Rights to Protest

Debate between James Gray and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 26th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Sir James. It is rather disappointing—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady may know something that I do not, but I regret to say that it is just “Mr Gray”. One day, perhaps—you never know.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is long overdue; I find it very hard to believe that it is not already the case. Sorry, Mr Gray.

As I was saying, it is disappointing that the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) has chosen to frame the debate in the way that he has done, with talk of loony lefties and other pejoratives. I do not think that is at all helpful, and I hope that today we can try to have a measured debate about what is a very sensitive—indeed, controversial—topic.

Being a Bristol MP, I thought that it was important to speak in this debate, given that three of the top four constituencies in terms of the number of signatures to this petition are Bristol seats: there were 3,615 signatories from Bristol West, which comes as no surprise, as it usually tops the charts on these occasions; 1,455 signatories from Bristol South; and 1,343 signatories from my own constituency of Bristol East. Bristol North West was a little further down the list with 972 signatories.

In addition, I had lots of emails from constituents about the Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Some of them touched on other elements of the Bill, for example the provisions that would affect Gypsies and Travellers, and those that perhaps would have an impact on ramblers. Others called for stronger protections in the Bill against violence directed towards women and girls, which are notable by their absence. However, the majority of the emails I received were from people who were alarmed and angry about the public order provisions in part 3 of the Bill, which have given rise to the petition that we are debating today.

Bristol has a proud radical tradition. In 1788, we were the first city outside London to set up a committee for the abolition of the slave trade. The first petition that that committee set up received some 800 signatures. Actually, if we think about that time, long before the days of social media, that was no mean feat; I think it more than rivals the number of signatures that the petition we are debating has received in this day and age. It is also noteworthy that that campaign was one of the first political campaigns in which women were allowed to be involved. More recently, in the 1960s the Bristol bus boycott led to the first UK racial equality legislation, spearheaded by one of my predecessors in this seat, Tony Benn. Last summer, we saw the toppling of the statute of Edward Colston, a slave trader, during Black Lives Matter protests in the city. All those protests were significant moments, historically and in a local sense.

There have been many more protests of less significance in the city that have not sparked international debate or led to change—or, at least, not yet. In some cases, such as the school climate strikes, the significance is in being a tiny part of a greater global movement. Young people in particular feel that, just maybe, they can make a difference by making banners, painting their faces, taking to the streets and making their voices heard. That is hugely important for young people. It is too easy to look at what appears to be vast global indifference to the fate of the planet and despair, so I applaud all those who have not given up hope.

Of course, it is easy to celebrate the school climate strikers, and the chances are that this legislation would not be used against them, but that is why clauses 54 to 60 of the Bill are so dangerous, because a subjective element starts to creep in in terms of what is deemed to be acceptable and, in the words of the hon. Member for Stockton South, legitimate protest, and what is deemed to be not acceptable and not legitimate. As I read through those clauses, I could see the appeal in invoking some of the provisions against, for example, the far-right thugs who occasionally attempt to march—in pitiful numbers, it has to be said—in Bristol, but there will be others who see exactly the same opportunities when it comes to Black Lives Matter protesters.

The problem with the Bill is that it gives the police and the courts powers to decide what is acceptable, what is troublesome, what is annoying and what is too noisy. The police have a difficult enough time as it is when it comes to policing protests, and this Bill means that there is huge potential for political interference and for pressure on the police to intervene. As was said on Second Reading, the definition of “nuisance” could apply to almost any protest outside Parliament.

I want to say a little about the recent protests in Bristol. I have made clear my condemnation of the violence, particularly on 21 March, and my concern about some policing tactics on 26 March. I do not want to revisit that here, other than to say that, since then, I have spent the best part of a day with the police at Silver command during one of the more recent protests, observing the decisions that were made on crowd control and so on. There had been a very peaceful, positive protest during the late afternoon, but a group of people stayed on very late and at one point tried to block the motorway by having a sit-down, and they were having a bit of a rave too. In general, I think the police have got it right when it comes to policing these protests, but I appreciate that theirs is not an easy job.

