Water Companies: Executive Bonuses
Claire Hanna Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Pow
I am going to carry on for a bit.
Ensuring that our regulators are fit for purpose, to enforce our new regime, is absolutely crucial. With that in mind, we have increased the Environment Agency’s overall grant-in-aid funding by over 40% and capital funding by 80% since 2010. We have also provided an extra £2.2 million per year specifically for water company enforcement activity. In May we did even more: we provided £11.3 million of funding increase to Ofwat to treble its enforcement activity, because both EA and Ofwat have enforcement powers. In June, in recognition of the urgency of action, Ofwat approved a further £2.2 billion of accelerated infrastructure, which included £1.7 billion of investment, in reducing sewage discharges, including a major project to reduce sewage discharges in Lake Windermere.
The shadow Minister mentioned automatic fines. That idea would backfire, because if the regulators found evidence of criminal misdemeanours, it would prevent them from going through the courts and we would effectively end up with even higher fines. So the system of automatic fines would not work, but we have just brought in our unlimited penalties for the environment, so the regulators could use that option, but we still need the option for them to go to the courts if necessary.
Rebecca Pow
I will talk about stronger regulation now. We are bringing in even tougher regulations than ever before to hold water companies to account. In the summer, Ofwat confirmed new plans to ensure that customers no longer fund executive bonus payments where companies have not met Ofwat’s expectation on environmental performance. Using new powers granted to Ofwat by this Government in the landmark Environment Act 2021, Ofwat announced in March that it will take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to environmental performance. As I said, we have also legislated to bring in unlimited penalties on water companies that breach their environmental permits. The changes will provide the Environment Agency with the tools it needs to hold water companies to account.
Claire Hanna
The Minister may be aware of the evolving environmental catastrophe in Lough Neagh, which is the largest lake in these islands and a key biodiversity asset for Northern Ireland. It is dying in front of our eyes because of blue-green algal bloom related to agricultural run-off and sewage discharge from Northern Ireland Water, which is entirely Government owned. In that context, does she agree with me that Northern Ireland desperately needs an independent environment agency, to try to reconcile the competing priorities of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—DEFRA’s sister Department in Northern Ireland—which is responsible for both swelling agricultural assets and protecting the environment? Clearly, in this context the environment is being failed.
Rebecca Pow
I have heard about this incident. I refer DAERA to our plans on water to see how we are tackling such issues. Farming is a big cause of some of the pollution. We have launched our slurry infrastructure grant and a range of measures to work with farmers to cut down that pollution, so lessons could be shared.
Protection of Dark Skies
Claire Hanna Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
A large number of Northern Ireland Members are present tonight; I ask Members please not to let anyone make a joke about us being unenlightened!
For many years there was a stunning murmuration of starlings in south Belfast. It was quite something to be seen from Albert Bridge, which I used to cross every evening as I walked home to Woodstock Road. They used to come from across the city and beyond, but after some planning changes we noticed that they had all but disappeared, apparently because of a change in lighting. Along with others, I have worked with the authorities, and we were able to make a few relatively minor changes involving blinkers on some lights and filters on street lights. Since then, we have seen the return of some of the starlings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that understanding the issue and, perhaps, minor planning changes will constitute a big part of protecting nature?
Duncan Baker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Later in my speech, I will come to some of the practical measures that are being taken by planning authorities. Many are leading the way in being able to put together sensitive ways of dealing with light pollution, and in 15 or 20 minutes Members will be able to hear about some of those things that are being done by authorities around the country.
Darkness is not only essential to the health and wellbeing of people; it is equally important to wildlife. A huge variety of animals need darkness for feeding, for migration, or even simply to rest. I shall say more about that shortly. As humans, we need sleep to recharge and maintain good physical and mental health, and so do animals. We are probably all aware of the effects of a bad night’s sleep on the rest of our day, and after several days without sleep the symptoms worsen. The same effects are seen in our wildlife, and they are exacerbated by the increase in light pollution.
Earlier this year, a group of international scientists estimated that light pollution is increasing globally by approximately 10% every year, and has been doing so for at least the past 12 years. That is an incredible rise in a pollutant that has gone pretty much unchecked, despite concerns being raised since the 1970s by astronomers whose ability to glimpse the outer reaches of our solar system has become obscured. More recently, environmentalists trying to protect nocturnal species such as invertebrates and bats have been pointing to light as a major issue in the pressures on ecology.
Light pollution, as defined by the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, refers to artificial light that alters the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosystems. Artificial light is of course very useful, allowing us to recreate some semblance of daylight during the hours of darkness. It creates a sense of safety as we travel, and allows work to continue long after sunset. As with everything, however, too much light, and in particular too much poor use of light, is becoming a block to our ability to meeting commitments to save energy, reduce costs and rescue biodiversity. The solutions are relatively simple, unlike those involving other pollutants. Once we remove light, the pollutant is gone; there is no lengthy clean-up operation, the results are immediate, and positive changes can happen literally overnight.
