Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The agricultural transition plan sets out how support for farmers is changing. Instead of paying farmers subsidies based on the amount of land they own, we are introducing new schemes to incentivise good ecological practices. We will also offer grants to support new entrants to the sector, and to improve productivity and business planning.

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

The UK Government yesterday indicated that they were willing to break their own trade deal with the EU because of consequences that they told us would not happen. The EU may then very well implement tariffs on UK exports to the EU, as it has a right to do under the Tory-negotiated deal. That would be calamitous for our agricultural sector. The Minister will no doubt answer with reference to all the new deals that the International Trade Secretary is signing the UK up to, but just days ago the New Zealand Prime Minister warned that failing to keep to treaty commitments could threaten membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Will the Minister commit to covering the extra costs to farmers that this whole sorry mess is causing, or are the consequences of this ideological Brexit crusade to be borne by everyone but the UK Government and their Ministers?

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not think it is any secret to the House that I was no Brexiteer, but I must say that for farming and fishing I think we have really gained from Brexit. In England, we do not think the environment can wait. We want to start paying our farmers public money for public goods; that is how they will be supported in the future.

COP26 Conference Priorities

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. I commend all the Members who secured this important debate from the Backbench Business Committee and all those who have spoken so far. Every single person has made important points about the ambitions that we should have for COP26 and for addressing the world’s climate crisis.

COP26 in November is a critical moment for the world to deliver its most ambitious and tangible climate actions. Scotland will play its part in tackling the twin crises of climate change and ecological decline. I want to acquaint Members with a few things that Scotland has been doing to demonstrate that. Our aim is to work closely with the UK Government and our many other partners to deliver a safe, secure and successful Glasgow COP and engage, in particular, with those who have been historically sidelined in climate discussions, to ensure those most affected by the climate crisis have their voices heard.

The year 2021 is “humanity’s defining moment” in the fight against climate change, as the UN Secretary General stated. COP26 is the world’s best chance to deliver a global deal that supports the goals of the Paris agreement and delivers lasting action towards a net-zero future, in a way that is fair and just. We are delighted that the vital COP26 is taking place in Scotland. There is still so much more to be done and there is a very long way to go, but I am proud that our SNP Scottish Government were the first in the world to declare a climate emergency and one of the first to set binding net zero targets earlier than 2045. Scotland has led the way in decarbonisation, recently producing 97% of its electricity requirements renewably, and managing to reduce emissions by 31% between 2008 and 2018, faster than the rest of the UK and any G20 nation. We aim to be the world’s first net zero aviation region by 2040 and to decarbonise passenger rail by 2035.

We are also tackling a necessary and just transition to renewable energy. That is a really important issue. We saw what happened in Scotland in the ‘70s and ’80s when a Government did not care about protecting individuals and communities from the impact of economic transformations. As our First Minister said recently:

“We must not make that mistake again. Failing to plan for the transition to net zero is not an option, which is why”

the SNP Government

“are working with trade unions, businesses and communities to develop just transition plans to ensure that our approach is a fair one.”

The First Minister has appointed a Just Transition Minister. The Scottish Government will implement the recommendations of the Just Transition Commission and intend to retain the commission and call on it for advice all the way through this Parliament.

The Scottish Government also created the world’s first climate justice fund—recently doubled to £24 million—which supports vulnerable communities in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda to address the impact of climate change. Our Scottish Government have been active elsewhere on the world stage, leading the Edinburgh process on biodiversity and publishing the Edinburgh declaration, calling for increased action to tackle biodiversity loss. Scotland also serves as European co-chair of the Under2 Coalition—a group of more than 220 Governments, representing more than 1.3 billion people and 43% of the global economy.

It is vital, as I have mentioned, that COP26 engages with those who have historically been left out of climate discussions, to ensure that those most affected by climate change have their voices heard. Young people, indigenous communities and disadvantaged groups must have a say. Indigenous communities are often those most affected by the activities that contribute to climate change, such as deforestation, and are more likely to live in the areas hardest hit. Young people are those who will have to live longest with the consequences of climate change, and those from disadvantaged communities are less able to afford mitigation of its consequences. The Scottish Government have sought to include the voices of young people at COP through their youth climate programme, which will manage a series of events putting the voices of young people from around Scotland at the heart of the climate conversation, and will recruit local champions from every local authority to connect their communities in the fight against climate change.

We need to remember that it is not only states that have a stake in our future and it should not be only their voices that are heard. Although the green zone is a welcome aspect to COP26, it cannot be an excuse to separate civil society from any serious discussion taking place. Climate justice is a simple and powerful message. Poor and vulnerable communities are the first to be affected by climate change and will suffer the worst, yet have done little or nothing to cause the problem. Establishing a UK climate justice fund ahead of COP26 would be a powerful signal that justice and equality issues will be a priority at COP and that previously marginalised voices will be heard. It is also important, of course, that technology is deployed in a way that helps to facilitate the involvement of those typically unable to participate in conferences such as COP. I hope that the Minister might address both those points in her closing remarks.

