Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George.

It is also a pleasure to see the Fisheries Minister back in his place, after his short sojourn away from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is also good to see the new Whip, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, and the new and singular Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Department, the hon. Member for Witney. It is a shame that the Government have chosen to reduce the number of PPSs for the Department, but perhaps the political nature of PPS-ing may reduce somewhat and we can get back on to DEFRA issues with the new Secretary of State.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is still a dream team.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman says it is a dream team. One might wonder what type of dream could possibly dream up these people here.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Can the shadow Minister confirm whether anybody from the original team is still in place?

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister is back from the political dead. It is genuinely good to see him back in his place, because a common critique of the DEFRA team under the previous Administration was that there were far too many soundbites and not enough detail, and I know that the Minister was one of the few in the Department at the time who was holding out for detail, and I know that he knows these issues very well, so it is good to have him back.

When scrutinising this piece of legislation, it is important to view it in its context, and the real problem with fisheries regulations that we have under this Government is that there is still no Fisheries Bill. The Fisheries Bill needs to set the framework for all these statutory instruments to sit underneath. This SI is very similar to the other fishing SIs that we dealt with in March, in that it deals with a patchwork quilt—a dog’s breakfast of different SIs being updated and amended, here, there and everywhere. Like nearly every single SI that we have dealt with in this Session of Parliament, it deals with the errors of previous SIs that were hurriedly rushed through the House.

I know that the Minister tried to explain the matter away by saying that these are simple typographical errors, but they are still errors, and the key thing is that we should be taking more time to get this done right. That is a real concern, because in the absence of a Fisheries Bill that could change the fishing landscape and improve the experience of fishing for our coastal communities, some of the measures included in this SI seem to sit like little policy islands that are not really integrated with the other parts.

The importance of fishing cannot be overstated. We need a comprehensive and joined-up regulatory approach, be that for our departure from the European Union or for the everyday operation of our fishing industry in what is a complex regulatory environment.

There were opportunities missed in these regulations for us to amend fisheries legislation but which could be included in a complementary Fisheries Bill, such as increasing quotas for small fishing boats and banning electronic pulse fishing, on which we still need to see the detail. We need a Fisheries Bill for day one of a no-deal scenario, which is still a possibility. Will the Minister come up with his new excuse under this new regime for why we do not have a Fisheries Bill along the way? I am familiar with his excuses from the previous regime and am keen to see whether they have changed under this latest Administration.

During the plentiful sittings of the Committee on the now-dead Fisheries Bill, I tabled numerous amendments to promote the sustainability of the fishing industry. Much of the regulations deal with the industry’s sustainability. There is commonality between the Minister and me in wanting to make fishing more sustainable, both environmentally and—importantly—economically. If over-fishing is allowed to continue, there will not be enough fish left to catch, so there will not be a fishing industry left to catch fish. We need to ensure that fishing is truly sustainable.

Since we met in a room similar to this one to discuss that Bill, Parliament has declared a climate emergency. For me, the regulations provided an opportunity to reflect better the priorities of Parliament in making that declaration. Of course, the climate emergency is about not just carbon, although that is a large part of it, but about water, habitat loss, sustainability of fish stocks, protection of the fragile marine habitat and, to the purpose of the regulations, the careful management of fishing grounds, ensuring there are enough fish for today and tomorrow.

In paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum, we see the hurried consideration of previous statutory instruments on the common fisheries policy coming back to haunt us again. I am concerned about paragraphs 2.2 (a) and (b). We are starting to create a situation in which we cannot see a coherent legislation set on the common fisheries policy.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the updates required since 29 March. We will need to update our fisheries policy regularly, especially because fish do not protect borders. We must ensure that our policy sits closely in co-operation with that of our European neighbours. However, I am disappointed that in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government state that, on CFP changes,

“There are no plans to consolidate the legislation.”

I gently say to the Minister that there needs to be an opportunity to consolidate many of these changes, because as we have seen from the patchwork quilt of edits in fisheries legislation, it is difficult for those working in fishing to follow the changes and difficult for stakeholders working in the sector to understand the consequences—intentional or otherwise—of changes.

Far too few people in this place follow the ins and outs of fishing policy. I am one of the nerdy few. I like to do so and, while the Minister might not describe himself in that manner, he is also one of those people. We need to spend more time ensuring that no further mistakes are being added to our statute book. The best way to do that is to join up the current regulations in a consolidated fashion so that the industry and stakeholders can see exactly what is changing and we do not risk putting more gremlins into our laws or further polluting our statute book.

The regulations matter, dealing with the size of fishing nets and the size of the fish that those nets catch. With many species of fish in British territorial waters at unsustainable levels, those rules matter. So, too, does the huge increase in ghost gear—the lost plastic fishing gear that pollutes the oceans around Britain’s coastal waters. I am excited about a new campaign we have started in Plymouth to pinpoint the ghost gear lost by fishing boats, using proper navigation tracking. There is an opportunity to do much more about that through regulations on fishing nets and fishing gear. Will the Minister reflect on that, given their mention in these regulations?

There is a lot more that we need to do in relation not just to fishing nets, as mentioned in the regulations, but to the other types of fishing gear that are lost at sea, including car tyres, which until relatively recently were an important part of fishing gear—they helped to weigh down fishing nets. In Plymouth Sound, the country’s first national marine park, we identified nearly 1,000 car tyres, all of which emit microplastics directly into that fragile marine habitat. The Minister has a huge opportunity to make more comprehensive and ambitious remarks on fishing gear, lost or otherwise, to ensure we deal with ghost gear and lost gear and, importantly, are able to return some of it to fishers so it does not simply count as a cost to their businesses. There is an opportunity to do that with these regulations.

Let me turn to some of the concerns from stakeholders. The Minister will know from previous remarks that there has been a certain level of stakeholder fatigue in relation to the tsunami of statutory instruments. The new Whip has managed to avoid many of them, but I understand that 12 more DEFRA statutory instruments are required before exit day. Indeed, we need to ask, if they are required before exit day—currently 31 October, before the extension that the Prime Minister has requested is granted—how could they have been passed before 31 March? That raises concerns about the pace with which these statutory instruments are being introduced and about what more DEFRA is discovering as it looks through the regulations that need to be updated before the SIs become law.

Greener UK has raised concerns about the removal of provisions on the effectiveness of mitigation measures and monitoring amendments in the statutory instrument. I will read out a few, and perhaps the Minister can respond to them. He will be aware that article 5(21)(c) removes article 21(c) of regulation 2019/1241 from the Parliament and Council, on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. Article 21 sets out joint recommendations on conservation measures and the provision of information on the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures and monitoring arrangements. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether he intended to remove that provision. If so, what should replace it? I understand that Greener UK and some of its members have raised that issue with DEFRA, which argued that it has retained most of article 21 to highlight what may be included in regulations made under article 15, but arguably these provisions do not alter the powers available under article 15. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out whether he concurs with Greener UK’s concerns. They all sound quite technical, but the problem with fisheries regulation is that many of the concerns are actually technical, so the detail really does matter. Greener UK’s concern is that the removal could lead to cumulative measures being introduced, with little regard for their impact. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point.

It is unclear from the statutory instrument and the explanatory memorandum that accompanies it what the Government’s approach to the North sea and western waters multi-annual plans is. It seems that we will co-operate with some of them but not necessarily all of them. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s continuing commitment to co-operate with our near-neighbours, be that in a pre-Brexit, post-Brexit or no-Brexit world, so that fishing is properly co-ordinated and measures are put in place to ensure the sustainability of our stocks. It is curious that the regionalisation of the western waters plan was omitted from this statutory instrument. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the reasons for that.

Article 62(4) of the United Nations convention of the law of the sea, which the UK has signed in its own capacity, dictates that we will have to agree on the management of resources. Therefore, we have to co-operate with the EU in that respect, and the regionalisation should be included. I would be grateful if the Minister can set that out in his remarks.

