Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Smith Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Pow
A great deal of action is taking place: local authorities have a duty to tackle air pollution and this year clean-air zones are coming into major cities right across the nation. The Department is working closely with others on the introduction of those zones, about which the House will hear more shortly.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Theresa Villiers)
Clause 20(2) of the Environment Bill places a duty on the Office for Environmental Protection to
“have regard to the need to act…transparently.”
It must publish key documents, such as its strategy, annual report and accounts, and lay them before Parliament.
Angela Smith
The concept of the OEP has been touted by the Government as an independent watchdog, yet it will be funded by the Government and its chair will be appointed by the Government. Surely the Secretary of State will agree that at the very least the relevant Select Committee should play a key role in the appointment of the chair and the non-executive members of the board.
Theresa Villiers
I assure the hon. Lady that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee will play a key role in the pre-appointment scrutiny of the OEP chairman. I also assure her that the OEP will have a multi-year funding settlement and that Ministers will be required to safeguard its independence. In many ways, the departmental structure will be broadly similar to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has clearly demonstrated its total independence from the Government. I am sure we will see that same determination from this powerful new environmental watchdog.
The Climate Emergency
Angela Smith Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (LD)
I welcome this opportunity to speak on the inclusion of the Environment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. The commitments to improving air quality, restoring nature and transforming waste management are certainly long overdue. I particularly welcome the proposals for improving water quality and securing the resilience of water supply. I am hugely disappointed, however, by the powers available for the proposed new office of environmental protection. At present, the Government can be taken to the European Court of Justice if they fail to meet their legal obligations to the environment. Under the proposals in the Bill, these rights are significantly reduced. Judicial review is not a satisfactory replacement for the rights we currently enjoy.
My principal concern remains the lack of Government commitment to tackling the climate emergency in the round. This demands action on a range of measures if we are to meet the 2050 target, but the detail on achieving that remains vague. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Government’s approach to water resilience. Yes, the Environment Bill promises to improve water quality and to secure resilient water services in the long term, but I just do not think the Government are taking the challenge seriously enough. Parts of the country are already suffering water stress. In March, the chief executive of the Environment Agency warned that if we do not act now, within the next 25 years the UK will be facing “the jaws of death”. In the context of climate change and projected population increases, we face not just a climate emergency but a water emergency, and we must act to tackle both. The need for action amounts to much more than building new hard infrastructure, and it is also about much more than tackling leakage; it is about looking at water in a holistic way.
I am not convinced that the Government will act comprehensively to tackle the water emergency. Their current consultation on reform of building regulations, for example, does nothing to promise higher water efficiency standards. When will it be understood that tackling climate change is not just about energy efficiency? We also need a road map for retro-fitting the domestic housing stock in the context of both energy and water efficiency.
The Government’s Bill is vague on other key water issues. Improving water resilience demands better management of surface water, and yet we still have no statutory compulsion to use sustainable drainage for new developments, and no commitment to developing rainwater or greywater harvesting, or to a per capita consumption target for water. It is this absence of a comprehensive approach to securing water resilience that makes me so sceptical of the measures in the Environment Bill. Targets are great, but they need to be backed by concrete commitments and plans to deliver the changes necessary.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
This has been a very good debate. While it was kicked off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it has also dealt with many of the transport issues that concern me daily. However, we could have been forgiven for thinking that we were living in a parallel universe, having listened to the concerns expressed by some Members in what I thought should have been a much more consensual debate. After all, the House voted very strongly for net-zero emissions by 2050.
Members suggest that nothing has happened, but this is the only major country—the only major economy—that has legislated for net-zero emissions. Last year, this country generated more than half its electricity from low and zero-carbon means. Since we came to power in 2010, 99% of all the solar power available in this country has been installed. We have already ruled that there will be an end to petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, and I am sure that many Opposition Members are already driving electric vehicles. Some of my hon. Friends have also expressed concern about that date. I am, as an electric car driver, investigating bringing that date forward, but we have to be considerate of the jobs in the supply chain in which there is already investment for the next period of production. As a responsible Government, unlike Members who just want to barrack over the Dispatch Box, we realise we have to balance these things in order to make them happen. I encourage everyone across the House to get an electric car. Range anxiety has now been tackled because there are now more charging locations than petrol stations in this country.
Nitrous oxides have fallen by over a quarter since 2010. We have reduced the use of single-use plastic bags by 90% since we took action on them. This year, for the first time ever in this country, we had over two weeks in which we burnt no coal to generate our energy. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will be phasing out those coal stations altogether by 2025. We are the country with the most offshore wind farms in the world. Opposition Members repeatedly talked about the Queen’s Speech containing only six words about the environment, but they seem to have forgotten that there is an entire Environment Bill, which will contain thousands of words and be the subject of hours of debate, quite rightly, as it is the first Environment Bill before the House for 30 years.
