South East Water

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I will shortly call Greg Clark to move the motion, and then if there are no other speakers I will call the Minister to respond. If there is another speaker, they will be taken next. I remind Members that there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of South East Water.

I am very grateful to have secured this debate, and I convey my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing it. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.

The purpose of a water supply company is simply to supply running water to its customers—water to drink, water to cook with, water to wash and bathe in, water to clean clothes and dishes, water to operate central heating boilers and water to flush the toilet. It is the most basic, essential service in Britain in the 21st century, and we rightly take it for granted, and yet for eight days, including the week before Christmas, many thousands of people in my constituency, in Tunbridge Wells and the surrounding villages, had no water. That followed an earlier period in November in which other parts of my constituency were cut off from running water.

South East Water, the company granted the privilege of operating a local monopoly, failed in its only purpose. By South East Water’s own admission, on 19 December, to take one particular day, 3,500 households—about 10,000 people—were without water. As the days went on, many people endured conditions of stress and, frankly, squalor. I will share with the Chamber some examples from the deluge of emails I received from desperate constituents in what became the nightmare before Christmas.

One constituent emailed me to say,

“Our home, in which four adults live, has absolutely no water whatsoever. We have no water to wash ourselves, wash our dishes, wash our clothes, flush the toilet—nothing. It feels as though we are living in the past and have gone backwards in time.”

Another constituent wrote to say,

“I’m at my wits end and this has been the worst week. We have lost water every day for the last 5 days and been forced to buy water. We been told we can collect water from Tesco but if you don’t drive it’s a 45 min walk in the ice! And it’s just tiny bottles as my neighbours have driven to get.”

Another constituent emailed me and said,

“My son was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes a month ago and is having to come to terms with his new way of life which now includes four insulin injections a day and multiple blood prick tests throughout the day. The lack of water to keep everything clean for him is really affecting every part of our day now. We are having to travel to family members for even the most basic of tasks including showers, washing clothes, washing plates never mind the necessity for my son to take his insulin with clean hands and a clean environment.”

Yet another constituent said,

“It is becoming unbearable. I cannot understand how not having water is a recurring issue we face in 2022. I have a new born baby and am finding it harder and harder each day due to the lack of running water. As your probably aware babies are unable to drink bottled water so I am having to drive to friends’ houses to fill up with tap or buy expensive pre made formula for him to drink.”

Another constituent wrote and said,

“I left for work on Friday morning and got home half an hour ago. I’ve worked all weekend covering various clinical hospice duties when really I should be up in my bed with hot lemon and paracetamol. I chose to prioritise caring for my end of life patients over my own health needs. So getting home tonight to no water yet AGAIN has left me speechless and super upset. I am physically and emotionally broken. The one thing I wanted to do tonight before crawling into my sick bed was to have a hot bath but it wasn’t possible. ”

Another constituent said,

“Thank you for bringing up the water supply issue on the news last Friday. I really thought it would have been fixed by now, but we still have no water! We are struggling to cope. We have two young children. All our toilets are now blocked. I’ve just had to remove all the excess excrement and dispose of in the garden! The water shortage has been going on for weeks. Way before the cold spell. What is going on with South East water!”

Finally, in terms of this debate—but by no means finally in terms of the communications I had from constituents—one person wrote to say,

“the dialysis unit in Tunbridge Wells was forced to close until Boxing Day as they were unable to guarantee full dialysis for their patients—more than 80. I spoke to an engineer who waited all day at the unit for a tanker that did not arrive. The nurses worked until 1 am on the day they had water to dialyse as many people as possible. An extraordinary situation that put incredible pressure on staff and huge stress on patients.”

What on earth could be the reason for such a catastrophic set of events, resulting in those cuts to our water supply? The answer is a catalogue of failures over the preceding weeks that exposed a network lacking in the resilience needed to do the job of supplying water reliably to our residents.

Floods in November had put out of action water treatment works at Groombridge and Tonbridge, and a power cut at around the same time had hit suppliers from Bewl Water. Those incidents caused quite significant loss of water for many households throughout my constituency, but they also had a knock-on effect. Those failures meant that one of the main holding reservoirs that supplies the town of Tunbridge Wells, an underground facility on the Pembury road, fell to less than 20% of its normal capacity. When the cold snap hit in December, with the water leaks from burst pipes that that entailed, the reservoir was too low to supply the population that relied on it. It could not refill, because as much water was being taken out through burst pipes as was being put in.

That may be an explanation, but it is in no way an acceptable excuse. If heavy rain followed by snow and ice—pretty normal winter weather—can knock out water supplies, the network is not resilient enough. During that time, the company’s response was not nearly good enough, either. I attach no blame to the South East Water maintenance engineers who worked day and night to find and repair burst pipes during that period, but communication with customers was totally inadequate. During my daily conversations with the chief executive, I was able to glean an understanding of the engineering problems that I have just described and report it to constituents, but that should have come from the company from the outset.

