Aquaculture

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend; there is a connection between investment, the resulting gain that we make in national productivity and the benefit that will then accrue to the whole UK economy. Innovate UK, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland all need to work together to create a shared strategy of supporting investment in research and development in this area.

At the very least, we need that shared strategy to be agreed in a spirit of co-operation. The industrial strategy calls for innovation across the board to boost our national productivity, as my right hon. Friend suggested, but it also calls for a new technological revolution in agriculture and food production. UK aquaculture is an innovative sector; there is a big opportunity to utilise big data, sensors, imaging or robotics. It is at the forefront of the productivity challenge, but it needs more investment and interest from the UK Government.

I ask the Minister whether DEFRA will consider investing UK funds to help to support the growth of a vital UK industry such as farmed Atlantic salmon? This is far too important a sector to be devolved and forgotten about. We need an explicit acknowledgment that UK aquaculture is a high-tech, high growth, low carbon food source and direct future funding through the industrial strategy challenge fund to support further innovation in the sector. That would also give us an opportunity to address some of the other issues I have spoken about in terms of environmental sustainability, which can and will be solved through the power of science and innovation.

There is no doubt in my mind about the importance of this sector and I hope there is no doubt—I am sure there is not—in the mind of the Minister.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks a lot about the importance of productivity and R&D and about investment. He will be aware that in the event of a no-deal Brexit Scotland’s salmon industry may need four times as many export health certificates as now, which has the potential to cost the industry £15 million. Can he tell us how he thinks that should be addressed?

[Stephen Kerr]

That is a very good intervention; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. Government and business need to be fully prepared for any eventual outcome in relation to Brexit.

[Stephen Kerr]

One of the encouraging things about interacting with Ministers from DEFRA is the state of readiness in that Department, which is led by an excellent Secretary of State and ministerial team, in relation to the potentiality of any Brexit outcome.

[Deidre Brock]

I am delighted to hear that from the Minister and to receive those reassurances. I do not know how much influence the Minister has in terms of local authorities. I know about one department that examines export health certificates in a local authority in Scotland that has been cut considerably. I do not see how it is possible for the Minister to give us complete assurances about export health certificates.

[Stephen Kerr]

It is illuminating and apposite that the hon. Lady draws the attention of the Chamber to the cuts that the SNP Scottish Government have inflicted on Scottish local authorities. In fact, the UK Government gave a parcel of money that was intended to be passed to local authorities to help them be ready for any eventual outcome in relation to Brexit. The Scottish Government thought better than to pass that money on to Scotland’s local authorities and decided they had other spending priorities.

That is not surprising given the fact that this is a Scottish Government that borrows to the hilt on the nation’s credit card on the one hand, then has dramatic underspends from year to year on the other. They are frankly incompetent when it comes to managing Scotland’s economy and Scotland’s public finances. I am afraid that they are incompetent in just about every field we look at in Scotland; the sooner we can shine a bright light on the performance of the Scottish Government in this matter, and every other matter, the better, because then we can talk about real substance in terms of political issues that impact on the quality of the lives of constituents.

To conclude, I have specific asks for the Minister. Given the fact that Scottish farmed salmon alone is worth over £1 billion to the UK economy, we have got to give aquaculture its proper place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on the issues I have raised. I would like to hear how the Government will ensure Scotland and the aquaculture sector benefit from the seafood innovation fund; that is key. The UK Government is working with the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre in Stirling, but what more can be done to support that valuable work and promote a UK-wide approach, harnessing our global reputation in this sector? What more can be done to ensure closer working across and between Governments to develop a shared vision and strategy for innovation in the aquaculture sector? Putting aquaculture at the heart of our food security policy and acknowledging what a tremendous innovative and high-tech sector it is, how much more would be possible with the right level of investment and partnering?

In short, the whole point of my speech is to ask the Minister to support the idea of creating a UK-wide sector deal for aquaculture. Can we have one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend did, as my predecessor, in getting to grips with these issues. He is a hard act to follow. I was aware of the wrasse being kidnapped and taken to harvest the lice, and of the impact that has on the ecology in the south-west of England.

[Deidre Brock]

I am a little surprised to hear the Minister talking about the industry leadership group here, because there is one set up in Scotland, the Aquaculture Industry Leadership Group, which seeks to double the economic contribution of the sector and double the number of jobs to 18,000 by 2030, as opposed to 2040, which I think is the ambition of the group down here in England.

[Mr Goodwill]

I give the Scottish Government credit for its achievement where credit is due. I hope the groups will work across the four Administrations to ensure that we do not duplicate effort, but work together. At this point, I must pay tribute to the huge investment in the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre through the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal, which is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to aquaculture.

Unsustainable Packaging

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke about the mood of the public changing—he noted that—and this petition is a testament to that, as is the quality of the contributions to the debate today; that quality has really shown that change, as well. There has been a great deal of passion and commitment to real change shown by the speakers in this debate and I commend everyone who has taken part for that.