The Scottish Government have been working closely with the UK Government, and partners including Glasgow City Council and Police Scotland, with the aim of delivering a safe, secure and successful COP26 in November. Our Government intend to play a full and active role at the summit, and I am particularly excited about the opportunities that there will be to showcase Scotland’s world-leading approach to tackling the climate emergency and delivering that just transition to a net zero future.

I of course also have questions regarding the priorities specifically of the UK Government in the run-up to COP, which many others are also looking for clarity on. After all, how can this Government persuade other countries to play their part if they are failing domestically to keep to their own targets? How will the Government keep to their 1.5°C commitment when research says that their own current emissions pathway suggests a factor some two times greater? What urgent actions will the Government take to keep them on track? Is all of Whitehall’s thinking on this joined up? For example, we have seen a challenge from the UK board of international trade to the news that the Chancellor is reportedly musing over a carbon border adjustment tax, although I see that the International Trade Secretary has now come out saying that she is actually up for considering it. That is an odd one, because she is the president of the UK board of international trade. It looks a little like a string leading from the Treasury has been yanked hard.

I would be interested to hear what updates the Minister can give us on the progress on the Green Jobs Taskforce, which is a very important initiative. When will we see a replacement for the green homes grant scheme, with an equivalent level of funding? I have heard it described as the only big-ticket item in the Government’s policy store cupboard that could make a real difference to carbon emissions relatively quickly. Why has its replacement not been announced?

When will the Government back a fairer charging system for renewables developers in Scotland looking to plug into the national grid? One cannot help but feel that if the Government were really serious about their commitment to net zero, they would accept that that extra levy on Scottish projects, despite Scotland being one of the best sources of renewable energy on these islands, is just plain daft, and that they would talk to Ofcom about it and do something about it.

So many questions and so little time. I look to COP with some hope but not a little trepidation, knowing how important its outcomes will be to our planet and future generations. I ask the Minister to take back some of the messages that she has heard expressed here today and persuade her Government to make the sort of rapid and serious changes to their policy approaches that this climate crisis deserves.

Fisheries Management

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate today, in which I am very pleased to participate. He began by setting out the staggering number of problems that fishing organisations are experiencing. He spoke of the promises made, by the Prime Minister downwards, to the fishing industry—promises broken, with little regard for the impact. He posed a question from a young fisher of his acquaintance that I found particularly telling—why is the fishing industry having to fight its own Government to survive? That is a very good question.

Numerous Members have outlined details of the great difficulty being experienced by those in the fishing industry. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland commented, the anger and frustration felt by fishing communities is palpable. It certainly is among those representatives who have been in touch with me.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made some interesting points. As he said, this debate has been a long time coming, and there has been a lack of transparency around this year’s negotiations—in comparison, ironically, with what happened when the UK was still part of the EU. I would be pleased if the Minister could address that issue.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) called for apologies to the fishing industry and commented on Wales’s devolved control being swept aside, which is something we are certainly familiar with in Scotland. I note her calls for devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as has occurred in Scotland. My understanding from industry representatives is that relationships have improved considerably since that happened in Scotland, so I would certainly encourage her to pursue that aim.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) made an excellent speech. He spoke of an existential threat to the fishing industry. His words were brimming throughout with a deep knowledge of the problems being experienced by businesses in his constituency and the harshness of the impact of Brexit on those businesses.

What of the sunlit uplands of Brexit? What a mess has been made of people’s lives in the name of taking back control. It was a nonsense, pursued by an unthinking herd of populist and arrogant politicians. It is causing massive damage. Some of us predicted damage, but I do not think any of us grasped just how bad it would be.

It has been particularly bad for Scotland’s food and drink industry, as we have heard, and for smaller producers, especially, who have seen their overseas markets disappear. Fishing got a huge skelping and it is not really feasible to transport fresh fish halfway round the world to sell into the Australian market, no matter how fabulous a deal the Government think they have done.

Fishing is, of course, a far more important industry for Scotland than it is for England, so it was a prime candidate for the flinging-under-the-bus treatment during the Brexit negotiations—and that is what happened. Now, there is no sea of opportunity, no easy access to the EU markets and no help from Government. They will say that there is £100 million available, but where is it, how is it being distributed and how come we are not getting any details? Even more importantly, do the Brexit Government think that that is enough to compensate for the damage that is being done to the industry?

When damage is done to the industry, it affects not just the crews on the boats but the communities back on land, many of which, certainly in Scotland, are sustained by fishing. Removing the industry will remove the lifeblood from those communities. Scotland’s coastal communities could be facing the same devastation in the 2020s that Thatcher’s Governments visited upon the industrial towns of Scotland’s central belt.

I am aware that this Government will not listen to the voices calling for action. We are well used to the sneering contempt from the Leader of the House, the airy-headed enthusiasm of the International Trade Secretary and the blank refusal of the DEFRA Secretary to acknowledge problems. Week after week, we hear the Prime Minister refusing to acknowledge the problems that are so evident to the rest of us.