Without running water available, it was essential that bottled water should reach people who were desperate for supplies. Yet for many days, the only distribution point for bottled water was in the car park of Tesco at Pembury. At times, it became totally overwhelmed, causing gridlock on the surrounding roads. South East Water and my constituents have reason to be grateful to Tesco and, in particular, its managers Jon Briley and Justin Alexander for allowing the car park to be used, despite the fact that this happened the week before Christmas—their busiest trading time of the year—and caused huge disruption to the store’s operation.

As anyone with knowledge of Tunbridge Wells knows, Tesco at Pembury is a long way from many of the properties affected in the town and to the south and west, in places such as Hawkenbury and Langton Green. Even at the best of times, the Pembury Road that leads to the store is probably the most notorious in Tunbridge Wells for congestion. Yet it took several days of pressure from me and the chief executive of the local borough council before another, more central site was opened at the Salvation Army headquarters, by kind permission of Captains Graeme and Zoe Smith.

To my immense relief and that of my constituents, supplies finally resumed on 23 December, though many properties suffered a loss of water from airlocks and local burst pipes even after that point. It was too late to save Christmas for the pubs, cafés, hotels and restaurants that had had to cancel bookings for customers they had expected during the previous week, at a cost to their reputation, as well as to their income.

There must be a reckoning for what happened last month, and it must never be repeated. I thank the Minister for being extremely helpful to me throughout the crisis, having multiple phone calls and convening a meeting with South East Water at the height of the crisis in December. Will she now support me in two further respects to secure two things from South East Water?

The first is compensation for constituents who were affected. I realise that a financial sum cannot expunge the memory of the misery that people endured, nor bring back the pleasure forgone of what should have been a relaxed and festive week before Christmas—the first that people have been able to have since the pandemic. However, financial compensation is owed to them by a company that, after all, made more than £83 million in profit last year from those same customers. That compensation should go beyond the statutory minimum and reflect the cumulative and aggravated impact of rolling cuts to supply over many days, and the extreme uncertainty and anxiety that the prospect of having no water caused. I have also asked—I think it is appropriate—that South East Water make a wider contribution to our whole community, over and above individual compensation, to reflect the disruption caused to our area at an important time.

Secondly, can the Minister support me in obtaining an urgent plan from South East Water to increase—indeed, to guarantee—the security of our water supplies against things that have the potential to disrupt them, whether they be power cuts, floods or freezing weather? Every action that can make a difference should be assessed urgently, and measures should be fast-tracked now.

South East Water exists for one reason, and one reason only: to supply water reliably to homes and businesses, but it has failed to do so. If it cannot make us confident that the same thing will not happen again, the company should be removed from that role.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that the Minister has heard that representation loud and clear: if that is a block, I hope my right hon. Friend’s remarks have made clear that it should not be.

First, let me delve into live animal exports in a bit more detail. Live animals are exported to EU countries from the UK for breeding, fattening and slaughter. The concern from many is that during that process, animals undergo dehydration, starving and exhaustion and often end up as the victims of very cruel actions that are already illegal in the UK. Our departure from the European Union makes it possible to ban live animal exports. I am aware that there are mixed feelings about the proposals in the farming community, and I am sure that that has added to the delay. Concerns about the impacts that the ban could have on trade and business are, of course, valid, but I hope the Minister will be able to share some of the work his Department has done to address those concerns, and some of the mitigation measures that could be introduced to ensure we improve animal welfare while protecting businesses.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am sure that he, like me and many other Members, will have had representations from his constituents on the specific issue of the export of animals for slaughter. Does he agree that the strength of feeling on the issue is such that it needs to be dealt with as a matter of some urgency?

[Elliot Colburn]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have certainly had that correspondence, and I am sure many colleagues will speak about the level of correspondence they have received from their constituents who feel so passionately that live animal exports are a cruel practice that should not be taking place.

Next, I want to move on to puppy smuggling. We have had debates in the Chamber about that topic and, as many colleagues will be aware, campaigners have been calling to an end to puppy smuggling and other dubious practices for many years. It has been debated, Ministers have answered parliamentary questions, there has been a major Committee inquiry and multiple drop-in events and campaign emails have been organised on the subject.

Avian Influenza Outbreak

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not intend to impose a formal time limit, but if Members could stick to five minutes, it should be possible to get everybody in. That is an informal time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

As the representative of a constituency that has a large number of intensive poultry farms, and as someone who has kept a backyard flock and been the financial controller of a poultry farm, I have seen at first hand the difficulties of trying to house poultry. Most importantly, I have seen the difficulties that the farming industry faces when trying to insure against avian influenza. It used to be possible to obtain insurance, because the disease was an unlikely event—it was a peril that insurers would happily insure against—but now it is almost impossible. Does my hon. Friend agree that taking preventive action—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Lady wants to make a speech, she should indicate so. Interventions should be brief.

