Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing, which thankfully you all are doing, and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee whenever you are not speaking. If necessary, I will intervene to remind you. Note passing should be electronic only. The Hansard reporters will be most grateful if Members email any electronic copies of speaking notes to [e-mail]. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. In this case, there will be three debates: the first on the amendment, the second on the existing content of the Bill, and the third on the new clause.

Clause 1

Mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain animal welfare offences

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

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (1) insert—

(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8, and the person guilty of the offence—

(a) filmed themselves committing the offence, or

(b) posted online a video of themselves committing the offence.

(1B) The court—

(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and

(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.”

This amendment would make an offence covered by this Bill more serious for the purpose of sentencing if the guilty person filmed themselves, or posted a video online of themselves, committing it.

The amendment stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are all here because we want to give a voice to the voiceless and to speak up for the animals that cannot speak for themselves. That is, for me, something very personal, and I know that for many other members of the Bill Committee, protecting animals and giving them a voice is something that they have made a key part of their parliamentary career and time—whether longer or shorter—in this place.

Those who are familiar with me speaking about animal cruelty will know that I normally cite the gorgeous Bumblesnarf, which was one of my early cats and whose name was obviously taken from Bumblebee from “Transformers” and Snarf from “ThunderCats”. Animals have an integrity all by themselves. Whether we are talking about my animals or the ones that the Minister talks about in her speeches, there is something profoundly special about those little bundles of fluff, something very important, something that we should give due respect to in the way we treat them and the way they are treated by the law.

We know that there has been a huge increase in animal cruelty, especially during lockdown. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has dealt with 106,676 incidents—an average of 790 a day. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for introducing the Bill, which has taken many different forms and iterations over the past few years. It has been a baton passed from the Labour party to the Conservatives, and vice versa.

It is important to say early on that the Bill enjoys cross-party support. We want to see it progress and will be supporting it today. We will not push any of our amendments to a vote, because that ensures that fewer Members are required today, at a time of national lockdown, but we will seek to divide the House on Report. I hope, looking at the Minister, that she can give a nod that says the Bill will be considered on Report, will be adopted by the Government and will be pushed through the House, particularly because we know that the end of the Session is coming up and, if there is no carry-over motion, this Bill will fall, as all the others have done. It sometimes seems that the Bill enjoys so much support that it does not get enough attention to actually be placed on the Government agenda for parliamentary business. I hope that that will be different this time round.

Raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty is common sense and has support across the House. That would also bring England and Wales in line with Canada, Australia, Latvia, New Zealand and, closer to home, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The truth is that the Bill has been in the long grass for far too long and has not had the attention it deserves. That means that its component parts and proposed amendments have not been given due attention. My amendment was first proposed to the Bill introduced in July 2016 by the then Labour MP for Redcar, Anna Turley, who deserves many thanks for all the work that she did in drafting the Bill and introducing it in such a clear, professional and non-partisan way.

The Government at the time said that they would support the Bill and even published a further Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. We had that Bill in Committee last year, but it fell because of the general election. We now have this private Member’s Bill and I have written to the Secretary of State twice to ask him to find time to pass it before the end of the Session. As I mentioned, there is no time to waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

On the basis that we will be seeking to press this amendment and explore it further on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am grateful to you and to fellow members of the Committee for joining me here today.

I first address the matter of the timeliness of the Bill. I want to give all members of the Committee confidence that my colleagues who feel passionate about the Bill and I are doing all that we can to ensure that the Bill progresses in this parliamentary Session. We continue to actively lobby the Leader of the House and others to ensure that we can do that. I would warmly welcome any further support on that matter.

The Bill, which received its Second Reading in the House on 23 October 2020, will increase the maximum sentence for those convicted of the worst animal cruelty offences in England and Wales tenfold, from six months to five years. This country has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, but in terms of maximum penalties, we are currently among the lowest.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, I was inspired to bring forward this Bill by my own dog, Poppy, a springer spaniel I rescued after she had been abandoned on the roadside on a stormy night several years ago in my home constituency of West Dorset. It was clear that she had been very much mistreated. We have heard many cases of animal cruelty outlined over the course of this Bill, both in this Session and in previous Sessions, whether in Finn’s law, Poppy’s law or others; there are many that I know people feel strongly about. None the less, this Bill is short and non-controversial, in my view, but could have a profound effect on animal welfare.

