Environment Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Bill Wiggin

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—

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Bill Wiggin

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). Making a maiden speech is terrifying; following one, particularly one as good as that, equally daunting. I commend the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will do his very best; that should apply to us all. He of course thanked voters and his predecessor, Kirstene Hair, who was a lovely and wonderful Member of this House. It is deeply important for all of us to heap praise on our predecessors, no matter how difficult it may be—it certainly was when I made my maiden speech—because we are all united here in doing the best we can for our constituents.

I liked listening to the hon. Member’s description of the landscape, and the Harley-Davidson motorcycle reference was particularly dear to my heart. When I look at Angus I think of the second-best breed of British cattle, the Aberdeen Angus, which from Herefordshire is not a difficult one for me to tease him about. I look forward to his maintaining the status quo for at least the next five years here, and I wish him every success with his career, which I suspect will go from strength to strength.

Colleagues should bear in mind that declaring one’s interests is very important in these debates—in fact, the most important thing. I am the lucky recipient of a very small cheque from the RPA once a year for my smallholding in Herefordshire.

I absolutely reject the purpose of subsidy in all fields except agriculture, because although our farmers produce the finest food in the world, they do so from a playing field that is anything but level, so we need to help them maintain the skills necessary to provide the food security that we may need at any time. It is easy to forget that epidemics such as foot and mouth, which hit our country in 2001, can happen anywhere in the world. We have also seen bluetongue and avian influenza, for example. Our food supply is always vulnerable. One cannot learn how to farm quickly; it takes years—generations—and great skill and appropriate qualifications. That is why, for the security of our country, we need to support our agricultural industry.

It is worth it. We put £3.5 billion into agriculture every year, but our food exports alone are worth £22 billion. We are 60% self-sufficient; 60% of the food we eat is produced here. I believe that the future for agriculture is that it will provide a healthier diet for our country. So as we will not only be providing the security that we need and a wonderful export market, but saving ourselves a fortune through the NHS, by ensuring that our population are healthier, better-fed and thriving. Of course, we can do that only if we control what comes into our country according to its quality and the production methods used.

That, if nothing else, is a good reason to support the Bill, but I am pleased to say that there is more. I, too, have had problems with the RPA—oh my goodness! I have also given it a fair few problems of my own, but it has always handled them extremely well and politely. However, the burden that the RPA lands on farmers, such as the one in my constituency who had to undertake the re-mapping of every hedge on his farm because the data had been lost, is horrendous. Having the power not to have to follow the EU’s rules will be tremendously positive for all those working for the RPA, and we should not be looking at spending more money on it, but making its job easier by demanding less from it. I look forward to that as one of the future steps to easing the burden on our constituents and on farmers, by ensuring that the RPA regulations are more straightforward.

In any change to agriculture, the biggest thing is that we take the public with us. Food labelling is therefore the most fundamental thing to get right. The problem with food labelling is that our eyesight is not necessarily good enough to read the small writing necessary to include all the information we need on small amounts of food. That is particularly true of restaurant menus, on which we cannot see where, say, the chicken has come from. That is just taken as the restaurant’s corporate responsibility.

The problem is that, until we conquer the challenge of industrial food production, we will not be able to protect standards, even if we want to, so I urge the Government to look carefully at how to ensure the public are properly informed. I suggest they pay particular attention to private Member’s Bill No. 17, which seeks to address this issue in great detail not only in the labelling of food but in how meat is graded.

One problem we have with meat is that we care about how fat the animal is and how much meat and muscle it has, but we do not care about what it tastes like. That is a fundamental mistake when we expect people to eat it. We should be doing a great deal more on eating quality, as the Canadians and the Australians do. There is a huge benefit to eating quality, because the calmer and more placid the animal, the better it tastes. A calm and placid animal is considerably safer to have on a farm, which means the risk to farmers of being killed by their cattle—that risk is particularly serious for older farmers—is considerably reduced.

Nearly all the people who die on farms in animal accidents are farmers aged over 60. They die, whereas younger farmers are able to recover. We lose about seven farmers a year to such deaths, and we could do a great deal more just by having better-tasting meat. What a great success that would be.

On the subject of saving lives, I come to chlorinated chicken. I have a huge number of poultry producers in my constituency, and the nightmare for them is campylobacter, which causes food poisoning that kills about six people a year. If we chlorinate our chicken, we should save those lives. Do not be fooled by the anti-chlorination argument. There are terrible problems with hormones in beef, which I will not touch on—I will leave it to those who wish to criticise American food production—but chlorinated chicken is not the monster it is made out to be.

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) spoke about chlorinated chicken and how we put chlorine in our swimming pools, and so on. The main point to which people object is that chlorinating chicken disguises the poor welfare standards that lead to the amount of germs and bacteria in the meat that is presented to us.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Bill Wiggin

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

I note the selective quote from the hon. Gentleman. The NFUS also said that any such schedule should be one that comes from the Scottish Government. One could ask whether the DEFRA Secretary would be willing to accept Scottish Government amendments.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very important that we hear from the SNP, because the Bill does pertain to Scotland. However, as the hon. Lady has just said, a large part of this area is devolved. Is it not then fair that the SNP abides, as we all have to, by the eight-minute limit, instead of taking twice that amount of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) is her party’s Front-Bench spokesman. She is therefore not subject to a time limit. I am quite sure that, being an hon. Lady and a good orator, she will not take more time than is suitable, but it is up to her to decide what that is.