Before Brexit, three quarters of Scotland’s seafood exports went to the EU, bringing in revenues of over £600 million in 2019. Since Brexit, those exports have been held up by red tape and logjams at the ports. Our fleets are still subject to the common fisheries policy, thanks to the atrocious deal negotiated by the UK Government. Members do not have to believe me that it is a terrible deal; they just have to ask the guy who negotiated it. Lord Frost thinks it is a terrible deal, too—that is one bowl of Frosties that is anything but terrific.

The Food and Drink Federation has produced figures showing that EU sales have all but halved—a £2 billion loss to the UK economy right there. These are not teething troubles. They are disasters happening in real time under the view of a Government that do not give a damn. It is clear that the Government had no idea what Brexit would bring and had not thought about the difficulties that would be put in the way of traders. They gave no consideration to the complex administration that takes hours of extra time—hours precious to the small and medium-sized enterprises that make up the bulk of the sector—or to the need for customs agents, health certificates and battling miles of bureaucratic red tape, the extra costs fishers now bear for fishing gear supplies, or the delays and extra costs of now exporting not just to the EU but to Northern Ireland. I now hear that Danish and Irish sectors are, unsurprisingly, picking up the lost UK market and that they are seen as more stable suppliers after confidence in the UK drains away.

We should not allow the Government to forget the difficulties that their hostile environment approach to immigration is causing the sector. Non-domestic crew who are brought over to Scotland under the new skilled worker system are being sent back because they fail the advanced English exam required of skilled workers, which comes at a great cost to skippers, who are left with no crew. The UK Government must look urgently at where they can usefully intervene to resolve that issue.

In September 2020, I remember being shouted down by virtually every Member present on Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill for daring to say that it was in no fit state to be passed any time soon. I gave a number of reasons, the primary one being that we had no idea what sort of deal the UK’s Brexit negotiators would arrive at or what the fall-out would be. Well, we ken noo, as they say in my neck of the woods.

I read again the Secretary of State’s speech at the start of that debate. It was stirring stuff—some would say a triumph of starry-eyed optimism over actual knowledge and foresight—pummelling once again the CFP punch-bag, though forbearing to mention the many advantages the EU brought in the way of open markets and easy access, and, ironically, lambasting it for its

“anachronistic methodology for sharing quota”,

which we are still largely subject to, and the

“uncontrolled access to UK waters for EU vessels.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 65.]

Which, again, we are still basically subject to.

We were told that the Bill gave the UK powers that were needed irrespective of the Brexit outcome—powers that have ultimately come to nothing as fishing interests were sold away in those negotiations. I look forward to reading in years to come the close analysis of those deliberations and exactly how hard the negotiators fought for our fishing communities’ interests. That information will surely come out, as will, perhaps, a published account of the meeting between the Secretary of State, his officials and several blazingly angry fishing representatives after the truly terrible outcome of the Brexit agreement was finally made public.

It is actually quite useful to go back over that Second Reading debate to remind myself of the deception practised on our fishing communities by the Government and many of their MPs. Were Back Benchers really as convinced as they sounded then of the benefits of Brexit? I remind hon. Members of what one Conservative Member said during that debate:

“Only the SNP could take a sea of opportunity and turn it into an ocean of division.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 93.]

I will return the favour now and say that only the hated Tories, with their hearts of stone, could pledge to the fishing communities of Scotland a bonanza, and then just shrug as it turned into a sludge of mendacity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; we will manage.

Our manifesto was clear that we want people at home and abroad to be lining up to buy British. We are lucky to have, as my hon. Friend referenced, a fantastic network of manufacturing businesses, most of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, so we are very alive to the needs of those businesses and the difficulty of excessive regulatory burdens. I am quite sure that we will debate the new obesity strategy fully, both in this House and outside. Some of the legislation can be made using powers in the Food Safety Act 1990, and other parts in the health and care Bill. We meet regularly with the sector and are keen to engage with it on a practical level as to how regulation will affect its businesses.

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

Given that the Australian trade deal is predicted to save the average household an incredible £1.23 per year in the long term, while destroying agriculture and businesses and opening us up to similarly lowered standards and bad deals with the US, Argentina, Brazil and so on, perhaps the Government are counting on that extra disposable income making up for an uncompetitive sector. What protections are intended to be put in place to make sure that our farmers are not undercut by cheap imports?

[Victoria Prentis]

One thing that I have just said in reference to this question is that we are very keen to promote the buying of British produce. We have a plan to promote domestic products, and we are further strengthening export support. On the other part of the hon. Lady’s question, we will have a chapter in the new Australia deal to deal with the protection of animal welfare standards. I encourage her to get engaged with the details as they emerge in the course of this year.

World Oceans Day 2021

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate.

