Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I spent 10 years working in the soft fruit industry and I understand the issue of labour in some detail. We are having discussions with the Home Office and other parts of Government about the future arrangements for immigration and a seasonal agricultural workers scheme.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the responses to “Health and Harmony”, the two areas of greatest concern were the impact of the withdrawal of the basic payments scheme on smaller farmers and tenant farmers, and the transition period. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury about extending the transition period, given that that must be the right way to approach this?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about these issues just a couple of days ago. We made a clear manifesto commitment to protect spending on agriculture until 2022—the end of this Parliament. Thereafter we will have a new funded policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

There is no substitute for a first-hand account. I know that my hon. Friend is knowledgeable about the work that the Anglican Church does with all communities in Israel. I hope that, one day, in the not too distant future, I shall get the chance to go to see this for myself, perhaps with some colleagues who have also not had the opportunity to visit the holy land.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier this year, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was shut to visitors because of some pressure that the Israeli authorities were putting on because of land changes. Will the right hon. Lady make sure that, through her dialogue with our Church, she talks to the Israeli authorities to make sure that that church is kept open, because visitors want to visit it?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

When the Dean of Jerusalem came to visit parliamentarians in both Houses, he explained in great detail the political background to what is going on. If I share with the House that this gentleman is a Christian Israeli, and actually no less than the son of a carpenter from Nazareth, perhaps Members will see that there was no person better qualified to explain to us, as British parliamentarians, just how complicated the situation is in Jerusalem. I think we have to trust the people who really understand this well to try to work through to peaceful solutions for that part of the world.

Fur Trade

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and that of your predecessor, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for introducing the debate—he stole our thunder by giving all the evidence. We have also had important contributions from the hon. Members for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We had a tour de force from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is responsible for taking us to the stage we are at today, and I very much concur with the contribution from the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).

I will start with my usual appeal. It is a little strange that we are here in this place. We should be somewhere else later debating the Ivory Bill. I say in all sincerity to the Minister that the ban on animal fur would be much better catered for in a genuine animal welfare Act, which is what we should all push for, where all the different measures would come together. We have not had one for some considerable time. It would be helpful to address the matter in primary legislation. We are thankful that the Government have introduced the Ivory Bill, but it would be nice to think that this would be part of proactive legislative action so that we can deal with all the measures. Not one speech has wavered from the fact that we all want a ban and we want it now, and we want it done in a way in which we yet again show the world that this issue matters. It matters because of the 109,000 people who have signed the petition, but I know there have been other petitions that got into hundreds of thousands because the issue touches a raw nerve. People do not believe that, having banned it in this country, we should get fur in through the back door, particularly as it looks as though we have simply outsourced our cruelty. That cannot be right. It is not fair and it is not moral.

The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood was about morality, taking a stand and making it clear that we wanted to ban fur farming. We were told that we could not do it. We were told that it would cost lots of jobs and that it was a minor industry. We were told that for those people who wanted to wear fur it was right that they had a choice. Sadly, we have proved them wrong, but there are people who still think that fur can come in through the back door and we now have to do something about that, so we are revisiting the 2000 ban, which is popular. It is fair to say that it was popular across the House, although there were a few backwoodsmen, whose names will not be recalled, who spent time trying to delay the process, but we took them on and we beat them. It was a great pleasure to see a Labour Government enact the legislation and people felt that we had a strong stance on animal welfare.

It is therefore disappointing that what goes on elsewhere in the world still has an impact in this country. Certain animals are bred in the most cruel manner simply so that somebody can enjoy wearing fur. I do not understand not only why we cannot lean on the retail trade, but why people wear fur—to me, it is the same as wearing a swastika or something. People should not think that it is acceptable; it is not. It is a form of licence that people generally feel we should do something about. It appears that 90% of the British public support us, which is a pretty high figure. People ought to respond to that by recognising that if they have furs in their top drawer, they should quietly dispose of them. It is not acceptable in this day and age to wear them.

We largely welcome what the Government have said, although we do not necessarily agree with their inaction and unwillingness to consider the issue. We also want it to be part of a more comprehensive policy that shows that we are leading the way in this country—with action, not words. In Labour’s animal welfare plan, a ban on fur imports is one of our 50 commitments. It is important that we make such commitments in opposition. The difference is that we intend to carry them through if and when we are elected.

It is important to recognise that animal welfare is a key issue. So many Members have spoken in today’s debate, and I did not count the number who intervened. The poor presenter of the petition must have taken about 12 interventions. He eventually went back 20 years; I think we must have all gone forward about 40 years with the number of people who wanted to contribute. People feel very strongly about this issue. Hon. Members have turned up to the debate partly because they feel passionately about it, but also because they have been petitioned by their constituents, who want their Members of Parliament to do something about it. That is why we have the petitions process. People can influence policy, and influence their MPs to do something about policy.

In the nicest possible way, I hope that the Minister has listened. He might not clarify all the things that we want him to today, but in due course we want him to accept that there is overwhelming support for such changes. As I said, we can take this forward in various international treaties and negotiations, and say that the world has to ban this heinous crime. It is despicable. There are no grounds for the way in which some countries and people still think that they can earn a living from it. It is not acceptable, and we should say so loudly and clearly.

We have heard a lot about the suffering and the nature of the industry. I will not labour that point, which has been made clearly with some very graphic examples of what happens. We must try to persuade other countries, and certainly those within the EU. When we ban it, we should clearly write to them and explain the ban. There seems to be some misunderstanding that our ban was just based within our borders. It should not and could not be. We are still a member of the EU. If there are the issues in the Republic of Ireland that were identified by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we need to write to them and say that it is not something we support. Countries such as Denmark are our close neighbours. I saw the BBC film, which was interesting in how it highlighted what goes on in other parts of the world. Such countries should not be thinking that we just ignore this practice. We should not ignore it; we should take it up and ensure that they understand that what they are doing is wrong, and do what we can about it.

I ask the Minister to be very clear, if he can, that such a measure will be introduced, as the ivory trade ban is being introduced today. As I said, it would be nice if a ban on fur imports were part of a wider animal welfare Bill, and certainly part of a wider strategy, but I will accept that, if he says that in due course the Government will introduce a Bill to ban imports, that is a tangible thing to get from today’s debate.

