UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the hon. Lady, let me say that I am simply making it clear that as a result of last night’s vote we face a series of unpalatable choices. The Government have put forward a motion tonight that I hope right hon. and hon. Members will support. It would ensure that we do not leave on 29 March without a deal, but this House has to decide—it has to decide what it wants—and that is why I agreed with the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). This House has been very good at saying no and insufficiently statesmanlike in supporting the Prime Minister in her efforts. It is now make your mind up time for this House. It is crucial that Members on all sides respond appropriately.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why it is democratic to keep bringing back to the House a proposition that has been overwhelmingly defeated on two occasions, but it is somehow undemocratic to suggest that the British people should be asked whether they want to change their minds?

[Michael Gove]

I point out two things on that. First, the proposition that was put before the House was significantly different from the one that was put before the House beforehand. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the House rejected the Prime Minister’s deal for the second time. Today, we must reject leaving with no deal, and tomorrow, assuming that we vote that way tonight, we will have to ask the European Union for an extension to article 50.

Today is the moment when two and a half years of repetition of that nonsensical slogan “No deal is better than a bad deal” will finally be defeated in its fight against reality. It was always a slogan; it was never a policy. That is why the Prime Minister will have to vote against her own slogan when she comes to the Division Lobby tonight.

The arguments for rejecting no deal are really very simple: it would inflict the greatest damage on our economy; it is strongly opposed by businesses and trade unions; and it would mean a huge step into the unknown, the chaotic and the potentially dangerous.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way once.

[Crispin Blunt]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain why five of his remainer colleagues serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee signed up to this conclusion two years ago:

“It is possible to envisage scenarios in which ‘no deal’ might be better than a bad deal, as the Government has suggested; such as, for example, if the eventual proposed agreement only involves payment of a large sum to the EU in settlement of UK liabilities, with no provisions for any preferential trade arrangements or transitional arrangements towards a mutually beneficial future relationship.”

[Hilary Benn]

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I cannot speak for those colleagues. My view has consistently been clear that no deal cannot be a policy for this country. By the way, no deal is not what those who campaigned for leave in the referendum ever argued for, so I do not quite understand why someone should now be arguing for it when they did not argue for it then. No one who has spoken so far—I am not talking about intervening—has stood up and argued why no deal would be a good idea. It is not surprising why they have not. In responding to the schedules that have been published, Carolyn Fairbairn said this morning:

“This tells us everything that is wrong with a no-deal scenario…This is no way to run a country.”

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:

“No-deal would be catastrophic for the automotive industry. It would end frictionless trade, add billions to the cost of manufacturing and cost jobs.”

We know why.

[Mr Baron]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will not give way, because time is so short. We know that if there is any disruption to the lorries that keep those car factories going every single day, it will affect the production line. The car industry has had enough bad news in the past two months without it being added to by people standing up saying, “No deal is a jolly good idea.”

A professor from one of our major institutions of higher education, whom I happened to bump into on the underground this morning, said to me that no deal would be “catastrophic” for the institution, its research funding and its ability to recruit staff. The truth is that these conversations are repeated in thousands of workplaces up and down the country, in thousands of sectors of the economy. That is why the twelfth report of the Brexit Select Committee said explicitly that leaving with no deal

“cannot constitute the policy of any responsible Government.”

If Members want to read the argument, they can go and look at that report, but I draw attention to the problem faced by a company that makes signs and exports them to Europe to be fitted by its workers. The company asked me what would happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I have referred to that in a previous speech. Since then, I asked a written question, to which I received the answer:

“UK nationals travelling to the EU for the purposes of work may be subject to extra conditions. Businesses will need to check individual Member State immigration rules for whether there are any requirements or conditions around supporting documentation, work permits or visas. Businesses should also check whether there are any restrictions on the provision of services, such as whether a UK professional qualification is recognised in the country in question.”

What use is that reply to a business that has worked hard to create jobs? There are those in this House who will stand up today and argue that that business’s future should be thrown into doubt, but what use is an answer like that? It basically says, “You’re on your own.”

The final point I want to make is this: given what happened yesterday, today’s vote is the next step required before tomorrow’s inevitable decision to apply for an extension to article 50, which the Brexit Select Committee report—it was published this morning with commendable speed after the events of last night—says will be necessary. Given the rather unhelpful coda, if I may put it that way, to the Government’s motion tonight, I think the House will vote to reject a no-deal Brexit on 29 March this evening, but Ministers need to recognise, be aware of and acknowledge that this House will never vote to leave the European Union without a deal, whether at the end of March, the end of June or the end of October. We are not prepared to take that risk with our economy, our jobs and the livelihoods of the people we represent—not today and not ever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A motion of the House does not override statute law—that is true. If Members who have supported a motion want to ensure its ultimate success, further steps are required. I think that Members who have keenly attended to these matters in recent weeks are aware of that, and they know that there are opportunities available to them if they wish to take those opportunities.

