Environment and Climate Change

Danielle Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

In February, I asked the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth whether she really believed the Government were doing enough on climate change. Her answer was:

“I am very pleased to assure the hon. Lady that we are not only doing enough, but leading the developed world.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 726.]

Clearly, after pressure from young people striking and the protests that have taken place, the Government have been forced to change their language. They now admit that much more needs to be done, which is welcome, and the Secretary of State recognised that in his opening remarks.

In spite of that rhetoric, the Government have failed to take the necessary action on climate change. I could mention many things, and we are short on time, but I cannot support anything that puts green jobs at risk. Urgent action is needed, and it must be bold, transformative and jobs-centred. We need change driven by the Government, including to transform our economy. Our current economic system threatens the foundations on which human wellbeing depends. Building a sustainable economy needs a fundamental rethink of the way we run and measure its success, so that GDP, which takes no account of environmental impact or human wellbeing, is no longer the only benchmark. We need to adapt how we produce goods and services to reflect natural constraints.

As the party of workers, Labour is unequivocal that the required shift to a net zero-emissions economy must be fair for communities and workers. What we need is nothing short of a green industrial revolution, which will allow us to develop jobs and investment opportunities across the UK, such as the 50,000 well-paid, unionised jobs that Labour would create in Scotland.

It is clear that the demand for change from our young people and campaigners is not about business as usual, with bold words but bland action tinkering around the edges. They are explicit that this is about ensuring that actions are transformational, addressing the systemic drivers of environmental degradation and climate change. Labour is committed to doing that. My constituents in Midlothian are extremely concerned about not only climate change but the environmental crisis. Scotland’s rivers, including my local River Esk, are being frequently polluted, and it is awful to see.

I will sum up with the words of my constituent, who wrote to me recently to say:

“Current legislation appears to be serving companies; it is serving ‘convenience’, which translates into suffering, poisoning and harm for wildlife and ecosystems, and it is serving profits and the economy.”

We must create a system that is for the people, for the planet and for the many.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danielle Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We absolutely recognise the vital importance of integrating forestry with farming on appropriate sites and at appropriate times.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

11. What plans the Government have to maintain UK standards on food quality and safety in trade agreements concluded after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

As a country, we are proud of our high food safety and animal welfare standards, and we have no intention of undermining our reputation for quality by lowering our food and animal welfare standards in pursuit of trade deals.

[Danielle Rowley]

The Government are demonstrating today that they are happy to roll out the red carpet for unpalatable arrivals from the US, so can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s Chequers agreement means that we will hold a stronger line when it comes to rejecting chlorinated chicken imports?

[George Eustice]

The existing food safety provisions on issues such as chlorinated chicken will come across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We have always been clear that we will not water down our standards in pursuit of trade deals. The general approach is that if one is a guest in another country seeking to do business there, then one should adopt and abide by the customs and rules in those markets. That is what we do when we seek access to foreign markets, and that is what countries will have to do when they seek access to our markets.

Fur Trade

Danielle Rowley Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It is always difficult to present the results of an e-petition, particularly when so many people want to intervene. He did a sterling job. I also thank the more than 109,000 people who signed the e-petition. That shows the strength of support across our constituencies for a ban on fur sales in the UK.

In my view, we should avoid all exploitation, abuse and slaughter of animals where we can. Fur farming is just a tiny part of that.

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Sadly, too much of the fashion and beauty industries rely on cruelty to animals. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter what, cruelty and suffering cannot be the price of fashion?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. Thankfully, we have made great strides in recent years in banning cosmetic testing on animals. I am not totally averse to all animal testing. People might assume that I would be averse, but I would make an exception in cases of important medical research where there is no alternative. However, people can live without personal vanity and frivolity. There are sustainable, ethical alternatives on the market for clothes, cosmetics, household products and other things that have not been banned from animal testing. In such cases we ought to be pushing for progress. That is why I am speaking today. Although I would like to see far more progress across the board in terms of animal exploitation and cruelty, I am happy to be here, supported by colleagues who are also in favour of a ban.

As we have heard, fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, and in Scotland two years later, on the grounds of public morality. The fact that imported fur produced using the same methods is still allowed is fundamentally illogical and surely immoral too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has dealt with the legal position. I tabled a lot of questions at one point about foie gras. Why, if we banned it in this country on the grounds of public morality, could we somehow accept that it was fine for the French to do it and send it over here for people to have in their Fortnum & Mason hampers? There is a strong legal case for us banning it even if we do not leave the European Union.