Clause 1 is the Bill’s main clause. It outlines the mode of trial and maximum penalty for certain animal welfare offences. As the current maximum custodial sentence is proposed to be extended to five years, these offences will become triable either way and may be heard in either the magistrate’s court or the Crown court, depending on the severity of the offence.

Specifically, clause 1(2) changes the maximum custodial sentence for the most serious offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These are: causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal; carrying out a non-exempted mutilation; docking the tail of a dog, except where permitted; administering a poison to an animal; and involvement in an animal fight.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the Bill amends, all protected animals are covered. In its legal definition, a protected animal is a vertebrate animal

“of a kind…commonly domesticated in the British Islands”.

Animals not commonly domesticated, such as wildlife, are protected animals to the extent that they are under the control of man or are not living in their wild state.

Subsection (3) relates to the mode of sentencing. Under section 78 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, magistrates courts do not have the power to impose penalties greater than six months. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum custodial sentence imposable by a magistrates court to 12 months, but to date that section has not been commenced. The clause reflects that position. In practice, this means that the existing maximum penalty of six months and/or unlimited fine is retained if the offender is summarily convicted. However, with the passing of the Bill, offenders may receive a higher penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine if they are convicted on trial by indictment.

The current maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences of six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine have been in place for more than 20 years. I recall that on Second Reading we debated the fact that the previous restrictions were brought in by a private Member’s Bill some time ago. However, since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force, volumes of prosecutions have been a little over 1,000 a year, with a conviction rate of around 80%. Those found guilty of general animal cruelty have a 10% chance of receiving a custodial sentence. The average custodial sentence is around 3.5 months and, as we debated on Second Reading, if there is a guilty plea, it is often much less. However, each year we hear more terrible stories about how animals have suffered at the hands of people who are—unbelievably—sometimes their owners.

The Bill will mean that perpetrators who harm an animal by causing unnecessary suffering, mutilation or poisoning will finally be subject to the full force of the law. That includes cases of systematic cruelty, like the deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour of the ruthless gangs who use dog fighting to fuel organised crime. This Bill will mean that the courts will have sentences at their disposal commensurate to the most serious cases, so that the punishment fits the crime. Offences such as fly-tipping can carry penalties of up to five years in prison. It is not right, therefore, that torturing a sentient being—an animal—to death leads today to a maximum penalty of just six months’ imprisonment. The clause will ensure that, in those rare but shocking cases, offenders are properly punished. The new maximum sentence will also send a clear signal to any future offenders that animal cruelty will not be tolerated.

Clause 2 provides the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to England and Wales only. Animal welfare is a fully devolved matter, but the Welsh Government have confirmed that the maximum penalty should also apply in Wales, so the Bill is drafted on that basis. The Welsh Government are preparing a legislative consent motion so that the Bill can be extended and applied in Wales. Subsection (2) provides the date of commencement: the Act will come into force two months after Royal Assent is received. Clause 2 also ensures that the application of revised maximum penalties is not retrospective and does not apply to offences committed before the Bill comes into force. It also specifies the short title as the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2020.

For the reasons that I have set out, I hope the Committee will agree that clauses 1 and 2 should stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

I support the comments from the hon. Gentleman, who has done a good job in building cross-party support in his usual way. Clauses 1 and 2 are good and we will not oppose them.

I want to pose a question to the Minister about clause 1 and disqualification. The proposal to increase maximum sentences from six months to five years is welcome. It will of course be up to the court to decide the point on that scale for any offence. The Dogs Trust has raised the point about issuing disqualification orders where the court has imposed the maximum penalty, to ensure that those convicted of the most extreme animal cruelty and receiving the maximum penalty face mandatory disqualification.

The courts are able to issue disqualifications. It is important to note that at the moment disqualifications are regarded not as part of the punishment but as part of measures to prevent future abuse of animals. However, the Dogs Trust makes a strong case for mandatory disqualification in the event of maximum penalties being imposed, as provided for by the Bill.

There certainly have been recent examples, such as that reported yesterday in Plymouth’s local paper, The Herald, of poor Riot, an American pocket bully-type dog in Plymouth, who had her ears cropped. She was seized by the RSPCA and, thankfully, rehomed. The courts chose not to issue a disqualification order on the owner. That would be one of those points that the public does not understand: how someone can be convicted of severe animal cruelty but not be automatically disqualified. I appreciate that that point sits complementary to clause 1, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed it in her response.