It is important that we send the message loudly to the rest of the world—perhaps more clearly than we did last time, when we banned it within our own borders—that we see the sale of animal fur as an unacceptable trade that should be dealt with at an international level, and that we will deal with it in this country not only by tackling our domestic business, but by banning imports. People will then be under no illusions: the fur trade is wrong and should be abolished.

Sale of Puppies

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairing, Sir Roger, even though you would rather be on this side of the room talking in the debate. I know you feel passionately about it, as does Mr Austin, who was in the Chair before you. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who carefully introduced the debate. We have also heard contributions from the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and the hon. Members for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), and the SNP spokesperson—I will try and get her constituency name right—the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I am pleased to see the Minister in his place.

This is a debate in which we largely agree, so I will not take up time agreeing with hon. Members who made passionate contributions on what is—let us be honest—heinous animal cruelty, and one of the worst, because it is about making money. It is in no way about trying to provide a supply of animals for which there is a demand.

I was shocked by the figure of how many registered providers there are—only 12%, and about 70% of what is provided—so the vast majority of people get their pets through fairly dodgy provision, and the simple fact is that, unless the Minister can tell us, we do not know how many people are out there operating. That is an awful thing to say, and it is because many of them do not operate in this country at all. As has been said, they operate through the south of Ireland and eastern Europe, so the animals get here after the most perilous of journeys. One presumes that many do not get here at all because they suffer in transit.

I agree with what has been said. I will not go through some of the more gory stories, but we have to recognise that they are there and take them up. I hope the Minister will take away from the debate the need for action. Most of us agree on the need for a ban. Regulation is always called for, but a complete ban seems to be the way forward in this case. Labour would support that as part of an animal welfare Act, which could likewise deal with other evils out there. As always, I am aware that it could become a Christmas tree Bill, which we stick on things to ban—we all have our favourites—but that would be appropriate in this case because people feel passionately about it.

I thank those who introduced the petition and who support Lucy’s law. The message is that the Government need to act quickly and comprehensively, because this is a trade that should not be allowed to continue in the way that it has. Puppy smuggling is one of those animal welfare issues about which one thinks, “Why does anyone do it?” As I say, they do it purely because they want to make money. There is no other reason why the trade continues.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency has done some sterling work, alongside the Dog’s Trust. I thank the Dog’s Trust, Battersea Dogs Home, Cats Protection, various other organisations and other private contributors, who have given me lots of information, which I do not intend to impart. We all know that this is a well-trailed area. It is known exactly what is going on and what should be going on.

Sadly, where the Government have acted—for instance, with the pet travel scheme—there is evidence that it has not helped, because people have perhaps used that as a device to bring in animals where other means would not have been allowed. Of course, we would strongly argue that we need additional border guards. Whatever one’s view on Brexit—no doubt the Minister and I will debate Brexit again—we need to patrol and maintain our borders, because this unacceptable trade goes on daily. Whatever we feel about a ban, we could do more to crack down on what is coming through, because it is clearly unacceptable. I hope the Minister will say something about that. Surely we must have a means to deal with that, notwithstanding the need for a ban on the third-party provision of puppies, as well as cats and other animals, as has been said. It is not just puppies; we could get into rabbits, guinea pigs and so on. Sadly, these animals are being abused, because they are being bred purely for the worst of reasons.

International studies have shown that puppies obtained from pet shops have, as has been said, a lower life expectancy than other puppies and suffer much more from disease. That is made worse if they come here from other parts of the world, as they have already faced the problems of transit. Labour would support banning third-party sales, and we hope we can get on with it. It is no good just promising it; people now expect us to take action through Parliament, so we cannot allow a delay, and obviously this is also about welfare standards, traceability, transparency and accountability.

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

What does my hon. Friend think would be the right sanction for those who broke a ban? Does he feel that they should face a custodial sentence or a fine? I want to ask the Minister the same question when he speaks, but I would like to hear from the shadow Minister first.

[Dr Drew]

I could have done with advance warning. That is a bit unfair; we are supposed to be on the same side. I think we should have strong sanctions in this area. It is not just a question of banning people from taking part in this trade; we should have the toughest sanctions. This is about animal cruelty. This is as bad as dogfighting or some of the cruelties inflicted on horses left in the worst possible conditions through the winter. It is awful and, as a nation of animal lovers, we should feel strongly about it, so I hope there will be the possibility of criminal sanctions, because these people are acting criminally. This is not some minor trade; people make serious money out of it, so they should be dealt with by the full force of the law, because of how these animals are bred and how they are kept, in the worst of conditions.

The sad thing is that these are often the animals that are bought as pets but end up in the shelters or rescue centres because of their health problems and other problems. Many of the wonderful voluntary organisations in this sector are full to bursting, because of these animals that have been discarded. Again, it would seem sensible to investigate further where those animals come from before they arrive in our shelters, because that is a serious worry. Whenever staff from the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home come here and talk to us, they say that they cannot take any more animals. They are forever having to make difficult decisions about how many animals they can keep, because they are inundated with people who think it is fun to have a pet for three or four months, but then realise that they cannot look after it and so dispose of it. Hon. Members have said this, but we need to think about the education process—“A dog isn’t just for Christmas, it’s for life”. People need to understand that it is a lifetime commitment.

This is also about resources, and I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who asked where the resources are. It is no good having a ban if we do not enforce it or follow it up with prosecutions and so on.

I will make a final couple of points. As for this idea that people should take an animal only if it is with its mother and has clearly been bred through that particular animal, it is difficult to tell that, but registered and properly run breeders would pride themselves on providing that information, and they would be able to prove it. In a sense, they would have to be able to license themselves, by showing that a puppy was the offspring of the mother. That is where the care and the proper breeding process could be seen in its entirety.

As I have said, we are not talking about Brexit today, but it would be interesting to know whether we could go ahead and introduce a ban without having to go through all the EU regulations, because clearly elements of this are subject to EU oversight.