The hon. Gentleman also paid tribute to those programmes, such as “Blue Planet II”, that have brought these problems home to each one of us; indeed, they have brought them directly into our homes.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impressive work of the Petitions Committee staff, with some 20,000 people having been surveyed. That is a huge number of people whose views we have taken into account and the survey has given us some incredibly useful statistics. I thank him for listing some of those statistics and look forward to looking up the rest of them, because that was obviously a really valuable exercise. It was interesting to hear exactly what packaging—or rather, the lack of packaging—remarkable numbers of people seem prepared to accept.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted what is something of a Catch-22 situation, with companies increasing production of genuinely recyclable packaging while we still lack the necessary infrastructure to properly deal with it. I suggest to the Minister that extra investment is urgently needed in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman made a very useful point about the importance of remembering to consider the whole lifecycle—that analysis of what is being packaged. It is also important to remember that items need to be reused considerably more times than they are now before they are simply thrown away, or indeed recycled.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) brought back happy memories for me of hunting for returnable bottles and exchanging the extra cash for sweeties, I am afraid to say. However, he also called for an end to Government box-ticking exercises, a proper appreciation of what is recyclable, and proper co-ordination between different local authorities. That issue exists in Scotland too, and I know that the Scottish Government are keen to try to iron out some of the differences in recycling approaches.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the compostable cups that are now in use in Parliament. It is perhaps worth pointing out for the record that they are for commercial composting—they are not really for household composting—and the company that produces them also provides a collection service to enable that commercial composting to happen. I know that because the company’s HQ is located in my constituency; I will say more on the company later.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) mentioned the excellent initiative of Scottish Water, which I would love to see being rolled out throughout the UK by different water companies. It involves installing free water fountains, like the Victorian fountains that were once so common everywhere. They are fountains for residents and visitors alike throughout Scotland, and it is a pleasure to see them after so many of the older, mainly Victorian water fountains fell out of favour.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) quoted David Attenborough speaking of “the age of plastic”. She rightly pointed out that plastic was once very enthusiastically welcomed, but also spoke of the flipside of the “plastic curse”; she mentioned nurdles and micro-fibres and many other things that I have certainly become aware of through some of my beach clean-up days with the Wardie Bay beachwatch in my constituency. She also spoke of other very serious legacy issues for plastic. She called for the Government to address those and to commit to actions to deal with that “plastic soup”, which is a phrase that I think will stick forever in my memory; it is very unfortunate that we even have to think of such a thing.

The hon. Lady also called on us all to show joined-up thinking, saying that we should aim for that truly circular economy. She also mentioned clingfilm, so I should mention the fact that my mother still washes clingfilm and drapes it on the kitchen taps. She has done so for many years and was a very early recycler.

The phrase “horrors from the deep” took on another significance recently, when a plastic bag was found in the Mariana Trench, the deepest part of the world’s oceans, along with sweet wrappers of course. We also heard that “there ain’t no mountain high enough”, when 11,000 kg of rubbish, including plastic, was removed from Mount Everest. Still, plastic keeps fruit clean, right?

The hon. Member for Cambridge spoke of TV programmes that helped to create the increasing pressure for action. The recent disclosure that nations in other parts of the world are refusing to continue to accept waste from the UK, and plastic waste in particular, also brought that issue into the public consciousness with a bang. I am sure that many of us here muttered a wee profanity in relief as we realised that this news was being laid out clearly on the public agenda—hooray, indeed. But it must not just be a press story that is here today and gone tomorrow.

It was no surprise perhaps that we were foisting our problems on countries that we regard as “developing” while we think of ourselves as “developed”, which is to our shame; there is perhaps no surprise either that we are happy to leave it to someone else to clean up after us; and there is perhaps no surprise that we did not think about the consequences before we made the mess.

The sheer volume of waste that cannot be recycled and that represents a hazard to other life on this planet is as mind blowing as the scale of our idea that it can all simply be swept under the global carpet. The task of cleaning up this mess, and the job of getting some semblance of order back, is of similar measure to that of sending people to the moon after Kennedy made that declaration in Houston in 1962.

We need to have a similar belief in our ability to achieve. We need to think that it is not only necessary but within our reach to take action; that this action is not only possible but desirable. We have to set our collective human mind to the task of setting right what we have made wrong. I do not think that anyone has all the answers yet, but at least we have started asking the questions.

We need to clear the backlog of waste that we have created, but we also need to do more to stop creating the stuff in the first place. I find myself going backwards and forwards, between praising supermarkets—as some speakers have done, quite rightly, today for developing products and packaging that can be composted or recycled, or that are even biodegradable, which are moves in the right direction—to thinking that if those supermarkets spent a fraction of their advertising and promotion budgets on this issue, we might see some real differences.

Since each supermarket watches all the other supermarkets and twitches at the smallest possible movement, smart supermarkets that find a way to market some real moves to sustainability will not only gain a commercial advantage, which they will keep, but trigger a chain reaction in the other supermarkets. It is good to hear that the first, somewhat tentative steps are being taken in that respect and that that opportunity is finally being grasped.

However, it is not enough simply to find ways to use a bit less packaging. Where packaging is desirable or necessary, we should make sure that it does not cost the future. We must make the packaging sustainable, recyclable and biodegradable—making it properly biodegradable would be even better.

In my constituency, there is a company called Vegware, which produces foodstuffs packaging that, as can be seen by looking at this cup, people might take for plastic, but it is not. Instead, it is made from plants and can be recycled with food waste, where it composts—commercial composting, yes, but that becomes nutrients for plants. That is a virtuous circle that is simple and rather beautiful.

Vegware has been in business only since 2006, but it has operational bases in the UK, the US, Australia and Hong Kong, and it distributes throughout Europe, the middle east, South America and the Caribbean. It has corporate clients the length of the UK and, indeed, in this very Parliament. It has demonstrated onsite compositing at Dundee and Angus College that produces horticultural compost from waste in just two weeks. It is showing the way forward, and that is not unusual in Scotland, either. The Scottish Government are showing leadership within their restricted scope for movement.

I am delighted to see that the deposit return scheme is coming in Scotland. I have often wondered why there has been so much attention on plastic straws, important though that matter is, and not enough on plastic bottles—as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee mentioned—especially when we can get compostable straws from Vegware, a company in my constituency that I might have mentioned previously.

Scotland’s recycling rates are high. More trees are being planted each year and communities up and down the country are taking action. I mentioned Wardie Bay beachwatch and I will also mention the fantastic Leithers Don’t Litter, a completely voluntary organisation that has been making a huge difference for years now to the Leith community with its clean-up days. I particularly pay tribute to Gerry and Zsuzsa Farrell, who have been utter champions in that regard.

Schoolchildren have become the environmental activists that our generation failed to be, and the future is brighter than it might have been as a result. But that is not enough; much more needs to be done. Governments need to go beyond strategies, plans and visions to some actual actions, and I will be delighted to see the Minister getting on with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I am a great fan of Weetabix, not least because I am a wheat producer myself. Indeed, I have driven past the Weetabix factory in his constituency with my hon. Friend, and I quite fancy going to visit when my diary allows.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

At the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that the EU would continue to protect UK protected geographical indications because they are European law. That seems to be incorrect. Was he mistaken, or did someone mislead him? Will he now put the record straight?