I will touch briefly on some of the excellent contributions so far in the debate, starting with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. An interesting point for me was her comment that the UK should be leading the way on the issue, given its history and its maritime experiences over the years. She highlighted the danger of marine protected areas being only paper parks. That is a concern I share. She also noted the stripping out of marine protections from legislation by the UK Government, and she expressed a certain amount of cynicism about what that all means in practice. I am afraid that I share that cynicism. She said that this is a pivotal year for ocean protection, but ended by pointing out that the capacity for oceans to heal themselves is known, and will hopefully be sought and achieved.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke of our oceans as increasingly crowded places, with many often competing activities. He made an excellent point about the importance of involving and consulting fisherfolk in decisions about marine planning. I absolutely agree with that.

The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned the power of the documentary series “Blue Planet” and the effect it has had of raising consciousness about the importance of the protection of our blue environment.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned that the first marine protected area to be established in the UK was in Scotland, in her constituency of course, and she highlighted the dreadful plight of sharks mutilated for food, and in particular the plight of cetaceans affected by sea blasts.

I read many years ago, as a child, a kind of science fiction book about a time traveller who came back from the future to warn our world about the polluting materials we were dumping in our seas, which were poisoning all forms of sea life in his time. It was a long time ago, and I was only nine or 10 years old, but it had a really powerful effect on me. I look back on it, and it started a life-long awareness of what the long-term impact could be of the decisions we take now on the environment of the future. I recall that there was a happy ending to the story, in which an intrepid youngster took on the authorities—along with the time traveller—and saved the day. Unfortunately, that is only the stuff of storytelling. We will get no such second chance, unless time transportation novels like that reveal themselves one day to be predictions and not simply fantasy.

This is the predicament we face on World Oceans Day: a legacy of centuries of abuse of our precious blue environment. I welcome the opportunity to raise awareness of it. For too long, we have treated our oceans with an almost casual disregard, too often thinking, “Out of sight, out of mind.” I have done quite a bit of research into the subject, and have looked into the impact of millions of tons of munitions dumped into our seas since at least the end of world war one, with their long lists of dangerous gases, chemicals and radioactive materials. Too many parts of ours seas are off limits to fishers, following the haul-up from the sea floor of a lethal weapon. The offshore wind industry is now being presented with problems around the safe removal of those munitions, including—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend for North Ayshire and Arran—decommissioning blasts and their effects on cetaceans, as was highlighted by Joanna Lumley in the campaign on that issue. That is not to mention the Boris bridges to Northern Ireland across Beaufort’s Dyke, with its discarded cocktail of who knows what. Dumps like these are properly the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, which deposited the vast bulk of them over the years, and I will certainly continue to press the issue until some resolution is found, hopefully well before it contaminates our oceans any further.

The issue is not, of course, just about what has been put into our oceans over the years; it is also about the impact of the great increase we have seen in recent years of activity on our waters, and what that is putting into our air. The disaster of Brexit will see increased UK reliance on foodstuffs shipped from many thousands of miles away, resulting in increased food miles and emissions. Perhaps the Brexiters thought the collapse of the fresh seafood produce market that exported daily to Europe would compensate for that in some way; perhaps they did not take any of it into consideration at all, which, frankly, seems more likely.

There are increasing concerns being raised by Governments and residents about the impact of shipping emissions on the populations of coastal areas, in ports such as the Port of Leith in my constituency. Shipping accounts for 3% of global emissions and emits around 1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases every year. I recognise that this is not a simple issue to resolve, but solve it we must.

I am pleased to see the UK Government finally following Scotland’s lead and the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations by incorporating its share of shipping emissions into its new carbon budget, but they need to go further and faster if the UK is to reach at least its net zero commitments by 2050. This year, as they host COP26, I hope the Government are looking to other countries as well as Scotland for inspiration for the sort of bold steps they could consider in the fight against global warming.

In California, decisions taken on the reduction of shipping pollution require ships to use low-sulphur fuels and to cease dumping acidic water and heavy metals into the sea. Last year, it also introduced rules that mean stringent emission standards for diesel trucks servicing dock areas, which will require more ships to plug into electric power when docked.

The EU is considering legislation that mandates the use of sustainable fuels on ships calling into European ports. I believe that this is the first transport mandate of its kind, as it targets users rather than fuel suppliers and manufacturers, therefore preventing ships from simply refuelling outside the EU’s boundaries.

The US is considering introducing a programme that will monitor, report and verify emissions for ships coming into US ports. China has established a domestic emission control area, with all ships docking at ports within the area switching to low-sulphur fuel. Some local governments there are offering shipowners incentives to retrofit ships with electric or liquefied natural gas propulsion, and they have invested in power infrastructure at seaports.

It seems to me that there is an unstoppable momentum building behind such proposals. The UK really should step up and show that it is at least giving serious consideration to bold steps, or it risks further compromising its international standing and reputation. There are reasons to be optimistic in some areas as technology improves—for instance, the testing of the world’s first hydrogen-powered ferry in Orkney. Such pioneering efforts show that successful alternatives to dirtier fuel are possible.

With regard to the enormous problem of ocean pollution already touched on by several Members, there is still much to be done. However, the Scottish Government have shown what can be achieved with the necessary political willpower and guts, by leading the way on a deposit return scheme that is soon to be implemented and on plastic issues such as microbeads and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. Our national marine plan and the 36 new marine protected areas created, including the largest MPA in Europe, are further welcome developments.

