Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We all very much hope to be able to lift the restrictions of lockdown as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will be aware that in the first lockdown, we allowed zoos to open after we allowed parks to open. Zoos are outdoors, but people tend to follow the same routes, so the risk is judged by Public Health England to be higher. However, I have sympathy with the issues zoos face, and we want to get them open as soon as possible.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Each year, 40,000 people die from poor air quality. Labour has tabled an amendment to the Environment Bill, on which there will be a vote on Tuesday, to put the World Health Organisation air quality standards into law. Can the Secretary of State tell me why his Government plan to vote against that amendment?

[George Eustice]

We are working on the air quality targets that will form part of our targets under the Environment Bill. We are looking at population exposure, as well as an absolute concentration target, and we are working with experts to assess what that concentration target should be.

[Luke Pollard]

I do not think that answer was good enough, and it speaks to a larger concern: the Government seem to be rolling back hard-won environmental gains. It will not just be Britain watching the votes on the Environment Bill; it will also be the Biden-Harris Administration. If Labour’s amendment is voted down, although it would prevent the Government allowing bee-killing chemicals, loosening the chemicals regime, and having a weaker environmental watchdog than we had last year, what message does it send about how much we can trust the Prime Minister when he speaks about “building back better”?

[George Eustice]

We have not changed our regulations on neonicotinoids, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. In common with 10 other EU countries, we have granted an emergency authorisation, which is an integral part of the precautionary principle. We have done so for a non-flowering crop, and we have also made it clear that flowering crops cannot be grown there for at least three years.

EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We left the London fisheries convention and gave notice under that because it is our intention that the six to 12-mile zone should be reserved predominantly for our own fishermen, and at the end of the five and a half years, that is exactly what we will be seeking to achieve. There are some uplifts for fishermen in the Celtic sea, and in particular those in Cornwall—as I mentioned earlier, haddock has moved from 10% to 20%—and the Celtic sea is also an area that often had its fishing interests affected by the ability of Ireland to invoke Hague preference, which depleted our share of some stocks, notably cod. With the absence of Hague preference, there will be some other uplifts in those areas.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Fishing has every right to feel betrayed and let down by this Government. The industry was promised a better deal, but they have not got one. Fishers fear some of the extra quota is just paper fish—fish that might not even exist, or are hard for British boats to catch. The promise to immediately exclude European boats from our six to 12-mile limit was broken, and the catch app and export systems are cumbersome, bureaucratic, and home-grown Tory red tape that the industry can ill afford. Shellfish exporters feel particularly betrayed: they are unable to export until April, because the Government failed to negotiate a deal that included them.

Yesterday, the PM promised compensation for those affected by export chaos, but Downing Street seemed to U-turn on this less than six hours later. Fishers deserve better than this incompetent Government, so when will the distant water fleet be able to go to sea again? When will the new avalanche of paperwork be scaled back? When will the £100 million be available for coastal communities? When will British fishers get the extra quota they were promised? When will the requirement to land more British fish in British ports finally be introduced, and when will this Government actually start standing up for our fishers with action, not just soundbites?

[George Eustice]

I know that in previous debates on fishing the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the importance of tariff-free access to the EU market, and the trade and co-operation agreement gives our fishing export businesses that access, which is particularly important for the shellfish sector.

It is not the case that shellfish cannot be exported at all until April. There have been certain issues regarding bivalve molluscs and getting the correct paperwork, and some issues around depuration and the ability to export stocks that have not been purified prior to export, but they do not amount to a ban on the export of shellfish.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the distant water fleets. It is a convention that in the absence of agreements on quotas—this is pertinent to the agreement we have with Norway—access is suspended, but we will seek access to Arctic cod in the usual way for those parts of our fleet that benefit from that stock.

The hon. Gentleman asked when fishermen will see the uplift in quota. As I made clear, the EU is giving up 15% of its catch in our waters in year one, so fishermen will see some important advantages in this very first year.

National Tree Strategy

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on proposing the debate and for speaking so eloquently about the need not only to plant more trees but to plant the right trees in the right place as well.

Whether you are a tree-hugger or not a tree-hugger, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described himself, a towering oak of insight or a little bush of enthusiasm, to borrow the words of the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), this has been a good debate. The message the Minister needs to take from it is that we are all willing her on to greater ambition for tree planting.

There is much cutting and pasting of environmental soundbites, often three-word statements like build back better, green industrial revolution, green new deal. What we need is the policy and delivery to be stapled to those soundbites. We have heard today a cross-party endorsement of the need for delivery and ambition to be combined if we are to achieve the level of tree planting that we all want to see in this country. We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Members from all parties have highlighted not only the benefits that come from tree planting in carbon sequestration and biodiversity gain, but the benefits to mental health and wellbeing that were so clearly articulated by my hon. Friend in his opening remarks.

The benefits of tree planting are immense. Scientists predict that a worldwide tree planting programme could remove two thirds of all emissions from human activities that remain in the atmosphere today. The University of Exeter—a university proudly in my neck of the woods in the south-west—has found that, overall, people living in green urban areas were displaying fewer signs of depression or anxiety. Trees really are a cure-all medicine. They are good for our mental health, our physical health and the health of our planet. Coronavirus has shown what really matters to people and what people value. Family, friends, community, health and nature have been what I find people in Plymouth have really valued and are focusing more on for next year. The connection with nature is really important.