[Mr Goodwill]

Geographical indications are important not only for producers but so that consumers know they are getting the real thing. It is important that we get that protection in our negotiations with the EU through the implementation period while, at the same time, talking to other trading partners around the world who may have different systems. We need to ensure that those systems dovetail closely with ours.

Environment and Climate Change

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

May I just say that it is about bloody time? Grave warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been ignored by too many Governments and parliamentarians for far too long. Greenwashing and tinkering have been the order of the day. We have had Prime Ministers stating that they would run the greenest Government in history and saying, “Vote blue, get green.” We have had Ministers jetting around the globe to attend summits on how to address climate change. We have had sombre words and much head-shaking as hands were wrung and crocodiles asked for their tears back. Then, last week, a 16-year-old girl came here—an extremely impressive 16-year-old girl—and she was fawned over by some people who were anxious for some reflected glory. Suddenly, people are running around trying to look worried about this issue.

I should clarify that there have always been some voices that have been raised and that have carried warnings in this place and in others for some time. There are people who warmed these Benches warning about global warming when it was less than fashionable to do so. Some were labelled cranks and crackpots, but they picked up those names and carried on, because the issue was so important. Those people have sat on Government Benches and Opposition Benches. Most will not now be remembered, and that will be okay by them. I am glad that the Secretary of State paid tribute to Roseanna Cunningham, who is now the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform in the Scottish Government. She was one such toiler. She suffered her time here as a Member in the 1990s, and she still rants about how hard she found it to get anyone to really listen to what needed to be done—not just to appear to be listening, nor to engage in a listening and engagement exercise, but actually to listen. Not that she bears a grudge.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the concrete actions that the Government could take to respond to this emergency is to ban fracking throughout the UK?

[Deidre Brock]

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Scottish Government have taken significant action on that issue, and I would very much like to see it taken across the UK as well. There is no place for fracking anywhere, in my opinion.

Roseanna Cunningham is now at the forefront of delivering on a programme to actually deliver on addressing climate change—an environmental policy that takes into account the needs of people and the need to hand on a working planet to future generations. She will tell us that she wants to do more, to deliver more and to solve all the problems and solve them now, but she knows, as do many who sit in this Chamber, that Government policy does not pivot so easily, and public attitude changes take time and effort to effect. That means that this needs the extra effort and extra attention that great changes usually need. We have to change the way we live—the way we conduct society. We have to be aware now that these changes will make life less comfortable. That is just how it is, though, and we should get on with it.

This is the one issue that might require us to put away the tools of political point-scoring and decide to work together for the survival of the species. We may not agree on the way forward, and we do not have to, but we can do that without losing sight of what we are driving at. The DEFRA Secretary—or Old Swampy, as I like to call him—and I can find ways to work together. I can offer him the benefit of vision that those of us who live in Scotland have of a Government working towards some serious and stretching targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We can chat about how the Scottish Government have put money into ensuring that there are enough charging points for electric vehicles to allow a target for phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032, and about funding electric buses and ultra low emission vehicles in the public fleet.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On working together, I am not sure if my hon. Friend is aware that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is apparently looking at allowing onshore wind in Scotland where the Scottish Government have embraced onshore wind, yet the Scottish Secretary has put in writing to BEIS his objection to Scotland getting access to onshore wind, and now the Departments are refusing to release that correspondence. Is that not disgraceful and the very opposite of working together?

[Deidre Brock]

I am indeed aware of that issue, and I do think it is disgraceful. I cannot see how the Secretary of State has a leg to stand on in this regard.

This needs ambition—not personal ambition, but political ambition and the desire to see future generations able to breathe on this planet. We need to challenge an old measure of Government success—the measure that says that the greatest good a Government can do is grow GDP—and start to measure success by how much the Government can do to ensure that there is a future where the sustainability of communities and the environment is a touchstone.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for all the glossy words of the Environment Secretary, what is needed is for Departments to work together? As she knows, Dalgety Bay beach in Scotland is still covered in radioactive particles, and the Ministry of Defence has dithered and delayed on this. Does she agree that that needs to be addressed urgently; that it cannot wait until next year, as seems to be getting suggested; and that the message has to go to the Government that Scotland is not Westminster’s nuclear dumping ground?

[Deidre Brock]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. It has been three decades since radioactive particles were found on Dalgety Bay beach, and only now is the MOD finally committing itself to a clean-up of those particles. That is an utter disgrace. I would like, personally, to see an environmental audit of all MOD activities on Scottish land and water to see what that uncovers, and then, of course, the MOD paying for the clean-up operations.

We must have regard to the warning issued by the Governor of the Bank of England when he said that climate uncertainty was an economic risk and that climate challenges could become challenges in the financial markets. We have to see that, swallow it and move on. Action on climate change can be a threat to jobs, but inaction is a death knell, and not just to jobs. Mark Carney also said that there was opportunity in the changes to come, and that we should embrace that and welcome the possibility of new industries and new jobs arising from new technology.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pressure for the real, far-reaching change that we need is being brought to bear by the future generations that we are failing by not going far enough? Will she join me in congratulating the pupils of Whitehirst Park Primary School in Kilwinning, who have been working very hard to learn more about climate change?

[Deidre Brock]

I certainly will. My own two daughters’ knowledge of these important issues is so much greater than mine was at that age. The amount of work that is being put in on this issue by students right across the UK is phenomenal; it is very impressive indeed. I really appreciate my hon. Friend bringing that up.

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

Like me, the hon. Lady spent many weeks in the Committee on the Agriculture Bill, which, if introduced properly, could take us forward, notwithstanding the implications of our membership of the EU. Is she rather surprised that that Bill is yet to come back to the House, months after it left Committee?

[Deidre Brock]

Yes, I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman—it has surprised me how long the Bill has taken to reach the Floor of this House again. It was an interesting time in Committee. A number of the issues did not really concern Scotland, of course, as he will be aware, but there were some big issues that were not properly addressed by the Minister at the time. It might be that the Government are grappling with the issues around food production, for example, which, as he will know, was not even in the Bill.