However, there is much more to be done if we are to meet our ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reductions, which are some of the toughest in the world. I welcome the news that the Scottish Government will be appointing environmental champions—world experts to keep Scotland at the forefront of tackling the ecological emergency and ecological decline.

I am a big fan of nature-based solutions, and I am concerned that they are too often overlooked in favour of new technologies. These might appeal to the techie types among us, but they are currently so expensive, and so far off being able to play a significant role in carbon reduction at this stage of development, that their promise appears remote and almost impractical. Therefore, practical and relatively inexpensive solutions such as improving salt marshes, seagrass beds and mangrove areas could play an important role in carbon dioxide mitigation. The Marine Conservation Society suggests that these potentially amount to 5% of the emission savings needed globally, even before taking into account the carbon stored in marine life and the enormous stores of carbon contained in seabed sediments.

Unless we see genuinely co-operative efforts from Governments across the world to address and solve the problems we face, those who come after us will curse us for timorously tinkering around the edges and leaving them with a toxic legacy. Scotland is ambitious for its seas, its coast and its communities, and it recognises the vital importance of reaching out to and working with other countries.

Climate change is a global issue, and we all have to work together on it. Where Scotland misses out most is by not having its own voice in the discussions about what needs to be done; we do not have the same opportunities to try to persuade the international community of the need for proper action. A case in point is COP26 in November: although it is on our turf, we cannot take part in it properly; we cannot engage in the diplomatic efforts which really make these conferences tick.

We urgently need action now. We cannot wait for a time traveller to come back in time to rub our noses in the disastrous long-term effects of decisions caused by our ignorance and negligence. We want a Glasgow agreement at COP26 in which all countries commit to taking the action needed to tackle the climate emergency. I urge the UK Government to take their responsibilities seriously and work with others, including the Scottish Government, to achieve that.

It is really good to see World Oceans Day being celebrated in this way, to reflect on the impact of humankind on our oceans, and to recognise that the time to take action is now. There is no time to waste.

Environment Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

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

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

Mr Speaker, you might recall that there used to be a TV game show called “Bullseye”, in which the legendary Jim Bowen consoled failed contestants with that cruellest of catchphrases, “Let’s have a look at what you could have won.” As we come to the end of the long process of this Environment Bill, a lot of folk might be thinking that it was Jim Bowen presenting it.

I will be as generous as I can and say that there were good intentions behind the Bill, or at least the stated intentions were good back when it appeared many, many moons ago. There was admirable ambition to enshrine environmental protections in law, to set proper targets and to establish the Office for Environmental Protection—high aims, except those rules would not apply to one of the most polluting and environmentally damaging parts of the state, the military. They also would not apply to anything that might be classed as national security or taxation or spending. Those are pretty big areas of government: if taxation and the allocation of resources are exempted, a massive part of governance will walk happily by without casting a glance in the direction of the environmental protection regulations.

Then of course in the Bill’s Committee stage the Government introduced amendments and new clauses that limited the power of the Office for Environmental Protection to take enforcement action, creating thresholds for reviews, moving the review from tribunal to court, limiting the OEP’s power to intervene in judicial reviews brought by others, and imposing even greater limitations on its own power to initiate judicial reviews. To top that off, Ministers took the power to be able to direct the OEP on what it should be enforcing. It has gone from a powerful and independent body to a mere arm of the Government before it is even born—a bit sad, really.

There are still things to be welcomed, however, the setting of a species recovery target being one. It should be a declaration of intent—a commitment to reversing some of the harm that has been done—but it needs clarifying and it needs political will behind it to get to any kind of a delivery phase. It also needs cash—plenty up front to get it started, as well as an ongoing commitment to keep funding the work.

We have seen what has happened to Natural England: how the funding cuts stripped that body of its ability to do its job; how its feet got cut away from under it; how a decade of austerity has rendered it unable to function properly. Budget cuts have led to pay cuts, cuts in grants, cuts in staff numbers and cuts in assessed programmes. That is a terrible way to treat staff—a horrendous betrayal of their loyalty and hard work—and I hope Ministers, and those hoping one day to replace them, think on that. Natural England’s Government funding was cut by two thirds between 2010 and last year. Staff numbers have gone down by a quarter since 2010 and those who remain have seen real-terms pay cuts. The ability of the agency to do its work is compromised, if not fatally damaged. Its recovery, if it can recover, would depend on substantial investment in cash and in political capital, but, given how the Office for Environmental Protection has been gutted even before it has been created, I cannot see much hope for Natural England. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in her closing remarks how that will pan out.

This is almost entirely England’s problem of course, because it is England’s Government failing on the environment and this Bill is largely an English Bill, but what is done in England affects Scotland in many ways, including funding, because we are stuck in this constricting Union, for the moment at least. I would be happy to see England sort it out for Scotland’s sake, but even more so for the sake of the environment.