I want to cover some of the comments raised, many of which were very good. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) asked about the Office for Environmental Protection. Its role will be to provide scrutiny and advice, and to offer an up-to-date system for complaints. It will be the delivery mechanism for environmental law and will also enforce delivery.
Grant Shapps
I will not take an intervention as I have only three or four minutes to get through everybody else’s contributions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) asked what we have done to support renewable energy through incentives. Well, there is the £557 million on contracts for difference, the £900 million of public funds for innovation, the £177 million to reduce the costs of renewables, including innovation and offshore wind, and the £3 billion to support low-carbon innovation in the UK up to 2021. Madam Deputy Speaker, what have the Romans ever done for us?
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) asked about the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendations. The next steps of the national infrastructure assessment will be to agree on the Government’s programme.
Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about the speed at which we can move to a decarbonised transport economy. I disagree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) that simply decarbonising vehicles would do nothing. That is simply not true; we have already heard that 33% of all our CO2 comes from transport and 90% of that comes from vehicles, so it is clearly the case that decarbonising will make a very big difference, and that is not technology we have to wait for. The phrase she used was “scratch the surface”, which I disagree with; it would do far more than that.
A number of hon. Members talked passionately about the need to decarbonise our housing; as a former Housing Minister, I entirely agree. This Government are taking that very seriously, including through the ending of gas to power our homes, for example. As a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends mentioned, it is now perfectly possible to power a home without the need for any power input other than ground-source heating.
Grant Shapps
I will not give way. As I said, I only have a minute to deal with many colleagues’ contributions.
I do think that the way forward is to ensure that we build homes to a quality where we do not require external heating other than things such as solar water or ground-source heating.
The overall picture that was painted by some Members, during what I thought was an otherwise excellent debate, tended to go to the negatives. There are a lot of things to do, and this country and this Government have recognised them. Only today, the Prime Minister said that he will chair a Committee to tackle the issues—our first Cabinet Sub-Committee on climate change. Only yesterday, I published a decarbonisation plan for transport. I am not sure how many Opposition Members have read it, but it was difficult to get it published, because somebody was trying to chisel the front window of the Department for Transport.
I think the best contribution was from eight-year-old Poppy, who said that there is no planet B. We absolutely agree.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Morris.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 21 October.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Smith Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course it is important that young people’s voices are heard, and the urgency with which they make the case for change is compelling and attractive. However, it is also true that the Government have taken steps—indeed, steps have been taken by successive Governments, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in this regard—to ensure that we reduce emissions and play our part in the fight against climate change.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Ind)
Minette Batters, the highly respected president of the National Farmers Union, said last week that the impact of a no-deal Brexit would be “absolutely savage”. She added that:
“I cannot imagine how bad it would look…we’d see a long-term future of just bringing cheaper imports in”.
It is clear from her comments that she knows her farmers. I know my farmers, and I know that they are worried. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the Government will take no deal off the table?
Michael Gove
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her question. She is absolutely right: Minette Batters is an outstanding public servant as leader of the NFU. I also know from the hon. Lady’s consistent work in the House since her election that she is one of the strongest and most diligent advocates for rural Britain, and I entirely understand her concern. Indeed, when I had the chance to speak at the NFU conference earlier this week, I made the case that in the event of no deal, our food producers would face significant tariff and other barriers. That is why it is so important for everyone in the House, when the opportunity comes, to support the Prime Minister in ensuring that we get a deal that safeguards Britain’s interests and allows us to leave the European Union in an effective fashion.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Smith Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
The Government will introduce the necessary legislation to increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Angela Smith
Can the Minister confirm whether any DEFRA Minister, including the Secretary of State, has had any discussions on five-year sentencing with either the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip in order to secure parliamentary time for this measure?
David Rutley
A very active dialogue is going on to determine the right vehicle, involving the usual channels within the House; those conversations have taken place.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Angela Smith Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
A lot of work has already been done—including by Members of this House, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh)—to point out how we can have a frictionless border and avoid checks at the border, so that we can move out of the backstop and into a new trade agreement with the European Union.
Today the focus of this debate is principally, although not exclusively, on the environment and on workers’ protection. It is important to put on record the work that has been done across this House while we have been in the European Union to protect our environment and ensure that workers have a brighter future. However, it is also important to stress that this country has had ambitions higher than those required by our membership of the European Union—ambitions that have been fulfilled in a number of areas.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he was Secretary of State in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, introduced climate change legislation that was significantly more progressive and ambitious than what was required by our membership of the European Union. On plastic and waste, this Government are going further than we are required to do by the European Union, to ensure that we pay our debts to this planet. Look at workers’ rights, holiday rights, maternity leave, maternity pay and the national living wage. In every single one of those areas, our ambitions have been higher than required by the European Union.