[Victoria Prentis]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, whose family has farmed in west Dorset for four generations. I know that they have all been committed to the care of their animals and that he feels very strongly about the subject matter of the Bill.

As we have heard, the Bill would make a significant change to the way in which people who commit serious offences against animals will be dealt with by the courts. By increasing the maximum custodial penalty from six months to five years, it enables cases to be heard when necessary in the Crown court. That will largely depend on the seriousness of the case, but the defendants will also have a say in that matter, on whether they would like their case to heard in a higher court and in front of a jury. The legal system is well placed to make those decisions.

I am glad that the Welsh Government have confirmed that the proposed new maximum penalty should also apply in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have already set the maximum penalty for such offences at five years. We do not take increasing maximum penalties for offences lightly. There must be a proven need to do so. As my hon. Friend said earlier, in some cases magistrates have commented in open court that they would have passed longer sentences had that been available to them.

The increase in maximum penalties follows from an amendment made in 2019, known as Finn’s law, which provided better protection for service animals. I am sure that hon. Members will remember that Finn is a police dog who was stabbed by an assailant he had restrained. Despite incurring serious wounds, Finn ensured that the attacker was caught. He recovered from his injuries and returned to duty before eventually retiring from the service. I was pleased to meet him on one of his trips to Parliament. When this Bill is enacted, it will ensure not only that offenders who have caused harm to service animals are brought to justice, but that they will face stiffer penalties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause relates to a discussion that we had on Second Reading about the relationship between this Bill and protections for wild animals. Although we will not be pressing it to a Division, we think this is an important issue.

Our new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on the Bill’s effectiveness within two years of it coming into force. That would include providing specific assessments of its effects on animal welfare and the overall coherence of UK animal welfare legislation in its entirety, including sentencing under specified Acts relating to wildlife, which are listed in the new clause.

The new clause is important, because as it stands the proposals in the Bill apply only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore not to wild animals, in the way that they apply to domestic animals. The Bill of course improves the deterrence impact of penalties for cruelties that come under the Animal Welfare Act, but maximum penalties for cruelty offences under the legislation listed in new clause 1 remain at six months. Our concern is that that creates a two-tier system for penalties for cruelly against domestic and wild animals, even if by oversight as opposed to intention. That seems to lead to the possible situation in which torturing a pet cat and torturing a feral cat, or kicking to death a wild rabbit and a domesticated rabbit, could lead to different penalties. It is clear that offenders do not discriminate between wild and domestic animals in inflicting cruelty. We sadly heard in previous debates on various iterations of this legislation about a wild rabbit hit with a log and stabbed with a pen, a squirrel set on fire, and a driver putting down chips in a road to attract wild birds so that he could run them over.

The RSPCA’s most recent annual prosecution report from 2019 specifically lists notable cases it has seen against wildlife, including two men captured on a fly-tipping surveillance camera taking a live pheasant out of their boot and violently attacking it for several minutes, while a third man filmed the abuse on his phone. That reflects our earlier discussions. In November 2020, the RSPCA saw the horrific case of a man who tortured a hedgehog by cutting off its limbs and burning its head and eyes with candle wax. These things are so horrible that they are barely repeatable.

Our view is that those animals have the same welfare needs. Any attack on them has the same impact on their welfare, regardless of whether they are an animal in human care or in the wild. They all feel pain and suffer, and the people who harm them should feel the full force of the law.

When the Government’s 2019 version of this Bill was in Committee, Members heard evidence from solicitor Mike Schwarz, who expressed his concerns that a two-tier approach to domestic and wild animals could end in confusion for the judiciary and prosecutors. He warned:

“the danger of disparities and distortions, and even confusion, caused by the ramping up—that is not a critical comment—of maximum sentencing in one area, which is the domesticated and under-control-of-man area, while leaving well behind the maximum sentence in other areas. As you know, the disparity is between six months in most other areas—in the Hunting Act 2004, it is even less—and five years under the Bill. That may cause problems when it comes to sentencing.”