[Tim Farron]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and am grateful for her intervention. The uninsurability of flocks is a reminder of why the compensation scheme must work and be effective.

In 1981, avian flu had a low pathogenicity. It did not kill the poultry, so farmers could get a vet to confirm an outbreak and command a cull before the livestock was dead. That is the crucial thing. Now, the disease has a high pathogenicity. Turkeys are dying within four days. The legislation was introduced to incentivise farmers to take their birds to be culled, and it is no longer serving that purpose. The Government must therefore intervene to correct the compensation scheme accordingly.

Secondly, the Minister should take evidence-based decisions. Earlier, I mentioned that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is where the science happens. It is vital that our approach to the disease outbreaks is based on science. Scientists think that avian flu probably lasts for around six weeks after death, so why do farmers have to rest their sites for 12 months? Why are some being told to strip six inches of soil off their free-range paddocks? Farmers are ordered to move their bird flocks indoors, but it takes longer for avian influenza to spread among a flock if they are kept outside on the ranch.

Thirdly, I ask that the Government ensure that they properly prepare for future outbreaks. I expect that the Minister might say that the Government are investing £2.8 billion to redevelop the Animal and Plant Health Agency. That is welcome, but the programme is not due to complete until 2036, and the Treasury has not yet agreed to fund it.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maldon for bringing forward the debate. It is a huge issue for farmers in my patch, for rural communities across the board and for the infrastructure of our natural environment across the UK. Action must happen now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind those who are yet to speak that I intend to call the Front Benchers starting at 10.28 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I will make some comments about compensation and timescales for restocking.

On compensation, although the Government have made some moves in the direction of valuing the destroyed birds earlier following the avian flu outbreak, it is still not good enough. I want to describe the situation for one of my constituents. The birds that she and her family keep were infected in spite of being inside. Perhaps the avian flu got in via some fresh straw, but over 30,000 birds were destroyed. The valuation of the stock by the APHA was made promptly but, despite the outbreak occurring in early August, they have still not received any compensation for the second of their two sites. It was only last week that they received compensation for the first. This is entirely unacceptable given that their incomes ceased at the point of the cull and compensation was needed to ensure that bills were paid. Speedier payment of compensation is critical.

Secondly, I will comment on restocking timescales. The secondary cleaning and disinfection protocol, as described by DEFRA, is not fit for purpose. It provides three options for restocking the farm. The quickest restocking option is unavailable to many small and medium-sized farms and free-range producers, which means that they are forced to choose restocking the poultry, and that cannot be carried out until 12 months after the avian flu outbreak. That is catastrophic for farm businesses whose main income is from poultry. They are stopped from trading for an entire year because of this legislation. It is causing otherwise viable businesses to go to the wall. In one case in my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton, when the bank became aware of this requirement for a 12-month pause in the farm being restocked, the lender requested that the constituent’s banking facility be removed.

In addition to the volume of avian flu cases expected this winter, this legislation means that there will be shortages lasting well over a year, especially in the seasonal Christmas turkey market. Many farms, if stuck with the 12-month restocking option, will be unable to produce turkeys not only this Christmas, but next Christmas. I have not read any scientific evidence that backs up the 12-month restocking rule. Professor Ian Brown, head of virology at the APHA, confirmed at a conference this week that the virus can live during the winter period for six weeks. If the longevity of the virus is only six weeks, I see no reason why a farm should be forced to cease trading for a whole year.

The secondary cleansing and disinfecting requirements, which must be achieved to restock a farm with poultry, are not fit for purpose. That is especially the case for a small, family-run and free-range farm, for seasonal poultry producers and for those operating on earth or stone floors. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is absolutely right that any enforced shutdown of a farm needs to be based on science. At the moment, there seems to be little or no scientific justification relating to the longevity of the virus that requires a 12-month shutdown.

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is one more speaker to be called and I will be calling the Front Benchers at 10.28 am.

[Richard Foord]

Thank you, Sir George; I will be brief.

My constituents and I suggest that the current 12-month period should be reduced to six months, and the onerous and expensive cleansing and disinfecting requirements should be reduced. We propose that no differentiation should be made between the treatment of earth, stone or concrete floors. Having farms out of production for two Christmas turkey-producing seasons is catastrophic for small, family-run businesses. To summarise, the Government should think again about the payment of compensation and the timescales for restocking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

rose—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, can I just point out that I will call the Opposition spokesman shortly and I think the hon. Gentleman is about to run out of time?

Breed-specific Legislation

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just these four breeds that are dangerous and it is not just this section of the Dangerous Dogs Act that needs amending? If another breed of dog kills someone’s dog, that owner is not liable for any form of prosecution, unless the dog is an assistance dog or unless another human being or the owner fears injury themselves.