[Hilary Benn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has just told the House, the time has come for two things to take place. The first is for the Government to respect the democratic instruction of the House of Commons. The second, since the Prime Minister says we have to be in favour of something—and I agree with her—is for the Government to facilitate the House of Commons having the chance to vote on a series of indicative propositions so that we can attempt to see whether we can find a way forward. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, I very much welcome what you said a moment ago about your willingness to ensure that the House of Commons gets the opportunity to debate that which it wishes to debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I stand by that: I think it is what any self-respecting Speaker should say and mean.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to respond to the point of order from the right hon. Lady, and I thank her for giving me notice of it. She has kindly shown me the press report to which she refers, but she knows that I have not yet had the opportunity to study it carefully. Moreover, it is not our normal practice to respond to any and every press report based upon a briefing from someone who perhaps thinks that he or she knows what the procedures are in this place but does not always fully do so.

It is true to say that the default position under Standing Order No. 16(1) is that debates pursuant to an Act of Parliament must be concluded after 90 minutes, flowing from which there tends to be a practical restriction on amendments because the time has lapsed, and therefore only one amendment in such a hypothetical situation would be taken. However, it is also true to say that such provision is often disapplied by an Order of the House.

I must emphasise that all of this is hypothetical at this stage, and I do not think it would be helpful to speculate on what may happen subsequent to the decision of the House next Tuesday. I can, however, confirm that the right hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that it is perfectly open to the Government, if such a situation were to arise, to provide for a much fuller debate. In those circumstances, there would predictably be a significant number of colleagues who would want to put their own propositions on the paper. I am extremely confident that if that hypothetical scenario were to arise, colleagues would assert themselves.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you confirm that it would be open to Members of the House to seek to remedy this potential problem by tabling an amendment to the withdrawal agreement motion for next week, because this matter would inevitably flow from a consequence of the withdrawal agreement not being carried by the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to reflect on that. It may be possible for that to be done. If it is possible for it to be done, it may well be a matter of judgment as to whether it is thought to be worth doing. The reason there is no great hurry on that matter is, of course, that I am not even in a position, under the Order passed on 4 December, to select amendments until the final day of the debate. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman heard me explaining, in response to a point of order from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) this morning, that it was quite wrong for people to talk about amendments that had been accepted. She mentioned to me in her point of order that allegedly the Government had signalled their acceptance of a particular amendment. That was a wholly inapposite report or claim. No amendment has been accepted at this stage, because no amendment has yet been selected. I am not allowed to select any amendment until the final day, so some people really do need to keep up with what the procedure is. The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time in which to reflect on these matters.

Leaving the EU: Fisheries Management

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The big prize that we have secured is an implementation period that allows us as a country to prepare for all the benefits that Brexit will bring. I campaigned with my hon. Friend to ensure that Britain can leave the European Union, and it is important that we do so in good order. This transition period allows us the time and space to do just that.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State well knows, meetings of the Fisheries Council tend to go on into the early hours, when they reach decisions on quota and catch. Will he clarify whether, under the terms of the transitional agreement, Britain will have the possibility of being in the room when those decisions are made, or does article 125 of the draft agreement mean that we will only be able to provide comments? If we can only provide comments, what impact does he expect those comments to have when final decisions are taken in the meeting itself?

[Michael Gove]

It is clear that we will be consulted, and not just in a perfunctory way. The scientific advice and evidence that our top-level marine scientists generate will shape and frame the negotiations. I should say that it is only for one year—in December 2019—that we will be in that position. The principle of the European Union operating in good faith towards the UK is one that I take seriously, because if the European Union were to act in a way in that one year that demonstrated bad faith, then, apart from the mechanisms that police the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period, it would also be the case that Britain, having taken back control of its waters, might be in a position to be less generous than the EU would want us to be.

Flood Defences (Leeds)

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to say that Duffield Printers has had to lay off 27 workers. The Sheesh Mahal on Kirkstall Road, which has been open for 26 years, has also closed, and there are fears for the future of those businesses and many others, in part, because of the worries about their being able to access affordable insurance in the future.