I want to say this to the protesters, and I preface it by saying that I absolutely want people in Bristol to take part in peaceful protest. People have a right to be heard and to get out on the streets and express their views, but as I have said when I have met representatives of various groups that oppose this Bill—and as the Mayor of Bristol has told them too—“Think about what you are trying to achieve. Think about who you need to win over. Think about how you can best do that. If you are protesting against this Bill, educate yourself about the parliamentary process and when the crucial votes will come.”

If people are campaigning for the right to assemble and protest, and trying to stop the introduction of laws that are predicated upon the—in my view, false—assertion that we have a problem in this country with uncontained, out-of-hand, destructive political demonstrations, it is entirely counterproductive to take part in a protest that culminates in people throwing eggs, fireworks and other missiles at the police, torching police vehicles and attempting to trash a police station. It is not acceptable for very many reasons. It is not acceptable in itself, but it is tactically stupid too, and it plays entirely into the hands of the Home Secretary and others who are attempting to stir up division and exploit fear and prejudice. Dare I say it, if people live somewhere with a Tory MP within travelling distance of Bristol, it might be an idea to focus their political activity—their peaceful protest—there, instead of coming to Bristol to join in a much larger protest here, given that the Bristol Labour Mayor and the four Bristol Labour MPs are all committed to opposing the Bill.

It is also worth saying that even policing a peaceful protest costs the city a lot of money and diverts resources away from other police activities. Blocking the streets in the city centre not only causes inconvenience to motorists. My main worry when I went along and observed the operation with Silver command was that I learned that the buses were all on divert through the city centre. When key workers and people in low-paid jobs have to walk home alone through city streets late at night because the buses are on divert and they have to go some distance to get to a bus stop, it comes to a point when those protesting have had their say and it is time to let people resume their normal lives.

While I entirely respect people’s right to protest, I urge them to exercise that right wisely and well. I believe that with concerted action, by joining together, by making the arguments and by peaceful protest using democratic and peaceful means, we can stop part 3 of this Bill becoming law. Let us all try to work together to do that and not play into the Home Secretary’s hands by abusing the rights that we have.

Amazon Deforestation

Debate between James Gray and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 7th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I do not think it will surprise anyone that I am not going to adopt the same conciliatory tone as the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). The situation we face is far too serious to adopt such an approach. As we heard, the Amazon is being wilfully destroyed. It remains the biggest rainforest in the world and a vital check on climate change. The seriousness of the situation cannot be overestimated and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, there are people gathered outside this building who want us to take it seriously.

I make no apologies for referring to a debate I led in this Chamber in March 2009 about the impact of livestock on the environment. I read my speech back and I actually think it was rather good, but the Minister’s response was appalling; she went on at some length about how she really liked her mum’s shepherd’s pie. I would like to think we have made progress since then, but although we are talking about the issue more, we certainly have not made as much progress as I hoped we would back then.

Extensive cattle ranching is the primary culprit for deforestation in virtually every Amazon country. It accounts for 80% of current deforestation and is responsible for the release of 340 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year. That is equivalent to 3.4% of current global emissions. The Brazilian Amazon is home to approximately 200 million head of cattle and is the largest exporter in the world, supplying around a quarter of the global market.

The impact of cattle ranching and deforestation was first publicised by conservationists in the early 1980s—they coined the phrase “the hamburger connection”—but it was fairly small business back then. Government incentives, and improvements in the road and electricity networks and in meat processing facilities, spurred the industry on. Then, with the devaluation of the currency and much of Brazil’s herd being declared free of foot and mouth disease, exports exploded, which led to the current deforestation situation.

Typically, deforestation starts not with animal agriculture but when roads are cut through the forest to open it up for logging and mining. Once the forest along the road has been cleared, commercial or subsistence farmers move in and start growing crops. However, forest soils are too nutrient-poor and fragile to sustain crops for long, so after two or three years, when the soil is depleted, crop yields fall and farmers let the grass grow and move on. That is when the ranchers move in. Little investment is needed to start raising cattle on cheap or abandoned land where grass is already growing, and the returns can be high, at least for a while. However, after five to 10 years, over-grazing and nutrient loss turn rainforest land that was once filled with biodiversity into an eroded wasteland, so ranchers have to look for somewhere else to move on to.