Our dark skies are under threat. We long ago lost the ability to see the Milky Way with the naked eye from where the majority of us live in the UK. This marvel of the edge of our galaxy greeted stargazers on every clear night for generations, stretching across the sky, but unfortunately sky glow, caused by light pointing and reflecting into the atmosphere, has restricted that vision to a handful of places in the country. We have become so accustomed to not seeing the Milky Way that many assume it is restricted to professional astronomers, which I think everyone would agree is a real shame.
The Commission for Dark Skies, set up by the British Astronomical Association in 1989, has been warning of this loss of stars and campaigning to raise awareness and secure better lighting to bring back the views that are still out there. CPRE, the countryside charity, runs an annual star count, asking citizen scientists to count the stars in the constellation Orion. This year it discovered that only one in 20 participants had a clear view of our starry skies. However, it is not just amateur astronomers who are suffering; earlier this year, the Royal Astronomical Society published research showing that three quarters of major global observatories are affected by light pollution. This impact is limiting scientific productivity, and reducing the useful lifetime of those incredibly advanced observatories.
Astronomers are not the only ones who are hampered by light pollution. There is now a substantial body of evidence that shows that artificial light impacts on living things. It is altering behaviour, it is changing the physical development of species and, in some cases, it is causing death. When we consider how the natural world has evolved on a series of dark and light cycles, it is not surprising that nature suffers when we alter those cycles by extending daylight and removing darkness. Whereas humans are quick to adapt and use technology to great effect, animals and plants are not so quick to respond to rapid rises in artificial light. They simply cannot keep pace. The majority of animals are active either entirely or partially at night, yet our focus is almost always directed to the daytime species. It is important not to forget the things we do not often see.
Invertebrates, for instance, appear to be disproport-ionately affected by light pollution. As we all know, our smallest creatures are vital to a balanced ecosystem, carrying out important services such as pollination, pest control, creating soils and filtering water. Unfortunately, they are suffering significant decline from a range of sources, and we must now do what we can to relieve the burden we are placing on them.
A seminal paper from researchers in the UK found that local populations of moth caterpillars are reduced by 52% due to exposure to streetlights. German researchers have estimated that a third of all insects attracted to lights die as a consequence, either through collision, increased predation or simply exhaustion. We see insects out of sync with their natural cycle, emerging too early from their hibernation or larval stage and missing the flowering of food plants. We see evidence that pollination rates are reduced in areas exposed to artificial light. Nocturnal pollinators are vital for pollinating crops, fruit and flowers. A study by researchers at the University of Sussex suggests that nocturnal pollinators are, in fact, more efficient than their daytime counterparts. Those are concerning statistics.
My own species, the common glow-worm, requires darkness to carry out its actions. The flightless female glows a magnificent yellowy green, which attracts the smaller male to mate. They live for only a short window of time as an adult, and they must lay their eggs quickly. Without the dark canvas on which to perform, the males cannot find the females, and thus the chance of a future generation passes by. Glow-worm larvae are ferocious predators and feast on snails and slugs, helping to keep populations under control. Unfortunately, we are losing these charismatic creatures from our countryside in the same way that we are losing the stars.
MPs get to do some pretty fun things from time to time, and the most memorable occasion for me was back in the summer, at the beginning of July, when I was fortunate to visit Sheringham Park in my constituency —I ran around the track on the park run, and 12 hours later I was scuttling through the undergrowth on the same track to find glow-worms. I was joined by representatives from Buglife, who are here this evening, by the UK glow-worm survey and by the National Trust to see these creatures in action. Genuinely, the glow caused by a chemical reaction in the glow-worm’s body was one of the most fascinating things I have ever witnessed. It was almost other-worldly, and I would encourage everyone to go and see it next summer if they are fortunate enough to have glow-worms in their constituency. It was fascinating. The first time I saw it, it looked like an LED glowing in the dark. I do not think I will ever forget it. When the male was attracted to the female’s glow, we turned on a red torch and, almost immediately, the male turned away from its female and went over to the new light. It was shocking to see just how pronounced the change was in that whole set of behaviours. It is no wonder that glow-worm populations close to light-polluted areas are dwindling, if that is what light pollution will do to their mating habits.
Glow-worms are members of the firefly family, as I said. Global red list assessments of that group by the International Union for Conservation of Nature shows populations under threat. While habitat loss, chemical use and climate change are all contributing factors, light pollution is a threat that we can quickly do something about to start to reverse that downward trend.
It is not just fireflies that are threatened by light pollution. The IUCN has listed light pollution as a threat to 160 assessed species, including birds, amphibians and even primates. The more that we discover about the impacts of light pollution, the more we realise its role in nature’s decline.