Every tree matters. Labour has always been ambitious when it comes to our plans for tree planting. We want to see 1 billion new trees planted across Britain by 2030 and 2 billion by 2040, not just rows and rows of conifers, not just trees for commercial use, but a wide variety of species, deciduous and evergreen, British native species and the best varieties from around the world, adding to our rich tapestry of biodiversity. We must plant the right trees in the right places and make sure they are accessible for us all to enjoy.

We all know that we are living in a climate emergency, but too often we forget that we are living in an ecological emergency as well. To tackle the climate crisis and cut carbon, we need new forests, salt marshes and peat bogs too. We need to value biodiversity, deal with species loss and habitat loss and make sure that we are championing not only totemic, iconic species in Britain, such as badgers and so on, but insects such as beetles, little birds, and all the fantastic variety in our animal kingdom. Nature is one of our greenest allies in defending the world from climate breakdown and it is important that we use it now.

It is safe to say that the England tree plan the Government are consulting on is unambitious at best and disappointing at worst. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is no formal way to set targets in England; that might be something the Minister will want to take on board from this debate. We need to know what success looks like, whether our tree planting efforts are going in the right direction, at the pace required, how many trees are being planted and, importantly, how many trees we are losing along the way. The Government have set out the need to plant more but do not record how many we lose, so we are only really measuring one side of that equation. We need to look at both sides if we are to make this work.

The contributions to the debate have been excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I share a love of swift bricks. They may just be breeze blocks with holes in, but they are a present that should be sent to every major housebuilding developer over the Christmas season, because building back better must also mean building nature into our new developments. That means not only the correct level of planting, but building birdlife and the life of nature into that opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) set out the ambition very clearly when she talked about the need for an English ambition in this respect. There have been no contributors from Scotland today, but if we look at the level of tree planting in Scotland, we see that the heavy burden Scotland is carrying for the United Kingdom is obscuring the lack of delivery in England. The focus on English ambition that my hon. Friend spoke about is very important, as is the role of tree planting in providing nature-based solutions for flood alleviation. That is especially important in the areas that have been hardest hit by floods, including York in recent years.

The balance being tipped against nature is a very good way of describing our planning system. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about where the Dasgupta review has got to? The Government started a review of the economic value of biodiversity, which sounds like a very Conservative thing to do—putting a value in pounds, shillings and pence on everything—but there is a real logic to it. Not valuing biodiversity in the economic decisions we make effectively means that nature is worthless in those decisions. We have seen an interim report from the Treasury on the Dasgupta review, which I think in most cases pointed in the right direction, but we do not have a timetable for when the final report will be published. A timetable would be useful.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) spoke passionately, echoing the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, about the importance of the Northern forest. Setting up tree planting in a way that is accessible to people is a really important part of what we have to achieve. Rows and rows of conifers, as I described them, are really important for our commercial forestry business, and we need that business to improve because Britain is a huge importer of wood when we should be growing and using more wood of our own; but we also need to ensure that tree planting is accessible because woodland can make a really big difference to both our mental health and physical health. Awareness of that needs to be baked in to our environment policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) described the situation very well when he argued the case for councils to be at the forefront of rewooding. Borrowing the very good description of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, the process should be town hall-led and not Whitehall-driven. The idea that every town should have a new wood is also important. I support the National Trust’s campaign to ensure that everyone lives within 10 minutes’ walk of a green space, but as well as what constitutes a green space, we should consider what the nature-rich environment is that we want to create in our urban areas, and in our semi-rural areas as well—living near a field does not mean living near accessible nature. We must remember that ensuring there is more accessible nature for all communities is important.

The hon. Member for Totnes is always good value in these debates and I enjoyed his remarks this morning. The cirl bunting is a really important bird, as are many of the birds along the south coast of Devon, extending from Plymouth into Cornwall. The challenge around common land tree planting is an interesting one, but it has not been raised in the debate so far. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue to ask questions about how that challenge can be addressed. There is a good case for preserving the values of common land and its accessibility, so there is a good campaign in the making.

In Plymouth, we fought hard against the initial plans from David Cameron to sell off our forests. I led the campaign to save Cann Wood from being sold, and it is now reaping the benefits of people really valuing it precisely because it was almost lost. That is something that we should consider. Plymouth already has one of the largest canopy covers of any city of its size, and with the Woodland Trust our Labour council has put together an exciting plan for trees, which is a model of best practice. We want to plant a bare minimum of nearly 3,000 trees across 67 locations in addition to the 30,000 street trees and 100 hectares of woodland that Plymouth already has.

Planting the right trees in the right place is important, especially when we look at the root growth pattern of different species. There are far too many communities in our country that are blighted by unlevel pavements because of poor decisions about which species of tree to plant in which area, and too many people are dying unnecessarily in accidents because trees have been planted near relatively high-speed roads. Trees are not frangible and reflect the impact of any collision straight away, so there is much to be done in that regard, too.