To return to welcoming new industries and new jobs arising from new technology, that is why the Government should be reversing decisions they made to pull funding from renewables and to cut subsidies, denying researchers the tools they need to progress these new technologies. Nova Innovation, headquartered a few hundred metres from my constituency office in Edinburgh North and Leith, has recently installed tidal arrays off Shetland, gathering power from the sea and demonstrating that the technology can be scaled up and adapted to provide a constant and consistent source of renewable energy. That was possible only because EU funding was available to drive the development of the technology. Post Brexit, none of that funding will be available, so how will the Government be stepping up to the plate? Will they be filling this hole left by our departure from the EU? Indeed, since this is a Labour motion, may I ask Opposition Front Benchers to give some concrete assurances that if they ever got into power, research into renewables would see increased support and funding—and, crucially, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), connections to the grid would be cheaper for renewable power generated?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a valuable contribution. On European funding for research and development, the Government will not guarantee replacing that money beyond 2020. That is a very important point. If the Government were really serious about doing something about climate change, they would step up and tell us exactly what is going to happen after 2020.

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. This is just another example of the uncertainty that the whole situation around Brexit has caused, and the Government refuse to clarify it for the many people who are waiting to see what the grants might be.

What offers are likely to be made by any potential UK Government in the next couple of years to address the causes of climate change and climate chaos? A change of Prime Minister might offer an opportunity to change direction, but I see few signs that anyone leading on policy development in either of the two largest parties has really heard any of the warnings. Changing our society will require some discomfort, some pain and some realignment of how we live, and that is unlikely to happen immediately. For example, we still depend on fossil fuel-powered vehicles to get our food to the shops, and often even to get it to our front doors—from truck, to ship, to truck, to home delivery van. We still depend on hydrocarbons to make fertilisers. We still have an addiction to plastic that defies all understanding, and a hankering for personal transport.

People changing their cotton buds and refusing straws in pubs is not enough. The average inhabitant of these islands will join in with efforts to change the way we live, happily or otherwise, but it needs leadership from Government, proper investment in reliable renewable energy production, investment in and subsidies for low-emission public transport, a real push against plastics, and an uptick in building standards on insulation and energy-efficient heating and lighting—and not just for houses.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I agree with everything the hon. Lady is saying, but will she share her thoughts on how we manage the oil and gas industry in the UK over the next two or three decades?

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely. I would suggest something along the lines of the Scottish Government’s £12 million transition training fund, which was launched in 2016. The fund enables people who are in the oil and gas industry—about 240,000 jobs across the UK depend on it—to train and perhaps progress into the renewables industry. That is certainly something I would like to see.

[Alan Brown]

Further to that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the oil and gas industry could also be supported by implementing carbon capture and storage, which allows a low-carbon transition? That is where the UK Government are sadly lacking, having pulled the £1 billion funding. That is where we need to go, and it could make use of the decommissioned oilfields.

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely. That is a crucial element. Unfortunately, as the National Audit Office told us, the two competitions on CCS were cancelled at a cost of some £140 million, and that needs to be looked at properly again. At the moment, there is a £20 million prize fund on CCS, but it is simply not sufficient.

This requires a change of Government—not a change of personnel; there is no point changing the hand on the rudder if the course is still towards the rocks—and a change in attitude, ambition and direction of travel. It requires change across every Department and every ministerial portfolio. It needs Government to engage with the people and civic society, and to drive this agenda forward. In spite of the couthie words often chuntered here about saving the planet, there has not been much evidence of action. This is one small corner of the world, and it cannot change global politics on its own, no matter what strange dreams Brexiters have. We have a duty and a moral obligation to do our bit to keep this world fit to hand on to the next generation, and it is about time we bucked up our ideas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I can report to the House that performance of the basic payment scheme in 2018 was much better than in previous years, with 98.8% of payments being made. We have guaranteed that the system will apply for this year and next year. Moving forward, we will have an exciting new scheme under the Agriculture Act—as I hope it will then be—that enables us to green the economy and make basic payments to more environmental schemes.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), said in a recent Delegated Legislation Committee:

“The Government look forward to negotiations on the UK’s future economic partnership with the EU, during which we will be able to discuss the relationship between the UK’s new GI schemes and the EU schemes.”—[Official Report, Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 26 March 2019; c. 10.]

We now have confirmation that brand protections for high-quality products, including Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and Scotch whisky, have become bargaining chips in the big Brexit bodge, and that there will be no support on day one of a no-deal Brexit. What financial compensation will be offered to Scotland’s food and drink producers for this UK Government policy blunder?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have to say that that is a load of nonsense. British consumers rely on geographical indicators to ensure that products they buy from the continent are kosher—are the right thing—and I think they would expect the same from us. I think there would be very productive negotiations, and I hope that we would reach quite rapid decisions on most of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is a very important point that the strategic development fund is there not only for the restoration of very fine examples of English architecture, such as Top church in Dudley, but to establish new churches, often in communities where there has been no provision for places of worship. I reassure my hon. Friend. If he has candidates in his constituency, perhaps he would like to place a request through me to the commissioners, if that is what he seeks.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

A recent article in The Guardian stated that Scotland’s largest private forestry owner is now the Church of England. There are growing concerns in Scotland about the effects of that type of concentrated land ownership. Can the commissioner shed some light on what assessment the Church made of the impact of that investment decision on local communities?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The investment in forestry was part of the Church of England’s commitment to respond to its ethical investment strategy and move away from investments in, for example, oil sands and companies that may be producing products that do not accord with our commitment to tackle climate change. Investment in forestry obviously is a positive contribution to the climate. As part of the assessment of those investments, we take into consideration the communities that live in the places where we are invested.

Modern Farming and the Environment

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing the debate and echo others in welcoming the Minister to his new post.

