Their alternative is simply to follow the lead by continuing to vote for sewage dumping for no good reason. If they do refuse to back our plan, it will be either because they have not bothered to read the Bill and are blindly following the direction of the Secretary of State, or because they do not understand the Bill and, as their contributions today suggest, are inadvertently misleading the House about the reasons for continuing to vote for sewage dumping.

Let me be clear: the public are watching and listening. The choice this evening is simple. Members can either vote for our plan to end the Tory sewage scandal by 2030, with water companies finally being made to do the job that households are already paying them to do, or they can, for a second time, vote to allow the dumping of raw sewage in the constituencies that we all represent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I now call the Minister, and remind the House that the Front Benchers can speak for equal amounts of time when winding up the debate.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind the Home Secretary to face the microphone? I cannot quite hear everything that is being said, and Hansard may have difficulties as well.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary’s letter today outlined six breaches. She used a personal device to send official emails, using a personal Gmail address. When I receive emails through Gmail, I assume that they are personal emails. What assurances can the Home Secretary give the House that none of those emails was forwarded to third parties, and what investigations have been made to establish that those personal Gmail emails were not hacked by any foreign powers?

Elections Bill

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has taken his two interventions, and his time is now up.

Safety of Journalists

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

The freedom of journalistic expression is paramount, including in terms of freedom of religion. The hon. Member makes vital points.

The BBC’s China correspondent has had to move to Taiwan because of safety fears. China’s lack of press freedom is well documented. It sits at 177 out of 180 in the 2021 world press freedom index. Only Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea fall below it. In 2020, a year in which a historically high total of 387 journalists and media workers were detained worldwide, China was the worst offender. In its record-breaking year, at least 274 journalists were locked up for their work. The UK Government must move further and faster in developing an international strategy to defend journalists, media freedom and internet access from authoritarian tendencies across the globe. I hope that that is being discussed at the G7 today.

Of course, the UK is not without fault. The UK ranked just 33rd out of the 180 countries in the 2021 world press freedom index. In February, Andy Aitchison was arrested at his home after photographing a fake blood protest outside the Napier barracks, where asylum seekers were being housed, and still are, even though there has been a High Court ruling against the Government. The police held Mr Aitchison for seven hours and seized his phone and memory card. Mr Aitchison was just doing his job, exercising his right to report freely on the conditions in which asylum seekers are held. He was wrongly arrested and his journalistic material was taken. Still no apology has been forthcoming.

The Government must do better. How can we talk about press freedom without talking about the clearing house: the Orwellian unit that obstructs the release of sensitive information requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? In a written judgment, made public on Tuesday, Judge Hughes concluded:

“The profound lack of transparency about the operation…might appear…to extend to Ministers.”

I look forward to the Minister clearing that up for us. As well as blocking FOI requests, the unit is alleged to have profiled journalists. Such a profound lack of transparency at the very heart of Government paints a very concerning picture.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation are taken out with impunity both in the UK and elsewhere. SLAPPs are legal actions, the goal of which is not necessarily to win in court but, rather, to silence the target. Powerful interests wanting to shut down stories can do so by taking legal action that they know will cost the defendant huge sums of money in legal fees and potentially take years to resolve. SLAPPs can be taken out by individual businesses, state actors or any other individual or group with enough money to do so. They may target academic freedom, political expression or, more commonly than ever, the freedom of the press.

SLAPPs can kill an uncomfortable story. They can also have the bigger impact of silencing other critical voices, creating the same culture of fear and silence as through illegal means. The Conservatives talk a good game on freedom of expression, but let us not forget that they have been known to exclude newspapers that they do not agree with from official briefings. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances on those points.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The former Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has four minutes.

Public Health

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful to Madam Deputy Speaker for my time.