The Minister spoke about how devolved fisheries administrations work together. That is really important, because fishing is rightly devolved to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which enables Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to have greater regard to the fish species that they catch.

I would be grateful if the Minister set out how any changes in the regional nature of fisheries management will be policed and, importantly, how any conflict between the views of those devolved fisheries administrations can be resolved. He will remember that in proceedings on the Fisheries Bill, the Labour party tabled a proposal for a dispute mechanism to ensure that if there was a disagreement—say, between the Scottish Government and the UK Government acting on behalf of England—about the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, there would be a methodology to resolve those concerns, ensuring that the statement could still be put together, and that we would not enter a logjam. I am not presuming that the Governments of Holyrood and Westminster will disagree about fishing, but it is prudent to look at all possible future avenues. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the SI’s relevant powers in that respect.

Regular watchers of these Committees—I know that many watch Delegated Legislation Committees on Parliamentlive.tv—will know that the Opposition are concerned that statutory instruments are being rushed through with mistakes and gremlins in them that we have already spoken about. In a similar Committee on 25 March, I set out the Opposition’s concerns about the several glitches and gremlins in that instrument that had not been caught because of a lack of scrutiny, and noted that there could be severe consequences for implementation.

I am grateful for the fact that the Minister and his officials have caught a few errors; what concerns me, however, is the number of errors not caught during the implementation of regulations, especially at a time when there are so many fisheries sector SIs coming through. It is really hard for people to keep track of the tsunami of SIs.

The Minister managed to get out of coming to the main Chamber last week. I am very grateful to the Conservative Whips for tabling two statutory instruments for debate in the main Chamber, which enabled both of the Minister’s new colleagues to step up to the Dispatch Box and not quite apologise for the errors of their predecessors in pushing through SIs containing errors. None the less, there was an introduction about making sure that we get this right. Paragraph 2.11 of the explanatory memorandum states that “minor errors” need to be corrected. The Minister mentioned the typographical mistake, but I would be grateful if he spelled out what other errors this SI corrects, just so I am sure.

Hon. Members who have had the privilege of sitting through a Delegated Legislation Committee with me will know of my concerns about impact assessments and the language used in them. This 30-page statutory instrument makes a number of changes, including in relation to new European Union regulations made since the last fisheries SI was passed. I am concerned about the wording of the explanatory memorandum, which states in paragraph 12.1 that

“There is no, or no significant, impact”.

It goes on to state:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no significant changes…are envisaged.”

It is really hard to distinguish between “no impact” and “no significant impact”. As we have seen from previous mistakes, and from the new regulations that the Minister cited, we do not know what impact measures will have if there is no impact assessment. In the past when I have asked about updating the language, the Minister has referred me to the Procedure Committee. I would be grateful if he used his good offices to look at whether explanatory memorandums could be clearer, because “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things.

Finally, I will raise a few questions about Northern Ireland and the territorial application of the statutory instrument, which covers the entirety of the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether he anticipates that the Prime Minister’s deal, which was secured since the publication of the statutory instrument, means any changes for the implementation or future corrections of the instrument. The SI was published before the deal came about, and there are particular concerns about the proposed border down the Irish sea.

The deal gives rise to a number of concerns about Northern Irish fishing. As that is slightly off topic, Mr Howarth, I will not go into that now, but the territorial application of the common fisheries policy raises some concerns that are within the scope of this statutory instrument. Some of those concerns relate to the export of fisheries products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, and the landing of fisheries products in Northern Ireland. For instance, if a British fishing boat lands in Northern Ireland and there is a separate tax regime there, would the refund on red diesel continue to apply? Would catch certificates need to apply? Would landing into a third country also create a requirement for prior notification and additional paperwork? Some of those things relate to elements of the statutory instrument. Some people are concerned that the detail of regulation on fishing, particularly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is being overlooked. Will the Minister say whether any changes would need to be made following a deal? Have any of them been discussed?

The Minister made a number of comments that I want to touch on. I liked his phrase about the “luxury of time” that the extension gave us. The Minister and I are regular attendees of the BBC’s “Sunday Politics South West”; I am sure that viewers in the south-west will be pleased to hear what he said. He might wish to share that with the Prime Minister.

The discard ban and the landing obligations, which are covered by the statutory instrument, are causing significant concern to fishers across the country, particularly those who fish in mixed fisheries. The majority of the south-west counts as a mixed fishery. The Minister will know that since their implementation earlier this year, there has been significant concern about whether the discard ban and the landing obligations are being honoured, the perverse consequences, and whether the amount of fish caught, landed and discarded is correctly recorded. The parliamentary questions I have tabled on that have not quite produced clear answers from the Minister and his predecessors, so I would be grateful if he set out whether the discard ban and the landing obligations are due to be updated, as there is genuine, sincere concern about how they operate, especially on the part of fishers who do not possess a huge amount of additional quota for those fish stocks they are catching as bycatch and in mixed fisheries.

Bass fishing has been raised a number of times by stakeholders. I imagine Members from all parts of the House will have heard from recreational anglers about the new requirements that mean bass fishing is included in the quota arrangements. The Minister said that the SI means that current regulations will not fall at the end of the year. Will he say slightly more on that? Recreational anglers in particular have concerns.

Sir George, you will be pleased to hear that I am not an expert on transporting horses, so I will not comment too much on that element of the statutory instrument. However, it causes me concern that a statutory instrument mainly on sea fisheries should have provisions relating to the transport of horses. It should cause us concern us that these separate issues, as important as they are, are being mangled together in a dog’s breakfast—a patchwork quilt—of an SI that is not getting the scrutiny it needs, either in the parliamentary process or from stakeholders, who have to deal with a tsunami of SIs.

I am genuinely happy to see the Minister back in his place. He knows that I take the detail of statutory instruments seriously, because I represent a constituency with 1,000 jobs in fishing. If we are to do Brexit—that seems to be the Minister’s current position—it is important that we get the detail right. When it comes to fisheries, and the transporting of horses, it is not the soundbites but the details that really matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

No, I shall finish my point. The Fisheries Bill was unable to progress because Parliament failed and refused to progress leaving the European Union, and in fact voted to delay leaving. We now have a new Session, and the Fisheries Bill is in the Queen’s Speech, so there will be a Fisheries Bill in this Session of Parliament. That answers that question.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport raised a question that had been highlighted by Greener UK, namely why article 21(c) had not been brought across. The reason for that is that article 21(c) includes the concept of member states making joint recommendations for the European Union to consider. Once we are outside the EU, we will not be making joint recommendations to it; we will be controlling and deciding these things for ourselves, so the very concept of a joint recommendation does not make sense. In so far as there were other elements of article 21 that did make sense and did function in a national context, those were brought across.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the point about regional co-operation. To be clear, this statutory instrument brings across the conclusions of the North sea multi-annual plan and the western waters multi-annual plan, but it does not bring across the architecture for that co-operation, because once we cease to be a member state, under EU law, we cannot be a member of those particular groups. At the moment, Norway is not a member of those groups; it sometimes attends as an observer, but it gives its input to the groups on the North sea through different mechanisms.

How we will co-operate with our European neighbours will be an issue for a future partnership. If we can get across the current withdrawal agreement, which the Prime Minister has brought back, and get the deal agreed, the plan is to have a new partnership agreement with the European Union by next July. That can cover all manner of things, including how we would co-operate on a regional basis. The issue of the architecture for regional co-operation is a matter for our future partnership agreement with the EU. However, coming back to my point, the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to ensure that on day one after leaving, we have an operable law book, and that retained EU law is operable. The changes to regulations that the EU has introduced since March are now EU law, and we should therefore make them operable. That is the primary purpose of this SI.

The hon. Gentleman asked about impact assessments, and complained about the use of the phrase,

“no, or no significant, impact”.