It is appropriate that we should be debating farming and the environment today, just 17 days away from our exit from not only the EU but the common agricultural policy. Our farmers—particularly those in my constituency—have always seen the CAP as a one-size-fits-none approach. Farmers are looking to the Government and the devolved Administrations to create a system more tailored to our sector and our environment. It is vital for the future of our agricultural sector that all levels of Government get the balance right between productive farming and enhancing the environment.

The Agriculture Bill is aimed at rewarding farmers for “public goods” such as good environmental stewardship, while encouraging them to continue growing high-quality produce in more innovative, efficient and sustainable ways. The omission of a schedule specifically for Scottish farmers from the Bill has left them—particularly the farmers in my constituency—in the dark. Therefore, I encourage the new Minister to make it a priority to work closely with Scottish Government Ministers to agree a way forward that respects devolution but also gives Scottish farmers the clarity and certainty they deserve about the future of their sector.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I am just checking whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Scottish Government recently announced that they would be introducing an agriculture Bill of their own.

[David Duguid]

I was aware of that, although I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. However, what is not clear is when that process will completed; when will there be Royal Assent? The UK Bill, from which a Scottish schedule is absent, is going through Parliament as we speak, and is due for Report any time now.

Brexit will pave the way for new trade deals with economies around the world, but it is vital that our high standards should be preserved in those deals. Many farmers are concerned that a trade deal with the United States, for example, could mean pressure on us to drop our standards or possibly could price British farmers out of a lot of the market. It is not that farmers are against free trade or free trade deals—quite the opposite. However, those things should not come at the price of our environment, food standards and animal welfare, or the prosperity of our own agriculture sector. I am therefore pleased that the UK Government have been consistent in saying that our high standards will be preserved in our future trade deals. I hope that, as we enter the Brexit transition period, in which new trade deals will start to be negotiated, that commitment will be reflected in reality.

There need be no conflict between embracing innovation and technological development, and having high environmental, quality and welfare standards. An example is the ground-breaking work of the James Hutton Institute, based in Aberdeen and Dundee, which is one of the biggest research centres in the UK, and is the first research centre of its kind in Europe. It is fair to say that the agriculture sector will face a number of changes and challenges in future, and that many of those could have an effect on the environment. It is worth noting that not all those changes will be technological. Farms are businesses, and farmers are increasingly applying new management practices from other sectors to their approach to agriculture. However, technological developments in machinery, food processing, artificial intelligence and, yes, genetics promise to have a profound effect on the sector. It is important that we take a balanced approach to those developments. There is no reason why advances that improve productivity should necessarily run counter to sustaining our environment and other standards of quality and welfare. That is what farmers do, after all. As other hon. Members have said, farmers are the original friends of the earth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) mentioned the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. I am looking forward to the Bill, which I hope will reflect a balanced approach. Agriculture is vital to the economy and to rural life across the country. Food and drink remain our largest export to the world. It is my hope that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations can work constructively to ensure that the sector can deal with the challenges and opportunities of the future in a way that maintains harmony with our natural environment.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great delight to serve under your chairship, Mr Evans. There may have been times in the past when farmers cared not a jot about the environment—I doubt it, but there is that possibility. A crofter or farmer who does not value and protect the land and environment would be devaluing their business, and good agricultural stewards are the guardians of future environmental protections.

Yesterday on Twitter I was interested to see Leigh Farm take issue with Chris Packham over his comments about farmers. She pointed to her pollen and nectar meadow as an example of good farming practice—something I certainly agree with—and she has previously offered photographs of her borage bee pasture, which seems to demonstrate a commitment to environmentally friendly farming practices on her Cornwall farm. She pointed to an article by another farmer that indicates the environmental benefits of flail cutting hedges—something of a surprise to me—although that practice is condemned by some environmentalists. My speech may have wandered a little, but it is important to bear in mind that none of us has all the facts, and experts may inhabit different sides of a debate. However, farmers are unlikely to wish wanton destruction on their land or ability to continue farming productively. There will always be rogues in every walk of life, but the nature of the agriculture industry makes it unlikely that a custodian of land would wish to see its destruction.

Agriculture provides us with public goods in the form of environmental protections and enhancement, by dint of farmers’ commitment to ensuring that their business prospers. We should support crofters and farmers as food producers and environmental guardians, and ensure that adequate financial assistance reaches the most marginal agricultural areas, rather than being siphoned off. Support for agriculture is support for communities that are often remote and do not have the same advantages that other communities enjoy. Take away that support and communities could struggle, wither, or even cease to be viable. They could suffer from depopulation, resulting in a loss of community services such as schools, post offices, shops and so on—I have seen that in areas of the highlands. Such problems are what less favoured area support under the common agricultural policy was designed to address, and it was frankly reprehensible for the Government to keep as convergence funding the £160 million that was supposed to go to farmers and crofters in Scotland. We still want that funding back, so perhaps the Minister will keep the issue in his new in-tray.

If we take away that funding—I know that some areas in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland face similar problems and have similar needs—we risk leaving land untended. Some may prefer such a rolling back of human intervention, but that ignores the fact that those lands have had human intervention for centuries, and are not in what might be considered their natural state. We also need that land to continue producing food—especially after Brexit does its damage—and the environment will benefit from that production. We are part of the environment; farming is part of the ecology of this planet. We are animals who have had a huge impact on the planet, but we are part of it and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Agriculture has changed and will continue to change, and in the main, today’s farmers are more environmentally aware than previous generations.

In Scotland, the Farm Advisory Service has been delivering the Farming for a Better Climate initiative, which helps farmers to optimise inputs on their farms, minimise emissions, lock in carbon, and get the best return for their investments in the most environmentally sustainable way possible. That is good news, and it has been a good project so far, but it is funded partly by the EU and partly by the Scottish Government, and since we have had no indication from the UK Government that they will keep their previous promises to match or exceed Scotland’s EU funding, its future is in doubt. I was also impressed by my introduction to the Soil Association in Scotland. Its programmes on mob grazing, and its “less toil, better soil” initiative, have had a tremendous impact. I thank it for enabling me to be part of such initiatives, especially on mob grazing, and to go out to farms and see it in action.

