Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

It is important to recognise that there are many foodstuffs we enjoy that we simply cannot produce in this country; it is simply not physically possible. It is important that we continue to have that world trade. My hon. Friend is the trade envoy to Brazil, which is a very important partner for our Government in agrifood, climate and biodiversity, as I learned on my recent trip there.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest challenges to UK food security is the competing demands for the very land needed to produce the food from housing and commercial organisations and the latest scourge of solar farms? Will she therefore join me in welcoming the increased protections for agricultural land in the consultation on the new national planning policy framework?

[Dr Coffey]

I know that my hon. Friend made the case strongly during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in this House and was able to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and secure some changes that are being consulted on. It is critical that we look at the use of land, and that is why we have committed this year to producing a new land use framework, in which the issues he raises are very important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

1. What steps the Church is taking to help support Ukrainian refugees.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

7. What steps the Church is taking to help support Ukrainian refugees.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

Six bishops and hundreds of clergy have Ukrainian evacuees living with them, and the Church of England is using vacant vicarages in a number of places. Churches are also actively involved in recruiting new hosts where needed.

[Greg Smith]

Over the summer, I was delighted to meet Reverend Peter Godden at St Dunstan’s church in Monks Risborough—England’s oldest recorded parish—to hear at first hand about some of the incredible work that the church and wider deanery is doing to support 130 Ukrainian refugees who have been welcomed to the wider Princes Risborough area in my constituency, such as English lessons, a conversation café and a children’s summer week. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all our churches for the work they are doing to support our Ukrainian friends? What more can the Church of England do to support churches such as St Dunstan’s in their work?

Food Security

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. To start with, I have no formal interest to declare but, for transparency, I should put it on the record that my wife’s family are arable farmers and occasionally, for no remuneration, I help out on the family farm. Indeed, in the last summer recess, I thought that I had found a time when I would be able to enjoy the harvest, but, in inclement weather, it greatly amused my father-in-law instead to send me deep into the bowels of the combine to clean it out from the previous harvest—a job that I wish on nobody else.

The debate is important, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on initiating it. I did not agree with every word she said and I expect that she would be pretty appalled if I did, but, as food security is a subject facing our nation, it is absolutely right and proper that we debate it this afternoon. Actually, I have agreed with a lot of points that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have made. I particularly enjoyed the more ranty elements from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I agree with him: we should be growing and producing more food domestically and we absolutely should be wasting considerably less, if not wasting no food whatever, here in our United Kingdom. Where I think we will probably diverge and disagree is in my belief that trade deals and the outlook of global Britain will be part of the categoric success, prosperity and future of British agriculture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) said, we can export more and drive farmers to a point at which our debates about subsidy will not be relevant anymore, because we will have British agriculture in a place where it is genuinely profitable and sustainable. Subsidy is absolutely essential for the time being, but the end point must surely be profitability in British agriculture.

On the debate on how we produce more food in this country, I will not repeat many of the points eloquently made by other hon. and right hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), but my concern right now, which I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to work on across Government, is how we protect more of our agricultural land for food production.

This week, in the Government’s welcome announcements about the use of urea and the farming rules for water, in which they also set out more detail on the sustainable farming incentive, they have shown that they can be flexible and rise to the challenge of global factors and other things that impact on our farming community. That flexibility needs to be shown not just in how we get to the end point of ELMS—the environmental land management schemes—but on the other factors, which are not necessarily in the gift of DEFRA but are in the gift of other Departments, that relate to protecting that land.

My example is solar farms. We had a good debate about large solar farms in Westminster Hall some weeks ago. There are a lot of applications for them in my constituency. The vast majority of people accept the need for the renewable energy sector to develop that technology and get us off fossil fuels. However, that cannot be at the cost of hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural land—certainly thousands of acres of agricultural land in my own constituency. I must say that I take the planning consultants’ defence that sheep can still be grazed underneath the solar panels with a very large pinch of salt, because of course if the fields have been covered with the plastic, glass and metal that make up the solar panels, I am not sure how they expect grass to grow underneath them. I urge the Minister to work with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in particular to work out a way to ensure that we get the solar technology that we need in this country, but on rooftops, factories and brownfield sites rather than taking away the precious agricultural land in our rural communities.