It is not the case that membership of the European Union is necessary to safeguard our environment or to guarantee high-quality rights for workers. This agreement makes it clear that we will apply a non-regression principle when it comes to workers’ rights, to health and safety and to employment rights. That principle, which will be very similar to the one that occurs in many other trade deals, will ensure that there is no race to the bottom. The Government will also—this is in the withdrawal agreement—create an office of environmental protection to ensure that our environment is safeguarded and that appropriate principles that were developed during our time in the European Union, such as the precautionary principle, are applied in an appropriate way.
However, there is a critical distinction between what the withdrawal agreement allows us to do and what the EU insists that we do. The withdrawal agreement allows us to take back control. The office of environmental protection will scrutinise this Government’s or a future Government’s application of environmental principles, but the House will decide how those principles are interpreted. For example, if we want to put the emphasis on innovation in certain areas in a different way from the European Union but still strive towards high environmental goals, we can. We can have both higher levels of protection and, critically—this was the message of the referendum—democratic accountability, with power flowing back to this place and all its Members.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the forthcoming environment Bill will establish a legal right for citizens of this country to take the Government to court if they fail on environmental standards?
Michael Gove
Yes, absolutely. It is important that citizens have the right to access not just the courts but other means to ensure that environmental rights are protected. The creation of that new watchdog, which of course will be democratically accountable, will ensure that citizens do not have to go to court, but the Government and other public bodies will be held to account for their actions in safeguarding the environment.
Michael Gove
I quite understand, and I have enormous respect not only for the hon. Gentleman, but for the sincerity and clarity with which he and his parliamentary colleagues have put their views. I hope that over the next few days we can help to ensure that all the interests of Northern Ireland are safeguarded more effectively than ever within the United Kingdom. As I have pointed out, the backstop is uncomfortable for many of us, but it is also uniquely uncomfortable for the European Union, which is one of the many reasons why I think we will conclude a deal before that.
Angela Smith
I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in giving way. He talked about the sovereignty of British waters and about taking back control, but will he guarantee that in any negotiation for a trade deal with the European Union there will be no retaliation, and that the interests of the processing side of the fishing industry will not be sacrificed in return for sovereignty over British waters? The processing side is much bigger than the catching side, and it must not be sacrificed.
Michael Gove
That is a very fair point. Mr Scatterty, who represents seafood producers in Scotland, has been very clear about some of the opportunities presented by Brexit, but also about some of the other important points to be borne in mind.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I rise to speak as someone who voted remain in the 2016 referendum and I am astonished to find today’s debate has been dominated by the use of the word “compromise”, not because I do not agree with compromise but because for two and a half years we have had no sign of compromise, particularly from the Prime Minister—no attempt to reach out across the House, no attempt even to reach out across the Benches of her own party. So I am astonished suddenly to find, two and a half years later, that the deal on the table—the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration—is being presented to us and we are suddenly being told that we have to compromise. It seems to me that compromise has any meaning to the Prime Minister only when it relates to her deal and is on her terms.
I stand as somebody who did not vote for the article 50 Bill. As a result, I was accused in the media and by hard-line Brexiteers of being a traitor, but actually the reason I did not vote for the Bill was that I did not think that enough time had been given to building the necessary consensus across the House to make the process work. I believe that those of us who took that line have been proved correct.
I have repeatedly voted for amendments to legislation that want to deliver a deal that keeps the United Kingdom in the single market and the customs union. I am one of perhaps only 100 MPs who have done that repeatedly as legislation on Brexit has gone through the House. On every occasion, we were told that we were traitors to the cause of Brexit and denying the will of the people, but those votes were an attempt to compromise and to arrive at consensus on the best way forward, in the national interest and in line with the vote that was delivered in 2016.
Now, my colleagues and I on the remain side who do not like this deal are suddenly being told that we are on the extremes of the debate. There is nothing extreme about wanting to stay part of the largest trading bloc in the world, and there is nothing wrong or extreme about voting against a deal because it promises to make the country poorer.
The Prime Minister drew Brexiteer red lines around her negotiations, and because of that the deal before us includes a political declaration that gives no clear indication of the way forward for the long-term trading relationship. That means that if we get a new Prime Minister or another Brexit Minister in six months’ time, there will be no guarantee that we will not end up with a hard Brexit of the kind that could take about 7.6% off GDP. This is a blind Brexit, and it is impossible to listen to the language of compromise and to go along with it on the basis of a political declaration that gives us no clear shape for the way forward.
The problem is that the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations has effectively boxed the Government into a corner, with nowhere else to go. Parliament must not be intimidated or threatened. MPs who genuinely believe—not because of their ideology but because of a genuine belief—that the closest possible relationship with the European Union is the right way to go must be given the right to vote against this deal without threats or intimidation. That is really important.
If Parliament decides next week not to support the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, it is the responsibility of the Government, not Parliament, to present their plan B. In that context, it will be incumbent on the Government to start talking seriously to Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to establish the way forward.