Such educational and enabling schemes seem a far better way to deliver environmental benefits than the vague and rather unusual public goods suggestion in the Agriculture Bill. Indeed, that strikes me as an idea that focuses public resources around harsh ideas of punishment and reward—the odd concept that deprivation of resources acts as an incentive to improve, or of us starving our way to perfection. There is no evidence to suggest that such a mindset creates true and lasting change in population behaviour, and scant evidence that it creates alternate behaviour in the short term. It could, however, create a thriving trade in ways around the system, or lead to ways to game the payments, resulting in large and already wealthy landowners sucking up more of the available public resources, while those who should get help fall foul of a system that was never designed to help them. Grouse moors and shooting estates will benefit at the expense of hill farmers and smallholders. I am not sure that I agree entirely with the comments by the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) about shooting estates, because many questions remain to be answered about their biodiversity benefits.

If we wish to marry agricultural production with environmental benefits, the community buy-outs of land in Scotland should provide some pointers. One or two schemes have not quite taken off, but those that have are carving tremendous new futures for their communities and visitors. Environmental sustainability is not just part of the plan; it is central to people’s ambitions and the futures they see for themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure that if I had not intervened, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) would have done, because shooting contributes somewhere in the region of £20 million in Scotland. It reinvigorates the grouse moors and creates 2,500 jobs, and it boosts the economy, especially in rural areas where shooting is so important. The hon. Lady cannot ignore that.

[Deidre Brock]

I am aware of some of those figures, but there are still questions to be answered about many things to do with shooting estates; for example, I think the review that the Scottish Government are undertaking will include some interesting answers about the shooting of hares.

In conclusion, England is in need of serious land reform. It should take a long and hard look at what Scotland has done on land reform and community interest since devolution got under way 20 years ago. That started under the old Labour-Lib Dem Executive, and it is continuing under the new and vibrant Scottish SNP Government, who protect our environment as well as delivering community benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Thank you very much, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for calling this important debate, and I recognise his work on the red meat levy on behalf of Scottish farmers. He began his speech by talking about “friends of the earth”, and I confess that, as is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I too am a friend of the earth. I had the pleasure of serving with my hon. Friend on the Agriculture Bill Committee, and he consistently championed the needs of Scottish farmers and the link between farming, food production and the environment.

I, too, would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Not only did he serve the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so expertly for five years, but his vision has ensured that we are now taking up all the opportunities provided to us by leaving the inflexible common agricultural policy and the frustrating common fisheries policy. His will be a hard act to follow. It now falls to me to take the helm and guide the Bills underpinning our ambitious future policies through to Royal Assent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon talked about how we should get more new entrants into the industry. It is important that we get new young blood in, bringing with it innovation and energy. Sadly, I know from my own constituency that many farmers’ sons and daughters are not taking over family holdings, so we need to consider new ways of getting new entrants in. It was interesting to see on this week’s “Countryfile” new models of tenancies being tried out to get young people into the industry. The Agriculture Bill will certainly look for opportunities to bring new blood and diversity to the industry.

A number of Members referred to the concerns about the multi-annual settlements. Farming needs a sustainable financial model, and I am happy to agree with those who support the idea of a multi-annual settlement for the industry. It is a manifesto commitment that guarantees the same cash total until 2022—indeed, our farmers have more certainty than farmers in the EU. I welcome the efforts that have already been made by DEFRA, which is working closely with the Treasury on arrangements for future funding. We are committed to offering multi-annual contracts to farmers under the environmental land management scheme for the delivery of public goods.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon also mentioned gene editing. As somebody who studied for a degree in agriculture a whole generation ago, when gene editing and some of the more advanced methods of breeding crops were not known, I put on record that the Government disagree with the European Court of Justice’s ruling on gene editing. We argued that gene-edited organisms should not be subject to GM regulations if the changes to their DNA could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods. That remains our view, but the Court has decided otherwise, and its judgment is binding on the UK. We will be considering our future approach to regulation in the context of negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

We recognise the potential for advanced breeding techniques such as gene editing to make farming more productive and sustainable. We want to support innovation in that area, and ensure that any regulation is science-based and proportionate. We want the UK to be a leading player in developing the possible applications of new technologies, such as gene editing, building on the excellence of our science research base and our plant breeding sector. Ultimately, we want our farmers to have the best access to the tools available, so that they can remain competitive and boost productivity. The available evidence about the impact of current GM crops is variable, but it indicates that such crops have delivered both economic and environmental benefits. For example, a meta-analysis published in 2014 concluded that, on average, the adoption of GM crops has increased yields by 22%, increased profits by 68% and reduced pesticide use by 32%.

[Deidre Brock]

Is the Minister therefore confirming that he supports the introduction of GM crops in England? Can he clarify his personal views on GM crops?

[Mr Goodwill]

At the current time, as a member state of the European Union, we must comply with its legislation. However, whatever decisions we make in the future must be based on the best available scientific evidence.

[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon raised the question of whether food is a public good. Food is a commercial good, and the prime purpose of British agriculture is to produce good food, fibre and fuel. Recognising that those products are integral to UK agriculture should be front and centre in all our policies. He also mentioned the displacement of CO₂. I have previously been involved with that topic as a Member of the European Parliament, when energy-intensive industries such as the metallurgical industry were being exported to countries with environmental standards that were not as good as ours.

I agreed with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) more than I had thought I would when she got to her feet. Having served on the Environmental Audit Committee with her, I know that her views are to be taken seriously. Organic farming has a part to play. Under our new agricultural regime, we may look at how we can encourage farmers to innovate, and organic farming is one of those innovations. However, organic production should be demand-led, because we do not want to create surpluses of organic food that cause a collapse in the market and make the farms that produce such food un-economic.