I should also celebrate the arrival of Plymouth’s first beaver in hundreds of years. We will need to plant some more trees to cope with our little friend the beaver and its efforts to dam up the river around Forder valley, which is an important part of our flood prevention strategy. This is a source of much concern. The boy beaver that we have will be joined by a girl beaver in the new year, so they can have lots of little beavers.

Ancient woodland is a really important part of the debate, because once lost it can never be replaced. Only 3% of our land is ancient woodland. I want the England tree strategy to commit to preventing any further loss and to restoration of all plantation on ancient woodland sites along the way. The amendment attempted by Labour to the High Speed 2 legislation to include statutory reporting on the impact on ancient woodland in the construction process was an important contribution. I am pleased that the Government accepted that, but I have to say to Ministers that there is much more work to be done in that respect, and much good will was lost because of the decisions taken by Ministers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East spoke about seagrass. I am not an official champion for seagrass, but as someone who has taken it to heart, I will say that we need to recognise that seagrass and kelp forests have an important part to play in carbon sequestration; they are 30 times more effective than the equivalent tree planting on land. Our ambition on land must be matched by our ambition in the marine environment. That is really important.

Ministers’ ambitions for increased tree planting and the England tree strategy must be truly cross-departmental. Highways England, Network Rail and other public bodies must have the same ambition baked into their particular values. What we have heard today should leave the Minister in no doubt that we want her to succeed in the level of tree planting that she has committed to, and to go much, much further.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, even if most of it was announced this morning in his online conference. For transparency, I remind hon. Members that my little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall.

The Secretary of State has majored on the green elements of the announcement, but this is about more than our environment. Of course Labour supports public money for public goods, but that is not what the statement is about. Strip away the green coating and the proposals are a full-throttle attack on English family farms. I say “English” because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish farmers are going in a different direction because the devolved Governments are maintaining support for small farms for longer. Under the Government’s proposals, many small farmers will lose up to half their current support payments within just three years, leaving many financially unviable.

The public and farmers back high standards, but many farms will not be sustainable economically if the economic foundations of their business are undercut by food produced to lower standards abroad. British farmers remain at risk from future trade deals as the Government have chosen not to require food imports to meet the same standards that we hold our own farmers to.

Farmers themselves have not given today’s announcement a ringing endorsement. The panel that farmers convened to heap praise on the Secretary of State’s speech this morning described it as, “disappointing”, “lacking detail” and, “an announcement about further announcements”—not a glowing endorsement.

I am concerned about the 5% cuts for all, the 50% cuts in three years and the new system not even starting until 2022. Why was no sustainable farming initiative announced for next year, just a 5% cut and no bridge to environmental funding? Why was there so little detail on that and why is there a gap? Given that we are both west country MPs, does the Secretary of State share my concern that many south-west farmers will be forced out of business because of the changes? Does he have regional figures on the expected farm bankruptcies? The estimates that I have heard are deeply worrying. With the Government’s new farm exit schemes, there are huge incentives for people to leave agriculture early. How many small farmers does the Secretary of State expect to take that exit scheme rather than go bust?

Labour has five simple tests for the effectiveness of the policy. Will there be more family farms in 2024 than there are now? I doubt it. Will there be more family farm bankruptcies under the proposals? I expect so. Will Britain produce more of its food here rather than importing it? Will we be more reliant on food from America and Australia in future? Will English farmers have a tougher time than farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with their mix of direct payments and environmental funding? Labour backs our British farmers. I am very concerned that the Secretary of State’s announcement today risks breaking English family farms.

[George Eustice]

First, let me confirm that the policy we set out today is for England. Indeed, most of the powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 were for England. It will be open to the devolved Administrations to pursue their own policy. Even under the common agricultural policy, devolved Administrations had some freedom about the pillar 2 schemes that they could put in place. We will also co-ordinate policy with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is no disturbance within the internal market. It is the case that over time, albeit at different paces, other devolved Administrations will not want to be shackled to the common agricultural policy that we have inherited, and they will want to take the opportunity to do things better.

The second point I would make relates to the profitability of agriculture. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of smaller farms. In fact, work done by AB Agri on farm productivity shows that there is not a correlation between farm size and productivity. Indeed, it is often the case that highly technically proficient, smaller family farms will have lower overheads and can look forward to the future with confidence. Agriculture is an industry that needs attention to detail, and that attention to detail is often best given by some smaller enterprises.

The other point I would make relates to food standards, which have been debated extensively in this House during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, now the Agriculture Act. We made changes to the Bill to introduce the Trade and Agriculture Commission and to require the Secretary of State to bring a report to Parliament outlining the impacts of any trade agreements on those standards. We have also been very clear as a Government that we will protect our producers from being undermined by substandard products produced overseas by using a combination of sanitary and phytosanitary policy in trade agreements and tariff policy.