My feeling, however, is that there will be no consensus, because of the Prime Minister’s approach, which has driven the Government into a corner, and because of her Brexiteer red lines. We are going to be in an impasse, and on that basis, the only way forward is to go back to the people for a people’s vote. Colleagues say that that denies the will of the people, but we now know what leave looks like. Two years ago, at the time of the referendum, we did not know that. We were presented with fantasy promises about what leave would look like, none of which has been delivered. The people therefore have the right to have the final say and to give their informed consent on whether this agreement should form the basis of our future relationship with Europe.
I say to those on the Government Front Bench that I will be voting against the agreement next week, but if, before the vote next Tuesday, the Prime Minister were to offer a people’s vote in the form of a final-say referendum, I would seriously consider voting for the motion on the basis of an amendment that would give us the referendum we are looking for. I do not think that the Government will do that, but it will be on the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s heads if they refuse to listen to the views of people in this House and refuse to understand that the people of this country want a final say. The polls are telling us that, and it is for this Parliament to listen to the people and go back to the people.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). He and I disagree on answers to Brexit, but no one can doubt his passion for his community and the causes that he champions. I wish to make a brief contribution in that spirit of conciliatory debate.
I wish mainly to speak to amendment (p), which I have tabled along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). We hope that our amendment is the start of a conversation: a process to understand that there are various things wrong with the Prime Minister’s deal that mean that we are unlikely to be able to support it next Tuesday—things that will probably not be resolved by next Tuesday. But whatever the result on Tuesday, it is the start and not the end of a process.
We as a Parliament have to be honest and up front with ourselves about where we go after Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, we are not suddenly going to have a magic answer coming from the rejection of the deal. We will see people who ardently advocate leaving on WTO terms with no deal going into the same Lobby as those who ardently want a second referendum with a remain option, and to campaign for remain. I am sorry to burst their bubbles, but one half of that unlikely coalition will be very disappointed in whatever we get out of Brexit as a result of our votes in this place.
The grown-up response is to look at the cross-party group—it exists, unfortunately, mainly on the Back Benches, not the Front Benches—who want to find a way of getting through this that does the least economic damage to our country but respects and understands that those who voted leave did so not because they were duped by words on the side of a bus, or because they were not clever enough to understand the Facebook ads put towards them, but because they had deep-seated anxieties about the inequalities that exist in this country. The amendment would, I hope, start that conversation.
For me, as a Labour and Co-operative party member, and someone who has worked in the trade union movement, how we protect and enshrine workers’ rights in future is fundamental to the sort of country we want to be. A number of those rights have been derived from Europe, but we must be honest about the fact that a number of rights that Europe now holds up as a bastion of its good practice came from work done by the United Kingdom in the first place, by driving those changes through Europe and providing the bar that everybody else needs to reach.
We must protect those rights and ensure that we do not regress or water them down once we leave the European Union. Any new changes from Europe must be considered by this place, and once we have brought back sovereignty, we will choose whether to adopt them. My argument will be that we should adopt all such measures and continue in step with Europe, because in my opinion any change or improvement to environmental standards, consumer protections or workers’ rights is a good thing.
Gareth Snell
I am afraid I will not. Everyone else has had their time, so I will carry on.
It is important to find a mechanism that protects those rights, and does not kick the can down the road with another referendum, or simply add procedure and stop talking about the people. Too much of this debate—we saw this yesterday on both sides of the House with tedious and continual points of order—has been about a point of process that does not progress the debate further, or resolve the fundamental issues that are important to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent, and those of hon. Members across the House.
At some point in this Parliament we must decide what we are for—not what we are against, or what we wish to rehash or reargue, but what we are for. I wish that the conversations I was privileged to have this week with Government and Opposition Front-Bench speakers had taken place two years ago. I wish that the Government and those on the Labour Front-Bench had got together after the general election to try to hash out some sort of plan. Such a plan would not have pleased everybody or given them what they wanted, but we need a pragmatic approach to find a way of healing the country, bringing forward the things we know are important, and delivering a Brexit referendum outcome that does not do economic damage to our country. We must ensure that people who voted leave, and those who voted remain, feel that they have a stake in the future of our country.
My frustration with this process is, and continues to be, that we appear to be moving away from a pragmatic middle and towards two extremes. Those who do not support a second referendum are labelled as hard Brexiteers who wish to sell their country down the river, and those—like many of my colleagues—who hold the principled position that we should have a second referendum are an affront to democracy. Neither of those things is true, but at some point we must face facts and understand that the country voted to leave—albeit marginally—and our job as parliamentarians is to work out how we take that forward and bring everybody together. The amendment that I have tabled is one way of achieving that unity. It by no means solves everything, and it will not remove a number of the concerns that I still have about the vote on Tuesday, but if we can use it as a starting point after that vote, I hope we will have achieved something better.