To conclude, I hope the Minister will say that this is something we all agree on. There is a consultation, but one hopes that everyone is saying that a ban is appropriate and can be progressed, and so we just need to get on with this, rather than waiting. We would prefer a ban as part of an overall animal welfare Bill, but it might be something we could introduce because of the level of agreement that exists, because of the harm being done and because of the duplicity involved. People end up with these pets, thinking they are doing something good for themselves and their children, when all they are really doing is fuelling this terrible trade. If we could get some clarity on where the Government are going on this, we will give our support in terms of any time that is necessary, but a ban is right, a ban is appropriate and a ban is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

We have made it clear that our intention is to raise the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences—the most sickening offences that take place—to five years. As part of our work on that, we will of course want to look at the approach taken by other parts of the UK and any lessons we might be able to learn from that.

We published a draft Bill in December. It will allow the courts to set realistic sentences for the extreme cases of animal cruelty that I know sicken all right-minded people, including every Member participating in this debate. We will seek an appropriate opportunity to bring forward the legislation to make that change.

I want to touch briefly on another contentious issue, which is the use of electronic training collars for dogs and cats. This is another area where we have been doing some work. We have recently completed a public consultation on a proposal to ban the use of such devices. It closed on 27 April, and we received around 7,500 responses, which we are analysing. There was a very high response rate, and the consultation sparked passionate views on both sides of the containment fence. We will consider those representations and announce further steps in due course.

[Dr Drew]

A number of Members talked about education. Will DEFRA launch an education programme to explain to the public that they should buy puppies only through licensed breeders? I know it is a very small part of the overall supply of puppies, but that would be a simple thing for DEFRA to do, although it may cost money. Will the Minister say whether that is something it will do?

[George Eustice]

We publicise any way we can the existing regulations, including the guidance that people should see puppies with their mother before purchasing them. That is long-standing DEFRA guidance. About two years ago, I had a discussion with some of the pet food manufacturers to try to persuade them that they should add this guidance to some of their packaging so that people who were considering buying pets would be reminded of it. I could not get the manufacturers to take up my suggestion, but it was worth a try. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If we introduced a change in the law, we would ensure we did everything we could to publicise that.

Finally on enforcement—a number of Members raised the issue—we have provided in our new licensing conditions for local authorities to be able to go for full cost recovery to fund their work in this area. While the internet provides many challenges, it also provides a relatively easy way to identify people selling pets in the UK who are not legally entitled to do so.

Plastic Bottles and Coffee Cups

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for her suggestion. We actually made that point in our report on marine protected areas and said that there should be a coastal communities fund to help to develop tourism and to enable communities to take ownership of the amazing nature that surrounds them. We do not have tropical rainforests in the UK, but we do have some of the world’s best breeding sites for birds and all sorts of Ramsar wetland sites. Bringing communities closer to nature where they live can only be a good thing. I also want to pay tribute to Sky Ocean Rescue for its work in bringing to a wider audience the good activities that are going on not only globally but locally, including those literally outside our own door to clean up the Thames.

We want the Government to send a clear message to industry that all single-use coffee cups should be recycled by 2023, and that if that does not happen, they should simply be banned and we should move to a system of reusable cups only. Consumers want to do the right thing, and they deserve to know that companies are doing it too.

We have also looked at the UK’s packaging system, which we think needs a fundamental redesign. Producers of packaging should ensure that their waste is dealt with according to the waste hierarchy: reduce, reuse, recycle. How do we make that happen? At the moment, businesses that produce or use packaging have to show that they have recycled it by purchasing a packaging recovery note—a PRN—from an accredited recycler or exporter. We have heard evidence, however, that that system is a blunt instrument that does not reward design for recyclability and that does not penalise the production of packaging that is difficult and costly to recycle. We therefore recommend that the Government should reform the PRN system. They should introduce a fee structure that reduces the cost of sustainable coffee cups and raises the cost of cups that are hard to recycle.

The landfill tax and the PRN system have been the twin pillars of UK recycling for the past 20 years. Most of our waste went to landfill 20 years ago, but we now recycle almost half of it. However, recycling rates are stalling, and recycling needs a shot in the arm to bring it back to life.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is a wonderful advocate for recycling. Does she accept—if she does not, she should have a look at the parliamentary questions that I have asked—that the biggest problem is that recycling is flatlining because waste is being incinerated? That must be dangerous at a time of air pollution.

[Mary Creagh]

Well, most of the waste that we recycle is actually exported, and the recent China waste ban brought that home to people who thought that everything was somehow recycled in the UK. The situation was certainly brought home to the Members who visited Bywaters, the House’s recycling company, and heard about the difficulties it was experiencing—although some of those difficulties have been alleviated. However, my hon. Friend’s question was about incineration. I have visited an incinerator, and it is obviously better to get the calorific heat value from waste instead of landfilling it, because we will have to dig it up in 10 or 20 years’ time and incinerate it anyway, such is the pressure on land use in this country. However, we must ensure that the waste hierarchy is respected, because that is where problems arise. People tell me that they are reopening landfill sites and sending more waste for incineration.

Going back to the PRN system, the Committee could not see where the £100 million a year that the system raises actually goes, so we have asked the National Audit Office to examine the system to follow the money and tell us where it goes.

Turning to the EU circular economy package, it provides for a much more stringent extended producer responsibility scheme. At the moment, the UK has just three schemes, covering electrical goods and cars, whereas France has 14 schemes, covering furniture, tyres, mattresses and infectious healthcare waste. A mattress recycling scheme would create jobs in the heavy woollen industry in Wakefield, Ossett and Dewsbury. We need producers to be accountable for their products beyond the factory gates. Cigarette butts and chewing gum are the most frequently littered items in the country, so why are tobacco companies and sweet manufacturers not paying for the cost of their clean-up? Because it has always been that way. We need to work out how the “polluter pays” principle applies to cigarette merchants and to the chewing gum brigade. Such a move could save cash-strapped councils millions, and the money would go directly to them because they clear up the litter and do the gum-busting. Perhaps they could present the gum manufacturers with the goo that they steam-clean off the streets.

