Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
Having had the opportunity to visit Highland Spring, thanks to my hon. Friend, I endorse wholeheartedly the company’s leadership in providing high-quality products to so many people across the world. It also provides employment in his constituency. Highland Spring, like us, wants to ensure that we have a UK-wide scheme. Although I applaud the ambition of Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish Government Environment Minister, in taking forward a DR scheme, it is absolutely vital that we make sure it works UK-wide. I hope and believe that the Scottish Government will now put the interests of the United Kingdom ahead of the ideology of separatism that sometimes creeps into some of the things they come up with.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Michael Gove
That was a typically balanced and thoughtful contribution from the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. One thing I would say is that sustainable farming, particularly mixed and livestock farming, is a critical part of ensuring that we have a healthy environment. I absolutely take on board her point. One thing we absolutely do not want to do is use a crude taxation intervention when it is much more sensible to work with farmers to raise the quality of livestock. There are things we can do on how livestock farmers operate that can contribute to reducing emissions, while at the same time maintaining high-quality red meat that is available to people at every price point.
Environment and Climate Change
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
The whole point of today’s debate is to declare an emergency to focus the attention of all of us on the sheer urgency of the issue because it is not going to go away; it is going to get considerably worse unless we act and set an example to other nations to also act.
Jeremy Corbyn
I give way to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mary Creagh
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on declaring an environment and climate emergency. Did he see the report the Committee produced last week stating that, if we leave the EU, the watchdog the Government are currently proposing is toothless because it does not have the power to fine Government for breaches of air pollution, water quality and waste standards? Does he agree that that is a very big barrier for the Government to overcome?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, the work her Committee does and the report it produced. The watchdog has to have all the teeth necessary to make sure the actions are taken. As I pointed out in response to an earlier intervention, there has to be a dynamic relationship with European regulations in order to achieve that. I thank her for her work.
Michael Gove
I will not give way to everyone—just a few more. Then I will make some progress.
Mary Creagh
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I welcome the change in his party’s policy on the forests, which—let us not forget—the Government planned to sell back in 2011. Does he share my concern that the country is currently set to miss its fourth and fifth carbon budgets? Does he also agree that the next spending review conducted by the Treasury has to set out how not just the economy but the entire Government purchasing processes and policies have to achieve net zero—that it should be a net zero spending review?
World Health: 25-Year Environment Plan
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, on a subject that I know is close to your heart as a friend of the fishing community and the chalk streams, and to hear such an eloquent exposition of the problems facing our country from the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). Our paths have not crossed very much since he was elected to the House. I am sure I join other members of my Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally)—in inviting him to join us on the Environmental Audit Committee, for which we currently have at least one vacancy for Conservative Members. His expertise and eloquence would be very welcome, and this is a subject that we are currently exploring in our inquiry on planetary health, which is based on the
“understanding that human health and human civilisation depend on flourishing natural systems and the wise stewardship”
of the natural world.
I want to signal to the hon. Gentleman that we are about to start an investigation on toxic chemicals—the various pollutants that are around us and are affecting our hormone systems and lungs—straight after the recess. We are also about to start an inquiry on invasive species—back to the mice and rats on South Georgia—so we will have some very interesting discussions to come. Perhaps we will end up going fishing for some invasive crayfish and having a crayfish boil.
I want to say a couple of things to emphasise how grave the position of our planet’s health is, highlight the link between the health of the planet and that of humans, and explain why it is so important to act now and how the 25-year plan goes some way, but still needs further work to deliver the roadmap that we need. Everything we do to the Earth, we do to ourselves. We saw that with microplastics, as we discovered that these tiny plastic particles are being pumped into our cosmetics, shower gels and shaving gels and then flushed down the drains. They now appear in every lake and river in the UK. Indeed, I believe that the River Tame in Greater Manchester is the most polluted by microbeads—again, the science is emerging in this new area of pollution.
Humanity’s footprint is now so great that we are in new ecological epoch called the Anthropocene. It has been defined by scientists as
“the mass extinctions of plant and animal species, the pollution of the oceans”,
and a radically altered atmosphere because there is so much carbon.
Melanie Onn
On microplastics, has my hon. Friend had any thoughts about how they got into the food chain, in particular through fish? There is a plan for fishing and its sustainability, but how can we know the health of the fish that we consume?
Mary Creagh
One of the shocking things that we discovered in our microbeads inquiry was that if someone eats a plate of oysters or mussels, they consume 30 microplastic particles. It is particularly into those bottom feeders—that seafood—that this material goes. There is evidence, I think, that it can pass through the fish gut, so as long as the fish is cleaned, people will be okay, but we know that it is accumulating in the guts of seabirds, and we do not want our marine life to be choked, entangled and starved to death, whether that is by large plastics or smaller plastics, so I welcome anything that is done on this. We do not know whether the plastic particles act as vectors for chemicals such that the pollution that exists in the sea, that persists in the environment, attaches to these plastics and then potentially is delivered into our bodies. These are big emerging areas of science, and I am grateful to the chief medical officer for commissioning research on the matter.
We know that insects are the canary in the coalmine. That is a slightly mixed metaphor, but there is the issue of insects and insect loss. They make up two thirds of all life on Earth, but they are almost invisible and are being lost at alarming rates. Forty per cent. of species will be at risk by the end of the decade, and there is a 2.5% decline in insect biomass each year.
As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, this has to do with climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report entitled “Global Warming of 1.5°C”, published last October, warned that we have just 12 years to avoid catastrophic climate change. It warned that the rate of biodiversity loss will be twice as severe in a 2° warmed world as it will be in a 1.5° world. The difference that that makes is that in a 1.5° world, 90% of the coral reefs will be lost, so our children will be able to see the remaining 10% of coral reefs, whereas in a 2° warmed world, our children will never see a coral reef. That includes the cold-water coral reefs on the southern border of the UK as well.
Richard Benyon
Does the hon. Lady share my increasing anger that our conversation in this place and the conversation in this London postal district of SW1 among the commentariat is obsessed with one issue, which will pass and will be, in history terms, a blip in the road? What we are talking about in this debate is an existential issue, and we have to wise up to that. The young people who campaigned recently on the doorsteps of MPs need to be listened to. This is their future. We as a Parliament have to start reflecting the anger that people are starting to feel about their future, and we have to start doing something about it.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. Let me just say to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) that I would like to get one more speaker in, so if she could finish at three minutes past 5, I would be very grateful.