We will, however, of course all be in agreement with amendment 26; who in Parliament would ever think it appropriate to go taking the resources of other peoples and lands without the consent of those peoples? Such pillaging of communities should be beyond the pale.

The UK Government could just for once look to Scotland and the initiatives a Government who are ambitious for their citizens and mindful of their duty to protect and improve our environment can legislate for, such as our commitments to active travel and the restoration of our peatlands, our deposit return scheme soon to be implemented, further planting of new woodlands, implementation of the WHO recommendations on PM_2.5 on air pollution, creation of the largest green space project in Europe, the central Scotland green network, and much, much more, with green recovery placed at the heart of successive policy publications: actions rather than just words.

Even in this year when COP26 is to be hosted in Glasgow, the commitment of the UK Government to sorting out some of the mess is minimal if it exists at all. France managed to create the Paris agreement when it headed the conference of the parties; the UK is busy greenwashing what it can and dismantling the rest. Biden is doing the work the UK Government should be doing: dragging commitments out of other Governments. The UK Government like to pretend that the UK is a world leader, but it cannot even lead a conference.

There are elements missing from the Bill that will have to be addressed in the near future, including the lack of clear and binding plans to reduce waste. The World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate levels reduction are missing, and there is nothing on plastic pollution—many public bodies are exempt from the law. I have already mentioned the military and anything that can be covered by the nebulous national security definition, but there are plenty of other examples. To spare the blood pressure of the ardent Brexiteers, I promise I will not mention the rolling back on existing EU protections, but it is there. As the EU continues to press ahead, keeping to environmental protections that the UK’s Environment Secretary described as “spirit-crushing”, the UK will fall behind.

Protecting the environment and making some progress on addressing the climate emergency takes effort, fortitude and a bit of guts to tackle the unpopular things that need to be done. I do not see any evidence of that kind of grit in Whitehall and that is a great shame. Jim Bowen never had the environment behind that screen, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that this should have been a big win, but is instead a sorry look at what we have not won.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I tabled new clause 2 to address the proposed general licensing requirements for the release of game birds and the environmental benefits of shooting. A campaign group named Wild Justice is repeatedly challenging DEFRA. As a result, Natural England must make assessments of the potential damage to EU-protected sites before granting licences for the release of game species. The proposed assessments are intended to take years to achieve, thus halting the granting of licences. The new clause would shift the requirement for Natural England from mandatory assessments to doing them on a common-sense, case-by-case basis.

Campaign groups such as Wild Justice would like to end all country sports. Often fuelled by emotive and ill-informed rhetoric, such campaigns do not recognise the importance to the environment of country sports and their contribution to not only the rural economy but the conservation of land. The gross value added of shooting stands at £1.7 billion in England and £2 billion in the United Kingdom—£240 million in the west midlands alone. Shooting adds 350,000 direct paid jobs to the market and accounts for 10% of the total amount spent on outdoor recreation each year.

Every year, 3.9 million work days are spent on conservation —the equivalent of 16,000 full-time conservation jobs. Up to 700,000 hectares of farm land are planted with wild bird seed mixes and pollinator strips as a result of game bird management. That is five times greater than the land owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Game shooting estates often have 65% more hedgerows than normal farm land. Most statistics show that the sport is not the preserve of the elite: figures from 31 March show that 159,483 firearms certificates and 567,358 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales. That means that at least 1.6 million people are shooting in the UK.

Pheasants have been in the UK continually for the last 2,000 years. Their release, management and subsequent hunting predates all site protections. Indeed, game bird release and management have largely been responsible for the existence of sites of high nature value that are worth protecting. Some 28% of woodlands in England are managed to some extent for game birds—more than are managed for nature conservation. We therefore need to do considerably more to ensure that, if the new clause does not suit the Minister exactly, such provisions are taken on board.

Natural England has two tools to monitor sites: the improvement programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites—IPENS—and a designated sites view, or DSV. The latter identified game bird release as causing an impact across seven sites of special scientific interest—the equivalent of 134 hectares. For context, England’s SSSI network covers 4,100 sites and that is more than 1 million hectares. The worst impacts on nature, unfortunately, are caused by dogs and walkers, and nobody wants to see them campaigned against, so I hope that DEFRA will adopt the gist of this amendment to protect itself—

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock [V]]

I will be brief, because as I have already laid out, this is almost entirely an English Bill, but I wanted to touch on new clause 12.

The new clause is a good addition that the Government should welcome. Scotland banned fracking some time ago and Wales has made it very difficult to get the permissions needed. Adding a fracking ban to the Bill would complete the set, and we in the SNP certainly support that, because when our neighbours keep trying to set their house on fire, we want to help them to stop.

Fracking releases gas—at a greater input cost than other types of gas well, I might add—and not all the gas is collected for commercial exploitation. Fracking is associated with a greater escape of gas to the atmosphere than other forms of gas production, which in itself contributes to the climate crisis. The seismic effects may cross borders, of course, and the large amounts of road traffic needed for frack wells gets in the way of other transport needs and themselves contribute to the climate chaos. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that neighbouring countries do not frack the place up, but responsibilities for the licensing of oil and gas development since the Scotland Act 2016 was passed rest with the Scottish Government; the clause therefore impacts on devolved powers.