Very powerful and good points were made on both sides of the Chamber about food poverty. We are doing other things in Government—particularly through some of the provisions in the Health and Care Bill, which is on its way through Parliament—about high in fat, salt and sugar, products, about “Buy one, get one free” offers and about where shopkeepers can and cannot place certain products in their shop and how they may be advertised. We need to acknowledge that that will have a huge impact on the price of food and on the food bill when families get to the checkout. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members want to do something about the problem of childhood obesity. However, we must not do that in a way that, first, will not work, as the Government’s own data shows—the advertising restrictions save only 1.7 calories a day—and will also drive up food bills. If we are to have food security in this country, and have affordable food for everyone, we must be wary of the unintended consequences of other policy areas.

We must look to other sources of meat. In the business statement earlier, I was happy to raise the point that six NHS hospitals are getting more game meat into their menus. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) will be delighted to hear this; we need to get more game meat into the food chain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on securing the debate.

I have spent the last six minutes pondering whether to respond to the bait laid by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and I thought, “Why not?” So, just very quickly, it was very interesting that his underlying intention is to remove agricultural subsidies, which is what I have always suspected the Tories wanted.

[Greg Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

It was quite clear that the hon. Gentleman said that he ultimately wanted to see a situation where we would not subsidise farming.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I did not say that there was a need to remove agricultural subsidy. I clearly said that agricultural subsidy was absolutely essential right now, but we must surely get to an end point where all agriculture is profitable.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly. The hon. Gentleman said that the end point he wanted to get to was the removal of subsidies and to leave everything to market forces. We know there is a need for subsidies—about 60% of farmers’ incomes depend on subsidies. His end point is so far into the future that to have it as an underlying policy objective is not a great idea. I do not agree with him on trade, but I will come to that later. I do not agree with him that the sugar tax or action on obesity would have the impact that he suggests, because we know from the soft drinks levy that what it has led to is the reformulation of products and people choosing to buy other products. If it works, people will not pay more because they will change their diets accordingly.

On game meat, a study that has just been released from Cambridge University showed that 99.5% of pheasants killed contained lead shot. I hope the Government will look at that figure with a view to banning lead shot. I certainly would not want to see that being served in our hospitals. However, all that has taken up more time than I had hoped, but I can never resist.

The impact of the rise in the cost of living and the absolutely desperate situation in which many people find themselves is a really important debate to be had, but I want to talk about food sovereignty and what we grow in this country. According to the national food strategy, we are about 77% self-sufficient in food that we can grow in this country—64% self-sufficient overall. Importing more food, changing diets and eating more exotic foods is not necessarily a bad thing. I remember when spaghetti was considered exotic in the 1970s. It is good that we have far more varied diets and that we can buy fruit and veg out of season, but there is a point at which declining food sovereignty starts to have a significant impact on food security and our vulnerability to global food shocks is exposed. We have heard about Ukraine and Brexit, and we all remember the empty shelves and rotting food caused by trucks getting stuck at borders earlier this year. There is also the ever-present threat of climate change and the impact that it could have on future harvests.

A national food strategy recommendation is that we should have reports to Parliament on food security every year rather than every three years, as specified by the Agriculture Act 2020. Given the vulnerabilities that we have spoken about, it is really important that we do that so that there can be a quicker response. I would also be interested to know whether there is a target to increase food sovereignty in this country and for us to grow more, as several Members have said. That should absolutely be a goal of our policy. Instead, what we seem to have underpinning the policy is an almost desperate touting of ourselves around the world as we try to secure trade deals, which would have the impact of not just lowering food standards in this country but undermining our farmers and, in some cases, putting them out of business—particularly if the hon. Member for Buckingham has his way—further down the line.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

Yes. Often rivers can meet an acceptable standard but in reality not be healthy places, particularly as regards biodiversity and wildlife. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point and makes the case as to why the increased scrutiny that the new clause would bring about is that much more important.

The ambition of the Environment Act, which was given Royal Assent last year, is open-ended. There are no meaningful targets or timescales to prevent water companies from dumping raw sewage into our rivers, harming fish and other animals. In 2020, water companies made £2.2 billion in profits. At the same time, as I said, they were dumping sewage in our waterways on 400,000 separate occasions. What kind of accountability is that? What kind of justice is that? What kind of impact is that having on our wildlife? The new clause would expose that.