I do not accept the criticism that the plan lacks detail. It is a 65-page document with many detailed annexes. It sets out in great detail the pace at which we intend to reduce the basic payment scheme, the other schemes we intend to roll out and the years we intend to roll them out. There will be some further consultations in the new year, in particular on the design of the voluntary exit scheme that we have said we will offer to those farmers who want to exit the industry with dignity.

I should make one final point, which is that our Agriculture Act requires the Government to report on food security every three years. The coronavirus pandemic has proven to us that domestic food production is a critical component of the food security of our nation, and that is something we will continue to measure and to support, so that we can have a vibrant food-producing agriculture sector in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government support extending maximum penalties and offences for animal cruelty. We are supporting a private Member’s Bill currently going through this House to achieve that. Should that not go through, we will introduce legislation in a later Session in this Parliament in order to do that. We are also working with local authorities and others to improve the enforcement of the current animal welfare legislation.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

After the “News at Ten” exposé of foxhunters discussing how to put up the smokescreen of trail hunting when foxhunts break the law—exemptions that they describe as a “good wheeze”—is the Environment Secretary satisfied that the Hunting Act 2004 is as strong as it needs to be to stop illegal hunting? I am not.

[George Eustice]

The Hunting Act was brought forward by the Labour party, and there is now a consensus across this House that it should remain. Where there is a breach of that legislation, obviously the police can investigate, and they do.

[Luke Pollard]

No, that is not a good enough answer. We support the strengthening of that Act and I hope that the Environment Secretary will too. Forestry England has just announced a ban on hunts using its land in response to the exposé. Should not other landowners now follow this lead and ban trail hunters from their land as well?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

No!

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we are discussing agriculture, let me place on the record my traditional declaration of interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall.

As these SIs appear to be technical and uncontroversial, we will not oppose them, but I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister is able to help with. I gave her advance notice of some of the most difficult ones, so I hope she has some good answers. British farmers and British farming matter, which is why Labour has consistently been so vocal on issues relating to agriculture and food standards, and I will continue that today.

These new regulations deal with technical matters relating to how food is sold, distributed and marketed, so forgive me for jumping into the detail right away. May I ask the Minister about the periods for bringing the systems contained in the regulations online? It is important that we have operable systems so that the whole framework of regulation works and people know what information is required and when it is required.

As the Minister will know, her Department told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that it has retained a two-year transition period for fruit and vegetables

“in order to allow policy teams to deliver the necessary IT system changes and recruit additional HMI inspectors”,

but for poultry meat the period is 12 months,

“as we do not currently enforce poultrymeat marketing standards, so will need sufficient time to operationalise the regime before being in a position to conduct the associated checks.”

When these SIs were debated in the House of Lords, the Minister in the Lords, Lord Gardiner, apologised, saying that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

“did not provide sufficient context on checks relating to poultry meat marketing standards and this may have caused concern, but it has since been clarified”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC706.]

I will be grateful if the Minister mentions that clarification briefly when she gets to her feet to conclude the debate. Will she also set out the reason for the two-year delay in the implementation of those systems, and the difference between the fruit and veg and the poultry systems? I suspect that the IT system will not be ready for 1 January 2021, but I will be grateful if she confirms that.

We have been told that the Government have been engaging with businesses on a sector by sector basis. I am grateful for that, but may I ask what conversations the Department has had with businesses affected by these particular regulations and how they feel about them?

Lord Gardiner also told Members in the other place that the Government are working closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency

“to ensure that we have the right calibre of inspectors.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC712.]

I thought that was a curious turn of phrase, so I will be grateful if the Minister sets out whether we have the right numbers of inspectors and, perhaps as hinted at by the Minister in the other place, whether they have all received the right level of training in order to be operational as well as present.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also drew our attention to the fact that the UK does not currently enforce poultry meat marketing standards. Does that mean that if poultry meat and other products were imported from a third country, they could still be described as free range or organic and that would not be checked? Is that what enforcement of those standards means? I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that that will not be the case. She knows my concern—I do not want to see any back doors for chlorine-washed chicken being marketed as anything else—so will she set out clearly that that is not one of those back doors? Could unregulated poultry meat be mixed with other products and given a misleading description? I do not believe that that is the case here, but will the Minister set that out? Also, the explanatory memorandum refers to the organic certifiers group having been consulted. I would be grateful if she set out whether it is now content with the regulations.

The Minister was correct that a great deal of the amendments in the draft regulations seek to change the designation of “United Kingdom” to “Great Britain”. Will she reassure us that all conversations with counterparts in Northern Ireland have been successful in respect of that, and that no issues are outstanding? Looking at the debate in the other place when that point was made, Lord Goldsmith had previously stated that there are now 72 planned border posts for inspections. As we are dealing with the inspection of agricultural products, which can cross the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland a number of times in the lifespan of a food product being made, will the Minister address some of the issues that Lord Gardiner may have omitted in his response to questions in the other place about whether the planned locations of those border posts have all been identified and published, and whether staff have been fully trained and will be operational by the end of the transition period, in particular in relation to the inspection of agricultural products, which the regulations deal with?