The second point I wanted to make was about immediate support. Leeds must continue to receive the immediate funding it needs. The people have played their part in the clean-up operation, and now it is time for the Government to play theirs. The city has received £4.7 million up to 11 January in Government grants to help with the clear-up and recovery efforts from the recent flooding, but that is still not half the overall £11.44 million that is deemed to be needed. I urge Ministers to release the additional funds without any further delay and, importantly, to allow local authorities dealing with these situations as much flexibility as possible in how these funds are spent, so that there are no unhelpful barriers preventing them from assisting local residents and businesses.

Now let me turn to the crucial issue of flood defences in Leeds.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As well as the river that ran down Kirkstall Road, residents and businesses around the The Calls, Dock Street and Stourton were affected. Given that we have known in Leeds for a long time that there was a risk of serious flooding, which is why the full flood defence scheme was drawn up in 2011, does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to give the city and the economy of Leeds the protection it needs is by having a full scheme now, funded by the Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He speaks with great authority on these matters, and of course the constituency of Leeds Central was badly affected by the floods. I agree wholeheartedly with what he says and I will come now to why it is so important that we have a full and comprehensive flood defence scheme in Leeds.

As my right hon. Friend said, in 2011 there were plans on the table for a £188 million flood defence scheme. This would have provided a one-in-200-year standard of flood protection for our city, yet the decision was taken to split the defence scheme into three phases and funding was available only for phase 1. This phase, which has the aim of defending the city centre against a one-in-75-year flood event, is under way with additional funding from Leeds city council.

Phases 2 and 3, which would cover the 12-mile stretch from Newlay bridge through Kirkstall and the city centre to Woodlesford to provide a one-in-200-year standard of protection, was cancelled in 2011. I recognise that the scheme is expensive, but let me also say this: the costs of inaction exceed the costs of investing in infrastructure. A full flood defence system does not come cheap but, according to previous estimates, if the flood had happened on a normal working weekday the cost would have been about £400 million, twice as much as the cost of investing in the first place.

Flooding

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I begin by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in sending good wishes to the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) for a speedy recovery? We really do look forward to seeing him back in his place.

We have had an extremely important, well-informed and wide-ranging debate. I would like to express my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in connection with the recent stormy weather. I also echo the thanks that have been expressed to all those who worked so hard during this extremely difficult time: the local communities, the farmers who supported one another, the council staff who delivered sandbags and provided rest centres where people go when they have to leave their homes, the police, the fire service—the fire service in particular has been praised by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—the armed forces, the utility companies and the transport companies, all of them, which rescued people and tried to restore power and keep people moving where that was possible, and of course the staff of the Environment Agency.

I know from my own experience just how committed and dedicated the agency’s staff are and how difficult it must have been for them, at the very moment when they were working all hours, to hear their efforts insultingly and unfairly criticised by some. I do hope they will have taken some comfort from the praise that we have heard from many parts of the House today for their efforts, including praise for individual Environment Agency staff by name, including from the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). I do not know whether the great big bags were given a name, but the Itchen diversion would probably suffice. It was an example of imagination and innovation in the face of huge quantities of water.

[Steve Brine]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Very briefly, as time is short.

[Steve Brine]

It was a restriction of the River Itchen which took the heat out of the river and flooded some farmland to save Winchester.

[Hilary Benn]

It shows what can happen when people take advice from the experts, as happened in that case.

We heard powerful testimony from many hon. Members about the effect that flooding has on the lives of the people whom we all represent, and on the communities and the families involved. That has been experienced not just in the past two months, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) in recounting what happened in the terrible summer of 2007. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) spoke about people’s homes. I remember visiting his constituency in 2007. There are few things worse than seeing one’s home invaded by dirty brown water full of sewage, seeing one’s possessions ruined, and in many cases having to flee one’s home with no idea when one will be able to return.

We live in an era in which, as human beings, we have come to think sometimes that whatever happens, whatever nature throws at us, somebody ought to be able to deal with it, and if it cannot be dealt with, someone must be to blame for what has happened. The truth is that we are confronting nature’s raw power and in the face of it, we human beings are small in comparison. It has enormous force. It can wreck a train line. It can, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) said, reshape the land itself. Of course that does not mean there is nothing we can do; on the contrary, there is a great deal we can do, and that action should be informed by the lessons that we learn.

I hope that in replying the Minister will tell the House what the process for learning lessons is going to be on this occasion. I commend the approach taken by Sir Michael Pitt in carrying out his review in 2007. It was a widely praised report. I thought it was exemplary. It was clear, practical and full of recommendations, including the proposal, for example, that the Met Office and the Environment Agency should come together to issue a single flood warning. In 2009 we established the Flood Forecasting Centre and everybody recognises that it has led to an improvement in the information that has been made available.