Hon. Members are no doubt familiar with a blackbird calling in the dead of night. I shall not sing it now, but that was an experience that the Beatles shared in the opening lyrics of their 1968 song, “Blackbird”. Where did it come from? That unusual phenomenon, which was coined by the Beatles, was a bird singing through the night due to light pollution. Birds are being tricked into thinking that it is dawn or dusk under artificial lights, which makes them sing out of turn with the normal day and night cycle. What does that do? It can act to deplete their energy levels; it stops their calls at optimum times; and it prevents them from attracting a mate.
Light pollution, as we are already finding out, is contributing to the death of millions of birds. Attracted by artificial lights, migrating species such as shearwaters, petrels and other sea-wading birds become disoriented. They may end up circling in illuminated areas. It depletes their energy reserves and puts them at risk of exhaustion, predation and potentially even fatal collisions with buildings.
Turtle hatchlings are oriented by the natural light of the moon reflecting on the sea’s surface. Artificial lights are confusing them and pulling them into a fatal direction away from the safety of the sea. Closer to home, bats, hedgehogs and other mammals avoid lights, confining them to smaller and smaller habitats.
The effects of light pollution impact not only on animals, but on people, and we are beginning to understand that better. The 2017 report from the chief medical officer warned that
“pollutants such as light…may…be adversely affecting our health”.
Exposure to too much artificial light is altering our circadian rhythms and is thought to be contributing to melatonin suppression, leading to diabetes, heart disease, possibly cancers and a range of mental ill health issues. I will not speak on those matters in any great depth, but members of the Science and Technology Committee in the other place recently published a report on that, and it is well worth looking at.
We have talked about issues relating to humans, what has happened to our star-gazing and the impact on nature, but what is the solution? How do we solve this problem with so many impacts on the natural world? The answers, which often in this place are so difficult to come by, are actually relatively simple, but they require leadership and understanding. While we can solve light pollution with a flick of the switch, campaigners are not calling for us to be plunged back into darkness. Instead, this is all about using light better. We must promote better quality, community-friendly lighting and we must not artificially light environmentally sensitive locations. We can reduce our levels of light pollution by lowering the brightness of our lights, directing lights only to places that we need them and ensuring that unnecessary lights are not on when we are not using them. Every simple measure, such as shutting curtains and blinds when we turn on internal lights, will keep the light where it needs to be and prevent it from spilling into our gardens and wild places.
Local councils are responsible for planning, and I believe that they should have good planning guidelines to be mindful of light pollution. I know that many parish councils—for instance, Weybourne, Blakeney and Cley in my area of North Norfolk—really care about this. They have campaigned for it to be taken seriously, even providing their own dark skies policies. The person who hit that home for me was Lyndon Swift, the former dynamo of Weybourne, where he was chair of the parish council. He was passionate about protecting dark skies, and I remember him talking to me about it a couple of years ago. He was probably one of the inspirations for me to be standing here this evening.
Nationally, there is lots of good news. The “Good Lighting Technical Advice Note for Cumbria”, stemming from the Dark Skies Cumbria project, led by the Friends of the Lake District and produced by Dark Source, and the “South Downs National Park Dark Skies Technical Advice Note” are guidance documents that are leading the way. They should be utilised more widely across the country. There is evidence of more localised actions for change, but I believe that action should be spread across the whole UK to ensure the results are as far reaching as possible. I hope that this debate, in one way or another, will help my own local council, North Norfolk District Council, consider closely how it can implement policies to help with light pollution.
We must treat light in the same way as we treat other pollutants. We need to monitor and set targets to reduce light pollution levels to ones that satisfy our needs and those of the planet. Guidance and encouragement are clearly not enough. We need to look at how we can create positive action. There are so many gains to be made from doing this, not least the release of the pressure on nature. Switching off unnecessary lights will save money and energy. Better-quality lighting can improve safety by reducing the contrast and shadows created by poor-quality lighting. We can restore our views of the night sky and inspire new generations about the science and wonders of space beyond our planet, and we can restore the natural canvas for glow-worms to perform that magical summer show.
Finally, I thank the staff at Buglife who have helped illuminate me to the issue and to the wonderful world of glow-worms, in particular Karim Vahed and Matt Shardlow, who arranged for my encounter with the species on that fateful July evening, and David Smith for helping me to prepare my speech.
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)
Claire Hanna Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson
Indeed. It also tells us about the Conservative Back Benchers who rally around the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who has been a busy boy.
The Minister can wriggle all she likes on the proverbial hook about individual measures and suchlike, but the fact is that the Government’s resolve to proceed with the Bill, as set out by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, has broken for fear it might upset some of their Back Benchers, who have fewer concerns about animal welfare than the people they purport to represent.
