Ukraine

Debate between Bob Seely and Luke Pollard

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention. The shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I were in Kosovo only a few months ago, where we witnessed the effects of the horrible sexual violence that was used as a weapon of war. The determination of the international community then was that it would never be repeated, but it has been in conflicts ever since. We need to make sure that not only is the evidence collected, but the victims are given the support that they will need, in many cases, for the rest of their lives. As we made it clear that killing civilians will not be countenanced, so we make it clear that using rape and sexual assault as a weapon of war will not be countenanced. We will come after those people as well.

[Bob Seely]

In the Syrian war, the Russians and their Syrian allies targeted hospitals as primary targets. Does the hon. Member agree it is regrettable that at the time we did not say and do more and that the international community did not say and do more to hold responsible those senior army officers who were responsible for the deliberate targeting of hospitals, which is one of the most basic breaches of the Geneva conventions?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, and I do tend to agree with him. As a country, we need to take stock of the freedom that Putin has been given over many years—not just in Syria or parts of the countries bordering his country, but in Crimea—because the tactics the Russians are using in Ukraine now have been perfected over many years and the space the international community has given him to do that has encouraged the use of many of those tactics. We need to look carefully at how we stand up for such individuals in the future, but we will do that by standing firmly with the people of Ukraine at this time. I will make some progress before I give way again.

It is clear that Vladimir Putin is a bully. His partial mobilisation announcements along with his sham referendums to illegally annex large swathes of Ukraine are shameless. They are a cynical attempt to justify a war that has gone badly wrong for Russia. We should view partial mobilisation as weakness—an attempt to hide the fact that, so far, Russian strategy has failed, weapons have failed, command and control has failed, and none of Russia’s war objectives has been met. Putin’s latest miscalculation will lead to more Russian families losing their sons, more Ukrainians being killed and more suffering. The mobilised forces sent to Ukraine will be on the receiving end of high-end western weaponry, and a determined and morally just Ukrainian military defending every inch of its country. In these circumstances, with the poorly equipped Russian conscripts facing cold weather, it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing so many reports of desertion and troops being unwilling to fight. That means Putin will, I regret, resort to more and more fear to try to achieve his objectives.

Environment Bill

Debate between Bob Seely and Luke Pollard

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

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention; I know he always listens carefully to my speeches on this subject, and his question is a good one. We are facing a bit of a planning crisis. I am concerned that the developers’ charter that has been set out by the Government regarding planning on one side of Government practice does not fit neatly with what is being proposed in this Bill, on this side of Government practice.

If we are to have the expansion in a free-for-all for development that is being proposed by one Government Department, it is hard to see how that fits with the biodiversity protections on another side of Government. I would like them to gel together, because I want developers to provide the more affordable homes, the zero-carbon homes and the low-carbon homes that we need in all our constituencies. To do that, we need to send a clear message to them about how biodiversity is to be built into the planning system. Where, for instance, is the requirement for swift bricks to be built into new developments—building nature into them? Where is the requirements to have hedgehog holes in some of the fences, as we have seen from some developers?

There are an awful lot of good interventions on biodiversity and planning that create not unnecessary red tape or cost, but an environment where we can build nature into our new planning system. At the moment, I am concerned that those two things do not match together, which is why we want to see biodiversity much more integrated into the planning system. If I am honest, I think Government Members also want that to happen, which is why the planning reforms proposed in the Queen’s Speech do not fit with this Bill and why there is such concern.

[Bob Seely]

These are good individual ideas, but the problem is actually a much wider one. If we do not have a recycling culture in housing and planning, we are just going to use lots of greenfield sites. Doing so would damage not only our environment, but our communities; we would be doing social damage by leaving brownfield sites undeveloped. We need to start taxing greenfield sites and doing radical stuff, so that we get joined-up Government and use that money massively to clear the way for developing brownfield sites. That is what we need to be doing—not just putting in nice little bee bricks, as important as they are.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am a big fan of bee bricks as well as swift bricks. I fear that his intervention was aimed more at the Government than at me. I hope that the Minister will be listening carefully to her own Back Benchers, because, whether she agrees with the words of the Opposition or not, we need a bolder Environment Bill. We need it to be better joined up across Government because we are not there yet.