He also noted the very pertinent point that, when it comes to animal cruelty in this country,

“different sectors of the same activity—animal welfare, animal care, animal husbandry—are treated differently. I cannot think of an area, although I am happy to be corrected and I might be wrong, where there is that difference in sentencing when it comes to the same offence.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Public Bill Committee, 23 July 2019; c. 12-13, Q18.]

We believe that after the passing of this Bill, a review is necessary to examine the level of penalties available to courts for cruelty offences across animal welfare legislation as a whole. As I say, we do not want to delay the Bill. We want it on the statute book quickly, which is why we are asking for a review afterwards. The Opposition are quite clear that all animals are equal and deserve to be treated with respect and kindness, and we believe that that should be reflected properly in the law.

I also note that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), pointed out in Committee in 2019 that a review of wildlife legislation had recently been undertaken, with the Law Commission publishing proposals for a simpler and more flexible framework in 2015. I understand that the Government’s response to that report made it clear that they had no intention of implementing those recommendations in the immediate future, yet the Minister seemed to stress at the previous Committee that, with the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government may re-examine those proposals. I encourage this Minister to outline any intentions that the Government have so to do.

To conclude, I want to make a few comments about hare coursing. Although serious and organised cases of animal cruelty in the form of dog fighting will, we think, be prosecuted under this Bill, the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing will likely not. Such instances currently fall under the Hunting Act 2004, and Crown Prosecution Service guidance suggests that the police in fact prosecute hare coursing offenders under the Game Act 1831.

It is a widely held view in the countryside, from farmers to rural police officers, that penalties for that crime are woefully inadequate as form of deterrent. Ministry of Justice data shows that from 2014 to 2018, average fines under the Game Act were just £227, yet this is a hugely disruptive crime, focused on animal cruelty, that is continuing to blight the lives of many farmers. In December only last year, a hare courser put a gun to a farmer’s head and threatened to shoot him at point-blank range during a confrontation in Wiltshire. It is a cause of persistent problems in Cambridgeshire, and regular representations to Government are made by Cambridgeshire MPs on a cross-party basis.

Frankly, the legislation is almost 200 years out of date. It was designed in a very different time, for a very different problem—certainly not for the brutal, international gambling-driven thugs that our long-suffering police officers have to deal with. Any indication from the Minister on what steps the Government intend to take to strengthen penalties for hare coursing would be very much welcomed—but, to put it simply, can we just get on with it?

[Luke Pollard]

I rise in support of my hon. Friend’s remarks on extending the provisions to include wild animals. I take this from a simple perspective: how would we explain to a member of the public, or to a child, that one rabbit will be treated differently from another rabbit, depending on whether it is in a cage or in a field? How do we instil the same sense of value for both those animals if one is treated differently by the law from the other? There is a case here for including wild animals; I appreciate that the opportunity to include them in this Bill may not be immediately forthcoming, but I believe that is a clear and important part of ensuring that wild animals do matter—that all animals matter.

The second part of the new clause, which is worthy of being adopted by the Minister, is the two-year review of this legislation to see how it is working. One area in particular that needs to be looked at is the effects of the restrictions around coronavirus and covid-19 on animal cruelty. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that we have seen an increase in the number of cases of animal cruelty during these restrictions. It would be useful to policy makers and to those seeking to enforce this legislation if there was an assessment about its impacts on animal cruelty, at a time when we know animal cruelty is increasing, to see whether the deterrent effect is working.

In particular, it would be useful to assess how the provisions of the Bill can be better communicated to people, to ensure that they make better decisions before committing cruelty to an animal, recognising that there are now stronger and tougher penalties that equally are being used by the courts as a form of deterrence as well as a form of punishment. That is an element that could also be looked at.

[Victoria Prentis]

I note that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was subject to review through the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee some time ago in 2010 and again, informally, through the EFRA inquiry “Animal welfare in England: domestic pets” in 2016. A broad consensus arose from that inquiry that the Animal Welfare Act had had a genuinely positive effect on animal welfare. The 2006 Act, of course, relates to animals within the control of humans, and indeed the 2016 inquiry encouraged the bringing forward of this Bill, which is partly why we are all here today.

Subsection (3)(a) of new clause 1 would commit the Government to including an assessment of wildlife. As we have heard, wildlife legislation is not within the scope of the Animal Welfare Act; only animals within the control of man are within scope. There are some exceptions, which I gently point out to the hon. Member for Cambridge: animals that are normally domesticated, such as cats and dogs, are within the scope of that Act, so even a feral cat would be covered. If a wild animal is trapped, it too would be considered to be within the control of man and would be covered by the Act.