Finally, I want to correct a statement the shadow Secretary of State made earlier. He said that the UK was the first country to declare a climate emergency. It was not. The climate emergency petition started in Australia—many very good things come from Australia—and dotted around the world for a while before the Scottish Government became the first to declare a climate emergency, closely followed by Wales. England caught up a wee while later—aye ahint.

[Chris Grayling]

I will focus my remarks on the issues I raise in new clause 19. We have talked about deforestation this afternoon and I pay tribute to the Minister in particular, because she has been a driving force in ensuring that the Bill takes significant steps on deforestation, in effect making it illegal and much more challenging to bring the fruits of illegal deforestation to the United Kingdom. That is absolutely right. The stronger the law on that front, the better.

What the Bill does not do, and what it is difficult for any Government to do, is prevent the fruits of legal deforestation arriving in the United Kingdom. Only now do we see the issues in Brazil, where the Bolsonaro Government are looking to pursue further legislative change that could lead to further deforestation in the Amazon—something none of us can afford to let happen. Through the new clause and its underlying principle, I am encouraging the Government to take a step that I believe would make a real difference to those who seek legally to deforest in other parts of the world—to put the power not in the hands of regulators, but in the hands of consumers. I passionately believe that if consumers around the world say no to the consequences of deforestation, it will be much more difficult for Governments or individuals to pursue deforestation, whether it is legal or illegal.

In this country, if I go to the supermarket and want to know whether the product I am buying contains anything that has damaged forests, it is pretty difficult to tell. If I do not want to buy a product with palm oil in it, I have to scrutinise the small print of the ingredients on the back to establish whether it contains palm oil. If there is palm oil, it is even more difficult to work out whether it comes from a sustainable source. Some aspects of our supply chains are invisible, such as whether the soy meal fed to the animals whose meat we eat came from a sustainable source or—much, much more likely—from an unsustainable source. We have to address that issue, and I think one of the ways to do that is to have a proper system of food labelling in this country that indicates whether a product comes from a sustainable source.

There is a lot of work taking place right now in the private sector, by retailers and others, and in the academic sector to look at how we would assess the sustainability of a product. It is about not just the food we buy in a shop, but the ingredients that go into that food. I think labelling should be placed on the sacks of soybean meal that go to feed pigs in our pig farms, as well as on the products that we buy in the shops, to indicate very clearly to buyers and consumers when a product comes from a carefully thought-out, sustainable source and when it does not. Work is being done by big supermarkets, academics and some really innovative smaller food companies to try to ensure that there is a good way of tracking the sustainability of a food source.

In the end, what we cannot have is the wild west of food labelling. What we need is a coherent, single approach that enables a consumer, in an easily recognisable way, to say, “I know that I can buy that in good conscience,” or “I know that that’s a product that creates problems for the environment.” The truth is that that label alone will ensure that the buyer does not buy the product and that it never appears and there is no market for it. My request and message to the Secretary of State and the Minister—I will follow this up over the coming months—is please to follow the path of introducing a single system of sustainable food labelling, sending the message to consumers, “You are empowered to make the right choices.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

Very briefly, I would like to thank DEFRA officials and particularly the Clerks on the Committee for their help during the progress of the Bill. It has threatened to rival “The Mousetrap” for longevity, and their staying power was quite something in the face of that. The ministerial team who managed to take so long over the thing do not get quite so much gratitude, though. I would also like to thank my researchers, Calum and Josh, whose assistance has been invaluable, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who participated alongside me in the Environment Bill Committee.

It is worth stating again that this legislation is a missed opportunity, and it will have to be revisited again and again in the near future to add in the bits that are so clearly missing. Despite the Minister’s brave efforts over the many months to defend it, the Bill is not much at all. Although it will pass today, only crumbs are being proffered. I look forward in my capacity as environment and COP26 spokesperson for the SNP to continuing to challenge the Government to ensure that they match their warm words with firm actions that will make a real difference, particularly in the year that the UK hosts COP26. Our world’s future deserves nothing less.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Here we are again, coming up to five years since that referendum in which England decided to take us out of the EU, and still those behind that hare-brained scheme cannot settle on what needs to be done. There has been a veritable catalogue of failures along the way, passing by the truly awful performances in negotiations, the collapse of exporting industries in the early part of this year—teething problems, the Minister said—and the truly appalling way in which EU citizens have been treated by this Tory Government.

So here we are once again spending time on regulations to facilitate Brexit. How long have we spent having to discuss, adjust, finesse and rehash regulations for what was supposed to be the easiest trade deal in history? Today, we are kicking the import regulations down the road a little and I am sure that we will be back later to sort something else out and something else after that.