As for the Government’s so-called position of ditching this Bill and introducing individual measures, where is the timetable? The Minister stood up to defend the fact that the Government will be bringing forward various measures, but there is no timetable, no detail and no priority list. Nothing. Clearly banning the importing of foie gras and animal fur and making real efforts to tackle puppy smuggling are off the table. We do not know if we will get anything before the summer recess. What we are left with are the shattered remains of what was a perfectly decent and comprehensive Bill.
This Bill largely relates to England, but its UK-wide elements are extremely important and they show where Scotland is being held back on animal welfare. The dropping of this Bill also means that the plans to ban live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through the UK, which all the major parties supported and which appeared in each of the manifestos in 2019, have also been dropped. That move was described by Compassion in World Farming as an unacceptable backtracking on animal welfare commitments, allowing this trade to continue.
It gives me no pleasure to say that the dropping of this Bill must be a cause of celebration for ruthless puppy or kitten smugglers—both of those trades are lucrative in their own right and there are insufficient deterrents to the barbaric practice. The dropping of this Bill must also have been good news for those who import foie gras and animal fur products into the UK. The dropping of this Bill is a depressing day for those who genuinely care about animal welfare. For all the fights that the UK Government like to pick with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government passed legislative consent for this Bill. It seems that even when they agree with the UK Government, the UK Government then decide to disagree with themselves.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The hon. Lady is correctly outlining the deficits and the broken promises. She may be aware that Northern Ireland has even less legislation on animal rights. The Assembly even rejected an attempt to ban hunting with dogs and we have made no progress on issues such as having a register of banned welfare abusers and banning the online sale of puppies. She speaks about the UK-wide provisions. Does she agree that the House now has an opportunity to bring in progressive and far-reaching legislation that would even pick up the slack in regions such as ours, which are without governance?
Patricia Gibson
Indeed. What I find really distressing is that in Scotland we have come so far on animal welfare, only to find that we are shackled to this dead hand of a Government who refuse to act because they are paralysed by their own internal divisions.
Northern Ireland Border
Claire Hanna Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
As I said earlier, Minister Poots gave me a similar description of the requirements of consent, and his understanding is that this issue should have been discussed and agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive. On the right hon. Gentleman’s wider points, although I would express them rather differently, I have not been known for listening to EU cheerleaders during my political career.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The DUP is executing a series of reckless stunts today to try to regain some political memorandum and distract from the terrible mess that it has made, but removing officials and collapsing the Executive solves nothing. It damages trust, it undermines the culture of lawfulness that many of us are trying to foster and it risks vital legislation on climate, education and many other things that have been left hanging since the last governance black hole. I believe that it will also prevent the Executive from spending the money announced in this Chamber today to mitigate rising fuel prices. It is very disturbing that the UK Government seem content to shrug their shoulders and collude with this. What is the Minister’s clear message to businesses today, including those large retailers that are sending goods into Northern Ireland? Is it that they should continue to follow the legally mandated rules as outlined in the trade and co-operation agreement and the protocol, or should they collude with this stunt and undermine international law?
George Eustice
On the latter point, the legal obligations that exist apply to the relevant authorities, whether that is the UK Government or indeed the Northern Ireland Executive, so businesses should continue as normal. There is no legal liability to businesses for continuing to trade with Northern Ireland under any circumstances. On the former point, I hope that I have made it clear in everything I have said that the UK Government hope that the Northern Ireland Executive will continue and that they will pull together and find a resolution to this problem. That is the right thing to do.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Veterinary Agreement
Claire Hanna Excerpts(2 years, 11 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
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for bringing the debate and for his long-standing and genuine commitment to achieving good outcomes for Northern Ireland. I know that is a common cause for many hon. Members across the House, for which we are grateful.
Divergence and potential divergence on veterinary and SPS arrangements is the reason for the vast majority of checks between Britain and Northern Ireland since Brexit. Stripping out the politics, it is worth saying that the island of Ireland has always been counted as one single epidemiological and veterinary unit. That long predates Brexit and has offered protection for biodiversity, agri-foods and farming generally. Hon. Members will remember that foot and mouth disease did not ravage the island of Ireland because we were protected by those checks.
I will defer as always to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on farming matters—South Belfast is not a farming constituency—but moving organic material in the form of soil had not been allowed before Brexit, because of the SPS arrangement. Those high quality standards have offered protection and given a unique selling point to Northern Ireland farmers and producers for many years. That is what we do: we produce high-quality goods and sell them to people who wish to buy high-quality goods. As far as I am aware, there is no demand to drop those standards. For what it is worth, I do not see demand to drop those standards in Britain, either.