The other lesson is that whatever the recommendations and however good they are, they need to be followed through. I saw the Secretary of State nodding when the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood in her opening speech. I hope the Government will produce some further implementation reports on the Pitt report and that that of 2012 will not be the last, because we know that there are some recommendations that have not yet been completed.

We also heard in the debate many examples mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members where the arrangements have worked on the ground—where there has been effective co-operation, the right leadership and all the agencies co-operating. However, we also know from the experience of the past two months that there have been some places—Muchelney is one, Wraysbury is another, and there are others—where residents felt that help was very slow to arrive.

I think that there is a very fair question to be asked about that. What was the plan locally? If help did not arrive to ensure that elderly people got the assistance they needed, to help folk move furniture and valuables upstairs to stop them being wrecked by the water, and to evacuate people in a timely way, why did it not arrive, especially in places where there had been flooding previously? The Government have a responsibility nationally, but local government and the local community also have a responsibility. We need plans that are not only good on paper, but can be implemented when the time comes.

Given the number of families who have been forced out of their homes, I am grateful for the swift response—Downing street took about 20 minutes to respond—to my call for families not to have to worry about paying council tax on a home they cannot live in. I would be grateful if the Minister could be absolutely clear that what the Prime Minister said when he was in Wales—that local authorities will be fully funded for the cost of offering a council tax rebate—will happen. The Secretary of State said that the Government have talked about there being enough funding for at least three months, but we know from evidence from the insurance industry, in particular, and the experience in 2007 that people can be out of their homes for a lot longer, perhaps for six or nine months, and sadly in some cases for more than a year.

Will the Minister also indicate whether the Government are proposing to look again at the rules? To answer the Secretary of State, of course councils should be able to charge more council tax when properties are left empty deliberately, but there was previously an automatic exemption in cases of flooding, for example if someone could not live in their home because it needed repair to make it habitable. That was taken away in the 2012 changes and instead made subject to the discretion of councils. To provide reassurance in the years ahead, I think that it should be automatic in cases of flooding.

On transport, we all want to see the railway line at Dawlish repaired as soon as possible, because it is an economic lifeline—a point reinforced in my conversation with the leader of Plymouth city council, Tudor Evans. As that and other storm damage reminds us, the complex ecosystem of modern life and infrastructure can be very vulnerable, which is why we need to take it into account not just in repairing but in building for the future.

We must also learn to adapt. We need crossovers on motorways so that when they are flooded cars can turn around and go back the other way. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), we need to plant trees near rivers and look at farming practice and land use helping the water soak away and slowing its rush. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) explained, we need to look at where dredging can and cannot help. We must ensure that when there are huge downpours in towns and cities, the water does not meet a wall of paving slabs, concrete and tarmac, because that is why Sheffield and Hull flooded in 2007. We also need to recognise that although sandbags can help in some cases, it is dedicated flood protection that makes the difference.

I hope that the Minister will agree to the cross-party talks referred to in the motion, because whoever is in government will have to continue to deal with this problem. There is no doubt that the world’s climate is changing and that humankind’s actions are causing it. The climate impact projections, based on the best science we have, suggest that in the years ahead we will see hotter and drier summers and wetter winters with more flooding.

Let us just reflect on the past decade. In 2003 a heat wave led to 2,000 excess deaths in this country, even though temperatures were just 2° higher than normal. In 2006 we had a severe drought. Around 8 million people in the south-east of Britain depend on rivers for their water supply. In 2007 we saw widespread flooding across the country, and Great Yarmouth came within 10 cm of being overcome. In 2009 the High street in Cockermouth turned into a raging torrent. This January was the wettest winter month for almost 250 years. The result—we have heard it powerfully expressed today—is that yet more communities in our country are coming face to face with the consequences of a changing climate, in this case as the waters invade their homes.

We know what happens when these events occur—the drama unfolds, the cameras arrive, the stories are told, the statements are made, and for a while the nation’s attention is focused on what we can see before our very eyes. But we also know that when the waters recede and the weeks and months pass, the long, slow, hard process of recovery continues away from the public gaze. We should come together for the families and communities so that we adapt to what we cannot change and protect what we can, and so that others people do not suffer what so many have experienced over the past two months.

Ash Dieback Disease

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I do not believe the response to this disease will be improved by playing a blame game or by a partisan approach. The seriousness with which Members of all parties take this issue is evidence of how determined we are to tackle it.