The Environment Secretary told us that he will commit to the EU’s proposed target to recycle 65% of household waste by 2035, but what will happen to that target after Brexit? Who will enforce it? The new environmental oversight body will be able to issue advisory notices, but not fines. It will not be able to take legal action, and it will not be ready for March 2019. Brexit will weaken our waste system. There was an interesting debate in the other place yesterday about whether people would still be able to bring cases to the European Court of Justice during the transitional period, and the Lords Minister was not entirely clear about whether that could happen. We will be watching developments very carefully.

We have achieved a great deal. We have got the Government working with Water UK to roll out a network of water refill points, and supermarkets such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl and Waitrose are launching a voluntary pledge to cut plastic packaging. The Treasury’s consultation on a single-use tax closes tomorrow, Departments have agreed to end the sale of single-use plastics, and Parliament is going to lead the way as well. A lot has been done, but there is a lot still to do.

We must prevent waste from entering our environment, and that will bring social, economic and environmental benefits. People are happier if the streets and parks are litter-free, our economy works better if we make smart use of limited resources, and our wildlife is protected if we keep plastic out of the sea. When people win, the economy wins and the environment wins. I look forward to a good debate and to hearing about the exciting work that colleagues have been doing in their local areas.

Homeopathy: Veterinary Medicine

David Drew Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Tredinnick]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with wisdom and experience. No doubt, he too has looked at the European position, which is completely the opposite of the one taken by the RCVS. There is a European directive on organic products, which states in article 24(2) of Commission regulation (EC) No. 889/2008, that

“Phytotherapeutic”—

that is, herbal—

“and homeopathic products, trace elements…shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics”.

That was because the European Union as a whole was so worried about the abuse of antibiotics, and I started speaking about the use of antibiotics in animals in the 1987 Parliament.

Let me give my hon. Friend the Minister the view of a farmer, who wrote to me, saying

“did you know that farmers often like using homeopathy for cows with mastitis because if they do so, they can sell the milk. If they use antibiotics, the milk must be thrown out.”

Safety is very important, and I hope the Minister will dispose of that point later as some homeopathic vets have simply stopped practising because they perceive themselves to be under a legal threat.

This is at a time when, according to the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, there is an explosion of interest in homeopathy, largely I would suggest because of the antibiotics problem. It says that

“there is an explosion of interest in CAM”—

complementary and alternative medicine—

“including Homeopathy”, in the agricultural sector where the drive is to reduce and replace dependence on antibiotics in light of Antibiotic Resistance…concerns”.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this threatens biodynamic agriculture, which is a particularly interesting and growing part of the agricultural sector?

[David Tredinnick]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. The most successful methods for coping with this antibiotic problem are actually complementary and alternative medicines, of which homeopathy is proving one of the most successful modalities.

The placebo argument—that this is all in the imagination—is often used against homeopathy, but Buttercup and Daisy do not understand double blind placebo-controlled trials. Farmers do understand them, and when I sat on the Science and Technology Committee during the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, Roger Williams, the then Member for Brecon and Radnorshire from the Liberal Democrats, told me, “As a livestock farmer, I of course use carbo veg”—Carbo vegetabilis, which is known colloquially as the corpse reviver—“when I can’t do anything else with an animal that I think is going to die.” It is very often the medicine of last resort both for animals and, of course, for humans. Farmers will not waste money on something that does not work, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.

As I mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, the World Health Organisation says that homeopathy is the second largest medical system in the world, with 300,000 doctors treating 200 million patients annually. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is pretty powerful evidence—they would not otherwise be training and practising—and we should look at that. There are actually 700 vets in 36 countries who are members of the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy. The German Ministry of Food and Agriculture backs homeopathy. In January 2018, it said that it

“supports the use of homeopathic remedies and the free choice of therapy for veterinarians.”

Why are we getting all these attacks? It actually has nothing to do with healthcare—it is to do with protecting vested interests, and a sense of defensiveness against the perceived threat to conventional practitioners, to drug companies supplying drugs and to currently held scientific beliefs. The scale of the vicious attacks that colleagues have had over the years by those opposed to homeopathy is testament to that. Given the hate mail that has been sent to MPs during past Parliaments, jamming their mail boxes, I believe those people could now face prosecution under new legislation. They ridicule and humiliate anybody who supports this very valuable branch of medicine. They use legal threats to clinical commissioning groups. I am kind of curious about this—I have a feeling that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was itself threatened with legal action by this group. Once there is a writ and something is through the door, of course, the whole legal process starts; that is why I had a letter from a lawyer of theirs.

The antis also claim that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works, but of the 189 randomised control trials up to 2014, 41% were positive, finding that homeopathy was effective. The figures for conventional medicine are just about the same, at 44%. There is no difference. There is good statistical evidence that both homeopathy and conventional medicine work.

I also had the honour to serve on the Health Committee in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament; in fact, I chaired it for a while, when we got the long-term care and conditions report out. In 2014, I cross-examined the Secretary of State for Health about his views. He said:

“the system we have is that we allow GPs to decide whatever they think is in the clinical interests of their own patients.”

If my memory serves me well, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has subsequently signed a motion, was one of those under attack for supporting homeopathy. He said in answer to a question:

“Complementary and alternative medicine treatments can, in principle, feature in a range of services offered by local NHS organisations, including general practitioners.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 149.]

Draft Mandatory Use Of Closed Circuit Television In Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I welcome the Minister to his place. He will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose these regulations; in fact, we greatly welcome them. However, as always with the official Opposition, we have a number of questions. I will give the Minister plenty of chance to answer them, although he may want to send some answers in a more detailed form subsequently.

As the Minister says, this is a manifesto commitment, and it is clear that it is overwhelmingly popular. I am glad we are making some progress; I only wish we were making as much progress on circus animals, the ivory trade ban and live exports, all of which are within the area of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We need to make progress on those as well. The Minister rightly says that these regulations have been properly consulted on, both within Government and externally. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee is a committee chosen by Government, so in a sense we would be surprised if it came up with anything that was not helpful to the Government, but most of the proposals put forward are laudable in their own way.