The Minister made mention in her remarks of the need to have fully operable regulations by the end of the Brexit transition period. The Opposition would like to see them in place, but we are here today because the original regulations were not properly transposed and a series of mistakes were made. That is why we are revisiting the regulations. I am of course grateful for the Minister laying statutory instruments to correct the mistakes and omissions of the previous SIs, but passing bad laws wastes the time of everybody here and is particularly frustrating when brilliant Bills such as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill struggle to find parliamentary time. We are using a large period on Monday evening that could have been used to pass that important legislation.

When we look at the enormous volumes of secondary legislation and new regulations that will come from DEFRA in the next couple of weeks to deal with our exit from the transition period, it is important to ensure against any more pollution of our statute books with bad regulation that will subsequently need to be changed. It should concern us all that bad laws have been passed, and I will be grateful if the Minister sets out what lessons have been learned from the first time the SI was considered to ensure that we are not in a similar place again. Having had to present the SI twice, I know she probably shares my frustration.

The Minister knows that that is not the first time that this has happened. Indeed, regular watchers of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs will recall the debate on the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, from 21 October last year, when the same problem was brought before this House. I stress the importance of ensuring that we get such regulations right the first time around. However, I am grateful to the Government business managers for bringing this draft SI before the House, so that the thousands of people who are clearly watching this debate will know what is going on, rather than hiding it away in a dusty Committee Room, for which the viewing figures on parliamentlive.tv might not be as profound as I am sure they are for this evening’s debate.

In all seriousness, there is a route to ensure that such regulations are gotten correct the first time around. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether any lessons have been learned in relation to that, because a bewildering scale of new secondary legislation is about to come on to the statute books for farmers and for industry. It is important that farmers and the farming community have confidence that when the House passes regulations, they have been passed after detailed scrutiny and are correct.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know, because you have probably sat through me saying this a few times before, that I am concerned that the Government still use the phraseology in its impact assessments of “no impact” and “no significant impact” as similar terms. The Minister knows that, because she and I have sat in many statutory instrument Committees where I have bemoaned such usage. “No impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things. The lack of an impact assessment for these statutory instruments concerns me, when there is potentially such a difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact”, and especially given that we are looking at these regulations for the second time and are having to correct errors from the first time. I know that the Minister will say that this is a House matter, but I would be grateful if she could confirm that she will be taking up that point with the Leader of the House to ensure that it is addressed for future statutory instruments.

Labour stands with our farmers, and we want our food and farming standards kept high after we leave the Brexit transition period. We want to keep high-quality food on our children’s plates, and to ensure that there is a level playing field for British farmers to stop them being undercut by food produced to lower standards from abroad.

We were pleased to see concessions from the Minister in relation to the campaign led by Labour and the National Farmers Union to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis to allow more scrutiny of trade deals. There is still a long way to go, but many of those trade deals will be enacted by secondary legislation, and it is important that they are properly looked at. The market for agricultural products should matter to every one of us because a market tilted against the interests of consumers harms families, one tilted in favour of supermarkets harms consumer pockets, and one tilted in favour of importers over domestic production risks signing the death warrant for British farmers.

Labour will not oppose these regulations. However, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out how we can ensure that we get regulations right the first time round. Particularly for regulations dealing with Northern Ireland, we must ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive are comfortable with the proposals that the Minister has set out.

Agriculture Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I warn Members that there will be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. We obviously have very little time and many people wish to speak, so the shorter the better. I remind Members that brevity is the soul of wit.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 16B. Like the Minister, I declare an interest: my little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic and the work they will be undertaking during the second lockdown.

We have been here before, and we may yet be here again. I welcome the Government’s adoption of large parts of Labour policy since the last time we spoke about the Agriculture Bill. I have to say to the Minister that we are not quite there yet, but we are nearly there. The vote on food standards today is being followed by people in all our communities. It is a decision about what type of country we want Britain to be. I want Britain to be a country of high standards that respects the welfare of animals and ensures that environmental protection is baked into our food chain. We therefore continue to press Ministers to put our high food and farming standards into law.

I turn to the Government’s concessions and the amendment in the Minister’s name, which puts them into action. I am glad that, after voting against attempts to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission a short time ago, the Government have changed their mind and listened to farmers, the National Farmers Union and Labour, in particular, on strengthening it. I thank Ministers for their efforts, and in particular the Farming Minister for her personal effort in trying to reach a compromise on that. I am grateful for all the work she has done. In particular, I thank Lord Grantchester, Baroness Jones and the Lords Minister, Lord Gardiner, for what has taken place. It has been a team effort, and it has included the work of the National Farmers Union and Minette Batters.

The Minister was up against a hard deadline to pass this Bill because of the Government’s decision to oppose an extension to the powers in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which Labour proposed when we discussed this on 21 January. We suggested that Ministers take an extra 12 months of power so that they would not be up against a deadline, and I recall Ministers saying that that would not be necessary. It turns out that a bit of forward planning is a good thing. I encourage Ministers to look at such amendments the next time we introduce them, rather than arguing against them simply because of where they came from. It is important that farmers are paid.