I wish to talk specifically about the impact of a tier system on the leisure and hospitality industry in Leeds, which would equally apply to other areas under tier 3. As I know is the case for most MPs, the picture in my constituency is very grim. I have spoken to many business owners who have been forced to make devastating choices, considering letting staff go or even closing their business with Christmas just around the corner. Support for hospitality businesses is extremely limited. The furlough scheme is due to expire in January, workers are missing out on self-isolation support payments, and there is no comprehensive hospitality support package for businesses under tiers 2 or 3. Why did we not see an extension of furlough, improvements in the self-isolation scheme and sector-specific packages brought forward today? The £1,000 that was announced for wet pubs is not even worthy of being called a sticking plaster. The fact is, the majority of businesses cannot operate on this basis, with unsustainable income and ever-increasing debt. The lack of meaningful support from the Government is a massive kick in the teeth for those who work so hard to make their businesses safe and have taken additional measures at their own expense during this latest lockdown, trying to survive what has been an apocalyptic year for hospitality.

The one-off £20 per head additional restrictions grant for councils was welcome, but I am not sure how the Government expect local authorities to stretch out the grant for as long as they are in tier 3 when some areas have been under the strictest measures for many months with no end date in sight. So, again, a new extended support package for councils should have been announced today.

I am pleased, however, that as of today the Leeds infection rate is down significantly again, with nearly all wards across the city seeing significant decreases and an R rate far lower than that of many London boroughs. With a city-wide rate now at 200 and dropping every day, the measures are working, and I want to put on record my thanks to all those in Leeds making huge personal sacrifices so that this can happen.

The Leeds improvement shows the need for continued restrictions. However, we simply cannot afford to lose £1.7 million-worth of Government support for each seven days spent in tier 3, which is what will happen if the Government do not step up.

We are on the verge of a vaccine roll-out, but the Government are leaving swathes of the country to fall at the final hurdle. Currently, tier 3 areas, which are predominantly northern and urban, will get no more financial support than areas in tier 1. The only way to prevent mass job losses and business closures unlike anything we have seen before is to provide urgent economic support to both businesses and workers in tier 3 areas.

So I suggest the following changes to the Government, without which I cannot support the proposed tiers tonight. The unit of geography for tiers should have as its building block the upper-tier local authority for unitaries and districts for two-tier local authorities, not sub-regions or counties. I am also concerned that the 14-day review period is insufficiently flexible, as rates are falling fast and there could be an opportunity to get the economy going at an earlier stage, so I ask for a seven-day review period to make the system more responsive; the capacity to deliver that exists given that there will not be any negotiation. There should, too, be council engagement with Government to scale up lateral flow testing on a targeted basis, ensuring it is integrated with contact tracing and supports those who self-isolate. We will deliver this in the most effective way if it is done with councils, to ensure that we do not compromise roll-out of the vaccination and that resources are available to deliver it. I am also disappointed about communications on the tiers, with local leadership not having the opportunity to help lead communications as part of rebuilding trust and confidence.

That is what I call on the Government to do when we next have the review—it is clear that they will not accept any of my suggestions today, although I will delighted if the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announces that they will in his concluding remarks. Without the additional support and additional measures I have called for I cannot support what is happening today, and therefore I will not be taking part in the vote this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will now be a three-minute limit. I call Mark Jenkinson.

Environment Bill

Debate between Alex Sobel and Nigel Evans

Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The speech by the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) does him great credit, and I am sure he will have a long and illustrious career in this House. I will give him one piece of advice: however much taxes may rise, unlike Lady Godiva, could he please keep his clothes on in the Chamber?

This Bill has been introduced because of Brexit. There are a million reasons why people voted for Brexit. For some, it was because of a lack of affordable housing, because the UK was unable to make its own laws, or because Brexit would solve their concerns about low wages. Nobody, however, voted for Brexit because they wanted fewer environmental protections, yet I am sad to say that that is exactly what the Bill, as it stands, represents. That raises the question of how Britain wants to present itself on the world stage, in the year that we host COP to tackle the climate and ecological emergency.