I start by saying that this is not a replacement for the way in which slaughterhouses are currently overseen. We feel strongly that this is an addition to the work of official veterinarians and indeed the FSA. I will make some points about that in the questions I put to the Minister at the end. We are worried about some of the cost implications, because over a long period of time there has been an argument for keeping slaughter close to where animals are reared, which will be difficult if we are to lose even more of our smaller abattoirs. The Minister talked about a grant regime. Some of the smaller slaughterhouses will potentially suffer because of the relative speed with which these regulations are being introduced and, although the objective behind the regulations is a good one, they will further threaten some of the smaller abattoirs. We lost something like 187 abattoirs in the period from 2001 to 2017, under both Labour and Conservative Governments. So, although we see the benefits of these regulations, there will be some issues.

Of course, these regulations come on the back of what is a pretty awful situation. It took some of the filming that Animal Aid did inside slaughterhouses to show the abuse that has gone on. At the top end of the trade, we may have a very good voluntary agreement, whereby those abattoirs have brought CCTV into use, but it has come on the back of a number of filmed reports showing the very poor nature of what goes on at the bottom end of the trade.

Nevertheless, we very much welcome these regulations. We look forward to seeing how they will be implemented and to seeing this work being done in a comprehensive way. I would be interested to know why the de minimis figure of 200 has now moved on to CCTV coming into every slaughterhouse; it would be interesting to know how the Government came to that conclusion.

There was not a huge response from the industry itself to the consultation, although the public had a view; indeed, many of the voluntary animal welfare organisations had a very strong view. As for the industry itself, however, I have the figure of 257, although the Minister has the figure of 270; we will not argue over 13. The reality is that the industry and slaughterhouses were not really that clued into the consultation. Maybe those slaughterhouses that responded were the ones who expected this change to happen, because they already had CCTV. Nevertheless, there was a disappointing response from those involved in the slaughter process.

I will move on quickly to my 10 questions. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Well, they are very important questions. I have used the terms “abattoir” and “slaughterhouse” as interchangeable terms. Can the Minister explain what the difference is between an “abattoir” and a “slaughterhouse”, because abattoirs have traditionally been at the public end and slaughterhouses have included private slaughterhouses? It would be helpful to know the legal definitions of “abattoir” and “slaughterhouse”.

Secondly, it would be interesting to know who has the final say-so on where CCTV will be placed. Will it be the industry, through self-regulation, or will it be the FSA or local authorities? In fact, that is my third question: where is the border between what local authorities have traditionally done, by going in and looking at some of the issues related to how these particular businesses have been run, and the work of the Meat Hygiene Service, which of course is now under the FSA? Where is the line between those two?

That question is particularly appropriate, because today’s report of a 40% cut in the number of meat hygiene inspectors was quite dramatic. I do not know where people will come from to do this work, because that body already has a shortage of people overseeing what is happening at the moment. Also, with the addition of CCTV, somebody has to look at all the tapes, otherwise installing CCTV will be a meaningless exercise.

That leads into the issue of the worry that some of us have about primary agency, with local authorities now less likely to inspect their own abattoirs and slaughterhouses; instead, that work will be passed on to some specialist local authority. In the past, that has caused some difficulties. So, could the Minister say how we will boost local authorities, because if they are going to do this job properly they will need to build it into their cost structure?

My fifth question relates to cost, which I have already touched on, and the help that may be available to smaller bodies. The 2006 Act is interesting with regard to who has access to the videos. Will the Minister explain categorically what access the public will get, given that it is they who have driven this change? It would be good to know what access the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and other animal welfare agencies that may suspect malpractice, will get alongside the statutory authorities.

Religious slaughter is a difficult area and it has not been touched on. How will those slaughterhouses that specialise in halal and shechita slaughter, or that sometimes turn their lines over to it, handle public interest in the manner of the slaughter? The proposed secondary legislation does not mention religious slaughter. Will it apply or will religious slaughter be exempt? Will such slaughterhouses be treated the same as or differently from others?

I have almost reached the end of my comments, so Members can relax. I have touched on the industry’s relative, and surprising, lack of interest. I will touch on it quickly. It is expected to keep a record for 90 days. Who will oversee that to make sure that the information is appropriately stored? That is a long time to keep a video record and it must be done properly. If there is any abuse, it will clearly lead to people believing that the situation is less easy to control than some of us wanted.

Finally, sadly some of the problems with the meat trade as a whole come after slaughter has occurred. We are discussing installing CCTV only in live animal areas. Given problems with and allegations of contaminated meat sometimes being dealt with inappropriately, what evidence would the Government seek in order to put CCTV at the other end so that we could look not just at the live animal trade but at the way in which meat is handled in general? That matters because it is where some of the problems come from.

I have asked 10 questions, including some that ran into each other. I hope that the Minister will allay our fears that this measure is not as great a change as some of us want it to be. It is, nevertheless, a welcome development, and the Government should be congratulated on introducing it at this early stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I shall try to cover as many points as possible. I am grateful for the support of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, on the regulations. There has truly been cross-party support on this issue for a number of years. I want to address some of the legitimate concerns that he raised, on which I think I shall be able to give him the reassurance he wants.

First, we are absolutely clear that the introduction of CCTV in slaughterhouses is not a replacement for the current inspection regime. It does not mean we are going to change the requirement for full-time official veterinarians on hand in the abattoirs. We are not planning to change any of the existing requirements. The CCTV is in addition to, rather than a replacement for, OVs and other inspections.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of cost. Like him, I would not want to damage some of the smaller abattoirs, whose existence means animals do not have to travel so far. If we close down more abattoirs, more animals will have to travel further. However, the cost is quite modest: the cost of CCTV systems has been coming down a lot in recent years. We estimate that the average cost for most smaller abattoirs will be in the region of £2,500. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not envisage paying the cost directly, because it is fairly modest even for small abattoirs.