As we heard, deforestation causes irreversible environmental damage if it is not checked in time. The clearing and burning of forests releases billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that deforestation causes roughly a quarter of all human-induced carbon emissions, and then there is the loss of biodiversity. I have not been to Brazil, but I have been to countries such as Belize; the extent to which the rainforest remains undiscovered and unexplored is amazing. There is so much more to be discovered. Forests are home to more than 13 million distinct species, representing more than two thirds of the world’s plants and animals. Obviously, if their habitats are destroyed, many will be at risk of extinction. When the trees are gone, the soil becomes depleted, which often leads to water pollution as the soil gets washed away. That is something for which we in this country must accept responsibility.

[James Gray]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful speech, with which I entirely agree. What she says about the catastrophe in the rainforest, which I have visited many times, is absolutely true. Surely, however, the point of the debate is not so much to say how awful it all is but to ask what we can do about it. The petitioners request trade sanctions against Brazil. The question is how efficacious that would be in persuading the current Government of Brazil to go back to what the Government there were doing only a year ago.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will get to what I think needs to be done. Sanctions could play a part, but change in consumption habits could play a much bigger part, and that is something we each have some control over.

In their recent “Risky Business” report, WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimate that more than 40% of the UK’s overseas land footprint—nearly 6 million hectares—is in countries that are at high or very high risk of deforestation and of having weak governance and poor labour standards. The more I read about it, the more I see the links between this trade and modern slavery and human rights abuses, with people being displaced from their land, and so on; they are all part and parcel of the same thing.

WWF and the RSPB looked at seven key agricultural commodities imported into the UK: beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy, and timber. Of those, beef and leather account for by far the largest proportion of our land footprint overseas, despite the fact that we produce almost 80% of our own beef in the UK and import a lot from Ireland. However, the actual picture is much worse, because we must look at animal feed, too. In the EU, around 90% of soy imports are for livestock feed, so it is not just a case of beef from Argentina or Brazil being bad and British beef being fine, as I often hear people try to argue. Yes, there is a case for pasture-fed livestock—I chair the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, of which the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association is an active member—but that is not what we are talking about.

Every year, the UK consumes around 3.3 million tonnes of soy, more than 75% of which is related to meat consumption, either as imported animal feed or as soy embedded in imported meat products. We must also consider the feed for chickens that lay eggs, and the feed for dairy herds, as well as soya bean oil, which is the second most widely used vegetable oil after palm oil. This has happened to me many times, but I remember the former farming Minister, Jim Paice, trying to tell me that that was all down to more people eating veggie burgers. I assure people that is not the case. That figure may have gone up in recent years, but I think it is still well below 5%—but yes, it is all the vegetarians’ and vegans’ fault, as usual.

It is interesting to compare what has happened with soy bean oil and palm oil. We import nearly three times as much soy bean oil as palm oil, yet it is palm oil that has tended to receive the attention of environmentalists, probably because of the orangutans. Some 21% of global palm oil production is now certified, whereas soy certified by the Round Table on Responsible Soy or ProTerra accounts for only about 2% of global production.

Badger Cull

Debate between James Gray and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not want to give way again in the time I have left.

I was concerned that the new Secretary of State seems not to have got to grips with cattle-to-cattle transmission, but I accept that tighter controls will be introduced from next year, which I welcome. When his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), made a statement on the cull just before the Christmas recess, she failed to mention cattle-to-cattle transmission, as I pointed out to her at the time, although she did mention it in her statement in July. There is a degree of complacency in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on cattle-to-cattle transmission, which needs to be addressed.

On the history of bovine TB, it is clear is that, in the 1960s, when strict quarantine rules and the rigorous testing of cattle were in place, bovine TB was almost eliminated from the UK. However, farmers were not happy with the regime and complained, and, to quote George Monbiot:

“TB returned with a vengeance”.

Professor Graham Medley of the university of Warwick has said that the only way to eradicate TB in cattle would be a return to the stricter and more effective controls that were in place 40 years ago. Professor John Bourne, who led the randomised badger culling trial—which, as we know, concluded that badger culling could make “no meaningful contribution” to controlling bovine TB—agrees with Professor Medley. Professor Bourne has said that only stricter biosecurity can control bovine TB. The RBCT report states:

“Weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone”.