Mary Creagh
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Walker. I totally agree with the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). This issue is a passion of his, and I agree with him. Young people are starting to campaign on the issue. They are being educated—this generation is certainly better educated than ours was about these issues. I pay tribute to the work of schools such as Horbury Bridge Academy in my constituency, which is doing a series of workshops on the sustainable development goals—that is the plan that the Government have signed up to—to educate primary school children about the small actions that they can take to make the big changes that we need in our world. One problem is that we can feel overwhelmed, so one of the things that we need to do is to say, “We have to start here in the UK. We have to start in our own families and in our own Parliament.” I pay tribute to the parliamentary authorities for doing so much to clean up our plastic use.
I will skip on to how the environment changes health. For example, environmental pollution causes up to 16 million premature deaths a year. That is three times the number of people killed by malaria, AIDS and TB put together and 15 times the number killed by violence and war. It is amazing that we are tackling AIDS, TB and malaria, but we are not tackling pollution because, as economic activity, it falls under “too hard”. There is something for us to think about there. We know that there are impacts here in the UK. We are seeing a rise in non-communicable diseases. Incidences of diabetes have more than doubled in the past 20 years. Two thirds of males and more than half of females in England are overweight or obese.
Another inquiry that our Committee did was on heatwaves. We have warned that a 2° rise in temperature could see the average number of heat-related deaths in the UK more than triple, to 7,000 a year by 2050. The Environment Agency has warned that within 25 years England will not have enough water to meet demand, and that problem is particularly acute in the south-east and east of England. We have rehearsed the dangers of air pollution over and over again, and I welcome the Mayor of London’s introduction of the ultra low emission zone. As I cycled in yesterday and cycled home last night, there was a notable drop in the number of cars and vans that were circulating. Perhaps that was to do with the Easter holidays, or perhaps it was all in my imagination, but it certainly felt a lot cleaner. We await the Committee on Climate Change’s review of how we cap emissions at a 1.5° rise.
To finish, I will briefly talk about the Government’s 25-year environment plan. That plan is necessary because of the decision to leave the European Union—a decision that I profoundly regret and that many of my constituents also profoundly regret. A tricky third of environment legislation on air, waste, water and chemicals cannot simply be cut and pasted through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We need to put into practice the environmental principles that we have signed up to in international law. We want our climate change commitments to be actionable and measured by any new Office for Environmental Protection, and we want an architecture of long-term, legally binding environmental targets that is supported by a five-year planning cycle and takes the Climate Change Act 2008 as its model. I welcome the plan, but I am worried about the lack of targets.
I am also worried about the lack of measurable targets to increase our green space. We on the Committee recommended that we should get urban green space back to 2001 levels to reduce the urban heat island effect. These issues are not just for DEFRA; they need to be dealt with across every Department. Great work is being done in my constituency. We are getting a new garden at the Hepworth gallery, and we have some brilliant groups, such as Friends of CHaT Parks. That group helps to run the nurseries at Thornes Park, working with adults with learning disabilities. I was also proud to plant some trees to mark the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy locally. However, achieving net zero emissions simply cannot wait. We need action across Government. We need greener cities, greener cars, greener diets, greener finance and greener Government if we are to meet that challenge. I look forward to working with the many people of good will across all parties, and of course with the Minister—who I know is working hard on these issues—to make that a reality.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The wind-ups from the Front Benchers will start at 5.8 pm. The Opposition parties get five minutes, the Minister gets 10 minutes, and the proposer gets two minutes.
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, he authored that paper, which is why it is so excellent and long-standing. He is right to push that particular issue. He should not be modest. I am sure that he will give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman); but I know that he was the driving force.
As has been said, 2019 is the year of green action and is providing a focal point for organisations, individuals, communities and businesses to learn more about their environmental impact and take action to reduce it. That is why we have partnered with the charity Step up to Serve, to help encourage environmental youth social action through their #iwill4nature campaign. I also met with the Minister for Civil Society and know that she will be taking this up with the National Citizen Service, to make sure that it is also fully involved in these projects, not only this year but, I hope, going forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives referred to the benefits of tree planting. Besides the social benefits of community forests, to which I have already referred, it is true that trees benefit us economically and environmentally, in particular in sequestering carbon dioxide. That is why the 25-year environment plan sets out our ambitions for tree planting. In addition to the 11 million trees that we have committed to plant across the country, we will ensure that 1 million more are planted in our towns and cities. We have also been consulting on the rules that we want to see in place to make it harder for councils to cut down trees when they become a nuisance, rather than being cherished for what they are.
Mary Creagh
The Minister is making some powerful points, particularly about community forests—bringing forests closer to people. That is certainly a welcome change, after the attempts to sell off the forest. Can she tell us who is monitoring these 1 million trees? Who is counting them, and how will we know when those targets have been reached?
Dr Coffey
I used to have the forestry portfolio, but that is now the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand; the hon. Lady may wish to pursue that question in a different way.
In January last year, alongside the launch of the plan, the Prime Minister announced £5.7 million to accelerate development of a new northern forest, signalling the importance that we attach to tree planting. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, he is supporting a group of schoolchildren in his constituency to plant more trees. I am very pleased that they have taken up that project. In 2016, the Government launched the Schools for Trees project, and provided funding for 400,000 trees to be planted, which directly matched the corporate-sponsored programme already organised by the Woodland Trust. I am glad that he is taking advantage.
Hon. Members have referred to climate change. There are many stressors on planetary health, which have already been referred to—human population growth and climate change being the most significant. As climate change affects the environmental and social determinants of health, under future climate change scenarios impacts could intensify, increasing existing disease burdens and widening health inequalities if no interventions are made. Mitigating and adapting to climate change is one of the fundamental goals of the 25-year environment plan. Once we leave the EU, we will introduce an environmental land management system that will be the cornerstone of that intervention, changing the way farmers and land managers manage their land to deliver this crucial goal. Although I do not know when the Agriculture Bill will complete its stages, that will of course be part of it. Environmental land management will be supported by other interventions related to waste management, soils, agriculture and forestry—each playing a critical role—as set out in the plan.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) that we undertook a recent consultation that proposed an indicator framework including soil. She will be aware of some of the challenges in trying to make that assessment. I suggest that she looks out in the next couple of days for my written answer to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
Globally, the UK played a leadership role in securing the 2015 Paris agreement and continues to work to ensure that subsequent negotiations unlock ambitious action. The Government are on track to deliver their commitment to providing at least £5.8 billion of international plant finance between April 2016 and March 2021. Through this fund, the UK has helped 47 million people cope with the effects of climate change. DEFRA’s investments alone are expected to save 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This funding will go to projects such as the Blue Forest project in Madagascar and Indonesia—a £10.1 million programme that is reducing deforestation of mangrove habitat, helping to support sustainable livelihoods and community health and increasing climate resilience in coastal communities. I am pleased to say that we have also added some funding to a project to prevent mangrove deforestation in the Caribbean, focusing particularly on Belize.