I am told that the term has particular relevance to the procedures of the House, and is terminology that it relies on.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about what other types of errors there were. They are all similar. In one case the word “fishing” was used, where it should have been “fisheries”. In another case, the text said “ICCA” when it meant ICCAT—the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In one case, the Roman numeral “ii” should have been “a(ii)”. In one instance, “must” was used, but it was felt that “shall” was better. I do not want to bore hon. Members any further by going into that, but the hon. Gentleman asked a question that suggested that what we meant by “errors” was suspicious, and I just wanted to clarify the point.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if Parliament got behind the Prime Minister’s deal. He will be aware that all the statutory instruments that we are talking about and taking through should be seen in the context of no-deal preparations—preparations for what would happen if we came out without an agreement. A withdrawal agreement Bill will be published later today and will have its Second Reading tomorrow. A deal will include various saving provisions to ensure that we can have an implementation period. The regulations are predominantly about no-deal preparations. In the event of a deal being done, the provisions of the implementation period come into effect.

The hon. Gentleman asked about pulse trawling. He will recall that this was a matter we discussed in the Fisheries Bill. In a previous SI, we chose to ensure that the scientific exemption could not continue for EU vessels, and that will remain the case if we come out of the EU in a no-deal scenario. The European Union has since made other changes to phase that out by 2021, and has already significantly reduced the number of vessels that are licensed.

Finally, we discuss bass provisions every year. They form part of the total allowable catch and quota regulations, which would always stay in place until the new TAC and quota regulations take effect, typically at the end of January. The way the original SI had been drafted meant that they would have ended at the end of December, which meant that there would have been an air gap. The draft regulations simply ensure that the provisions will remain extant until replacement provisions are put in place.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications. In relation to the intricacies of fishing in Northern Ireland and the new border down the Irish sea, would the Minister be prepared to write with further detail, in particular about the paperwork required for a GB boat landing in Northern Ireland, and vice versa, and around the concerns that the industry has regarding red diesel?

[George Eustice]

Rather than write, let me touch on that now. The concerns on red diesel are a separate agenda being pursued at the World Trade Organisation about removing subsidies. We believe that, although we want to remove subsidies from fishing, red diesel is not the type of subsidy that we are referring to, so we very much support the continued use of red diesel for our fishing fleet.

The withdrawal agreement—the Prime Minister’s deal—does not have any implications for the fishing industry per se, because it is more about customs than fishing opportunities and fish being landed. It is already the case that a catch certificate is required when crossing borders, whether a boat is coming from the Irish Republic to the UK or vice versa. Beyond that, there will not be additional changes for the fishing industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312).

Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

May I welcome the new Minister to her place? As a south-west MP, it is good to see a south-west combo on both sides of the Dispatch Box. It is also good to see that she is in a position of responsibility where she will be able to use her considerable knowledge on the area of soil health, which is kind of related tangentially to plant health. She knows that, like her, I feel strongly about that issue.

Let me start by saying that the Opposition will not be opposing this statutory instrument today. We are grateful that the Government have chosen to correct mistakes and omissions in previous SIs on this matter. Once again with the plant health regulations, we are here to make amendments to amendments because the previous amendments fell short of what was required at the time. Regular watchers of these SI debates on parliamentlive.tv—I am sure that there are many of them—will know of the concerns shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Drew), for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), the shadow DEFRA team. We are concerned that these SIs are sometimes being rushed through, and that mistakes—or gremlins, as I call them—can be baked into them not only in the work of the officials, but as a result of the lack of time for proper scrutiny by Members and by stakeholders. This SI confirms just that; legislation that is rushed through will need further amendment in the future because of omissions. That creates the potential for a polluted statute book, which is something that we all want to avoid, especially in an area as important and technically detailed as plant health. Indeed, on 19 March, when this regulation was last considered, my hon. Friend for Ipswich said:

“I confidently predict that there will be mistakes—perhaps not in these particular SIs, but in some of them—and that they will have serious consequences for our residents and businesses over and above the massive overarching mistake, which is the way in which this Government are failing to handle Brexit.”—[Official Report, Twenty-third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2019; c. 6.]

Ignoring the bigger Brexit position that my hon. Friend was talking about, I think it is important to say that when the Government do find errors and omissions in SIs, as we have here, we support them in bringing amendments to the Chamber, which is why we are not opposing this one today.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in a tongue twister of a speech that there were technical deficiencies and inoperabilities with this regulation in the past, but this was not in her bailiwick at the time. I think that this SI was in the flood of statutory instruments that were proposed by her Department in the lead-up to one of the early exit dates in a bid to push through as many as possible. At the time, the Opposition raised concerns about how comprehensive those SIs would be.

Let me turn briefly to the explanatory memorandum, because, sometimes, it is just as important as the regulations themselves. It suggests, implicitly, that this is a mere updating of the previous SI with new regulation. However, if we take one example, the EU Commission Implementing Decision of 2018/1959, which concerns preventing agrilus planipennis being introduced into the EU, was passed on 10 December 2018. The agrilus planipennis is incredibly damaging to the European ash trees, and so the Government are correct to legislate against its introduction to the UK to protect our own trees. Why was this not implemented when we last considered this area? Can the Minister explain to the House what process her Department is undertaking to look at the statutory instruments that have been passed by Parliament to check that there were no omissions, especially in that real surge of statutory instruments in February and March of this year before one of the early exit dates.

The previous SI, which this one amends, was needed to correct errors and omissions in the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations. Does the Minister concur with our assessment that the process that was followed in some of those SIs was unsatisfactory and that improvements to the process could be made? If she does agree with that, can she set out how her Department is addressing that? I think there is cross-party agreement that getting this right is important, but sometimes getting right things that are very technical can take a few attempts, but we want to make sure that the system the Minister is using is as robust as possible.

The Minister may know that one of my penchants with statutory instruments is to look at the impact assessments, and I will not disappoint anyone who is concerned about the impact assessment on this particular SI. I am not a fan of the phrase that there is “no, or no significant impact” in impact assessments in explanatory memorandums. It is important to state that “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things. The phrase “no impact” suggests that there is no change, and “no significant impact” suggests that there is change but that it has not been measured. In this case, there is no impact assessment to enable us to understand whether or not there is an impact. I encourage the Minister—I have done so with every one of her predecessors in this role—to work with the House authorities and the Leader of the House to correct that language. There is a difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact” and, as we know, this SI is a correction of the previous SI that corrected regulations. We need to be getting this right.

Let me turn briefly to biosecurity and Northern Ireland in relation to customs. The Minister has set out the territorial application of this instrument, which affects different parts of the UK differently. Given the volume of UK-EU trade—especially across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, which we hope will not be diminished as a result of any of the Brexit arrangements her Government are pursuing—the current system for sharing biosecurity intelligence with EU countries risks being lost if there is not an agreement to ensure that information sharing takes place. In the past few days, we have seen a potential threat to information sharing between the UK and our EU friends as part of the posturing around the Brexit deal negotiations. Will the Minister set out clearly for the House that information sharing on biosecurity and plant health security, especially regarding invasive species, will not be affected by any posturing from Downing Street, and that these regulations include the ability to share properly the information that we need between ourselves and our EU friends?

In the previous Statutory Instrument Committee on plant health, the Minister’s predecessor referred to contingency plans to develop a database to capture interceptions and incursions, and to share information with the European Union when such incursions have been recorded. Is that database ready? If not, how long after the proposed exit day—for the sake of argument, let us assume that it will be 31 October, although I suspect many of us think that it will not—will it be ready? How many interceptions and incursions does the Minister anticipate the system recording, and what action will be taken to contain them as they are identified?

The report of the House of Lords EU Committee states:

“The need to facilitate trade post-Brexit must not be allowed to compromise the UK’s biosecurity.”

That is probably something with which everyone on both sides of the House would agree, so will the Minister tell us how her Department will guarantee that we face no increased biosecurity risks and that we maintain alignment with the EU—especially in data sharing—in any Brexit arrangements?