There are, of course, separate pieces of legislation that deal with wild animals. We have already had a review of wildlife legislation at DEFRA’s request by the Law Commission, which undertook the wildlife law project. It published its recommendations in November 2015, and recommended that the existing pieces of wildlife legislation be replaced by a single statute. It did not recommend that we bring in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which is, by broad consensus, operating quite efficiently. For those who are interested, the Ministry of Justice regularly publishes data on prosecutions, some of which we heard earlier, and on convictions and sentencing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Environment Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, I would be absolutely delighted to welcome those essays from Christ Church primary school. Indeed, if the hon. Member would like me to send a letter from the Environment Minister, I would be delighted to do so. I am always very pleased to speak to our students and young children about what we are doing on the environment, and they are our future generations whom we are doing all this for, so I thank her for that. We are going to talk about REACH later—I engage very closely with the industry—so we will discuss that in the second grouping of amendments today.

Just before that intervention, I mentioned the new independent Office for Environmental Protection, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with an update on the OEP. We want to ensure that this is located in a good long-term place and, trust me, there were an awful lot of contenders. After considering wider locations, we have decided that Worcester will be an excellent location for the headquarters of the OEP. This is part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that opportunities are spread fairly across the country. My heart goes out to people in the area who may have been flooded this week, but I hope the OEP’s being based in Worcester gives a little bit of good news.

As the Prime Minister set out in the Government’s 10-point plan to net zero, protection, restoration and enhancement of our natural environment are crucial. The Bill will play a key part in that mission. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for opening the debate by raising some important points on the environmental principles. The environmental principles will work together to protect the environment from damage by making environmental considerations central to the policy development process across Government. I am keen to hear views from across the House, and there are many references to the environmental principles in some of the other amendments, so I shall respond in more detail to some of her points on the principles and other important issues at the end of the debate. I reassure her, though, that we are working at pace: during the break between the two Report sessions, we will continue unstintingly to deliver measures in the Bill.

Before I go any further, let me mention some Government amendments, some of which make relatively technical changes that will improve and enhance the Bill. Government amendment 6, tabled by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, clarifies that both the terrestrial and the marine aspects of England’s natural environment will be considered when conducting the significant improvement test in clause 6. That has always been our intention, as I explained in Committee, but the amendment puts it beyond doubt. I am delighted that the amendment spells out that marine is absolutely part and parcel of what we mean when we talk about the environment.

With regard to the Office for Environmental Protection, Government amendment 31, also tabled by the Secretary of State, is a technical amendment that simply serves to clarify that section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 does not apply on an environmental review, providing the courts with a full range of remedies for the OEP environmental review procedure. Government amendments 9 to 20, also tabled by the Secretary of State, align the clauses relating to the OEP’s Northern Ireland enforcement functions with the amended part 1 provisions. Those amendments were personally requested by Northern Ireland Ministers.

I welcome the opportunity to hear from hon. Friends and Members on both sides of the House on this vital Bill, and I look forward to responding at the end of the debate.

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

I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 25, 39 and 23 in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Parliament declared a climate and ecological emergency on 1 May 2019. A year and a half has passed, and the need for more urgent action on the environment has only increased. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change that would only destroy jobs, homes, biodiversity and our planet, we have just nine short years to cut carbon emissions and protect nature, according to the UN’s experts on climate and biodiversity. As David Attenborough says,

“the living world is on course to tip and collapse. Indeed, it has already begun to do so”.

This Bill is a cobbled-together set of disparate actions that is sinking under the weight of greenwash that has been applied by Ministers. It does not take the urgent action that is so desperately needed.

This legislation is not perfect by any means, but the Bill should already be law. The deliberate pausing of Report stage after today means that some amendments will not be debated by MPs until May, the Bill will not be in the House of Lords until just before the summer, and it risks not being on the statute book until the autumn. That means we could be waiting over six months more for an environmental watchdog, for powers to stop our children breathing unsafe air, and to regulate Ministers’ actions. The Minister said that she did not want to see a delay in the Bill, while she was moving a motion to delay the Bill. That simply is not good enough. What a terrible message to send to the world in the year we are hosting COP26. It was supposed to be in law before Britain left the Brexit transition period and it is not. It was supposed to be bold and world-leading because of the urgency of the climate crisis and it is not.