Although much more progress is needed globally on the greenhouse gas emissions generated by energy and transport in particular, we need to increase substantially the focus on nature-based solutions, to reduce the pace of climate change and fulfil much climate change mitigation as well as adaptation.
Biodiversity change is intrinsically linked to climate change and is another key indicator of planetary health. It underpins many benefits enjoyed by individuals and communities, from the food we eat to clean air and water and the endurance of nature. The plan represents a step change in ambition for nature through its goal to see thriving plants and wildlife. As such, we are investing in peatland and woodland restoration, which contribute to climate change mitigation and provide important wildlife habitats. The House will know that we are establishing a nature recovery network as a key contributor to our ambition to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, which will provide wider benefits for people. I expect the new environment Bill, which will include a number of ambitious measures, to be the first Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Internationally, the UK is committed to playing a leading role in developing an ambitious post-2020 framework.
On bird netting, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is on the case. On Bacton cliffs, the nets are there so that the birds rest somewhere else; they are protecting the birds. The challenge is that the eroding coast is a risk to birds, and the nets are being checked three times a day to make sure that no bird becomes stuck. I am conscious of what is being said about the matter, and we will continue to look at it carefully, but there are balances that we must strike to ensure that nature is preserved.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I will take one who has signalled to me, the hon. Member for Wakefield, and then let us hear the statement by the Leader of the House. If there are then further points of order, I can take them afterwards.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful, but the motion you have read out at speed indicates that the Government are clearly making this House a prisoner of their deal. It is saying that we have to agree the deal by 20 March, and if we do that we will get the extension that this House is clearly going to be voting for tomorrow. When will the Government allow this House to express any alternatives to the deal that the Prime Minister, despite having been defeated twice, is still trying to railroad through this place?
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
No, I do not agree with that assessment. Nevertheless, this SI is not about whether we have a deal or not—it is about having an effective regulatory system. It is not about changing policy or trying to make it stronger—it is about trying to make sure that we can have something that works and continues to work in future.
In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, these regulations simply make technical and legal amendments, including transitional arrangements, to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left significantly inoperable, so that the law as today will continue to function legally following our exit from the EU. I recognise that the statutory instrument is long and makes many adjustments, but I can assure the House that they represent no changes of policy.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The truth is that the statutory instrument will not be able simply to cut and paste the REACH database into UK law. We cannot cut and paste the chemicals framework established by the EU into UK law because it regulates, evaluates and authorises chemicals, and that is significantly different. That is why the Minister is asking this House to establish a UK chemicals database and asking the UK industry to make significant contributions towards that. That is the case, is it not?
Dr Coffey
That is right. These regulations will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, with the exception of paragraph 1 of schedule 11, which makes amendments to existing domestic legislation regarding the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls that, in the current regulations I referred to, extends only to England and Wales. This Government, and this country, have to be ready for the prospect of not being part of ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—in future, and we therefore need to put in place the regulatory framework that means we will continue to have a safe chemicals industry in future.
Dr Coffey
Actually, I am not aware of the reference to that by Rolls-Royce. Yes, we do need, in effect, to replicate the database, and that is what part of these regulations establishes. However, I want to make it clear to the House that CEFIC—the European Chemical Industry Council—and the Chemical Industries Association in the UK have made a joint statement to their members that the contracts that currently exist between consortiums should be amended so that information or data is available both for REACH and for UK REACH in future. None of the consortiums can force their members to do that, but I believe that it is in their best interests to make sure that the data and information required is available to both chemicals regulation systems.
As I said, the regulations apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. This Government and the devolved Administrations have worked together closely on these regulations and have agreed that a UK-wide REACH system will mean a coherent UK market backed by consistent policies and chemical management. The devolved Administrations have been involved in the drafting of the SI and have given their consent. That includes the Labour-run Welsh Government and the SNP-run Scottish Government. Indeed, this was also scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament, which also gave its consent.
Mary Creagh
A little earlier, the Minister talked about a section—forgive me, but I do not have the exact number—relating to the disposal of PCBs. Is she saying that different regulations will apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, if so, will they be to higher or lower standards, or the same?
Dr Coffey
I am saying that, as it stands today, chemicals regulation is a devolved matter in how Governments can apply these things. We have a particular regulation that currently applies only to England and Wales. The Scottish and other Administrations will have made their own applications in legislation for that. That is why this is the only bit of the entire statutory instrument that does not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Dr Coffey
As I said, we are recruiting staff to undertake additional elements, but it will be open to the regulator to take advice from where it likes, whether that is from ECHA, from within the UK—we should remember that, in many cases, UK scientists are the people giving advice to ECHA—or, indeed, from further afield. We will not be restricting the regulator’s consideration, but it matters that we have an operational scenario for chemicals regulation. The House can be assured that we will continue to have a safe chemicals industry in the future.
Mary Creagh
The Minister will be aware that my Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, held an evidence session in December 2018, subsequent to our report published in 2017, in which we heard from Elizabeth Shepherd, a partner at Eversheds Sutherland. She is one of the UK’s leading experts in chemical regulation, and she said:
“The UK regulator, HSE, is no longer involved in the evaluation of substances. HSE has, to date, played a very active part in evaluating chemicals… the chemicals that were assigned to HSE for the 2018-19 period have been moved away from the UK already to other evaluating authorities. Businesses are concerned that they will lose the insight that participation gave them and the opportunity to influence the shape of regulation.”
We are losing our influence, are we not?
Dr Coffey
I do not think we are losing our influence. The measure was taken by ECHA after the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Currently, a country can only be a member of ECHA by being a member state of the European Union, so this is forward planning. Some of these assessments can take time to go through the ECHA process, and therefore, given that the HSE would not be a relevant authority for future ECHA authorisations, I would not want to criticise ECHA for having made that decision. Meanwhile, the HSE has the competence, and it has started recruiting people to undertake the different activities it will need to do.
I will now move on to decision making and working with the devolved Administrations. Just as the HSE inherits the role and functions of ECHA, the responsibilities of the European Commission will pass to the Secretary of State. For example, the Secretary of State will make decisions to authorise the use of a substance of very high concern or to restrict chemicals on the basis of an opinion from the HSE, as covered by articles 60 and 73.
REACH also covers devolved matters such as environmental protection. For that reason, the Secretary of State must act with the consent of the devolved Administrations where a decision relates to an area of devolved competence, as set out in proposed new article 4A in schedule 1. A safeguard clause allows the devolved Administrations, and indeed the Secretary of State, to take urgent action where it is needed to protect human health or the environment. This must then be followed up with the normal restriction process to see whether there should be a UK-wide control, as set out in article 129.