These regulations set up lists for England, Wales and Northern Ireland that seek to replicate the current set of EU lists on plant health. They ensure that protected zones can continue to be protected from pests, and that emergency measures can continue to be applied where necessary. However, it is proposed that a large raft of the EU legislation that accompanied the lists be revoked. As mistakes were identified in the previous SI, may I just check with the Minister that it is still her intention to revoke those parts of the EU regulation? I just want to ensure that there are no errors or omissions in that respect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned that the EU plant health directive requires checks on material imported from third countries at the first point of entry into the EU. However, once we have left the EU—if that happens—the intention is to allow plant material from third countries to enter and pass through the EU without checking at the border, and to rely on checks at the destination premises of the importers. How does the Minister intend to ensure that all plant material brought into this country in that manner from third countries—without checks—will actually be checked? It is important to ensure that there are no invasive species, pests or diseases on containments of plants that can escape into our natural environment. As the Minister set out in her speech, there are a number of different pests and diseases that can affect UK species and which we would want to avoid, especially as we see the effects of climate change. The number of diseases and pests that can thrive in the UK environment has changed since regulations on pests were first introduced.

I know that this is the Minister’s first outing, so I apologise for the large number of questions that I have fired at her, but there is cross-party support for robust biosecurity in relation to plant health.

In case hon. Members were unaware, Extinction Rebellion is in New Palace Yard today, providing a free tree for every Member. I have collected mine; I got an English oak with my name on it. In fact, I walked past the Minister’s tree, which is sitting outside and which I am sure she will collect in a bit.

Ensuring that we have robust plant health and biosecurity for our natural habitat—especially the native species that Extinction Rebellion is giving out—is going to be very important whether we remain in the European Union or not, and we need to ensure that we have robust systems in place. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed a few of my questions when she responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. There were a great many more interventions than one might have expected, and I am heartened to hear that so many people are interested in plants and our biosecurity, which is extremely important to all of us in so many ways. I particularly want to thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for kindly welcoming me to my place—we are going to be a south-west stronghold. I am delighted that he is supporting the regulations. I also thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for his kind words, and the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), with whom I had many enjoyable times on the Environmental Audit Committee. Working together on these things is important.

In order to prepare for the UK leaving the EU, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to continue to protect plant biosecurity, while facilitating the trade and movement of plants and plant material around the world. We have a great many plants coming into the UK, but equally we export a great many plants. That must continue, but it must be safe, and we must be sure that any diseases or pests are under a tight microscope.

I take slight issue with the shadow Minister, because I do not believe that this statutory instrument has been rushed. Importantly, as I mentioned—I am sure he was listening—these regulations update legislation to include the particular biodiversity threats posed by the rosette virus and the oak processionary moth. Those threats have come to light since 31 March, and it was essential that we included them in the regulations. That demonstrates that we are on the ball and will not let things pass under the radar. I hope that the shadow Minister agrees.

A number of points were raised, and I will whizz through a few of them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked what we are doing about alien species. As I said, we work with evidence to develop a risk-based and proportionate approach to plant health measures. We have in the past introduced precautionary national measures to protect the UK against threats that we see arising elsewhere in the EU and beyond. A good example is the stronger national legislation we put in place against Xylella fastidiosa in response to the situation elsewhere in the EU. We are now introducing national legislation to protect against the oak processionary moth and a potato pest called Epitrix.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) raised a question about material in transit from third countries. Regulated material will transit in sealed conditions through the EU with a phytosanitary certificate. Material entering England via the roll-on roll-off ports will need to transit to a point of first arrival in England, where plant health inspectors will carry out plant health checks. A very definite system is set in place, and people exporting and importing plant material have all had notification of this, so it is quite clear what is going to happen. Such material must be pre-notified to the APHA, which will inspect it before releasing it, and direct third-country imports, sea and air freight will be checked at the border, as currently.

[Luke Pollard]

Briefly on that point, in an SI Committee in which we talked about checking air freight, a Minister mentioned containerisation, but did not mention any containers coming via a rail link. Given what the Minister has said today, can she say whether that includes any freight that comes via rail?

Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am afraid we are here again, for the second SI in a row, correcting mistakes in previous statutory instruments that the Government rushed through. Just as before, the Opposition will not oppose this SI, because there was a mistake in a previous SI that the Government pushed through, but we did at the time highlight that there could be errors, given the speed.

I welcome the new Minister to his place in the main Chamber, having already done so in a debate in Westminster Hall. I am grateful to him for setting out that this SI corrects the drafting in a previous SI. The rest of his speech was very nice, but it concerned an SI we have already passed. The only thing this SI does is allow the Minister to make regulations. In error, the previous SI said he could only make them in writing, which meant administrative actions which do not carry the same weight as regulatory actions in relation to CITES and other wildlife protection legislation.

There is cross-party agreement that that legislation is very important, and some of the interventions the Minister took were on topics that were also very important, if nothing to do with the SI. The only thing this SI does is correct the mistake of the Minister’s predecessor. I do feel for him a wee bit in that respect because he had to say a lot of nice words before he got to the meat of it, which was: “Here’s another mistake we’ve made, and we’re going to correct it.”

I am grateful to the Whips for putting this in the main Chamber, rather than a Committee. Had it been in Committee, no one would have known that the Government had yet again made a mistake in their statutory instruments. Instead, they have given us a platform for all the countless people who like watching SIs on parliamentlive.tv to watch one in the Chamber.

I have high hopes for the Minister. I hope that his insurgent and provocative manner on the Back Benches to drive change from the Government on animal welfare in particular will pay dividends. In the past, we have had lots of soundbites, promises and consultations, but very little action—[Interruption.] And many Ministers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) says. I have high hopes that he will not accept the rum deal that his predecessors were putting out.

As with the Minister in the previous debate, I know that this Minister will be robust in this regard, and I hope this will be the last time that either has to come to the House to correct an SI that has been pushed through too fast without proper scrutiny or work. I suspect other errors will be found, however, particularly in the surge of SIs around February and March. This is not the first, the second or the third time the House has had to correct a drafting error in an SI.

I politely say to the Minister that a piece of work could usefully be done by DEFRA officials, who, to be fair, have had the most SIs to get through. Though no blame is being attached to them, the speed at which the SIs were reviewed will inevitably have let through some gremlins, such as this one. This was an important one to catch because the powers in article 7 that he set out are important. We need to make sure the Secretary of State has the ability to correct and make regulations, rather than just make administrative pronouncements.

I encourage the Minister not to accept any such errors and to make sure there is a robust process in place, because I suspect that this will not be the last time he has to stand at the Dispatch Box to correct an SI that has gone wrong. That said, I also encourage him to carry on fighting the good fight, because there is lots to be done on animal welfare and climate change in his Department. The Opposition wish him well in that. There is cross-party support for more robust animal welfare action, and, as we have seen from the protesters outside, more robust action on climate change.

Trophy Hunting Imports

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on initiating this very good debate, in which good points have been made by a number of speakers. It is a shame that it clashes with Second Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill, because I know many of my hon. Friends wanted to speak in this debate. I imagine that, had they been here, they would have said much the same as has been said by others in the debate, but the Minister would have heard it from a few more voices.

I welcome the Minister to his place. It may not be fashionable—or productive for my future career—to say this, but I am excited about the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) becoming a Minister. His championing from the Back Benches of causes and views that I believe many Members share has been really powerful. At the risk of injecting a partisan flavour into the debate, I have to say that sometimes we have heard the soundbite from Ministers but not seen the action that goes with it. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will not fall for any press release camouflage on inaction. This is an area where there is a real opportunity to stop the long-grassing of policies where there is clear cross-party support, and to get on with it. I hope that when he gets to his feet in a moment, he will say exactly the same things.