Fisheries Bill
Angela Smith ExcerptsWednesday 21st November 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson).
I speak as a former shadow Fisheries Minister, a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and someone who—as some Members who are present already know—grew up in Grimsby. I remember it as a bustling fishing port when I was a girl; moreover, it was the biggest in the world at that time. I remember the numerous trawlers in the docks, and the sense of pride among workers who were doing something that they knew was incredibly important: providing the nation with one of its favourite foods.
However, I also remember the decline that followed the so-called final cod war with Iceland. The devastation that it wreaked both economically and socially was vivid. I was a teenager at the time, but I remember areas, particularly around the docks—such as Freeman Street and East Marsh—suffering disastrous consequences. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) will refer to that later. Gone, too, are many of the food processing plants that lined Ladysmith Road. Findus has gone. Birds Eye has gone, no longer anchored by the town’s status as one of the greatest food towns in Europe.
It is my witness of this decline, and the fact that my father was, for a period, a deep-sea fisherman—fishing off the coast of Iceland, at Reykjavik—that gives me an understanding of why our coastal towns and fishing communities matter more than their contribution to our national GDP would suggest. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all those who died serving the fishing industry. In Grimsby, every time a trawler went down or men were washed overboard—that was the commonest cause of death—the children in their primary schools would repeat the “Fisherman’s Prayer” and sing “The Fisherman’s Hymn”. It was all too common, particularly in the 1950s, for those children to have to sing that hymn and say that prayer.
Let me now deal with the Bill. I have a number of concerns about it. First, the Government’s stated aspiration is to develop “world leading fisheries”. Clause 1 sets out how this would be developed, including objectives such as creating a sustainable industry. We would all support that, but, unfortunately, the light-touch duties placed on the authorities potentially undermine the delivery of those aspirations. For example, while the Bill rightly contains an ambitious objective to ensure that all harvested stocks are recovered to, or maintained at, a biomass above that capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the Bill places no duty on regulatory authorities to ensure that fishing pressure is managed in a way that delivers on that objective.
We have to ask whether the Government are really committed to restoring stocks, or whether they will put political pressures first, at the expense of the science and the data available. There is a history of those pressures leading to that kind of over-exploitation of our stocks, not just in our waters, but throughout the waters of the European Union.
Secondly, there are concerns in relation to our marine environmental regulations. The fisheries White Paper acknowledged concerns about a possible “governance gap” which could threaten accountability for the implementation of the regulations. It also suggested— as have consultations on the proposed environmental principles and governance Bill—that a new independent environmental regulator should have a role in relation to the marine environment. As things stand, this Bill is opaque about how the forthcoming environment Bill will protect our marine environment and how the “governance gap” will be closed. Clarifications of those issues would be welcome as the Bill proceeds, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them when he winds up the debate.
Clause 28 will give new powers to introduce financial schemes to promote sustainable growth and to improve the marine and aquatic environment. They will replace existing powers and allow new funding schemes to replace funding currently received under the European maritime and fisheries fund. However, as the clause is currently drafted, those grant-making powers do not reference clause 1’s sustainability objectives, such as an ecosystem-based approach. That strikes me as rather strange and concerning, and, again, I would welcome clarification. I understand that the fisheries statement will reference clause 1 and the powers will come under the remit of the statement, but clarification would be welcome.
My final point relates to the very important fact that the fishing industry is not just about the catching side; there is still a very important processing and aquaculture industry alongside it, most of which, unsurprisingly, is based in or nearby fish-landing towns such as Grimsby and Immingham. Indeed, 21% of the industry is in Yorkshire and the Humber. It is an important provider of jobs in those areas, and for my home town of Grimsby, it is still an important source of employment, with some 4,200 jobs dependent on the sector. These processing plants also export much of their product into the EU, in a market worth £1.3 billion, where we still enjoy a trade surplus. It is therefore vital in the drive to create world-leading fisheries that processing is not forgotten, as so far it has been in this debate. Full tariff-free access to the single market must be retained for the industry.
Mr John Hayes
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about processing, and it also requires concentration on productivity, investment in technology and making sure our processing industry is as competitive as possible. I hope that can be debated during our deliberations on the Bill and included in the Government’s objectives.
Angela Smith
I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Grimsby makes some of the very best premium products in the world. One of the local fish-finger producing plants can take the fish from the moment it has landed at Immingham and have it in the lorry going to the supermarket in six hours. One of the reasons why that is possible, and why the time from the moment of departure from Iceland to getting the product in the shops is concertinaed into a minimum, is the single market. That fish is as fresh as possible and those products are as good as they are because the single market has made it possible to ensure guaranteed standards while at the same time maximising productivity.
Angela Smith
I am not going to give way again as many Members wish to speak.