On transferring existing UK registrants into the UK REACH system, the regulations contain a range of transitional provisions to provide legal continuity to business and to protect supply chains. All registrations held by UK companies will be automatically transferred, often known as “grandfathered,” to the UK REACH system at the point of exit, as set out by proposed new article 127A in schedule 2, which means there will be no break in their access to the UK market.
Companies will need to provide the HSE with information to support their registrations in two phases: initial information within 120 days and the full information within two years. That is set out in proposed new article 127B in schedule 2.
Sue Hayman
I am afraid that that is not the information I have been given. As I said, the Minister did not rule that out to the Lords Committee, and when I went to Brussels to visit the REACH team, they confirmed that they believed this would be the case. Will the Minister categorically confirm whether these proposals have the potential to lead to further animal testing?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend has triggered a memory that I thought I had buried. On the animal testing point, when our Committee held an update hearing in December, one concern raised was about where the intellectual property that UK companies have submitted into the REACH database lives. There was a great deal of concern that the Minister’s reassurances that companies could just go and get that intellectual property, which they have paid for and registered, out of the database is problematic, because it is now owned by REACH, and once the UK leaves, we ironically will not have access to our own intellectual property. Does that not show the complete misunderstanding of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) of how the world trades in chemicals, on which REACH sets the global standard?
Sue Hayman
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
If we voted to pass this SI, we would be voting for legislation that is likely to increase animal suffering through duplicate testing. It would also mean that critical decisions on chemicals were made by a body with little experience and layers of accountability and scientific expertise stripped away. Greener UK has said:
“As currently drafted, the chemicals SI significantly weakens the regulation of chemicals, including those with links to cancer and hormone disruption.”
How can we responsibly let this secondary legislation pass, in the light of these serious and grave reservations? Does the Minister recognise those risks, and can she guarantee that British people will continue to receive the same health and safety and environmental benefits that we currently do as a member of REACH?
In a no-deal Brexit scenario, we would become a third party to REACH on 29 March, with all existing REACH registrations and authorisations held by UK companies becoming immediately invalid. Companies wanting to continue to export into the EU would need to transfer their registrations to EU-based companies or rely on their customers making importer registrations.
Sue Hayman
I completely agree. In fact, representatives of trade unions have made exactly that point to me, and they have deep concerns about this.
Companies wanting to transfer their registrations would potentially need customers to make importer registrations. That could lead to serious ramifications down the supply chain and interruptions to the many billions of pounds’ worth of trade between the UK and EU.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is making an excellent speech and being very generous with her time. I wanted to intervene on the Minister on the issue of grandfathering rights. Is not the truth that British companies are now in an invidious position where, if they want to keep trading with the EU after exit day, whenever that may come—goodness knows what will happen in the next 48 hours, let alone the next five weeks—they will have to transfer their registrations to an affiliate in the EU? How can they then grandfather those rights into the UK’s chemical regulation system when they have given them away in the European Union?
Sue Hayman
Once again, my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Of course, we also need to look at the huge costs to companies of these actions. The problems and difficulties that will be caused are not short-term but long-term.
Does the Minister acknowledge that a no-deal outcome brings with it huge risks to industry, jobs and our environment? Due to the numerous deficits and risks posed, we will be voting against this SI and would encourage Members across the House to do the same in good conscience.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I was getting my speech together as I was listening to what she said.
This is of course a very important sector for the UK economy. As the Minister said, REACH regulates not just chemicals but products—everything from the coating on a frying pan to the flame retardants in carpets and sofas, which my Environmental Audit Committee will be looking at very soon—and it is vital in the protection of human health. However, it is also a single market mechanism to ensure the free movement of chemicals across the EU and to enhance innovation in the EU chemicals market.
What British companies are asking themselves, as they look at this statutory instrument, is: what is to stop my EU customers going somewhere else? The answer in this statutory instrument is nothing. We are putting more costs on UK businesses, we are rendering them uncompetitive in the EU market and we are allowing the burden of excess regulation to fall on them both in this country and in their export markets.
What are companies doing in response to that? Many of them have already left. There has been an exodus of small chemical companies. Someone told me that a small mosquito repellent company—obviously, mosquito repellent is a very seasonal product—was concerned about what would happen to its business in the UK, making products predominantly for the EU market. It has shut down its factory, which I think was based in Gloucestershire, and has moved it to Italy. Quietly, it has moved tens of jobs and a manufacturing company out of this country.
REACH regulates about 30,000 substances bought and sold in the EU’s markets, and 60% of the UK chemicals industry’s exports go to the EU. This is our second largest export to the EU after cars. We have seen in the car industry—with Honda’s announcement last week, as with Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan—just how important access to the EU single market is for our automotive industry, as it is for the parts that go into those cars. Of course, chemicals—chromium in particular— are absolutely vital to the automotive and aerospace industry.
We export almost £15 billion-worth of chemicals a year to the EU, and all our businesses have to comply with REACH. So far, companies have made more than 12,000 registrations. The Environmental Audit Committee looked at this back in April 2017, and we have seen this problem coming at us down the track for the past two and a half years. We heard that UK businesses had at that point spent about £250 million on registration. Since then, there has been another registration deadline, in May 2018, for smaller volumes of substances. The estimate now is that about £600 million of UK companies’ money has been spent registering chemicals with the European Chemicals Agency up to last May.
What happens to those sunk costs? What is happening is that those companies now only have their own representative in the EU up to 1 April. As I mentioned to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), they will not have registrations if they have handed them over. They are in the very difficult position of not knowing what to do in the next four to six weeks, and I do not think these difficulties can be overstated.
The Minister has said that she is going to spend £13 million on the new HSE database, but the fact is that REACH costs €100 million a year to run. We are therefore going to have a tiny shadow of the European chemicals database here in the UK.
REACH is difficult to transpose into UK law because it is a governance structure, not just a list of substances. Even if it was just a list of substances, our registrations and the intellectual property that goes with them have, in some cases, been lost by UK companies, or transferred to different places and are difficult to track down. So many of the regulations apply to data sharing, co-operation and the facilitation of free trade in chemicals between companies in member states. If we are not in the single market and not in the EEA, we will not have access to that data.
The Minister has said that she wants associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency, but she did not say in her opening remarks whether that is still being pursued, and if so, how progress on that associate membership is going. I understand that Norway is a member of it through its membership of the EEA.