Until the end of this year, 70% of the UK’s environmental protections will come from the union with Europe, which has provided increasingly high environmental standards for 45 years. The Bill represents the majority of the Government’s efforts to import those protections from Europe into UK law, and it replaces wide-ranging protections with four simple domestic targets. Indeed, there are four target areas—water, air, biodiversity and waste—with a minimum of one target required to be set in each. The media are reporting that the Treasury is pushing for a maximum of one target in each area outlined in the Bill, so it seems that we are moving from a whole network of protections to just four. That is a poor trade for our natural environment. I am sorry to say that it is an indication of how the Government interpret their greater environmental obligations after we leave the EU and make our way in the world. The direction we seem to be heading in is backwards.

To prevent that backsliding, the Government must include in the Bill a commitment to the non-regression of environmental standards. I expect that everyone across the House agrees that regression from environmental protections is poor and that standards should not be reneged upon, watered down or discarded. If we were to let that happen it would have real implications not just for UK wildlife, but our own constituents—the water they drink and the air they breathe. There is nothing more fundamental than keeping our constituents from harm. I therefore ask the Government to do what they have said they will do and ensure we have non-regression in the Bill.

Of the four areas set out in the Bill, only one has any details and that is air quality, which is incredibly important. I have one of the worst areas for air quality in the UK. If the Bill is to have any meaningful impact on the quality of our air, it should include a legally binding commitment to meet WHO levels on fine particulate matter pollution by 2030 at the very latest. Even that will come at the expense of many of my constituents’ lives. The Bills lacks coherence and fails to establish a link between the currently lacking target it sets out and the improvement plans the Government should be carrying out. Let us not forget that this is the Government who had to be taken to court three times over their lack of action on air quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) talked about trees and I would like to reinforce what he said about that.

Another area not covered in the Bill is beaches. Let us not forget that the UK was one of the slowest countries in the EU to clean up its beaches. We were still pumping raw sewage into the sea 20 years ago. Improvements to the quality of our natural water have come about as a result of the EU water framework and bathing water directives. How can we now, in the Bill’s 233 pages, not include any targets for beaches? If it is likely that we are just going to get one target, will it be for rivers, water-borne pollution, chemicals or ecological status? We do not know. How can we just have a single water target? We need to ensure that we transpose the protections we have in EU law into UK law.

I want to finish by talking about ministerial powers. In the previous Parliament, we talked a lot about Henry VIII powers. We seem to be returning to Tudor times once more. The Bill confers sweeping powers to enact huge sections of the Bill on the say-so of the Secretary of State. He is not in his place, but I know he is a keen environmentalist. He will spend the majority of the Committee stage—I hope to serve on the Public Bill Committee—looking at this area, but the Bill does not provide any targets or any information until 2022. How are we meant legally to enforce targets in that time period? It is not enough to say, “Trust me, I’m the Secretary of State”. He will say that appointments to the board of the new Office for Environmental Protection will be made by him, but they will be made without parliamentary oversight. It will be sending reports to him, rather than to us here in Parliament. We will have to rely on him.

What happens—we know political shifts happen very rapidly these days—if a future authoritarian Government finds themselves in power and they want to make sweeping changes to the level of environmental protection? The Bill affords them power over what the targets should be and who enforces them. I am sure that such a prospect makes us all nervous, including the Secretary of State. If multiple targets are set in each area, with amendments tabled and improvements made, and if links between targets and improvement plans are strengthened, the Bill could mark the beginning of a framework that provides real environmental protection. However, I must highlight this point to Members on both sides of the House. With its current powers and levels of discretion, the Bill could be used for a catastrophic reduction in protections, leading to poor air quality, polluted waterways, declining biodiversity, exposure to chemical pollution, and a dereliction of our green and pleasant land. It is entirely down to whoever happens to be Secretary of State on any given day to protect them. The Bill gives too much power to an already over-powerful Executive, and must be amended so that Parliament can have democratic oversight, and so that stringent environmental standards are set.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Maiden speech: I call Kate Griffiths.