It is to the credit of the Secretary of State, who cannot be with us today, that he has acknowledged that his predecessors acted on the advice they received at the time—essentially the same advice as was outlined by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) who speaks for the Opposition—that ash dieback was listed as being absent from the country. When I came into office, the list of serious exotic diseases brought to my attention included sudden oak death syndrome, bleeding canker in chestnuts, red band needle blight, oak processionary moth, as well as Phytophthora ramorum, which has meant that hundreds of thousands of larches have already been felled.

My response was to produce a tree action plan on tree health and biosecurity—so the fightback has started. In the elaboration of this plan, tree experts provided a horizon scan of upcoming diseases, which we could build into our decision making. Members who return to this country from a third world country will have heard the DEFRA announcement on planes, which warns travellers not to import plant material into this country. That is just one of the improved biosecurity measures.

I have heard the argument that the cuts are to blame for the proliferation of ash dieback. I think we have now satisfactorily demonstrated that an extra £8 million was spent—on top of the protected budget for tree health research. I warn the Opposition to be careful with the argument that it is all about money, because no amount of money will stop wind blowing from continental Europe bearing diseases in this direction. That is just a fact.

The importing of ash is a paradox. Growers were supposed to have asked my predecessor, and challenged the Government, to introduce a ban. What I fail to understand is why, if they saw that as a risk, they continued to import the ash. I did not see that letter either.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I want to avoid misunderstanding. The Horticultural Trades Association wrote to the Forestry Commission in autumn 2009. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made clear in her speech, I asked DEFRA to check whether I had seen the correspondence, and I had not.

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that clarity is helpful. I had not seen it either.

The crux of the problem is misdiagnosis. Ministers do not have microscopes on their desks, so before we single out some hapless scientist in forestry research for blame, we should consider carefully how many other people failed to spot the problem as well. When the first case of the new ash fungus was confirmed, trees were felled as a precautionary measure, and a voluntary ban was put in place straight away, so there was no delay. The key to tackling this disease, as was argued earlier, is to find the resistant varieties.

Going forward, the EU plant health regime needs reform. Former and present Members of the European Parliament can perhaps help us with that. We stand some chance, as islands, of being able to have better biosecurity, and we need to fight for that now. In parallel with the EU review, the Government updated their own plant health strategy, deploying more inspectors at points of entry to our country to control imports and piloting new tools of detection. Passenger baggage conditions were reviewed; more funding was released for inspection at growing sites; and better co-ordination of research between the Food and Environment Research Association and the Forestry Commission was achieved. Common sense should tell us that, if tree experts, dedicated woodmen and woodland charities all failed to spot its presence earlier, this disease must be hard to diagnose. It is not helped by the fact that there are other forms of ash dieback, and that other tree diseases were listed ahead of ash dieback as priorities.

If ash dieback had been seen as the big threat we now believe it to be, all relevant stakeholders would have signalled that to me in the numerous face-to-face meetings I had with them during consultations on the public forest estate, or on the extreme weather conditions we experienced in 2011 and 2012. Meetings with the chairman of the Forestry Commission did not have this item on the agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

We have already announced our intention to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which has gone unchanged for the past 50-plus years. It is entirely inflexible and unable to face up to modern needs. For example, a farmer is not even allowed to pay a worker a salary under the Agricultural Wages Order, which is nonsensical. We now have the minimum wage legislation, and it is only right that we should bring agricultural legislation into line with the rest.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As we have just heard, the Secretary of State announced in July the plan to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which sets terms and conditions in an industry where pay is low. That is a step that, as the House will recall, even Baroness Thatcher shied away from. Will the Minister try to explain why setting wage rates of between £5.95 an hour—which is only just above the minimum wage—and £8.88 an hour constitutes the burden of which he speaks? Where is the evidence for that?

[Mr Paice]

The issue is one of inflexibility, because of the wages orders implemented through the Agricultural Wages Board. The right hon. Gentleman has just made the point that the minimum wage for agriculture is 2p an hour more than the national minimum wage, so what is the point of having a whole superstructure of an Agricultural Wages Board for the sake of 2p an hour? That question answers itself. The right hon. Gentleman talks about who is responsible for abolition, but he should remember that it was Labour policy to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board and the Government were forced to rescind it by the Warwick agreement when they were in hock to the Liberals—[Interruption.]—I mean the trade unions.

[Hilary Benn]

There we have it—we see the burden under which the Minister is having to labour! That was no justification at all, because as the Minister is well aware, grades 2 to 6 will not be covered by the minimum wage legislation, and what about overtime rates and standby and what about bereavement leave? Does the coalition have something against the Agricultural Wages Board providing an entitlement to bereavement leave for farm workers? When will the Minister admit that all this talk about flexibility and so forth is nothing more than a smokescreen for a shabby little plan to cut the wages of agricultural workers?