We have heard some good contributions. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned a few but I will add a few more. The phrase of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), that trophy hunting is “nauseating and revolting”, cut through and adequately described what is going on. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) rightly said that a ban on trophy hunting is backed by 86% of the British public. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke passionately about the fact that it is not something that only happens abroad. We should recognise that and ensure that any ban takes adequate notice of that, so that it covers not just imports but exports of trophies from UK wildlife.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) used “yellowhammer” correctly—it is good to hear the yellowhammer bird getting due attention after its name has been borrowed for so many things. We all share the complete puzzlement implied by his question, “Who on earth would want to shoot a zebra?” I agree with the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who was clear when he said it was a wicked, evil practice. We should not mince our words about people who go and shoot.

I am glad that it is not just parliamentarians who have encouraged this debate; people have used their fame and celebrity to endorse it too. Ricky Gervais does not mince his words on social media when it comes to this subject. I especially like his tweet from a few years ago, which says:

“The trophies I’m proudest of are the memories of all those times I didn’t kill a beautiful, majestic, endangered species for no reason.”

Although he may choose more powerful language to describe some of the people who are engaged in trophy hunting, his leadership on social media has highlighted a cruel and inhumane practice to many people who might not otherwise have appreciated its barbarity.

Ricky Gervais and the Minister are not alone, however, and have been in good company in championing the cause. Joanna Lumley correctly said that trophy hunting is “cruel, immoral…and unjustifiable”. Bill Bailey said:

“I can’t get my head round why anyone would want to kill a beautiful creature for fun. With the dwindling numbers of species, it’s time to halt this cruel and unnecessary practice.”

He is right, as are the speeches that we have heard today.

I will ask the Minister a few questions to try to understand the detail of the proposed ban. He has been clear that we should ban trophy hunting, but Ministers in the past have not been clear about what that ban comprises in detail, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire hinted in her opening speech. The thread of Ministers to date was that the Government’s proposed ban would affect just threatened species, by taking that international classification and banning the imports of trophies in relation to them. I would like us to go much further. Labour’s position is that the ban should be for every species above least concern. That would effectively capture many more species, not just the most endangered.

Looking around the room, I see that many hon. Members served on the Committee for the Ivory Act 2018 to support the introduction of a ban on elephant ivory. Since that ban has come into place, as expected, and as mentioned in Committee, we have seen the trade move from elephant ivory to other ivory-bearing species, such as the rhino, which has experienced additional hunting since the ban on elephant ivory came in. We knew that at the time and we must not make the same mistake with the trophy hunting ban by banning it for the most endangered and allowing it to slip down to those that are just below the most endangered. The Minister will be well aware of that and, hopefully, with his power, he can make sure that it does not happen.

We need to recognise that trophy hunting, as well as being cruel and unjustifiable, can act as a cover for illegal poaching, which was the sentiment of the intervention of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). The proposed ban that we would like the Government to adopt would cover all species above least concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources red list, which would include species classed as vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered and extinct in the wild.

Sustainable alternatives to trophy hunting, such as eco-tourism and photographic safaris, are generating revenues that cover the real costs of conservation and effective anti-poaching work, as well as providing well-paying permanent jobs for local people. Shooting a lion such as Cecil can generate a one-off trophy fee of around $15,000. There is no evidence that that goes toward conservation, no evidence that it goes toward the local community, and no evidence that it goes toward the protection of other animals. Nature tourism, on the other hand, can generate money from the protection and valuing of those wild animals.

There is an opportunity, which has been mentioned a few times, through Brexit to come together. What Brexit has done for DEFRA debates is to open space in the Government’s legislative agenda for issues that might not otherwise have got the airtime they deserved. If we think about what has been passed by this House in recent months, on a cross-party basis, with the Brexit malaise and chaos going on around us, we will realise that many of the same faces in this Chamber have been working together on banning wild animals in circuses, banning the trade in elephant ivory and tightening up regulations across the board.

That work might not have attracted the attention of many people outside Parliament, and certainly it has not troubled some of our friends in the media, but it has been worthwhile. We should continue that spirit, whatever is happening with Brexit or outside, because there is something here that could make a real difference to the species involved.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking very eloquently about the issue and the potential opportunities of eco-tourism. He will know that last year in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) has mentioned, the shooting of a wild goat on Islay caused a huge upset among people in Scotland and much further afield. What is most upsetting is that tourism companies are promoting Scotland as a place to come and trophy-shoot. Surely we should be clamping down on that. Companies are not just offering places in Africa as destinations; that is also happening here in the UK.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Lady makes a very sound point, on a common theme with the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who voiced a concern about what powers the Government have over the advertising of those tourism products. I spent five years working for the Association of British Travel Agents, and in that role I supported the animal welfare guidelines that encouraged ABTA members to ensure that animals are used sustainably and without endangering them, their habitats or their handlers. There are opportunities to ensure that those principles, which are good and strong, are spread across not only ABTA members, but the entire tourism industry. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with those guidelines; if he is not, I encourage him to look at them next time he needs some bedtime reading, because there is some real strength there and some real opportunities to do the right thing. The market does not correct all ills, and in this case there is a role for real moral leadership from the Government.

I hope that the Minister will be as strong and forthright in his new role as he has been in campaigning to date. I was pleased to see a letter that he co-signed in The Guardian in April with a series of high-profile supporters, which said:

“Banning the import of hunting trophies will send a clear message to the international community that there is no place for trophy hunting in this day and age.”

We must be clear that the continuation of that colonial and neo-colonial practice of rich people descending on communities, for whom that extra money can have a positive impact on their lives, to do something that is abhorrent, is something that we should not accept any more.

The Minister was in good company in signing that letter. It was signed not only by the Prime Minister’s father and his partner, but by Michael Palin, Captain Kirk—William Shatner, that is—Matt Lucas, Will Travers of Born Free, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), for Stroud (Dr Drew) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), and many others besides.

As my final remark, I encourage the Minister not to allow his passion for these topics to be diluted by the sense, which there sometimes is within Government, that animal welfare legislation can be cut up and parcelled in different parts, as happened with the Ivory Act. The Ivory Act should have been a comprehensive ban on ivory—I believe that is something the Minister himself supported from the Back Benches—but it was allowed to be parcelled up into smaller bits. I hope that the new Administration will move away from that parcelling up of animal welfare opportunities.

There is a real opportunity here for people who may be bitterly divided on Brexit and other matters to come together, on a cross-party basis, around animal welfare. I encourage the Minister to be as bold as he can be, because in these times animals do not have a voice, and every animal matters. We must ensure that we are their voice. The Minister has the opportunity to be a bull in a china shop on the previous behaviour of the right soundbite but the wrong action, and to ensure that we have the comprehensive trophy hunting ban that we deserve, which animals both in the wild and in the canned lion industry that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire spoke about can really benefit from.

Draft Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 General Committees

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

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I will use my remarks to raise a number of concerns on behalf of the Opposition about the regulations and the way in which they have been put together. They seem a little like the pile of vomit we sometimes see on the street after a night out. With a cursory glance, we wonder, “Why are all those bits in there, and where does the carrot come from?” [Hon. Members: “It’s too early!”] No, no. Everyone needs to be awake on this. When we see the broad range of topics included in the regulations and the Minister’s statement that they were held back before exit day, we must consider why all these measures are being included together. The only contingent stream seems to be that they all under the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Stakeholders have raised concerns with the Opposition on which I will provide some detail. The Minister tried to head off some of the concerns raised already, but I would like to put a few questions on the record that perhaps she can answer. I warn her that our concerns are substantial, so she cannot be assured of the Opposition’s support; it will depend on the answers she gives.

We are concerned that the regulations represent a power grab by Ministers, potentially enabling them to reduce current EU environmental protections by amending their own duties, standards and monitoring requirements, in particular for toxic emissions. The withdrawal agreement and the draft Environment Bill do not maintain the current EU protections or keep us in step with improvements. Indeed, we have not yet really seen the full extent of the Bill. These regulations need to fit with the other jigsaw pieces the Minister alluded to that we passed before 29 March. Hon. Members who have sat on Delegated Legislation Committees on such topics will note that air quality, marine management, water and water resources are the subjects of many of the statutory instruments that we have passed.