I am a member of the UK Trade and Business Commission, which has MPs from across the House, including from the Democratic Unionist party. Over the last year, we have heard evidence on all sorts of trading and business issues from all sorts of sectors. The clear message from a range of businesses is that they value those high standards and do not want to drop them. People say that we will have higher standards in Britain—knock yourself out. It is a bit like going to a museum where the minimum donation is £5. If someone wants to put £20 in there, that is absolutely fine. The minimum standards can still be agreed, and Britain can exceed them if it wants to. So it is genuinely perplexing to me that the UK Government would not consider a veterinary arrangement. The EU even offered to sunset it, so that in a few years, when Britain worked out what it wanted from Brexit, that agreement could dissolve and a different set of arrangements could exist. Genuinely, I can only put that decision down to ideological reasons, because I do not see a demand for it from UK businesses or consumers.
As for our obeying these rules until new year’s eve and the question of what the difference is now, the difference is that the UK spent five years saying, “We don’t play by anybody’s rules,” so it is difficult now to get everybody to stick by particular rules. This is not the time or place—Christmas is coming—to get into the minutiae of global trade rules, but it is around having an identifiable set of rules and it is around preventing a thousand cliff edges. If on 1 January the UK says it will no longer adhere to a standard on soil and on 2 January says it will no longer adhere to a standard on the temperature of cows or whatever, we will create cliff edge after cliff edge. In the absence of a set of rules, businesses cannot possibly compete.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her measured delivery of that point. The issue may not be as clear as she refers to. The soil was okay at Hillmount Nursery in my constituency before 31 December, and it was no different afterwards. The issue was not that the UK or Northern Ireland were going to do anything different. We want to obey the same rules. So the rules were there that we were going to adhere to.
Claire Hanna
The point is that the UK has made it very clear that it will not sign up to commit to those rules. That is fundamentally the issue—that the UK has not agreed, as a continuum, to adhere to those rules. Yes, obviously the soil has not changed over the new year, so I understand some of the frustrations, but those could be addressed by exactly the sort of veterinary arrangement that the hon. Member for Rochdale suggests, and that businesses across the UK have been suggesting. It is perplexing to me that all of the parties across the board in Northern Ireland did not get together to call for that, because at different times all of them said that an SPS arrangement would be acceptable. That unanimity and that consistency of message from Northern Ireland’s political representatives would have been very powerful.
In the absence of that SPS arrangement, which I would love to see, the protocol is the show in town at the moment. It is nobody’s first choice; nobody loves it; nobody would have designed it. It is a bit like that thing about getting directions in Ireland—“I wouldn’t start from here,” and you would not start from the protocol, but the reality is that all the other options have been taken off the table. I genuinely understand the frustration and confusion of constituents and consumers, reflected by the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Strangford. They say that all of a sudden the rules are different, but that is because of Brexit, which in every way was always going to mean barriers. Brexit is, by definition, a set of trade barriers. That is why some of the rules have changed. In Northern Ireland, businesses were clear before the referendum that they were very happy with the status quo—being able to trade north, south, east and west.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Some of the regulations and rules brought in at this point in time are Brexit-related. However, will she not accept that more are actually protocol-related? Had NI left the EU on the same grounds as GB, we would not be in this position and would not be dealing with issues such as seed potatoes, the Queen’s canopy and all the others listed here today.
Claire Hanna
They are issues that flow from Brexit and from the trade and co-operation agreement voted through by a large majority in the sovereign Parliament of the UK. I did not support it. The hon. Member did not support it. But that was the settled arrangement.
Tony Lloyd
Could the hon. Member remind us who negotiated the trade and co-operation agreement? Who put the protocol into it?
Claire Hanna
I am happy to remind the hon. Member. It is all over Hansard and in TV clips. I think it was one Mr Boris Johnson and one Lord David Frost. I believe that at Christmas-time they told us that it was oven ready and ready to go, but it was clearly not. These are all consequences that flowed from a series of decisions.
As I say, business did not want to change the status quo. Businesses outlined their preferences for any solution that would mean no barriers in either direction. The Social Democratic and Labour party and I personally campaigned exhaustively over those five years, begging those people who were voting to not choose a solution that created a barrier either between north and south or east and west. Not alone did no business I have ever met want to choose between their trade with the single market and their trade with the GB market, but because we are a fragile and interdependent region that was always going to create the perception of winners and losers. That will have come to pass.
Members will be aware of some of the sporadic unrest that was seen in and around Belfast in the spring. For what it is worth, I think it was fairly contrived. Riots and bus burnings that switch on and off like an appointment are not very organic. I say that having spent all my life in a fragile region. I think they were part of a campaign to project an aura of chaos. I really felt for one young man, who was arrested at the riots in April and quoted on BBC TV. He said, “I don’t know what the protocol is, but my leaders keep telling me I am losing.” That is at the root of this Brexit problem. It created a barrier in one direction and created the perception of winners and losers.