[Mr Paice]

That just demonstrates how behind the times the right hon. Gentleman really is. In today’s modern economy, we must have flexibility. We do not have wages boards for other sectors. His Government never brought back any of those abolished by the previous Conservative Government. If this system is so wonderful, why did Labour not bring any of those back? The answer is that at least some of his colleagues recognised the need for that flexibility. The reality is that the industry should make its own decisions in negotiations with its workers in tandem with the advice of the National Farmers Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend, who shows a commendable desire to do his best for his constituency and region. I have to inform him that DEFRA has all around the country a large number of outposts, which, during the recess, the ministerial team—including me; I went to Worcester and Bristol— made a great effort to visit. That diversification is part of our resilience.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Given that DEFRA is an economic Department with very big European responsibilities, is it not astonishing that the Secretary of State is not listed as being a member of either of the Cabinet committees responsible—the Europe and economic affairs committees—whereas the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is a member of both and, moreover, appears to be making waste policy. Why has the Secretary of State allowed DEFRA’s influence to be downgraded in that way, and how can the Department be at the heart of the Government when she is not even on the main Cabinet committees?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am very happy to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have attended every single one of the economic affairs Cabinet committees. The structure of the Cabinet committee is about to be changed, so there will be a sub-committee of the Departments that have the most dealings with Europe. DEFRA, with 80% of its business determined at a European level, is one of those.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I have visited; I have probably had the same farmer saying the same thing to me there, as well as farmers in many other places over the many years when I sat on the Opposition side of the House. I tend to share his doubts about the six-day rule, but the advice I have received so far is that there is a very sound reason for it. It will certainly be one of the issues considered by the taskforce and I hope that, along with other such provisions, it will recommend getting rid of the rule.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I associate this side of the House with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the late Peter Walker?

Regulation is very important in animal health, including in combating animal disease. Will the Minister therefore tell the House when a decision was taken that there would be a targeted cull of badgers in hotspot areas?

[Mr Paice]

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the commitment appears in the coalition agreement, so, bearing in mind that we have a new Government, I suppose the answer to his question is that the decision was taken when that coalition agreement was drawn up. Until that point, there were measures being proposed by the Conservative party and by the Liberal Democrats. There is a great deal of science concerning bovine TB. We are looking at all of it and drawing up our proposals, which we will publish and put out for consultation. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is a valid case for addressing the reservoir in wildlife, including badgers, in this country, as has been done by every other country in the world.

[Hilary Benn]

If a decision has been taken that there will be a cull, which is what the Minister said at the Devon county show, why did he say in a written answer on 22 June that all the evidence would be considered “before taking a decision”? How will it help to deal with the disease when the two Ministers responsible appear to be saying completely different things?

[Mr Paice]

The former Secretary of State is desperately trying to create a division where none exists, because the situation is clear—in black and white, if I may use the phrase—in the coalition agreement. The considerations mentioned in the parliamentary answer to which he refers concern the details of how, where and who, along with all the other issues that have to be addressed in working out how to do a cull of badgers and how to integrate it with the badger vaccine deployment project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the coalition Government are engaging effectively and constructively with the EU in the UK’s national interest. I hope that the early evidence of the invitation to the commissioner, which was accepted last night, will demonstrate that we are taking the concerns of British farmers and fishermen right to the heart of European matters.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Sixteen conservation organisations have recently written to the Secretary of State urging her to protect agri-environment schemes from spending cuts. Given that every pound that we spend brings in money from Europe, and given that once biodiversity is lost, it is very hard to bring back, can she give the House an assurance that she will make the natural environment a priority in the decisions that she makes?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance. In answer to a question about biodiversity, I have just made it clear that I and the Department attach great priority to it, and agri-environment schemes are an integral part of ensuring good biodiversity.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by warmly welcoming her to her position. She brings a great deal of expertise to a Department that is at the heart of the great challenge of our age, which is taking from the earth only that which it can give. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice); the latter, of course, is returning to the Ministry where he once served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

We wish the Secretary of State and her team well in their new responsibilities. I know that they will be ably supported by the dedicated civil servants alongside whom I had the privilege of working for nearly three years. I want to thank them and my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and Dan Norris, for everything that they did. It is a pleasure still to share a Front Bench with two of them.