Between 2018 and 2021, there were only 11 prosecutions of water companies for dumping sewage in our lakes and rivers. United Utilities, which serves Cumbria and the rest of the north-west, was responsible for seven out of the 10 longest sewage leaks in 2020, but, outrageously, was not fined even once. Despite the damage done to the ecology and animal life in rivers such as the Leven, Crake, Brathay, Kent, Lune, Sprint, Mint and Gowan, discharges are permitted either because Government will not stop them or because hardly any of the offenders are ever meaningfully prosecuted. The meres, tarns, waters and lakes of our lake district are all fed by rivers into which raw sewage can be legally dumped. I am particularly concerned about the ecology of Windermere and the failure to take sufficient action to protect the animal and plant life that is so dependent on England’s largest and most popular lake. The new clause would hold Government and water companies to account so that our wildlife and our biodiversity is protected.

New clause 6 addresses the impact of trade deals on the welfare of sentient animals. This country has concluded trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and any scrutiny of those deals is now effectively meaningless because the Government have already signed them. Yet the impact on sentient animals will be enormous. Free trade is vital to liberty, prosperity and peace, but trade that is not fair is not free at all. These trade deals are not fair on animals and not fair on the British farmers who care for our animals. In Australia, for example, huge-scale ranch farming means the loss of many times more animals than in the UK because of the absence of the close husbandry that we find on British family farms. Some 40% of beef in Australia involves the use of hormones that are not allowed in the United Kingdom. Cattle can be transported in Australia for up to 48 hours in the heat without food or water. These are clearly lower animal welfare standards. By signing these deals without real scrutiny, the Government have endorsed that cruelty and enabled it to prosper at our farmers’ expense. Lower standards are cheaper, so these deals give a competitive advantage to imported animal products that have reached market with poorer animal welfare, thus undermining British farmers who practise higher animal welfare standards. That is why the new clause is important—because it seeks to hold Ministers to account and to limit how much they can get away with sacrificing the welfare of sentient animals at home and abroad in order to achieve a politically useful deal.

Despite this, this Bill has much to commend it. However, the new clauses would allow the Government to look the British people in the eye and say that they were prepared to take on powerful vested interests in order to protect animals and our wider environment. In seeking to press new clause 5 to a vote, I urge Members in all parts of the House not to take the side of the most powerful against those creatures that are the most defenceless.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and new clause 4, amendments 3 to 22, and new schedule 1, which are in my name.

From the outset, and for the avoidance of all doubt, I am not, through any of these amendments, arguing against animals being sentient or being able to feel pain. After all, the sentience of animals has long been recognised in UK law, as evidenced by animal welfare legislation passed over the course of nearly 200 years. The purpose of amendment 2 and the other amendments in my name is to help the Government to avoid the main dangers and unforeseen consequences posed by the undefined aspects of the creation of the new Animal Sentience Committee. Crucially, under the unamended version of the Bill, it remains unclear who will be on this committee and what direct powers it will have. The unamended Bill’s draft terms of reference seem to suggest that the committee could have a role in scrutinising the substance of policies and not just the processes that led to those decisions being made. The Secretary of State will have the final sign-off on the committee’s composition, but what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that it is made up of dispassionate and genuine scientific animal experts and not ideologically driven animal rights activists with political agendas?

The amendments would protect against the Bill clumsily becoming a Trojan horse for what I would consider an extreme agenda that the Government could live to regret in years to come. Indeed, passionate supporters of the committee’s creation have already talked publicly of its not excluding animal rights extremist groups such as PETA. My amendments, especially amendments 3, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 21, new clause 4 and new schedule 1, suggest some statutory structure for the committee, how appointments to it are to be made, and how it might operate. The amendments would clarify that the committee is concerned with the process by which current policy is being formulated and not with policy decisions taken or suggesting policy changes, whether proposing new policy or changes to existing policy.

The amendments would also help to address the question of the Bill’s retrospective effect. The current drafting, confirmed by the draft terms of reference, would allow the committee to report on past policy decisions. Without my amendments, there will be no limit to how far back the committee can look, which would, in practice, allow it to draw attention to policies that have already been decided and implemented, or are being implemented. I fear that in doing so, it could start to drive a policy agenda of its own. Far from ensuring that in the process of policy making all due regard is had to animal welfare, it could raise policy issues that are not under current consideration or have already been decided, or decisions made before Ministers were expected to take account of animal sentience.