Working side by side with our nation’s farmers, we have helped to secure two key concessions from Ministers. The first is that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be put on a statutory basis, renewable every three years. That will happen in the form of an amendment to the Trade Bill. That amendment has not yet been published, so we cannot see the words, the meaning and the effect that it will have. When will we see the Government’s Trade Bill amendment on strengthening the Trade and Agriculture Commission so that we can understand how it will work legally with the new clause in this Bill?

We know that the International Trade Secretary and the Environment Secretary have not always agreed on food standards. The truth is that I do not trust the Department for International Trade not to break any promises once this Bill is passed. It is clear that despite having one Government, we sometimes have two competing food agendas. Will the Minister confirm that discussions about the wording of the amendment will take place with the Opposition and will involve DEFRA and DIT Ministers?

Will the Minister also give a commitment on the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? Although it is broad at the moment, we feel it could be strengthened by an enhanced consumer voice, and with trade unions being part of it. I know that there is a proposal for trade unions to sit on a small union sub-committee, but having unions—a voice of the workers in our food sector—as part of that main body would be important.

The second concession that the Minister accepted was to enhance the scrutiny of trade deals, in recognition that the proposals put forward previously were inadequate. Strengthening that is supported on both sides of the House. There is more that can be done here. That is an argument that the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and I have been making consistently, but I feel that we can go a wee bit further.

I welcome that the Government will require a report to assess any trade deals against the standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and plant health, but this is extra scrutiny; it is not a vote on this matter. That is what we agreed and I think what should happen. The amendment the Minister has tabled only proposes that the report will be laid before parliamentary Committees and not to the House itself. It will not be subject to an automatic vote; only to a circuitous and fragile route. The House will know that, for a vote to happen, the CRaG process requires that the Government, in their generosity, would award the Opposition an Opposition day to challenge the trade deal if that trade deal falls below the standards we expect, regardless of what the TAC report may say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will carry on for just one moment, if I may.

The Minister says that a deal can be prayed against, but what we need is a proper system of parliamentary scrutiny, not a reliance on the benevolence of any Government Minister to afford the Opposition an Opposition day. To avoid any further ping-pong, I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee now, and furthermore say in a published ministerial statement, that the Government will not unreasonably refuse an Opposition day for that purpose, in particular when it comes to a vote on any food standards in any future trade deals.

I want to press the Minister on the wording in Government amendment (a). We have spoken about this and I hope she will be able to give some clarity. The wording “consistent with” is used in relation to our own standards. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where that has the same legal meaning as “equivalent to”. Many Lords had a similar concern about that and I would be grateful if she could set out the difference around what that means. I also think there is a logic to using production standards as one of the areas. I know the Government can ask the Trade and Agriculture Commission to look at things beyond what is in primary legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could look at whether production standards could also be used in relation to that.

Will the plans for parliamentary scrutiny include deciding negotiation objectives, consultation, access to texts during negotiations, and a statutory role for the relevant Select Committees as well as the TAC? The duty in the Government’s new clause is to report to Parliament on to what extent commitments in new free trade agreements relating to agriculture products are consistent with maintaining UK standards. Will the Minister explain if that will allow deals to let in imports of those products, provided that it is merely reported to Parliament, or will that provision enable goods produced to lower standards to be stopped from entering the UK?

[Jim Shannon]

One important factor for us in Northern Ireland, and especially in my constituency, is the milk sector. It is very important that the high standards we have in our products which are sold across the world are maintained. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that under the Bill the high standards we have will be maintained by every other country in the world that will have a chance to bring their products into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I think that is a point the Minister should address in her remarks as well. We should be a beacon for high standards. As the Minister herself moved an amendment to the Fisheries Bill on seal protection precisely to enable our trade with the United States, which had higher legislative standards on seal protection—not on other things, perhaps—we need to make sure that that works on both sides of the Atlantic. That is a good principle that I hope the Minister will adopt.

I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so will quickly run through this. We need to put our food and farming standards into law. Farmers have a genuine and widespread concern about that, and I think it is still missing from where the Government have moved to. The movement from the Government is welcome. It showed that the arguments the Government whipped their MPs to support could be further improved, an argument made by Conservative Back Benchers, as well as Labour. I believe there are further concessions that could help to undo the final concerns on this matter. I want to see farmers paid. I want to see the Agriculture Bill put into law. I expect that many of these issues will return to us when the Trade Bill comes back to this House.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to rise to support the Government amendments this evening. I am sure the Whips will be delighted to hear that. I thank the Prime Minister for his involvement in getting us to this solution. I also thank the Secretaries of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for the Department for International Trade, and I thank the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for all her hard work in bringing us all together. I believe that this is a very good day not only for agriculture and food, but for the environment and animal welfare in this country and across the world.

Pet Theft

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for introducing the debate with such verve. The Member whom he replaced had a similar verve when it came to animals, so there is clearly something in the way Ipswich elects people that ensures that they are animal friendly.

Like others, I place on the record my thanks to the researchers and other people who have been fighting so hard on this issue for so long. That is an aspect to which I would like to return. As the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) so ably and politely put it when mentioning it to the Minister, we have been here before. No matter how good the debate has been—this has been a very good debate—it is not the quality of the debate but the pressure on the Minister to act that we need to look at.