The House will have noted that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is one of the few Departments without—in the new language that we are having to use—a Lib Dem ministerial ally, so I just want to say that I am sorry that I will not also face the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) across the Dispatch Box, but, I suspect, not half as sorry as he is. I want to pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for their courtesy and their eloquent contributions during their time in the DEFRA shadows, so to speak.

We have had a good debate, opened on our side with a spirited contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). We saw today the outstanding leadership that he has shown in creating the Department of Energy and Climate Change and in fashioning it into a formidable and practical advocate in the fight against dangerous climate change, and it is the kind of politics that has a great deal to offer us in future.

In a forensic speech, my right hon. Friend laid bare the inconsistency that is the Government’s policy on nuclear power. If I may say so to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, his replies on the subject were anything but convincing; one could indeed say that no greater love hath a man for his new friends than to lay down his lifelong views on nuclear power.

In contrast, our debate has been illuminated by many notable maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) clearly benefited from your training, Mr Speaker, and will be a fine advocate for her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke movingly of the strong sense of community in an area that has suffered greatly in the past, and from which clearly springs his passion for fairness. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) was generous in his praise for his predecessor, and showed great confidence, which I am sure will stand him in good stead in the House. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who spoke with understandable filial pride and warmth about the “giant”, his predecessor, has clearly learned much that is good from him.

The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) certainly has something of the fight about him, and great eloquence to boot, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who will be a fine voice for his constituency. As for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray)—who, to use her phrase, is the new leaseholder of that constituency—I must say that her descriptions brought back memories of my time spent serving as a councillor representing a ward in her constituency that included the famous Ealing Studios.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a fine maiden speech, in which she reminded us of the history of the pioneers in this place—fittingly, as one herself. She may be a lone voice for her party, but it is one that we look forward to hearing again. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) will clearly stand up for his constituents, including the many farmers whom he is fortunate enough to represent. From the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), whose constituency has so much to offer in generating offshore electricity, we heard that such projects will have his very strong support.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made a powerful plea for accountability and for the protection of the environment, and we will all join the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in opposing the idea of Wiltshire cured ham that does not actually come from Wiltshire. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has a ready wit and a constituency with a great deal of history and character, as we learned. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) spoke with insight about the character of his constituency and, movingly, about its potential. I can confirm from personal experience what the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) had to say about the enjoyment of those who visit his constituency, involving in my case a trip along the canal to Llangollen many years ago. All of them showed the promise of new Members from all parts of the House, and we look forward to hearing further from those who have taken the plunge today.

We also heard important contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about smart grids and meters, and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) gave us a history lesson on energy policy and the link with development. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke with passion about Sheffield Forgemasters and the need for a high-speed rail link both to Sheffield and to Leeds—to which I say, “Hear, hear”—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) asked for the momentum in energy policy for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North was responsible to be maintained.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has made a great contribution to these matters over the years, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke movingly about mine safety, and the hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) made wide-ranging speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) reminded us why ecosystems matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke about the ombudsman and the need for a speedy planning system, and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) asked, “Where is further legislation on water?”

As the Leader of the Opposition said on Tuesday, where we agree with the measures outlined in the Government’s programme and in the Gracious Speech we will support them, and where we do not we will be an effective Opposition. It says much about the achievements of the previous Labour Government that the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wisely intends to continue with many of them, and I welcome that.

For example, on tackling illegal logging, I hope that the right hon. Lady will be as vigorous as we sought to be in seeking as part of the new EU timber regulation the prohibition that will stop illegal timber being placed on the European market. If Europe can ban, as it has, illegally caught fish from outside Europe being placed on the market, it can certainly do the same with timber.

On reducing waste, I am glad to see that the Secretary of State, having spent far too long trying to blame Whitehall for every decision on waste collection, has finally acknowledged what I have gently tried to tell her for some time: it is, and it should be, for local authorities to decide how to collect waste and organise recycling. In other words, they should decide on the means. However, it is the Government’s responsibility to set the vision, and we should stop putting into landfill a range of materials for which there is demand and other uses. I hope that she will do that, and we should turn food waste into clean energy, rather than leaving it to rot and create greenhouse gas emissions.

On the natural environment, we were very proud to put the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 on the statute book, and to have established two new national parks in the past five years, in the New Forest and on the South Downs—the latter during the year in which we marked the 60th anniversary of Attlee’s National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I look forward to the creation of new places for wildlife—green corridors, bringing together the work of wildlife trusts, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the national parks, sites of special scientific interest and the marine conservation zones that the Marine and Coastal Access Act will create. The Lawton commission, which I established last year, will make its recommendations this summer, and we all look forward to them.