Dog-on-dog attacks should become a criminal offence and that owners should be criminally liable if their dog attacks and kills another dog. The case for this was painfully demonstrated to me by an incident in my constituency at Christmas, when a beautiful, tiny Bichon Frise—a little white dog called Millie—was torn apart in Chalkwell Park by two boxer-style dogs, which is a breed not on the list of dangerous dogs. The owner did not fear any injury for himself, because it was clear the dogs were going for the tiny dog and not him. He had no choice but to carry his dog with its guts hanging out to the vet, where the dog was put down.

Understandably, Michael was traumatised by this event, as many dog owners are up and down the country. We hear about these dog-on-dog attacks pretty much on a weekly basis. Would the hon. Lady agree that section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be amended to make it a criminal offence if an owner allows their dog to kill another, irrespective of whether that dog is an assistance dog or whether injury is anticipated by the owner? The discrepancy between five years for a dog theft—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making an important point, but I think she needs to take her seat. An intervention is not the same as a speech; interventions should be short and to the point. The hon. Lady has made her point and asked her question, and I am sure that the hon. Member who moved the motion will respond accordingly.

[Christina Rees]

I am very sorry to hear of the hon. Lady’s constituent’s trauma. I am an animal lover and a dog lover. When something happens to someone’s pet, it is very traumatic. The hon. Lady made a lot of valid points, and I am sure the Minister was listening.

As I was saying, we need a single dog control Act that consolidates the current complex legislative framework in a breed-neutral way, and we need to use dog control notices proactively to help prevent incidents involving dangerous dogs. There should also be stronger penalties for irresponsible owners.

Dog welfare is compromised on a daily basis as a result of breed-specific legislation. Dogs are put down, kept in kennels for long periods, especially when a decision about whether a dog is a banned type is challenged, or subject to restrictions after the granting of an interim exemption order. Under such orders, which are recommended by DEFRA, the dog owner is assessed as being a “fit and proper person” and the dog is assessed to be of good temperament, allowing the dog to be returned to its owner under exemption conditions. The dog must be microchipped, neutered and kept on a lead and muzzled while in public spaces until the case is heard in court.

There should be new provisions to ensure that the welfare of dogs kept in kennels is safeguarded. The UK Government’s responsible dog ownership steering group is welcomed. It is hoped it will lead to useful changes around education, data and enforcement, but it is disappointing that breed-specific legislation is not included. Such legislation is ineffective at protecting public safety and results in the unnecessary suffering and euthanasia of many dogs. It should be repealed and replaced with positive interventions that do not compromise dog welfare.

There is no mandatory requirement to report dog bites, but research suggests that people are more likely to report a bite from a suspected prohibited type. The Office for National Statistics lists 78 deaths from dog bites in England and Wales between 1981 and 2015. The RSPCA found from media reports that, of the 34 fatalities between 1989 and 2017, only nine involved pit bull types. Of the 35 reported and registered dog bite fatalities in the UK between 2005 and 2013, specific breeds were reported in 11 cases, but only two involved pit bull types. Between 1992 and 2019, only 8% of dangerously out-of-control dog cases involved banned breeds.

The coalition believes that identifying certain types of dogs as dangerous can create a false sense of security by over-simplifying the situation. Aggression in dogs is a complicated behaviour, involving a range of factors such as breeding and rearing, experiences throughout a dog’s lifetime and, for some dogs, being continually kept on a lead and muzzled in public, which can inhibit natural behaviours and, in some cases, increase aggression.

I also met with Jayne Dendle, who set up the south Wales charity Save Our Seized Dogs to help owners who have had their dogs taken from them under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Jayne started her charity after she came across a story about a therapy dog that had been seized as a potential pit bull type without being involved in any incidents. The owner was a local authority tenant who discovered, after her therapy dog was assessed as an exempt dog, that she was not allowed to keep her dog in her property. Jayne got involved because she wanted to help.

Jayne told me that the costs of challenging a decision about a dog being a pit bull type are prohibitive, so her charity can help only a small number of owners. The legislation requires the owner to prove that their dog is not one of the four banned breeds, which is an onerous reversal of the burden of proof. When a dog does not conform to the proportional measurements and appearance of a banned breed, Jayne recommends that the dog owner obtain an independent assessor’s report. Such reports are comprehensive and run to several pages, while police evidence is often one paragraph setting out why they think the dog is one of the four banned breeds. The cost of an independent assessor’s report is between £800 and £1,500, but it is often the only method that will save a dog.

Unfortunately, when an owner declares that they will pay privately for a second opinion, the option of an interim exemption order is often withdrawn, and some police forces do not even use the interim exemption order scheme. However, there are many benefits of an interim exemption order: kennelling costs are kept to a minimum; kennel space is freed up for dogs that are of genuine concern; a dog is not away its from home for a long period; there is less pressure on courts to provide a hearing date, and I am sure that Members know about the massive backlog of court cases; and breed-specific cases are of low priority.