I say gently to the Minister that there is utility in mentioning how related instruments will fit together in the first and second stages when one statutory instrument is considered while others are held for future consideration. That will help scrutiny of those SIs; otherwise, all we have is random bits of legislation that do not seem to fit together. I am sure there is a method in the tactics that are being pursued, but it makes scrutiny much harder.

A key concern is the governance gap between leaving the EU and the date when the Government’s proposed environmental watchdog starts to function. The public cannot have confidence in it if it is appointed by and reports to DEFRA. Some of the watchdog’s powers relate directly to the areas that the SI covers, so they are connected. We are concerned that the Brexit legislation is being used as an opportunity for the Government to take on additional powers, but not with the same level of scrutiny as we had before, and that the new environmental watchdog does not strengthen the protections that we have together.

We have concerns about how the SI’s provisions fit together with the overall Government strategy on air quality. We know that the Government’s plans have been ruled unlawful numerous times by the High Court. The clean air strategy was a disappointment with vague targets. Responsibility was shoved to some local authorities with a degree of power, but some of their resources were taken away. Stakeholders have raised concerns about how powers will be exercised in relation to air quality, so will the Minister set out any additional powers and the level of consultation? The key thing for lots of stakeholders is that if the Government change any of the powers, will the stakeholders be consulted and will the consultation be done in a meaningful way?

On environmental noise, the current proposals are not good enough. They do not cover noise from domestic activities and noise created by neighbours, noise in workplaces and noise from transport. The Minister mentioned stakeholder concerns and she is right to highlight the concerns flagged by Greener UK, but other organisations have also flagged concerns. They are concerned that the SI establishes broad powers for the relevant competent authority, usually the Secretary of State, to make amendments, by regulation, to a wide variety of significant legislation, which potentially has important implications for the environment. Although some of the powers are limited in that the powers may be exercised only to the extent that the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate to do so as a result of scientific and technical knowledge, the requirement does not apply to all of the powers in this SI. Indeed, it provides no clarity as to what

“appropriate...as a result of scientific and technical progress”,

actually means. That is a broad statement, so will the Minister clarify what considerations and technical tests she will apply in defining what scientific and technical knowledge means in relation to this measure? Simply being really good at science and sitting in a Government Department might not qualify, so it is important to have some external scrutiny of what that definition actually means.

All the regulations that can be made by the competent authority under the SI are, pursuant to regulation 47, subject to the negative procedure of scrutiny, which means that the regulations become law on the day they are signed by the relevant Minister and will remain so unless Parliament agrees a motion to reject the relevant regulation. In SIs in the past, the Opposition have raised concerns about how many of the additional powers the Government are taking for themselves and applying via the negative procedure, potentially limiting scrutiny. We know that many of these powers are exercised by European authorities at the moment, who have a wide range of scrutiny functions derived from the European Commission and the European Parliament, and we need to look at the transfer of such scrutiny powers to the United Kingdom and how they can be properly reviewed, so will the Minister set out why she feels powers in negative SIs, and not affirmative ones, are the right ones to take?

Key to many of the concerns is the lack of scrutiny. Will the Minister confirm for the record that the SI has been in the reading room and has had stakeholder feedback on its production? What changes, if any, have been made? The Minister knows that a pet hobby-horse of mine is impact assessments, and I am afraid this SI prompts the same critique as the others, which I have mentioned in this place many times before. Page 11 of the explanatory notes, under the section on “Impact”, states:

“There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”

or the public sector, and therefore:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because it creates regulation-making powers rather than changing any policy.”

I am concerned that the difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact” is an impact, and an impact assessment of the difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact” would be required. I know that Minister’s officials normally have to prepare lines to rebut my saying these things, and I wonder whether we can find a way to avoid that dance each time and have a mini impact assessment or a form of words that enable the time that officials spend rebutting my concerns about the impact assessment to be spent on applying some of these elements.

Now that we have got through the glut of DEFRA SIs ahead of the proposed exit day on 29 March, I wonder whether Government Ministers could persuade the House authorities through the usual channels to slightly adjust the set wording on the explanatory notes, to clarify whether there is “no impact” or “some impact”, so that we have those as two very different statements. These regulations could have some impact, but it has not been assessed. The Minister is probably correct that they take a lot of powers but might not necessarily change any policies. Given that there might be no change in the powers but that they could bring significant change when used, and that there is not always the same scrutiny of the exercise of those powers, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out her view on that.

The Opposition have some concerns about the environmental noise area. On the INSPIRE side, we are concerned about the devolution agenda and how different levels of devolution can ensure consistent application. If there is a difference between the devolution of INSPIRE in Scotland and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, how would that be resolved? If they are applied in different ways, would the Minister be concerned about that? Has any consideration been given to how that spatial data can work together to ensure that we get the right stuff?

I will close my speech by addressing marine strategy. The Opposition is very keen for the Government to have a more ambitious marine strategy for the protection of our oceans and seas. We are concerned about the application of the powers that are being transferred to the Secretary of State. I encourage the Minister to use the powers that she already has, as well as the powers that she is taking, to protect our environment in a faster, fuller way. We are very concerned about the state of our oceans and marine environment. Colleagues’ research on marine plastics and pollution, and the report on toxins and chemicals that was published yesterday by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, should concern us. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how she expects the powers in the marine section to be used. Simply transferring those powers is one thing, but their application is another.

There is plenty in the SI that looks like just a paragraph, which is our key concern. The consultation that needs to follow the powers does not always seem to apply as thoroughly as it should. I am concerned about how this fits with the other areas that we have already approved, and whether we should expect any other, related SIs. In her opening remarks, the Minister said that she chose not to bring forward this SI in the flood that we had leading up to 29 March, because it was not deemed critical. The powers that the Minister has taken are still substantial and I would be grateful if she could set out what other, non-critical powers she is expecting to transfer that relate to water, water resources, marine management, air quality and environmental protection, and which might not be included in this SI but will relate to the powers contained in it and in the others that we have passed in those areas. It is really hard to scrutinise the full regulatory and legislative impacts if the Minister keeps dripping different elements in at the same time, and if there are no aggregated or collated versions at the end that enable easy scrutiny, apart from trawling though the entire statute book—as we know, that is a much bigger challenge.

On that basis, the Opposition remain concerned about large chunks of this SI. We would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the concerns raised by stakeholders around the power grab, the additional powers and how any scrutiny functions will be applied in the use of the powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

In response to the hon. Member for Falkirk, I have been there once in my life, but I have not seen the Falkirk wheel. Perhaps I will add it to my summer list.

I object to the terminology used by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport at the opening of his speech. Our officials and lawyers have worked very hard on this legislation; it is not vomit. It is actually good, normal, sensible legislation being brought to this House for scrutiny.

Hon. Members will be aware that we had a huge number of statutory instruments to process into group areas, especially where they were small and similar, with the same approach of basically updating, in this case, technical powers. I thought it was appropriate to group together the different areas in order to undertake that. I also want to point out that I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State on 5 July, making her aware of this and inviting her to get in touch, if any discussion was wanted. I appreciate that the Government have the full benefit of the civil service behind them and the Opposition rely on Short money for that support to help on policy matters.

I want to assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that this statutory instrument was put in the reading room. No feedback was given to the Department at that point. There has been a subsequent briefing from Greener UK. I am not aware of contact from any other organisation on this and, as a consequence, no changes to the regulations were needed before formal tabling, which we are debating today.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is just going to have to join either the Procedure Committee or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have made that appeal to him before. This is just the way that Parliament works, and it is not for the Government to change how Parliament decides that it wants statutory instruments to be written. We are following the conventions and rules set out by Parliament. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion for change on a number of matters. I encourage him to join the relevant Committees to make that change.