Unfortunately, the protocol has been spun by many not to be a consequence of a series of decisions that the UK made for its own reasons. It is fair enough; they are a sovereign Government and are entitled to make decisions, but the perception has been given that it was because of Dublin or the EU. I have had the police round twice at my door with death threats because people have been told, “She brought you the protocol,” when these are the consequences of the UK’s decisions. Unfortunately, that is what we are working around.
I do not love the protocol, but we are now in the business of trying to make it work. At the moment, there are a variety of discussions between the EU and the UK to talk about how we can make the operation smoother based on the reality of how it works. The fact is that if the two jurisdictions have a different trading and customs regime, a border will have to go somewhere. That has been a fact since long before the Brexit referendum. It says it all over leaflets that I spread in 2016: that border will have to go somewhere, and it will create the headache of all headaches for this region.
According to recent polls by Queen's University Belfast and the University of Liverpool, people are saying, “No, I want a different solution.” That is a consequence of years of misinformation and deflection. I want a different solution too, but there is not one. We have spent five years discussing all the different ways to skin this cat, and the protocol was the outcome. The Commission and the UK Government, in conjunction with business and civil society, are trying to work through and find a way that works best for businesses.
There are a lot of challenges for businesses. There is no doubt about that. Brexit equals friction, and friction equals cost for business. Particularly for very small businesses that are moving low-value items and do not have a procurement or logistics department or whatever, it is worth saying that it has always been the case that there are different costs for some businesses between Britain and Northern Ireland. I have numerous examples. I become the most Unionist little warrior on Amazon when somebody tries to charge me a big fee. I have many email exchanges long predating 2016 where GB businesses are saying, “If is going to the highlands and islands, then it is going to be a different price.” I say, “No. It should be subject to the same rules.”
That issue predates Brexit. It has gotten worse after Brexit—there is no doubt about it—but that is a consequence of the failure of the UK Government to explain and prepare GB businesses for the changes that were going to come their way. That I am aware of, there is not one single product that is unavailable now in Northern Ireland. I hope my children do not read Hansard, because I am the Santa at home. I, too, have been trying to procure items for three children, and there was nothing I could get here that I was not able to get in Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna
No, my children are not seed potato fans. As I said, we are dealing with a series of responses—the consequences of the UK’s decisions and, as I said, they are the UK’s decisions. I do not agree with them. It is very clear that people in Northern Ireland wanted something different. That is a fact. I do not want to get into—we are talking about the practical issues and I am aware that it is difficult to divorce the practical, the emotional, the political and the constitutional, but the discussions under way are about tackling the practical outcomes of the pandemic.
However, there will be differences for Northern Ireland—that is a fact. We have always been a different SPS zone. Even those people who were behind the alternative arrangements commission, and all of those kind of Brexiteer leading lights, have been very clear that there will always need to be some form of protocol to address that situation.
I will not get into all of the issues around consent, but the people of Northern Ireland rejected Brexit and, at every subsequent election, they have chosen parties that reject Brexit and want to try to find a way to make it work for our particular circumstances. That has been very clear in poll after poll; even among those who voted for Brexit, many of them do not want Brexit on exactly the same terms as people on this island. People want that dual market access.
I will briefly address that. There are huge opportunities for Northern Ireland, which has not had a unique selling point in many decades, to trade equally into the UK single market and into the EU single market. That could create jobs, create prosperity and change our futures. The founder of our party, John Hume, said, many times, that the best peace process is a job. We finally have the opportunity to say to businesses, from wherever, that if they want to have a foot in both markets, Northern Ireland should be the place to invest.
However, investors need stability. They need clear rules and to know that there will not be unrest about all of those things. Businesses are very clear that this situation is not perfect, but they have solutions—they have ways to try to make it work. They do not talk about trusted traders, but they talk about data-based solutions. They are also very clear that they do not want the hard Brexit that Britain has; they do not want article 16 to be triggered. They know that it is not the silver bullet that it has been presented as, and that it just brings us back to the table, which is where we are now.
Brexit was always going to be bad news for Northern Ireland. It was always going to insert all of the difficult things for us—sovereignty, identity and borders—into our everyday conversations. That is driving real polarisation. Sovereignty is different in Northern Ireland because people voted for the Good Friday agreement 23 years ago, and it does not operate in the same hard way as it does in other nation states. The protocol, imperfect though it is, is how we will chart our course through this situation.
It is important that the EU and the UK can get around to the solutions. What people in Northern Ireland want, more than anything, is to not have to talk about this any more—not have to turn on the radio and hear this all day long, all year long. The only way to ensure that is to make the protocol work and agree that these are the choices that were made by the people of Northern Ireland and by the UK Government, and to try to make them work.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
It is lovely to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this debate and I echo the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): we have heard a résumé of the discussions that we have had for the last few years about this difficult and sensitive subject. It is always good to hear the first-hand experience of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), and it is also interesting when those experiences are somewhat different, not least on the issue of Christmas present availability.
