Environment and Climate Change

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The UK Student Climate Network, the FridaysforFuture movement and Extinction Rebellion—these movements for climate action, driven by passion and activism, follow proud traditions of movements for change throughout our history, such as the trade unions. This week, the Communication Workers Union, at its annual conference in Bournemouth, also debated climate change.

I was pleased to see recently cross-party political talks. Positive commitments emerged from those talks. Sadly, there was no Prime Minister and no Conservative party representation.

To conclude, I want to reflect on a recent meeting I had with a young constituent of mine, Alexander. He had come to one of my surgeries in Moodiesburn concerned about the lack of action on climate change. He made an overnight journey last week from Moodiesburn to London to participate in the climate change protests. He said to me, rephrasing a quote from a world war two book he had read:

“Britain’s honour and its national interests are at stake. Our planet is under attack and there can be no further delays on declaring war on climate change, whatever the other nations decide to do.”

How right that statement is. There can be no further delays. We have to act now. It is time for the UK to declare a climate emergency.

Plastics Recycling

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that the Government are necessarily being disingenuous; it just happens to be that the way that recycling is treated has not traditionally distinguished between domestic processing and export. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government are trying to redress that.

This is a relatively short debate, so I want to give others an opportunity to speak. My final point relates to how we deal with end-use consumption. Two of the Government’s consultations are about that, but I think it is useful for Members to express a view at this stage. One obvious area is the plastic bag experience. We had a massive impact—an 88% reduction in demand—as a result of quite a modest 5p charge on bags. However, at the moment it is restricted to firms with more than 250 employees. I understand the reasoning; the Government do not want to expand the regulation to single-handed shopkeepers. However, there is surely a number in between—say five employees and above—that would be much more realistic and have a significant impact.

The second potential action, which the Government again are consulting on, is introducing deposits for bottles. One of the reasons the German experience in this area is so much better than the British experience is that the Germans have, in effect, a 20p tax on plastic bottles, which can be refunded, giving people a strong incentive to reuse as well as recycle.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

As kids, we used to collect bottles. Bellshill Nisa in my area collects plastic bottles and refunds money to charities. Perhaps the Minister could take that up. Kids could pick up plastic bottles, take them back to the local shop and receive money for them.

[Sir Vince Cable]

I am sure that the Minister will have an answer to that, since the Government are consulting at the moment. There is a whole variety of creative initiatives one could explore, such as installing water fountains or just encouraging people to fill their bottles with tap water, but it requires a change of culture as well as an economic levy.

In considering the issues, the Government have a following wind in public opinion. A very good survey by YouGov last week suggested that about 80% of the public are comfortable with the idea of an extra charge on plastic bottles, around 70% are comfortable with the idea of extending the plastic bag tax, and a large majority are willing to pay something like £2 a week more on £100-worth of groceries. For many hard-pressed households, that is not an inconsiderable sum, and one has to be sensitive to issues of family poverty. However, the majority of public opinion seems to be reconciled to the idea that to reduce plastic usage, there will have to be additional charges.

In conclusion, let me point out that the Government have a rather modest long-term objective of working towards eliminating unnecessary plastic use—I think that is the phrase they use—by 2042. In that year, I will be waiting for my 100th birthday card from Buckingham Palace. I suggest that if that objective were brought forward to, say, 2025, we would be dealing with a more realistic timescale. I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.

Waste Incineration: Regulation

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Grogan]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman on the precautionary principle. However one defines incineration, it is true that the more of it there is in a local authority, the less recycling there is.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Some 7,000 constituents in Carnbroe rejected this for 11 years, and the council fully backs the community. The Scottish Government keep overturning that decision, however, and keep coming back. Will anyone listen to the communities who actually have to live with the incinerators?

[John Grogan]

My hon. Friend makes a point and in a moment I will briefly set out the case for a moratorium on new incinerators, which I think is definitely needed.

Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I can think of several instances where the UK has wanted to move ahead on environmental or animal welfare legislation. I am digressing slightly, but we are looking at dry sow stalls, battery cage legislation and veal crates. The UK moved ahead of, and faster than, the rest of the EU—it was not moving at the same speed as us. Although people say that leaving the EU will result in a degradation of our environmental and animal welfare legislation, that has no regard to our track record as a nation. Both parties have been keen to promote those topics and to move faster than the rest, so leaving the European Union will give us the opportunity to do that, rather than dragging behind.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On the point about the environment, can the Minister outline the limitations on the voltage and frequency? On top of that, what are the penalties if people go above them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The former Minister hits on the problem. The SI does not do what it needs to. The commitment given when the Committee amendment was withdrawn was that an SI would come forward that would comprehensively ban electric pulse beam trawling. That is not what the SI does. It opens the window for up to 5% of all beam trawlers in the UK to use electric pulse trawl, and certain other conditions remain the same as before. That is not the ban that we need.

[Hugh Gaffney]

On that 5%, we need an agreement that sustainable fishing is an important goal for the industry. Does electric pulse fishing not put sustainable fishing at risk?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. If we are to create sustainable fisheries, we need them to be sustainable, both environmentally, by dealing with climate change and its effects, and economically. The temptation to use this method is a real concern, which is why I want to see it banned comprehensively, with no provision for an opt-out.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker—you are saving the best til last. This is an important debate that will shape the future of our country for years to come. It was an eventful few days before the House rose for the Christmas recess, and the Prime Minister probably wishes that she was still on holiday. This Government became the first in modern times to be found in contempt of Parliament, through their refusal to publish their legal advice. The Prime Minister then announced that the Government would be pulling the parliamentary vote on the withdrawal agreement after days of impassioned debate in this House. The Conservative party then threw itself, and the country, into further political chaos with a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister’s leadership.

The Prime Minister survived and promised to listen to the House’s concerns by securing legal changes to aspects of the withdrawal agreement. She found herself in office, but not in power. Having failed to secure any meaningful changes to her withdrawal agreement, I suspect she will soon find herself out of office as well.

Let us not be kidded that this deal commands any kind of majority in this House. It can barely command the confidence of the Cabinet, with stories constantly in the press of Cabinet Ministers urging the Prime Minister to prepare for the deal to be voted down and to start to look at alternative options. I do, though, commend the Prime Minister for bringing some much needed unity to the country: her deal has managed to unite those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave in opposition to it. She has united both in hatred of the deal.

The Prime Minister tells the country that her deal is the best one on the table, yet she did not have the confidence to put it to the House as originally scheduled before the Christmas recess. If she really believes that it is the best deal, why has she chosen to attempt to scare MPs into supporting it by stepping up preparations for no deal? In Operation Brock, 150 lorries were supposed to turn up, but only 89 did. She could not even get that deal right.

Why has the Prime Minister not chosen to make the case for her deal on its own merits? She went into the 2017 general election telling the British people that no deal was better than a bad deal. She set out a series of red lines that would drive her negotiations with the EU. Well, things have certainly changed. The Prime Minister now tells the British people that a bad deal is better than no deal, and those red lines have been abandoned, just like many of the Prime Minister’s previous promises. Remember when she said that she would not call a snap election? I have to say thanks to the Prime Minister: thanks for bringing me down to Parliament to be here today as a voice for the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.

This is certainly a bad deal. It fails to protect jobs and living standards. It risks the workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protections that we currently enjoy through our EU membership; it fails to properly protect the rights of EU nationals living in our country and UK citizens living in EU countries; and it risks dividing our United Kingdom, with economic hardship for working people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, as the Government’s own forecasts highlighted.

The Prime Minister continues to play games with this House and the country because she knows that this deal will be voted down on Tuesday. It is about time that she ruled out the prospect of no deal. A no-deal Brexit would be devastating for our economy. It is time for the Government to get real and provide some certainty for the businesses, workers and communities that are concerned about the prospect of no deal.

My constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill do not just reject the Prime Minister’s deal because it fails to protect their jobs and living standards, and workers’ rights; they reject her deal because it highlights the unfairness at the heart of her Government. They are a Government who are prepared to put forward this deal or entertain the idea of no deal, despite the real and damaging consequences for some of the poorest people and communities in my constituency and others across the UK. They are a Government who have pushed 14 million people into poverty. In case the Secretary of State did not hear me, I will repeat it: a Government who have pushed 14 million people into poverty, including in my constituency, because of their failed welfare reforms, such as universal credit. They are a Government who have pursued austerity, cutting our public services and creating an economy in which workers are paid less and have greater job insecurity.