We are clearly duplicating regulation if we have our own version of REACH, and companies trading in the EU and the UK will incur duplicate costs. We are doubling the costs of chemical regulations by leaving the EU. We know that uncertainty is having an impact on long-term investment and decisions. The Chemical Industries Association and the Chemical Business Association have indicated that a significant number of their members are considering moving their operations out of the UK to preserve their European business.
I would certainly prefer to see us remaining in REACH. Again, in the current system planned under this statutory instrument, there is silence on enforcement responsibilities, compliance and whether we remain in lockstep with the EU REACH system. There is no real stakeholder involvement in who gets to decide on that, which I think is very detrimental to the UK’s competitiveness. REACH is the global gold standard in chemicals regulation, and it has been copied by South Korea, Turkey and the USA. My Committee visited the USA and heard about its Toxic Substances Control Act—which, sadly, President Trump and his various Environmental Protection Agency heads have tried to row back on, but even the ToSCA is now about 10 to 15 years behind the EU.
To come on to the detail of the regulations, a very concerning deficiency in the statutory instrument is in relation to article 10 on the composition of the agency. We are not replicating the committees that inform decisions at the EU level, which will remove vital checks and balances in the form of stakeholder participation. ECHA has a management committee and technical committees, with stakeholders from industry, environmental and health non-governmental organisations, and trade unions permitted to participate in these meetings, but without a vote. There will be no such stakeholder participation in the UK chemicals agency, as formulated under this statutory instrument. This means that the best information will not be available for these discussions, and it will be ruled by fiat, rather than by discussion.
Article 76 of the original EU version created several committees, including one for risk assessment, one for socioeconomic analysis and a member state committee responsible for resolving potential divergences. The draft statutory instrument completely omits that article and replaces it with a much weaker duty to simply take scientific knowledge into account but with no formal standard mechanism comprising standing committees of experts to do so. We will have no committees of experts, or other committees, to take these registrations into account and help the agency to form its opinions.
The same deficiency appears elsewhere, including in relation to title 7 on authorisation. Article 58 concerns the inclusion of substances in annexe 14, but the duty to take into account the opinion of the member state committee is simply removed and the decision left to the Secretary of State. This is what my Committee has been warning against. Important democratic oversight mechanisms are being lost in translation and in the cut-and-paste process, and quietly, through the back door, in half-empty Chambers such as that in which we are sitting this evening, environmental regulation is simply being downgraded.
As I said earlier, I am very concerned about the budget. REACH was very expensive to set up. The Health and Safety Executive is going to run the UK version, but it has experienced considerable budget cuts over the past 15 years. Its annual accounts indicate that it currently spends just over £1 million for chemicals regulation testing in the UK. Page 98 suggests that it receives £1.2 million for provision of REACH services to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but that is a reduction from the £1.4 million it received in 2016-17. By contrast, I repeat that the spend per year for REACH is €100 million.
There is no commitment to mirror EU outcomes on chemical regulation. The draft statutory instrument has no automatic provision for copy across of EU restrictions and further improvements, so the UK’s controls on chemical use could rapidly diverge from those in the EU. If the UK fell behind those in the EU, protection of human health and the environment would be reduced. We do not want to end up in a situation where chemical regulation is diluted.
I have shared my concerns about the outcomes and the stakeholders. My final point relates to the Government’s better regulation agenda, which has a commitment to bring in regulations only if three times the amount of regulation, measured on the basis of cost to companies, is removed. My Committee has been pressing the Cabinet Office on the issue. In a written statement on 20 June 2018, the then Minister confirmed that the UK still has a deregulation target of £9 billion in this Parliament. That confirmed for the first time that the target would be applied to vast swathes of formerly EU law after the transition or implementation period.
All of the regulations are going to be subject to the bizarre and ridiculous one in, three out rule. If we want to strengthen environmental law, protect new organisms or habitats, or ban a new chemical, the UK must calculate the business cost and ignore the benefits, and then the Department concerned must justify how it fits with the overall reduction target. This rule creates a massive disincentive for Ministers, Departments and civil servants to improve regulation
The National Audit Office report on DEFRA’s progress in implementing EU exit had grave concerns about the long-term function of the UK’s chemical regulatory system. It was very critical, although I acknowledge that some progress has been made. CHEM Trust told me in a meeting that it is also concerned about the rapid warning systems. UK environmental health officers could discover, for example, lead paint on children’s toys or dangerous chemicals in baby products and baby foods, but because of the downgrading of their work, and that of trading standards, we are no longer going out looking for those problems and are very reliant on colleagues in other EU member states alerting us to the need to take such products off the market.
In conclusion, we have been gravely concerned for the past two years. When people voted to leave the EU, they did not vote to have weaker chemical regulation standards or for UK companies to leave the country in order to have better access to EU markets and to have to pay twice for the same registrations. They certainly did not vote for a flood of cheap imports to come into this country without any customs checks or for our children to be less safe from toxic chemicals. I hope that that is not where we end up. It shows the need for us to have a proper transition period and to remain in the single market and the customs union, to avoid such a devastating outcome.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I associate myself with the concerns raised by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), and by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). For those who raised the specific point about the risks of no deal, the most serious concerns could be avoided by the Government simply ruling it out. That is why it is so important for Parliament to assert its authority this week, to prevent the disaster of leaving the EU with no deal.
I will confine my main remarks to a question raised by Rolls-Royce, which contacted me in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I challenged the Minister during her opening remarks, but I have to say that I was not convinced or satisfied with her response so I want to return to the issue. The concern is that, as it stands, the draft statutory instrument looks as if it is flawed, and that flaw could have very serious consequences for UK companies.
The UK REACH SI takes account of a number of scenarios, addressing, for example, the issue of an EU authorisation held by a UK entity on which a UK downstream user is dependent and, equally, that of an EU authorisation held by an EEA entity on which a UK downstream user is dependent. However, it has been put to me that the scenario that is not addressed—I really would like the Minister to deal with this specifically—concerns an application for EU authorisation submitted by an EEA entity for which a decision has not yet been made and on which a UK downstream user is dependent.
According to Rolls-Royce, approximately 10 applications for authorisations to use or supply particular chemicals are waiting for a decision by the European Commission, which, as its decision-making process proceeds, takes advice from the European Chemicals Agency and from member states. The likelihood is that the applications currently submitted will not be decided by 29 March. The applications have been submitted by an EEA entity, not by a UK company. However, UK companies downstream in the supply chain—the end users of those chemicals—are reliant on the EEA manufacturer and supplier holding a current authorisation. In the event of no deal, if the EEA entity manufacturing and supplying the chemical to a UK company has not received its authorisation from the EU by 29 March, the UK company that uses that chemical would immediately become non-compliant with the UK REACH SI.