Any failure to secure access to the single market, such as by sacrificing our access to the market in return for keeping access to our waters broadly to ourselves, will represent a betrayal and could decimate processing in areas where the jobs and economic activity it provides are vital. I am convinced that the processing side of the industry, which accounts for 64% of the employment in the sector, will not want its interests to be sacrificed on the grounds that we will give no, or very limited, access to our waters to foreign vessels.
We now have a withdrawal agreement on the table alongside the political statement, giving something of an indication of the direction of travel. This political statement, however, gives only the faintest glimmer of what will happen after the transition period, which is not good enough, particularly so far as fisheries are concerned. It is also true that this Bill, like the Agriculture Bill, is enabling and contains a number of Henry VIII powers. Like others in this Chamber, I worry about the use of this mechanism given the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny that accompanies the use of statutory instruments. I therefore hope the Government will think more carefully about this Bill and allow it to be amended to ensure it gives greater clarity on the direction of travel of our fishing industry.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I wish to begin my remarks by thanking Associated British Ports in Grimsby for its annual remembrance service, which remembers the Grimsby fishermen on 375 wrecked trawlers that were used as minesweepers in world war one. This week, divers discovered 307 of those that were lost, which have been sitting at the bottom of the sea for the past 100 years. There is a short video about it on the BBC news website. I also thank the Fishermen’s Mission for its continued support for fishermen and their families in Grimsby and for organising the annual lost fishermen’s memorial, which is much appreciated by the community in Grimsby.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has returned to his seat, because he concluded his comments with his usual flourishing rhetoric. Although that might suit his populist aims, I ask him for a little caution. The promises of the leave campaign followed similar lines, promising communities like mine not so much a land of milk and honey as a sea of cod and haddock.
The Library briefing shows that landings in Grimsby have now reduced to around 4,000 tonnes of shellfish. Tackling my town’s health inequalities, education attainment levels, underinvestment in the public realm, low wages and high unemployment—things that would demonstrate that positive change is coming to my town—surely cannot come from just the two additional trawlers that fishermen have told me they expect to be able to afford to add post Brexit. Surely those two trawlers are not going to change the fortunes of my town, solving years of complex issues of underinvestment and a sense of limited opportunity locally. If the Secretary of State wants to tell me otherwise. I would be grateful to hear him. There needs to be a sense of realism in this debate, rather than leading people down a false road.
I also hope the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to read the responses to the White Paper from Andrew Marr International Ltd, Peter & J. Johnstone Ltd and UK Fisheries Ltd, all organisations that play an essential role in the local Grimsby community. They provide employment in the community and in the fishing industry, investing in vessels and contributing to the country’s economy, as well as its dinner plates.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who has returned just at the right time, about the importance of the processing sector to my town. It employs some 5,000 people doing everything, from those working in the fish market to those working on the auctions, to the independent traders who take the product around the country and to the filleters, packers, accountants, logisticians, managers and so much more. We really should hear more of their voices in this debate.
The Bill says that fishery and aquaculture products will not be included in a customs arrangement unless there is agreement between the EU and the UK on access to waters and fishing opportunities. Trawler operators in Grimsby have expressed concern to me that it is precisely because of the value of the catch and the benefit to those EU nations’ economies that there is such a desire to keep the two so closely tied. For vessels that are based in the UK and land in the UK, there is little that can persuade them that there is any need to keep the lines of communication and good-natured trading relationships open, but as Grimsby has the benefit of both pelagic and distance fleet interests, particularly in landing, storage and processing, there is a bit of a conflict. The Government must consider carefully the whole UK fleet in all its sizes and purposes.
Where there is commonality, it largely comes through the hard work of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which has taken a realistic and pragmatic view, with the benefit of knowing all levels of the industry well. The NFFO says it accepts that the sustainability of fish and fishing is important—of course if there are no fish, there is no fishing—and it is open to improving further the relationships with science and the broader industry, supporting a review of the quota system and advocating for an adaptive, responsive fisheries policy.
My time has run short very quickly. Concerns have been raised about the Bill, and the current framing provides for east coast vessels to fish in Scottish waters, but it still empowers Marine Scotland to provide the rules under which they fish. The Bill does not give any detail of what that will mean in practice, and there is concern that conditions may be placed on activity that cause unnecessary disadvantage due to issues such as the subtle differences in activity or in the place of landing. It is envisaged that there will be a memorandum of understanding among the devolved nations to agree a template for fishing management activities, but MOUs are not legally binding and can be withdrawn from at any time.
Angela Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is too little detail in this Bill that gives us any idea of certainty in the future?
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Smith Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend raises an issue of great concern to many. One of the things that we are doing is consulting religious communities and others to establish what changes, if any, may be required.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
There is a fairly simple way of ensuring that this measure is implemented: introducing and then supporting a private Member’s Bill. Will the Secretary of State support any Member who introduces such a Bill?