My constituents do not just need the deal to be rejected; they need a general election and a change in Government. They need a Labour Government who can negotiate a Brexit deal that unites the country and delivers a fairer Britain. More importantly, they need a Labour Government who invest in our communities, tackle low pay, end job insecurity and bring our vital services back into public ownership.

When the deal is rejected on Tuesday, I urge the Prime Minister to reflect on the fact that she has failed to deliver a Brexit deal that protects working people and their livelihoods; to recognise that she no longer commands the confidence of this House; and to recognise that she has failed to deliver for the country. She should call a general election so that the British people can elect a Labour Government who will get to work tackling the real issues of delivering a Brexit deal that works for the many and not the chosen few. And let that Labour Government stop anyone else being pushed into joining the 14 million people in poverty in this country.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Water Resources) (England) Order 2018

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 General Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is exactly right. At present, water companies have a responsibility to provide a water resources plan for the area that they cover, which largely covers the water catchment area that those companies are framed around. It seems that there is an opportunity to join up those water resources plans on a regional basis, to ensure that water companies co-operate because it is not only in their best interest, but in the environment’s best interest to join up the water resources next door. I think that is especially important when we are talking about areas of water stress. At heart, the order is about providing more water storage. If the powers in it are to be used, it is important not only that the water resources plan is for one water company, but that the neighbouring water companies all join up. I think there is an opportunity to create a national water resources plan, which is not being taken at the moment. I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend.

Our efforts to increase water resilience must not have unintended consequences on local people and economies. If more projects are commissioned at a national level, we need to ensure that more local engagement is undertaken to balance out the fact that that national decision making has been taken from local communities. The whole Committee will recognise that nationally significant projects are more often than not best decided at a national level, but that should not dilute, devalue or dismiss the views of local people affected by the schemes, especially when nationally significant projects can cross local authority boundaries and cause significant disruption in their construction and operation.

I have heard from Dr Derek Stork, who is leading an action group against Thames Water’s plans to build a “nationally significant” reservoir in the south-east, which he says will significantly impact his community. He shared his concerns about the lack of democratic accountability for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the way in which they are determined, given that projects can be approved many years ahead of time. People who will be most affected by these infrastructure projects must retain the ability to be involved with decisions after a project has been approved, as well as leading up to that approval, and be able to hold those delivering those decisions accountable for their actions and commitments made to local communities. Those nationally significant infrastructure project commitments should not just be about getting through the planning committee, or in this case the Secretary of State—the projects should be held to them.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On that point, Scotland has plenty of water, but down south all we see is floods. Does my hon. Friend think the community should be involved in positions on these big planning developments, which are important to communities?

[Luke Pollard]

Indeed. Government can sometimes underestimate just how much knowledge and expertise can be held in a local community, especially when there is such building on flood plains and changes in how our water resources are used on a local level. Taking into account the concerns of local people can get a better scheme at the end of it, if for nothing else than for those people that are taking that project forward. Too often, some water resources, flood management and water schemes have been incentivised by spending lots of money and not working out whether there are better ways of achieving the outcome without deploying that amount of capital or carbon in an end-of-pipe solution.

There are some examples where nationally significant infrastructure projects are being done incredibly well.

Pet Theft

Hugh Gaffney Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma, and to serve under you this afternoon.

I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for an important speech. I agreed with his speech in full, and I hope that Dr Daniel Allen—the creator of this public petition—and all who love their animals feel the same way.

Millions of people and families from across the country—in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—own pets of many kinds. In June 2017, I was elected Member of Parliament for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. It was an important moment for me and for my family, but I can assure everyone present that it was not the only important matter for us last year. We got a new dog—I was replaced by a dog called Mia, who joined our family. If my wife Anne was asked, I think she would say that Mia coming to us was more important than me coming to this House.

After so many weeks down here in Parliament, it could be said that in the eyes of the Gaffney family, Mia has indeed replaced me in our home back in Scotland. She certainly spends more time in my bed than I do. Like many Members from across the House, I could share many stories of my dog’s cheeky but loving behaviour, and about her determination to take my side of the bed and establish herself as the top dog in our house.