I would be delighted if the Minister intervened on me to address this specific question: what will happen to those companies, including many small and medium-sized enterprises that probably have no idea about all this complexity, that will immediately become non-compliant after 29 March? The consequences for them are potentially disastrous. They would be acting unlawfully in using those chemicals in this country after 29 March. I would be delighted if the Minister reassured the House now. If she is not able to do so, then this statutory instrument has to be opposed because it will have devastating consequences, quite apart from the other concerns that have been expressed in this debate. I urge the Minister, who remains silent, to take this away, rethink it and ensure that it addresses those concerns properly and fully. Without doing so, there will be very serious consequences.
Mary Creagh
I, too, have been contacted by Rolls-Royce and Make UK, the former Engineering Employers’ Federation, which says that the chemicals affected—these in-flight chemicals, if you like—are a range of chromates using coatings, sealings, paints, primers and touch-up preparation, including chromium trioxide, which is used in the chrome plating industry and is significant for the automotive supply chain. It says that limiting the use of these substances would affect a wide range of component part manufacturers, processing houses, and maintenance and repair facilities, as well as other equipment manufacturers. This is exactly what the Environmental Audit Committee warned about two years ago: market freeze, where we simply freeze our automotive supply chains. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in a heavily regulated industry such as aerospace people cannot just switch suppliers from one day to the next?
Dr Coffey
I will not be giving way in my closing remarks—[Interruption.] Well, I am trying to answer the questions that I have already been asked. On what industry needs to know to do, we have had extensive discussions with a number of businesses and trade associations. We have launched a business readiness campaign targeting downstream users, in particular, and we continue to engage with the industry in that regard.
A question was raised about intellectual property. It is fair to say that the intellectual property remains with the company that submits it, but if companies already own the data, they can of course submit that to UK REACH. If not, they will need to arrange access and, as I pointed out, some are already starting to do so. Some—I mentioned CEFIC and the CIA in the UK—have encouraged their members with consortium registrations to make sure that they make that information readily available. Companies can, of course, employ ORs—only representatives—to hold a registration in the EU, just as they may do for access to other markets around the world, while maintaining their UK registration.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
The Department is working flat out to prepare for no deal. As the House knows, we are bringing on the onshoring of environment, agriculture and fisheries policies, involving 55 major projects and 120 statutory instruments. We will be recruiting around 2,700 officials to ensure that we are well prepared in a no-deal scenario.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
We know that householders are stockpiling food and that businesses are spending money that they can ill afford, as is the Minister’s Department, on a no-deal Brexit that would harm the food industry, the farming industry and of course the chemicals industry, which his Department regulates. In a phone call on Tuesday night, the Chancellor said that a no-deal Brexit would be ruled out and off the table by the end of next week. Does the Minister agree?
David Rutley
The best way to avoid no deal is by agreeing a deal, and that is why we are working constructively—[Interruption.] The House made its views clear on the Government’s proposed deal and we are now working constructively with major parties across the House to get a deal in place. I am just disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition did not turn up to do that, and that he has not even agreed with the advice of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
No, I cannot, because we have yet to consult on the scheme. It is important that we give proper consideration not only to the opportunities but to the challenges. The hon. Lady is right to continue to raise the impact of people being careless with litter, which is how plastic often ends up in the marine environment. That is something that everyone in the House wants to prevent.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the Arctic is published today. Because of weather and tides, most of our marine plastic ends up in the Arctic. It is imperative that the deposit return scheme is introduced as soon as possible. Will the Minister confirm that the measures to introduce the DRS will be included in the draft environment Bill when it is published? Or will it be in separate legislation and thereby further delayed?
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Earlier this year, the Minister responsible had two roundtables with water companies to make sure that appropriate lessons were learned. In particular, Members of this House from across the divide made it clear that Thames Water in particular needed to pull its socks up.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Recycling has been increasing since 2010. Over 70% of packaging has been recycled or recovered, which is ahead of the EU target of 60%, and the figure for plastic packaging, at 45%, is double the EU target. England’s household recycling rate has also continued to increase, but we need to do more. We will be publishing our resources and waste strategy shortly.
Mary Creagh
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the birth of her beautiful baby boy, James, a couple of weeks ago.
Fashion should not cost the earth, but every year 300,000 tonnes of garments are disposed into landfill. Will the Minister ensure that the forthcoming resources and waste strategy includes something to force clothing producers to take account of the end use of the garments that they produce?
Agriculture Bill
Mary Creagh Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Pow
Our Scottish Conservative colleagues provide strong representation for farmers. Farming is very important to Scotland, which is a rural area. The SNP and the Scottish Parliament have really missed an opportunity to get their details down on paper so that they can play a full role in the really exciting future that this Government are creating. If it were not for the Conservative Government and our coming out of Europe—I say this even though I was a remainer—we would not have this great opportunity.
Crucially, the essence of the Bill is to move away from making payments simply for the privilege of owning land, as has been mentioned, and towards the concept of paying for public goods. That is the cornerstone of the Bill, and it is absolutely the right thing to do. The basic idea of receiving money for doing something for the public good has met with universal approval, not just from farmers but from environmentalists and right across the board with everybody I have met in Taunton Deane so far. That is true of improving the quality of our water—currently, only 14% of our rivers are classed as clean, which is absolutely shocking; planting more trees to help to reduce the speed of run-off from the hills to the Somerset levels, which will help to reduce the terrible flooding that we have had over many years; and creating new habitats to improve biodiversity and reverse the catastrophic declines in plant and animal populations that we have witnessed in our own lifetimes, as the 2016 “State of Nature” report clearly sets out.
In many cases, EU agricultural policy has been the driver for those wildlife declines, with the loss of mixed farming—grass is so important to that, as it was on the farm where I grew up—less rotation, fewer hedgerows and increased pesticide use. The increased use of pesticides has reduced the quantity of plants on which foraging insects rely; indeed, we rely on those insects to pollinate our crops. The Bill offers an opportunity for new schemes that emphasise the protection of biodiversity and help to redress those losses. Habitat creation schemes such as the one run on West Sedgemoor by the RSPB, which is producing tasty beef, creating summer water meadows and bringing back the snipe—I am proud to be the RSPB snipe champion—are really working. The Bill offers the opportunity to build on such schemes, which I welcome.
There is, however, one thing that I must ask the Minister. If farmers and environmental groups are already involved in environmental stewardship schemes, will those schemes still operate following the implementation of the Bill? Will they be allowed to run their course, or will they end with those groups then having to apply for new schemes?