Michael Gove
That decision is above my pay grade—it would be made by the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House—but, as I indicated to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), I am passionately keen to see an end to animal cruelty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the environment, especially in Cheltenham. He will be conscious that this is not a straightforward scheme to introduce. I recognise that many people will have seen such a scheme in other countries around the world, and while the front end is very simple, the back end is more challenging. We want a system that works across the four nations of the United Kingdom, and we are continuing to work on that.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I received a copy of that report just this week. The Dogs Trust does fantastic work. We have worked with it already on dealing with some of the problems of puppy farming, and once we leave the EU—when I hope we will be a listed country for pet travel—we can also review other steps that we might take.
Sale of Puppies
Angela Smith Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. In addition to the worthy organisations that he has just read out, a group of MPs came to the same conclusion back in 2016, when the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs unanimously supported a report—
Chris Davies
I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that we should have reached a conclusion, and I am sure she has changed her mind since.
Martyn Day
Indeed. I shall make a similar point later. We cannot compare the seeking out and purchasing of a puppy or any family pet to love with the purchasing of arms, ammunition or drugs on the dark net, as some do. It is a completely different ball game.
A ban was in fact recommended to the Government in a 2014 e-petition debate, by the EFRA Committee in 2016, as we heard, and more recently by the manifesto of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Sadly, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ignored all three calls and favoured a licensing regime instead. Notably, however, a Lucy’s law is also supported by the Institute of Licensing.
Angela Smith
For the record, about four or five members of the EFRA Committee voted against those particular recommendations of the 2016 report. As everyone knows, we need an ethical marketplace for the breeding and sale of puppies. Demand far outstrips supply in the UK. Surely, if any such measure were to work—it would be a dramatic measure—it would need to be underpinned by the proper regulation of rehoming organisations and by fully transparent registration and licensing of all organisations that breed or sell dogs. That is not what we have at the moment.
Martyn Day
I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I shall come on to many of those points as my speech develops, addressing them in turn.
Martyn Day
I have no problem in supporting that call. It is about a measure of packages; the Lucy’s law ban is the single biggest step towards animal welfare, but other things have to be done, too.
Enforcement action against illegal sellers can be undertaken and shared by various agencies. Illegal activity can be more efficiently tackled at a regional and national level.
What are the consequences? We have discussed many of the positive outcomes for animal welfare that a ban would achieve, so I hope hon. Members will find it helpful for me to address some of the concerns about potential consequences. First, let us deal with enforcement, which has been mentioned a few times. Enforcement is demonstrably more effective against illegal traders. Illegal trading is easier to prove and enables a more definitive and conclusive result, as evidenced by successful past prosecutions against illegal puppy dealers.
A partial ban on third-party puppy sales already exists, because the activity is illegal unless the seller holds a pet shop licence. If a seller is operating illegally, enforcement agencies have a mandate to investigate and prosecute. Licensing, on the other hand, effectively protects sellers if they appear to meet licence conditions, which are basic minimum standards, irrespective of additional welfare issues.
Angela Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the recently reviewed licensing regulations represent a really serious attempt to significantly improve sale licensing standards? The sector has been grappling for years with enforcement problems by local authorities and the police. Resources are at the heart of the matter. Without resources, any new law will be meaningless.
Martyn Day
The hon. Lady makes a good point about resources. I am not disputing all the good work that has been put into licensing. However, a ban is simply much more effective and more cost-effective to introduce and police.
One of the points raised was about driving the trade underground. Trade can survive underground only if it has a sufficient market. But, unlike sellers of drugs and guns, commercial third-party sales of puppies are wholly dependent upon advertising to attract its customers. Although we commonly see and hear images and videos of puppies being smuggled and trafficked illegally, their route to market must be easily detectable if the ordinary member of the public is able to obtain the product overground, and it must be legal for them to be sold.
If third-party sellers are unable to utilise mainstream advertising channels, puppy buyers would continue to purchase from the most obvious and accessible sources, rather than deliberately seeking out illegal suppliers. The easier it becomes for people to buy puppies responsibly, the more likely they are to follow that path. Research has shown that prospective purchasers almost always aspire to making ethical and responsible choices. As they would have access to puppies from legitimate breeders, they would have no need to seek out illegally operating dealers. By comparison, if third-party sellers continued to be legitimate and licensed, there may be no means for buyers to discriminate between adverts placed by breeders and those placed by dealers. The continued existence of a legal third-party sector would also mask and provide a framework for the illegal trade.
It is worth noting that, if a ban were in place, online purchases from puppy sellers would always have to involve a final transaction, at which the pup must be seen with its mum in the place it was born. True online sales involve a delivery—that is, a third-party sale. As I mentioned, selling animals as a business is already illegal without a pet shop licence, so there is no “gaping loophole” through which a dealer could pose as a rehoming or rescue centre. Under a ban or a licensing regime, concealing commercial activity would be fraud and tax evasion as well as an animal welfare concern, so it would be far easier to police.