The other thing to notice is that, as the report by FAWC identified, there are commercial benefits for food business operators in having CCTV in place, because it can help them to manage their lairage facilities. For instance, in its report FAWC highlighted the fact that it is easier to spot lameness or other problems in sheep with CCTV than when someone comes and perhaps spooks the animals. We believe there are advantages and cost savings to small businesses from putting in CCTV.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the work that organisations such as Animal Aid have done. I agree with him. In fact, one thing that a couple of years ago made me determined to make changes was that I frankly did not think it was good enough that we seemed all too often to have to rely on activists making surreptitious recordings. After the event we would inspect and carry out enforcement on the basis of the footage that had been surreptitiously collected. That is not the right way to run things. If it is the case that some of our official veterinarians were unable to spot bad practice and malpractice in those abattoirs, it is right that we make it a legal requirement to have CCTV in slaughterhouses.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we believe it is necessary to require this of all abattoirs, given that, as I said in my opening remarks, some 95% of animals are currently slaughtered in abattoirs that have CCTV. For me, there are a couple of reasons why we need to do that. First, some of the problems we have experienced are in those smaller or medium-sized abattoirs that do not always have CCTV in place. Secondly, the larger abattoirs tend to have it, but even in the larger abattoirs we have seen problems. The hon. Member for Bristol East raised a couple of cases where enforcements were brought; in those cases, sometimes there was CCTV in place but they were not adequately monitoring it or recording all areas, so even with CCTV they were not picking up those problems. Therefore, having legal clarity about CCTV covering all areas where there are live animals is the right approach to take.

The hon. Member for Stroud highlighted the fact that, of all the responses, only a small number were from the industry. To be fair to the industry, as he pointed out, we have lost a lot of abattoirs, so they are small in number, and we had thousands of responses to the consultation because it is an issue the public care about deeply. My conversations with the industry and representative bodies on this issue have shown that their view has broadly come round to the idea. Rather than have voluntary codes and chivvy people to join such schemes and voluntarily adopt CCTV, the industry has increasingly got to the point where it would rather have a level playing field and, if we want to bring in regulations, have them applied across the board so that everybody is treated the same. It is fair to say that the industry recognises that there could be some value in this and that there is an advantage in having a level playing field.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the difference between abattoirs and slaughterhouses. I was not aware of that distinction, but I will check. However, I am reliably informed by my officials that in law, commercial slaughterhouses and abattoirs are interchangeable terms. In most of the EU regulations that I see, the term slaughterhouse tends to be used, and in some of the older domestic legislation the term abattoir is sometimes used, but these regulations apply to all commercial slaughterhouses or abattoirs.

The hon. Gentleman asked where cameras will be placed. We have deliberately kept that open, for the important reason that a small abattoir, killing a small number of animals, might be able to cover all areas where there are live animals with just a couple of cameras. A larger abattoir, slaughtering thousands and thousands of animals per day, may need multiple cameras to ensure it is covering all areas. We are clear that it will need to cover all areas, including unloading areas, areas where there is lairage, areas where stunning takes place and the bleed areas. Right up until the point that the animal is dead, there must be a clear CCTV recording.

The hon. Gentleman asked who will decide where the cameras should be placed. The FSA is currently working with the Department to put together guidance on that. Ultimately, the Food Standards Agency and the official veterinarians employed by the FSA in each abattoir will be the final adjudicators on where cameras should go. We envisage it being a discussion with the food business operator, which will need to satisfy the local FSA inspector that the areas where it plans to locate cameras are adequate to satisfy the legislation.

[Dr Drew]

The Minister has visited slaughterhouses, as I have, so he knows it is not an easy job. If there is a dispute, will the final say-so be with the FSA or DEFRA?

[George Eustice]

We have designed it in such a way that we will trust the FSA official veterinarian to make that final judgment call and to ensure that the abattoirs that they are responsible for inspecting comply with the legislation. Will I potentially end up with letters from people complaining? Quite possibly. Will I have to get involved? Quite likely. But the intention is that the FSA OVs will lead on that.

The hon. Gentleman asked who would be responsible for inspecting the recordings. Again, that will be the official veterinarians. He referred to local authorities, but it is important to recognise that the FSA is responsible for food safety policy and, in abattoirs, also responsible for enforcing animal welfare policy, although it is not responsible for animal welfare policy. So DEFRA is responsible for animal welfare policy, but the FSA is responsible for implementing in the abattoirs the policy that we set for it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about public access. We do not intend there to be public access to the recordings. I shall explain why. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee looked at the issue in depth and made a very sensible point: used properly, CCTV in slaughterhouses can be an important aid to food business operators. He made the point that a job in an abattoir is not an easy one, and sometimes things go wrong. Most of the time when things go wrong, it is not deliberate—sometimes errors are made. The argument made by FAWC therefore is that we need to create a space where those recordings can be used to help educate and train staff and to pull people up where mistakes might have been made. It might not always be appropriate for that to be publicly available or for there to be a prosecution in every instance.

The hon. Gentleman asked about religious slaughter and slaughterhouses engaged in that. I confirm that yes, the requirements in the draft regulations will apply to religious slaughter, just as they will to any slaughterhouse. There is no exemption for religious slaughter when it comes to the requirement to have CCTV. That is important to enforce existing provisions in national legislation on things such as standstill times and the additional requirements for animals slaughtered in accordance with religious requirements.

The hon. Member for Stroud also asked who will enforce the provision that recordings be kept for 90 days. Again, we will expect that of the official veterinarians. They are full time in the slaughterhouses, and we believe that they can enforce that provision because if they are there every day, they would have a pretty good idea if recordings started to go missing or there were any type of fraud.

The hon. Gentleman asked finally about CCTV after slaughter, but the purpose of the draft regulations is narrow: to protect animal welfare. He is right that there have been some instances in the news recently of wider problems and other types of food fraud being committed, but we have introduced these regulations to protect animal welfare.

I now turn briefly to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East. She talked about her concern that things were not always followed up and that there is not always enforcement. I would say, however, that just because decisions are made not to withdraw an operator’s licence, that does not mean that action has not been taken. Indeed, the WATOK regulations, which govern the welfare of animals at the time of killing, create the powers—though we had similar provisions under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995—to issue stop notices, for example, so an OV can stop a line or any production until something is sorted out. We also take regular action to reduce or remove the licences of individual slaughtermen, where there has been abuse, although we might stop short of reducing or removing the operator’s licence. Other facilities such as improvement notices and so on are also included under the WATOK regulations. Lots can be done short of closing a facility down, which is obviously a severe sanction that we rightly reserve for those activities with which we have the greatest problem.