DEFRA was at the heart of Government when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was in charge, but it has lost its way. It has lost its va va voom. It is now dominated by a bland and dreary managerialism. Where is the energy and drive needed to tackle the climate crisis? The Department has a lot of decent junior Ministers—one of them is opposite me now—but I think it has lost its way. This Bill is okay. It is passable. It is a bit “meh”. But it is not landmark. Indeed, it is deliberately not a landmark Bill.

I say to the Minister: look carefully at Labour’s amendments and please let us work together to get this Bill back on track. I agree with her on the need for bold action; I just do not think that this Bill delivers it. If we are properly to address the climate and ecological crisis, we need more, bolder and decisive action than I am afraid this Bill includes.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Bob Seely and Luke Pollard

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

Q Can I ask one final, quick question, since we have your expertise in front of us? You said that the Bill says “not commonly domesticated”. One of the areas we looked is whether the word should be “commonly” or “normally”. Is there a legal difference between those two aspects, given that you are looking for legal certainty?

Mike Radford: They are not terms of legal art; it would be for a court to decide. On certainty, Ms McManus talked about the racing camels. We go to our local agricultural show every year, 20 miles north of Inverness. Two or three years ago there were racing camels there. I assume that they were on a tour. They would not normally have been regarded as a circus performance, or circus undertaking; it was a troupe of camels. Again, Parliament needs to decide whether there is an ethical argument for the ban, and that is a matter of judgment. If there is, it then needs to make very clear definitions in the legislation of the animals and the context. Otherwise, it is going to be a mess.

[Mr Seely]

Q I shall try to ask three brief questions, because I know that other colleagues want to come in and we have less than 20 minutes. To put it crudely, what is wrong with keeping a camel, a zebra or a raccoon if in the same circus there are horses, and also if we as a society raise chickens and pigs, frankly in what are sometimes quite cruel circumstances, and then just eat them at the end of it?

Mike Radford: I am here as a lawyer, not as an ethicist or scientist, but it is clearly open to society to make a judgment and decide that all those are unacceptable, some are unacceptable or none is unacceptable. So far as wild or non-domesticated animals in circuses are concerned, my understanding is that there is a view, which seems to be shared in Parliament and among certain elements of the public, that it is no longer acceptable, time has moved on and non-domesticated animals should not be used for performance and entertainment in this way.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Bob Seely and Luke Pollard

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Seely]

Q We have a fantastic zoo on the Island, which has some tigers that came from fairly horrible travelling circuses. I understand that the conditions they have now are much better than the conditions they had then. We know that there is a strong case for not having wild animals in circuses; are you saying there is enough of a gap between how well circuses treated animals and how well zoos treat animals, so we do not have the same problems letting animals be themselves in zoos? Does that question make sense? Do you see what I am trying to get at? Do zoos meet the required standard for caring and looking after animals compassionately, especially regarding the space arguments?

Dr Ros Clubb: I think they have the facilities to do so far more than a circus does, because of the fact that they are permanent. I do not think that applies in zoos in their entirety—they very much vary across facilities—but they certainly have the ability to meet the animals’ needs much more than a travelling circus.

Daniella Dos Santos: An environment that is more permanent can be better adapted to meet an animal’s welfare needs than an environment that is constantly on the move. To pick up on the earlier point about the challenge that not everyone agrees, following a public consultation after Scotland introduced its Act, 98% of respondents backed the ban in Scotland, which is quite a large percentage of the public.

[Luke Pollard]

Q After the Second Reading debate when we talked about the 19 wild animals, I had a message from someone that asked, “Are they going to be destroyed or rehomed? What about the fox—how do you rehome a fox?” That was an interesting question because it showed that as a nation of animal lovers, we are concerned about what will happen to those 19 animals. Currently there is no provision in the Bill that prevents animals from being destroyed if taken off their owners. Is that something that you think is necessary, or are you sure that there are enough good homes out there for the zebus, zebras and raccoons, so they can be rehomed in a safe and decent way?

Dr Ros Clubb: The RSPCA has offered many times to help to rehome the wild animals that are currently used. We reiterate that offer. We do not believe that there would be a need to put any animals to sleep. Obviously, we are as concerned as members of the public about the fate of those animals. We feel they should be rehomed, and our concern is that they will continue to travel with the circus but not made to perform. From a welfare perspective, we have real concerns about their being put through regular transport, being kept in temporary accommodation and all the other issues we have with that.