This is a go-slow Government when it comes to environmental action. If we could solve the climate crisis with press releases then the planet would have nothing to worry about, but it is actions, not words, that we need. We need faster action to create the well-paid green jobs our communities need, and we need bolder action on improving standards and protecting habitats and species, so we can strengthen our economy and rebuild our country. If building back better after the pandemic is to be genuine, and not a smash and grab on the language of the environmental left, it must be underpinned by bold policy.

The Bill has a number of important issues, so let me deal with some of the main ones—first, air quality. The whole House remembers Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old girl who tragically died following an asthma attack in London seven years ago. The coroner’s court found that air pollution made a material contribution to Ella’s death. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for working with Ella’s mum Rosamund in demanding bolder action. This Sunday would have been Ella’s 17th birthday. As her mum wrote in The Sun on Sunday:

“Had WHO air pollution limits been in place and enforced then, according to the Coroner’s report, she would still be here today.”

Air quality is a matter of social justice, of equality and of poverty and requires fundamental change in the way we do business.

There are three amendments on air quality in the names of my Devon colleague the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and in my own name. All the amendments seek real action on air pollution. Labour will back all of them if they are put to the vote. According to figures published by NHS England, on average 5% of deaths in those over 30 can be attributed to PM_2.5 air pollution. What that means is 40,000 deaths a year are caused by poor air—40,000 deaths. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that a £1.6 billion economic benefit to the UK could be released if we met WHO guidelines.

It is frankly bizarre that, faced with such mounting evidence of the unnecessary deaths caused by poor air, Ministers still refuse to put WHO air quality standards into law. I want to see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs step up and hold Ministers’ feet to the fire. That means taking the case for the toughest WHO air quality targets to force the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments to radically up their game. If Ministers still refuse to accept our amendments, can the Minister confirm she will use the powers in the Bill to adopt WHO targets and exceed them if she can whenever the Bill eventually gets on the statute book? A Labour Government would adopt WHO targets because it is simply the right thing to do, so that everyone in all our communities has clean air to breathe.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will not for time’s sake.

You cannot build back better if you are struggling to breathe.

Secondly, let me to turn to the Office for Environmental Protection. The Bill should have been passed by the end of the Brexit transition period, and the OEP should be up and running now. Labour offered to work with Ministers to ensure that that happened, but here we are with that date passed and the Bill still unlikely to become law until autumn, which is a year too late. That means the UK is now without an environmental watchdog, as the OEP has not yet been set up. We are concerned that it will be a weak watchdog with no real teeth. Calling it tough will in itself not make it tough. The OEP needs to be vigorously independent. That is why our amendment would delete a clause that would allow the Secretary of State to give guidance to the OEP and effectively let the Government mark their own homework. It is backed by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which concluded that we should make sure that

“every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible”.

Although I think many of us would have preferred an out-and-out environmentalist to be leading the OEP, the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey is welcome and I hope the board members she is now recruiting will look a tad greener. But I must say to the Minister that, as a south-west Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned that the Government have just robbed the south-west of the Office for Environmental Protection. She will know it was announced in October 2019 that it would be going to Bristol. She knows that the expectation was that this would be a south-west-based regulator and she knows of the anger—the anger—that this will cause in the south-west on finding out it has been sent to somewhere that she claims is near Bristol. Worcester is nowhere near Bristol and that promise is nowhere near being met. The south-west has been robbed of a regulator and I think that is deeply, deeply worrying.



Let me turn briefly to bees and Labour’s amendment to prevent the Government from lifting the ban on bee-killing chemicals. I am a fan of bees; my family keeps bees on a farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Bees are essential to the future of our planet, to pollenating our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, so bee health is non-negotiable. That is what MPs on both sides of the House say in good times, so I expect them to say it now. Labour’s amendment would oppose the Conservative plan to lift the ban on bee-killing pesticides. If bee health really is non-negotiable, the ban must not be set aside just because it is convenient to do so now. There is no doubt that sugar beet farmers have been hit hard by crop blight, but lifting the ban is not the solution. Improved sugar contracts, compensation and accelerating blight-resistant varieties are a much better answer.

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.