On the points that the hon. Gentleman made about air quality, regulation 15 provides that, before making any regulations under the part regarding air quality, there is a statutory duty to consult. Consultation will be carried out in accordance with our standard principles. On noise, the statutory instrument simply replicates the powers in the directive. It would be an inappropriate use of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to do anything more than what is in the directive. If we want to make changes in the future, that will be a separate matter for us to consider through means other than this device.

On negative SIs, I repeat to the Committee that, at the moment, the Commission can exercise the powers without any scrutiny by this Parliament whatsoever. Today’s proceedings will at least give Parliament the chance to look at future regulations. We will have consultation where it is deemed necessary, and then Parliament can, even through the negative procedure, suggest that the regulations be stopped, debated and voted on. Parliament does not have those powers today.

Marine is an important issue, on which I think the House is united in wanting to do more. Again, the regulations are simply about powers to update technical matters. The hon. Gentleman mentioned how we know what will change, scientifically. As it stands, the Commission is regularly approached by scientists, academics and others in order to get such changes made, to update the technical progress. We would expect a similar situation to happen, whereby the Government would be approached by people saying, “We think you need to update these particular regulations,” or simply making a suggestion on how we monitor data.

A future marine strategy is an ongoing process within Government. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the INSPIRE regulation and metadata. That is a devolved matter. Usually, the UK Government work in great collaboration on matters that can be helpfully dealt with on a UK-wide basis—we have seen that as regards a series of processes. There is no reason why such ongoing co-operation cannot continue; however, the whole point of devolution is that, if a devolved Administration want to do something different, they do not have to remain in step with the rest of the UK.

[Luke Pollard]

In relation to scientists approaching the Department and asking for changes, one of the key things about our marine environment is that fish and other aspects of the marine environment do not respect national boundaries. Ensuring that regulations and standards in our marine environment, especially in areas that jut up against our EU neighbours’ marine environment, is really important. Does the Minister anticipate changes in the way that standard and monitoring assessments are made by our EU friends that she will need to carry over into UK law, or does she expect the two standards, which are currently the same, to diverge?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not expecting particular changes, but it is important to point out that we also have marine boundaries with non-EU countries. There is regular, ongoing co-operation through the regional management organisation for fishing. We also have the OSPAR commission, which covers the north-east Atlantic. Again, that has non-EU countries in it. We already have ongoing co-operation. It is important to state that one element of leaving the European Union is that it will be for Parliament to decide to make changes, rather than automatically agreeing with what the European Union decides is appropriate for its regulations. That is part of the effect of leaving the European Union.

I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentlemen’s concerns. This is a special day for me, because I have been doing this role for three years. I am very much looking forward to continuing for at least another week or—who knows?—for longer. With that, I hope that the Committee will support the motion.

Puffin Habitats

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan). We largely co-operate on defence matters, but we can now add puffins to our areas of co-operation. I suspect we will both be speaking in the combat air strategy debate tomorrow; I like her analogy of puffins as fighter jets and I look forward to hearing her mention puffins in the debate on the Tempest programme tomorrow.

It is true that every bird matters, but as we have heard, every puffin matters, too. Before I get into the detail, I would like to share my favourite puffin story. As we have heard, we all have our favourite. Mine relates to the puffins on the Skellig islands, off the west coast of Ireland. Sci-fi nerds may already know what I am about to talk about. The Skellig islands were used as a filming location for “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”. There were so many puffins as they were trying to film Luke Skywalker’s last hangout that they could not airbrush the puffins out of the movie, so they decided to turn them into their very own Star Wars species and the porgs were born. Watching “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”, Members will see plenty of porgs around Luke Skywalker’s coastal hut—and they are indeed puffins. That is a bit of bedtime watching for the hon. Lady.

It is true, as we have heard, that human activity is affecting the habitats of many of our planet’s valuable wildlife species. Through irreversible climate change, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, we are making the survival of species that we love and appreciate increasingly difficult. In a debate last month, we heard about the cruel practice of the netting of bird nesting sites, preventing sea birds from nesting on some cliff faces. In that debate I made it clear that we must not keep squeezing nature into smaller and smaller spaces. Given what we have heard about puffin habitats, they are already in very small spaces geographically.

Britain is home to around 10% of the world’s puffin population, with nearly 600,000 breeding pairs, often found in clusters around the coastline of the British Isles. It is brilliant to hear of the experiences of various hon. Members with the puffin populations in their own part of the world. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) spoke about Skomer island. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke about the west coast of Scotland. In the area that I represent, the south-west, we have puffin populations on Lundy island off the north coast and on the Isles of Scilly.

On Lundy we have had a similar experience to that mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in relation to tackling invasive species. On Lundy we are beginning to have a puffin comeback. After many years of puffins being on the brink of eradication, a programme to deal with the accidental introduction of rats from visiting boats has started showing good results. Thanks to the Lundy seabird recovery project, puffin numbers are now increasing. This is a great example of how targeted action can bring great results, correcting the damage that humans have done to these vital habitats.

Puffins are found in small clusters, which leaves them more susceptible to changes in local fish populations, as we heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). Puffins are on the RSPB’s red list of conservation importance, which means that urgent action is needed to prevent their decline. In the Isles of Scilly, we have witnessed the success of the seabird recovery project—the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) is not present today, but he asked me to mention that on his behalf. That EU-funded project has done some great work in removing items of rubbish and in eradicating invasive species on the islands, leading to the fast recovery of the populations of the Manx shearwater and the puffin. Will the Minister, in his remarks, set out what plans the Government have to replace specific EU-funded schemes, such as that one, which deal with rare bird habitat protection?

The RSPB describes the main threat to puffins as a change in the distribution and numbers of small fish. Drastic changes in the numbers of small fish in the local area around puffin habitats can occur if there is increased pollution, as we have heard in the debate, whether from plastic or other pollutants such as oil. Overfishing in those areas also poses a threat, with sustainable fishing paramount for the survival of seabird species.

The Minister will be aware that his Conservative colleague the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has tabled an amendment to the Fisheries Bill to ban sand eel fishing. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed noted, sand eels are a key part of a puffin’s diet, so I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s position on sand eel fishing and on that amendment.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about the additional assistance that inshore fishermen could provide in making the environment for puffins free from pollution, and in supporting their habitats?

[Luke Pollard]

Yes. Fishers have several important roles to play, one of which is dealing with ghost gear. Although puffins are small birds, they are susceptible to eating plastic. Dealing with ghost gear—discarded fishing gear—is an important part of addressing that problem; I know that fishers in my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine are taking steps to deal with it. Not only is it an expensive cost to the business, but it presents a real risk to wildlife and bird habitats. I urge my hon. Friend to keep encouraging fishers in her constituency to tackle plastic pollution, as I know she does already.

On the subject of plastic pollution, I must mention nurdles. Several hon. Members have noted incredibly worrying issues with puffins’ diet and their ability to survive in the long term. As well as eating sand eels and other fish, puffins also eat plastic. A variety of studies of dead puffins washed up on the beach have found that, when cut open, their stomachs prove to be full of nurdles. Nurdles are small pieces of plastic that can be melted together to make larger items, but they are also a consequence of macroplastics being broken down. Puffins’ stomachs, like those of other seabirds, are full of plastics, which prevent them from getting the necessary nutritional value from their food.

Just as we have a limited understanding of what puffins get up to at sea, we lack scientific knowledge about the effect of plastics on certain bird populations, of which puffins are a good example. I know that there has been much research in Scotland about seabirds and plastics, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out his vision for dealing with the scientific evidence base. If we had a true understanding of the effect of plastics on puffins and other seabirds, it would make it easier for the public to get behind action.

Seabirds are protected by a network of marine special protection areas, and I am pleased to hear that the Government have granted the application for such an area in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is also good that the eider duck has been included among the protected bird species; I have heard the hon. Lady speak several times about its importance, and it should not be left out.