The current draft terms provide little clarity, and there is little if anything binding on Ministers, whether current or future. To rely on terms of reference to provide detail in these areas is not desirable for a statutory body, as they are non-binding and can be changed at will without any parliamentary oversight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I reassure him that the two Churches have already been in touch with each other about supporting Ukrainian refugees. They will continue to share experience, and consider carefully whether joint action may be more effective as the situation develops.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

10. What plans the Church of England has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

Her Majesty the Queen is the supreme governor of the Church of England and a supreme example of a life of public service, inspired by her hope in the Christian gospel. There will be a national service of celebration at St Paul’s cathedral and special services and prayers across the country. The Church of England is an enthusiastic participant in the Queen’s green canopy initiative across all of its 42 dioceses.

[Greg Smith]

In celebration of Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee, St Mary’s church in Princes Risborough wishes to do something practical and expand its community initiatives such as community outreach, mother and toddler groups and over-70s’ lunch clubs. What can the Church of England do practically to support that great ambition?

[Andrew Selous]

I am delighted to learn about the excellent work that St Mary’s in Princes Risborough is already doing in the parish, and it would be a fitting tribute to Her Majesty to build on that good work. I suggest that, in the first instance, St Mary’s should get in touch with the director of mission and ministry in the Oxford diocese, who I am sure will have a number of practical suggestions of interest.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and all Members in the House who have joined me today to help me bring my Bill to its remaining stages on the Floor of the House. I also thank the Public Bill Committee, which considered the Bill in detail on Wednesday 8 December last year. The discussion was insightful, and I appreciate the careful and detailed consideration that has gone into the process so that the Bill can today reach this point.

It is clear that we are truly a nation united by our love of animals, and my Bill has attracted strong support from all parties in this House and, most especially, from animal welfare organisations across the country. I am pleased that it has progressed through the House without a single amendment and that Members on both sides of the Chamber value not only its spirit but its content.

I am delighted by the energy shown by so many in ensuring that we get the Bill absolutely right so that it has the best possible impact on animal welfare across the country. Important conversations have been ongoing throughout its passage involving all parties in the House and key organisations outside. Ultimately, that has allowed the Bill to arrive at this final stage.

As you will know only too well, Mr Speaker, I have, like you, been an advocate for the protection of animals my entire life, and particularly during my 20 years as a Member of Parliament. My own dogs were Staffordshire bull terriers called Spike and Buster and they were the best companions anyone could have wished for. They campaigned for me in every general election, sporting their famous Union Jack waistcoats. I have fond memories of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) looking after Spike during the 2001 general election, and I am delighted that he is in the Chamber to support my Bill.

As we love our country, we also love our animals. From my experience of speaking to constituents and working closely with animal welfare charities, I know the joy that animals can bring. Protecting animals should unite us all. We have a duty of care to the animals that we are privileged to live alongside—household pets, wild animals, farm animals and all creatures of land, sea and sky.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions farm animals. I do not know of any farmers who deliberately mistreat their animals, but sometimes false accusations are made against them. There is some concern in the farming community about the appeals process if they are given a penalty charge notice. Will he assure the House that there is a robust appeals process in his Bill?

[Andrew Rosindell]

There absolutely has to be, and my hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with fairly minor offences and act almost as guidance. It is not there to deal with serious offences, which would still be handled through the usual process. I take on board his point that when false accusations are made there must be a robust appeals process, and I know that the Minister will take that on board in dealing with any secondary legislation. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Our dearly missed friend and departed colleague, Sir David Amess, shared my view on the Bill. He shared all my views on animal welfare and was the greatest champion of the issue among Members of Parliament. He dedicated his life to that. We think of David today, on the first day of a new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). We wish her all success as David’s successor, but no one could replace David. He was unique, and we think of him all the time. His stance on animal welfare never changed throughout his 38 years in Parliament. In fact, he introduced a private Member’s Bill in 1998 that strengthened protections for horses tethered by the roadside, and through his tireless campaigning inspired so many others to continue the fight for strengthened protection for animals. We remember him as we carry on the fight to defend and protect animals throughout the United Kingdom.