It has been suggested that there are too few responsible breeders in the UK to meet the demand for puppies. One of the primary requirements of a good breeder is that they enable puppies to be seen with their mother. There is no evidence to suggest that too few breeders meet that basic requirement. Furthermore, the suggestion that any deficit in supply would inevitably be met by unscrupulous breeders and sellers—either legal or illegal— is not pragmatic. That is a defeatist approach and an acceptance that the law cannot protect dogs in the commercial trade. I do not think we want to see that.
What owners really demand is a physically and mentally healthy puppy, not just any puppy. Banning the third-party sale of dogs may be a catalyst for changing expectations, so that buyers are able to buy a responsibly bred puppy from a legitimate breeder rather than having a huge range of puppies available to purchase immediately from indiscriminate sources.
The apparently inflated demand for certain fashionable breeds, such as the French bulldog, may be artificial. Puppies are being purchased simply because they are available for sale. A market that is saturated with cheap, readily available puppies by third-party dealers is likely to encourage impulse purchasing and significantly reduce demand for more responsibly bred puppies. Removing competition from irresponsible breeders and sellers would increase the market for responsible breeders, so a ban most likely would increase the number of responsibly bred puppies. Even breeders who previously sold through third parties would meet the baseline criterion for a responsible breeder—that puppies can be seen with their mum in the place they were born. I have said that a few times, and it is fundamental to the debate.
Requiring all dog breeders to sell their puppies directly would result in more responsible breeding and purchasing behaviour, as there would be no chain to confuse or cloud the process. Third-party sellers are only a distribution channel, which prevents buyers from witnessing breeding dogs and their conditions, so a ban would not need to affect the number of puppies that are bred. Lucy’s law is vital to any attempt to reform dog breeding and improve welfare. It is clear that if no attempt is made to restrict the legal market for puppies to responsible breeders, measures to improve dog welfare—those to do with genetic and breed-related health, breeding, rearing and selling practices—are unlikely to succeed.
That brings me to the question of why robust licensing is not an alternative. It is impossible to ensure the welfare of puppies sold through third parties by imposing robust licensing that still permits the activity to take place. As I explained, the process of puppies being sold by third parties is inherently damaging, so the aim of protecting animals from harm by licensing could not be met even if licence conditions were adhered to. If the welfare of animals sold under the licensing regime were little better than those sold illegally, regulation of the trade would not offer any real benefits.
Licensing third-party sellers would also fail to tackle welfare problems prior to sale, including in breeding establishments. A sufficiently robust regime of licensing and inspection would probably deter unscrupulous sellers from applying for a licence, so it would not prevent that part of the trade from going underground. It is considered possible that third-party dealers may attempt to masquerade as rescue centres under a ban. That would be equally possible under a robust licensing regime.
There is no evidence to suggest that a robust regime of licensing and inspection would be any easier or cheaper to implement than a ban. Enforcement of a ban would involve only detecting illegal activity and implementing sanctions against those engaged in it. Enforcement of a robust licensing regime would in addition involve monitoring businesses’ compliance, which would require highly trained inspectors and multiple site visits. The Government’s objective is to reduce rather than increase the regulatory burden for small businesses and local authorities. That does not fit comfortably with imposing and enforcing detailed, mandatory model conditions.
Leaving the EU: Fisheries Management
Angela Smith Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that one of the great prizes of Britain leaving the European Union is taking back control of our territorial waters. That is why we must maintain our eyes on that great prize at the end of this process.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I am the daughter of a man who was a member of the Grimsby deep-sea fishing fleet in the late 1950s, so I know that it is one of the hardest jobs in the world. That does not stop me understanding, however, that the processing side of the industry is incredibly important to coastal communities such as Grimsby and Peterhead. On that basis, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the processing side of the fishing industry will not be sacrificed to other priorities in trade deal negotiations?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I have had productive talks with representatives of fish processing organisations, and we absolutely appreciate that they have specific demands on both access to other markets and labour. We respect their demands and will do everything possible to help them achieve them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Angela Smith Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
This Government have taken strong action on banning microplastics from certain products. We are still waiting for the other nations, but they have committed to making sure that that happens by June as well. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Arctic ice, this is indeed a global matter. That is why we work hard with other nations through different forums, whether the OSPAR Commission on the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, the G7, other agencies such as the United Nations, or of course our Commonwealth countries, which will be visiting the UK next month for the summit.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Our approach to future environment policy was set out in our recently published 25-year environment plan; our approach to future agriculture policy was published in our consultation last week; and our approach to trade negotiations with the EU was outlined in a speech by the Prime Minister last week. All these policies are being developed at the same time.
Angela Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that there should be a common framework for environmental standards across the whole United Kingdom after Brexit?
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady will be aware, through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we are initially bringing across all existing EU legislation as it pertains to the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also outlined plans for a new environmental body, and we are in discussion with the devolved Administrations about their involvement and a UK framework in these matters.