A European Commission report of September 2011 revealed significant evidence of bad practice in English farms. It found that failure to abide by cattle TB prevention measures was widespread. The Commission gave the UK €23 million in 2011 for bovine TB control measures. Its inspectors found that the removal of cattle with TB was below the target of 90% in 10 days, and that, in the first half of 2011, more than 1,000 cattle had not been removed after 30 days. It found that there were 3,300 overdue TB tests as of May 2011 and that many calf passports, which are used to track movements, were incomplete. It also found that only 56% of disease report forms had been completed on time. Funding cuts were cited as the reason for the failure of local authorities to update their databases.

The Commission report concluded that local authority surveys provided evidence that

“some cattle farmers may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags, ie retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place.”

A couple of Government Members are shaking their heads, but farmers have been prosecuted for that in the west country.

[Mr Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not going to give way.

The Commission found that there were missed targets on rapidly removing cattle with TB, and on the follow-up of missed tests. It found numerous shortcomings and

“weaknesses in cleaning and disinfection at farm, vehicle, market and slaughterhouse levels, exacerbated by lack of adequate supervision”.

All those problems increase the risk of TB spreading between cattle.

David Fisher, who was a DEFRA-funded TB inspector in Wales until 2011, has said:

“It is an open secret that isolation of [TB] reactors and inconclusive reactors is rare.”

He has said that DEFRA’s database showed that, in 2009, there was 20.8% non-compliance on bovine TB issues. There was only one instance that year of a dairy farm being checked for compliance with an isolation notice.

I welcome the fact that DEFRA has indicated that new rules and a crackdown on cattle movement, and increased TB testing, will take place from 1 January 2013, with restrictions on farms where a TB case is identified, but I support Mark Jones, a vet and executive director of the Humane Society International UK, who has said that Ministers should wait and assess the impact of tighter biosecurity measures. As has been said, in Wales, bovine TB has fallen since the badger cull was stopped in Wales and tighter measures were introduced. He says:

“There is some evidence…that TB in cattle is coming down. There needs to be time to see if there has been an impact, before going ahead with a massacre of badgers…It is cattle, not badgers, that are the main transmitters of bovine TB so it is utterly outrageous for badgers to pay the price for farmers’ failure to abide by proper biosecurity measures.”

I could not end on a better note than that.

Falkland Islands

Debate between James Gray and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing this debate. The good turnout today is a testament to the desire in this House to reiterate our support for the people of the Falkland Islands. As we mark the 30 years since the Falklands war, it is important to remember not only those who fought but the sacrifice of the 255 Britons who lost their lives. As we approach the anniversary, the increasing tension and the greater focus on the Falkland Islands must be particularly difficult for the families of those who died during the conflict. It is important that we use occasions such as this to reiterate our gratitude to them for their sacrifice and our commitment to protecting the Falkland Islands.

As I made clear earlier, Labour continues to support the islanders’ right to self-determination. It is a long-established principle that has been recognised by successive Governments and by the Falkland Islands constitution. Moreover, as we have discussed, it is set out in article 1.2 of the UN charter and in article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, it has been reinforced by UN resolutions that deal specifically with the Falkland Islands and by the many other UN resolutions that reaffirm the commitment to the right of people to determine for themselves what their future should be. Therefore, I am not persuaded by him that there is a need to enshrine that principle in UK law. He has said that it would send out a signal that we are absolutely committed to upholding the right to self-determination, but I do not think that the purpose of legislation is simply to send out signals when the position is already clear. Indeed, I thought that the ideology that underpins his Government is that we should not go down the path of unnecessary legislation; that we should legislate only when there is an absolute need for it. Also, I am concerned that, if there were an attempt to enshrine that principle in UK law, it could be seen to undermine other principles of international and UN law that are not enshrined in UK law; it could seem that the principle were of a different status.

[Mr Gray]

I agree with the hon. Lady about small government, but does she recall the occasion when her right hon. Friend, the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) entered into negotiations with the Government of Spain on the future of Gibraltar without consulting the people of Gibraltar? That shows that, on occasion, such things can slip. Is that not a reason for writing the principle into law?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not think that entering into negotiations or discussions with another country necessarily thwarts or flouts the right to self-determination. It is fairly well established that we will respect the right of the people in the overseas territories to determine their fate, and we have reiterated that over and again.