It has been an honour to have the opportunity to introduce a Bill that I believe will make a real difference to the lives of animals and help promote greater understanding of welfare. This Bill will directly benefit the health and welfare of this country’s farmed and kept animals and will increase accountability when our country’s biosecurity is put at risk. The Bill introduces enabling powers so that we can apply penalty notices to the appropriate offences and establishes the framework crucial to introducing these penalties through statutory instrument. Penalty notices will bolster our existing enforcement measures and give enforcement authorities more options to influence positive behaviour when it comes to caring for our farmed and kept animals, including companion animals and zoo animals.

As chair of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group, I recognise that this is a welcome development for that sector. Having worked very closely for so many years with the excellent British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which does so much for zoos and the care of animals in zoos and aquariums across the country, I know that it agrees that penalty notices are the right way forward. The debate in Committee highlighted the wide support for the Bill and what I believe it will achieve. I have held ongoing discussions with various non-governmental organisations, and I am delighted that there is a strong consensus that penalty notices will benefit this country and should be introduced. I share the same enthusiasm and excitement for this legislation, which I truly believe will be a gain for animal welfare across this country.

I am also grateful to the organisations that have already invested their time in engaging with myself and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the Bill and how it will work for them in practice, and sharing their views so that we can make the Bill as effective as possible. The support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the National Farmers Union, Blue Cross, Cats Protection, the National Sheep Association and the National Pig Association, as well as many other animal welfare groups across the country, has been invaluable.

I once again thank hon. Members here today for supporting this landmark Bill, and for the many contributions made at its previous stages. I hope we can agree that this important Bill should progress today, so that it may continue its journey in the House of Lords under the stewardship of the right hon. Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has agreed to champion my Bill in the other place. The wellbeing and safety of animals is something that I know matters to us all, so as a nation of animal lovers, let us continue to lead the world in enhancing the cause of animal welfare.



I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister who is not here today, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). She has done so much to support my Bill, and has been very dedicated in helping to ensure that the Bill has reached this stage. It has been my pleasure to work with her to ensure that this new legislation has arrived in this place today, and I thank the Minister in her place—the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—for standing in and leading in today’s debate.

I would also like to thank those organisations and Members who have provided such valuable care to animals for vocalising their support for this Bill and giving me full confidence that penalty notices will be a welcome addition to the enforcement of animal welfare when they become available.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

I wonder whether it might be in order to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) an extremely happy birthday. It is good to see him in his place.

I join everyone in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for his tremendous and attentive work on this excellent Bill, and congratulate him on steering it through the House. As he and other hon. Members have mentioned, this is an occasion when we feel the loss of David Amess very sharply, although of course we also look forward to welcoming the new MP for Southend West following her election last night.

We have heard some excellent speeches this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) spoke about service animals, including Finn, and his personal experience of serving with animals on the frontline. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) mentioned the “sassy little bitch” Karen, and pointed out that the Bill is a way to prevent bad situations from getting worse. That is exactly the purpose of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) pointed out that everybody in the Chamber was smiling as we consider the Bill, as was everyone in the photographs I saw of the Minister’s visit to the guinea pigs in her constituency yesterday.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) made the point that going to court is not always the most effective way to deal with the problem, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made some serious comments about the Bill. I can reassure him that we will go into further detail in secondary legislation and, if necessary, guidance on who will enforce the penalty notices. To give him some idea, we envisage that the Rural Payments Agency, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and local authorities will be the bodies most likely to be charged with doing this. I share his concerns about incentivising the issuing of fixed penalty notices, but I would ask him to look at the Treasury guidelines on that very point. I reassure him that that will always be at the forefront of my mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) told us about Greyhound Gap and the hedgehog rescue centre, and made an unexpectedly bipartisan speech, which was good to hear. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) meets animals on the campaign trail, but I was also glad to hear about Jerry the cat’s enjoyment of “Match of the Day”. I would not have thought that such activity would be subject to the issuing of a penalty notice. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) made an important speech, although she did sadly refer to her extremely badly behaved animals. I was delighted to visit her constituency last Friday and eat some Cropwell Bishop stilton with her for lunch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) rightly makes animal welfare a priority of hers, because of the sad record of her constituency in this regard. Recognising that is in many ways the best way of dealing with the problem, and I applaud her for her work in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) understands the value of pets to us all. We are about to hear a great deal more from her, and I would like to add that I enjoyed meeting Cromwell and Bertie on Zoom—they certainly hold their own in her household.