The hon. Lady mentioned the development in the United States of—as she put it—high-speed slaughter. We have a very different animal welfare culture in the UK from the US, and we have been absolutely clear that we will not reduce our animal welfare standards—far from it; indeed, we would like to enhance them. We are working with a number of organisations on issues such as improving the slaughter of pigs, in particular the gas mixture used, and we have no intention of taking the US route.

On EU nationals, finally, the hon. Lady is right: we have a lot of EU nationals in our slaughterhouses. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will protect the rights of those who are here and, as a number of hon. Members will know, the Migration Advisory Committee is looking closely at our labour needs after we leave the EU.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The overwhelming response of farmers to the consultation is that they want to know what help and advice they will get in managing the change from the basic payment to environmental support. As the Minister knows, that is particularly true of smaller and tenant farmers. What will the Government do to put in place some form of advice strategy so that those people can get independent, objective and, more particularly, comprehensive advice about how to completely change many of the ways in which they have farmed in the past?

[George Eustice]

We will look at that issue, but fundamentally we have been clear that we recognise the current dependency on the existing basic payment scheme—the area payments. That is why we have set out a plan for an agricultural transition period to give farmers, especially those on our smaller family farms, plenty of time to prepare. Our new environmental land management scheme, when published, will have plenty of guidance alongside it.

Fly-tipping

David Drew Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Select Committee, on hitting the jackpot so early on in our recovery from the Easter break. Next to potholes, this is one of the more popular topics on which people engage us, more than anything because of the unfairness of it—if fly-tipping takes place on their land or next to them, it becomes their problem. He is right to highlight it, and I know the Select Committee will continue to look at waste as a major topic of interest.

I will not go over the facts and figures, but we have had good contributions from the hon. Members for Angus (Kirstene Hair), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher). Others contributed through interventions, which will be on the record.

Fly-tipping is a major problem. We start with people dumping stuff casually, thinking they can get away with it. That is wrong, but at the other end of the scale, this is a major billion-pound criminal business. Next to people trafficking, the drugs trade and, dare I say, a little around the meat trade—we will pass over that quickly—this is the big business of the criminal underworld. People make millions out of it, so we cannot pretend it is something to ignore.

We have heard some of the facts and figures on how local authorities are affected, and there is the implication that, with the cuts and so on, they have found it difficult to up their game, but I will concentrate for the moment on the Environment Agency, which has also faced cuts in this area. I understand that it deals with 1,000 illegal waste sites a year, taking enforcement action, cleaning up and trying to prevent it from happening again, but it has been said to me that it is a bit like whack-a-mole at the fairground—I am a great animal lover—because every time the mole is hit, it comes up somewhere else. That is because of two things: the amount of money to be made out the business, and the way we deal with it in terms of fines and action, which is far too limited nowadays.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) sent me something she would have spoken about if she could have been here—she sends her apologies; she had a prior engagement—about a firm in her constituency that effectively set up a mini-incinerator, burning all the time. It took a lot of action to get it shut down. When the firm came to court, a sentence of a £750 fine was imposed for one offence—the second offence could not be prosecuted—which was reduced to £562, with £374 costs, and the director responsible was fined £199. According to her, the nonsense went on for weeks and weeks, and the penalty bears no resemblance to the inconvenience caused. That shows how limited the fines and ability to do anything are.

First, I will start with a question to the Minister—she has plenty of time to think about it. At a private briefing that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I went to, I was surprised when she said there is no evidence of an impact on the level of fly-tipping when local authorities put charges on collections for larger items. It would be good to get some empirical evidence, because that is not the view outside this place—it certainly is not that of constituents who I have talked to. My local authority did not charge for it while next door in Gloucester city they always charged and—dare I say it—Gloucester city’s larger items seemed to find their way into Stroud district; but we now charge, and I do not understand how that has not had an impact. It may not have been that much, but there has been talk of a 7% increase last year and it is coming from somewhere. If she could tell me about that or say there is an investigation to look at the impact, that would be useful, because we must have that empirical evidence.

Secondly—I have already talked about this—the fines regime is totally inadequate for today. It is based not just on the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 but on the Environmental Protection Act, which dates back to 1990. Some of the ways to prosecute and the fines regime are therefore nearly 30 years out of date. I know we update the measures, but as much as I love seeing the Minister at various Delegated Legislation Committees on this topic, it needs to be looked at as a whole. As I have said before—I hope the Government will take this seriously—the Opposition will co-operate in any way possible to update the 2005 Act. One of the problems is that there is a lack of strategy. We need one, because it is a big criminal business at one level, and it is really annoying for a lot of people. We are therefore willing to help in whatever way we can to make that Act fit for purpose, with a new Bill.

That is important, because certainly in England the recycling rate has begun to stall—in fact, in some parts of the country it is beginning to decline. I do not see the rush to incineration as anything other than the wrong solution, but there is a real requirement to recognise the problem of waste. I get countless emails from people saying, “We’ve got to do something about plastics,” and we have got to do something about waste overall. I therefore ask the Minister to take up that offer and, through the DEFRA team, see if something can be done in the next Session.

This issue exercises not just individuals and areas but organisations. We have had excellent contributions from the Country Land and Business Association, the Local Government Association, the Countryside Alliance and the National Farmers Union—and, as always, a good paper from the House of Commons Library—which all indicate how big a problem it is and how much we need to do.

I will conclude to give the Minister an awful lot of time to respond—no doubt, she has an awful lot to say, because this is a big topic. I hope we can see this not just as ad hoc misbehaviour—bad as it is—that needs to be dealt with. We must also look at the other end: the criminal and the organised, where people are making serious money and we are not bringing them to justice. Last week, I made a trip in my area to look at some of the notorious sites. Even if we do bring individuals to justice, the fines regime and penalties are so paltry that people can build up for them as a matter of course, and they get away with it time after time. People may build genuine businesses from that—that may be good or bad—but it is not right to use illegality to get there. I hope the Minister sees this as a good opportunity to be forthright about the ways in which we can move forward. The Opposition will help the Government in any way we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend mentions the DVLA, and often the Data Protection Act 1998 is used as a way not to pass on information. I am happy to take that issue away and discuss it with a Minister from the Department for Transport. He also mentions the challenge of costs. If somebody is convicted of fly-tipping, the landowner or occupier can pursue a court order under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to get the costs of the clearance reimbursed. I encourage councils and other agencies to keep going with attempts to convict, and to try to help private landowners.