Jayne found cases where police forces had encouraged an owner to sign over their dog, which had been identified as being of a banned type, so that the dog could be put down and the owner could avoid facing criminal charges. She believes that training for dog legislation officers is insufficient and should focus more on identifying banned breeds.

The welfare of seized dogs is of great concern. When they are returned to their owners, they are often underweight, have sores from sleeping on concrete floors, have damaged teeth from chewing on the bars of the kennel cage, and have parts of their tails missing from wagging them in an enclosed space. The police keep their kennel and vet costs to a minimum, which leads to poor welfare of seized dogs. Jayne has dealt with several cases in which young dogs that were previously healthy were found dead in police-approved facilities. Puppies are often seized when they are under eight weeks of age because there is a suspicion that one or both of their parents may be of a banned breed, but how can the assessment be accurate when good practice suggests that adult dog maturity is only achieved at around nine months of age? Jayne recently dealt with one such case where the puppies were released at eight months, having been declared to be not of the banned breed type. The puppies were under-socialised, not familiar with living in a household environment, and very scared. Jayne suggests that puppies could be allowed home on a similar scheme to the interim exemption order scheme until they reach maturity, when they could be properly assessed.

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. Will the UK Government commit to implementing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s recommendation that there be an independent evidence review to establish whether the banned breed types are an inherently greater risk than any legal breed or cross-breed? Will the Government ensure that all dogs affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 have their welfare needs met and safeguarded? Will they ensure that all police forces use the interim exemption order scheme? When police forces do not use the interim exemption order scheme, the Government must protect dogs by developing and applying evidence-based, up-to-date kennelling standards.

Will the UK Government allow the rehoming of all dogs seized under the Act by responsible, reputable, rehoming organisations that are assessed through robust procedures? Will they permit independent assessors to review the welfare of dogs that are being kept in kennels pending a court hearing? Will they ensure that there are no contingent destruction orders, and no requirements placed on exempted dogs, such as a requirement to be muzzled in public, when it has been established that a dog seized under the Act does not pose a danger to the public? Will they explore alternatives to breed-specific legislation? Those could range from promoting and fostering responsible dog-ownership communities and allowing for early and preventive interventions, such as dog control notices, to imposing severe penalties on owners who use their dogs to frighten or intimidate. Finally, I should be very grateful if the Minister would meet the petitioner.

Bees: Neonicotinoids

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very well-informed speech, as always. There seems to be some doubt between Members as to where the balance of science lies. My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) have both said that the science does not back the Government’s position. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. We have heard from the experts and they have said that the case has not been made. I know that the Government have been quite dismissive of experts in the past, but that is the case. What is the point of asking for expert opinion if the Government do not abide by it? I suspect that in her response, the Minister will tell us that the Environment Act 2021 commits us to reversing biodiversity decline by 2030. Perhaps she could tell us how allowing the use of neonicotinoids in pesticides will help that? The Minister may also point out how the Agriculture Act 2020 rewards farmers who try to increase biodiversity on their farms. However, we heard in yesterday’s debate in this Chamber that the Government are making a mess of introducing ELMS.

Later this year, the convention on biological diversity will meet in China; it is very unclear what the Government hope to achieve from the UK’s participation. Perhaps it would be an idea to go along, promote the precautionary principle, and pledge to ditch the pesticides, protect our pollinators and genuinely promote biodiversity.

UK Fisheries

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I am anxious to cast the net as widely as possible. I think there are nine Back Benchers who wish to make a speech. I am not going to set a formal time limit, but if people adhere to a four-minute limit on speeches and are careful about accepting interventions, we should be able to get everybody in. I call Alistair Carmichael.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to direct that question to his colleague Councillor Jim Gifford, who is the leader of the council. As members of the same party they will have ample opportunity to discuss the question. My point was that it takes five years from scratch to build EHO capacity, and without that there is a huge problem, which we cannot gloss over.

There is also a need to have heat treated pallets for exports, wagons and drivers with appropriate credentials, and there is the prospect of delays at ports. For a perishable product, that is bad news, especially as the European Union accounts for 77% of total Scottish seafood exports by value.

The only area of opportunity that I could concede Brexit offers is in terms of the value that could come to fishing and coastal communities. However, that requires investment in skills and training and requires the manufacturers, the producers, to have access to product. As hon. Members said, it depends very much on zonal attachment and getting access to that product. It depends very much on free and frictionless access to markets. It also depends on freedom of movement. I sat through a rather dispiriting Government response to a debate yesterday afternoon in the main Chamber about freedom of movement. We absolutely do need to have that if we are to take full advantage.