Let me explain what the UK Government are seeking in the negotiations. Our Command Paper published in July proposed a new model for GB to NI movements where the product stays within the UK. We agree that additional confidence could be provided by a well-designed SPS agreement. I think we all agree that that would be a helpful step forward. I reassure the House, regardless of what the hon. Member for Cambridge thinks, that that would obviously cover GB to NI agrifood movements and would set out where both UK and EU legislation provides for the same high standards. That absolutely should be taken as read. The Government stand by our manifesto commitment to standards.
As hon. Members know, we are still in the midst of technical discussions with the Commission to try to find satisfactory solutions on the Northern Ireland protocol. There is some precedent, as has been rehearsed, for the EU making such agreements with other countries—one that has been suggested this afternoon is that between the EU and New Zealand, which has been in place for many years—or as part of wider agreements with trading partners such as Canada or Switzerland.
In the trade and co-operation agreement negotiations last year, the UK put forward an SPS model based on equivalence. That would have been very similar to the model agreed between New Zealand and the EU. Sadly, the EU absolutely and repeatedly rejected the possibility of an agreement based on equivalence. Instead, it has pushed for the Swiss-EU style of SPS arrangement, which is based on dynamic alignment. An agreement based on dynamic alignment is not acceptable to us, as it would compromise our sovereignty over our own laws and impact on our ability to strike trade deals or agree trade facilitations with non-EU countries.
Claire Hanna
Does the Minister accept that the UK is a sovereign nation and that deciding—for the protection of all its businesses and particularly for the fragile area of Northern Ireland—to make sure there is no divergence between Britain and Northern Ireland and to have an SPS arrangement based on dynamic alignment would be a sovereign decision? That would be a decision of a responsible Government who said, “This is something we should do for all parts of the United Kingdom, for our businesses. This is a decision that we will make ourselves.” Is that not completely compatible with sovereignty? Otherwise, it is very, “I would do anything for Northern Ireland, but I won’t do that.” It is the act of a sovereign Government to act in the interests of all parts of their kingdom.
Victoria Prentis
Dynamic alignment is not acceptable to this Government. The difficulty is that we are already starting to see some divergence. The hon. Member for Cambridge and I took part—oh, no, the hon. Gentleman was not there. One of his colleagues took part in an excellent debate earlier this week on getting rid of the VI-1 certification form for wine certification, which is an issue I have discussed with the hon. Gentleman on many occasions in the past.
We are in a position where our laws—not our standards, but our laws—have started to diverge from those of the EU. What we need to achieve, because of that, is an agreement that recognises the equivalence of mutual high standards, facilitates trade, reduces bureaucracy and maintains our regulatory autonomy. The VI-1 certification is just one of a very small number of issues on which we are starting to diverge. We need to start from where we are.
Environment Bill
Claire Hanna ExcerptsWednesday 26th May 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 May 2021 - large print - (26 May 2021)
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on clauses relating to nature, biodiversity and conservation in this important Bill. Although some of them relate to devolved matters, as with most of the big challenges of this century the environment and nature do not respect borders and it is important that strong legislation is in place across these islands to reverse the decline of nature and protect native species and biodiversity.
The Social Democratic and Labour party has just undertaken a big consultation ahead of private Members’ legislation on biodiversity loss in Northern Ireland. We found significant support for stronger legislation to protect nature, including the need for short-term and long-term targets, cross-departmental responsibility and a co-ordinated response and approach across Britain and Northern Ireland.
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, in particular Northern Ireland, with more than 11% of indigenous species at risk of extinction. This is the price being paid for a fairly obsessive approach to economic growth and expansion at all costs. To date, the UK and others have continuously and consistently missed targets in relation to biodiversity recovery, including any of the 20 Aichi targets agreed in 2010. Although this is by no means a failure of the UK Government alone, as one of the largest economies and a major contributor, directly and indirectly, through activities across the world, the UK must take seriously its leadership role, particularly in this year when it hosts the G7 and COP26. I welcome the commitment to conservation strategies in the Bill and believe that they can be strengthened by amendment 45, which seeks to avoid a repeat of the IT failures and to ensure that those targets are meaningful and met.
We are experiencing the impact of the decline and destruction of nature in the wellbeing of people around the world, from the destruction of the habitats of indigenous people and the emergence of climate refugees to, of course, the spread of disease. We are well beyond crisis point, and if that was not clear before the pandemic surely that has educated us all about the stark links between the destruction of nature and our lives. An intergovernmental report has warned that we are in the era of pandemics unless the destruction of the natural world is halted. Again, that has happened not by chance but through an obsessive pursuit of growth.