It is easy for me to have fun and laugh with my dog—she has certainly given me a lot of pleasure—but other people experience the heartache of losing their animals or having them stolen. I pay tribute to the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance for the important work that it does to champion the rights of animal lovers, and indeed the rights of the animals themselves. I echo the words of Beverley Cuddy, the patron of SAMPA, who said:

“Pets are priceless, irreplaceable and their loss wrecks lives”.

Beverley is right and she gives voice to the feelings of so many people. I add my support to ensure that all our voices are heard here today in Parliament.

The fact that only one in five stolen dogs tends to be recovered is a disgrace, and it means that many families and other dog owners will never receive the closure that they need and demand after the loss of a pet. We must do more, and we must do better. There is no doubt that crime is on the rise in this country, whatever we may hear from the Home Office, and not just conventional sorts of crime. Pet theft is also on the rise, and we can see why.

[Fiona Onasanya]

In my constituency of Peterborough, I was made aware in the area of Ravensthorpe of dog snatchers going round to houses and painting the fences red to alert their accomplices to the fact that there was a pet there. Does my hon. Friend agree that pet theft is becoming a type of organised crime and that it needs to be treated as such?

[Hugh Gaffney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I certainly agree with her. That is the problem—pet theft is profitable. Pet theft is easy, particularly when people are in the parks with their animals, or, in this type of weather, when doors and windows are left open and dogs escape, never to be found again. Pet theft is not being taken seriously by our law enforcement agencies, and we need to improve in that regard. Because the Government have yet to demonstrate their determination to tackle pet theft once and for all, we must do more.

A number of my constituents have been in touch with me about this debate and, indeed, signed the petition that we are considering. My commitment to them, to all animal lovers and to their animals is that I will do all I can to make sure that we in Parliament show criminals that we will not let them get away with pet theft. We are after them for our animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Gaffney]

I want to make a wee point. Last week, dangerous dogs were in the news, and 2,275 postal workers were bitten last year. I would just like to say that the majority of postal workers, like myself, love animals and dogs, and welcome them.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware of his history in the postal service and thank him greatly for that. It is one of the great services that we have across the country. There are some risks to postal workers from dogs, so it is incumbent on dog owners to ensure that their dogs are trained appropriately. I realise that postal workers have an affinity for dogs, like the rest of our constituents and people across the country.

As we have heard, a quarter of households have one or more dogs, and it appears that this crime is on the rise. I ask the Minister whether we know why that might be happening, and what the factors are. Only when we discover the key factors behind this crime will we be able to have a multi-structural strategy to address what is happening. Are dogs being stolen for heinous crimes such as dog fighting, as we have heard today? Are those poor dogs being savaged, perhaps as bait for dogs that are being trained to fight in a ring? We need far more resources to tackle that. I was extremely proud to lead a debate in Westminster Hall, only in 2016, on dog fighting.

Is there a gang element to pet theft? Is the same type of organised crime set-up that we see in relation to dog fighting, puppy smuggling and puppy farming causing pets to be stolen? If there are links between those activities, and between the people perpetrating them, we need to develop adequate laws and legal frameworks to deal with that. Lucy’s law is also important for many reasons, including dog welfare and people’s welfare, in terms of having dogs and young puppies enter families, and in relation to the types of issues that we are discussing today. I feel that there may be an important underlying common denominator that it is important to address.