We have all heard this stated before, but it is true that the theft of a pet is not a simple matter of theft of an item, nor should it be treated as such by the law. It is the callous and criminal removal of a family member. It is kidnapping. It is something that strikes at the very heart of the family unit. Pet theft is a tragedy that should be measured more in emotional distress than in economic loss.

The debate has touched on not just pet theft but a number of parallel issues relating to animal welfare and protection of animals: microchipping, animal cruelty, criminal breeding, puppy farming and the import and export of animals. I think that we should not just take one item, as a line item, to look at what can be done, but recognise that pet theft plays into a much bigger concern about the future and the welfare of our animals. One of the opportunities, which has not been spoken about in the debate so far, is that of bringing together those bits of outstanding welfare legislation for which we are still waiting. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) hinted in her remarks, there is enormous cross-party support for many of those items sitting in Ministers’ to-do trays.

I think that the approach that Ministers have adopted, especially since 2015, of parcelling up animal welfare into smaller and smaller Bills, smaller issues, and dealing with them one by one is a fantastic way of gaining headlines, but it does not deal with the comprehensive nature of some of those challenges. I encourage the Minister to look at whether animal sentience and animal welfare sentencing—assuming that there is not enough time for the Bill that was spoken about; it is due to be debated on Friday, and I hope that there will be—as well as cat microchipping and the other issues can be wrapped up together in a flagship animal welfare Bill that could be in the Queen’s Speech. I think that there would be enormous public support not just on this issue but for a whole host of other animal welfare concerns if that were the case.

A number of hon. Members spoke passionately and it is only appropriate that I mention some of them, because it does tell a story about what is going on. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, talked about the law being sub-optimal and not working. That is a cross-party concern that was echoed right across the Chamber. The reality of it, mentioned by the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), is that only one in five animals are returned, meaning that enormous amounts of families are without their pets each and every year. That figure is important.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Kieran Mullan) talked about the importance of the data. I agree with him on that: the stretched police resource and the real pressure on the police mean that in many cases these crimes are not being properly recorded as pet theft. They are recorded as animals going missing, or simply not at all. That is especially true of certain age groups who do not want to be a burden or to bother the authorities. They might sit at home desperately worried about their animal, but will not want to make an appeal or burden the police with it. I say to all those people who have lost or are worried about an animal to report it. Animals in animal shelters up and down the country are waiting to be reunited with people. It is important that we encourage that so that we can get the data, as mentioned by the hon. Member, to make sure that the work is being done properly.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) said that pets are priceless, and indeed a number of Members have spoken today about the economic value of their own animals in this regard. A law based simply on an animal’s economic value will always discount and disregard the emotional value of that animal. A bigger change in animal welfare legislation is a theme we have seen in the past decade or so: we are recognising not just animals as little furry creatures, but their role within our families and within our society, and the values we want to attach to those animals are being reflected in the legislation that governs them. There has been a gap there, and there are opportunities to close that gap. I say to the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that we all wish the village of Wherwell the best of luck with their endeavours in relation to finding Cleo. It is good to see so many people feeling strongly about the issue.

Animal welfare has been mentioned as a topic at the top of our inboxes. When I explain that to people, there is an element of shock and surprise in their first instant reaction, “Is it not Brexit? Is it not covid-19?” Then there is the realisation that people love animals more than they love people sometimes. It is no surprise to me that animal welfare is at the top of our agenda, and that demands that the action follows it.

As a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have hinted, when we talk about the theft of an animal we need to look at it not just in the moment of its being stolen, not just as regards the use of sophisticated machinery—as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich in reference to the theft of a number of animals—and not just as being about opportunism. We also need to think about happens to the animal afterwards. I know that when someone loses an animal, they do not think about the economic cost, they worry about what is happening to that animal at that point. They worry about whether the animal is trapped somewhere. “Can’t they get out? Are they okay? Is there something I can do to safeguard and protect the animal?” The worry and concern eats away. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Lisa Cameron), spoke about the psychological torture at the moment of loss. That is what is so cruel about this crime, because it is torturous. It is a form of torture when we lose an animal along the way, and that needs to be properly reflected.

These petitions are good petitions. There is an enormous opportunity to do something about the situation. We know that pets are not simply possessions. Labour are sympathetic to the need to do more to tackle pet theft, including considering the possible changes in the law that have been spoken about so passionately across the Chamber today. There is an opportunity for Ministers to work with campaigners, because despite the reasons that have been discussed for the Government refusing to act so far—that sentences already exist and that there are criminal and sentencing guidelines—those measures are not working. This is a moment to look again at not just the words on the page of the guidelines, but how they are being implemented. They are not being implemented in a way that, I believe, carries public confidence in the measures. There is an opportunity to change that.

I hope that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill that has, like this debate, been seen many times before will get proper attention on Friday as a private Member’s Bill. Indeed, I have called on the Government to adopt it as a Government Bill to ensure that it has enough time, and I encourage the Minister to make sure that is the case.

My neighbour, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) spoke passionately about the need to microchip cats. Indeed, just before the last general election some of us, in this same room, debated the need to microchip cats. That was a compelling case then, and it remains a compelling case now.