[Mr Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We are not here to discuss Gibraltar.

[Mr Gray]

If the hon. Lady is saying that she could see no reason why the right hon. Member for Blackburn should not have discussed with Spain the future of Gibraltar without consulting the people of Gibraltar, is she saying that it would be perfectly reasonable for any other Foreign Secretary to enter into discussions with the Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands without consulting the people there?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am obviously not saying that at all. If we were having bilateral meetings with Argentina, or if there were a state visit to Argentina, and the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands were raised by the Argentine Government, we would of course have discussions with them about that. That is not the same as entering into negotiations or in any way at all committing to signing away the rights of the Falklands Islands without respecting its residents’ right to self-determination. As has already been mentioned, given that the Falkland Islanders are unanimous in their desire to remain British, I cannot see that as something that would in any way, shape or form be on the table in a serious way at any such discussions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps we can agree to differ on that matter, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and whether he feels there is a need for the principle to be enshrined in UK law.

We share the Foreign Office’s disappointment about the decision to block ships that carry the Falklands flag. Developments since December have been particularly troubling, and we welcome the robust response from the Foreign Office. Although it is reassuring that ships have been able to get around that policy and continue to enter ports by carrying the British flag, it is obviously not acceptable for the Argentine Government, because they object to the Falkland Islanders’ choice to remain British, to seek to impose an economic blockade or to inhibit the Islanders’ way of carrying on their economic life.

It is also worrying that other south American countries have been brought on board in that decision. Will the Minister confirm which countries and representatives from south America have had direct discussions with the Foreign Secretary, who visited Latin America earlier this month, about the Falkland Islands? Was the blockade discussed with other countries? What was the outcome of the talks? Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office is using all diplomatic options to encourage Latin America to respect the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the impact of the tension with Argentina over the Falkland Islands on the UK Government’s efforts to strengthen the relationship with the rest of south America? Will the Minister explain to us what representations the Government have made to counterparts in Chile about protecting the one flight a week from Chile to the Falkland Islands, which President Fernandez has sought to stop?

We appreciate—I have reiterated this today—the need for a robust and unambiguous stance from the UK Government on our determination to protect the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination and, consequential to that, their British status. Is the Foreign Office concerned, however, that the Prime Minister’s choice of language might have unnecessarily inflamed the situation? I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear assertion in the House that the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people themselves and that they will remain British for as long as they choose to do so, and we also agree that Argentina cannot disregard the Falkland Islanders’ right to choose. However, accusing the Argentine Government of colonialism, which was clearly an emotive choice of words, provoked a strong reaction from the Government and the Argentine people. Does the Minister think, with hindsight, that that was a wise choice of words? We are also concerned about the march on the embassy in Buenos Aires, in which protestors burned the Union flag. Will the Minister assure us that the welfare of the embassy staff is being protected?

Some suggestions have been made, not in this Chamber, but in the media, that the defence of the Falkland Islands would not be secure if there were attempts by Argentina to invade—although we note that the Argentine President has ruled out any military action. For example, in a recent piece in The Daily Telegraph, General Sir Michael Jackson said that Britain would not be able to reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invaded. I note that earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is well informed on such matters, assured us that that was not the case and that there was no threat, but I would be grateful to receive some reassurance.

[Mr Gray]

It is absolutely the case that we would not be able to send a taskforce tomorrow in the way that we did 30 years ago; we simply do not have the resources to do that. That is quite different from saying that we have no resources to defend the Falklands—of course we do. In particular, the building of a runway at the airport has made defending the Falklands an entirely different matter from what it was 30 years ago, when that did not exist. Of course we can do it today, but we would not be able to lay on a task force as we did then.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Indeed.

Argentina has now named an ambassador to the UK, which is a step in the right direction. Will the Minister tell us whether he has had any contact with Alicia Castro since her appointment? Does he intend to meet her soon? Have his officials in the Foreign Office had any contact with her? We are all keen to hear from the Minister his response to the various points that have been raised in the debate, so I will hand over to him.