It is very clear—

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I have no formal power to bring the hon. Member’s speech to a close, but he does need to leave time for the other two Front-Bench spokespersons to respond.

[Richard Thomson]

Thank you, Sir George. It is very clear that we have a Government in Edinburgh who take these issues seriously and are aware of them. I look forward to the Minister’s response to find out whether the same is true in London.

Unsustainable Packaging

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We can recycle plastics, but if we recycle a mix of different plastics, we find that we get a very low-grade reusable plastic. If compostable plastics are mixed with the non-compostable, we have another problem. Everything in life is not simple; as with every inquiry that one does, the more one looks into the issue, the more complicated it becomes. I am a practical farmer, and the one thing that I want to see is that we really do good by reducing the amount of plastic, having properly compostable plastics and doing something that actually works. We have to be careful. Governments of all colours will naturally say, “Let’s tick this box. We’ve recycled this; we’ve done this; we’ve done that.” But does it actually work? Does it improve the environment? That is the issue.

Moving on to compostable plastics, we have to be certain that they will decompose properly so that the molecules break down and we can grow plants in our garden or put the material on to our fields and grow our crops and it does not leave tiny little particles of plastic that has not broken down. Most of it will compost, but it has to be composted in a certain way. If I put the beaker that I have with me in the Chamber in my garden with a whole load of other beakers and leave them together, that will never decompose, or it will take a very long time to do so. If we mix it with garden waste and other organic materials and can get the temperature up to 60°, it will break down, probably within 12 weeks to six months, so that can be done. It will break right down, but as I said, it has to be done properly. We do not want the plastic in these beakers mixing with other plastic that is not compostable. That is why the collection of plastics and the recycling of them are vital. We have local government all over the country—I was in local government before I came to this place—and local authorities are fiercely independent, but of course we have lots of different ways of collecting and recycling and so on.

The Government will probably have to be braver on this issue and give stricter advice to local authorities on how they recycle and on having a similar system across the country. For example, I do not have the patience that my wife has to sort things into every tiny little thing. I think that we need to make recycling a little bit more idiot-proof for people like me, dare I say. Do not smile like that, Minister. I was going to say something nice about you in a minute, but I may not now.

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. As a farmer, the hon. Gentleman should know that when you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging.

[Neil Parish]

Yes, I will carry on with my speech, Sir George; I apologise. On compostable plastic, we need to ensure much better public awareness. We also have to ensure that we collect the material separately and do not mix it with plastic that is not compostable.

I think that if we were to bring in a tax at the source, where plastics are made, that would raise the cost, but those plastics that were genuinely compostable could be made exempt or there could be a reduction in the amount of tax put on that particular plastic. That would ensure that the compostable plastics were more competitive in the marketplace.

The hon. Member for Cambridge rightly went into quite a lot of detail about what we actually need to wrap in plastic. When it comes to meat, fish and things that we want to keep for a long time, we can improve the shelf life by using plastic. We do not want to waste food; that is the last thing we want. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so we need to be a little careful. As I have said, we must ensure that we do not waste food. When it comes to those vacuum packs, let us ensure that it is those foods that require a longer life that we concentrate the plastics on.

Other hon. Members have made this point: do we really need potatoes, carrots, onions and all those things wrapped in plastic? Do individual bits of broccoli need to be wrapped in plastic? When we go to the supermarket, the food is almost pre-digested and pre-eaten, before we actually eat it, because it has been prepared so thoroughly. We wash our potatoes, carrots and all those things and then put them in plastic bags. That is all very convenient, but I was told as a boy, “You have to eat a peck of dirt before you die.” I think people would have a job to eat a peck of dirt today, because everything is washed so clean. Carrots, potatoes and all those root crops grow in the ground, believe it or not. They get soil on them, and a little bit of soil—well, I will not diverge from the subject too far, but there is iron in soil. All these things are part of life.

Without getting too romantic and reminiscing too much, we could look a lot more at how we used to eat our food. Not everything will work, and as I have said, we will still need some plastics, so let us make them compostable. Take cheese, for example. Does all of that need to be wrapped in plastic, so that it seems to be made of rubber, and delivered to us? We could have some really good flavoured cheese that is done in a more traditional way; perhaps we could take it home in some greaseproof paper or whatever. Do we need all the plastic and cardboard packaging that is used to package strawberries? For all these things, do we need it?

Another issue that we have not looked at is the glossy leaflets that we receive through the post. They are all plastic-coated. I do not think that the Select Committee will look at this in our inquiry, but when we start looking at something, we suddenly start looking at everything that arrives with different eyes. One of the agricultural merchants sent me a whole thing to do with cattle drenches and goodness knows what, and it was all in a very glossy leaflet, all plastic-coated. That is not necessary. In fact, if we use something that looks more old-fashioned, with old-fashioned print, and put it on some proper paper, instead of a plastic-coated leaflet, it might work a lot better than carrying on with more and more plastic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this interesting and useful debate, which has been conducted in a positive and constructive spirit. The contributions from all the Front-Bench speakers were very welcome. I was particularly enthused by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and his passion for change, and I was very much taken by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and her talk of a plastic calamity or crisis.