I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). It was an honour to attend Jack’s funeral earlier this week. Although he was not always bipartisan, he was a model of how cross-party working can take matters forward, so I think he would be pleased with what we are doing today.

This Bill is just one of a series of animal welfare reforms being supported by the Government, building on our action plan for animal welfare. Penalty notices will be an important tool in encouraging animal keepers to follow the rules and to discourage those who break them from committing more serious offences. The Bill was in Committee on 8 December. It introduces a new financial penalty system and gives us tools that we can use against those who commit offences against animals. We will not tolerate threats to the health and welfare of animals, the quality of our animal products or the biosecurity of our nation.

I acknowledge the time and effort given by the animal charities listed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), is avidly looking forward to continuing the engagement she has had with those charities and to working with them constructively as we put the flesh on the bones of the Bill in secondary legislation. That will ensure that penalty notices meet the needs of animals and help those who enforce them to change the behaviour of people who are not quite doing the right thing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) in an intervention and my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made some serious points about the appeals process. That point has been raised by the NFU, and I know that my officials have been working with it on this issue. It might help Members if I give a bit of an overview as to what will happen in enforcement terms in the farm animals space. The inspector will visit or identify the fault. He will then identify and discuss with the farmer what sort of fault has occurred. It might well be one of record keeping or lateness in organising a TB test, for example. The farmer will then have two weeks to rectify that fault, and only then would a penalty notice be issued. If the farmer disputes that penalty notice, the best thing to do is simply not to pay it and explain why not. If the authorities continue to wish to enforce that penalty notice, the farmer would be able to have his day in court.

[Greg Smith]

I am delighted that the Government are supporting this Bill and about the commitment my hon. Friend has just made. Can she give me an assurance that within the secondary legislation that the Government intend to bring forward, instead of someone who disputes a penalty charge notice simply not paying it, there will be a channel locked in for them to give the reasons why they are disputing that, so that the inspector can consider those reasons?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very happy to continue to work with my hon. Friend and the NFU as we take the secondary legislation forward. I would like to reassure him that this process is intended to have discussion built in at its very core. It is there to guide people towards compliance, not penalise them for non-compliance, so we will be able to achieve the outcome that he wants.

I take this opportunity to extend gratitude once again on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds to those who so avidly engaged with the passage of the Bill. Their support is really appreciated, and their expertise has been invaluable to the robust consensus we have built. In this country, we pride ourselves on our high standards of animal welfare, and we have powerful laws to maintain them. I reiterate the Government’s unwavering support for this important Bill. I wish it well under the stewardship of Lord Randall in the other place. I add my thanks to all those mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), and I also add my thanks to Claire Ingham, who has managed this Bill so well to date. I hope we are able to see it on the statute book soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

Only last week I visited a landfill site in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I know that it has a considerable impact on local communities. I also know that the hon. Lady has campaigned vigorously in respect of the site in Blaydon. We are now at the point of capture and contain: the site is being capped and the gases are being captured to prevent them from having that harmful impact. The site was monitored between January and September 2020, and the fumes were not found to be above safe limits.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to help farmers increase productivity.

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

There is great potential for farmers to continue to increase productivity in an environmentally sustainable way. Last month we launched the farming investment fund, which will encourage that through, for instance, investment in new technology, new equipment and small infrastructure projects.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, and also for the time that she took to visit farmers in my constituency last month. How will the investment fund support agri-tech innovation, which is surely a pathway to prosperity and profitability for Buckinghamshire farmers?

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The approach that we take is that decisions on whether to cultivate gene-edited crops or, indeed, genetically modified crops would be for the devolved Administrations, but in line with the provisions of the internal market, there would be access for goods. That mirrors what exists at the moment in the European Union. As the hon. Lady will know, the vast majority of animal feed sold in the EU is genetically modified.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Increased exports are the path to prosperity for our food and drink sector and the route back to profitability for many of our farmers. With that in mind, what is the Minister’s assessment of the bounce back package for agriculture, food and drink that was announced last year?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The bounce back package provided effective and targeted support to exporters. We will continue to strengthen our export capability by launching the “Open Doors” campaign, creating an export council and increasing the number of superb agrifood counsellors.

Grouse Shooting

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who made an argument that I entirely agree with far more eloquently than I could. I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and of the Countryside Alliance.