The hon. Lady also talked about wildflower margins. As part of a mid-tier scheme on my farm, we are planting those margins, which are certainly a public good. The Government are in the process of designing an environmental land management system to ensure that farmers are rewarded for the environmental benefits they deliver, such as creating habitats for wildlife. Decisions about how public goods such as biodiversity, clean air and water are delivered will be in the hands of farmers and land managers, who may choose, for example, to lower their pesticide use through integrated pesticide management. We will pay for the public benefits that they deliver.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol East, talked about improving soil. The question of how we increase the organic matter in soil is important. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon talked about minimum tillage, and the chemicals needed to ensure that we can engage in minimum tillage contribute to the amount of carbon we can store in our soils. Mixed farming, including livestock production, is particularly important, as manures are a vital source of plant nutrients and improve the structure and heart of our soils. That means keeping livestock, and ruminants in particular, as they are the only way in which we can utilise some of our upland soil and areas that are not suitable for intensive cereal or crop production as upland pastures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is a champion of farmers and the rural environment, and she is right that soil is a public good. Some 300 million tonnes of carbon are stored in our upland peat areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to which I have given evidence before, but I look forward to appearing before him again. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) represents a great farming area. When I was studying agriculture at university, we went on a field trip to Ayrshire, and I am very jealous of its mild climate, brought to it by the gulf stream. It is clear that food production and the delivery of environmental objectives are not mutually exclusive; there is a synergism between those two goals, and we need to deliver them in parallel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) asked whether the pursuit of trade deals around the world will jeopardise our high standards, as did the Labour Front-Bench representative, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I am clear that we will not lower our standards. Indeed, our very high standards and high-quality produce give those countries with which we engage in trade deals a lot to worry about. We will have a great opportunity to market that produce around the world, as is already the case for good products such as Scotch whisky.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anaerobic digestion can play an important part in dealing with food waste and making sure that we have a truly circular economy. We want to work both with local authorities and with farmers and land managers to make sure that, where appropriate, anaerobic digestion can be expanded.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will accept that food produced here that cannot go to market in the EU and cannot be sold here profitably will increase food waste. Will he reverse the change in the guidance on protected geographical indications that he issued last week and provide Scotland’s high-quality food and drink exporting industry with all the support that it needs to maintain protections across the EU rather than leaving producers to do it themselves all over again?

[Michael Gove]

All the geographical indications that Scotland’s outstanding food producers and other producers enjoy will be protected in the future. The real danger to Scotland’s food producers is a Scottish Government who are not prepared, I am afraid, to use the Agriculture Bill that is currently before the House to provide our outstanding food producers with the legislative framework that they need. In that respect, I am afraid that the Scottish Government are being negligent, and not for the first time.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The natural modesty of the hon. Gentleman has prevented him from announcing to the House and for the edification of those observing our proceedings that in speaking from his party’s Front Bench he does so not as David Drew but as Dr David Drew, blessed with a doctorate in rural economy. That is something that should be known to the world. I call Minister George Eustice.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. There was a change of personnel on the Scottish National party Front Bench. Although we very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, it will not be before we have heard from Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Here we are once again creating legislation to replicate legislation that the dastardly EU has imposed upon us. EU legislation is so oppressive that we have to pass the same legislation to free ourselves of the tyranny of EU red tape—taking back control to change nothing.

We should take a moment, however, to consider the imports of products used by the agricultural industries and how logjam at entry points may well affect that process, no matter how many lorries park on old airfields. The UK imports about 70% of fertilisers, very little potash but half the ammonium nitrate and all of the phosphorus used. They cannot be stockpiled because there is no significant additional capacity, and ammonium nitrate in particular needs storage that minimises the risk of explosion. The lorries need to keep running, the ports need to keep functioning and the imports need to be frictionless, or there will be little in the way of harvest bounties, and that is before we get on to imported seed, plant protection products and animal feed. If the ports get choked with border checks and UK red tape, it will not matter what these regulations say, because food production on these islands will suffer.

I welcome the two-year transitional period, but I can see no reason why the acceptance that the EU regulations work cannot be extended indefinitely. Let the fertilisers be sold as they are now, and indeed the plant protection products, seed and the animal feed. We trust the EU, don’t we? I also welcome the requirement for Ministers to get the approval of the devolved Administrations before making regulations about fertilisers. That seems a very sensible way forward and a path that other Departments could consider following. The various Administrations offer wisdom that should be welcomed, and we trust the Scottish Government, don’t we?

I do have concerns about the regime to control the quality of the products available, particularly when I consider that Ministers will face the temptation of reducing the tariffs on Russian products, particularly ammonium nitrate. The anti-dumping duties that the EU imposes on Russian ammonium nitrate will disappear unless they are replicated by the regulations, and the implications that will have for the quality of imports is certainly worth considering carefully. It will be an issue that gets snarled up in any future trade negotiations both with the EU and with Russia.

I would like to believe the Government will ensure quality and resist the temptation to cut tariffs and duties, but I would have liked to believe there was actually a plan for the Brexit negotiations, or at least some impact assessments that looked at what is actually happening. I have certainly been sorely let down on that. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view when he responds. Further to the fact that the Minister mentioned that more stringent regulations will now be applied to ammonium nitrate from the EU, in line with those currently applied to countries outwith the EU, what added costs might result from those extra regulations?

This is one of hundreds of statutory instruments that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs —despite the best efforts, I am sure, of its civil servants—is lagging behind on. The National Audit Office report on DEFRA’s readiness for Brexit was scathing in its assessment, to the point that I think we have to regard it as an impossible task for DEFRA to get ready.

I wish there was a way of ensuring that the products farmers need to produce food will get to them, but the sudden shutting off of the supplies that they need looks set to become a reality, whatever secondary legislation is passed here. A better decision by far would be to extend article 50 and see whether things could be reconsidered. I am tempted by the thought—the hopeful possibility—that we could pass this legislation and guarantee supply, but I know that is not realistic. I have many concerns about the import regime to follow and the corralling of powers in Ministers’ hands.

It is disappointing to say the least that this is the best on offer. It is disappointing that a Government who claimed so much was possible is content with this. I really hope that that failure does not come back to haunt us all.

Water Industry

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I do not have long, so I cannot dwell too much on some of the valuable contributions made by hon. Members, but I commend the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for securing this debate. He raised very important points, and I am delighted that they are being addressed in this forum. There was quite a contrast between some of his comments and those of the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who painted a glowing picture of water privatisation that I find it difficult to recognise.