Among the most important provisions in this Bill are those that can force UK companies to look at their supply chains and ensure they are not supporting illegal deforestation in other countries. I particularly welcome amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, which I have signed, which would strengthen and enforce provision against illegal deforestation. The UK is one of the biggest sources of finance linked to companies involved in deforestation and we cannot hide any longer behind the lack of transnational governance or the lack of enforcement or binding regulations in countries of operation; we cannot look the other way from activities done overseas to the economic benefit of companies here or to underpin consumption habits here. It is positive that global brands have urged the strengthening of that law, but it is important that the Government ensure that supply chains are transformed.
This is a very important Bill offering a big opportunity to strengthen legislation, but it needs to be improved by many of the amendments that have been tabled, including those I have mentioned.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. This place is admired for its rigorous scrutiny—the new clauses and amendments proposed by Members from across the House are no exception—and I believe the Government are genuinely listening to concerns. Further amendments have been made to the Bill since I served in the Public Bill Committee last year.
The changes being debated today are important to the residents of Truro and Falmouth, because Cornwall is on the frontline of the UK’s battle against climate change. With respect, I disagree with the shadow Minister, because in my opinion this is a landmark Bill. It is not the end of the story or even the beginning of it, but it is a landmark moment. It puts in place a world-leading framework for environmental improvement and governance, including legally binding targets and environmental improvement plans; an independent green watchdog which will help Parliament and more importantly, my constituents to hold the Government to account on their commitments; and measures to reverse the decline in nature at home and overseas and to tackle waste. Ministers know that this is part of an ongoing process and that we Back Benchers will continue to press further, harder and at pace.
On water quality, the extensive work and lobbying by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, have resulted in the Government’s commitment to publishing a plan by 2022 to reduce sewage discharges and to report to Parliament on progress, and to place a legal duty on water companies to publish data on storm overflow operations on an annual basis. The Bill also requires the Government to set a legally binding target for water quality. That will be particularly welcomed by Surfers Against Sewage, which is based in St Agnes in my constituency and campaigns tirelessly on this issue. I continue to press Government on its behalf and on behalf of everyone who, like me, regularly swims outdoors.
I praise the Government on new clause 21, which Ministers set out previously. It amends the Bill to set additional legally binding targets for species abundance for 2030 to halt the decline of nature. That could be the “net zero” for nature, finally addressing the biodiversity decline, and I am pleased that that target will go alongside other legally binding targets for waste, water quality and air quality.
I have concerns about how compatible this is with the forthcoming planning White Paper, and I wish to give an example of what can be achieved if the will is there. On the A30 between Chiverton and Carland Cross, in the midst of my constituency, Costain is delivering an 8.7-mile dual carriageway for Highways England. Journeys on this part of the road are regularly delayed and congestion often brings the traffic to a standstill, especially in peak holiday time, and as a result the Cornish economy is being held back. Following a recent visit to the project and a meeting with the team, it is evident to me that they are committed to protecting nature’s net gain. Biodiversity and conservation improvements are at the heart of the scheme. The project has a 10% biodiversity net gain target and is predicted to smash it. Developers take note: this is possible. Costain and its environment manager, Ali Thomas, are deeply committed to and passionate about protecting the environment. The landscape and ecological design proposals they have developed include planting nectar-rich wild flowers indigenous to Cornwall; tree and hedge planting, which will replace loss; crossings for otters, bats, badgers and other animals that will be built along the road; and a variety of foraging, nesting and roosting opportunities for other species. Other innovative measures are happening, but I do not have time to go into that this afternoon.
To conclude, with the G7 in Cornwall next month and COP26 in Glasgow later this year, we hope that this Environment Bill, which is a truly groundbreaking piece of legislation, will signal to the rest of the world that this Government and this country are serious about protecting our environment for the long term.
Oral Answers to Questions
Claire Hanna Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Northern Ireland protocol under the European Union withdrawal agreement applies the EU pet travel regulations for pet movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Great Britain has currently been listed by the EU in part 2 of the regulations, which requires some documentation. However, Great Britain and Ireland have a similarly very high health status, and we are discussing possible bilateral provisions with Ireland. In the meantime, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is taking a pragmatic approach in this initial period.
Claire Hanna [V]
I assume that the Secretary of State is aware of the challenges this causes for ordinary pet owners, but specifically can he advise what mitigations were anticipated and are being put in place for those who require assistance dogs to travel between Britain and Northern Ireland?
George Eustice
The primary purpose of the pet travel regulations is to control the spread of rabies, and both Ireland and Great Britain have very similar and very high health status on rabies, having not had it in dogs previously. We therefore think that there should be easement on the provision; we have argued with the Commission that we should be listed in part 1, but we are continuing to make those bilateral negotiations with Ireland a priority.