Before I get into my main points, I associate myself with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) about the value of game meat as a healthy food choice. Although a grouse that has been lingering at the bottom of his freezer for some years is not the best way to be introduced to the wonderful taste of grouse, I heartily encourage everybody who has not tried that tasty, wonderful meat to do so.

Those who understand grouse moor management and the benefits that it brings know full well that the real evidence shows that a ban on driven grouse shooting would make life worse, not better, for the wildlife that the opponents of shooting purport to want to protect. This issue needs to be debated on the facts, not on accusations motivated by a wider anti-shooting agenda. As Members have said, shooting is an integral part of environmental management and conservation. It is the gamekeepers employed by shooting estates who make that happen. It is gamekeepers who maintain the habitat and control predators, which benefits threatened species of ground-nesting birds.

Grouse moor management has played a key role in maintaining our upland landscape and sustaining some of our rarest plants and wildlife. Far from being the baron landscapes that I have heard described by some, grouse moors are incredibly important wildlife havens. Moors managed by gamekeepers support up to five times more threatened wading birds such as the curlew. Merlin numbers have doubled on grouse moors over the last 20 years, and 2020 was the best year for hen harrier breeding in England for two decades, with 60% of their nests on land managed for grouse shooting. I could go on with many more conservation success stories as a result of grouse moors that are well managed by gamekeepers, but time is tight.

It is not as if grouse shooting is not already heavily regulated and controlled. There is extensive legislation in place that has an impact on almost every aspect of grouse shooting and grouse moor management. Licensing requirements are in place across the board. Any additional legislation would add to the cost and bureaucracy of grouse moor management, leaving our moors in a worse condition.

It is important to recognise the economic benefits that shooting sports bring to rural communities. Grouse shooting in the United Kingdom has a direct estimated value of £100 million, creating the equivalent of over 2,500 full-time jobs. Between 60% and 80% of direct spending from grouse moors is within the local area of that moor. It is of greater significance to the local economy and community retention than any other form of activity. Because grouse moors are managed largely through private investment by their owners, they offer the most cost-effective model of upland management to the taxpayer. I genuinely wonder how those who want driven grouse shooting to end would fund and manage those vast moors, staff their management and pay for it.

Grouse shooting brings the rural community together in areas that can struggle with social isolation and lack of employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said. In addition to those who are shooting, a day’s driven grouse shooting involves a large number of other participants, bringing together up to 50 or so members of a local community of all ages and backgrounds. It underpins the social life of many communities and helps tackle rural isolation.

Let us be really clear: grouse shooting is good for jobs, the environment, species conservation and attracting high-quality tourism to remote rural areas—all without being a drain on the taxpayer. Those who are pushing for it to be banned have made no assessment of the ecological, social or economic costs. The evidence shows that the real conservationists are not those who call for grouse shooting to be criminalised; they are the hard-working gamekeepers who manage our moorlands day in, day out. Those calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting need to set out a viable alternative—an alternative vision for our uplands. Our heather moorland is internationally important, and it is widely recognised that grouse shooting has helped preserve it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Greg Smith, follow that one!

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK food producers of proposed restrictions on promotions of products high in fat, sugar and salt.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care carried out a consultation on the proposal to restrict the promotion of foods high in fat, salt and sugar in stores. The Government’s response to the consultation and the impact assessment were published on 28 December 2020. This concluded that the benefits for the nation’s health and the reduction in cost on the NHS outweighed the costs.

[Greg Smith]

The inclusion of breakfast cereals in the proposals for restricting the promotion of these products is causing real concern to cereal growers in my constituency, such as Morris of Hoggeston, and the wider breakfast cereal industry. particularly as there is no allowance for the naturally occurring sugars and fats from the dried fruits and nuts often put with cereals such as granola, porridge and muesli. Will my right hon. Friend advise what assessment has been made of the impact on UK farmers of these proposals and work with colleagues, particularly in the Department of Health and Social Care, to see more common sense applied to breakfast cereals?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Cereals, such as those are grown in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are an important source of healthy food. Breakfast cereals will be captured by DHSC’s policy only if they are classified as high in salt, fat or sugar, and the nutrient profiling model used by Public Health England accounts for the nutritional benefits of cereals, fruits and nuts. I suggest that he raises his concerns with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I would also be willing to engage in that discussion, given the particular concerns that he raised.