People have spoken today of their love for dogs. My dog, Rossi, is a French bulldog. Having looked at the figures for pet theft, I am aware that that is exactly the type of dog breed that is being stolen—it is near the top of the list. French bulldogs are often used for breeding and puppy farming, which makes me think that perhaps there are links with pet theft. I would be bereft if something happened to Rossi out in the garden where he likes to roam. We are lucky to have quite a big garden. I keep encouraging my husband to cut the grass, and I am hopeful that he might be doing that today as we speak, but Rossi loves to wander throughout our garden. It is always in the back of my mind to check that he is still there and that everything is okay.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady asked a similar question about what is driving the thefts. At one end of the scale, there are horrific examples of pets being stolen to be used in baiting and dog fights. This afternoon, I asked our police lead on dogs whether they considered that to be a large factor in dog thefts. His response was that generally speaking, as with lots of theft, dogs that are perceived to have a higher monetary value tend to be stolen. Obviously, that is bad news for pets that are deemed to be of high worth, but on one level it is reassuring—hopefully, the type of incidents that the hon. Member for Hartlepool described are the exception rather than the rule in this terrible crime. I will return to the data a little later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and others pointed out, the Government’s view is that the Theft Act 1968 provides sufficient sanctions to deal with the problem. He made a powerful case about some of the issues with the Sentencing Council, which I will come on to in a moment. I want to take the opportunity as the Front Bench spokesman to recognise that pets are not just objects; they are sentient beings and companions to people. The fact that they are covered for this purpose under the Theft Act does not take away at all from the fact that they are sentient beings and more than just property.

In his introduction, the hon. Member for Hartlepool highlighted the fact that, somewhat bizarrely, the Act has a provision for the theft of mushrooms and for the theft of wild animals. He asked why if we can have provisions for those, we cannot have one for pets. The reason why they are pulled out is that it was judged at the time that sometimes there could be doubt about whether a mushroom was public property or private property, and there could be some doubt about whether somebody would have ownership of a wild animal. It is beyond doubt that pets have an owner, so that provision did not apply.

Turning to sentencing, a number of hon. Members—including, quite powerfully, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)—highlighted the current Sentencing Council guidelines. Hon. Members will appreciate that sentencing is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, policing is a matter for the Home Office and companion animals form part of the portfolio of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs managed by my noble Friend, Lord Gardiner. However, I will do my best to describe the position as I see it.

It is important to remember that in 2016, the independent Sentencing Council updated its sentencing guidelines for theft offences. The new guidelines acknowledge that theft that causes emotional distress to the victim or where the item stolen is of a substantial value, regardless of the monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly. In the context of the theft of pets, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is right that although the Theft Act provides for a maximum sentence of seven years, there is scant evidence of that being used.

Our reading of the current guidance, which was issued in 2016, is that in applying that guidance, the theft of a pet should be considered as either a category two or a category three offence. The custodial sentence is two years for a category two offence and one year for a category three. My hon. Friend is right that, applying our interpretation of the most recent guidance, a seven-year maximum penalty is largely theoretical for pet theft unless there are other aggravating circumstances. But as a general rule, category two or three would seem to be an appropriate sentence.

I hope that I have been able to reassure Members of the seriousness with which we take this issue. The Government have demonstrated in just the last six months that we are willing to change the law wherever necessary. Although at the moment the Government are not convinced that we need to change the law, I want to give three undertakings. First, let us use this debate to be absolutely clear that the Government interpret the latest guidance from the Sentencing Council to mean that the theft of a pet should generally be treated as a category two or three offence.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and others made an important point about the need for statistics. This afternoon, I asked Gareth Pritchard, the Home Office policing lead for dogs, to marshal accurate data from the 44 police forces. It should not be left to third parties to try their luck through freedom of information requests—I agree that Government should marshal that. I have asked him to generate that data and to provide me with a report of the most accurate data he is able to gather.

Thirdly, I will discuss with my noble friend Lord Gardiner whether there are any other things that we have considered by way of enforcement and to improve detection rates for this crime. One of the messages I picked up from hon. Members’ contributions is that it may be not so much that the ability to sentence is not there or even that the maximum penalties are wrong, but simply that too few of these crimes are detected and too few prosecutions are brought.

[Hugh Gaffney]

Social media is being used to show some ridiculous acts on animals. That video evidence should be used to sentence more heavily.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The internet and the growth of social media have created many challenges in enforcing legislation on pet sales, but they also give us a ready way to identify culprits, particularly those who are breaching rules. Rather than seeing the internet and social media as threats, we should use them where we can to gain evidence, as he points out.

In conclusion, we have had a very thoughtful and detailed debate that I believe does justice to the 106,000 people who signed the petition. Although the Government are not convinced for change, I hope that, through those undertakings, I have been able to demonstrate that we intend to do more work and gather more evidence in this area.