[Dr Drew]

Does the Minister accept that satellite technology now means that it is difficult to hide the things that people used to be able to hide? That is something the Department could consider more seriously. Such technology is already used in some parts of the United Kingdom, but that would be a good venture for DEFRA to take up.

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know whether satellite technology would help us in this case, and I am not an expert on how best to present evidence to get a conviction. However, I will certainly ensure that the point is understood by my officials, so that they can raise it with the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group and the police.

Local councils, as the responsible authorities, have a significant role to play in tackling fly-tipping on private land. Fly-tipping gangs dump waste irrespective of whether the land is publicly or privately owned, and all local councils should therefore investigate fly-tipping incidents on private land. If there is evidence, they should prosecute the fly-tippers, and they can then recover clearance costs via the courts, as I have just outlined. However, not all councils are minded to do that, and only about half are actively trying to tackle the issue.

I am very alert to the challenges regarding council resources. The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) praised her council but was concerned about the available resources. I gently point out that although Coventry City Council’s website states that support from central Government has fallen—in 2010-11, £153 million came from the revenue support grant and business rates, and that is now £122.5 million—that is not quite a reduction of the level that I thought I heard the hon. Lady describe, which was considerably higher. I emphasise, however, that councils have many more powers and the opportunity to recoup costs, and it matters that they use those powers if the issue is a local priority. However, the national Government cannot force councils to do so.

I encourage all councils to be alert to fly-tipping and to use their powers. When councils ask us for powers, we will try to ensure that they get those powers in the future. Councils currently have more than 20 powers to choose from to tackle fly-tipping, and we have recently spent time working in Committees to give them more. We have strengthened a council’s ability to search and seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, and we have introduced a fixed penalty notice for small-scale fly-tipping. An additional 20,000 fixed penalty notices were issued in 2016-17, but not all councils have decided to implement those powers. Again, I strongly encourage them to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I do not accept that there was no change. As I said a little earlier, we have announced a package of measures. It includes a £10 million collaboration fund to help farmers and small producers to come together, compulsory milk contracts legislation to protect dairy farmers, compulsory sheep carcase classification, a commitment to making supply chain data easier to access to improve transparency and market integrity and a commitment to reviewing whether more grocery retailers should come under the GCA’s remit.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the Minister says, but given that the vast majority of producers and consumers are very keen for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to be strengthened, why will he not do so? The Opposition are very happy to help if he says that he is prepared to strengthen the code.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

My hon. Friend is doing a good job of demonstrating to the whole House the difference it can make when we, as Members of Parliament, make our constituents in not spots aware of this new agreement. If Members have churches with tall towers or spires, these can be used to bounce the broadband signal into existing not spots. The example, on International Women’s Day, of the church he refers to gives encouragement to all. I know that the Isle of Purbeck suffers from poorer coverage, and I would encourage him to get the churches in his constituency to apply too.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but will she include in the work that the Church is doing churches that have been closed? They are often in the most rural and isolated areas, and their status is sometimes unclear. This could be a very important way in which we could make use of these buildings.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Church of England has put its entire assets at the disposal of the Government to help crack the problem of the not spots—that includes its churches, its schools and its land, where necessary. For example, we can beam a signal from a church spire to the brow of a hill—the land may belong to the Church—down into the next village, which does not have a signal, and thereby get coverage. Those assets are all bound up in this accord.

Middle Level Bill

David Drew Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

We are on Report, whose purpose is to look at the technical detail of the Bill and satisfy ourselves it would be appropriate. In terms of whether I support the principle, my council does not offer a parking fee concession for those who hold a blue badge, only the ability to use reserved spaces that are very close. Again, that principle is established in many areas, so I do not think the principle of this is one to take forward. This is not about someone needing an extra facility because they are disabled; this is about a boat and navigation and whether people pay the same charge as everyone else and are effectively treated exactly the same.

On amendments 15 and 16, it does not make any sense to remove the ability to promote reciprocal arrangements, and it could end up costing boat owners more if they have to have separate licences and registration and different standards, so I urge the House to reject these amendments. On amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, a protocol will be put in place, so I do not accept the suggestion that the existing powers would be oppressive. A houseboat would only be removed in the last resort and where it was proportionate to do so.

On amendment 23, it makes little sense to apply this cap only to the application fee; it does not apply it to the registration fee. This could produce perverse effects in the long run, and I again suggest it should be rejected.

My view and that of the promoters is that amendment 26 this would cause confusion: if things are done in “conjunction” with, rather than through “consultation”, and someone wishes to take legal action, whom do they take it against? They could end up taking it against members of the navigation advisory committee which actually just got involved to represent people, so this could act as a deterrent for anyone wanting to be involved.

There are many good reasons for this Bill to be passed. It has been examined in great depth in the Opposed Bill Committee and on the Floor of the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his great interest and the scrutiny he has given this Bill, but I urge the House to reject all the new clauses and amendments, if necessary.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to be able to make this short speech in support of the Bill, unamended as it is. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and those who sat on the Committee. They seem to have done a great deal of clever and thoughtful work. I know very little about the Middle Level Bill, but I do know a lot about the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, where we had similar issues relating to the need to update and to who should be able to moor and therefore be charged for facilities. That was resolved, although not without difficulty, because there was some opposition. Eventually, however, people saw sense on issues such as shutting the canal on certain days when there is limited need to use it, to allow people easier passage over its many bridges. It is right and proper that such arrangements should be revisited from time to time, to ensure that our canal system and the waterway system in general are fit for purpose. I should like to add my congratulations on the work that has been done, and I hope that the Bill will pass without amendment.