The Minister will not be at all surprised to learn that I am now going to mention soil, because I have bent his ear on the subject many times. Half the soils in the east of the country are likely to become unproductive within a decade. That was highlighted in our Environmental Audit Committee report—and I see that the Committee’s Chairperson, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), is in the Chamber. Soil erosion is a very serious issue, as is the fact that soil has been treated as a growing medium rather than a living habitat for far too long. I therefore welcome the priority that the Bill gives to soil health, and I was pleased that the Minister came to the launch of the Sustainable Soil Alliance in the House. I hope that the work that it is doing to advise on how we could monitor soil erosion or set targets to address it might influence the way in which payments are made.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is a true soil evangelist, but the Government have already signed up to a target in the Paris agreement to increase soil carbon content by four parts per 1,000 every year in order to sequester more carbon into our soil. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a public good that should be funded and subsidised through the Bill?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she knows, I am passionate about this issue. We need to have a conversation about all our climate change targets, including the potential net zero target that some people are talking about. The question of targets is very important: how can we pay unless we know what we are paying for? The targets that we set for the climate change commitments have worked well, and a similar model might chime with the 25-year plan and the forthcoming environment Act. I believe that many of the details will go into that Bill rather than this framework Agriculture Bill.
Payments relating to our natural heritage and culture are very welcome. My constituency contains two areas of natural beauty where people are pleading that landscape, and landscape beauty, be included in the Bill.
The Government’s commitment to funding until 2022 and for the transition period demonstrates our ongoing support for the countryside. That is obviously important, given that two thirds of farm incomes in the south-west are currently derived from basic payments. I know the Minister understands that. However, I would like to see a further commitment to future funding. God forbid that we ever change Government, but the production of beef or horticultural crops cannot be switched on like a light bulb, and farmers would like some long-term commitment.
Although the Bill does not directly list food as a public good, it does much to enable the efficient production of food. My local farmers welcome the data-gathering elements in the Bill, although, for the purpose of transparency, they would like supermarkets to be included, as well as the manufacturers and producers along the line—not just the raw-material producers. However, I welcome the data collection, and I stand by the Secretary of State’s commitment to maintaining our high food standards. That is crucial to the future. I look forward to the creation of an overarching environmental standards body—in, I believe, the environment Bill—which will hold people to account.
Let me say penultimately that, much as we love our Welsh farming colleagues—indeed, many of them come to Somerset to trade at our markets, especially Sedgemoor market, and they are very welcome—no one wants an internal competitive market to develop as a result of the flexibility offered to Welsh farmers. I am sure the Minister understands what I mean by that.
In conclusion—and thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak—let me say that the Bill heralds the most significant change in our land use for decades, with the finances to underpin it. It is the Conservatives who are leading the way in that regard, for farming and for the environment. I am confident that issues relating to the environment, farming and everything to do with our rural communities will dovetail in the Bill. It is absolutely the right way forward for a sustainable and healthy future. Not one of those elements can survive without the others, and on that note, I give the Bill, and all those who have worked so hard on it, my full support.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Now we come to the easiest part of the United Kingdom to resolve when it comes to agri-food. I dare not tread into the issue of Brexit. Reference was made earlier to a red line in the Irish Sea, but I assure Members that that will never happen as far as the Democratic Unionist party is concerned. We are part of the United Kingdom, and that is how it will remain.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been involved in the agri-food sector for about 43 years—I know that that is hard to believe—from working as a primary producer to working in retail and production and processing.
I think that we are about to experience dramatic changes throughout the industry. These are exciting times. When I speak to farmers and industry representatives, they acknowledge that. They know that there will probably be some trying times, but they are excited by the opportunities that we will have after we have left the European Union.
I welcome the opportunity to debate a Bill that will have an impact on every farmer and farm business throughout the United Kingdom, whether it keeps sheep on the Antrim hills or grows wheat in East Anglia. Given that the UK is leaving the EU and the common agricultural policy, it is vital that a new domestic British agricultural policy is introduced. I welcome the regional flexibilities that are proposed for the different regions of the UK. I believe that there should be a variation in the new policy for each of those regions, provided that those variations do not produce competition in the internal market.
I note the name of the Bill, and I hope that agriculture will remain the central theme in any future policy. The Prime Minister is on record as saying— on three occasions, I think—when I put questions to her that agriculture would not be a poor cousin or the sacrificial lamb in any negotiations with Europe. We will hold the Prime Minister’s feet to the fire, along with those of the Secretary of State and the farming Minister. Agriculture must remain at the top of the agenda.
In Northern Ireland, we employ some 120,000 or 125,000 people in the agri-food sector. There is huge concern in the industry, and of course in the farming community, about EU casual workers. We need to address that during the Bill’s Committee stage, or perhaps it can be dealt with by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There is a massive shortage of workers in the agri-food sector. A few weeks ago, along with the Chairman of the Committee, I met representatives of the industry, who emphasised that they were reaching crisis point, because the sector did not have enough workers to deal with production. The Government need to deal with that issue.
Food production that involves sustainable but profitable farming is essential. As has already been mentioned, those who are in the black at the bank can do many things. Given the changes that are coming, we must encourage farm production. It has already been mentioned that the Bill needs to give more emphasis to the incentive for farmers to grow and produce food. The incentive is there, but it needs to be made clearer that farmers will be encouraged to produce good food.
In Northern Ireland we have for many years had the Albert Heijn supermarkets in Holland insisting on coming to buy their meat in Northern Ireland because of how it is reared and because husbandry and animal welfare is maintained. That applies right across the whole of the United Kingdom. Across the whole UK, we produce the best food produce to be found anywhere in the European Union. That is a fact, and our standards and our animal welfare must be maintained. It is vital that we do that.
I have talked about opportunities. I believe there are opportunities, but the Government must take the issue of the workforce in the agri-food sector more seriously. Some companies in Northern Ireland are 60% dependent on people from other countries. We must get that situation right in some shape or form, and hopefully we will resolve it.
I want the Bill to allow for a UK-wide approach on matters that affect the whole UK. My party believes there should be an overarching policy across the UK to deal with such issues as marketing standards and crisis fund management. It is important that we do such things collectively.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of this Bill will depend on the trade policy that is implemented. Let us be clear: trade legislation or a Pacific trade deal that views agriculture as a sacrificial lamb for the importation of lower quality and standards than those in UK production will not be accepted. The British public will not accept that. We have a standard and a reputation not just across the whole European Union, but further afield, such as in South Africa and in those other countries that buy our chicken product because we cannot market it anywhere else. Our standard must be maintained. I am sure the farming Minister is aware of that—he has been told about it often enough when he has given evidence to the EFRA Committee.