The SNP will not oppose these regulations today; they are necessary to keep the food on supermarket shelves here, because the Government failed to plan for Brexit. It is almost as if they did not understand what was coming, because the provisions for running a sensible import system are as lacking as this Government’s provisions for running a sensible export system. I have no doubt that Brexit will continue to harm businesses the length and breadth of the UK: small exporters are being crushed; farmers are feeling the pressure; and fisher folk are watching their communities being placed under huge strain. In the meantime, UK Ministers will be trumpeting the great achievement of signing trade deals with countries in various parts of the world—trade deals that will have no measurable impact on GDP or the economy here.

Scotland will soon be out of this Union and we will leave behind those who would cause self-damage for the sake of some forlorn idea of sovereign superiority, and I have to say that I am impatient to see that day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We have indeed taken action right from the moment that there were teething problems in that first week of January as import agents, exporters and border control officials struggled to get used to the paperwork. As I pointed out, it is an improving situation. The hon. Member asked about trends. The trend is a rising one, increasing by 77% in February, and with export health certificates continuing to grow.

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

Scottish exports make up a quarter of the UK’s food and drink exports. Those exports have been hammered by Brexit, losing out on hundreds of millions of pounds in sales in January and February alone, with some products seeing their market all but collapse, and virtually nothing is being done about it. A new Brexit cliff has arrived before we finished plummeting off the last one: composite food products now need export health certificates. The chaos of the last set of regs is still haunting our exports, and this new chaos will further dent them. Vets say they will not have the capacity to deal with this. What plans do the Government have to address that clear danger?

[George Eustice]

The European Union has changed some of its export health certificates, particularly for composite goods, from 21 April. We have been working very closely with industry and all those affected over the last few months. We knew that this was going to happen. We have worked with it on getting those replacement health certificates and, in some cases, the need for a private attestation. Yes, it is complicated. It is a change in law that the EU has made and always intended to make, but we worked very closely with industry and all those affected to make sure that they were ready.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Yes, I do still believe that, and we have a 25% uplift in quota as a result of the trade and co-operation agreement and regulatory freedom that we did not have before. It is worth noting that we are now seeing lorry loads of fish clearing border control posts in France typically in under an hour—sometimes a little longer, but it is an improving situation. Volumes of trade are back up to around 85% of normal volumes.

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

The Prime Minister said a week ago that he thought the fishing industry could be saved if we only ate more British fish. Two months ago, the Leader of the House said that the fish are “happier” because of Brexit. In January, the DEFRA Secretary said the collapse of exports was a “teething problem”. Can the flippancy end now, and can we get some serious answers for the industry? Some Scottish businesses still face three-day waits to get their fresh fish to EU markets. Does the Government not accept that they have got it wrong and that the taskforces and other sticking plasters are not enough? Will they get back to the negotiating table with the EU, eat some humble pie and accept whatever regulatory alignment and other measures are necessary to save the industry?

[George Eustice]

As I said, volumes of fish exports are currently running at about 85% of normal volumes. Given coronavirus and the lockdown in the EU, we think that is probably about the right level, given the stress to the markets in the European Union. It is an improving situation. Well over half of all consignments now clear border control posts within an hour, and typically in 45 minutes. Over 90% are clearing them within three hours, so we do not recognise the figure that the hon. Lady gives of three days.

UK Shellfish Exports

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We believe that the EU has simply made an error in interpretation of the law in all the regulations it has cited. We are working closely with it to try to resolve this at a technical level. We do not think that the ban it has put in place is at all justified and, indeed, it represents a complete about turn on everything the EU has told us to date. We want the EU market to have access to the fantastic shellfish we produce in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.

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

The past five weeks have been an absolute nightmare for food-exporting businesses. Fishing businesses face bankruptcy, dairies cannot shift their cheeses, and meat was sitting rotting in lorries, stuck in customs. Small businesses ended mail order deliveries to Northern Ireland and European truckers are refusing UK loads bound for Europe for fear that they will end up stuck in a lorry park in Kent. Forty years of building good customer bases in Europe have been swept away in one month by this Government’s incompetence. The Government blamed the companies for not getting the paperwork right, said it was teething problems or blamed the French, the Dutch or any other big boy who might have done it and run away. Will the Government accept that the fault and the blame lie with them, because they made a bollocks of Brexit? Will they go back to the EU to seek a grace period and new negotiations on market access, even if that means accepting some regulatory alignment?

[George Eustice]

We will not accept regulatory alignment. This country voted to become an independent, self-governing country again, and to make its own laws again. We were elected as a Government on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver what people voted for in the referendum, and that is what we have done.

Of course, there have been teething problems in these early stages, as people familiarise themselves with new paperwork—not just businesses, but border control post inspectors in France and in the Netherlands, who are also on quite a steep learning curve. They are getting better, and we are working with them to iron out difficulties: for instance, the French at one point said that everything needed to be in blue ink, but they now accept that that is not correct and is not what is required in law. We are working to iron out those difficulties, working with authorities in France, the Netherlands and Ireland to try to improve these processes, and of course we would be willing to have a discussion with the European Commission about how we might modernise some of the forms they have to make them more user-friendly.