I would like a network of national marine parks to be created around the UK, which would provide an opportunity to put our complex system of protected marine areas into plain English. We already have a network of marine conservation zones, designated European marine sites and sites of special scientific interest—the list goes on. However, there are so many forms and designations of marine protection that it makes it harder for the public to access those sites. The Government’s review of national parks gives us a real opportunity for the development of national marine parks. The Minister will know that Plymouth City Council is leading work, which enjoys cross-party support at a local level, to establish the first national marine park in Plymouth Sound. Protecting more marine areas would contribute to greater understanding and public awareness—the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned the Puffarazzi project—and would underline the importance of taking care when visiting puffin habitats.

I am very pleased that the House recently agreed to Labour’s motion to declare a climate emergency, after an important debate that showed that this place is taking climate change seriously. I know that hon. Members from all parties will have visited climate change protesters at the Time Is Now climate protest today. Although we need to decarbonise our economy, we must not think of climate change as being only about carbon; we need to think equally about how to protect and conserve coastal habitats, bird nesting sites and feed, as we have heard today.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for giving us a chance to tell our favourite puffin stories; I hope that more people will be able to do so over the weeks and months ahead. I know that the Minister has a full to-do list at his Department, but I hope that he will take seriously the concerns that have been voiced about our wonderful, brilliant, comical puffins, and take note that their decline is a sign of humanity’s intervention regarding our wildlife. We need to do more to protect puffins, which will also save and protect other important habitats and seabird populations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I want to press the Minister on geographical indications, which are vital in our marketing of goods and products made across the country. In the event of a no deal, about which the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest seems quite keen, protections for Cornish pasties, Buxton blue cheese, traditional Welsh perry, Cornish clotted cream and Whitstable oysters, to name but a few, will be at risk. What steps is DEFRA taking to ensure that those vital goods produced by our farmers and growers are protected come Halloween this year?

[Mr Goodwill]

In a no-deal situation, we would wish to set up our own scheme and to negotiate with our friends across the channel to ensure some degree of co-operation, but I stress that no deal is not an option I would want to support. We need to get a deal, and we need to get it over the line. If, like me, Opposition Members had voted for the deal on the three occasions it came before the House, we would have left the European Union on 29 March and we would be in a much better situation for UK producers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we are absolutely committed to supporting the work in St Fergus. Technological breakthroughs in institutions such as Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen are also precisely the sorts of work that we should be getting behind.

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

Today the Environment Agency announced that it is preparing for a catastrophic 4° rise in global temperatures and huge sea level rises. The EA says it needs £1 billion a year for coastal defences, but the Government have allocated only £2.6 billion over six years —less than half of what the EA says is needed. When should we expect the necessary increase in funding and a plan to protect our vulnerable coastal communities?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. First, I record my thanks to Emma Howard Boyd and Sir James Bevan, the chair and chief executive of the Environment Agency, for the leadership that they have shown on this issue. Under this Government, record amounts have been spent on flood defences and record efforts have been made to combat climate change. However, in both cases, more needs to be done. The national policy statement will be forthcoming shortly.

World Health: 25-Year Environment Plan

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my fellow west country MP, the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), on securing this important debate, and for introducing it so eloquently. I especially liked his phrase that we have to “up our game”. He rightly encouraged ministerial colleagues to do that. Our environment needs to be taken more seriously by all Members of Parliament and all those in public office if we are to meet the challenge that we face.

It has been a good debate. The Division has led to a slightly emptier Chamber than we had a moment ago, but we heard some fantastic contributions from speakers from right across the political spectrum. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who spoke about the importance of bird nesting—a subject that now has media attention, not only because of the horrendous footage on social media today of sand martins trying to get through nets to get back to their nests.

There is also concern about the practice of developers netting trees to prevent birds from nesting, and the sense that that is being done against the best interests of our natural world. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel aggrieved by that, but we have the powers in this place to do something about it. We must call out developers who use cruel, inhumane tactics against our wildlife and, if they persist in such behaviour, we must introduce regulation to prevent it.

I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who spoke so eloquently about microplastics. We need Ministers to rise to the challenge of how we test for microplastics, ensure that we are using common science across all forms of testing and create a safe level and an action plan not only to reduce microplastics and microfibres but to tackle what is already in the natural world.

I pay tribute to those Members across the House who mentioned insect loss, a subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) led a good debate on only a few weeks ago. Despite many of us not being huge fans of creepy crawlies, we need to spend more time on that. We need to focus not only on bees but on a wide variety of insects that are vital to our natural world.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives for talking about public engagement with nature. If we are truly to value and protect our natural habitat, we need to ensure that people visit it, understand the value of it, and get something from it. It is deeply disturbing how few people engage with our natural world. I am leading the campaign for Plymouth Sound to be designated the country’s first national marine park—the first, but I hope the first of many. Some 20% of our young people in Plymouth, Britain’s ocean city, have not even seen the sea, and 50% have not visited a beach. Those were the findings of the fairness commission that was run by Plymouth City Council. Those should be the type of statistics that scare us all. That is a city right on the coast, so much more needs to be done.

At the last DEFRA questions on 28 March the shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), declared a climate and environment emergency, on behalf of the Opposition, at column 534. She challenged the Minister to join us in cross-party working to jointly declare a climate crisis. Ministers did not agree to do that, but I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of cross-party working in relation to declaring a climate crisis. In local government up and down the country, Conservative, Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat councillors, and others besides, have been working in collaboration to declare local climate crises. The public and the young people whom the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke about expect politicians in this place to do something similar and declare a climate crisis at national level. We can then take cross-party action against it.

The 25-year environment plan is a good start, but we need much more besides. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) spoke with passion about the need for action and that is something I want to impress on the Minister. Since the Environment Secretary took office there have been 76 DEFRA consultations, but only one piece of primary legislation. It is not good enough to be the Secretary of State for consultations. We need to tackle climate change properly, which means that we need proper action. I implore the Minister to tell the House when the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill will make a comeback, and when the environment Bill, for which the hon. Member for St Ives made a good case, will be seen. We need action, not just warm words.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

A beautifully timed speech from the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The fishermen of Strangford and the Ards peninsula are people close to my heart. It is absolutely right that since the recent actions we have been in touch with the Irish Government specifically in order to ensure that we can have a fair allocation of fishing opportunities across the island of Ireland and its waters. The Republic of Ireland Government know how seriously we take this issue, and how urgent it is to reform.

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

I was amazed and disappointed this week that the Government whipped their MPs to vote for a huge loophole in post-Brexit fishing rules that would allow a cruel and inhumane method of fishing to continue. The 5% loophole that allows electro pulse beam trawling is cruel and destructive. It destroys our seabeds and kills juvenile fish, and it is so intensely destructive that it breaks the vertebrae of cod. Will the Secretary of State now work with the Opposition to bring forward a brief statutory instrument to close this loophole that allows UK boats to use this cruel and inhumane fishing method?

[Michael Gove]

We always want to work with the Opposition to ensure that the highest standards of environmental and marine welfare are maintained, but I should say that it is one of the opportunities that leaving the European Union gives us to ensure that Dutch vessels that have been using pulse fishing in our waters end that cruel practice.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

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

7. Whether the House of Commons plans to stock Plymouth Gin during the Mayflower 400 commemorations.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

The House of Commons catering service does not currently stock Plymouth Gin, but will seek to stock some for the Mayflower 400 commemorations.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, which will warm the spirits of people in Plymouth. Plymouth Gin is a fantastic gin, and Mayflower 400, which marks the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower from Plymouth to America, is a great opportunity. In these tough times, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we look not only at the standard-strength gin, but Plymouth Gin’s Navy strength as well? We could all do with a little bit extra in these tough times.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He may be aware of moves within the House to look at the availability of alcohol in this place; I am not sure whether the House will want to entertain the idea of double or triple-strength gins. However, he has put his point on the record and I will take it back to the catering services, including whether they want to stock the double or triple-strength gin that he proposes.