With the world in crisis, a jobs crisis looming and covid-19 taking up much of the Government’s bandwidth, how can we get animal welfare issues properly on the agenda? I say to the Minister that wrapping them together in a comprehensive animal welfare law is one way to do that, and I encourage her to include puppy smuggling as part of that. When we talk about puppy smuggling, we frequently talk about animals smuggled into the United Kingdom, but there is also the reverse trend. That is especially being used at the moment to satisfy the demand of people seeking to buy an animal during the lockdown.

We have heard a number of times during the debate about how pets offer such important companionship—they are part of the family. We know there has been a real increase in the value of animals during the lockdown, particularly dachshunds, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, pugs and chow chows—prices have been shooting up. The price of a dachshunds has shot up by a whopping 80% since the start of the lockdown. That is a market that criminals will prey on, and I encourage the Minister to ensure that that is taken into account.

Plymouth is no different from many of the places that have been mentioned so far in the debate, and there is enormous public concern that we should not find ourselves here again in six months’ time. When the Minister addresses hon. Members’ valid and well-put concerns, I encourage her to offer reassurance that all the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition, including 500 people in Plymouth, will not need to sign the same petition again to get another debate in order to put pressure on a Minister to enact what is a very clear and obvious instruction from the public—indeed, from the House—that we want to see pet theft taken more seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

There has been a problem for some years in the fact that the levy is collected at the point of slaughter, and Scottish farmers have raised with us a concern that animals crossing the border meant they did not capture all of the levy. We have now put in place the powers to address that, which is indeed very good news for our Scottish farmers.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that he has a plan to let food produced to lower standards in to Britain if a few extra pence is charged on tariffs, meaning that our farmers will still be undercut if tariff protection is introduced as an excuse to allowing lower quality food into our country?

[George Eustice]

I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps misunderstands the current situation in that it is already possible for these countries to sell us goods at a particular tariff provided they meet our sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and that will not change. However, tariff policy is the best tool in the box to address issues such as animal welfare.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I am afraid it is too early to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I look forward to future discussions with him about that. Some of tonight’s amendments do relate to Northern Ireland, but I do not think that he will be surprised by any of them.

I am concerned that those who support the sustainability amendment are losing sight of the importance of the precautionary objective, which will ensure that we maintain and rebuild healthy fish stocks, and indeed the ecosystem objective, which is critical to allow us to take a joined-up approach to protecting our precious marine environment. Those objectives will together help to deliver for sustainable fishing much more than were we to have only the sustainability objective. I am concerned that those who support the amendment would see the other objectives deprioritised.

I am keen to be able to balance environmental, social and economic needs. I am worried that if the amendment is passed, it would mean that, for example, infra- structure projects in ports that might cause a short-term environmental detriment could not be built, which would in turn deprive coastal communities of future economic benefits. Another example is the issue of choke—when one fish quota is set so low that all other fishing in a mixed fishery is effectively prohibited. Over the past two years, if we had not been able to agree with the EU a small quota above scientific advice for cod in the Celtic sea, for example, the choke issue would have led to the closure of many valuable fisheries in the south-west that aim at other species, some of which are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

With coastal communities in mind, let us move to amendment 1. As we have said, we must have the flexibility to support the social and economic wellbeing of our coastal communities. Again delivering on a commitment in our White Paper, I am really pleased to announce that the Government have launched a consultation on proposals to strengthen the economic link licence condition for English-registered vessels.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

A Labour party policy.

[Victoria Prentis]

It may well be a Labour party policy now, but it was in our 2018 White Paper. The economic link is the route through which we ensure that there is a benefit to the UK from quota fished by UK boats. I am glad to see consensus across the House on this issue; it is clearly a sensible policy. Our consultation proposes a more sophisticated approach than amendment 1 would deliver, and one that I believe will bring higher value benefits to the UK and its coastal communities.

The consultation proposes increasing the landing requirement to 70% for quota species, strengthening the quota donation requirement, or using a combination of the two to meet the economic link requirement. Quota donation directly benefits the under-10-metre fleet, and that brings great benefits to their local ports and communities. Under amendment 1, our vessels would lose the flexibility to land where it is most suitable for their business. That might not always been an English port. Fishermen want to land where they can get the best prices, where it is most convenient or where there is the most appropriate port infrastructure. For example, the Voyager, which is registered in Northern Ireland, is too big to land in any Northern Irish ports and must instead land into Ireland.

Turning to amendment 3, I know that my colleagues and their constituents—indeed, all our constituents—feel strongly about supertrawlers. There is only one UK- registered vessel in the category of over 100 metres in length, but I recognise that there are considerable concerns, for example, about the Lithuanian registered vessel, the Margiris. The Fisheries Bill provides powers to attach conditions, such as the areas that can be fished and the type of fishing gear that can be used, to fishing vessel licences. Foreign vessels permitted to fish in UK waters will have to follow UK rules—including, of course, our conditions. When vessels do not comply with the conditions of their licences, action can be taken to restrict or prohibit their future activities.