Mary Creagh
As the granddaughter of a Fermanagh cattle farmer, I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly about the fantastic standards and great tradition of farming in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that it is imperative for the future of farming and agriculture across the UK that the Government avoid a no-deal Brexit, which would put World Trade Organisation tariffs of 30% on our lamb and beef and drive most of the beef and cattle and lamb producers in this country out of business? That must be avoided at all costs.
David Simpson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the Prime Minister has said that we have to get the right deal—that is important. I do not think that anyone here wants to go towards WTO, but we must get the right deal. I spoke to the lamb industry a few weeks ago, and, if we go to WTO for that industry—the Minister will know this because he has been told often enough—and tariffs of 14% or 15% are introduced, that would decimate the Northern Ireland lamb industry overnight, given that we export 90% of our lamb. Having said that, we need to get the right deal. Unfortunately, however, the EU keeps sticking in its heels at present, which is nonsense, especially in terms of the border of Northern Ireland, the movement of cattle and so forth, free trade within Northern Ireland, and the soft or hard border. That is all nonsense, because the situation will remain as it is and has been for many years. There is no reason to change that. No one wants to see us going towards WTO, but we must get the right deal. If the right deal is not there, we will have major problems with our industry and employment, and the sector will be decimated. We therefore have to get the right deal and I know the Minister is well aware of that.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I start by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is a historic moment for British agriculture, and I warmly welcome certainty and clarity for the sector regarding the shape of future agreements that the Bill provides. Certainty is as vital for agriculture as it is for any other business sector. That is highlighted by the proposals for a seven-year transition period, beginning in 2021, between CAP and the new policy, which will provide farmers with much-needed time to refashion their business models and plan for the future. The transition period is longer than predicted, which must be welcomed, and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the progressive evolution of the sector rather than the cliff-edge revolution that was once discussed.
I also welcome the phasing out and delinking of basic payments, including lump-sum payments, to assist farmers in diversification or exiting the market, including through funding retirement, thereby supporting new entrants to the sector. Proposals to encourage new blood into agriculture should be promoted enthusiastically.
Mary Creagh
While we may welcome payments that enable farmers to exit farming, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be protections for the taxpayer in the statutory instruments that flow from this Bill? We cannot have a farmer taking seven years’ payments up front to retire and then signing the farm over to his son or daughter the next day, thereby double claiming on the same land for the next seven years.
Julian Sturdy
I accept that fair point, but my reading is that land belonging to those who take their retirement money up front and leave the sector—land that we hope would go to a new entrant—would not be entitled to any payments. However, the devil will be in the detail.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speeches of the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). We have heard quite a lot in general about the sunlit uplands of Brexit, and about a rosy bucolic Brexit Britain, but much of the debate has missed out the red meat—questions such as what the quantum of funding will be, what powers the Secretary of State will have, and what outcomes we are seeking to achieve.
Two years ago, the Environmental Audit Committee warned that UK farmers faced a triple whammy from Brexit: first, the loss of subsidies; secondly, the potential for tariffs on exports; and, thirdly, the threat of being undercut by cheap imports from countries with lower standards in food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. Today, I want to talk about my two concerns with this Bill. First, it gives Ministers the power to spend taxpayers’ money with no accountability. I can think of no other area of public policy where we would be discussing the expenditure of £20 billion to £25 billion of public money without demanding some very detailed answers. The second area of concern is the lack of ambitious targets for the restoration and recovery of nature, which need to be linked to those payments.
We know that the CAP has shaped and underpinned British farming for the past 40 years. Each of us is only one or two generations from people who grew up and managed land. Basic payments from the CAP make up between a third and a half of the average farmer’s income, and 60% of profits for average farms and 90% of profits for grazing livestock farms. They are a very, very important part of the farm business.
The CAP currently has a seven-year budget cycle, which provider farmers with the long-term certainty that they need about what they will receive, and allows them to plan and invest. We have heard from Ministers that they will match current levels of EU funding until 2022, but farmers are asking, “What next?” and the Bill provides very few answers. It fails to say how much funding there will be, whether funding security will be guaranteed and who will administer the money. Its vague list of purposes risks policy inconsistency.
My Committee has called for an agricultural policy with clear goals, but the Bill says that payments can be made for anything from
“mitigating or adapting to climate change”,
which is obviously very welcome, to restoring or enhancing
“cultural heritage or natural heritage”—
I am not entirely sure what that means or how we measure it—through to
“improving the productivity of…an agricultural…activity”.
That leaves open the possibility of taxpayers incentivising intensive farming, and incentivising and paying for activities that harm the environment. We must not get into a policy pickle with the Bill.
Budgets could also be subject to the dead hand of the Treasury coming in halfway through, as we have seen with the abolition of various other environmental initiatives in other parts of the economy, so where is the Government’s accountability to farmers, the public and this place?
I am concerned that there is no obligation for people in receipt of so-called delinked payments to continue farming. Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers to make a lump-sum payment. As I said in an intervention, it would be possible for a farmer to quit farming and pass their farm on to their children, and for their children then to receive financial assistance under the new scheme. This sort of double accounting must not be allowed.
Clause 2 states:
“Financial assistance may be given by way of grant, loan, guarantee or in any other form.”
What “any other form” are we talking about? If we cannot define it on the face of the Bill, what are we signing up to? This is the beginning of an administrative nightmare. We know that problems at the Rural Payments Agency have brought down fines under both the Labour Government and this Government. Subject to conditions, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, we need to ensure that this money is spent responsibly and well.
I will conclude by mentioning the lack of environmental targets. We need to stop and reverse the decline in species and soil health, which we will hear a lot about in the new environment Bill. That Bill will contain the targets; this Bill contains the money. Having two Bills risks policy incoherence, so we should start with the targets and design an agricultural policy around them, if we are to meet our international obligations on soil carbon content and reversing species loss in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bradshaw
I welcome the Secretary of State’s belated recognition that we cannot have frictionless exports to the European Union for our fish and agriculture products if we are not in a single market, as the Chequers agreement recognises. Will he explain why his fellow hard-Brexiteers do not seem to grasp that simple truth? Do they just not care about our fish and agricultural exports?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is vital that we recycle more of our plastic waste here at home and create jobs and growth in every nation and region of this great country. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to my Committee yesterday to recycle half of England’s 35 million asthma inhalers by 2020, not only because of the damaging plastic but because of the damaging fluorinated gases—greenhouse gases—that they release into the atmosphere. Will the Minister enshrine the principle of extended producer responsibility into law through the waste strategy so that more producers are responsible for the waste they produce?