I will conclude by returning to the petitioners. When they say:

“The British public WANTS to recycle but we can’t get away from the vast amounts of waste that poorly designed packaging creates”,

they are putting out a plea to us to get this right. When they say,

“appoint people to design alternatives”,

I am not sure who they have in mind, but if we do get it right,

“the UK will thank you!”

That is something with which we could all agree.

I will end on a slight note of difference: I do not entirely agree with the Minister that we are in exactly the same place. I suspect that in the end, the Opposition are a touch more interventionist—in fact, we are much more interventionist.

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Let me take the slightly unusual step of saying from the Chair that this subject, which is hugely important to the people we all represent, has been covered so well that I am hugely impressed. I do not think that a single word was wasted in any speech made by anybody, on whichever side of the House. It has been a privilege to chair the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 232684 relating to unsustainable packaging.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No, I will not.

I respect the views of many Members of this House, and I know that I will have to stand down—sorry, sit down—in just a second to ensure that everyone has their say in this debate. I know that there will be speeches, as there have been throughout the debates, that will be compelling and heartfelt and that reflect the honest grappling with difficult issues that all of us have had to face.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, I will not.

However, 17.4 million people were told in that referendum campaign that their vote would be honoured. They were told unambiguously, “What you vote for, the Government will deliver.” We have an obligation to honour that mandate. Our other obligation is to do that in a way that safeguards the interests of the British people. All of us might have a perfect version of Brexit—a change here, an alteration there—but we all have to accept our responsibility next Tuesday to decide whether we are going to honour that verdict. Are we going to make the perfect the enemy of the good? Are we going to put our own interpretation of what Brexit should be ahead of the votes of 17.4 million people, ahead of the interests of everyone in this country who has a job, and ahead of the clearly expressed democratic will of the British people? Are we going to endanger their future by either seeking to overturn that mandate or rejecting this agreement and entering what the Prime Minister has suggested would be uncharted waters?

As I pointed out earlier, if we reject this agreement—the current course on which Parliament is set—and have no deal, Britain will of course prosper eventually but it is undeniably the case, because the facts on the ground demonstrate it, that our citizens and constituents will face economic turbulence and damage. That is why, after long reflection, I have decided that we must back this agreement. We must ensure that the British people’s vote is honoured, that their futures are safeguarded and that Britain can embrace the opportunities that our people deserve. That is why I commend this agreement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I want to say at the outset that the Government are now in such a position that we need a general election. They no longer have any authority, they no longer have a majority and, it seems to me, they no longer serve any useful purpose.

Before making my main points, I want to take issue with something the Secretary of State said in his opening speech—the right hon. Gentleman has unfortunately had to leave the Chamber. Essentially, he argued that a second referendum would be undemocratic. The premise of the whole argument was that the deal people voted for in 2016, or that they thought they were voting for, will be delivered by the Prime Minister’s deal, but it will not. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, as indeed does every Member of the House who campaigned in the referendum. We all know that the deal has no bearing on the reasons people voted to leave the European Union, and we should be clear about that. I do not think that it would be undemocratic to go back to the people almost three years later and ask, “Is this exactly what you voted for? Is this what you want to happen?” My first priority, because of what I have said about the Government, is to have a general election. If that is not going to happen, the next best thing, almost certainly, has to be a referendum.

I want to talk about two things. First, I want us to consider Britain’s place in the world. Winston Churchill, in his speech to the Tory party conference in 1948—it has been quoted repeatedly, but I think it is worth revisiting—described “three majestic circles” in the following terms:

“The first circle for us is naturally the British Commonwealth and Empire, with all that that comprises. Then there is also the English-speaking world in which we, Canada, and the other British Dominions and the United States play so important a part. And finally there is United Europe.”

Obviously, so much has changed since then that we cannot stick to that as a rigid formula, and I would not argue that we should do so, but let us quickly take each one of those circles in turn. The United States and Canada are both much more complicated places and have new networks of connections between them and with South America. Of course, in the current circumstances, as others have said, the idea that we can have a truly constructive relationship with the present US Administration beggars belief.

The English-speaking world has changed considerably. Our trade and relationship with the Commonwealth, for example with Australia, New Zealand and Canada, are now dramatically different. The idea that we could suddenly revive all those old relationships and everything will be fine is purely fanciful.

We still have, while we are a member of it, a relationship with the European Union. That does give us a bigger say in what happens around the world, because it is not just plucky little Britain as an island state saying something; it is often something we can say in concert with the rest of the European Union. My first point is therefore that we will be a diminished country in the world after we leave the European Union.