Farming, which, as we have heard, shapes our landscape, has so much to contribute to the future, as long as it develops the new skills that it needs—for example, in low-carbon farming—and has the support of the supermarket ombudsman that is to be created.

For all the fine words, there is nothing in the Gracious Speech about environment, food and rural affairs—apart from broadband, which we all support because it is the 21st-century artery of economic development, including in our countryside, just as the roads were in the previous century, the railways in the 19th century and the canals in the 18th century.

Of the omissions from the speech I warmly welcome one: the deathly silence about the Conservatives’ wish to overturn the hunting ban. Long may that remain absent. Given that so many Conservatives seemed so committed to the policy, it is strange that nobody wanted to talk about it during the election campaign and nobody has been keen to discuss it today. Perhaps it is because the Conservatives know that the public do not support them on that matter, or because among those who said that they backed the ban during the election campaign were those who are now the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members will oppose a return to animal cruelty in our countryside, and we look forward to the support of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members if the Government are foolish enough to introduce such a proposal. To those who might argue, “Let the House decide,” I say that the House has decided. It did that when it passed the Hunting Act 2004. Reversing the ban is not about some notion of libertarian freedom, but about whether we think that setting one creature on another to kill it in the name of so-called sport is animal cruelty. I believe that it is.

Let me now turn to the way in which we deal with animal diseases. The Government say that they want to share responsibility for that with farmers, but they have not yet been clear about sharing the cost. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain the exact position. Apart from being right in principle that farmers should contribute to the cost because they share in the benefit, judging by the cuts that the Department has already had to make, she will need to find ways of offsetting costs. When will we see further details of the 5.5% cut —the £162 million that DEFRA must bear? Yesterday, I looked at the DEFRA website and found a total of 80 words about those cuts—that is approximately £2 million a word. May we have some information about the jobs that will not be filled? What about scientific research and investment in flood defence?

I hope that the cuts will not affect the fight against bovine TB, which was mentioned in the debate. It is a truly terrible disease, but the new ministerial team has hardly made an auspicious start on the matter. Last week the Secretary of State gave an interview to Farmers Weekly, in which she sensibly said that she favours

“a science-based approach…there isn’t an easy answer.”

When asked specifically whether a badger cull would be part of her policy, she replied:

“I am not going to rule options in and out. What we need to do is look at the science…Over and above that, I have really nothing more to add.”

She may not have had anything more to say, but the Minister of State certainly did. A couple of days or so later, he went to the Devon county show and said, as was also reported in Farmers Weekly,

“we will carry out a scientifically-led targeted cull of badgers in hot spot areas.”

As the House knows, there is a debate on what is effective in controlling the terrible disease of bovine TB, and I am clear that vaccination rather than culling is the way forward, but utter confusion helps nobody. It seems that the Minister of State is running a policy that contradicts the view of the Secretary of State. I have a very simple question: have the Government already decided that there will definitely be a cull? If so—and the right hon. Lady is supposed to be in charge—what happened to looking at the science?

Listening to what science has to tell us is extremely important in everything we do, and never more so than in fighting climate change and ensuring that we live within our environmental means. Anybody who read the recent Joint Nature Conservation Committee report on biodiversity, or who has seen the work of the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project, which is so ably led by Pavan Sukhdev—I have long believed that that has the potential to do for our understanding of the economic benefits of biodiversity what Sir Nick Stern’s groundbreaking report did for our understanding of the economics of climate change—will know that what humankind has taken for granted for so long with barely a thought of the consequences can no longer be taken for granted. Why? Because the natural environment, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), gives the soil, clean air, food, fuel and medicines from plants on which we human beings rely for our very existence.

At times of economic difficulty, we cannot and must not forget that the environmental crisis presses upon us too. Whether on the emissions of CO₂ that we must reduce, the way in which we use the natural resources and the natural gifts of the earth, or on the task of growing enough food for a growing population in a world where tonight, 1 billion human beings will go to bed hungry for want of enough to eat, choosing sustainability has to be our future. It has to be the future for farming as it seeks to grow more while impacting less, and for the common agricultural policy and the much-needed reform of the common fisheries policy. It must be the future for water supply, which we must learn to use much more wisely, for adapting to climate change and improving our flood defences, and for changing the way in which we use and dispose of resources. Every one of those things is essential to our future well-being.

When the Government do those things, we will support the action they take; when they do not, we will hold them to account. No one knows, least of all the partners in this alliance, how long it will last—it could be a few months or a few years—but the test against which all of us will be judged is the one I have set out this afternoon. We owe it to the planet to ensure that we succeed.