The right hon. Member for Newbury admitted that he knew little of what was happening in Scotland, which is a surprising admission for a former water Minister, who should surely be prepared to learn best practice from wherever it can be found. After all, we are only up the road, geographically speaking. I hope he will be interested to hear some details in my speech. He also spoke of water being a necessity of life, and I wholeheartedly agree. It is far too important to be subject to a privatised system that gives, as we have heard, a worse service, and that seems to be largely driven by right-wing ideology, rather than what is best for customers.

There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk in this place about taking back control. That sounds strange coming from people who are, by and large, wholehearted supporters of stripping democratically elected Governments of control over the delivery of public resources, instead preferring essential services to be fractured and put into the hands of the private sector. Taking back control of England’s water supplies is an argument that makes a lot of sense to me. People are rightly scunnered by a system that services debt and pays disproportionate dividends through increasing bills for customers. There should be an outcry over the findings of the recent Greenwich University research, which suggested that a staggering £56 billion in dividends was funded through £51 billion, or potentially more, in debts.

Supporters of the privatisation cannot even claim real competition benefits, with most of the water companies operating as regional monopolies. The leakiest pipe in England’s domestic water supply is seemingly one that drains money away to a private stream. A public company, run for the public good, is the best way to end that scandalous rip-off. I welcome the contribution of the campaign led by We Own It to make that happen.

Luckily, as has been mentioned, there is a model close to hand that is working very well—I appreciate the hon. Member for Harrow West mentioning it often—which the UK Government would be very welcome to emulate. As with so many other public services being delivered under devolved Government control, such as the running of prisons or the procurement of NHS contracts, Scotland has chosen a more sensible path wherever it has the powers to do so.

We did not privatise domestic supplies of water, and Scottish Water was established in 2002 as a publicly owned company answerable to Scottish Ministers. Under the Scottish Government’s watch, there has been a focus on driving up standards and keeping charges affordable. We are now reaping the benefits in drinking water quality, environmental performance and customer service.

[Richard Benyon]

One thing I know about Scottish Water is that its leakage level is way above that of the rest of the United Kingdom—I think just shy of 40% of water is lost, compared with about a fifth in England. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to comment on that.

[Deidre Brock]

It is interesting. We are, of course, spending considerable amounts of money on addressing that. As I understand it, and I will speak about this later, our service performance is now comparable to the leading UK water companies; on some measures, we outperform them. As we continue to invest, water loss will be driven down. English water companies are having to resort to debt; that is what their investment in infrastructure is largely based on.

[Gareth Thomas]

Far be it from me to help the Scottish National party out, but as I understand it, from analysis done by Greenwich University, the levels of leakage per kilometre in Scotland are better than for many English water companies, and are certainly in line with the average at worst.

[Deidre Brock]

I was quite surprised by the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Newbury, as that is not my understanding. Perhaps I should quote the Scottish Water Commission, which noted in 2013:

“It is now more than a decade since Scottish Water was established. In that time the company has transformed itself as an organisation. It has caught up with the top performing companies in England and Wales on cost efficiency and levels of service and has regularly reached—and outperformed—its targets.”

I expect more of that in the future.

As Greenwich University research found,

“the public-owned sector in Scotland delivers the service just as efficiently, albeit at a lower cost to consumers.”

In Scotland, bills are 2% lower in real terms than they were 18 years ago, while over the equivalent period in England they increased by 13%. Drinking water continues to be at record levels of compliance, and there were no failing waste water treatment works in 2017, compared with more than 70 in 2002.

Scottish Water has reduced energy consumption and increased renewable power generation. It has cut carbon emissions by more than 30% since it first reported in 2006-07. Driven by the Scottish Government’s ambitious renewable heat and carbon reduction targets, the amount of renewable energy the company generates is now more than double its electricity consumption. Ageing facilities are being replaced through major investment in projects such as Glencorse water treatment works outside Edinburgh. That energy-efficient plant was delivered on schedule and under budget, and now supplies cleaner, safer water to around half a million people in the capital, while having sustainability at the core of its operations. A hydro-turbine provides almost half the facility’s own energy needs, helping to keep water charges low for customers.

Scottish Water’s service performance, as I mentioned, is now comparable with that of the leading UK water companies; on some measures, it outperforms them, while still keeping the bills down. Even where it can be said that the leading English companies perform better, at the current pace of investment by Scottish Water, and without the spend on dividends, that position is set to change over the next decade.

The myth that private profiteers are required to deliver things better has been dispelled. Indeed, the We Own It campaign points to the move towards public ownership internationally, with 235 cities in 37 countries taking water into public ownership in the last 15 years. Public ownership of public water supplies is already working in Scotland. That may seem clear, but it is worth reminding the Labour party of that fact, given that the Scottish leader, Richard Leonard, argued recently that they should be taken back into public hands. There was a wee bit of confusion there, but I will certainly draw his attention to helpful comments made by his colleagues down here today.

Scotland is rightly famous for its water. It is a reliable natural asset that serves our health, our wellbeing, our environment and our economy well. It is right that public supplies of domestic water have remained a public asset, delivered in the public interest. It should be so in England too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman is also a good fella with good intentions, and I share his concerns about no deal. What we need to do now is to find a deal that the House can unite behind. The Secretary of State would say that if he were in his place, and it is important that the Leader of the Opposition now joins that process.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I, too, am sorry not to see the Secretary of State in his place at the Dispatch Box after what was quite the bravura audition yesterday. Someone once said:

“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”

It seems that those cards and paths have been pretty expensive so far. Can the Minister tell us whether his Department’s largesse has sorted out the export health certificate system, which of course relies on a single spreadsheet? Has he made export agreements with 154 countries to replace the EU agreements? Lastly, has this been the worst poker hand ever played?

[David Rutley]

Lots of questions there, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am even more saddened not to see the Secretary of State here because I am having to answer all his questions on this subject.

On the hon. Lady’s substantive point, we are working on the export health certificate process, and we are working on the other trade agreements. My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the farming Minister, is working on those issues as well. Each of those steps is being dealt with.