Secondly, I want to address some of the concerns that constituents raised with me on the doorstep during the referendum campaign. Yes, the main issue was immigration. It was not just about free movement of labour, although some people did mention that; it was about immigration in general. Another issue was the lack of opportunity for young people, which is a serious problem for many young people in my constituency. Another issue was the need to revive our towns and town centres, and not just in economic terms but with regard to the built environment. Concerns were raised about workers’ rights, particularly by those active in trade unions, and of course I agree on that. Concerns were also raised about the environment, which is the subject of today’s debate.

I firmly believe that we can get immigration right and better, and that the time is now propitious for us to do so, with Europe. We could implement cross-Europe policies to deal with migrant labour and those who seek asylum through other ports in Europe. The time is right for us to get a good agreement on that with Europe. In recent weeks, my party and the Government have started to publish new immigration policies. Let me be clear: I am not anti-immigration, but I accept that we have to have some kind of rational policy on it.

On education, health and all these other issues, the country is crying out for change and for new opportunities for young people. Why do we have to leave the European Union to get that? We do not have to. If we put forward to the British people a positive programme that still involves our being part of the European Union, they would probably want to go for it. They should certainly be given the opportunity to do so. Our future lies in our hands, but it does not necessarily lie outside the European Union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Fur Trade

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I do not think that it is possible to hunt humanely with those kinds of traps. Indeed, they have been banned in this country for decades longer than fur farming has been banned. We should not allow that kind of trade into this country.

This is not a party political debate. I hope that the Minister realises that there is widespread support across parties—as there always has been, and as there was at the time of my Bill—for banning this inhumane and appalling way of treating animals. It is not a party political issue, but perhaps the Minister would like to talk to some of his colleagues, particularly in the Lords, who appear not to have fully understood the nature of the ban introduced in 2000. When the Select Committee took oral evidence from Lord Henley, he said:

“I have no desire to close things down. I am not in the business of banning things.”

Lord Gardiner said he was

“committed to improving the welfare standards of animals across the world.”

Lord Gardiner ought to know that that cannot be done with fur farming; there are no welfare standards that are acceptable. He said that animals

“for whatever purpose are reared and then killed in a humane manner”

and that the fur industry needs

“to be thinking about how we produce fur in a more humane manner…fur farming, if it is to have a future, needs to be concentrating on humane and sustainable farming and trapping.”

The Minister needs to go back to his Department and have a seminar with his colleagues in the Lords about how impossible it is to do the things they seem to think are possible. If they represent the Government’s attitude to the issue, we are not going to see any progress. It is not possible—I cannot stress this enough—for fur farming to be done humanely. It has to be banned. After all this time, as the first nation in the world to ban fur farming, we can take a leadership position around the world, but we will only do so if Ministers in the Department understand that it is not possible to do this farming better.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The core of her argument—I agree with it—is that the ban can be done. Does she agree that it is within the scope of the Government and the Minister to change the practice of importing fur in a way that would please not only those of us taking part in the debate, but the majority of our constituents?

[Maria Eagle]

I think it is possible. It was certainly possible for us to ban fur farming in this country even though we were a full member of the EU at the time and were not talking about leaving. Leading by example is a very good thing. We have done it before: following our ban of fur farming—we were the first country in the world to do so—there have been full bans across many European countries, inside and outside the EU. Austria, the Netherlands, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, the Republic of Macedonia and, most recently, the Czech Republic have banned fur farming. I gave a seminar to Czech parliamentarians ahead of them considering their legislation, and I heard the same arguments from their fur trade people that I heard 20 years ago from the then remnant of our fur industry. There are partial bans in Belgium, Denmark and Hungary. The Germans have just increased their regulations to require all farmed mink to have water to swim in. I doubt that will do much for the viability of mink farming in Germany—in fact, I think it will make it completely unviable.

Progress is being made, but it is too slow. Given the statistics about the level of the trade and the fact that it has not died out, as we might have hoped 20 years ago, now is the time for us to take that next step. I do not agree for a minute that it matters whether we are inside or outside the EU; we can do it either way. We do not have to ask anybody; we can do it ourselves, and parliamentarians should do it. I think we will, and I hope that in considering the matter the Minister will take a view that his colleagues in the Lords did not sufficiently understand the nature of the trade to properly set out the Government’s position to the Select Committee.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to express that the Government, of which he is a member, will take forward the banning of this trade, because it is time. It is something that our constituents want. Over decades they have shown a very high level of support for banning the trade and for looking after animals properly. The idea that we can have 135 million animals killed for their fur every year, having put up with the most appalling suffering, is unconscionable. We need to act. We need to lead the world again. The Minister is in a position to do it, and I hope that he will. Perhaps he will tell us so today.

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Fly-tipping

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the two remaining speakers be mindful that I will call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30? I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for them to make their case. I call Kirstene Hair.